**
..::.:BLADE-RUNNER ON "PIG-WATTS":.:...::
**

..........................................................................

..::.:BLADE-RUNNER ON "PIG-WATTS":.:...::

..........................................................................

..........................................................................

**Identification of Harmonic Equation 3 as relativity function..**

By analysing Bruce Cathie's "Harmonic Equation 3" we have previously shown that it:

- One part of the equation was to close to cos(45).

- So cos(45) was replaced with cos(60) as suggested by Fuller maybe. And cos(n).

That difference becomes as (√1/c+√2)/(√2(1/c)**3/2) vs (√1/c+2)/(2(1/c)**3/2) i.e. lack of √2 when using cos(60), etc. Not sure about this significance.

- The rest of the expression / equation was also rearranged..totaling in:

- ((1/c)**(-3/2)+cos(radians(d))*c).

- N.B. With c below Zero we get complex numbers.., which at some point also become parallel...?

*Directly to tables:*Forwards. Backwards.

**Then we had our own "infinity function" developed**, this is "python" programming syntax but should be easy to understand; it makes the list..it's not really infinite, but maybe it goes one level deeper for each natural number. Don't know what an actual infinite thing would do because it could never compute..so the code can be modified to go even deeper, ..

Still maybe we did a short-cut at least by running the function through the relativity equation, which displaces the list though it looks identical..

Actually we don't know what the code does so we don't..

So this one goes inside of the equation above..as the variable c, or you can run the procedure.. without it..

def wad(n):

....out=n

....for x in range(1,n): # this is..

........out=(wad(x)*(10/3*2.9)/2160)

........#print(out)

....return(out)

Here it use among other things Wadsworth Constant 10/3 and our own 2.9 (identical to Wien's constant though this one is exactly 2.9 as we have calculated already. ).

This is incorporated into another function containing the relativity equation. And it produced the following evolutionary table of harmonics (in geodesic measures) which may not look exciting, and we have to try to comment it bottom-up (for n from 1 to 16):

x | mycathie(wad(x),60): |

1. | 1.5 (This one is easy, it's just 1.0 in the other list..though it can't be displaced..) |

2. | 0.0025370423892189446 |

3. | 1.0103826935868707e-05 |

4. | 4.484344281483951e-08 |

5. | 2.0057618585548199e-10 |

6. | 8.976067881144512e-13 |

7. | 4.017057371528794e-15 |

8. | 1.797756856293527e-17 |

9. | 8.045516705109457e-20 |

10. | 3.6006170412578767e-22 |

11. | 1.611387256037796e-24 |

12. | 7.211455312490666e-27 (So, and this appears at #10 without Cathie's Modification, and as 7.201234082129259e-22 |

13. | 3.2273488281201e-29 |

14. | 1.4443382101154548e-31, (The speed of light harmonic, 1/x of the next. Or Photons.) |

15. | 6.463859273664839e-34, (This is the preceding's gravity harmonic. Gravitons?) |

16. | 2.8927765267944483e-36, (This could (should) be the anti-matter harmonic.) |

17. | 1.2946067789666512e-38, (Unknown variable, could be Schumann Resonance but it's not certain.) |

The good think about this list is that it is "logical progression" (derived just from sequential numbers 1 and onwards to 17 here. Maybe the universe is like this..

Though if one chose a figure say #15 and cycle the co-sinus values away from 60, at cos(1) we have 1.2925749593178103e-33; similar to #17--..with #16 at cos(90) we have 3.681790443611248e-52 similar to #10 or with cos(406) we have 4.0189828564101395e-36 similar to #7..so maybe there is some kind of system here, but the figures are still derived from the natural numbers in the wad(x) function, first.

We agree now with Bruce Cathie that it would be nice if high society-science data was available to the the public, as when we can make this..and since it has some other obvious implications for the intellectual (or thinking; biology),.. though C.E.R.N. used to distribute a particle physics compendium on over 1000 pages.

**There are also some "inverted" values (for n) belonging..:**(Though the fractions in the real numbers are probably floating point error in the computer here.)

x | |

-25, | (-12.500000000000027+125j) |

-24, | (-12.000000000000025+117.57550765359255j) |

-23, | (-11.500000000000021+110.30412503619256j) |

-22, | (-11.000000000000021+103.18914671611545j) |

-21, | (-10.50000000000002+96.23408959407264j) |

-20, | (-10.000000000000018+89.44271909999158j) |

-19, | (-9.500000000000018+82.81907992727281j) |

-18, | (-9.000000000000016+76.36753236814714j) |

-17, | (-8.500000000000014+70.09279563550022j) |

-16, | (-8.000000000000014+64j) |

-15, | (-7.500000000000012+58.09475019311125j) |

-14, | (-7.0000000000000115+52.38320341483519j) |

-13, | (-6.500000000000011+46.872166581031856j) |

-12, | (-6.00000000000001+41.569219381653056j) |

-11, | (-5.500000000000008+36.4828726939094j) |

-10, | (-5.000000000000007+31.62277660168379j) |

-9, | (-4.500000000000006+27.000000000000004j) |

-8, | (-4.000000000000005+22.627416997969522j) |

-7, | (-3.5000000000000044+18.520259177452136j) |

-6, | (-3.0000000000000036+14.696938456699069j) |

-5, | (-2.5000000000000027+11.180339887498947j) |

-4, | (-2.0000000000000018+8j) |

-3, | (-1.5000000000000013+5.196152422706632j) |

-2, | (-1.0000000000000007+2.8284271247461903j) |

-1, | (-0.5000000000000003+1j) |

**We went**to try other co-sinus values. The one's that gave a good hit for us on #1 was 120,240,270 and 360. Maybe interesting with cos(270) is that the values turn negative after #14:

60/270=0.222222222..∞

∼ ∼

Original wad(x) | → (((1.0 / c) ** (-3.0 / 2.0) + cos(radians(60)) * c)) | → (((1.0 / c) ** (-3.0 / 2.0) + cos(radians(270)) * c)) |

#1::1 | 1.5 | 0.9999999999999998 |

#2::0.004475308641975309 | 0.0025370423892189446 | 0.00029938806823128915 |

#3::2.002838744093888e-05 | 1.0103826935868707e-05 | 8.963321539925984e-08 |

#4::8.96332153992635e-08 | 4.484344281483951e-08 | 2.6835115207728144e-11 |

#5::4.0113630348435826e-10 | 2.0057618585548199e-10 | 8.03411330273708e-15 |

#6::1.7952087655935786e-12 | 8.976067881144512e-13 | 2.4053176613500494e-18 |

#7::8.034113302810769e-15 | 4.017057371528794e-15 | 7.201234067370835e-22 |

#8::3.595513669467782e-17 | 1.797756856293527e-17 | 2.1559634946814902e-25 |

#9::1.6091033397309517e-19 | 8.045516705109457e-20 | 6.454694700365213e-29 |

#10::7.201234082129259e-22 | 3.6006170412578767e-22 | 1.932446233866354e-32 |

#11::3.22277451206402e-24 | 1.611387256037796e-24 | 5.784961039515311e-36 |

#12::1.4422910624977866e-26, here you have the speed-of-light value; some type of geodesic value. *0.966966 offsett form standard. | 7.211455312490666e-27 | 1.72947610666393e-39 |

#13::6.454697656240094e-29, here you have gravity as a succesor of the above value light (1/x) and maybe at a "tighter" frequency (geodesic value) | 3.2273488281201e-29 | 5.067206358199327e-43 |

#14::2.888676420230906e-31 | 1.4443382101154548e-31 | 1.021918577564534e-46 |

#15::1.2927718547329672e-33 | 6.463859273664839e-34 | -1.909965483370213e-49 |

#16::5.785553053588895e-36 | 2.8927765267944483e-36 | -1.0488727613138423e-51 |

#17::2.589213557933302e-38 | 1.2946067789666512e-38 | -4.752141831864575e-54 |

#18::1.158752981173854e-40 | 5.793764905869271e-41 | -2.1284699596798983e-56 |

#19::5.185777230562001e-43 | 2.5928886152810008e-43 | -9.526080885752733e-59 |

So maybe when co-sinus is 270 we get one (1) again at #1 as in the original table though as noted when we cross.. #14 then; it become some negative values.

**The last in this article may have been in vain.**But through work we developed program routine which at least gives a computerized fields difference which again can be computed to dynamic field strength.

The field difference was computed to be nearly harmonic 3474.6210017733647 which can be considered a harmonic of harmonic 432 or 436. This was plotted as avrage field density , error, minimum density of 201340.09636738308 and at cos(284) almost the printed value of near 205655.30426839588.

The values are lines of (magnetic) force per geodesic inch.

Example to compute field difference is here. It looks straight like a circular computation but may use the wad function used in previous article. So to get back to field strength one simply put difference back into "mycathie" (not "mycathie2")....this may seem like overdue logic but since the way it is on the computer it's difficult to crack the actually "process".

Got some help with the above and will post new program soon.

∼

**But exchanging**2.9 for (sqrt(((n/3)*(n*5)/2)*2.9))/n=1.5545631755148024 give backwards tables.

So this might complete the "Tao" of physics-in-a-rough-way, (if you remember the Tao symbol one is the reverse of the other..), but there are of course tons of details, megatons even, to complete yet. If we understood Bruce Cathie for instance better then (and mind you if you want to understand it at all check his books) we already do.

Also it might relate to what we write on the main-page:

"If outer space may consist of Fuller's "all-space-filling cells" then are theory is that near at the intersection or boarders of these cells space my by less (or more) than empty i.e. inverted; less then 0 zero space.

Under a condition such at that then the speed-of-light (or any speed in genereal) would have to increase because say less resistance in space that is as such; inverted.

And it may have links to so-called dark matter."

Here is some of the frequencies/values/xxxx:

16, | 5.017652154371351e-55 | |

17, | 1.2037434053592928e-58 | |

18, | 2.8878011894141115e-62: | Anti-matter |

19, | 6.927884856899729e-66: | Gravity |

20, | 1.6620115251146538e-69: | Maybe electromagnetic |

Again, larger table:

x | Wad | Cathie |

1 | 1.0 | 1.5 |

2 | 0.00023990172461648185 | 0.00012366664284085797 |

3 | 5.75528374739623e-08 | 2.879022576194773e-08 |

4 | 1.380702496657564e-11 | 6.9035637871624056e-12 |

5 | 3.312329101304319e-15 | 1.6561647412860983e-15 |

6 | 7.946334639002675e-19 | 3.973167326584877e-19 |

7 | 1.9063393842764305e-22 | 9.531696921645363e-23 |

8 | 4.573341059922378e-26 | 2.2866705299621675e-26 |

9 | 1.0971524075347475e-29 | 5.4857620376737755e-30 |

10 | 2.632087547347111e-33 | 1.316043773673556e-33 |

11 | 6.314423419501377e-37 | 3.1572117097506894e-37 |

12 | 1.5148410682970832e-40 | 7.574205341485418e-41 |

13 | 3.63412984804344e-44 | 1.8170649240217206e-44 |

14 | 8.718340180258545e-48 | 4.3591700901292735e-48 |

15 | 2.091544845037194e-51 | 1.0457724225185973e-51 |

16 | 5.017652154371351e-55 | 2.5088260771856763e-55 |

17 | 1.2037434053592928e-58 | 6.018717026796466e-59 |

18 | 2.8878011894141115e-62 | 1.443900594707056e-62 |

19 | 6.927884856899729e-66 | 3.463942428449865e-66 |

20 | 1.6620115251146538e-69 | 8.31005762557327e-70 |

21 | 3.987194312074747e-73 | 1.9935971560373737e-73 |

22 | 9.565347918477586e-77 | 4.782673959238794e-77 |

23 | 2.294743462199448e-80 | 1.1473717310997241e-80 |

24 | 5.505129141340441e-84 | 2.752564570670221e-84 |

25 | 1.3206899752440237e-87 | 6.60344987622012e-88 |

26 | 3.1683580274474e-91 | 1.5841790137237003e-91 |

27 | 7.600945549871059e-95 | 3.80047277493553e-95 |

28 | 1.8234799461300397e-98 | 9.1173997306502e-99 |

29 | 4.37455983880166e-102 | 2.1872799194008303e-102 |

30 | 1.0494644497665171e-105 | 5.247322248832587e-106 |

31 | 2.5176833142267462e-109 | 1.2588416571133734e-109 |

MAIN PAGE.

Usefull books:

1. Technical and heavy: | 2. Technical and heavy: | 3. Technical: | 4. Technical/Art: | 5. Technical /fiction : | 6. Technical and heavy: | |||||||

**Notes**on bookes:

1. & 2.: The two volumes Synergetics 1 and 2 (which are "intelocking") describe as the title's say "Explorations in the geometry of thinking." and another way to put this is that the author has put down thinking (how we think) into 4000 pages in geometry form..and it may not totally obvious what this means but should become more clear on any practical application of the material.

3.: "A Fuller Explanation" is complementary book to the two previous written by one of the original authors workers. And some people say this book is a key to the former two.

4.: Benoit Mandlebrot was the inventor of fractal math-theory and this his current book on the subject.

5.: "Discover the truth about time. This book chronicles the most amazing and secretive research project in recorded history. We all know something is out there, we're just not sure exactly what. This book begins to provide some solid clues."

6.: This is the last book Bruce Cathie published. It is allso the most technical and "the one , one should use." (when it comes to the technical).