111

Thanks for the helpful insight :)

229
11112
340
86

-Brendan

Err.. I'll be closing this thread unless it gets a more useful topic.... ;)

Well, obviously, this post is concerned with the higher realms of integer mathematics, as applied to the fundamental constants of cosmic gravitation.

Anyone familiar with this field would plainly recognize the thrust of the brilliant initial argument by our correspondent, above.

Brendan, however, is plainly on the wrong track with his counter-argument, having mistaken Planck's Constant for one of the elements of an associative Perl hash.

Welllll actually et, I was more thinking along the lines of quantum mathematics and how 213/111 corresponds to some of Einstein's theories....

give yourself a few years young grasshopper... and then you too will understand what i have written...

-Brendan

Contrary to popular opinion and many erroneous reports, even in the scientific literature, my good friend Albert never once used either the number 213 or the number 111 in any equation whatsoever.

Indeed, from Al's private letters to me, let me quote some things he said about these numbers...

"In my deepest and most humble opinion, it would be a case of God playing dice with Elmer Fudd to say that this numbers [213 - editor] has any significance beyond its use as a telephone area code."

Further, he said -- and I think what he means is quite plain, here...

"That other number [111 - editor] is so repugnant to me, that I have written, along with several other physicists, to our President Roosevelt, begging that immediate measures be taken to formulate an American initiative to control its potentially enormous destructive power."

As you know, Roosevelt complied with this request, which is why 111 is now being considered as a new area code for Manhattan.

I think he's referring to the Constantine variable and it's applications to the seventh derivative in fourteenth century mathematics - specifically the calculation of the hundred and first amicable pair:

If C = answer/(what you get) then answer = C(what you get)

Very mathematically elegant indeed.

420 :)

Originally posted by Chicken
420 :)

Chicken, you devil in feathers, you always know how to egg me on with these provocative comments.

420 is, of course, the cube root of 74088000; surely insightful of itself, but perhaps irrelevant.

On the other hand, Wolfgang Pauli, the great friend, contemporary, and colleague of Albert Einstein, jumps immediately to mind whenever the number 420 is mentioned.

When considered in light (pun intended) of Pauli's Exclusion Principle (which, in brief, states that no two electrons in an atom can be at the same time in the same state or configuration), the relationship to our previous discussion about 213 and 111 becomes abundantly clear.

Obviously, in that Pauli was German-born, and never lived in the Los Angeles area (for which 213 is the telephone area code: see http://www.555-1212.com/#SearchArea for more about this intriguing matter), he was completely unaware of the existence of this number. Hence, it can be logically deduced that a number like 420 was much more familiar.

Further, concerning the number 111, in Pauli's work from 1923 proposing a fourth quantum number for the first time, he proposed that it might take on the numerical values +1/2 or -1/2 (necessary to specify electron energy states)... and, as you can see there are two numeral 1's involved in this, so he was very well on his way to discovery of the number -- yes, you've guessed it -- 111.

(In one of the curious footnotes of scientific history, one might note that Pauli had a birthmark on his ass that looked exactly like the number 111; whereas, he likewise had a birthmark that looked like the number 11 on his elbow. If Pauli could have told his ass from his elbow, therefore, he would have perhaps made the discovery much sooner.)

Subsequently, as the significance and truth of 111 proved true, in a fit of woman-induced idiocy, Pauli decided to call the particles defined by this equation "fermions" -- after his arch-rival, physicist Enrico Fermi; who, sadly enough, had stolen a whopping 96 of Pauli's girlfriends from him.

And this is where it all comes together, Chicken.

Add the area code of LA [213] to the number of women stolen by Fermi [96] to the birthmark on Pauli's ass [111], and you get, of course...

420.

etLux, you neglect the fact that the birthmarks on Pauli's ass and elbow were Roman and representative of the numbers three and two respectively.

The sum is therefore 312 rather than 420.

As above, the answer to this rather cryptic question is in fact 312C, allowing for all possible variations and interpretations.


Oh, and do you realise that Pauli's Exclusion principle ironically gets itself excluded when a star over 4.2 solar masses collapses? (I believe it's 4.2 solar masses, perhaps more or less).


[Edited by Lawrence on 12-14-2000 at 03:14 AM]

The so-called "Roman Interpretation" of the number on Pauli's ass has been regularly discredited in the scientific literature.

For more on this, see this post: http://howstuffworks.com/question46.htm

Pauli's Exclusion Principle likewise has absolutely nothing to do with "4.2 solar masses" as you mention above.

This misinformation, though widely quoted, is actually due to a misprint in a Moldavian physics text from 1927 -- which resulted from a bit too much fermented goat milk on the part of the typesetter.

The quote had been supposed to read "42 polar asses" -- and was meant to appear in a noted text of the time, "Donkeys in the Arctic Realm".

The inebriate typographer inadvertantly not only mistyped the quote, but put it in the wrong textbook, as well -- "Physics and Regularity" [O'Reilly, 1928] -- and thus are scientific heresies born...

You've got me laughing so hard I think I'll just give up.

I think Pauli would be rolling in his grave right about now...

By the looks of this thread, there were a lot of ppl that took their silly pill when the board was brought back up.

Either that, or Bill Clinton had a going away party last night and y'all were invited -- and you DID inhale.
:)

Some people simply don't possess adequate levels of erudition to truly appreciate elevated scientific discourse of this kind.

Originally posted by Racin' Rob
Either that, or Bill Clinton had a going away party last night and y'all were invited -- and you DID inhale.
:)

And now we get back to the *true* meaning of 420 :)

The only number that is truly worth discussing is 16. What is 28 you ask? Toronto Maple Leaf Darcy Tucker's jersey number. GO LEAFS GO!

*adds 'Toronto' to the censored word list* :)

Just cuz I'm a proud Canadian for no apparent reason whatsoever doesn't mean you can add my hometown to the censored list. You can my home province (Ontario) or Canada itself but I draw the line at Toronto! :)

Heh heh... just kidding! :)

Hey, Tabernack, you are closer to this guy than I am, you should enlighten this upper Canadian in the finer points of what the CDS could do to him if he continues his current path.

flamethrow :bawling: :smash:

It distresses me to see this thread, which was begun as a serious inquiry into the history and issues of physics, degrading into a Canadian beer fest.

On the other hand, hmmm... come to think of it... maybe this is a *good* thing?

As my good friend Albert once said to me in a letter -- and I think it is abundanlty clear what he means here -- I quote:

"My good friend etLux, this is a universal truth, the only certain thing that I have learned in all my years as a very famous person and a hotshot physicist with a big brain [Einstein always referred to himself this way in private, though it was subsequently shown that his brain was actually somewhat smaller than normal - Editor].

"What I have learned is this. You cannot drink big glasses of beer flying around in a space ship at the speed of light. It gets all over your shorts."

Further, waxing somewhat philosophical as was his wont in later years, he continued...

"To think otherwise, my good friend etLux, this would be like God playing dice with his beer money."

I think we can all take a lesson from The Master in this.

etlux,

I wish you had been my physics teacher. hehe

Im confused!! Why do people do this to me? I am already confused, and people like EtLux try to confuse me more, which is not fair, coz I keep trying to get out of this confusion, and the closer I get to getting out of the confusion, EtLux pushes me more into it.

Originally posted by kunal
Im confused!! Why do people do this to me? I am already confused, and people like EtLux try to confuse me more, which is not fair, coz I keep trying to get out of this confusion, and the closer I get to getting out of the confusion, EtLux pushes me more into it.

That's what I truly hate, when you're trying to get out of confusion, then you're confused about how to get out of your confusion, then you get confused as to how to get out of being confused about your own confusion and weren't we talking about numbers or beer or something cool originally?

Thats what I am confused about!!! bah!! :(

Originally posted by kunal
Im confused!! Why do people do this to me? I am already confused, and people like EtLux try to confuse me more...

I would like to make a serious statement here, and do so as clearly and plainly -- and unconfusingly -- as I possibly can.

With certain exceptions and exclusions that, in some cases, may or may not be construed or misconstrued as appropriate, inappropriate, or as evidence or lack of evidence of a curmudgeon-like nature on my part, it is never, ever my intention, nor is it the implication of any post I might or might not make, whether or not I intended to make or not make said post, to confuse (in the sense of rendering meaning opaque or unclear), obfuscate (in the sense of causing underlying truths to become indistinct or difficult to perceive), or obscure (in the sense of secreting or concealing) the essential matter of any other post that may or may not have been made here, regardless of the intent or lack of intent of the author or non-author of such posts; although it can surely be lucidly argued, or at least promulgated, that there are those parties among, within, surrounding, a part of, or otherwise involved with this forum who might, under certain circumstances or conditions -- especially in cases where there are illucidities incumbent naturally upon the mentative facilities of said parties -- discover that, indeed, due to the aforementioned defect or insufficiency, they may, on certain occasions, be confused.