Author Topic: The LAP: studies  (Read 37351 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Offline elevenaugust

  • Administrator
  • Hero Dronie #3
  • **********
  • Posts: 1231
  • Karma: +34/-1
  • א ב ג ד ה ו ז ח ט י כ ך ל מ ם נ ן ס ע פ ף צ ץ ק ר
The LAP: studies
« on: May 10, 2008, 12:02:11 AM »
All the Lap/diagram related discuss here.
IPACO, the new tool for photo and video analysis is on-line! www.ipaco.fr

majicbar

  • Guest
Re: The LAP: studies
« Reply #1 on: June 17, 2008, 01:57:34 AM »
 
In the latest crop circles there is a circle that relates to the value of PI. Apart from the thought that the aliens would also use a base ten and how that might not be too likely given how most reported aliens seem to have eight fingers, isn't it interesting that the LAP Diagrams seem to indicate a base 8 notation. (perhaps the ET's chose base ten because they found out that we were rather slow and backwards and they needed to put this in terms we could understand.)

In the same area in 1991 there was another crop circle and it had a triangular pattern, and on one leg of the triangle there was a stepped circle much like that shown in the LAP Diagram on CARET Document page 123. This crop circle was stepped every 90 degrees by one step, six times. If you take the value of each step this comes out to 111111. It turns out that this number has specific mathematical meanings in the area of primes and as such may be meant to communicate something very particular about mathematics and the crop circle formations.

http://primes.utm.edu/curios/page.php/111111.html

http://www.mcs.surrey.ac.uk/Personal/R.Knott/Fibonacci/fib.html

In the LAP Primer the diagrams on page 123 are also stepped every 90 degrees and this may be for some particular reason in communication with the substrate material. In geometry and trigonometry, angles have particular notions and notations, and it may be inherent in the structure of fields that the substrate is able to manipulate the fields and can be given instructions to do so.

http://droneteam.com/history/isaac/pacl-lang-analysis-p123-fullsize.jpg

To this thought it is that I've been looking at these diagrams and trying to figure out what might be trying to be done here. My first thought was that the Diagram might be an instruction in base four, or base three, it was not making much sense in any of them. It would have been so much easier had ISAAC given us more on the "Alien" mathematical format. IMO at this point, given the 1991 crop circle, and the relation to its number 111111 and how it was portrayed, I've hit upon this possible explanation.

Take it as the line width will represent a value in whatever base notation this is supposed to represent, being a math problem let us call this X. Let the line width then represent the power to which this number is raised. The thinnest line is base power, next greatest width is squared and the next is cubed, and so on, but we only have the three so far. Let us now do a notation for the number, let us also use the ^ symbol to represent the power notation. From what I opine, the alien notation in the LAP Diagram is from the inside out. Thus we shall start from the inside, and let us use 2 for the value of X in this exercise. The stepped notation thus starts 2^1*2^3*2^2, at which point we hit the first step and it has the greater value line width, so we will take the first part of the equation and enclose it in brackets and advance by the cubic power the next element, 2^3*2^2*2^3, and the next step comes, it is of the width representing the square, so we will bracket the preceding and raise it by the second power, and we will finish with 2^1*2^2*2^1. This gives us finally, (((2^1*2^3*2^2)^3)(2^3*2^2*2^3)^2)(2^1*2^2*2^1)). (I hope that I finally have this correct.)

Let us say we were the head of trying to decipher the Alien symbology and we cane across this notation. ISAAC said that the symbology was very complex and could note many things. While I have done this little exercise to mostly amuse myself in trying to understand the LAP Diagram symbology and what they might possible mean or be used for, it leaves me curious, just a little artifact to ponder. Most of the CIA types and most of the members of the supposed MJ-12 and President Truman were very avid cross word puzzlers. Seizing on the name CARET, while it might also play a critical mathematical relationship in understanding how the Language is to communicate, it would seem tempting for that type of mind.
 
DISCLAIMER: My math stinks and this is for illustration and amusement purposes only.
« Last Edit: June 19, 2008, 03:59:38 PM by majicbar »

Offline onthefence

  • Administrator
  • Hero Dronie #3
  • **********
  • Posts: 1048
  • Karma: +50/-0
Re: The LAP: studies
« Reply #2 on: August 06, 2008, 01:26:35 AM »
Sometime back someone mentioned a link to 109.5 degrees and some interesting possibilities that might be occurring in the drone case . At the time, I took a look at the LAP diagram and identified all the places with that angle shown:



Recently, the Mars Phoenix Lander found Perchlorate in a soil sample:


Notice the similarity of that 109.5 angle. Also, many other molecules and geometry arrangements use that angle, but mainly for 3D representation, not 2D (from what I can tell).

Offline beefoo

  • Junior Dronie
  • **
  • Posts: 20
  • Karma: +6/-2
Re: The LAP: studies
« Reply #3 on: August 17, 2008, 12:58:49 AM »
Interesting. The angle of 109.5 degrees is found in any tetrahedron, defined as the angle between the lines going from the center of the tetrahedron to the vertices (and I think also the angle between the faces, but I did not verify).

So perchlorate, methane (CH4) and wathever tetrahedron-based structure will show the 109.5 angle.

Also to note that if you want to put 4 points on a sphere with a maximum of distance between them, the optimal position of these 4 points will form a tetrahedron. The angle 109.5 appears also in the optimal arrangement of bubbles in foam. In other words, the tetrahedron is a very natural, optimal structure in 3 dimensions.

Even if interesting, these remarks do not bring us really far, except that they support the idea that the LAP could be the 2D projection (or idealised representation) of a 3D structure.

Following this idea, the lines and curves present in the diagram may give an information about the z coordinate of the different elements. For example, the thickness of the lines may show the distance between a connection and the observer (the thickest=the nearest). This is used sometimes to represent molecules (here a connection C-H in the direction of the observer is represented as a triangle):


I still have no result with this idea, maybe it will inspire someone...

Offline algae

  • Senior Dronie
  • ****
  • Posts: 65
  • Karma: +4/-0
Re: The LAP: studies
« Reply #4 on: February 10, 2010, 09:27:12 PM »
In my humble opinion, the straight lines in the LAP were drawn in by PACL studying these same angles. They collide with the bar codes and other symbols in a clumsy way which is not seen for the curved lines. Delete the straight lines and the beauty of the LAP is greatly enhanced.

Offline onthefence

  • Administrator
  • Hero Dronie #3
  • **********
  • Posts: 1048
  • Karma: +50/-0
Re: The LAP: studies
« Reply #5 on: February 10, 2010, 10:17:24 PM »
... the straight lines in the LAP were drawn in by PACL ...
Thanks. Like this?:

Offline algae

  • Senior Dronie
  • ****
  • Posts: 65
  • Karma: +4/-0
Re: The LAP: studies
« Reply #6 on: February 10, 2010, 10:43:24 PM »
Gorgeous.

Offline spf33

  • Administrator
  • Major Dronie
  • **********
  • Posts: 216
  • Karma: +29/-0
Re: The LAP: studies
« Reply #7 on: February 12, 2010, 07:10:31 PM »
In my humble opinion, the straight lines in the LAP were drawn in by PACL studying these same angles. They collide with the bar codes and other symbols in a clumsy way which is not seen for the curved lines. Delete the straight lines and the beauty of the LAP is greatly enhanced.

wow, interesting idea.

but if the straight lines were added pen or pencil then why mimic the same gaps that the curved\original lines have in places? 

why not just lay the straight edge down and pull a solid unbroken line?


Offline algae

  • Senior Dronie
  • ****
  • Posts: 65
  • Karma: +4/-0
Re: The LAP: studies
« Reply #8 on: February 13, 2010, 12:26:15 AM »
To me, the straight lines don't connote function, they just connote geometry, something we humans like to find.

It is possible that the straight lines were always there, and that the PACL team only extended them in the vicinity of the "medallions" to ascertain that they intersected the centers.

This isn't the strangest conjecture one could make about the LAP, not by a long shot!

(modified)
No, wait. I take it back! Look at onthefence's rendering of the LAP without the triangles. It can now come apart into three sections. There's the section which includes the "Octal Junction and its six attendant nodes. There's a section including the "Rotary Junction" and its attendant two nodes. And then there's everything else connected to the "Compound Junction".

I could easily believe we're looking at a "mothership" (I hate that expression), an exploratory drone, and something else, maybe an escape pod or landing craft. The triangles merely show the RSRs holding the sections in the docked configuration.

This fully supports the notion of the LAP as a program. The composition and makeup of dronecraft is determined graphically, and the sophisticated substrate material reconfigures itself to comply.

Thanks to everyone for patiently letting this newbie rant. I'll be running out of steam soon enough.

« Last Edit: February 14, 2010, 08:06:58 PM by algae »

Offline algae

  • Senior Dronie
  • ****
  • Posts: 65
  • Karma: +4/-0
Re: The LAP: studies
« Reply #9 on: February 14, 2010, 03:58:31 AM »
elevenaugust, have you discovered anything more about the number system? I have noticed something interesting at the nodes "Parent Junction",  "Diffuser", "Object Z", and "Rotary Junction". They all have an "orbit" or "orbits" of different diameters. Furthermore, the numbering on these "orbits" uses only five out of the eight numeric symbols.

Assume the numbers are proportional to the orbital diameters. Five diameters, five symbols. That's five equations in five unknowns. We ought to be able to solve for the values of these five symbols as long as we know whether to read left-to-right or right-to-left. If you think it's worth it, I'll give it a try.

Offline elevenaugust

  • Administrator
  • Hero Dronie #3
  • **********
  • Posts: 1231
  • Karma: +34/-1
  • א ב ג ד ה ו ז ח ט י כ ך ל מ ם נ ן ס ע פ ף צ ץ ק ר
Re: The LAP: studies
« Reply #10 on: February 14, 2010, 11:09:23 AM »
Good idea, algae.

I haven't find the time yet to work more on the "number system", anyway, I think it worth a try, if you have the time to do so.

Let me know if you need some help!
IPACO, the new tool for photo and video analysis is on-line! www.ipaco.fr

Offline majicbar

  • Major Dronie
  • ******
  • Posts: 226
  • Karma: +24/-3
Re: The LAP: studies
« Reply #11 on: February 14, 2010, 01:50:22 PM »
elevenaugust, have you discovered anything more about the number system? I have noticed something interesting at the nodes "Parent Junction",  "Diffuser", "Object Z", and "Rotary Junction". They all have an "orbit" or "orbits" of different diameters. Furthermore, the numbering on these "orbits" uses only five out of the eight numeric symbols.

Assume the numbers are proportional to the orbital diameters. Five diameters, five symbols. That's five equations in five unknowns. We ought to be able to solve for the values of these five symbols as long as we know whether to read left-to-right or right-to-left. If you think it's worth it, I'll give it a try.



The proximity of the term orbits has be nagging me. I've assumed that the LAP is programming for the substrate material which then uses it operationally in its functions. I've also assumed that this is true on the level of the substrate material in quantum computing, where their substrate is doped with most if not all the atoms that exist in perhaps some kind of nanotube, or buckyball, structures within the substrate and that these atoms are provoked by sensors which are used by the "Drone" in its function.

Essentially all the atoms which might be used, have atoms with various electron configurations in their 7 primary shells. The substrate programming might be telling its sensors to probe these atoms in particular electron shells. If the "Drone" is attempting to observe particular elements through its remote sensing, then the numbers of the "orbits" should be more in tune with the orbits indicative of those particular atoms. As I believe that the "Drones" are looking for "Exotic Atoms", elements at and above 92, then the numbers should be more 5's, than lesser numbers. Should the drones be more interested in lifeforms, then they will have more 2's to 3's. The aliens however might just be interested in everything, making the "Drones" universal observers and then the numbers should be about equally represented within the LAP.

There is nothing to indicate that the LAP's origin is that of the "Drones", however as I believe that all alien craft would be operationally using substrate materials in their construction it is reasonable that the LAP could still be indicative of the construction and operation of alien craft in general.

FYI...For the reason that molecules in everyday experience are "chiral", I believe that I've seen a pattern in the "Language" of the LAP which are also structured left to right, and inside to outside. (This might be also true if it is entirely a fictional invention.)

« Last Edit: February 16, 2010, 03:39:47 AM by majicbar »

Offline algae

  • Senior Dronie
  • ****
  • Posts: 65
  • Karma: +4/-0
Re: The LAP: studies
« Reply #12 on: February 15, 2010, 12:14:16 AM »
We ought to be able to solve for the values of these five symbols as long as we know whether to read left-to-right or right-to-left.

If the numbers at the orbitals are related to the diameter of the orbitals...
If we don't know the reading direction so that I may take it either way...
If I measured the orbital diameters accurately enough...
If my math is right...

Then here's my analysis of the LAP number system:

Symbol notation from "Isaac Diagram Analysis" by elevenaugust
The orbital diameters are in units of 0.1mm. Measured from a printout of the LAP, they are only approximate.

                   NODE                    ORBIT DIAM          NUMERIC SYMBOLS
                                                                              8^2   8^1   8^0
             Parent Junction                   158                03.0   05.0   07.0
             Object Z                             351                03.0   04.0   04.0
             Diffuser (small)                   246                04.0   04.0   06.0
             Diffuser (large)                   389                06.0   07.0   05.0
             Rotary Junction                  441                04.0   06.0   07.0

   SUBSTITUTION           THE FIVE EQUATIONS
      03.0 is x1      64(x1)+0(x2)+8(x3)+0(x4)+1(x5)=158
      04.0 is x2      64(x1)+9(x2)+0(x3)+0(x4)+0(x5)=351
      05.0 is x3      0(x1)+72(x2)+0(x3)+1(x4)+0(x5)=246
      06.0 is x4      0(x1)+0(x2)+1(x3)+64(x4)+8(x5)=389
      07.0 is x5      0(x1)+64(x2)+0(x3)+8(x4)+1(x5)=441

   SOLVER RESULT (http://www.akiti.ca/SimEq5Solver.html)
      x1=4.67...
      x2=5.74...
      x3=-194...
      x4=-168...
      x5=1417...   This is clearly not an acceptable result

Reverse the order of the symbols on Parent Junction
   SUBSTITUTION           THE FIVE EQUATIONS
      03.0 is x1      1(x1)+0(x2)+8(x3)+0(x4)+64(x5)=158
      04.0 is x2      64(x1)+9(x2)+0(x3)+0(x4)+0(x5)=351
      05.0 is x3      0(x1)+72(x2)+0(x3)+1(x4)+0(x5)=246
      06.0 is x4      0(x1)+0(x2)+1(x3)+64(x4)+8(x5)=389
      07.0 is x5      0(x1)+64(x2)+0(x3)+8(x4)+1(x5)=441

   SOLVER RESULT (http://www.akiti.ca/SimEq5Solver.html)
      x1=5.01...
      x2=3.33...
      x3=-1430...
      x4=5.77...
      x5=181...   still not an acceptable result

and so on until...
Reverse the order of all orbit symbols except at Parent Junction
   SUBSTITUTION           THE FIVE EQUATIONS
      03.0 is x1      64(x1)+0(x2)+8(x3)+0(x4)+1(x5)=158
      04.0 is x2      1(x1)+72(x2)+0(x3)+0(x4)+0(x5)=351
      05.0 is x3      0(x1)+9(x2)+0(x3)+64(x4)+0(x5)=246
      06.0 is x4      0(x1)+0(x2)+64(x3)+1(x4)+8(x5)=389
      07.0 is x5      0(x1)+1(x2)+0(x3)+8(x4)+64(x5)=441

   SOLVER RESULT (http://www.akiti.ca/SimEq5Solver.html)
      x1=1.71...
      x2=4.85...
      x3=5.22...
      x4=3.16...
      x5=6.41...   Wow. This could be right.

It says the true substitution is
   SUBSTITUTION
      03.0 is "2"
      04.0 is "4"
      05.0 is "5"
      06.0 is "3"
      07.0 is "6"

To check the fit, the new substitutions are made and the equations solved.
          SUBSTITUTION                      THE FIVE EQUATIONS               DIFFERENCE
                x1 is 2                 64(2)+0(4)+8(5)+0(3)+1(6)=174       +10%
                x2 is 4                 1(2)+72(4)+0(5)+0(3)+0(6)=290      -17%
                x3 is 5                 0(2)+9(4)+0(5)+64(3)+0(6)=228       -7.3%
                x4 is 3                 0(2)+0(4)+64(5)+1(3)+8(6)=371       -4.6%
                x5 is 6                 0(2)+1(4)+0(5)+8(3)+64(6)=412       -6.6%

More careful measurement of the orbital diameters may cause these values to change.
Note that the values of symbols 00.0, 01.0, and 02.0 are not determined by this analysis.

(Modified 2-15-10 and 2-17-10. added parentheses for readability, signs for difference, corrected typos)
« Last Edit: February 17, 2010, 07:18:27 PM by algae »

Offline algae

  • Senior Dronie
  • ****
  • Posts: 65
  • Karma: +4/-0
Re: The LAP: studies
« Reply #13 on: February 15, 2010, 02:24:16 AM »
I hasten to add:

My eyes and this lighting make it hard for me to get a better measure of the orbital diameters, and I sure could use some help here.

Offline algae

  • Senior Dronie
  • ****
  • Posts: 65
  • Karma: +4/-0
Re: The LAP: studies
« Reply #14 on: February 18, 2010, 09:26:29 AM »
I took another measurement of the orbital diameters, this time with a steel rule. I got
                   NODE                    ORBIT DIAM
             Parent Junction                   155
             Object Z                             351
             Diffuser (small)                   244
             Diffuser (large)                   372
             Rotary Junction                  442

The solver came up with
     x1=1.70...
     x2=4.85...
     x3=4.95...
     x4=3.13...
     x5=6.43...  pretty close to what I got before.

The differences between decoded and measured diameters are now
     SUBSTITUTION                      THE FIVE EQUATIONS               DIFFERENCE
                x1 is 2                 64(2)+0(4)+8(5)+0(3)+1(6)=174       +12%
                x2 is 4                 1(2)+72(4)+0(5)+0(3)+0(6)=290      -17%
                x3 is 5                 0(2)+9(4)+0(5)+64(3)+0(6)=228       -6.5%
                x4 is 3                 0(2)+0(4)+64(5)+1(3)+8(6)=371       -0.3%
                x5 is 6                 0(2)+1(4)+0(5)+8(3)+64(6)=412       -6.8%

Again, pretty close. For completeness, all 32 combinations of L-R and R-L readings of the orbital digits should be run through the solver, but that's a job for a computer.

Assuming these findings are correct, it means that we can state with some confidence which symbols stand for the digits 2-6 (elevenaugust is still free to assign the digits 0,1, and 7). It means that the numeric symbols at the orbitals are the diameters (or radii) of these orbitals, and it gives the reading direction of these numbers and by extension, all numbers on the LAP.

It does not tell us what these diameters measure, nor the units of measurement used, nor does it answer definitively whether or not the LAP is genuine.