Geocentric Earth model and Aether

But sandokhan zeta zeros are unanswered.

Because they have nothing to do with this thread.
Finding a math trick doesn't make him correct and he still explained his method.
Instead he just pulls numbers out of thin air and goes again and again and again to try and show he magically got a 0.
There is no justification for any of it.

Instead it is just typical numerology BS.

If he realy solved that, then that gives him credibility. Maybie he is lone scientist bringing truth to us?Galileo of geocentrism

No, it doesn't.
Being able to do something with math does not give him any credibility with his misrepresentation of science. With how often he misrepresents the papers he uses to pretend his claims are justified shows he is not a scientist bringing us the truth. He hasn't even performed any experiments himself and instead

But they do? What if Eric Dubay (you probably know him), for example, discovers something new to science? That will help his Flat Earth message.


Sandokhan did that with zeta zeros

Now, all of you here will become LOCAL-ETHER MODEL ADHERENTS.

THE ORBITAL SAGNAC DELAY MEASURES 333 NS, an effect larger than the CORIOLIS EFFECT, for GPS interferometry:

https://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=30499.msg2264696#msg2264696

If R0 is parallel to vE it amounts 333 ns for a link of 1000 km.
 

This is also left unanswered, althrought it has been posted few times

But they do? What if Eric Dubay (you probably know him), for example, discovers something new to science? That will help his Flat Earth message.

Sandokhan did that with zeta zeros

If Eric Dubay discovers something new to science, it won't be "Flat Earth Science" it will just be "Science".

If he discovers something new, that would be great, as new discoveries always are, no matter who makes them.

I don't know enough about zeta functions to parse through Sandokhan's thousand page post on them, but the one person who replied on the science forum he posted it on indicated he thought the entire method was flawed.

If Sandokhan's zeta zero proof or technique is valid, he certainly doesn't have anyone but himself to claim it is new, or even correct.  If his math was something new, or even interesting, there would be plenty of math journals who could publish it.  But they would have to validate it first.  Has he tried sending it to any of them?

Quote

Now, all of you here will become LOCAL-ETHER MODEL ADHERENTS.

THE ORBITAL SAGNAC DELAY MEASURES 333 NS, an effect larger than the CORIOLIS EFFECT, for GPS interferometry:

https://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=30499.msg2264696#msg2264696

If R0 is parallel to vE it amounts 333 ns for a link of 1000 km.
 

This is also left unanswered, althrought it has been posted few times

That paper isn't published or peer reviewed in any journals I can find.  It seems to suggest improvements to the GPS system to increase accuracy, and doesn't at all say GPS doesn't work.  But I'm not going to try and understand all the math and physics in there, if it wasn't accepted and published and reviewed by experts in the field, there is a reason for it.

But they do? What if Eric Dubay (you probably know him), for example, discovers something new to science? That will help his Flat Earth message.

Sandokhan did that with zeta zeros

Sandy did what with zeta zeros? And what do zeta zeros have to do with anything?

But they do?

No. They don't, not in the slightest.

What if Eric Dubay (you probably know him), for example, discovers something new to science? That will help his Flat Earth message.

Not unless that something new supports a FE.
Discovering an irrelevant fact will not change all the facts he denies to pretend Earth is flat.

This is also left unanswered, althrought it has been posted few times

And considering you already PMed me about it, you already know the answer and could answer it yourself.

It is his typical dishonesty where he just quote mines a tiny bit of a paper and blatantly lies about its implications.
Yes, if you were to construct a ring interferometer the size of Earth's orbit, the time difference would be far greater than any small interferometer on Earth.

That does not support his claim that there is any missing Sagnac effect.

In fact, if you want an honest quote from that paper, as I already pointed out to you, you get a delta T of 666 ns after 6 months in the Earth centered frame, not the 333 ns for a one way trip like Sandy pretends.

Again, either he doesn't actually understand any of it and has no idea at all about what he is talking about, or he is blatantly lying to everyone with almost every post he makes.

This extreme dishonest, or complete lack of understanding would destroy any credibility he had or any he earns in the future, unless he can admit to all those mistakes/lies.

As for his "zeta zeroes" like I said, just what is he doing?
See here for example:
https://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=30499.msg2082278#msg2082278

He starts with z1=14.134725
L(z1)=7.74977

Where did these numbers come from? He seems to need to start with the first 0.
What is L meant to be?
Especially note that this is meant to be very simple arithmitic, not fancy formulae. So just what is L(x) representing?

He then adds these together. Again, with no justification at all for why we should be doing that.
14.134725 + 7.74977 = 21.884497

Then he brings in yet another number. This time 63.636363
Then this inexplicably produces 16.1773.
And so on, inexplicably producing 9.5445, then 6.36363, then 3.1815.

There is no justification for where any of these numbers come from.

Then he finally gives some actual math, which he gets wrong.
He provides us with:

9.5445 - 6.36363 = 6.36363 - 3.1815 = 3.1815

The problem is that 9.5445 - 6.36363 =3.18087 and 6.36363 - 3.1815 = 3.18213.
So he doesn't even get that VERY BASIC math correct.
Instead it seems more like the typical numerology BS of "Hey look, these numbers are close. It must mean something magical."

In fact, noting that and double checking, he appears to have rounding errors or is using unrounded values in his calculations as even the first bit of math is off.
He should have 21.884495, yet gives us 21.884497. But as that is only off in the last digit, it could be a rounding issue, unlike the above nonsense.

He then applies a similar technique.
So similar in fact that you can get some idea of what he is doing.
He takes the number he got from the last sequence, 3.1815, and does some more math to magically produce a list of numbers with no justification.
Looking at the last number, the numbers before it are approximately 2*, then 3*, then 5*, then 20*.
Or going down, you have roughly 1/4, then 3/20, then 1/10, then 1/20, or just following the sequence, 1/4, then 3/5, then 2/3, then 1/2.

But again, no justification at all for any of these numbers, and they are still just off what he provided.

And only after all of that does he finally provide a link to an attempt at justification.
And of course, what does it relate to, the pyramids.
So it is just numerology BS.

He is just taking whatever numbers he wants, and manipulating them however he wants to pretend there is a connection.

He should have 21.884495, yet gives us 21.884497. But as that is only off in the last digit, it could be a rounding issue, unlike the above nonsense.

I couldn't bring myself to wade through that mess, good job.

One thing that caught my eye, I don't think 21.884495 vs 21.884497 can be a rounding error.  The last digit changed by 2, which doesn't happen with any rounding technique I'm aware of.  21.884495999 would round to 21.884496, nothing can make it round up to 21.884497.

It has to be a bigger mistake somewhere, or he's just making up the numbers as he goes along and adjusting them to fit whatever he is doing.

But yeah, the basic math is wrong.  If you make mistakes in addition and subtraction, you can't trust the rest.  That invalidates the whole thing, even ignoring where the numbers come from in the first place.

Thank you, I found it difficult to wade through it and don't think I'll waste more time on it until all the numbers and steps are justified properly, rather than just pulled out of thin air.

One thing that caught my eye, I don't think 21.884495 vs 21.884497 can be a rounding error.  The last digit changed by 2, which doesn't happen with any rounding technique I'm aware of.  21.884495999 would round to 21.884496, nothing can make it round up to 21.884497.

I was mainly giving him the benefit of the doubt.
However you want to look at the 2 numbers that go into it, not the final result, paying particular attention to the number of decimal placed.

He has:
14.134725
07.74977
Where one has one extra digit.

That also means he reported the number to too many digits.

If it was actually 14.134725 + 7.749772 (digit added to fill in the missing digit), then the math holds just fine.

So did he actually use 7.74977 as the number, or was that just the arbitrary rounding he displayed it to and he actually used a different number (without the rounding) for the addition?

Cut the crap.

14.134725... is the first zeta zero:

https://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=30499.msg1672563#msg1672563 (I even got very good estimates for the second and third zeta zeros)

L(z_n) is the well-known average spacing formula: a ballpark estimate which I never use again in the subsequent calculations.

One thing that caught my eye, I don't think 21.884495 vs 21.884497 can be a rounding error.

That is the average spacing! It is never used again.

He then adds these together. Again, with no justification at all for why we should be doing that.
14.134725 + 7.74977 = 21.884497

Is this supposed to be a joke? That is the average spacing, 7.74977, which is added to the first zero, to provide a simple estimate. My algorithm provides THE EXACT VALUE OF THE ZETA ZEROS!

Here is the formula:

L(t) = 2π/log(t/2π)

Basic stuff from zeta function theory.

Then he brings in yet another number. This time 63.636363
Then this inexplicably produces 16.1773.
And so on, inexplicably producing 9.5445, then 6.36363, then 3.1815.

There is no justification for where any of these numbers come from.


Here is the justification:

https://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=30499.msg2006301#msg2006301 (basic subdivision of the first 63.63636 sacred cubit interval into five elements ratios)

The problem is that 9.5445 - 6.36363 =3.18087 and 6.36363 - 3.1815 = 3.18213.

It doesn't matter. What matters is the five element subdivision algorithm which provides the exact zeta zero value.


By now, all of you should have understood what I am doing.

https://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=30499.msg2006301#msg2006301

Five elements of the Gizeh pyramid:

26.7
53.4
80
136.1
534

Applying the five elements proportions to the sacred cubit distance:

63.636363
16.1773
9.5445
6.36363
3.1815

The sacred cubit fractal (dividing the critical line into 63.6363... segments, and further using the five elements proportions) is the hidden template of the zeta function.

63.636363
16.1773
9.5445
6.36363
3.1815

9.5445 - 6.36363 = 6.36363 - 3.1815 = 3.1815

3.1815
0.80886
0.477225
0.31815
0.159075

(continued here: https://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=30499.msg1950765#msg1950765 )


A list of the zeros featured on the first run of the two zeta functions:

     14.134725142
     21.022039639
     25.010857580
     30.424876126
     32.935061588
     37.586178159
     40.918719012
     43.327073281
     48.005150881
     49.773832478
     52.970321478
     56.446247697
     59.347044003
     60.831778525
     65.112544048
     67.079810529
     69.546401711
     72.067157674
     75.704690699
     77.144840069


Now, we subdivide the sacred cubit distance using the five element fractal, for the first zeta function wave traveling towards the left, see:

https://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=30499.msg1950765#msg1950765

14.1347 +

3.1815  = 17.3162 *
6.363    = 20.4947 *
9.545    = 23.68 *
16.1773 = 30.312 *
2.373    = 32.685 *
4.746    = 35.058
7.1185  = 37.43 } *
12.066  = 42.378 }
1.77      = 44.148 *
3.54     = 45.92 * midpoint
5.309   = 47.687 *
{8.998   = 51.376
{1.319   = 52.695
2.64     = 54.02 *
3.96     = 55.33
6.7106 = 58.086 *
0.984  = 59.07 *
1.968  = 60.05
2.95   = 61.03 *
5.0045 = 63.1 }
0.734  = 63.8 }
1.468  = 64.56 }
2.2     = 65.3 }
3.73   = 66.8 }
1.64   = 68.46 }
2.783  = 69.6
1.224  = 70.83
2.07   = 71.67 *
1.548  = 73.22
1.154  = 74.38 *
0.861  = 75.24
0.692  = 75.93
0.4661 = 76.4
0.3475 = 76.745
0.26   = 77


Now, the subdivision for the SECOND wave propagating toward the right:

14.1347 + 63.63 = 77.7647

77.7647 -

3.1815 = 74.58 *
6.363  = 71.4 *
9.545  = 68.22 * }
16.173 = 61.587 * }
2.373  = 59.2 *
4.746  = 56.84 *
7.1185 = 54.469 * }
12.066 = 49.52 }
1.77  = 47.75 *
3.54 = 45.98 * midpoint
5.309 = 44.2 *
8.998 = 40.52 }
1.319 = 39.2 }
2.64  = 37.88 }
3.96  = 36.56 *
6.7106 = 33.8
0.984  = 32.8 *
1.968  = 31.84
2.95  = 30.86 *
5.0045 = 28.81
0.734 = 28.07
1.468 = 27.34
2.2 = 26.61
3.73 = 25.08
1.64 = 23.43 *
2.783 = 22.23
1.224  = 21.07
2.07  = 20.22 *
1.548 = 18.67
1.154 = 17.52 *
0.861 = 16.66
0.692 = 15.97
0.4661 = 15.5
0.3475 = 15.15
0.26 = 14.9


THE VALUES MARKED WITH A STAR (WITH THE EXCEPTION OF THE MIDPOINT) ARE ABOUT THE SAME FOR BOTH SUBDIVISIONS.

THIS IS WHERE THE ZETA ZEROS WILL LIE, AT THE COMMON VALUES OF THE TWO SUBDIVISIONS OF THE SACRED CUBIT DISTANCE.

The values marked with a brace need further subdivisions: we can check that there are further zeros there (and also eliminate the midpoint value) using the both the average spacing of the zeta zeros and the total number of zeta zeros in a certain segment formulas.

As an example:

68.22 - 1.68632 = 66.534
66.534 - 1.2576 = 65.2764 *

A match for the value 65.3 from the other subdivision.

Once we know where the zeta zeros are located we can then further subdivide the sacred cubit distances to get a better estimate, since again the equal values of the two subdivisions will provide the exact point where the zeta zero is placed.


It is the points where the two subdivisions have approximately equal values that form the set of zeta zeros.

That is, the law of five elements of proportions applied to the sacred cubit distance will reveal the values of the zeta zeros.

Example.

The fifth zeta zero, to three decimal places accuracy, using only the five elements subdivision applied to both zeta functions as a guide.

63.636363
16.1773
9.5445
6.36363
3.1815

https://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=30499.msg2006301#msg2006301 (basic subdivision of the first 63.63636 sacred cubit interval into five elements ratios)

16.1773 + 2.373 = 32.685

4.7459 - 2.373 = 2.373

2.373
0.6033
0.356
0.2373
0.118645

Adding to the bottom four values to 32.685:

33.2883
33.041
32.9223
32.8036


1.968

31.8494

0.984

32.8294

6.7106

33.8

32.8294 is the first lower bound.

Since 32.9223 is a higher lower bound, this value is the lower bound of the entire approximation.

To find the first upper bound, we need to subdivide the intervals for the second zeta function further, in order to find a lower upper bound than 33.041.

0.98422
0.25023

33.8 - 0.25023 = 33.55

0.98422 - 0.25023 = 0.734

0.734
0.18661

33.55 - 0.18661 = 33.364

0.734 - 0.18661 = 0.5474

0.5474
0.139171

33.364 - 0.139171 = 33.225

0.5474 - 0.139171 = 0.40823

0.40823
0.103788

33.225 - 0.103788 = 33.1212

0.40823 - 0.103788 = 0.304442

0.304442
0.0774

33.1212 - 0.0774 = 33.0438

0.304442 - 0.0774 = 0.227042

0.227042
0.05772

33.0438 - 0.05772 = 32.9861

32.9861 is the new upper bound of the entire approximation.


0.356 - 0.23729 = 0.11871

0.11871
0.0302
0.01781
0.011871
0.0059355

Adding the bottom four values to 32.9223:

32.9525
32.9401
32.9342
32.928

32.9401 is the new upper bound.


Returning to the subdivisions for the second zeta function.

0.227042 - 0.05772 = 0.16932

0.16932
0.04305

32.9861 - 0.04305 = 32.94305

0.16932 - 0.04305 = 0.12627

0.12627
0.0321
0.01894
0.012627
0.0063135

Substracting the bottom four values from 32.94305:

32.911
32.9241
32.9304
32.93673

32.93672 is the new upper bound.

0.012627 - 0.0063135 = 0.0063135

0.0063135
0.0016052
0.000947
0.00063135
0.000315675

Substracting the bottom four values from 32.93673:

32.935125
32.935783
32.9361
32.936414


Returning to the subdivisions for the first zeta function.

0.01781 - 0.011871 = 0.0059355

0.0059355
0.001509
0.000891
0.00059355
0.000297

Adding the bottom four values to 32.9342:

32.93571
32.935091
32.9348
32.9345

Since 32.935091 is a lower value than 32.935125, this figure is the new upper bound of the entire approximation.

0.0063135 - 0.0016052 = 0.0047083

0.0047083
0.00119704
0.000706245
0.00047083
0.000235415

Substracting the last figure from 32.935125 we obtain 32.93489.

Since this is greater value than 32.9348, it becomes the new lower bound of the entire approximation.

This is further proof that 32.935125 was an upper bound, and that 32.935091 is the new upper bound for the entire approximation.

The true value for the fifth zeta zero is:

32.935061588

Already we have obtained a five digit/three decimal place approximation:

32.935091


Further subdivisions for greater accuracy.

0.00047083 - 0.000235415 = 0.000235415

0.000235415
0.000059852
0.0000353
0.0000235415
0.000011771

Substracting the bottom four values from 32.935125:

32.935065
32.935089
32.935101
32.935113


Returning to the subdivisions for the first zeta function.

0.000891 - 0.00029745 = 0.00029745

0.00029745
0.000075624

32.9348 + 0.000075624 = 32.9348756

0.00029745 - 0.000075624 = 0.000221826

0.000221826
0.0000564

32.9348756 + 0.0000564 = 32.93492

0.000165426
0.000042055

32.93492 + 0.000042055 = 32.934962

0.00012337
0.000031366

32.934962 + 0.000031366 = 32.9349934

0.000092334
0.000023475

32.9349934 + 0.000023475 = 32.93501688

0.000068859
0.0000175067

32.93501688 + 0.0000175067 = 32.9350344

0.000051353
0.000013056

32.9350344 + 0.000013056 = 32.93504746

0.000038297
0.00000973663

32.93504746 + 0.00000973663 = 32.9350572

0.000028561
0.00000726135

32.9350572 + 0.00000726135 = 32.93506446

This becomes the new upper bound of the entire approximation (a value smaller than 32.935065 obtained from the second zeta function subdivision).

0.000028561
0.00000726135
0.00000428415

32.9350572 + 0.00000428415 = 32.93506148

The true value for the fifth zeta zero is:

32.935061588

Already we have obtained an eight digit/six decimal place accuracy:

32.93506148


This is the secret behind the zeta zeros: they are simply the final result of the successive sacred cubit subdivisions applied to a single segment.

The crucial idea, my idea, is to use BOTH zeta functions (positive imaginary AND negative imaginary parts) at the same time on a single segment, one is propagating from the left, the other one from the right. Then, and only then, can we get somewhere: using only a single zeta function will not reveal the hidden properties of the zeta zeros.

My algorithm proves that all of the zeta zeros are related to each other in a very precise manner: I have provided the missing link which every other mathematician was looking for.

Cut the crap.

Good advice.
Stop just spouting crap and actually justify your claims.
Start by justifying the 24 ns you are still yet to justify.
You seem to have fled from that claim quite some time ago and are only now coming back to the thread that the zeta zeros are being discussed.

Can you justify your 24 ns? Or can you just spam irrelevant crap on Zeta Zeroes?

14.134725... is the first zeta zero

Which you obtained, from where?
Don't link to even more crap, clearly explain it.
Or do you just need to take that for granted?

Here is the justification:

Again, provide the justification here, rather than linking to crap.
Clearly provide what these numbers are, how you obtain them, and why they should be in any way relavent to the zeta zeros.

The problem is that 9.5445 - 6.36363 =3.18087 and 6.36363 - 3.1815 = 3.18213.
It doesn't matter.

No, it does matter, a lot.
It shows you can't even get extremely basic math right.
If you can't get that right, why should we trust your claims to have the zeta zeros correct?

which provides the exact zeta zero value.

Do you actually understand what exact means?
Provide the EXACT value, with no rounding at all.

By now, all of you should have understood what I am doing.

Don't worry, I do.
You spout whatever nonsense you can to pretend you can make some wonderful point, without any valid justification.

Five elements of the Gizeh pyramid:

Again, don't just pull numbers from thin air. Clearly explain what these numbers are and what relevance they have have to the discussion.

9.5445 - 6.36363 = 6.36363 - 3.1815 = 3.1815

And again, you repeat the same false equation.
Why?

This is the list of the zeta zeros:

http://www.dtc.umn.edu/~odlyzko/zeta_tables/zeros1

Zeta zero #5:

32.935061588

My algorithm (see my previous message) has provided this figure:

32.93506148

An eight digit/six decimal place accuracy.

That's all you need to know IT WORKS!

This is the list of the zeta zeros:
Zeta zero #5:
32.935061588
My algorithm (see my previous message) has provided this figure:
32.93506148

So what you are saying is your method is wrong and does not produce the correct.
Just like all your other numerology BS, you get a number which is close and them claim it is correct.

You have no exact zeros at all.

Now again, care to provide the 24 ns?
Or to admit your dishonesty with the 333 ns?

This is the list of the zeta zeros:

http://www.dtc.umn.edu/~odlyzko/zeta_tables/zeros1

Zeta zero #5:

32.935061588

My algorithm (see my previous message) has provided this figure:

32.93506148

An eight digit/six decimal place accuracy.

That's all you need to know IT WORKS!

What about Zeta zero #4 & Zeta zero #6? What did your algorithm come up with?

How about Zeta zero #22 & Zeta zero #64? What did your algorithm come up with?

Zeta zero #4

30.424876126

https://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=30499.msg2083177#msg2083177

30.424684


Zeta zero #6

37.586178159

https://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=30499.msg2083623#msg2083623

37.5859324


Zeta zero # 21

79.337375020

https://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=30499.msg2089104#msg2089104

79.337164


Zeta zero # 50

143.111845808

https://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=30499.msg2089104#msg2089104

143.1377

Take #6 for example:

Zeta zero #6

37.586178159

https://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=30499.msg2083623#msg2083623

37.5859324

From your link:

Already we have obtained a five digit/three decimal place approximation:

37.5859324

What causes your calculation to end up as: 37.5859324

When it should be: 37.586178159

I understand we're splitting hairs here. Just curious as to why they are not more 'exact'.

Because I have stopped the subdivision algorithm at that precise point (fifth decimal place). I could go on further and provide many more of the decimal parts of the zeta zeros.

Highest zeta zero ever computed:
t ≈ 81029194732694548890047854481676712.9879 (zeta  zero # 10³⁶ + 4242063737401796198).

https://arxiv.org/pdf/1607.00709.pdf

1273315917355388788579148020712834 x 63 = 80218902793389493680486325304908542

1273315917355388788579148020712834 x 0.63636363 = 810291939305055209561529176768134.23182742


81,029,194,732,694,548,890,047,854,481,676,676.23182742
81,029,194,732,694,548,890,047,854,481,676,739.86819105

81,029,194,732,694,548,890,047,854,481,676,692.40916072
(+16.1773333)

81,029,194,732,694,548,890,047,854,481,676,704.47514472
(+12.065984)

81,029,194,732,694,548,890,047,854,481,676,713.47347282
(+8.9983281)

81,029,194,732,694,548,890,047,854,481,676,709.78410162
(+5.3089569)

81,029,194,732,694,548,890,047,854,481,676,710.72208732
(+0.9379857)

81,029,194,732,694,548,890,047,854,481,676,711.42159955
(+0.69951223)

81,029,194,732,694,548,890,047,854,481,676,711.943267789
(+0.521668239)

81,029,194,732,694,548,890,047,854,481,676,712.332307089
(+0.3890393)

81,029,194,732,694,548,890,047,854,481,676,712.622437039
(+0.29012995)

81,029,194,732,694,548,890,047,854,481,676,712.838804339
(+0.2163673)



81,029,194,732,694,548,890,047,854,481,676,723.69085805
(-16.177333)

81,029,194,732,694,548,890,047,854,481,676,711.62487405
(-12.065984)

81,029,194,732,694,548,890,047,854,481,676,716.5720035
(-7.11885455)

81,029,194,732,694,548,890,047,854,481,676,715.3142453
(-1.2577582)

81,029,194,732,694,548,890,047,854,481,676,714.37625955
(-0.93798575)

81,029,194,732,694,548,890,047,854,481,676,713.6767473
(-0.69951225)

81,029,194,732,694,548,890,047,854,481,676,713.15507905
(-0.52166825)


Now, any other questions you might have, have been answered here:

https://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=30499.msg2266386#msg2266386

Because I have stopped the subdivision algorithm at that precise point (fifth decimal place). I could go on further and provide many more of the decimal parts of the zeta zeros.

i.e. it isn't exact.

1273315917355388788579148020712834 x 63 = 80218902793389493680486325304908542

And again, you just pull a number from no where to pretend you have a case.

Stop just pulling numbers from thin air.

Start justifying your wild claims.

Start by justifying your 24 ns.

Quote from: JackBlack

Quote from: sandokhan

9.5445 - 6.36363 = 6.36363 - 3.1815 = 3.1815

The problem is that 9.5445 - 6.36363 =3.18087 and 6.36363 - 3.1815 = 3.18213.
So he doesn't even get that VERY BASIC math correct.

It doesn't matter. What matters is the five element subdivision algorithm which provides the exact zeta zero value.

You can not provide a proof and get basic subtraction wrong and claim it doesn't matter.  It's math!  How can subtracting numbers wrong NOT MATTER?

You can't claim you have exact values when you're doing basic subtraction wrong.  You have incorrect calculations all through your enormous 100 page calculation. 

The way math works if if you make ONE mistake, it corrupts everything after it.  If your numbers just mysteriously change for no reason, and are literally wrong in other case, you need to go back and fix all of that.  Then you can start asking for verification.

I'd love to know who 'verified' your proof as you claim, but missed the fact you can't subtract two numbers correctly.

Quote from: sandokhan on July 03, 2020, 10:33:07 PM

This is the list of the zeta zeros:
Zeta zero #5:
32.935061588
My algorithm (see my previous message) has provided this figure:
32.93506148

So what you are saying is your method is wrong and does not produce the correct.
Just like all your other numerology BS, you get a number which is close and them claim it is correct.

You have no exact zeros at all.

Now again, care to provide the 24 ns?
Or to admit your dishonesty with the 333 ns?

Netwon gravity can't produce perfect results. Does that mean it is false too?


And why does Pyramid have zeta zeros values hidden in it? Aliens

Netwon gravity can't produce perfect results. Does that mean it is false too?

Newtonian gravity doesn't claim to be exact. Sandokhan does.
That is the big difference.

And why does Pyramid have zeta zeros values hidden in it?

It doesn't.
As we have been over countless times, it is just typical numerology BS. You take whatever numbers you can find and figure how to manipulate them to get the result you want.

If you did not already have that result, you wouldn't claim that these numbers produce that result.

Quote from: JackBlack on July 03, 2020, 11:16:57 PM

Quote from: sandokhan on July 03, 2020, 10:33:07 PM

This is the list of the zeta zeros:
Zeta zero #5:
32.935061588
My algorithm (see my previous message) has provided this figure:
32.93506148

So what you are saying is your method is wrong and does not produce the correct.
Just like all your other numerology BS, you get a number which is close and them claim it is correct.

You have no exact zeros at all.

Now again, care to provide the 24 ns?
Or to admit your dishonesty with the 333 ns?

Netwon gravity can't produce perfect results. Does that mean it is false too?

But on earth and in almost all the Solar System Newtonian Gravitation is closer than you could determine!

And why does Pyramid have zeta zeros values hidden in it? Aliens

Does the Great Pyramid of Giza "have zeta zeros values hidden in it?"

But Sandokhan makes numerous claims without any basis.
For example he claims that g = π² and it's not and many more similar pure coincidences that are close only if suitable units are used and he rarely bothers with units..

g=PiČ is pretty  close to actual value of g. I mean, just odd. And his Zeta zeros are pretty accurate. Remember debate form few weeks ago, about pyramids and disrance to sun and Earth's polar radius?


This is new oddity to list. Why is pyramid and sacred cubit related to zeta zeros?

g=PiČ is pretty  close to actual value of g. I mean, just odd.

No, not just odd.
Just more numerology BS.

Why pi^2?
Why not pi?
Why not e?
Why not e^2?
why not the square root of pi?
Why not pi^pi?
Why not e^pi?
Why not pi^e?
Why not phi?
Why not phi^2?
Why not phi^phi?
Why not phi^pi?
Why not phi^e?
Why not e^phi?
Why not pi^phi?

And why measure g in m/s^2?
Why not ft/s^2?
Why not km/hr^2?
Why not miles/hr^2?

There are so many different options you can use to make it match.
If you give someone a number and enough time they can get something like that to show it must be "magic"

And his Zeta zeros are pretty accurate. Remember debate form few weeks ago, about pyramids and disrance to sun and Earth's polar radius?

Yes, I remember that. Do you?
It is quite easy to get "pretty accurate" when you can make up whatever numbers you want and you have so many options available.
It is nothing special.

g=PiČ is pretty  close to actual value of g. I mean, just odd.

Pi is dimensionless; g is acceleration, which has dimensions Length Time^-2. They're unrelated.

Are you suggesting that pi² = 32.174? 5,094,676,852.36? 1,333,253.52? It's none of these, but all are representations of g using different units (ft/sec², furlongs/fortnight², sacred cubits/second/day, respectively).

And his Zeta zeros are pretty accurate. Remember debate form few weeks ago, about pyramids and disrance to sun and Earth's polar radius?

That was another inane conversation.

This is new oddity to list. Why is pyramid and sacred cubit related to atom?

That one is easy: they're not.

The sacred cubit is designated in the form of a horseshoe projection, known as the "Boss" on the face of the Granite Leaf in the Ante-Chamber of the Pyramid. By application of this unit of measurement it was discovered to be subdivided into 25 equal parts known now as: Pyramid inches.




g must equal π² m/s²:

https://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=30499.msg1852870#msg1852870


http://www.aetherometry.com/Aetherometry_Intro/pratt_aether_grav.php (section 3, Gravitational Pendulums, g related to π²)


The energy levels of the atom are related to the zeros of the zeta function.

First zero = 14.134725...

14.134725 x 45 = 636.062625, one of the values of the sacred cubit (0.63636363... , 0.6366219... , 0.6356621..., and so on).

Missing apex height = 286.1 sacred inches

286.1 = 450 sacred cubits


You have incorrect calculations all through your enormous 100 page calculation.

Are you willing to risk a six month ban, if you cannot prove that I used the incorrect figures?

Here I use 3.1815:

https://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=30499.msg2089104#msg2089104

Zeta zero #21

79.337375020

My algorithm:

79.337164


Here I use 6.36363:

https://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=30499.msg2082278#msg2082278

Zeta zero #2

21.022039639

My algorithm:

21.02207916

I have just proven wrong your baseless accusations.

My algorithm does work, it explains, for the first time, the apparent randomness of the fluctuating/oscillatory part of the Riemann-von Mangoldt formula/Gutzwiller trace formula.

No, gravity does not equal pi².

g=PiČ is pretty  close to actual value of g. I mean, just odd. And his Zeta zeros are pretty accurate. Remember debate form few weeks ago, about pyramids and disrance to sun and Earth's polar radius?

This is new oddity to list. Why is pyramid and sacred cubit related to atom?

His zeta zeros are "pretty accurate" because he makes up numbers instead of performing the correct math.

I can make 1+1=3 "pretty accurately" by just saying it, see?  4+9=123 because I say so, neat, eh?  No, not neat, just wrong.

I can say my height in cm is 180, and 180 is half of 360 so I'm pi/2 high, I must be a magic circle or something?  No, I just found numbers that matched.  You can do it with anyt number, it doesn't mean anything.

Give me any number and I can find a "sacred" relation to something.  Any number.  It's just numerology.