Do these four coloured lines represent four key constants?

Feel free to talk about anything and everything in this board.
User avatar
Nikki Nyx
Veteran Poster
Posts: 2064
Joined: Wed Jun 07, 2017 12:40 am
Custom Title: cognitively consonant
Location: playing croquet in Wonderland

Re: More Evidence of Salomed's forgeries

Postby Nikki Nyx » Sat Jul 15, 2017 3:43 am

Matthew Ellard wrote:
salomed on 27MARCH 2017 wrote: I have taken the image from your link and have superimposed it in GIMP onto the one from the British Library. You can do this yourself in a few minutes. I have moved the top few pixels in the Y+ so you can see how perfectly the points align.
This is a direct forgery and you specifically state next to the image it is a superimposition using the image from the "British Library" , when it was not.
Sorry, am I understanding correctly that Salomed claimed that Green's triangles (on the William Aspley run) lined up with the marks on the first edition sold by John Wright? Because they don't. Below, I superimposed Green's image (as posted by Salomed) atop the first edition in Gimp. Here are the only changes I made:
• Resized Green's image, maintaining the aspect ratio, to 645 x 507.
• Reduced the opacity on Green's image to 75%
• Rotated Green's image to line up the text "Neuer before Imprinted" from both images.
• Desaturated the first edition image, and increased the contrast so its text would be visible through Green's image.
Clearly, you can see that, while the text "Neuer before Imprinted" from both images lines up, none of the remaining text, punctuation marks, and lines do. Also, you can read both "William Aspley" from Green's image and "John Wright" from the first edition image.
Image
What are the facts? Again and again and again-what are the facts? Shun wishful thinking, ignore divine revelation, forget what “the stars foretell,” avoid opinion, care not what the neighbors think, never mind the unguessable “verdict of history”--what are the facts, and to how many decimal places? You pilot always into an unknown future; facts are your single clue. Get the facts!
—Lazarus Long, from Time Enough for Love, by Robert A. Heinlein

Matthew Ellard
Real Skeptic
Posts: 26630
Joined: Fri Jun 13, 2008 3:31 am

Evidence of Salomed's forgeries

Postby Matthew Ellard » Sat Jul 15, 2017 6:43 am

Nikki Nyx wrote: Sorry, am I understanding correctly that Salomed claimed that Green's triangles (on the William Aspley run) lined up with the marks on the first edition sold by John Wright?
No. In this scenario, Salomed's fraud was claiming his later "William Aspley" edition was exactly the same as the British Library's first edition edition and he even forged a "superimposed" picture of his JPEG and the British Library's image. Salomed claimed they were a perfect match. Salomed was lying. The British Library edition is for the first edition featuring "John Wright" and the punctuation is in different places. This was simply a blatant fraud.


Next Lie by Salomed and Alan Green
John Dee died a year before first edition and died in another city. What Alan Green and Salomed are unintentionally claiming is that an unknown type-setter secretly hid mathematical shapes in the later "William Aspley" print block in the Fleet Lane print-shop. (In reality Alan & Salomed thought that Shakespeare, somehow, did his own typesetting and printing......as Salomed and Alan Green are both that stupid)
:lol:

User avatar
salomed
Frequent Poster
Posts: 1245
Joined: Sat Apr 09, 2011 4:18 pm
Custom Title: Cartesian Skeptic

Re: Do these four coloured lines represent four key constants?

Postby salomed » Sat Jul 15, 2017 7:57 am

Nikki Nyx wrote:1. By what method were people notified that mathematic constants were encrypted into a secondary run of the title page of Shakespeare's sonnets? Is there a clue on the title page itself? Are there clues in the sonnets? How would people know that they were supposed to draw a circle and a bunch of right triangles on the title page?


Assumption: People were not notified. They had to be discovered. Consider it a test.

2. Where, exactly, are the instructions for drawing the triangles and the circle? Given that they must be drawn with some precision, and that the vertices of different triangles are at different points on the same punctuation mark, and given that most of the mathematic constants Green claims are encrypted were unknown by people of that era, how would anyone know they'd drawn the triangles correctly?


Assumption: There are no instructions. But logically either you can draw lines between the dots or not. This is the reason for the big G dot, it needs to be that big. A line touching the dot is instruction enough.

3. Even if they did manage to draw the triangles correctly, and ended up with the exact same solutions that Green did, of what use would those "approximations" be, since they are not the actual mathematic constants? How would the solver deduce the constant (the irrational number...never terminating, never repeating) from the sloppy approximation?


Assumption: They are an indicator of secret knowledge. This is a test, not a mathematics text book.

4. Given that mathematic concepts were discussed openly in that era and location, why would anyone both to conceal mathematic ideas? Especially ideas that were, by design, incomplete (because you cannot represent an irrational number in this manner) and, therefore, useless?

Assumption: Not all of them were, some were not discovered until after the publication of the Sonnets. Again, the mathematics is a sign post to something else. You don't seem to get this aspect.

5. Presuming that this so-called encryption was not meant for people of that era, but for others in the future, how would anyone know they'd drawn the triangles correctly unless they knew ahead of time which mathematic constants to approximate?

Because they would reveal in their divisions an astounding host of constants and other mathematical features.

The disappointment of being proven wrong (as well as gullible) would be horribly depressing.


I know it would to many here, I am often wrong. I believe stupid things and change my mind. I would find it thrilling if there was a hoax, but I just don't think there is, for the simple reason that unexplainably there really is anachronous and yet fundamental mathematics encoded in that page.

The constants are not there; you cannot "round up" an irrational number and call it a day.


OK, so on Pi let me grant you that. Pi is not there because it is 3.14whatver not 3.142. You win that one. It is not even a printing fudge or smudge, that 4th decimal place. Victory is thine!

Now what about the other 11 constants? Do you think they are not there? You clearly belive Alan Green's measuring is accurate as you use it show Pi isn't there, so,just looking at his numbers in the figure below, are Phi, e, Bruns...etc... all 10 of them in the page or not?
Screen Shot 2017-07-14.jpg
You do not have the required permissions to view the files attached to this post.
Comment savez-vous que vous ne parlez pas bollox?
Sur internet: http://bit.ly/14A0n9H

User avatar
Nikki Nyx
Veteran Poster
Posts: 2064
Joined: Wed Jun 07, 2017 12:40 am
Custom Title: cognitively consonant
Location: playing croquet in Wonderland

Re: Evidence of Salomed's forgeries

Postby Nikki Nyx » Sat Jul 15, 2017 3:44 pm

Matthew Ellard wrote:
Nikki Nyx wrote: Sorry, am I understanding correctly that Salomed claimed that Green's triangles (on the William Aspley run) lined up with the marks on the first edition sold by John Wright?
No. In this scenario, Salomed's fraud was claiming his later "William Aspley" edition was exactly the same as the British Library's first edition edition and he even forged a "superimposed" picture of his JPEG and the British Library's image. Salomed claimed they were a perfect match. Salomed was lying. The British Library edition is for the first edition featuring "John Wright" and the punctuation is in different places. This was simply a blatant fraud.
Yes. That's what I did. My superimposition shows that the two different editions—the "John Wright" first edition and the "William Aspley" edition—do NOT match up. The only way to make the two editions match up is by cutting the image of the first edition into slices and separately manipulating each piece.

Look at my superimposition:
1. The text "Neuer before Imprinted" from both images matches up.
2. The lines from both images match up at left, but are drawn at different angles.
3. The footer text is both sized differently AND at a different angle.
The ONLY way to make these images match up is to slice the first edition image into three images and manipulate each one separately.
What are the facts? Again and again and again-what are the facts? Shun wishful thinking, ignore divine revelation, forget what “the stars foretell,” avoid opinion, care not what the neighbors think, never mind the unguessable “verdict of history”--what are the facts, and to how many decimal places? You pilot always into an unknown future; facts are your single clue. Get the facts!
—Lazarus Long, from Time Enough for Love, by Robert A. Heinlein

User avatar
Nikki Nyx
Veteran Poster
Posts: 2064
Joined: Wed Jun 07, 2017 12:40 am
Custom Title: cognitively consonant
Location: playing croquet in Wonderland

Re: Do these four coloured lines represent four key constants?

Postby Nikki Nyx » Sat Jul 15, 2017 4:31 pm

salomed wrote:
Nikki Nyx wrote:1. By what method were people notified that mathematic constants were encrypted into a secondary run of the title page of Shakespeare's sonnets? Is there a clue on the title page itself? Are there clues in the sonnets? How would people know that they were supposed to draw a circle and a bunch of right triangles on the title page?
Assumption: People were not notified. They had to be discovered. Consider it a test.
Then it's not possible. Logic, reasoning, and math prove that to us.

There are ten distinct points on the "William Aspley" edition:
1. the Imprinted dot
2. the upper line's left endpoint
3. the upper line's right endpoint
4. the lower line's left endpoint
5. the lower line's right endpoint
6. the G dot
7. the first T dot
8. the second T dot
9. the Aspley dot
10. the 1609 dot
Drawing a triangle requires three points, so the formula to determine the number of distinct triangles that can be drawn is 3!(10 – 3)! which gives us 120 possible triangles. (Three points from a group of ten, without repeating any combination.) We know at least 16 of them are right triangles (Green's 12 plus the four additional ones I drew).

However, as proven by Green's drawing, within each of those ten distinct points, we actually have numerous points, thus increasing the number of possible triangles to an incalculable number. There's no way anyone could have stumbled upon Green's configuration by accident. Therefore, Green engineered it, and it is a hoax.
ImageImage

salomed wrote:
Nikki Nyx wrote:2. Where, exactly, are the instructions for drawing the triangles and the circle? Given that they must be drawn with some precision, and that the vertices of different triangles are at different points on the same punctuation mark, and given that most of the mathematic constants Green claims are encrypted were unknown by people of that era, how would anyone know they'd drawn the triangles correctly?
Assumption: There are no instructions. But logically either you can draw lines between the dots or not. This is the reason for the big G dot, it needs to be that big. A line touching the dot is instruction enough.
No. Look at anything printed by G. Eld and you will find that the G-dot is that big, because it was part of Eld's engraved block with which he identified his printing. This is the only reason the G-dot is different from the other dots. There exists no logical reason for someone to deduce that he should start drawing lines on the page because the G-dot is large.

salomed wrote:
Nikki Nyx wrote:3. Even if they did manage to draw the triangles correctly, and ended up with the exact same solutions that Green did, of what use would those "approximations" be, since they are not the actual mathematic constants? How would the solver deduce the constant (the irrational number...never terminating, never repeating) from the sloppy approximation?
Assumption: They are an indicator of secret knowledge. This is a test, not a mathematics text book.
Your assumption, again, is made from preexisting knowledge. No one, looking at the blank page, would be able to deduce it was there.

salomed wrote:
Nikki Nyx wrote:4. Given that mathematic concepts were discussed openly in that era and location, why would anyone both to conceal mathematic ideas? Especially ideas that were, by design, incomplete (because you cannot represent an irrational number in this manner) and, therefore, useless?
Assumption: Not all of them were, some were not discovered until after the publication of the Sonnets. Again, the mathematics is a sign post to something else. You don't seem to get this aspect.
A sign post to what? Nor did you answer the question. What was the point in concealing this information?

salomed wrote:
Nikki Nyx wrote:5. Presuming that this so-called encryption was not meant for people of that era, but for others in the future, how would anyone know they'd drawn the triangles correctly unless they knew ahead of time which mathematic constants to approximate?
Because they would reveal in their divisions an astounding host of constants and other mathematical features.
Again, you didn't answer the question. How would anyone know he had drawn the triangles correctly, absent preexisting knowledge of the answers?

salomed wrote:
Nikki Nyx wrote:The disappointment of being proven wrong (as well as gullible) would be horribly depressing.
I know it would to many here, I am often wrong. I believe stupid things and change my mind. I would find it thrilling if there was a hoax, but I just don't think there is, for the simple reason that unexplainably there really is anachronous and yet fundamental mathematics encoded in that page.
Yes...because Green engineered a quite clever hoax. Unfortunately, it doesn't stand up to logic, history, and mathematics.

salomed wrote:
Nikki Nyx wrote:The constants are not there; you cannot "round up" an irrational number and call it a day.
OK, so on Pi let me grant you that. Pi is not there because it is 3.14whatver not 3.142. You win that one. It is not even a printing fudge or smudge, that 4th decimal place. Victory is thine!

Now what about the other 11 constants? Do you think they are not there? You clearly belive Alan Green's measuring is accurate as you use it show Pi isn't there, so,just looking at his numbers in the figure below, are Phi, e, Bruns...etc... all 10 of them in the page or not?
By the exact same logic, none of the other constants is there either. Irrational numbers cannot be represented in this manner. I'm sorry, Salomed. Green has perpetrated a fantastic hoax, but that's all it is...a hoax. The whole ridiculous "Egypt" part should clue you in. Green went full retard at that point.
What are the facts? Again and again and again-what are the facts? Shun wishful thinking, ignore divine revelation, forget what “the stars foretell,” avoid opinion, care not what the neighbors think, never mind the unguessable “verdict of history”--what are the facts, and to how many decimal places? You pilot always into an unknown future; facts are your single clue. Get the facts!
—Lazarus Long, from Time Enough for Love, by Robert A. Heinlein

Matthew Ellard
Real Skeptic
Posts: 26630
Joined: Fri Jun 13, 2008 3:31 am

Re: Do these four coloured lines represent four key constants?

Postby Matthew Ellard » Sun Jul 16, 2017 1:11 am

Nikki Nyx wrote:Yes...because Green engineered a quite clever hoax.
Alan Green copied the 2002 hoax by Petter Amudsen. Petter Amudsen discovered magical hidden shapes in the printed works of Shakespeare that would lead to a lost hidden treasure, if people sent Petter enough money. Naturally, Petter never found the treasure, but he did sell a lot of self published books about his discovery of magic shapes in Shakespeare. :D

Alan Green simply copied this old scam.
Petter Amudsen.jpg


https://wisdomfromnorth.com/the-shakesp ... 3/?lang=en
You do not have the required permissions to view the files attached to this post.

User avatar
Nikki Nyx
Veteran Poster
Posts: 2064
Joined: Wed Jun 07, 2017 12:40 am
Custom Title: cognitively consonant
Location: playing croquet in Wonderland

Re: Do these four coloured lines represent four key constants?

Postby Nikki Nyx » Sun Jul 16, 2017 1:17 am

Matthew Ellard wrote:
Nikki Nyx wrote:Yes...because Green engineered a quite clever hoax.
[color=#000080]Alan Green copied the 2002 hoax by Petter Amudsen. Petter Amudsen discovered magical hidden shapes in the printed works of Shakespeare that would lead to a lost hidden treasure, if people sent Petter enough money. Naturally, Petter never found the treasure, but he did sell a lot of self published books about his discovery of magic shapes in Shakespeare. :D
Old Will must be rolling over in his grave. :lol:
What are the facts? Again and again and again-what are the facts? Shun wishful thinking, ignore divine revelation, forget what “the stars foretell,” avoid opinion, care not what the neighbors think, never mind the unguessable “verdict of history”--what are the facts, and to how many decimal places? You pilot always into an unknown future; facts are your single clue. Get the facts!
—Lazarus Long, from Time Enough for Love, by Robert A. Heinlein

Matthew Ellard
Real Skeptic
Posts: 26630
Joined: Fri Jun 13, 2008 3:31 am

Re: Do these four coloured lines represent four key constants?

Postby Matthew Ellard » Mon Jul 17, 2017 1:49 am

Nikki Nyx wrote: Old Will must be rolling over in his grave.
More so when you realise that no one had rulers to measure any line lengths anyhow.

Elizabeth I introduced a new length standard yardstick. The measuring ruler came roughly 100 years later. Elizabethan maritime maps required a two point compass to measure distances on the map's printed scale key as no one had worked out how to commercially print inch fractions on wood yet and all maps were different scales.

Here is John Dee, who Salomed claims, hid the measured lines in a Shakespeare later print run (a year after he died!!!) holding his two point compass. You will not find any Elizabethan image of a ruler.

john-dee with compass.jpg


Salomed and Alan's ridiculous claim is predicated on an anachronism and is thus entirely crap.
You do not have the required permissions to view the files attached to this post.

User avatar
Poodle
Has More Than 8K Posts
Posts: 8186
Joined: Sun Jul 31, 2011 9:12 pm
Custom Title: Regular sleeper
Location: NE corner of my living room

Re: Do these four coloured lines represent four key constants?

Postby Poodle » Mon Jul 17, 2017 6:50 am

Matthew Ellard wrote:You will not find any Elizabethan image of a ruler.

Except Elizabeth, of course.

User avatar
scrmbldggs
Has No Life
Posts: 19664
Joined: Sun May 20, 2012 7:55 am
Custom Title: something
Location: sees Maria Frigoris from its house!

Re: Do these four coloured lines represent four key constants?

Postby scrmbldggs » Mon Jul 17, 2017 3:14 pm

:lol:
Hi, Io the lurker.

User avatar
Austin Harper
Perpetual Poster
Posts: 4836
Joined: Wed Sep 21, 2011 2:22 pm
Custom Title: Rock Chalk Astrohawk
Location: Detroit
Contact:

Re: Do these four coloured lines represent four key constants?

Postby Austin Harper » Tue Jul 18, 2017 2:00 am

salomed wrote:
Austin Harper wrote:
salomed wrote:
Austin Harper wrote:
salomed wrote:Measure the lines. Do the maths. The constants are there or they are not.

Emphasis mine.


Great Proof. Can I see your workings?

3.14248252 ≠ 3.14159...
QED

If you round it it does. "Ooooooo but it is irrational.... " the irony is, that retort really is irrational - it is not possible on pen and paper to fully represent an irrational number.

That's not how rounding works. You can't say that 3.14248252 rounded to the nearest .001 is 3.142 and 3.14159... rounded to the nearest .001 is also 3.142 and so they are equal. Let's do another example. I am 31 years old and my wife is 28 years old. Rounded to the nearest 10, we are both 30 years old. Are we the same age?
Dum ratio nos ducet, valebimus et multa bene geremus.

User avatar
Nikki Nyx
Veteran Poster
Posts: 2064
Joined: Wed Jun 07, 2017 12:40 am
Custom Title: cognitively consonant
Location: playing croquet in Wonderland

Re: Do these four coloured lines represent four key constants?

Postby Nikki Nyx » Tue Jul 18, 2017 2:33 am

Austin Harper wrote:
salomed wrote:
Austin Harper wrote:
salomed wrote:
Austin Harper wrote:
salomed wrote:Measure the lines. Do the maths. The constants are there or they are not.

Emphasis mine.


Great Proof. Can I see your workings?

3.14248252 ≠ 3.14159...
QED

If you round it it does. "Ooooooo but it is irrational.... " the irony is, that retort really is irrational - it is not possible on pen and paper to fully represent an irrational number.

That's not how rounding works. You can't say that 3.14248252 rounded to the nearest .001 is 3.142 and 3.14159... rounded to the nearest .001 is also 3.142 and so they are equal. Let's do another example. I am 31 years old and my wife is 28 years old. Rounded to the nearest 10, we are both 30 years old. Are we the same age?

How about this one? I'm 52, and my dad is 76. Rounded to the nearest century, we're both 100. Are we the same age? Obviously not; if we were, he could not physically be my father. Plus, we'd probably both be dead, which would suck. :mrgreen:
What are the facts? Again and again and again-what are the facts? Shun wishful thinking, ignore divine revelation, forget what “the stars foretell,” avoid opinion, care not what the neighbors think, never mind the unguessable “verdict of history”--what are the facts, and to how many decimal places? You pilot always into an unknown future; facts are your single clue. Get the facts!
—Lazarus Long, from Time Enough for Love, by Robert A. Heinlein

User avatar
salomed
Frequent Poster
Posts: 1245
Joined: Sat Apr 09, 2011 4:18 pm
Custom Title: Cartesian Skeptic

Re: Do these four coloured lines represent four key constants?

Postby salomed » Tue Jul 18, 2017 9:20 am

Austin Harper wrote:That's not how rounding works.


I cannot math, can you please explain to me how one would write the number without rounding up.

Do you mean truncate? I see you can either truncate or round. Am I missing something?
Comment savez-vous que vous ne parlez pas bollox?
Sur internet: http://bit.ly/14A0n9H

User avatar
salomed
Frequent Poster
Posts: 1245
Joined: Sat Apr 09, 2011 4:18 pm
Custom Title: Cartesian Skeptic

Re: More Evidence of Salomed's forgeries

Postby salomed » Tue Jul 18, 2017 9:28 am

Nikki Nyx wrote:
Matthew Ellard wrote:
salomed on 27MARCH 2017 wrote: I have taken the image from your link and have superimposed it in GIMP onto the one from the British Library. You can do this yourself in a few minutes. I have moved the top few pixels in the Y+ so you can see how perfectly the points align.
This is a direct forgery and you specifically state next to the image it is a superimposition using the image from the "British Library" , when it was not.
Sorry, am I understanding correctly that Salomed claimed that Green's triangles (on the William Aspley run) lined up with the marks on the first edition sold by John Wright? Because they don't. Below, I superimposed Green's image (as posted by Salomed) atop the first edition in Gimp. Here are the only changes I made:
• Resized Green's image, maintaining the aspect ratio, to 645 x 507.
• Reduced the opacity on Green's image to 75%
• Rotated Green's image to line up the text "Neuer before Imprinted" from both images.
• Desaturated the first edition image, and increased the contrast so its text would be visible through Green's image.
Clearly, you can see that, while the text "Neuer before Imprinted" from both images lines up, none of the remaining text, punctuation marks, and lines do. Also, you can read both "William Aspley" from Green's image and "John Wright" from the first edition image.
Image


Hi Nikki,

As said, I chose the wrong image. I didn't even really see the difference between the two at this early stage in my encounter with Green's purported discovery. It is the Aspley one that contains the encoded marvels. This is the one on the wikipedia, and the only one I have been discussing for months.

Again, you have done all of the work, but not done the singular thing to disprove, measure the images and show Green has mismeasured.

Forgetting the issue with the rounding/truncating of Pi, does it seem to you that Phi, e, b etc are all based just on the division?
Comment savez-vous que vous ne parlez pas bollox?
Sur internet: http://bit.ly/14A0n9H

User avatar
Nikki Nyx
Veteran Poster
Posts: 2064
Joined: Wed Jun 07, 2017 12:40 am
Custom Title: cognitively consonant
Location: playing croquet in Wonderland

Re: Do these four coloured lines represent four key constants?

Postby Nikki Nyx » Tue Jul 18, 2017 4:06 pm

salomed wrote:I cannot math, can you please explain to me how one would write the number without rounding up.
To write down pi without rounding, you would need an infinite supply of paper and an infinite number of pens.

salomed wrote:Do you mean truncate? I see you can either truncate or round. Am I missing something?
Yes. There is a quite large difference between truncating and rounding. When we do simple plane geometry, we generally truncate pi to a number that is mathematically manageable. In elementary school, pi is usually truncated to 3.14, for example.

If more precision is required—for example, if a circular metal part is being engineered for an airplane, and must be a precise measurement down to the micrometer—more decimals of pi would be used, perhaps 3.14159 or more. (For my comment to be more exact, I would have to ask my brother; he works at a company that manufactures such parts. But I know from discussions with him that the specs are insanely precise, and that mistakes are costly and likely to lose the company its contracts with Boeing et alia.)

Now, maybe, you can see why 3.14248 is not pi. Because 3.14248 is not the same number as 3.14159 any more than 8 is the same number as 10.
What are the facts? Again and again and again-what are the facts? Shun wishful thinking, ignore divine revelation, forget what “the stars foretell,” avoid opinion, care not what the neighbors think, never mind the unguessable “verdict of history”--what are the facts, and to how many decimal places? You pilot always into an unknown future; facts are your single clue. Get the facts!
—Lazarus Long, from Time Enough for Love, by Robert A. Heinlein

User avatar
Nikki Nyx
Veteran Poster
Posts: 2064
Joined: Wed Jun 07, 2017 12:40 am
Custom Title: cognitively consonant
Location: playing croquet in Wonderland

Re: More Evidence of Salomed's forgeries

Postby Nikki Nyx » Tue Jul 18, 2017 4:07 pm

salomed wrote:Again, you have done all of the work, but not done the singular thing to disprove, measure the images and show Green has mismeasured.
I have done quite a few things to prove to you that it is impossible for this to be anything but a hoax.
What are the facts? Again and again and again-what are the facts? Shun wishful thinking, ignore divine revelation, forget what “the stars foretell,” avoid opinion, care not what the neighbors think, never mind the unguessable “verdict of history”--what are the facts, and to how many decimal places? You pilot always into an unknown future; facts are your single clue. Get the facts!
—Lazarus Long, from Time Enough for Love, by Robert A. Heinlein

User avatar
salomed
Frequent Poster
Posts: 1245
Joined: Sat Apr 09, 2011 4:18 pm
Custom Title: Cartesian Skeptic

Re: More Evidence of Salomed's forgeries

Postby salomed » Tue Jul 18, 2017 8:19 pm

Nikki Nyx wrote:
salomed wrote:Again, you have done all of the work, but not done the singular thing to disprove, measure the images and show Green has mismeasured.
I have done quite a few things to prove to you that it is impossible for this to be anything but a hoax.


Not to me. To me, I only need someone to show that A/B does not equal, within reasonable bounds of truncation/rounding/error/approximation, one of the 12 Constants that Alan Green has found, where A and B are lengths between any given point contained in any of the full stops on the much aforementioned Sonnet's page. That is all that will satisfy me, anything else, if you are trying to satisfy me, will just not, and will mean you are just wasting your time:)
Comment savez-vous que vous ne parlez pas bollox?
Sur internet: http://bit.ly/14A0n9H

User avatar
Austin Harper
Perpetual Poster
Posts: 4836
Joined: Wed Sep 21, 2011 2:22 pm
Custom Title: Rock Chalk Astrohawk
Location: Detroit
Contact:

Re: Do these four coloured lines represent four key constants?

Postby Austin Harper » Tue Jul 18, 2017 10:00 pm

salomed wrote:
Austin Harper wrote:That's not how rounding works.

I cannot math

That is abundantly clear from your continuing to push this nonsense.

salomed wrote:can you please explain to me how one would write the number without rounding up.

Do you mean truncate? I see you can either truncate or round. Am I missing something?

First, let's go over the difference between rounding and truncating. Rounding means taking a value and approximating it to the nearest multiple of a chosen value. In most case, these values are multiples of 10 because that's the base number we use in everyday life. Because 0, 1, 2, 3, 4 are nearer to 0 than to 10, they round down to 0. Because 5, 6, 7, 8, and 9 are nearer to 10 than to 0, they round up to 10.

Truncating is simply stopping recording the value at a given number of digits.

So, with the two values we have (3.14248252 and 3.14159...), let's go through a few cases.

ROUND to the nearest 1:
The first digit after the decimal in both cases is in the range [0-4], so they both round down, giving us 3.

ROUND to three decimal places:
The next (fourth) decimal place in the first number (4) is in the range [0-4], so it rounds down, giving us 3.142.
The fourth decimal place in the second number (5) is the range [5-9], so it rounds up, giving us 3.142.

ROUND to four decimal places:
The next (fifth) decimal place in the first number (8) is in the range [5-9], so it rounds up, giving us 3.1425.
The fifth decimal place in the second number (9) is the range [5-9], so it rounds up, giving us 3.1416.
Rounding to any value with more than 5 decimal places will give non-equal values for the two numbers.


TRUNCATE to the nearest 1:
Write both numbers with no decimal places, in both cases getting 3.

TRUNCATE to two decimal places:
Write both numbers with only two digits after the decimal place, in both cases getting 3.14.

TRUNCATE to three decimal places:
You get 3.142 and 3.141 because we erased everything after the third decimal place.
You The next (fourth) decimal place in the first number is in the range [0-4], so it rounds down, giving us 3.142.
Truncating to any value with more than 2 decimal places will give non-equal values for the two numbers.


You should have learned this sometime around the third grade.
Dum ratio nos ducet, valebimus et multa bene geremus.

User avatar
scrmbldggs
Has No Life
Posts: 19664
Joined: Sun May 20, 2012 7:55 am
Custom Title: something
Location: sees Maria Frigoris from its house!

Re: Do these four coloured lines represent four key constants?

Postby scrmbldggs » Tue Jul 18, 2017 10:27 pm

salomed wrote:...anything else, if you are trying to satisfy me, will just not, and will mean you are just wasting your time:)

...what is one out of billions?... :pardon:
Hi, Io the lurker.

Matthew Ellard
Real Skeptic
Posts: 26630
Joined: Fri Jun 13, 2008 3:31 am

Re: More Evidence of Salomed's forgeries

Postby Matthew Ellard » Tue Jul 18, 2017 11:46 pm

salomed posted a forgery two months ago and wrote: "I have superimposed"...over the image "at the British Library" ( The original John Wright version) ...."perfect match"....
salomed wrote:It is the Aspley one that contains the encoded marvels. This is the one on the wikipedia, and the only one I have been discussing for months.
Who was the printer's typesetter in Fleet Lane, who modified the original layout for the later "William Aspley bookseller" version Salomed? You don't have a clue do you?


salomed wrote:I cannot math, can you please explain to me how one would write the number without rounding up.
Definition of Pi.jpg
:D

"Being an irrational number, π cannot be expressed exactly as a fraction"
That ends your crap "rough estimate" claim in one sentence, 250 years ago.

There is nothing more time consuming, than trying to explain basic mathematical theory to someone who hasn't any concept of mathematics. :lol:
You do not have the required permissions to view the files attached to this post.

User avatar
Nikki Nyx
Veteran Poster
Posts: 2064
Joined: Wed Jun 07, 2017 12:40 am
Custom Title: cognitively consonant
Location: playing croquet in Wonderland

Re: More Evidence of Salomed's forgeries

Postby Nikki Nyx » Wed Jul 19, 2017 12:48 am

salomed wrote:
Nikki Nyx wrote:
salomed wrote:Again, you have done all of the work, but not done the singular thing to disprove, measure the images and show Green has mismeasured.
I have done quite a few things to prove to you that it is impossible for this to be anything but a hoax.


Not to me. To me, I only need someone to show that A/B does not equal, within reasonable bounds of truncation/rounding/error/approximation, one of the 12 Constants that Alan Green has found, where A and B are lengths between any given point contained in any of the full stops on the much aforementioned Sonnet's page. That is all that will satisfy me, anything else, if you are trying to satisfy me, will just not, and will mean you are just wasting your time:)
No. YOU are wasting your time here. This was never, is not now, and never will be a mathematical constant.

Nothing will prove anything to you, because you don't understand the math, the history, the typesetting, the probability theory, or the logic involved. Green's demonstration takes advantage of probability to perpetrate a ridiculous conspiracy theory that lacks a factual historical background, violates the basics of mathematics, and defies the principles of logic.

If you cannot see that, then you're ignorant and gullible; that you accept a "rounded up" rational number in lieu of an irrational constant is proof. We've already proven to you that Green has found no constants; your ignorance accepts his "rounded up" integers as constants when they're not. Don't let the door hit you in the ass on your way out.
What are the facts? Again and again and again-what are the facts? Shun wishful thinking, ignore divine revelation, forget what “the stars foretell,” avoid opinion, care not what the neighbors think, never mind the unguessable “verdict of history”--what are the facts, and to how many decimal places? You pilot always into an unknown future; facts are your single clue. Get the facts!
—Lazarus Long, from Time Enough for Love, by Robert A. Heinlein

User avatar
salomed
Frequent Poster
Posts: 1245
Joined: Sat Apr 09, 2011 4:18 pm
Custom Title: Cartesian Skeptic

Re: More Evidence of Salomed's forgeries

Postby salomed » Wed Jul 19, 2017 6:16 am

Nikki Nyx wrote:
salomed wrote:
Nikki Nyx wrote:
salomed wrote:Again, you have done all of the work, but not done the singular thing to disprove, measure the images and show Green has mismeasured.
I have done quite a few things to prove to you that it is impossible for this to be anything but a hoax.


Not to me. To me, I only need someone to show that A/B does not equal, within reasonable bounds of truncation/rounding/error/approximation, one of the 12 Constants that Alan Green has found, where A and B are lengths between any given point contained in any of the full stops on the much aforementioned Sonnet's page. That is all that will satisfy me, anything else, if you are trying to satisfy me, will just not, and will mean you are just wasting your time:)
No. YOU are wasting your time here. This was never, is not now, and never will be a mathematical constant.

Nothing will prove anything to you, because you don't understand the math, the history, the typesetting, the probability theory, or the logic involved. Green's demonstration takes advantage of probability to perpetrate a ridiculous conspiracy theory that lacks a factual historical background, violates the basics of mathematics, and defies the principles of logic.

If you cannot see that, then you're ignorant and gullible; that you accept a "rounded up" rational number in lieu of an irrational constant is proof. We've already proven to you that Green has found no constants; your ignorance accepts his "rounded up" integers as constants when they're not. Don't let the door hit you in the ass on your way out.


I am not wasting my time. The more resistance you et al have to simply not answering the very simple question the more sure I am that they are there.

Show me that A/B does not equal, within reasonable bounds of truncation/rounding/error/approximation, one of the 12 Constants that Alan Green has found, where A and B are lengths between any given point contained in any of the full stops on the much aforementioned Sonnet's page.

You could do this in only two ways:

1) Show that the measurements A or B have been measured incorrectly between any of the given contained points in any of the full stops.

2) Show that A/B does not equal, within reasonable bounds of truncation/rounding/error/approximation, one of the 12 Constants that Alan Green has found.



I am happy to go with truncation or rounding, even though I now understand the difference between truncation and rounding (Thank you Austin). My reason for this is that on paper I cannot see how you can do otherwise, there must be compromise in putting an irrational number on paper. I also think that there is a threshold of error that is well covered by the three decimal places Green has found.

Even two decimal places, on a small pice of paper, 400 years ago, even that would be shocking to me. We are not dealing with a computer model here, but a mass printed marvel from a time when you admit it seems this shouldn't be possible. And yet, to me, it seems it is.
Comment savez-vous que vous ne parlez pas bollox?
Sur internet: http://bit.ly/14A0n9H

Matthew Ellard
Real Skeptic
Posts: 26630
Joined: Fri Jun 13, 2008 3:31 am

Evidence of Salomed's forgeries

Postby Matthew Ellard » Wed Jul 19, 2017 6:25 am

salomed wrote: Show me that A/B does not equal, within reasonable bounds of truncation/rounding/error/approximation, one of the 12 Constants that Alan Green has found, where A and B are lengths between any given point contained in any of the full stops on the much aforementioned Sonnet's page.

You really are a total idiot. :lol:

You are claiming the type setter in George Eld's Fleet Lane, print shop, hid irrational numbers, that by definition specifically can't be calculated by division, by using division.


Obviously the type setter was a total idiot for doing that.

Sooooooo...Salomed? How did average people measure the lengths of these lines before rulers existed? Let us all laugh at you and Alan Green some more.

User avatar
Poodle
Has More Than 8K Posts
Posts: 8186
Joined: Sun Jul 31, 2011 9:12 pm
Custom Title: Regular sleeper
Location: NE corner of my living room

Re: More Evidence of Salomed's forgeries

Postby Poodle » Wed Jul 19, 2017 7:59 am

salomed wrote:... Show me that A/B does not equal, within reasonable bounds of truncation/rounding/error/approximation, one of the 12 Constants that Alan Green has found, where A and B are lengths between any given point contained in any of the full stops on the much aforementioned Sonnet's page ...

You are repeating this error ad infinitum. There are no GIVEN points in any of the full stops. The only points are the ones which you ARBITRARILY select.

User avatar
salomed
Frequent Poster
Posts: 1245
Joined: Sat Apr 09, 2011 4:18 pm
Custom Title: Cartesian Skeptic

Re: More Evidence of Salomed's forgeries

Postby salomed » Wed Jul 19, 2017 9:14 am

Poodle wrote:
salomed wrote:... Show me that A/B does not equal, within reasonable bounds of truncation/rounding/error/approximation, one of the 12 Constants that Alan Green has found, where A and B are lengths between any given point contained in any of the full stops on the much aforementioned Sonnet's page ...

You are repeating this error ad infinitum. There are no GIVEN points in any of the full stops. The only points are the ones which you ARBITRARILY select.


Which are the ones that touch the full stops. If they don't, not relevant. If they do, they are.
Comment savez-vous que vous ne parlez pas bollox?
Sur internet: http://bit.ly/14A0n9H

User avatar
Austin Harper
Perpetual Poster
Posts: 4836
Joined: Wed Sep 21, 2011 2:22 pm
Custom Title: Rock Chalk Astrohawk
Location: Detroit
Contact:

Re: More Evidence of Salomed's forgeries

Postby Austin Harper » Wed Jul 19, 2017 1:40 pm

You guys, Shakespeare's name also has 3 "E"s in it! If you round pi to the nearest whole number pi = 3! WHAT DOES IT ALL MEAN?

Gorgeous, how do you not see that arbitrarily chosen points yielding values that are sort of close to some arbitrarily chosen constants doesn't matter? Nothing is hidden here.
Dum ratio nos ducet, valebimus et multa bene geremus.

User avatar
salomed
Frequent Poster
Posts: 1245
Joined: Sat Apr 09, 2011 4:18 pm
Custom Title: Cartesian Skeptic

Re: More Evidence of Salomed's forgeries

Postby salomed » Wed Jul 19, 2017 3:14 pm

Austin Harper wrote: how do you not see that arbitrarily chosen points yielding values that are sort of close to some arbitrarily chosen constants doesn't matter?


They are not arbitrarily chosen points, they are the full stops on the page. One of which, the focal G point, is much bigger.

They are not arbitrarily chosen constants, they are the 12 most fundemantal constants in maths. You cannot name a more fundamental constant than any of these.


Nothing is hidden here.


This tautology is the response of one who refuses to, or does not, see what is hidden:)
Comment savez-vous que vous ne parlez pas bollox?
Sur internet: http://bit.ly/14A0n9H

User avatar
Nikki Nyx
Veteran Poster
Posts: 2064
Joined: Wed Jun 07, 2017 12:40 am
Custom Title: cognitively consonant
Location: playing croquet in Wonderland

Re: Do these four coloured lines represent four key constants?

Postby Nikki Nyx » Wed Jul 19, 2017 3:51 pm

Arbitrary choices that no one could possibly find and copy.
Image

Arbitrary choices that no one could possibly find and copy.
Image

The G-dot is larger because it is NOT individually set, but part of an engraved block, NOT because anyone wanted you to notice it. Also, arbitrary that neither of the T-dots was used.
Image

Precision of point placement NOT possible in 1609 typesetting/printing.
ImageImage

Pi NOT found. 3.14248 is a rational integer that is NOT pi.
Image
What are the facts? Again and again and again-what are the facts? Shun wishful thinking, ignore divine revelation, forget what “the stars foretell,” avoid opinion, care not what the neighbors think, never mind the unguessable “verdict of history”--what are the facts, and to how many decimal places? You pilot always into an unknown future; facts are your single clue. Get the facts!
—Lazarus Long, from Time Enough for Love, by Robert A. Heinlein

User avatar
scrmbldggs
Has No Life
Posts: 19664
Joined: Sun May 20, 2012 7:55 am
Custom Title: something
Location: sees Maria Frigoris from its house!

Re: Do these four coloured lines represent four key constants?

Postby scrmbldggs » Wed Jul 19, 2017 4:04 pm

They won't accept it. They'll just stomp their little feet and thrash around on the ground, no matter what reason will be shown to them. (Even tho sally said that s/he "got it" earlier. So now it's certain that it's just for the fun of trolling? Besides the sales pitch.)
Hi, Io the lurker.

User avatar
salomed
Frequent Poster
Posts: 1245
Joined: Sat Apr 09, 2011 4:18 pm
Custom Title: Cartesian Skeptic

Re: Do these four coloured lines represent four key constants?

Postby salomed » Wed Jul 19, 2017 4:14 pm

Nikki Nyx wrote:Arbitrary choices that no one could possibly find and copy.


I don't understand your point. In your first image above these triangles perfectly satisfy touching. Were they not touching, they would not.

The G-dot is larger because it is NOT individually set, but part of an engraved block, NOT because anyone wanted you to notice it.


That is merely your assumption. You have no evidence, or even reason over and above your entrenchment, to suppose it.

I am saying the G dot is much bigger for a cryptographic reason. You are saying it is not.

Precision of point placement NOT possible in 1609 typesetting/printing.


You are assuming the conclusion. I assume that it was, though clearly not common knowledge or practice. I assume it was a secret technique by Dee, who I now side with Green on as being the most probable originator of the encoding.

Pi NOT found. 3.14248 is a rational integer that is NOT pi.


(It is not an integer, but I won't insult you about your mistake.)

I am happy that that number is an astounding representation of Pi, if you are not, that is your opinion.
Comment savez-vous que vous ne parlez pas bollox?
Sur internet: http://bit.ly/14A0n9H

User avatar
salomed
Frequent Poster
Posts: 1245
Joined: Sat Apr 09, 2011 4:18 pm
Custom Title: Cartesian Skeptic

Re: Do these four coloured lines represent four key constants?

Postby salomed » Wed Jul 19, 2017 4:17 pm

scrmbldggs wrote:They won't accept it. They'll just stomp their little feet and thrash around on the ground, no matter what reason will be shown to them. (Even tho sally said that s/he "got it" earlier. So now it's certain that it's just for the fun of trolling? Besides the sales pitch.)


I will accept it. Just show me the constants are not there. Nobody has done this, it's all nit picking and distraction.

Show me that A/B does not equal, within reasonable bounds of truncation/rounding/error/approximation, one of the 12 Constants that Alan Green has found, where A and B are lengths between any given point contained in any of the full stops on the much aforementioned Sonnet's page.
Comment savez-vous que vous ne parlez pas bollox?
Sur internet: http://bit.ly/14A0n9H

User avatar
scrmbldggs
Has No Life
Posts: 19664
Joined: Sun May 20, 2012 7:55 am
Custom Title: something
Location: sees Maria Frigoris from its house!

Re: Do these four coloured lines represent four key constants?

Postby scrmbldggs » Wed Jul 19, 2017 4:24 pm

Once you've got rid of the idea of "reasonable bounds of truncation/rounding/error/approximation", you truly "got it".


Math is about precision, not wishful thinking.
Hi, Io the lurker.

User avatar
scrmbldggs
Has No Life
Posts: 19664
Joined: Sun May 20, 2012 7:55 am
Custom Title: something
Location: sees Maria Frigoris from its house!

Re: Do these four coloured lines represent four key constants?

Postby scrmbldggs » Wed Jul 19, 2017 4:31 pm

Oh, and, salomed. If I may... What exactly is it that elevates your opinion above those of all others?
Hi, Io the lurker.

User avatar
salomed
Frequent Poster
Posts: 1245
Joined: Sat Apr 09, 2011 4:18 pm
Custom Title: Cartesian Skeptic

Re: Do these four coloured lines represent four key constants?

Postby salomed » Wed Jul 19, 2017 4:42 pm

scrmbldggs wrote:Once you've got rid of the idea of "reasonable bounds of truncation/rounding/error/approximation", you truly "got it".


Math is about precision, not wishful thinking.


But this isn't a mathematical text book or thesis, it is a cryptographic signpost. It is about finding the clues, not teaching Maths.

Where do the clues lead? The great Pyramid, or so claims Green. I am not sure about that yet.
Comment savez-vous que vous ne parlez pas bollox?
Sur internet: http://bit.ly/14A0n9H

User avatar
salomed
Frequent Poster
Posts: 1245
Joined: Sat Apr 09, 2011 4:18 pm
Custom Title: Cartesian Skeptic

Re: Do these four coloured lines represent four key constants?

Postby salomed » Wed Jul 19, 2017 4:43 pm

scrmbldggs wrote:Oh, and, salomed. If I may... What exactly is it that elevates your opinion above those of all others?


You may. I have no answer for you however.
Comment savez-vous que vous ne parlez pas bollox?
Sur internet: http://bit.ly/14A0n9H

User avatar
Poodle
Has More Than 8K Posts
Posts: 8186
Joined: Sun Jul 31, 2011 9:12 pm
Custom Title: Regular sleeper
Location: NE corner of my living room

Re: Do these four coloured lines represent four key constants?

Postby Poodle » Wed Jul 19, 2017 5:35 pm

salomed wrote:... I assume it was a secret technique by Dee, who I now side with Green on as being the most probable originator of the encoding.

John Dee died in 1608. Haven't we been here before?

User avatar
salomed
Frequent Poster
Posts: 1245
Joined: Sat Apr 09, 2011 4:18 pm
Custom Title: Cartesian Skeptic

Re: Do these four coloured lines represent four key constants?

Postby salomed » Wed Jul 19, 2017 5:46 pm

Poodle wrote:
salomed wrote:... I assume it was a secret technique by Dee, who I now side with Green on as being the most probable originator of the encoding.

John Dee died in 1608. Haven't we been here before?


I haven't. Please elucidate. The whole Dee thing is new to me.
Comment savez-vous que vous ne parlez pas bollox?
Sur internet: http://bit.ly/14A0n9H

User avatar
Poodle
Has More Than 8K Posts
Posts: 8186
Joined: Sun Jul 31, 2011 9:12 pm
Custom Title: Regular sleeper
Location: NE corner of my living room

Re: Do these four coloured lines represent four key constants?

Postby Poodle » Wed Jul 19, 2017 6:41 pm

I have to take that back - Dee could have died in 1609, I discover. However, Dee lived in Manchester from 1595 until the plague of 1606 when his wife and several of their children died. He then moved to London, where he died in 1608 or 1609. He is never recorded as having visited Stratford. He published several arcane books, none of them in Srartford. Can you think of a good reason why he would not do the same with the material you claim is hidden in the frontispiece of a Stratford edition of a popular author's work?
Last edited by Poodle on Wed Jul 19, 2017 6:52 pm, edited 1 time in total.

User avatar
salomed
Frequent Poster
Posts: 1245
Joined: Sat Apr 09, 2011 4:18 pm
Custom Title: Cartesian Skeptic

Re: Do these four coloured lines represent four key constants?

Postby salomed » Wed Jul 19, 2017 6:49 pm

Poodle wrote:I have to take that back - Dee could have died in 1609, I discover.


Could Dee have been involved with the Sonnet's cover?
Comment savez-vous que vous ne parlez pas bollox?
Sur internet: http://bit.ly/14A0n9H

User avatar
Poodle
Has More Than 8K Posts
Posts: 8186
Joined: Sun Jul 31, 2011 9:12 pm
Custom Title: Regular sleeper
Location: NE corner of my living room

Re: Do these four coloured lines represent four key constants?

Postby Poodle » Wed Jul 19, 2017 6:53 pm

See my edit above.


Return to “General Discussion”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest