sorry....that should be HHO

but this tells a more fuller story
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mAbuHe9X_cs

key bits are that the engine timing MUST be
set back25 degrees[so it..*fires on the upstroke]..not the down

also important is the orientation of the stainless tubes..when molded
as moulding sets up a certain magnetic structure/matrix..and having a northmatrix..inside a south matrix..tube

is like..joining positive to negative..in say two twelve volt battery=24 volt..[series]..

as opposed to the joining of earth to earth..[in parralel]..

the two hydrogen..bonded with an o
somehow increasesthe eletrical voltage/conductivity
[hence the rubber water hoses]..carrying voltage?
and the water hose direct into the motor intake
yet..not affecting the moters running[8minutes]
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JfFahPkLUck

more details here
http://peswiki.com/energy/Directory:Joe_Cell

continued

Applied mathematics as defined by George is an “epistemological tool” The tool exists and is real. The tool would not exist without a prior theoretical mathematics which is also real even though the objects that theoretical mathematics describe are not real.

The objects of the legends of the supernatural are not real either, but those legends may give us an understanding of human behaviour. Loki is the God of mischief. I wish that more Australians could appreciate his spirit and deflate the pomposities current in our electoral process.

I’m ending with a Loki because at the moment I don’t feel adequate to reach a high key.

.

Dear David & George,

.

Thank you both for your explanations which lead me to modify my initial thoughts on the matter.

I must confess that I made a rather peremptory judgement on this one without giving it much reflexion. What seemed to me as obvious is, as you both rightly point out, mostly true but not totally true.

Allow me to take a step backwards and look at matters differently in an effort to see things more clearly.

For anything to be a pure product of the imagination, it can only exist if mankind exists. Let us, therefore, take away mankind for the time being and see what is left (but, if you don’t mind, I shall take a peep at what is left from behind a curtain - my presence would have little or no influence where maths are concerned anyway).

In a world without mankind there would continue to be births and deaths (additions and subtractions) within the remaining biota. The sun and the moon would continue to form circles in the sky. Migrating birds would fly in straight lines. Mountain peaks would form triangles and conic shapes. Tree trunks would be cylindrical. The plains would be flat surfaces, the seas and oceans would make waves, fish would swim in zig-zags, and so on.

All of this exists in nature independently of mankind.

Now if I were to come out from behind the curtain, my feeble but not completely nil capacity for abstract thought would allow me to introduce multiplication and division (which I acquired at primary school in the bush).

And if you two guys were to suddenly appear on the scene ... Wow! There we’d have it: the wonders of pure mathematics and applied mathematics, in all their splendour!

I hope I got it right this time. Did I?

.

Banjo wrote: The sun and the moon would continue to form circles in the sky. Migrating birds would fly in straight lines. Mountain peaks would form triangles and conic shapes. Tree trunks would be cylindrical. The plains would be flat surfaces, the seas and oceans would make waves…

Dear Banjo,

Human perception of reality has been informed by expecting it to fit some ideological gestalt. The gestalt may be due to wanting the world to fit some mathematical model. Your remarks above indicate that you are influenced by this type of thinking as many other people have been.

Ancient philosophers thought that the heavenly bodies moved in circular orbits as the circle was a ‘perfect’ form. Observation showed this was not so.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kepler's_laws_of_planetary_motion tells how Kepler examining Brahe's data on the movement of the planet Mars found that an ellipse described the movement of the planets around the sun more accurately than a circle.

Migrating birds do not fly in straight lines. Their patterns minimise the energy they use to get from one place to another. To do this they will follow the prevailing winds at different altitudes and catch thermals to gain altitude. Their navigation may include stop off points to feed.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bird_migration exhibits some flight patterns of migratory birds. They are not in straight lines.

Mountain peaks and plains with few exceptions only have conical shapes and planar surfaces in children’s paintings.

The seas and oceans do not in general make waves. Movement on the surfaces of the waters are usually determined by wind patterns above the water although there may also be underwater disturbances that make waves.

Mathematical models are an excellent tool for examining reality, but one must be aware that it usually is only an abstraction of reality and not a reflection of it.

The boundary between applied and theoretical mathematics changes.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Projection-slice_theorem describes the slice theorem which was developed by a mathematician early in the twentieth century.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Godfrey_Hounsfield tells how Hounsfield got a Nobel prize for applying the slice theorem to X-ray computed tomography. The slice theorem, previously theoretical math, became applied mathematics.

banjo..<<..Now if I were to come out..from behind the curtain, my feeble but not completely nil..capacity for abstract thought would allow me..to introduce multiplication and division>>..

but..what use..would it be?
to the beasts..

how does that..teaching..
make their life any better/or any worse..?
it seems a nill sum gain..so im..missing something..

<<..All of this exists in nature
independently of mankind..>>

so the beasts/nature egsist..the same as before
only now your keeping count of their..math..just like sciences godheads

then along comes george and david..
and model..the numbers..and compare the model..with the reality

but..the separation/duality persists..
just like..it must have done..in the beginning..[with god..observing her creation..except where you created david/george..she created adam

ie a potential equal..
who could appreciate..her model bling

but adam..didnt get the math

BUT he saw what nature had..and wanted what the beasts 'have'[ie amate]
so god took his dna..from the marrow of a rib..doubled up on the X.[threw away the why[y]..and at last adam[Xy]..got eve[XX}..his sister

found the yin..for his yang

so he got it..in the end..
got..what the beasts got..[incestuous naturalism

[do the math..
god knew..he would in time..do the math..himself
much like he had to before god maid eve..that sounds like a thing..loki would do

but loki..is much how god did the evolution..[of the beasts]

Dear Banjo,

>>Let us, therefore, take away mankind for the time being and see what is left … In a world without mankind there would continue to be births and deaths … The sun and the moon would continue to form circles <<

Well, that is the whole point, we cannot “see” the world which has no observer that we can communicate with. All the things you mention is just a projection into situations, absent of any observer, from our best explanation of the world we “see” (i.e. have access to through our senses and theories that adequately model physical reality). Here “adequately”, means, roughly speaking, leading to verifiable predictions.

As I tried to explain in my article (www.onlineopinion.com.au/view.asp?article=14464), “reality is what exists” only defines “reality” or “exists” provided one agrees on what the other term means. (Yuyutsu believes in God, but does not think He exists, because he apparently defines “exists” as being part of physical reality.)

As Hawkins and Mlodinow put it, “our brains interpret the input from our sensory organs by making a model of the outside world. We form mental concepts of our home, trees, other people, the electricity that flows from wall sockets, atoms, molecules, and other universes. These mental concepts are the only reality we can know. There is no model-independent test of reality.” Put briefly, “Epistemology models ontology.” (John Polkinghorne, physicist and theologian)

It is a matter of belief that a reality, independent of how we perceive, imagine, model or explain it, exists. This belief is shared by everybody (except for solipsists).

Another belief is in the irreducibility of mathematical concepts and relations to both physical reality (i.e. they cannot be “found” in the physical world) and mental reality (i.e. they are not purely constructs or products of our imagination); a mathematician both discovers and invents. This belief is shared by many - perhaps a majority - of mathematicians.

(And there is a belief in the existence of a numinous realm irreducible to any of the three worlds of Penrose. This belief is shared only by some people, theists among them.