I AM GOING TO PROVE ONCE AND FOR ALL THAT PLUTO IS A PLANET!

Philosophy Forums Science, Technology, and Math
21

What part of you does not understand that removing Pluto from our solar system leaves us with “8” planets, when Pluto was the “9th” planet!

This entire Universe is based on 9!

Everything returns to 9!

Do you HAVE ANY IDEA HOW STUPID YOU SOUND?

GET ON MY LEVEL BY NOT THROWING YOUR FECAL MATTER - BECAUSE DESPITE IT BEING CALLED MATTER, IT DOES NOT MATTER! You’re just a monkey wearing a monocle - try evolving for once by OPENING YOUR MIND, NOT YOUR HIND.

[size=200]THIS UNIVERSE IS UNDERMINED BY PEOPLE LIKE YOU WHO TAKE IT ALL FOR GRANTED BECAUSE BEING WELL-INFORMED IS TOO HARD FOR YOUR SORRY ASS.

AND YOU WONDER WHY I’M MAD? IT’S LIKE A BUSINESS TAKING EVERYTHING FROM A MAN, THEN THAT MAN FLIES INTO A BUILDING - INSTEAD OF BEING CONCERNED, EVERYONE ACTS CONFUSED.

I LIVE IN A STUPID GENERATION THAT NEEDS A “DE” IN THE FRONT FOR DEGENERATION AND DEATH… YOU ARE COWARDS AND YOU MAKE EXCUSES EVERY FUCKING DAY - YOU NEVER LISTEN OR STOP TO SEE THE WORLD AS IT MOVES WITHOUT YOU - C.O.W.A.R.D!!!

YOU GUYS DON’T FUCKING LISTEN (I asked nicely for you to get rid of the anti-social tools from my threads that I put all the work, research, blood, sweat and tears into…) AND THEN BURY YOUR HEAD IN YOUR OWN LITTER BOX - SO FUCK YOU FOR THINKING I’M THE BAD GUY, WHEN YOU’RE THE REASON WHY I HAVE TO GET IT THROUGH YOUR OBESE SKULLS. WHEN I WOULD BE MINDING MY OWN BUSINESS, IF THE PEOPLE IN POWER WEREN’T SO ASININE - THE IRONY OF A WORD WITH “NINE” IN IT; YOU DON’T EVEN DESERVE IT!!!

WHY IS IT SO HARD FOR YOU GUYS TO ACCEPT THIS SPECIES IS STUPIDER WHEN IT HAS TECHNOLOGY THAN ANY OTHER TIME OF OUR SPECIES WITHOUT TECHNOLOGY!?! YOU SPEND EVERY DAY TREATING LIFE AS A JOKE AND TREATING DEATH AS SERIOUS - WHY DON’T YOU TAKE THE WORLD AS SERIOUSLY AS YOU TAKE ME!? I AM NOT EVEN A REASON FOR YOU TO TAKE ME SERIOUSLY; YOU DO THAT BECAUSE YOU ARE MAD AND BLUNDERING IN THAT MADNESS BEFORE ME!

That’s my only wish: I wish the idiots in this world would take this world as seriously as they take me.

[/size]

[size=200]I LIVE IN A WORLD OF DEGENERATES THAT DON’T KNOW HOW/WHY THEIR TOOLS AND BODIES WORK YET HAVE THE AUDACITY TO CRITICIZE OTHER PEOPLE’S VISIONS AND THEN TELL THEM THEY WON’T WORK, WHILE NOT HAVING ONE OF THEIR OWN - I’VE HAD IT WITH YOU SOULLESS VACUUMS THAT PREY ON THE LIFE OF THOSE WHO HELD ON! I AM SICK OF IT! FUCK YOU! GO PUT YOUR INFINITE IGNORANCE TO GOOD USE AND SHOVE IT UP YOUR ASS ALONG WITH YOUR HEAD - ETERNALLY.[/size]

22

I’ve banned you for a day only. If it continues it will be a week, then a month, then…I don’t know, haven’t thought that far ahead.

I’ve never stopped you from talking about whatever idea it is that you want to talk about, no matter how ridiculous I think it is. But, as with everybody else, always on the condition that you do so with civility.

And I have a pretty long lead with civility as well. I allow a certain amount of uncivility even without giving a warning. This is because I have an attitude maybe similar to a referee of a heated basketball game - the boys may get a bit physical with each other, a bit more than the rules allow, but it’s my duty as a referee not just to enforce the rules by the book but even more so to ensure it’s a fair and fun game. So I allow a certain degree of physical contact on the court, I let the boys play. But even with rules that are slightly slack, if someone is taking advantage of that slack too much, or deliberately trying to damage someone else’s body, I will eventually start calling fouls.

So I’ve let you get away with it in the name of just allowing people to have fluid philosophical conversations. A bit of banter, a bit of back-and-forth, even the occasional mild insult isn’t so bad. But you’re just going overboard now. It’s just too many in too short a time frame. It’s not a fun-but-physical game of basketball with you anymore. You’re being a bit vicious.

So, for one day you’re banned, and I hope that’s enough to make you fully accept that your opinion of yourself does not exempt you from the rules.

23

Lol

24

Inhuman excrement.

25

I see that the season of cowardice has come again.

No mod defended me against James insidious attacks and compromise of my privacy on this very site.

Now you ban a poster for claiming his own thread from trolls that come here strictly with insults. And in the meantime ask one of the two minds behind these threads you invade to ‘stay on topic’ when he points you to the blatant abuse of power you’ve tolerated.

So much wrong here. The moderator in question FJ himself came into one of HMIE’s threads to troll and nag and insult and praise himself for doing these things. Now he is banning the author… a low point for ILP. I knew that with installing FJ as mod such low points would come.

I had taken the modships leniency toward James in stride, but FJ’s stepping in to obstruct someones work and banning him when the man objects is the stupidest abuse of power Ive seen occur here.

But it would not be stupid if there are no consequences. So let there be some consequences this time. All anyone can do is simply not contribute anymore. I chose not to let James succeed in driving me away, but if the moderators start to actively ruin discourse I am interested in, I don’t see what other option there is but to leave.

I will be at H. I won’t post or read anything here anymore.

26

sigh

Number of calories:

Fat 9 grams
Protein 4 grams
Carbohydrate 4 Grams

9+4+4=17

1+7 = 8 not 9

I’m sure you could make a fractional base to make it all add up to 9 if you really wanted to, but the point here is that 9 is not some sacred number more than others. I’m aware Tesla thought this.

You can even make arguments that numbers don’t even represent themselves… in fact someone made just that argument on these boards, noting that 1 must always be greater than 1, because 1 is nothing at all without a reference point, which would be another 1.

Clearly you are not the sharpest person on earth. Ponder that for a few decades.

27

Tesla was not a brilliant mathematician, he was a good one. The coincidence of 9 happens because we use base 10, this always happens in base minus 1. So apparently Tesla thought base 10 was the perfect base? This is nonsense… superstition, 10 has been considered the perfect number by numerologists for centuries, or 100 (as in test scores) or 1000 for petals of the buddha and nonsense like that… base 11 is just as perfect as base ten.

28

Because you lied and tried to “insidiously” sucker the mods into your “poor me” manipulation scheme, with a limited degree of success. But after FJ removed what you spouted to be so sacred to you, you went to the Psy form and posted it back, obviously giving away your intent that it be known (not that blogging it in the first place wasn’t sufficient proof of your intent).

29

Just to comment further on what I just wrote before James’s post… numbers are social contracts. There’s a system for reading minds that I’m looking at base 121 to develop it with symbols that I need to construct precisely… this however can be done an INFINITE number of ways. So our social constructs are our standardizations, and as far as numbers go, these are infinitely flexible. This is a very important concept to understand when considering numbers.

30

True.

31

Oh, I forgot to add the 10,000 ways of the Dao to my list of perfection ten multipliers from this superstition of most people having 10 fingers.

So 10 is considered perfect in numerology, 100 is considered a perfect test score, 1000 represents the perfection of the buddha (he also represents the 10 directions), and 10,000 for the Dao.

That’s all superstition. anyone who understands math at a more fundamental level can see through all of this nonsense.

Base minus 1 always forces the convergence through division, and base minus 1 has very particular properties… this is why you are so obsessed with the number 9.

Actually 4 is more sacred than 3 even though 3 is considered sacredest in numerology.

There is a particle with a positive and negative charge, a positive charge, a negative charge and a neutral charge. That’s 4, and that’s more foundational to logic than threes or trinities.

I recall three being another one of your sacred numbers.

The problem when you go down this road is that you have to face reality, and reality needs verification from observable data.

32

Even more than that, it needs to have some use.

33

Agree to sone extent… number systems are also biological constracts as to what the unassisted human mind can achieve. I don’t think the human mind is capable of manipulating data to a base of 17345. Baae 10 give or take several numbers is, I think, the optimal base for humans (not too big, not too small, but just right). In the end the base and the written numbering system is chosen such that it is biologically (brain) easiest to manipilate. We also have 10 fingers…

34

Well put and agreed.

35

That’s a good point about brain capacity… I was just coming at it from the biological in terms of fingers (and actually people are born with more or less than ten fingers - so it’s an ignorance of biology too)

36

I don’t see any “zero’s” in there.

This isn’t about “base ten -1”. It is about a 9-spoked number wheel 1~9, where the 9 moves directly into the 1 and the 1 directly into the 9. The distance between 9 and 1 is exactly the same as the distance between 1 and 2, 2 and 3, 3 and 4, 4 and 5, 5 and 6, 6 and 7, 7 and 8, or 8 and 9. “0” = 9 anyway, it is merely a way to indicate the extension of SPACE between two numbers (0 is not a number, 1~9 are numbers).

Show some work here, for example demonstrate what you mean about “base X converges on base X-1”, in which case AFTER you have demonstrated this we can see how or if it applies to our work here.

To claim this is all merely “confused base 10” is really missing the point.

37

No the issue is base minus 1… it’s that old .9999… = 1 debate. When you get into dividing base by base minus 1 it causes this convergence debate. It also gives the number below base very strange properties.

38

0.999999999…=1
0.899999999…=.9
0.799999999…=.8
0.699999999…=.7

Etc.

This is indicating an asymptotic relationship, nothing more. It isn’t even a big deal, and certainly has no bearing at all on HMIE’s work here, or my own when it comes to the base 9 system of numbers.

Why not try addressing what I actually wrote? What do you think of those numbers I quoted for you? Notice the tight self-repeating patterns? And how I deconstructed the supposed “breaking of the pattern” involved when we move beyond six digits?

39
40

I’m not even checking my work here so sorry if I’m making a mistake, but it seems like you found a multiplier way to find rational repeating decimals, which is pretty interesting.