Print

Print


Re: Ken Armstrong’s poetry of the stars.

Your friend’s mother was old enough to have perhaps  been taught of the “ether” which was thought to exist between the stars (her gem carbonaceous (diamond)).  The ether was an invention of scientists to try to explain what light waves were vibrating in.  It was one of those ideas of “scientific consensus” which had become so engrained that the two men who showed that it didn’t exist, Michelson and Morley, could not accept their own results and continued to believe in the ether.

BTW the planet, Vulcan, which was thought to exist between mercury and the sun was another “consensus of science”.   Vulcan had been postulated to account for Mercury’s orbit’s vagrancy.  Mercury was not following Newton’s law of gravity.  But, Mercury was following Einstein’s “General relativity”.  There was no planet Vulcan, just inadequate scientific theory.  In this case Newton’s law of gravity.

Science is not about consensus but about questioning and challenging.

Sent from my iPad

> On Feb 20, 2019, at 4:23 PM, Ken Armstrong <[log in to unmask]> wrote:
> 
> Thanks, Rick, by trial and error, working backwards from the need to come up with 26 as the answer for 7 divided into the bracketed numbers, I was able to figure out what needed to happen within the brackets. And sold my last algebra textbook back to the book store circa 1965, but googling the equation now, the top two results show "3√4" with no X sign which is maybe what you meant by adjacent.
> 
> In any case at the risk of repeating something previously posted, here's a science verse I learned from the mom of a childhood friend. Said mom could have been a physics or chemistry prof, but it was the 1950s, so she raised two sons into those careers instead.
> 
> Scintillate, scintillate, globular vivific,
> Fain how I fathom thy nature specific.
> Loftily posed in the ether capacious,
> Strongly resembling a gem carbonaceous.
> 
> Cheers,
> Ken A
> 
>> On February 20, 2019 12:07:58 PM EST, Richard Seddon <[log in to unmask]> wrote:
>> Within the brackets do the multiplication of adjacent before the sums, then do the division of that sum.  That gives you the first term of the left hand side.  For the next term on the left hand side do the multiplication first and then do the sum of the two terms.
>> 
>> The rules of arithmetic have defeated many a student, and professor, in much higher math.
>> 
>> An algebra text will cover the rules
>> 
>> Sent from my iPad
>> 
>>> On Feb 20, 2019, at 9:32 AM, Ken Armstrong <[log in to unmask]> wrote:
>>> 
>>> Count me among the confused. It's been over 50 years since I've done anything at all with equations, but isn't something amiss in the setup here? In order to get 26 on the left side of the equation before adding it to 55, you have to know that you do not add the 3 to the preceding numbers before multiplying it times the square root of 4. Another set of parentheses is needed around the 3 X sq. rt.4? Or maybe removing the X between 3 and the sq rt of 4?
>>> 
>>> 
>>>> On 2/20/2019 10:28 AM, Richard Seddon wrote:
>>>> 
>>>> For those confused by Rick’s poetry it is a play on the rules of arithmetics.  The reader must follow the rules explicitly.   And, forget the zero
>>>> 
>>>> Sent from my iPad
>>>> 
>>>>> On Feb 20, 2019, at 7:39 AM, Rick Parker <[log in to unmask]> wrote:
>>>>> 
>>>>> (12 + 144 + 20 + 3 x √4) / 7  +  5 x 11  =  9² + 0
>>>>> 
>>>