Jump to content

Pseudoscience question inspired by "X"


Recommended Posts

Pseudoscience question inspired by \"X\"


Okay, let's rewind this and take the emotion out of it.


Now TimeTravellerX's - o - thread gets me thinking about alot to do in relative terms towards pseudoscience. So instead of getting into philosophic quantum/spiritualistic debating; I'll cut to the chase with something regarding pseudoscience that gets my brain churning, at first glance it appears to have little significance, however I feel this may be unjust.


Let's build a tower, and let's build it as high as possible. What matters most in this scenerio?; the spire or the "base" ?


The base of course ! ...so you say...


Now let's take a look at the ten base number system... in regards to regular mathematics - it seems to do the job, and has an easy marking for us to evolve much larger equations. Though in terms of numerology (whether or not you put any stake in it, the corrolation of numbers in factoring sometimes is uncanny); the base directly impacts the "meaning" and the calculating of numerology from the *ground* up.


* Egyptians - 12 base number system


* Sumerians - 60 base number system


While we can scoff at these outdated civilizations, they have provided us with a "basis" for many things and many areas of expanded thought; though in other ways they seemed to produce the original thoughts without match.


I would be willing to wager that many if not most of the Egyptians formula's were an extension of the prior civilizations - hasn't it always been so?


So then let's revisit the 60 base and perhaps possibilities that were never revisited from the fundamental core...


Then perhaps the spire would raise higher...upon a larger base, perhaps?


For if quantum mechanics has taught us nothing, it at the very least teaches us to - "expect the unexpected". We should be evolving beyond "the fear of the unknown" and in certain ways as in with this collider being built (LHC) we certainly are; however, like above, revisiting reasoning whether within proofs or simple human action, shouldn't be forgotten at the base imo.


Computer operating systems change,


the binary never is speculated upon.


New proofs show errors in past physics,


the base is never speculated upon.


Technology continues to progress, but some areas hit a plateau limiting the rate, or "disallowing" the more unexpectant acceleration of result. Whatever the case, there is no harm in speculation, so why does it seem a forgotten area to explore? (At least breaking edge medical professors in some areas are working on redeveloping the engineering of most drugs).


Algorithms to me represent numerology more than anything as it deals directly with the base manipulated into meaning or pattern...


Sometimes there are rules within mathematics and sometimes there is genuine exploration; though this statement can be viewed as feverently by some as religion is to others (IE; Infinite vs. Finite - if we can't even "know that for a certaintity"; that raises another can of worms lol).



Link to comment
Share on other sites


  • Create New...