Do these four coloured lines represent four key constants?

Feel free to talk about anything and everything in this board.
User avatar
Austin Harper
Perpetual Poster
Posts: 4806
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 » Wed Jul 19, 2017 6:59 pm

salomed wrote:
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.

What would be the point of hiding an approximate value of pi in the cover page of a book of sonnets? People have known its approximate value for thousands of years. Archimedes was able to show that 223/71 < π < 22/7 around 250 BCE. See Chronology of computation of π for a good list.
Dum ratio nos ducet, valebimus et multa bene geremus.

User avatar
salomed
Frequent Poster
Posts: 1243
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 7:19 pm

Austin Harper wrote:
salomed wrote:
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.

What would be the point of hiding an approximate value of pi in the cover page of a book of sonnets? People have known its approximate value for thousands of years. Archimedes was able to show that 223/71 < π < 22/7 around 250 BCE. See Chronology of computation of π for a good list.


Well, Brun's constant wasnt discovered until 1919. And another, Eulers(?) was found after 1609.

But that to me is besides the point.

To me the point is that by encoding these constants the encoder is saying something like "Look, this is not just an ordinary cover page! You have found these encoded, keep looking..."

It is all very Dan Brown, sure, but isn't that the purported point? That something amazing is hidden and this is a part of the path, the start of the path, to find it...
Comment savez-vous que vous ne parlez pas bollox?
Sur internet: http://bit.ly/14A0n9H

User avatar
Nikki Nyx
Veteran Poster
Posts: 2042
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 9:53 pm

salomed wrote:
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.
Within each punctuation point on the page, there are infinite points from which to begin drawing lines. There is no indication anywhere as to which of those infinite points is the correct point. A person, faced with the blank page, could draw triangles until the heat death of the Universe without stumbling upon Green's configuration.
Image

salomed wrote:
Nikki Nyx wrote: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.
Wrong. My statement is based on my observation of the typography on the page, my education (which includes the history of printing), and 30 years of graphic design experience. Yours is based on ignorance and gullibility.

salomed wrote:
Nikki Nyx wrote: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.
Take a course in logic, FFS. You're embarrassing yourself. I believe you're referring to affirming the consequent, and no, I'm not. Actually, you are. The printing errors visible on the page prove I'm correct.

salomed wrote:
Nikki Nyx wrote: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 meant to type "number," not "integer." BFD. 3.14248 still isn't pi.

salomed wrote:I am happy that that number is an astounding representation of Pi, if you are not, that is your opinion.
1. It's not my opinion; it's math.
2. Ignorance is bliss. Enjoy your ignorance.
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: 2042
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 » Thu Jul 20, 2017 1:00 am

OMG! You guys are NOT gonna believe what I discovered!!! Check it out...

When I translated the word SONNETS into dCODE, I got this:
19 + 15 + 14 + 14 + 5 + 20 + 19 = 106
Those are the same digits as 1609...all except the 9.
Don't forget that 9, because we're gonna use it in the next equation.

SHAKESPEARE in dCODE is this:
19 + 8 + 1 + 11 + 5 + 19 + 16 + 5 + 1 + 18 + 5 = 108
108 ÷ 9 (from SONNETS) = 12
And there are 12 mathematical constants on the title page! ZOMG!!!
But, wait! There's more!

JOHN DEE translated into dCODE gives us this:
10 + 15 + 8 + 14 + 4 + 5 + 5 = 61
There's the 1 and the 6 again, leaving the 0 and the 9, which make 90.
Clearly, this is the instruction telling us to draw only right triangles! Right? Right?!
And this is backed up by...

ELIZABETH in dCODE, which is this:
5 + 12 + 9 + 26 + 1 + 2 + 5 + 20 + 8 = 88
88 + 2 (to refer to the second printing) = 90
This couldn't BE more obvious!

Plus, when I translated WILLIAM ASPLEY into dCODE, I got this:
23 + 9 + 12 + 12 + 9 + 1 + 13 = 56 for WILLIAM, and this:
1 + 19 + 16 + 12 + 5 + 25 = 78 for ASPLEY
78 - 56 = 22
That’s two 2s, emphasizing that the second printing holds the secret.

I'm totally a believer now, as proven by my use of Comic Sans and dCODE, my penchant for taking coincidence as evidence, my sudden Exclamation Point Tourette's, and my complete disregard for logic!!! Green's a {!#%@} genius!!! Here are some more exclamation points!!!

: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

Matthew Ellard
Real Skeptic
Posts: 26342
Joined: Fri Jun 13, 2008 3:31 am

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

Postby Matthew Ellard » Thu Jul 20, 2017 1:25 am

Nikki Nyx wrote:The G-dot is larger because it is NOT individually set, but part of an engraved block,

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

If I show you other books printed by George Eld with the same printed "G." and "T." for the printer and publisher's names and marks, will you promise the leave the forum forever? :D

(Salomed forgot, on purpose, that George Eld ran a print shop, in Fleet Lane using the same type blocks for other books) :D

Matthew Ellard
Real Skeptic
Posts: 26342
Joined: Fri Jun 13, 2008 3:31 am

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

Postby Matthew Ellard » Thu Jul 20, 2017 1:41 am

salomed wrote:But this isn't a mathematical text book or thesis
That's right Salomed. It's a book containing Shakespeare's Sonnets. Here is the Elizabethan book describing mathematics.
Elizabethan Mathematics 3.jpg


How do you claim people measured the length of lines if commercial rulers don't exist for another 100 years and the Sonnets page does not have a key scale? :lol:
You do not have the required permissions to view the files attached to this post.

Matthew Ellard
Real Skeptic
Posts: 26342
Joined: Fri Jun 13, 2008 3:31 am

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

Postby Matthew Ellard » Thu Jul 20, 2017 2:03 am

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 another city, a year before the typesetter, in Fleet Lane London, re-worked the John Wright original print block to change the book sellers name to William Aspley.

There is no connection between John Dee and George Eld's print shop in London. Dee was in Cambridge before dying in Surry.
:lol:

salomed wrote:Where do the clues lead? The great Pyramid, or so claims Green
Is this where Alan Green mixes up modern kilometers, an incorrect length for Egyptian cubits and inches, all in the same calculation without conversion into a common measurement? :lol:

Matthew Ellard
Real Skeptic
Posts: 26342
Joined: Fri Jun 13, 2008 3:31 am

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

Postby Matthew Ellard » Thu Jul 20, 2017 4:57 am

A history of Eld and Thorpe's printing of the Sonnets.
"The Title Page and Dedication page, A1 and A2, however, differ from the subsequent sheets. Firstly they are a little thicker and heavier. Secondly the printing is different at the bottom of the sheet because different spacing is required to accommodate the names, John Wright and William Aspley: the Aspley imprint required four lines and the Wright five. Thirdly the watermarks also vary, which is crucial....."

"In summary the manuscript of Shake-speares Sonnets, given to Thorpe and Eld, may have had authorial warrant. Whether it was in Shakespeare’s or in a scribal hand with or without emendations cannot be determined. The setting of the type was done by two principal compositors, but the pulls were not likely overseen by Shakespeare, (he may have been away from London because of the severity of the plague in 1609) any emended sheets were mixed with the uncorrected, and the collation of sheets for binding drew indiscriminately on both kinds."
http://www.williamshakespeare-sonnets.c ... stribution

So Salomed. If Shakespeare wasn't there and thus incorrect spellings were included in the Sonnets printing...... and if John Dee was already dead in another city and if Eld's two compositors made up the block .......what the {!#%@} are you even arguing about anymore? :lol:

Other smaller fun facts
Books could not be printed without registration at the guild. The person who requested permission to print Shakespeare's Sonnets was Thomas Thorpe.

"Nevertheless, on May 20, 1609, Thomas Thorpe went to Stationers' Hall and "Entred for his copie vnder th[e h]andes of master WILSON and master Lownes Warden a Booke called SHAKESPEARES sonnettes." This first quarto edition appeared later the same year".

User avatar
salomed
Frequent Poster
Posts: 1243
Joined: Sat Apr 09, 2011 4:18 pm
Custom Title: Cartesian Skeptic

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

Postby salomed » Thu Jul 20, 2017 5:30 am

Nikki Nyx wrote: Within each punctuation point on the page, there are infinite points from which to begin drawing lines. There is no indication anywhere as to which of those infinite points is the correct point.


You just ain't getting this. I suspect on purpose, which is a very Matthew Ellard tactic.

There is an absolute indication: it is whether or not the point falls inside the punctuation:

Screen Shot 2017-07-15 at 12.29.28 PM_1.jpg


That little dot I added to your image, that is not inside the full stop. It doesn't count.

This is what Green calls his first rule of the game, and it makes utter sense:
1) The vertices of each line must always fall within the boundary of the individual dot they’re landing on.


You mention this in one of your firsts posts to me, and even use it, now you have forgotten it? Odd.


Take a course in logic, FFS. You're embarrassing yourself.


You are getting aggressive. Very Ellardy. You are wrong on the logic.

The printing errors visible on the page prove I'm correct.


No they do not.

Ignorance is bliss. Enjoy your ignorance.



I admit huge ignorance. I would rather that than arrogance.

Still, I question and try to resolve my ignorance. I would rather that than faux confidence.
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
Poodle
Has More Than 8K Posts
Posts: 8097
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 » Thu Jul 20, 2017 6:58 am

You've done it again, salomed - you completely ignore facts which have already been pointed out to you.
"There is an absolute indication: it is whether or not the point falls inside the punctuation ...", you said above. But you already know, but choose to ignore, that the physical extent of any of the punctuation marks depended completely upon the viscosity of the ink, the humidity of the atmosphere, the texture of the paper, the act of pulling the print from the block and, probably, whether the printer had argued with his wife the night before. Those punctuation marks could have any dimensions within huge tolerances, yet here you are claiming them as an absolute indication. You can't do that. Using those marks, there is a very large number of DIFFERENT triangles which could be drawn between any three of them. It would be interesting to read your explanation on how the instructions on which of those triangles to use were also encoded onto the page.

User avatar
salomed
Frequent Poster
Posts: 1243
Joined: Sat Apr 09, 2011 4:18 pm
Custom Title: Cartesian Skeptic

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

Postby salomed » Thu Jul 20, 2017 10:05 am

Poodle wrote:You've done it again, salomed - you completely ignore facts which have already been pointed out to you.
"There is an absolute indication: it is whether or not the point falls inside the punctuation ...", you said above. But you already know, but choose to ignore, that the physical extent of any of the punctuation marks depended completely upon the viscosity of the ink, the humidity of the atmosphere, the texture of the paper, the act of pulling the print from the block and, probably, whether the printer had argued with his wife the night before. Those punctuation marks could have any dimensions within huge tolerances, yet here you are claiming them as an absolute indication. You can't do that. Using those marks, there is a very large number of DIFFERENT triangles which could be drawn between any three of them. It would be interesting to read your explanation on how the instructions on which of those triangles to use were also encoded onto the page.


I disagree. I think they were that size and place for a reason. You are just assuming its a "normal" print fir the time. I think it is far from normal.
Comment savez-vous que vous ne parlez pas bollox?
Sur internet: http://bit.ly/14A0n9H

Matthew Ellard
Real Skeptic
Posts: 26342
Joined: Fri Jun 13, 2008 3:31 am

Sonnets Compositors identified

Postby Matthew Ellard » Thu Jul 20, 2017 11:34 pm

salomed wrote:I disagree. I think they were that size and place for a reason. You are just assuming its a "normal" print fir the time. I think it is far from normal.

More bad news for you Salomed. I found the compositors for the Sonnets. George Eld, the printer applied to print the Sonnets with the printers guild as required by law. That document still exists. The compositors were Master Wilson and Master Lownes Warden. (They could read & write) Shakespeare wasn't in London due to the 1609 plague. John Dee dies a year before in another city. John Dee's printer was Thomas Sovssen, not George Eld.

That's not the best bit. The Sonnets are full of typos and errors as the master compositors worked from Shakespeare's handwritten notes. Your claim that hidden shapes were magically encoded has been fully debunked as no one supplied line lengths to the compositors.
:lol:

Here is the Stationers’ Register for 20th May 1609 registering Shakespeare's Sonnets lodged by Thomas Thorpe.
Stationers’ Register Sonnets.jpg
You do not have the required permissions to view the files attached to this post.

User avatar
salomed
Frequent Poster
Posts: 1243
Joined: Sat Apr 09, 2011 4:18 pm
Custom Title: Cartesian Skeptic

Re: Sonnets Compositors identified

Postby salomed » Fri Jul 21, 2017 7:29 am

Matthew Ellard wrote:More bad news for you Salomed.


It is not bad news for me, I have an open and changeable mind. I have nothing nothing invested in any of this. The whole Dee thing, as said, is very new to me.

I found the compositors for the Sonnets. George Eld, the printer applied to print the Sonnets with the printers guild as required by law. That document still exists. The compositors were Master Wilson and Master Lownes Warden. (They could read & write) Shakespeare wasn't in London due to the 1609 plague. John Dee dies a year before in another city. John Dee's printer was Thomas Sovssen, not George Eld.


OK, what is this saying? Is it saying there is no way Dee could have been involved? That he could not have done the Sonnets constants years before this?

I don't care if it was Queen Elizabeth who did it, the interesting point to me, is that it was done. The constants are there and you have shewn (tee hee!) so much about the printing and the printers and the numbers, it has been fascinating, thank you for your research, time and effort.

But the one thing you have not shewn is that the 12 constants are not encoded. And you will get angry at me, call me an idiot, threaten me (shame on you for that one!) and all that jazz/jizz, but that wont change my mind, like you might have done about the Dee question, all that will change my mind is showing the constants are not there. They are, and I am very sure you know this, but unlike me, you never change your mind, not once. Which is the sign of an entrenched entrenchment, not skepticism.


The Sonnets are full of typos and errors as the master compositors worked from Shakespeare's handwritten notes.


This is irrelevant to the point. It matters not to me about the Sonnets contents, I have not even read them. It matters not if Shakespear was involved in the cover, or even wrote them. It matters not to me if the constants were encoded in a printed page or carved in stone or hand written on vellum.

[b]The point that interests is that 12 constants were encoded in one place, many years before some of them were even known to the world.
Comment savez-vous que vous ne parlez pas bollox?
Sur internet: http://bit.ly/14A0n9H

User avatar
Poodle
Has More Than 8K Posts
Posts: 8097
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 » Fri Jul 21, 2017 8:39 am

Except, of course, they weren't. You've been shown that they're not there. You've been told why they can't be there. You have twisted and turned, even admitting that pi is not there after a long defence of its presence. You accept that the printing technology of the time was inaccurate then insist that it could be accurate. You insist that someone of that era would buy a book of poems by a very popular author, look only at the frontispiece, pick out a seemingly random handful of very precise points from a collection of fuzzy dots, intuit the precise lines necessary to fit a conclusion not yet drawn or drawable and then extract mathematical constants, some of which could not have been recognised as such at that time.
Using an identical technique, it would be a fairly simple, if boringly repetitive, job to demonstrate that the complete works of Arthur C. Clarke were encoded within the complete works of Charles Dickens. Well, why not? I'm going to insist that this is a true statement and it will remain true until you personally provide the evidence against it. Then I'm going to call you a liar and insist that I'm correct despite ALL of your evidence against the proposition (what am I saying - it's not a proposition, it's an obvious universal truth).
I'll give you a starter - the works of Charles Dickens can be picked up on the net, although they won't be 'originals', if you see what I mean. Off you go, then. If you can't prove me wrong then I must be correct and even when you do prove me wrong I'll deny it and demand that you do it again. You have a lot of work ahead of you. You may begin now.

User avatar
salomed
Frequent Poster
Posts: 1243
Joined: Sat Apr 09, 2011 4:18 pm
Custom Title: Cartesian Skeptic

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

Postby salomed » Fri Jul 21, 2017 11:31 am

Poodle wrote:Except, of course, they weren't. You've been shown that they're not there.


I missed have missed that one. Kindly point me to it.

You've been told why they can't be there.


You mean the circular reasoning that X cannot be in S at T because at T it was not technically possible to put X in S?

As said, fallacious.


You have twisted and turned, even admitting that pi is not there after a long defence of its presence.


Lies. Pi is there to three decimal places rounded, or two, truncated.Astounding. As I understand it, the other 11 constants are there to 3 truncated places. it is just Pi that has this ambiguity, which Green readily admits. And yet all you can do is jump on that.


You accept that the printing technology of the time was inaccurate then insist that it could be accurate.


Yes, as said, this is special. If the constants are there, the technology was there, even if not in common use.

You insist that someone of that era would buy a book of poems by a very popular author, look only at the frontispiece, pick out a seemingly random handful of very precise points from a collection of fuzzy dots, intuit the precise lines necessary to fit a conclusion not yet drawn or drawable and then extract mathematical constants, some of which could not have been recognised as such at that time.


I insist that is a very plausible and reasonable possibility, yes.


Using an identical technique, it would be a fairly simple, if boringly repetitive, job to demonstrate that the complete works of Arthur C. Clarke were encoded within the complete works of Charles Dickens.
[/quote][/quote]

I am not sure the containing possibility space of CD would be large enough to do encode AC. Maybe. Maybe not. But that is not what we have here. False analogy. We have a handful of points and 12 constants encoded within them. I bet you could not do that on a blank pice of paper placing the dots wherever you like. It is a work of genius, I think.
Comment savez-vous que vous ne parlez pas bollox?
Sur internet: http://bit.ly/14A0n9H

User avatar
Nikki Nyx
Veteran Poster
Posts: 2042
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 » Fri Jul 21, 2017 9:30 pm

salomed wrote:
Nikki Nyx wrote:Within each punctuation point on the page, there are infinite points from which to begin drawing lines. There is no indication anywhere as to which of those infinite points is the correct point.

You just ain't getting this. I suspect on purpose, which is a very Matthew Ellard tactic.
NO, Salomed, YOU are the one who's not getting it, because you refuse to be logical. Stop and reread what I wrote, then think about it before jumping to conclusions. Let's try it again, step by step:
• A person buying the William Aspley edition of Shakespeare's sonnets is initially faced with a blank title page. No triangles. No circle. He does not know what you know, nor does he have the benefit of Green's explanation. With me so far? All he sees is this:
Image

• The only thing on his mind is reading poetry; that's why he bought the sonnets. He may glance at the title page—about at much as you do when reading a book—but he's probably not going to examine it in depth, or even notice its typography, since absolutely NOTHING about its typography stands out as being different from anything else printed at that time.

• Let's assume, for the sake of argument, that he happens to be unusually observant, and notices that the G-dot is larger than every other dot on the title page. That alone won't cause him to begin playing connect-the-dots on the title page, because it's not a typographical anomaly for that time. Especially if he's a reader (unusual) and owns other printings by G. Eld (likely if he's a local). He'll just turn the page and start reading sonnets.

• Now, let's take it a step further and assume he's scored some opium. He shoves aside the giant purple caterpillar, makes his way through the mushroom forest, and decides to see what happens if he does play connect-the-dots. But, oh noes! No one has invented the ruler yet! However, the mushroom forest yields up a straight, but unmarked scrap of wood, a sweet quill made from a peacock feather, and giant squid ink. Now...

How the {!#%@} does he know exactly where on each dot to start drawing? He could start from any of the points I've added, or any of the infinite points I haven't added.
Image

• Ok, so he's drawn some triangles. But, oh noes! No one has invented the T-square yet! However will he be able to draw RIGHT triangles? Answer: he can't. Nor can he measure whatever triangles he manages to draw—because he has no ruler, remember?—so he has NO bloody numbers to divide. Therefore, he canNOT come up with what Green did. (And even if, by some absolutely random one-in-an-infinity-minus-one chance he does come up with the twelve numbers Green did, most of them mean absolutely nothing to him! Because they haven't been {!#%@} discovered yet!)

Even if, as you have said, all of this was not meant for someone in 1609 to discover, but for someone in 2009 to discover, the overwhelming majority of this logical reasoning still applies. There is NOTHING on the title page or within any of the sonnets that would lead a person to start drawing triangles on the title page. Even if there was, it would be impossible for that someone, without foreknowledge of Green's configuration, to draw them in exactly the correct places. The only reason YOU can do it is because you already know where they belong, because Green has given you a deliberately engineered list of rules by which to draw them, a list of rules that no one before Green had! Because he made up the whole {!#%@} thing!

salomed wrote:
Nikki Nyx wrote:The printing errors visible on the page prove I'm correct.
No they do not.
Yes, they do. They prove that that degree of precision in typesetting was not possible. Or do you think everything else on the page was set by normal circa-1609 typesetting, but the punctuation was set by magic? Here's a printing by George Eld from 1624, fifteen years after the William Aspley printing. While it's clear that this is a huge improvement, the red lines show the letters are still not lined up along a common baseline, the green rectangles show the lines of text are not parallel to each other, and the pink ellipses show that overinking was still an issue. Fifteen years later!
Image

salomed wrote:
Nikki Nyx wrote:Ignorance is bliss. Enjoy your ignorance.
I admit huge ignorance. I would rather that than arrogance. Still, I question and try to resolve my ignorance. I would rather that than faux confidence.
But you haven't questioned OR tried to resolve your ignorance. Instead, you've repeatedly denied the factual information that's been presented to you in favor of a belief that has no basis in fact. Further, it is not arrogance to insist on facts...and the facts from history and mathematics, bolstered by probabilities and logical reasoning, clearly point to this being a hoax. It's a clever one, but it's a hoax nonetheless.
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: 26342
Joined: Fri Jun 13, 2008 3:31 am

Re: Sonnets Compositors identified

Postby Matthew Ellard » Sat Jul 22, 2017 1:06 am

salomed wrote: That he (John Dee ) could not have done the Sonnets constants years before this?

John Dee dies in 1608. The Sonnets are registered for printing on 20th May 1609, at the Guild, by publisher Thomas Thorpe. Thomas Thorpe writes in the registry the "hands of" will be Master compositor Mason and Master compositor Warden at printer George Eld's Fleet Lane print shop
Elizabethan Compositor.jpg


Midsummer's Night Idiocy
Ghost of John Dee : "I need you to do something on the Sonnets title page"
Compositor Warden : "Sorry mate. Thorpe is paying for this job. Pay your own printer for your own book."
Ghost of John Dee : "I need you to include exact spacing between punctuation type blocks"
Compositor Warden : "No can do. The size is fixed by the type block and print blocks"
Ghost of John Dee : "It must be to three decimal spaces""
Compositor Warden : "What is decimal? We use inches and a sixteenth of an inch is the smallest measurement"
Ghost of John Dee : "People reading this, need to measure the distance between punctuation"
Compositor Warden : "How? Do you want me to print a scale key like a cartographer on someone else's book of poems? Are you drunk?
Ghost of John Dee : "I'm hiding the secret ratio for the circumference of circle to its radius."
Compositor Warden : "That's already published in a cooper's almanac for 5d. Piss off"
Ghost of John Dee : "Can't we do the same?"
Compositor Warden : "You would need to have a wood block illustration carved to show mathematics"
Ghost of John Dee : "I only want to use punctuation, in a book of poems"
Compositor Warden : "Piss Off you loony and go away"
:D
You do not have the required permissions to view the files attached to this post.
Last edited by Matthew Ellard on Sun Jul 23, 2017 5:11 am, edited 1 time in total.

Matthew Ellard
Real Skeptic
Posts: 26342
Joined: Fri Jun 13, 2008 3:31 am

Debunk Sonnets "woo" Alan Green

Postby Matthew Ellard » Sat Jul 22, 2017 1:35 am

Nikki Nyx wrote:But, oh noes! No one has invented the ruler yet!
It's funnier than that. You can't use a soft quill tip against a hard edged ruler anyway. The hard metal nib ink pen is a later invention, as is the ruler. Gord and I already pointed this out when Salomed started spamming this ridiculous "woo" claim.

Archaeology and Anachronisms
When an archaeologist wants to date an object, that does not contain any date-able evidence itself, the archaeologist will look at and date the layers of dirt above and below that object. In Anthropology, we were trained to do the same thing with the layers of technology and implementation use before and after the observed object.

There was no need for a domestic hard edged measuring ruler in Elizabethan England as there was no writing tool that could use it, only the quill.
:D

User avatar
Nikki Nyx
Veteran Poster
Posts: 2042
Joined: Wed Jun 07, 2017 12:40 am
Custom Title: cognitively consonant
Location: playing croquet in Wonderland

Re: Debunk Sonnets "woo" Alan Green

Postby Nikki Nyx » Sat Jul 22, 2017 2:54 am

Matthew Ellard wrote:There was no need for a domestic hard edged measuring ruler in Elizabethan England as there was no writing tool that could use it, only the quill. [/color] :D
You know, I wrote "quill" and didn't even think of that, but it's absolutely true.

Also, as long as I'm being called "arrogant" and being accused of ad hominem attacks, I'd like to share a little ditty I threw together in my copious spare time (actually 5 minutes). I think it's à propos at this point, and I'd like to dedicate it to the man who made all this possible...the one, the only, Bardcode. Ahem...mi mi mi mi mi. Here goes.

Daydream Believer
(verse)
On this broadside hide some signs
Connect the dots and draw some lines
'Cause it's all part of Alan's grand design

This design, it's a hoax
Cobbled up for simple folks
The only meaning's one that's been assigned

(chorus)
Cheer up, creepy Green
Salomed's still keen
He's a daydream believer
In your John Dee routine

(verse)
He's done all the math
Followed down your garden path
Logic doesn't matter in his view

He's a full-time acolyte
Sings your praises day and night
But don't be fooled: he loves everything woo

(chorus)
Cheer up, creepy Green
Your fan boy's on the scene
He's a daydream believer
In your hoax byzantine

Cheer up, creepy Green
Salomed's still keen
He's a daydream believer
In your John Dee routine

(fade to black)
This parody is the original work of Nikki Nyx © 2017
I'm watching you, Green!

Image
Last edited by Nikki Nyx on Sat Jul 22, 2017 4:15 am, edited 1 time in total.
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: 26342
Joined: Fri Jun 13, 2008 3:31 am

Re: Debunk Sonnets "woo" Alan Green

Postby Matthew Ellard » Sat Jul 22, 2017 3:15 am

Nikki Nyx wrote: I'd like to dedicate it to the man who made all this possible...the one, the only, Bardcode. Ahem...mi mi mi mi mi. Here goes.

Daydream Believer


I think Alan Green has already established his "escape route" for when his hilarious Shakespeare claims are pulled apart by historians and skeptics. "I was joking all the time"

Alan Green and Davy Jones from the Monkees, co-authored a book called "Masters of the Multi-media manipulation machine" (1992). The book is about how people lie to make money by faking stories. Salomed knows this book exists, because we told him six months ago, but he refuses to discuss it as he knows Alan is desperate to make some money from his Shakespeare scam.
:D

mutant monkees book.jpg


You may remember that The Monkees were in an anti-media-manipulation film called "Head" after they got dropped by their label. :D
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Head_(film)
You do not have the required permissions to view the files attached to this post.

User avatar
Nikki Nyx
Veteran Poster
Posts: 2042
Joined: Wed Jun 07, 2017 12:40 am
Custom Title: cognitively consonant
Location: playing croquet in Wonderland

Re: Debunk Sonnets "woo" Alan Green

Postby Nikki Nyx » Sat Jul 22, 2017 4:13 am

Matthew Ellard wrote:I think Alan Green has already established his "escape route" for when his hilarious Shakespeare claims are pulled apart by historians and skeptics. "I was joking all the time"

Alan Green and Davy Jones from the Monkees, co-authored a book called "Masters of the Multi-media manipulation machine" (1992). The book is about how people lie to make money by faking stories. Salomed knows this book exists, because we told him six months ago, but he refuses to discuss it as he knows Alan is desperate to make some money from his Shakespeare scam.
:D
If he steals my parody, I'm suing him. I'm going back to edit it with a copyright mark. Green has no shame.
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: 1243
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 22, 2017 6:53 am

Nikki Nyx wrote:NO, Salomed, YOU are the one who's not getting it, because you refuse to be logical. Stop and reread what I wrote, then think about it before jumping to conclusions. Let's try it again, step by step:


I have not jumped to conclusions. I have made no conclusions. You are assuming with all your steps something I am not. I am not assuming anything about the reasons for the encoding. I am not assuming about the methods.

I am only interested in the reality or otherwise of it.

12 constants are there, encoded between the points.


Let us take e:

Do you agree that 35.39 divided by 13.02 is 2.718?
Do you agree that 2.718 is e to three decimal places?
Do you agree that e was discovered after 1609?

This is what you need to focus on to satisfy me. Not your speculations about people taking opium and staring at the page.
Comment savez-vous que vous ne parlez pas bollox?
Sur internet: http://bit.ly/14A0n9H

User avatar
Nikki Nyx
Veteran Poster
Posts: 2042
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 22, 2017 5:01 pm

You're a hopelessly gullible believer in nonsense who has abandoned logic and critical thinking.
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: 1243
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 22, 2017 5:12 pm

Nikki Nyx wrote:You're a hopelessly gullible believer in nonsense who has abandoned logic and critical thinking.


I am, yes. Help me.

Do you agree that 35.39 divided by 13.02 is 2.718?
Do you agree that 2.718 is e to three decimal places?
Do you agree that e was discovered after 1609?
Comment savez-vous que vous ne parlez pas bollox?
Sur internet: http://bit.ly/14A0n9H

User avatar
Nikki Nyx
Veteran Poster
Posts: 2042
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 22, 2017 5:29 pm

I have helped you. You insist on ignoring the historical, typographical, mathematical, and logical evidence that's been presented that clearly support this as being a hoax.

The point that I and others have been trying to make is that the numbers Green alleges to be there are quite beside the point. They are there because he engineered his hoax quite cleverly, not because someone in 1609 "encrypted" them into the typography. This is the evidence you're ignoring, Salomed.
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: 1243
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 22, 2017 5:51 pm

Nikki Nyx wrote:I have helped you. You insist on ignoring the historical, typographical, mathematical, and logical evidence that's been presented that clearly support this as being a hoax.

The point that I and others have been trying to make is that the numbers Green alleges to be there are quite beside the point. They are there because he engineered his hoax quite cleverly, not because someone in 1609 "encrypted" them into the typography. This is the evidence you're ignoring, Salomed.


You will not answer the question because you know it opens the gate to that which you have so vehemently and belligerently shouted down.

Do you agree that 35.39 divided by 13.02 is 2.718?
Do you agree that 2.718 is e to three decimal places?
Do you agree that e was discovered after 1609?
Comment savez-vous que vous ne parlez pas bollox?
Sur internet: http://bit.ly/14A0n9H

User avatar
Nikki Nyx
Veteran Poster
Posts: 2042
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 22, 2017 7:45 pm

salomed wrote:Do you agree that 35.39 divided by 13.02 is 2.718?
No. 35.39 ÷ 13.02 = 2.71812596. Those last five digits make all the difference in the world, as my answer to your next question will show.

salomed wrote:Do you agree that 2.718 is e to three decimal places?
No, I do not. First, the number arrived at by Green's division is 2.71812596, which is not Euler's Number. Euler's Number, when truncated to eight decimal places, is 2.71828182. Green's number is a completely different number. It is not Euler's Number by any stretch of the imagination. Ask a mathematician.

salomed wrote:Do you agree that e was discovered after 1609?
"The first references to the constant [known as e] were published in 1618 in the table of an appendix of a work on logarithms by John Napier."

salomed wrote:You will not answer the question because you know it opens the gate to that which you have so vehemently and belligerently shouted down.
I have answered your questions. Frankly, Salomed, you are the one who has opened yourself to ridicule with your repeated refusal to entertain factual evidence, your insistence on ignoring accepted principles of mathematics, and your continual denial of logical reasoning. If you wish to continue believing in this blatant hoax, feel free. But do not expect a rational skeptic to support your irrational belief in what we've clearly proven to be a cleverly engineered hoax. These numbers are NOT mathematical constants.
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: 1243
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 22, 2017 8:01 pm

Nikki Nyx wrote:
salomed wrote:Do you agree that 35.39 divided by 13.02 is 2.718?
No. 35.39 ÷ 13.02 = 2.71812596. Those last five digits make all the difference in the world, as my answer to your next question will show.


You are a distractor.

You won't accept the rounding of Pi, insisting on Truncation. And yet for E you wont accept Rounding, insisting on Truncation.


salomed wrote:Do you agree that 2.718 is e to three decimal places?
No, I do not. First, the number arrived at by Green's division is 2.71812596, which is not Euler's Number. Euler's Number, when truncated to eight decimal places, is 2.71828182. Green's number is a completely different number. It is not Euler's Number by any stretch of the imagination. Ask a mathematician.


That is e to three decimal places, is it is not, what is e to three decimal places?
These numbers are NOT mathematical constants.


Kindly, MatthewNikki, tell me what these constants are to three decimal places, then I can go and check Green's work:

e
e-1
Phi
0/Phi
Bruns constant
The square root of 3
The square root of 5
The square root of 2
The square root of 6
And the rest... actually, no, let us go with these 9.

What would they be to three decimal places?
Comment savez-vous que vous ne parlez pas bollox?
Sur internet: http://bit.ly/14A0n9H

User avatar
Nikki Nyx
Veteran Poster
Posts: 2042
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 22, 2017 9:22 pm

salomed wrote:
Nikki Nyx wrote:
salomed wrote:Do you agree that 35.39 divided by 13.02 is 2.718?
No. 35.39 ÷ 13.02 = 2.71812596. Those last five digits make all the difference in the world, as my answer to your next question will show.
You are a distractor. You won't accept the rounding of Pi, insisting on Truncation. And yet for E you wont accept Rounding, insisting on Truncation.
Your statement makes no sense. Again, you don't understand what I'm saying. For elementary school-level geometry, it's perfectly fine to truncate pi to 3.14. But if you divide one number by another, and your answer is exactly 3.14, you have not found pi; you have found 3 14/100.

salomed wrote:
Nikki Nyx wrote:
salomed wrote:Do you agree that 2.718 is e to three decimal places?
No, I do not. First, the number arrived at by Green's division is 2.71812596, which is not Euler's Number. Euler's Number, when truncated to eight decimal places, is 2.71828182. Green's number is a completely different number. It is not Euler's Number by any stretch of the imagination. Ask a mathematician.
That is e to three decimal places, is it is not, what is e to three decimal places?
There is no such concept, in mathematics, as "e to three decimal places." The number is either e, or it's not e. The number that results from Green's division is not e; it is 2 71812596/100000000.

Nikki Nyx wrote:
salomed wrote:These numbers are NOT mathematical constants.
Kindly, MatthewNikki, tell me what these constants are to three decimal places, then I can go and check Green's work.
If you continue to address me by a moniker that is not mine, I will continue to tell you to GFY. Clear? You have spent a considerable amount of time insulting the members of this forum, to the extent that you should probably be banned. Last warning. If you're unable to carry on a civil discussion, then go cry on Green's shoulder and leave the rational thought to the big boys and girls. And, again, there is no such concept as a mathematical constant rounded up or down, truncated, or otherwise changed from its original form. A number is either a mathematical constant or it is not. Approximation of a constant is not a constant. Period.
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: 1243
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 22, 2017 9:37 pm

Nikki Nyx wrote:Your statement makes no sense. Again, you don't understand what I'm saying. For elementary school-level geometry, it's perfectly fine to truncate pi to 3.14. But if you divide one number by another, and your answer is exactly 3.14, you have not found pi; you have found 3 14/100.


Which is close enough to Pi to be a sign to a 400 year old cryptographer.

If you continue to address me by a moniker that is not mine, I will continue to tell you to GFY. Clear? You have spent a considerable amount of time insulting the members of this forum, to the extent that you should probably be banned.


You have insulted me, told me to go {!#%@} myself. I am not crying about bannings. Silly man.

Last warning.


More threats. Aggressive man.
Comment savez-vous que vous ne parlez pas bollox?
Sur internet: http://bit.ly/14A0n9H

User avatar
Poodle
Has More Than 8K Posts
Posts: 8097
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 » Sat Jul 22, 2017 11:18 pm

salomed wrote:
Nikki Nyx wrote:Your statement makes no sense. Again, you don't understand what I'm saying. For elementary school-level geometry, it's perfectly fine to truncate pi to 3.14. But if you divide one number by another, and your answer is exactly 3.14, you have not found pi; you have found 3 14/100.


Which is close enough to Pi to be a sign to a 400 year old cryptographer.

I assume you mean to say a cryptographer from 400 years ago. But never mind - how would you know that 3.14 would have been close enough? Where's your research which tells you that? Do you assume that Elizabethan mathematicians were a tad on the primitive side? Here's your problem in a nutshell again, salomed - you assert things which you merely assume to be true. Please inform us of the state of late 16th century mathematics. Or could it be that you've done no research whatsoever into that subject? Is it possible that you've fallen for this particular flavour of BS having not done your basic homework?

User avatar
Nikki Nyx
Veteran Poster
Posts: 2042
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 23, 2017 12:03 am

salomed wrote:
Nikki Nyx wrote:Your statement makes no sense. Again, you don't understand what I'm saying. For elementary school-level geometry, it's perfectly fine to truncate pi to 3.14. But if you divide one number by another, and your answer is exactly 3.14, you have not found pi; you have found 3 14/100.
Which is close enough to Pi to be a sign to a 400 year old cryptographer.
No, it's not.
265 AD - 3 decimal places - Chinese mathematician Liu Hui
480 AD - 7 decimal places - Chinese mathematician Zu Chongzhi
1424 AD - 16 decimal places - Persian astronomer Jamshīd al-Kāshī
1593 AD - 15 decimal places - Flemish mathematician Adriaan van Roomen
1596 AD - 20 decimal places - Dutch mathematician Ludolph van Ceulen

salomed wrote:
Nikki Nyx wrote:If you continue to address me by a moniker that is not mine, I will continue to tell you to GFY. Clear? You have spent a considerable amount of time insulting the members of this forum, to the extent that you should probably be banned.
You have insulted me, told me to go {!#%@} myself. I am not crying about bannings. Silly man.
I've insulted you?! This nasty diatribe was directed at me:
salomed wrote:You arrogant egoist cynics, you don't understand the concept of certainty because of your own cognitive dissonance. You think you are certain you are certain, a pathetic, arrogant entrenchment.

You do not prove, you shout and proclaim, zealously, and think you are so right and find being wrong so hard. I am often wrong, so much, that comes with being an open minded true skeptic, not some internet cynic who hides behind the wall of information provided by your tiresome google searches.
I directly insulted you once. You, OTOH, have repeated indulged in ad hominem attacks against me, not only in this thread, but in your Shroud thread, a fact to which other members can attest. Also, I'm female.

salomed wrote:
Nikki Nyx wrote:Last warning.
More threats. Aggressive man.
It's not a threat. You have mistakenly taken as insulting criticisms of your "beliefs, ideologies, philosophies, claims of fact, scientific hypotheses, paranormal claims, or political opinions." Such criticisms are within forum guidelines. Repeated personal insults, such as you have proffered, especially when such insults are handed out in more than one thread, are a violation.

Level Three
Harassment by means of continual, off-topic personal attacks, e.g. following a user from topic to topic and attacking them personally.
Administrative action: Warnings; Locking of posts and/or topics; moving of posts and/or topics; possible deletion of offending content. Repeated violations may result in lockouts from various parts of the forum and/or the loss of certain posting privileges.

Level Four
Repeated, off-topic personal attacks that continue beyond a single page in a given topic.
Administrative action: Warnings; locking of posts and/or topics; moving of posts and/or topics. Isolated personal attacks within a topic will not be considered actionable. Challenges to arguments and statements will not be considered personal attacks.
At this point, your actions constitute both harassment and repeated, off-topic personal attacks. Hence my warning, which was not a threat. I don't have to put up with your behavior; it violates forum guidelines.

You've also failed to comprehend the purpose of this forum. "Like The Skeptics Society, this forum is dedicated to the promotion of science and critical thinking, and to the investigation of extraordinary claims and revolutionary ideas." When you post nonsense and fail to support it with factual evidence, and when members are easily able to chip away at your hypotheses with factual evidence, the failure is yours, not ours. Blaming us for your failure is projection.
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: 26342
Joined: Fri Jun 13, 2008 3:31 am

Debunking Alan Green and Salomed

Postby Matthew Ellard » Sun Jul 23, 2017 2:20 am

salomed wrote: I am only interested in the reality or otherwise of it.
Nope. Your hilarious claim was shredded by skeptics and historians. Elizabethan's already knew pi and mathematics from Thomas Bedwell and Thomas Hood. (The charge for an Elizabethan cannon is a cylinder and mathematicians worked for the military)

You also are totally unaware that many Elizabethan books were published on mathematics.


Making mathematical practice: gentlemen, practitioners and artisans in Elizabethan England
The best place to study the practitioners’ legitimation of mathematical practice is in the prefaces to their texts. Following the conventions of 16th century authorship, writers on mathematics frequently offered an introductory apologia for their subject matter. John Dee’s lengthy Mathematicall Praeface to the 1570 English edition of Euclid is much the best-known and the most elaborate example of this genre. Similar (though smaller-scale) defences are common in works such as Robert Recorde’s The Path-Way to Knowledge (1551) and Leonard Digges’s posthumous Pantometria (1571).

However, the most highly valued virtue in the discourse of mathematical practice was undoubtedly that of utility. Practitioners wrote of mathematics as an appropriate discipline both for war and peace. Through the preparation of plans, the setting out of fortifications, the design of ships, the improvement of artillery, and the ordering of soldiers, mathematical practice could bolster military decision-making and inform martial action. Mathematics was also represented as an essential aid in more pacific contexts: for trade and merchants’ accounts; for timekeeping and the calendar; for architecture; the surveying of land; measurement of materials; and the techniques of oceanic navigation, amongst many others. At all points in the affairs of the commonwealth and its leaders, mathematics was depicted as a vital resource. The image was of mathematics as action, able to intervene in the most diverse of practices and to bring about beneficial improvement.

Why would John Dee use division to calculate irrational numbers that he knew could not be calculated by division and thus make himself look stupid forever? :lol:

Matthew Ellard
Real Skeptic
Posts: 26342
Joined: Fri Jun 13, 2008 3:31 am

Re: Sonnets Compositors identified

Postby Matthew Ellard » Sun Jul 23, 2017 5:15 am

salomed wrote: That he (John Dee ) could not have done the Sonnets constants years before this?

John Dee dies in 1608. The Sonnets are registered for printing on 20th May 1609, at the Guild, by publisher Thomas Thorpe. Thomas Thorpe writes in the registry the "hands of" will be Master compositor Mason and Master compositor Warden at printer George Eld's Fleet Lane print shop
Elizabethan Compositor.jpg


Midsummer's Night Idiocy
Ghost of John Dee : "I need you to do something on the Sonnets title page"
Compositor Warden : "Sorry mate. Thorpe is paying for this job. Pay your own printer for your own book."
Ghost of John Dee : "I need you to include exact spacing between punctuation type blocks"
Compositor Warden : "No can do. The size is fixed by the type block and print blocks"
Ghost of John Dee : "It must be to three decimal spaces""
Compositor Warden : "What is decimal? We use inches and a sixteenth of an inch is the smallest measurement"
Ghost of John Dee : "People reading this, need to measure the distance between punctuation"
Compositor Warden : "How? Do you want me to print a scale key like a cartographer on someone else's book of poems? Are you drunk?
Ghost of John Dee : "I'm hiding the secret ratio for the circumference of circle to its radius."
Compositor Warden : "That's already published in a cooper's almanac for 5d. Piss off"
Ghost of John Dee : "Can't we do the same?"
Compositor Warden : "You would need to have a wood block illustration carved to show mathematics"
Ghost of John Dee : "I only want to use punctuation, in a book of poems"
Compositor Warden : "Piss Off you loony and go away"
:D
You do not have the required permissions to view the files attached to this post.

User avatar
salomed
Frequent Poster
Posts: 1243
Joined: Sat Apr 09, 2011 4:18 pm
Custom Title: Cartesian Skeptic

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

Postby salomed » Sun Jul 23, 2017 7:16 am

t takes two and you started the insulting, not me. Let us, then, try to be civil.


Nikki Nyx wrote:For elementary school-level geometry, it's perfectly fine to truncate pi to 3.14.


That is good enough for me. How about the other constants?
Comment savez-vous que vous ne parlez pas bollox?
Sur internet: http://bit.ly/14A0n9H

User avatar
Nikki Nyx
Veteran Poster
Posts: 2042
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 23, 2017 8:13 pm

salomed wrote:t takes two and you started the insulting, not me. Let us, then, try to be civil.
No, Salomed, it does not "take two," and I neither started the insulting nor responded in kind. You're as willfully blind to your own abusive behavior as you are to your lack of logic. Simultaneously, you perceive yourself to be a victim, and attacks on your argument to be ad hominem, which they are not.

Your ad hominem attacks on me began on 12 July. (Note: Since you seem to be unaware of exactly what an ad hominem attack is, allow me to define it for you. It is an attack on the character of your opponent, quite independent of your opponent's argument. Clear?) Let's review.

12 July
salomed wrote:So your argument (and now your acolyte/sockpuppet's) is that we are both lying. LINK

14 July
salomed wrote:MatthewNikki, why don't you just show Alan Green is wrong and that this is not the case LINK

salomed wrote:MatthewNikki, exactly. You have done all manner of of image editing and drawing lines, spent hours on this, and yet you still refuse to do this very simple thing, as you have for months. It supports my belief that you have some other agenda in your head-in-sand denial. LINK

salomed wrote:You, MatthewNikki, go on and on about this… If you are not Ellard, you use his same slanderous tone. Your whole, desperate, tag-team little attack has reduced to 0.5 not rounding up to 1.0. LINK

19 Jul
salomed wrote:You have no evidence, or even reason over and above your entrenchment, to suppose it. LINK

20 July
salomed wrote:You just ain't getting this. I suspect on purpose, which is a very Matthew Ellard tactic. You are getting aggressive. Very Ellardy. You are wrong on the logic. I admit huge ignorance. I would rather that than arrogance. Still, I question and try to resolve my ignorance. I would rather that than faux confidence. LINK

22 July
salomed wrote:You will not answer the question because you know it opens the gate to that which you have so vehemently and belligerently shouted down. LINK

salomed wrote:You are a distractor. Kindly, MatthewNikki, tell me what these constants are to three decimal places LINK

At this point, in the space of ten days, your ad hominem attacks included calling me a sock puppet, accusing me of having an ulterior agenda, calling me by someone else's name (thus intimating my arguments were not my own), accusing me of slander, calling me desperate, unreasoning, entrenched, purposely dense, aggressive, arrogant, falsely confident, vehement, belligerent, and a distractor.

Yet in that space of ten days, I did not retaliate. Not once. Reread the thread, and you will not find one post where I indulged in ad hominem attack against you. Finally, I told you to GFY, a directive that was well-deserved and long overdue after your constant and repeated verbal abuse, which was not confined to this thread, but also perpetrated in your "Shroud of Turin" thread.

You are not the victim, Salomed; you are the abuser. And you owe me a large and sincere apology.
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: 1243
Joined: Sat Apr 09, 2011 4:18 pm
Custom Title: Cartesian Skeptic

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

Postby salomed » Sun Jul 23, 2017 8:49 pm

Nikki Nyx wrote:You are not the victim, Salomed; you are the abuser. And you owe me a large and sincere apology.


I am sorry. I assumed you were Matthew Ellard, this is the internet, after all. I will now assume you are not. I apologize.
Comment savez-vous que vous ne parlez pas bollox?
Sur internet: http://bit.ly/14A0n9H

User avatar
scrmbldggs
Has No Life
Posts: 19626
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 » Sun Jul 23, 2017 10:22 pm

salomed wrote:
Nikki Nyx wrote:You are not the victim, Salomed; you are the abuser. And you owe me a large and sincere apology.


I am sorry. I assumed you were Matthew Ellard , this is the internet, after all. I will now assume you are not. I apologize.

There, that's better.
Hi, Io the lurker.

User avatar
Nikki Nyx
Veteran Poster
Posts: 2042
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 23, 2017 11:01 pm

salomed wrote:
Nikki Nyx wrote:You are not the victim, Salomed; you are the abuser. And you owe me a large and sincere apology.


I am sorry. I assumed you were Matthew Ellard, this is the internet, after all. I will now assume you are not. I apologize.

Thank you. I accept your apology. I'm certainly willing (and clearly able) to carry on a civil discussion.

I do, however, quite strongly suggest that you refrain from taking offense when someone attacks your argument, presenting factual evidence to show why it doesn't hold water. When you then ignore or deny that factual evidence in favor of your own personal assumptions, it's exceedingly frustrating. This thread is a perfect example. It's as if we've presented you with NASA videos and photos, astronomical geometry, meteorological data, and other factual evidence, yet you insist on maintaining that the Earth is flat because you can see the horizon.

Here, no one is denying that Green has been able to connect the dots to make right triangles and a circle.

No one is claiming his division is incorrect.

What we are maintaining is that compositors working for George Eld did not encrypt half-assed approximations of mathematical constants not known at that time into some, but not all of the punctuation marks of the title page of Shakespeare's sonnets, precisely spacing said punctuation marks using cast lead letter sorts hand-set into homemade frames, then hand-tightened, hand-inked, and printed onto extremely porous paper, on the off-chance that a person, having absolutely no clue or instructions, might be able to exactly connect minute points within those punctuation marks into an exact replica of the intended configuration.

But a modern-day person with a computer could easily create such a configuration as a hoax.

If you wish to continue believing—despite the plethora of historical, typographical, mathematical, and logical evidence that's been presented to you—feel free. But don't expect to be considered a skeptic, because you have ignored and denied factual evidence that should have convinced you a hundred times over.
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: 26342
Joined: Fri Jun 13, 2008 3:31 am

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

Postby Matthew Ellard » Mon Jul 24, 2017 12:02 am

Don't let Salomed distract from his ridiculous claims, by claiming he is being badly treated. That is exactly what all the "woosters" do to change the topic when their claims gets shredded.

Everyone here understands the large list of facts that knocks out Salomed's hilarious "Sonnets" claim. You have seen Salomed ignore all these points without comment. That is what he does. It's what Gorgeous does. It's what Placid does. It's what all the "woosters" do.

I see no reason to be nice to these people. They will keep coming back no matter what, because no one else pays them any attention. If you review the David Icke forum or God-like-Productions forum, you will see a 100 Salomeds, 100 Gorgeouses, 100 Placids all trying to out do each other with more outrageous claims, to get attention. They are very lonely people.


Return to “General Discussion”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest