I know this a weird question, but some times are really important like 12:00, because it's noon. But you don't really pay attention to times like 2:00 and 10:00.
What is the most irrelavent time?
Posts
Total:
30
lol
12:12 is a heavily underrated time. It's quite palindromic.
-->
@blamonkey
21:12 or 12:21 but not 12:12.
-->
@zedvictor4
Yeah, I meant 12:21. Oops.
10:10 is kind of a smiley face. That's underrated.
What about 11:11, for some reason I always see the time 9:11 am.
From Time ToTime
.....M-Tard.....
Practice,"over time",
Makes better,"in time",
Whatever,"takes time".
In spite of,"limited time",
We find,"the time",
And possiblywe resonate, "with time".
We may also"extend or shorten time",
Relative to the"sum-total of time",
Being thatthere are those who take their "sweet time",
And others whoare constantly running "out of time".
So it happensthere is "no time",
In a Universethat is "full of time",
And those whokeep "track of time",
Warning us ofthe coming "end of time."
I have noillusions "about time",
Nor about thetheories "surrounding time",
I do know thatthere is "a time",
To forget"about time."
Alas, this isthe end of "my time",
That allpeople, on occasion, will hopefully, "have a good time."
Practice,"over time",
Makes better,"in time",
Whatever,"takes time".
In spite of,"limited time",
We find,"the time",
And possiblywe resonate, "with time".
We may also"extend or shorten time",
Relative to the"sum-total of time",
Being thatthere are those who take their "sweet time",
And others whoare constantly running "out of time".
So it happensthere is "no time",
In a Universethat is "full of time",
And those whokeep "track of time",
Warning us ofthe coming "end of time."
I have noillusions "about time",
Nor about thetheories "surrounding time",
I do know thatthere is "a time",
To forget"about time."
Alas, this isthe end of "my time",
Talking of endless ideas "involvingtime",
And allowingme a one final concept "concerning time."That allpeople, on occasion, will hopefully, "have a good time."
4:20 Slang :--)(--: Slang 4/20
Hammer timeWhat is the most irrelevant time?
Past Time.
Because it isn't anymore and it won't be again.
-->
@zedvictor4
Past Time. Because it isn't anymore and it won't be again.
Time ---Observed Time ergo frequency /\/\/-- is eternally existent solely because of past and future dynamics.
Past <<<<< Out ( Now ) In <<<<< Future
........................3D volume...............
Past <<<<< Out { * i * } In <<<< Future
...................ego / intelligence............
Past <<<<< Out { * | * } In <<< Future
...........................2D area.......................
Past <<< Out { Slice-of-Time } In <<< Future
Peanut Butter Jelly Time
Peanut Butter Jelly Time
Peanut Butter Jelly Time
Where he at
Where he at
Where he at
Where he at
There he go
There he go
There he go
There he go
There he go
Do the Peanut butter jelly
Peanut butter jelly
Peanut butter jelly with a baseball bat
Do the Peanut butter jelly
Peanut butter jelly
Peanut butter jelly with a baseball bat
11:12 is underrated because I get out of my second period class
3:00 am is underrated. It's the perfect time to eat a Krabby Patty.
-->
@Mharman
LOL
17 days later
Time to theThird Power( t^3 i.e. 66.4^3 )
...M-Tard.....
Space-time-size
And frequency,
Of viewpoint { * * }
Frequentlyre-occur as,
Thetime-size-shaping,
Of mythoughts { * i * }
Virtual space,
Awaitingcollapse
Between mythoughts{ (i) * * (i) }
No-mind thespace,
No-mind the thoughts,
No-mind thebits of time { /\ |
Virtual time,
Awaitingcollapse,
Betweenvirtual photons.
Interferingangles,
Precess theirway,
Intoconsciousness { * @ * }
In myunconscious sleep,
And myconscious wake,
I was,
I “is”,
And hope tobe,
Re-occuring intime { /\/\/ }
For theterminal coming,
Of death.
Which appearsto occur,
Between thespaces,
The bits,
Andviewpoints,
As patternedevents of time.
...M-Tard.....
Space-time-size
And frequency,
Of viewpoint { * * }
Frequentlyre-occur as,
Thetime-size-shaping,
Of mythoughts { * i * }
Virtual space,
Awaitingcollapse
Between mythoughts{ (i) * * (i) }
No-mind thespace,
No-mind the thoughts,
No-mind thebits of time { /\ |
Virtual time,
Awaitingcollapse,
Betweenvirtual photons.
Interferingangles,
Precess theirway,
Intoconsciousness { * @ * }
In myunconscious sleep,
And myconscious wake,
I was,
I “is”,
And hope tobe,
Re-occuring intime { /\/\/ }
For theterminal coming,
Of death.
Which appearsto occur,
Between thespaces,
The bits,
Andviewpoints,
As patternedevents of time.
H,mm 66.4 { Pi-time } to 2nd power { surface area of a spherical? } is 4408.96 and that rounds to prime number 4409.
Surface Area. The surface area of a Torus is given by the formula –
Surface Area = 4 × Pi^2 × R × r.
Where r is the radius { r--> } of the small circle and,
R is the radius of bigger circle { R--> } and Pi is constant Pi = 3.14159.
1} As I take this out further I see that I arrive at the value 1 point something another for one radii, however, that is not the the actual value for one radii it is just a value for the number of radii my Pi-Time 66. 4 revolutions of a numerical torus. So what I really need is the radius of the electron.
..."In this post, though, I want to take Lenin’s side, and ask the heretical question: “If the electron actually is a real, physical object with a finite size, then how big is it?” Not surprisingly, there is no clear answer to this question, but some of the candidate answers turn out to be pretty interesting."...
.."So in the end, was Lenin right about the electron being “inexhaustible”? For the moment, it looks like the answer is no, in the sense that there isn’t really any serious candidate for the intrinsic size of the electron. In that sense, we could all have saved some time by just accepting the standard dogma that an electron is a sizeless point in space.
But I personally tend to resist dogmatism in all its forms, even the kind that is almost certainly correct. Because sometimes those heretical questions lead you through all sorts of interesting ideas, ranging from from meters down to meters.
And if it becomes clear some day that Lenin’s statement really only works on the Planck scale, then we can probably say that his prediction came several centuries before its time."....
Electron diameter ranges between 10 to negative 10m { bohr } 10 negative 35 { planck }.
0.000000000001 is compton wave legnth for electron 10 negative 12m.
0.1 is 10 negative 10 m and that is classical Bohr diamater of electron whic equates to average size of an atom.
Atom size increases with the number of electrons { spherical fuzzy cloud } so hydrogen is smallest with only 1 electron { spherical fuzzy cloud }.
Diameter of hydrogen is 1.06 * 10 to negative 10. i.e. 1.06 * 0.1 = 0.106m and that is the value I will begin with via the torus for diameter { <--D--> } of electron.
Surface Area. The surface area of a Torus is given by the formula –
Surface Area = 4 × Pi^2 × R × r.
Where r is the radius { r--> } of the small circle and,
R is the radius of bigger circle { R--> } and Pi is constant Pi = 3.14159.
Diameter of hydrogen is 1.06 * 10 to negative 10. i.e. 1.06 * 0.1 = 0.106m and that is the value I will begin with via the torus for diameter { <--D--> } of electron.
This 0.106 is the value of the diameter of the larger circle of my numerical torus. So we want to use half of that value ---ergo 0.053--- to attain the radius { R--> } and then the resultant surface area of one torus that may be involved with the hydrogen's, single electron, fuzzy cloud.
0.053 * 12.56637061{ R--> }... = 0.66601764233
The calculation can be done differrent ways with differrent kinds of radii being used. I'm going with this following pathway since it does the math for me if I can properly assign their radii to my nunierlcal tori. I also like this method because it approximates what I believe the tubes radius to be, however, it does subtract the value of diameter of hydrogen atoms single proton.
I assume my numerical torus inside inner radius ---via the following link--- begins at the outside surface of diameter of the single hydrogen proton ergo I will have to double the value of the inner radius in the following link so as the inner circle of the diagram.
S = π2 * (R2 - r2) LINK to calculator that does the math for us.
R{ R--> } = 0.053
r{ r--> } = 0.0 minus radius of proton and we will exclude proton values for following resultants
and the resultant surface area for my numerical torus is 0.02772372 ---and that value includes protons diameter---.
Next I need to establish a connection/asssociation to Pi-Time 66.4 ie. 66.4 revolutions { inversions } and subtract that from volume{?}?
And this may lead to most abstract --if not irrelevant---, yet definitive Pi-Time of a single electron
Pi = circumference ( around } ex orbit, to,
Diameter = 1 or 2 inversion radii { --><-- } and/or 1 or 2 out-version radii { <----> }
The most abstract ergo most irrelevant time may be Pi-Time.
Pi^3 { XYZ } = 31.00 62 7 66 80 29 98 {20} 175476315067101
31.00 self is self truncating self { Pi } rounding off i.e. Pi^3 rounds it self off to a whole rational number via a set of two zeroes { 00 }. Duhh.
And we know that 31 is a cosmically primary numerical set of great circles for the 5 { phi }-fold icosa{20} whose 31 inherently includes the set of 10 great circel/polgyonal planes that define { contain } four sets of the 4-fold cubo{ 6 }-octa{ 8 }hedron. LINK
We also know that the 5-fold icosahedron comes in two primary left and right versions ergo left-skew 31 and right-skew 31 and that is equal to 62 ergo 31.00 62 also stands out in Pi-abstraction, a thumb that has just been hit with a hammer { :--O } refuses to be ignored except by those who cannot follow rational, logical common sense pathways of thought.
Also the most complex biologics have 31 left and right spinal nerves.
Pi^4 { time + XYZ } - { minus } 31 { XYZ } = 66.40 90 91 03 40 02 43 7236440332688705
Ergo, with that value we find many single zeroes, ergo, much self-truncating or rounding-off of self { Pi^4 }.
Pi-Time = 66.4 is a minimal brainer for those who do not refute rational, logical common sense pathways of thought.
Then there exists even more rational, logical common sense pathways of thought involving Pi^4 via a process invented by or at least used by R P Feynman and that process was called re-normalization of a value.
Pi^4 / 4 = 24.35 22 7 27 58 50 06 09 30 9110083172176
The above is my methodology of for the 're-normalization' of Pi^4 to give it a more static, XYZ { 3D } value
..."Normalize means reduce (divide) a result by the total of all results so you results works within a set that adds to 100% (1.000000)."...LINK
31.00 62 7 = Pi^3
24.35 22 7 = Pi^4 / 4
What we find most interesting in both of these is the number 7 and how the #7 value falls in the overall 7th position{ location } of integers i.e. it falls in the 7th position or place overall.
66.40 90 91 03 4 0 0 2 43 7236440332688705 = Pi^4 { time + XYZ } - { minus } 31 { XYZ } and what I take note of here is that 00 is a the 12th and 13th integer positioning.
Both the 4-fold Vector Equilibrium and the 5{ phi }-fold icosa{20}hedron are based a nuclear cluster of 12 sphericals.
However, the 24 chorded VE is 12-around-1 sphericals and that is 13 sphericals.
Pi^4 / 4 = 24.35 22 7 and we find numerical 24 here and we know that the VE { 12-around-1 } wil transform, via 3D contraction and then linear expansion into double sine-wave topology that is also found with all EMRadiation. Duhh.
Fuller liked to say, energy { Observed Time } has shape. I like to say occupied space has shape. i.e non-observe occupied space of gravity ( ) and dark energy )(.
Static { conceptual and Euclidean }, quasi-static { conceptual are or geodesic curve Rieman Einstien }, actual dynamic { ergo a trajectory irrespective of legnth }.
No one cares about 7:36
-->
@mustardness
Why do you spam nonsense
Static { conceptual and Euclidean } ex [ ],
quasi-static { conceptual arc or geodesic curve Rieman Einstien } ex O or as ( ),
actual dynamic { vectorial trajectory } irrespective of length i.e. even the shortest trajectory is an arced trajectory even if it appears straight over short distance. /\/\/\/\/
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Fuller liked to say, energy { Observed Time } has associated shape via topolog of the sine-wave. I like to say occupied space has shape. i.e non-observe occupied space of gravity ( ) and dark energy )(.
..."A scalar field is like the temperature throughout the atmosphere: At every point it has a numerical value but no direction."...
Ex ..............................................
....................................................
..................................................
.................................................
A vector field, by contrast, is like the wind: It has both a value (the wind speed) and a direction.
Ex -------> around
----------><-------------- In
<------------------------> out
oh god
Right now.
-->
@Mopac
12:16 am is a pretty irrelevant time
-->
@Gatorade
Half past a monkey's a$$.
..."Time is often thought of as the fourth dimension. Time plays a key role as a dimension in mathematical formulations of physical laws and theories such as general relativity and string theory. The qualitative behavior of time as the fourth dimension is debatable."....
The irrelevant time --because most abstract--- may be Pi-Time.
Pi^4 = 97.40 90 91 03 40 02 43 72 36 44 03 32 68 87 05
97.4 - 31 { 3D } = 66.4 { Pi-Time }
Pi^3 { XYZ } = 31.00 62 7 66 80 29 98 {20} 175476315067101
31.00 self is self truncating self { Pi } rounding off i.e. Pi^3 rounds it self off to a whole rational number via a set of two zeroes { 00 }. Duhh.
Pi^4 { time + XYZ } - { minus } 31 { XYZ } = 66.40 90 91 03 40 02 43 7236440332688705
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Another Pi-Time abstraction resultant approximates the human population on Earth.
66.4 * 3 = 199.2
199.2^2 = 39680.64
39680.64 * 186000 { speed of radiation = 7,380,599,040
And the current human population of Earth is 7,720,270,280
7,720,270,280 minus 7,380,599,040 = 339, 671,240 { resultant differrence }
That resultant differrence is negligible and we can go back in a few days, months or years so as do reduce that resultant differrence and we would find a much smaller resultant differrence, that, more close approximates my cosmic Pi-Time tripled and squared resultant.