Originally posted by royalchickenELO: prog rock? My spine shivers at the thought. But hey, apprently "2 Many DJs" are 'Rock and Roll' according to the online databases, as oposed to "Dance" like any sensible being would classify them, so who are we to argue...
Hmmm. Mike, thank you for the explanation, spin and all 😉. "Prog" in this context is short for "progressive", and describes bands like ELO, Procul Harum, Yes, Emerson, Lake, and Palmer, etc.
Originally posted by royalchickenProgressive,eh? What did they progress from or to? Just curious. Acutally i have some old Electric Light tapes about somewhere and a few Yes as well. Never listened to the lyrics, but good music...
Hmmm. Mike, thank you for the explanation, spin and all 😉. "Prog" in this context is short for "progressive", and describes bands like ELO, Procul Harum, Yes, Emerson, Lake, and Palmer, etc.
You say it is "Progressive"? Well darn. I'll be back in a while. Got to go find them and burn them.😠🙄 There will be no progress on my watch! No sir! Not while I got a gun in my cold dead hand.
Or some such mixed and badly mangled metaphore. Say... You telling me that "Progressive" isn't a euphimism? Geez. Brutal.
1 edit
Originally posted by StarValleyWyOddly enough, i am at this instant 'burning' my entire CD collection to PC (to be followed by vinyl and then tape). Small world eh? And right now is Rush: prog rock city. The only reason i mentioned "2 many DJs" before is that i was rather surprised earlier tonight by the default classification. But the web thing does save you typing in all the track names, so i'm well in favour of it as a rule. Not moaning. Oh no.
Progressive,eh? What did they progress from or to? Just curious. Acutally i have some old Electric Light tapes about somewhere and a few Yes as well. Never listened to the lyrics, but good music...
You say it is "Progressive"? We ...[text shortened]... telling me that "Progressive" isn't a euphimism? Geez. Brutal.
Originally posted by ToeActually, the myth of Rah's (the sun god) race across the sky each day in his chariot is probably the basis of the alignment and geometry of the pyramids. The three big ones at Giza are arranged just as the three brightest stars in Orions belt. Back then, this constellation was considered to be Rah's chariot. Same proportions and alignment. And on the summer solstice, the brightest star in the heavens, Sirius, barely visible above the horizon and only visible for a few nights at Giza, aligns perfectly if you line up the Big pyramid directly through Sirius to the brightest star in Orion. There is debate as to cause and effect. Could be an accident, but not likely. Especially considering that Rah is out to capture souls each day. (gather the dead, to be more accurate) And the Pharoh just happens to be buried in a pyramid.
I've heard that the pyramids were very 'ratio' based in accordance to cosmology. A similar tale? Or a want-to-believe senario?
1 edit
Originally posted by StarValleyWyAn "accident" seems unlikely.
Actually, the myth of Rah's (the sun god) race across the sky each day in his chariot is probably the basis of the alignment and geometry of the pyramids. The three big ones at Giza are arranged just as the three brightest stars in O ...[text shortened]... accurate) And the Pharoh just happens to be buried in a pyramid.
As would do the term "meaningful". 🙂
Just becasue anchient peoples could do a bit of maths, doesn't mean it becomes 'magical' etc
Originally posted by T1000I wish I could play the solar system. Alas the CD player is the medium of expression in which I am most proficient.
Aye, Kepler ran with this idea big time. I think his idea was that the distance between the planets of our solar system (at his time only 6 were known) could be understood by fitting one of the five Platonic solids between each pair of planets. Staggeringly beautiful idea but without a shred of truth in it whatsoever.
T1000
2 edits
Originally posted by T1000BRAIN HEMORAGE! eDIT... EdIT... i GOT THE WRONG GUY! Sheesh... edit quick... nobody will notice! Sorry Capurnicus. You were the Guy who got Sun Centered figured out.
Aye, Kepler ran with this idea big time. I think his idea was that the distance between the planets of our solar system (at his time only 6 were known) could be understood by fitting one of the five Platonic solids between each pair of planet ...[text shortened]... iful idea but without a shred of truth in it whatsoever.
T1000
I got quite a kick out of one of your fellow countrymen... James Burke in his television series, "Connections" when trying to demonstrate the years and years Kepler spent trying to fit the Six Perfect Solids into a physical model It wouldn't work and wouldn't work, so he finally wrote to a clock maker in amsterdam, pleading for a mechanism to power his contraption. He never received any help, so took off and stole Tycho Brahe's lifes work. Then went into exile because of war, and over the next 20 years finally put Ptolemy's model to a decent rest. He Kepler pretty much proved Copunicus's idea of the Sun centered solar system. And orbits for the planets, but it wasn't until Newton described gravity that the idea of Music Of The Spheres finally bit the dust. Elipses are not perfect, you see.
Anyway... years later, an enterprising German fellow came upon the strange request that kepler had submitted and promptly wandered off and invented "spring steel" so as to make non-pendulum clocks possible. The rest is history.
Originally posted by royalchicken
Mathematics is a body of ideas, a few of which are known to human minds. They are discovered and navigated through by logical inference (deduction) from a few assumptions (axioms) selected by the mathematician (navigator). The notations, conventions, and symbols are all invented by the navigator, but the ideas themselves exist as all other ideas do, w ...[text shortened]... ny mind. A mathematical statement is "true" if it follows logically from the axioms selected.
Is there anything like a "Mother Of All Axiom's" in mathematics ?
Joe.
1 edit
No, not really. Any axiom is really as good as any other. For example, we could build a mathematical system based on the "Careless Chicken Axioms:"
1. There exist objects called 25, 49, and 64 in a set C.
2. There exists an operation "+" defined on C so that 25 "+" 49 = 64. 😛
These axioms are really no "better" or "worse" or, as you asked, "more maternal" than, for example, Euclid's axioms.