Prev: Problem with matlab auto rounding !!
Next: Trigonometry Tutorial
From: Archimedes Plutonium on 3 Apr 2010 05:24

Let me backtrack. This is not working out as I thought. The disparity
or skew is not
the sole issue.

Let me proceed through a different mechanism. I want the unique number
of
3 x 10^10 cm/sec from using just the logarithmic spiral as purely time
and
the concentric circles as purely distance.

I want to end up with something like 10^40 cm / 10^30 seconds = 10^10
cm/sec
or something like 10^190 cm/ 10^180 seconds = 10^10 cm/sec

In the previous post I mistakenly thought it could all hinge on a
skewed center since
the log-spiral has a offset center from the concentric circles.

But rather, instead, I think the speed of light is begot from the idea
that the log-spiral
denoting time zooms ahead **in space** beyond the concentric circles
denoting distance.

So that if I asked to look at the log-spiral of time in seconds for
that of 10^40 seconds
it would be far beyond the 10^40 circle of distance in centimeters. We
see this effect
in the Wikipedia picture of the log-spiral in that it shows 9
concentric circles while the
log-spiral has caught up with those 9 concentric circles in just 5
loops around.

So the way to get a speed out of the log-spiral versus the concentric
circles is that the
distance is fixed by the circle, say the circle 10^40 cm, but the log
spiral of 10^40 seconds
has gone far beyond the point in space where the 10^40 cm circle was.
So what was the
log spiral in seconds, in space, when the circle was 10^40 cm? Was the
log-spiral 10^30 seconds whilst the circle was 10^40 cm?

I think that is the proper mechanism of fetching a speed out of the
log-spiral versus
the circles.

And I think that the number 10^500 was vastly too large in the scope
of this speed of
light.

And this makes sense with respect to the Luminet Poincare Dodecahedral
Space for the
Cosmos, in that it was estimated that the Cosmos is around 10^40 km or
thereabouts. So
if the Cosmos, at most is only 10^40 km, then I should have never
considered 10^500 as
a viable answer. This sort of reminds me of the recent biology
discoveries where the human
genome was alleged to be vastly larger in numbers of letters when it
turns out it is vastly
smaller. And my mind did not escape the pollution of infinity and so a
number like 10^500
having grown up with infinity, is to be expected.

Archimedes Plutonium
http://www.iw.net/~a_plutonium/
whole entire Universe is just one big atom
where dots of the electron-dot-cloud are galaxies
 | 
Pages: 1
Prev: Problem with matlab auto rounding !!
Next: Trigonometry Tutorial