»
Archives
»
Open Poetry #44
»
( a + bn ) / n = x
| Open Poetry #44 |
|
( a + bn ) / n = x |
|
|
Marc-Andre Senior Member
since 2008-12-07
Posts 501 |
_ God Is? Earth, His Creation, Would be perfect sphere; A slight: t’was defectively shaped As in their prime our mathematicians have proven. From now we shall spiral downwards, And miss perfection Once again: And yet No Proof. _ _ Tree Of Knowledge. 6 6 6, Thrice perfect number: And by its fruit we’ve known the tree. Ominous omens: we’ve reached prime through defective lines. God’s excesses, we haven’t solved Nor by equations Have explained; It came To Nil. _ [This message has been edited by Marc-Andre (12-29-2008 03:53 AM).] |
||
| © Copyright 2008 Marc-Andre Germain - All Rights Reserved | |||
Alison 
since 2008-01-27
Posts 9318Lumpy oatmeal makes me crazy! |
Marc-Andre, I like these poems. They are most thought-provoking! Saving them to read again. A |
||
|
Marc-Andre Senior Member
since 2008-12-07
Posts 501 |
Thanks Alison  Though I much prefer the classical forms of poetry, I wanted to experiment with 21st century forms of poetry. Eventually, I will experiment with free verse; "we've got to know what we reject," it goes both ways! I think it is worthwhile to present a few "explanations" to highlight the structure of this little experiment (nothing revolutionary here, I'm afraid.) By the way, I've also proposed a little playing with "equation poetry" in Poetry challenges: /pip/Forum7/HTML/000787.html The Form The syllable count is 0-1-1-2-3-5-8-13-8-5-3-2-1-1-0; this is known as the Fibonacci sequence. It is also an attempt at synthetic poetry, hence the odd shape of the poem. I like to think that the visual effect complements the words. “Fib poetry” has recently become popular, the common form being: 1-1-2-3-5-8 (20 syllables). The Fibonacci sequence has recently appeared a lot in music, novels, visual arts and on the screen; e.g. it is used to unlock a safe in “The Da Vinci Code.” The title. At the court of Catherine the Great, Mr. Diderot, who was making a case for atheism, was confounded by Leonhard Eular with “Monsieur, (a+bn)/n=x therefore God exists.” The equation was enquired by Descartes, who would also have fancied the idea of proving God by mathematics. “Would be perfect sphere” In ancient Greece, it has been proposed that a sphere had to be the shape of our planet because it is the most perfect geometrical form. Pythagoras Numbers Pythagoreans thus classified numbers: prime, excessive, defective and perfect. The first perfect number is 6: 1+2+3=6. If the sum of divisors is more than the integer, it is called excessive (e.g. 12: 1+2+3+4+6=16), if less than it is called defective. The closest the Fibonacci sequence (as far as I, as a layman know), gets to “perfection” in its "quest for the Golden Ratio" in the poem is the slightly defective 8: 1+2+4=7. The poem peaks with a prime number syllable count, 13, which is also in our culture an unlucky number. Following the Fibonnaci number sequence, we did not encounter any excessive number (I don’t know if it ever does, but not in the first few numbers anyway.) Also associated with Pythagoreans is numerology. “It came to nil” The discovery of zero proved revolutionary in the history of mathematics. It is my belief that the Biblical references of the poem are known to most of us. Regardless of whether and/or how effective I have written them, these two "stanzas" have been carefully and purposefully built, nothing there happens by accident. Likewise for sounds and rhythm: I've tried to highlight the "mysterious" parts with trochaic lines while writing the more "intellectual, down-to-earth" in iambic feet. The dactyl followed by a trochee in "ominous omens" has been crafted to precipitate the abrupt fall...Likewise with the choice of sounds. At least, this is what I've tried to do Feedback on this would be most appreciated!Concluding thoughts With the advancement of sciences today, being a “renaissance man” has become an impossibility. We are further from the Genesis’ orderly creation than we’ve ever been. A modern refuge is the world of what true scientists call “pseudoscience.” We are also aware that life years on this planet are counted, we are now roughly at half the years of Earth's existence. I am a layman in both the fields of philosophy and of mathematics, what I have written here is only to the best of my knowledge. I’m only providing this to highlight the structure of the poem. Thanks for reading. Mark |
||
|
2islander2 Member Ascendant
since 2008-03-12
Posts 6825by the sea |
very very interested with both poem and comment...Enjoyed your culture detailed with simplicity and your talent...Wait for reading again. yann |
||
|
Marc-Andre Senior Member
since 2008-12-07
Posts 501 |
Thanks Yann, I'm glad you enjoyed this. By the way, Fermat's Last Theorem by Simon Singh is an excellent holiday read. Don't let yourself be put off for the extremely complex subject, the book is simply written and utterly captivating. Mark |
||
|
ethome Member Patricius
since 2000-05-14
Posts 11858New Brunswick Canada |
The math has certainly become a little more detailed now days Marc. Today's science makes the following observations Four fundamental forces come into play both in the vastness of the cosmos and in the infinite smallness of atomic structures. Yes, everything we see around us is involved. Elements vital for our life (particularly carbon, oxygen, and iron) could not exist were it not for the fine-tuning of the four forces evident in the universe. We already mentioned one force, gravity. Another is the electromagnetic force. If it were significantly weaker, electrons would not be held around the nucleus of an atom. ‘Would that be serious?’ some might wonder. Yes, because atoms could not combine to form molecules. Conversely, if this force were much stronger, electrons would be trapped on the nucleus of an atom. There could be no chemical reactions between atoms—meaning no life. Even from this standpoint, it is clear that our existence and life depend on the fine-tuning of the electromagnetic force. And consider the cosmic scale: A slight difference in the electromagnetic force would affect the sun and thus alter the light reaching the earth, making photosynthesis in plants difficult or impossible. It could also rob water of its unique properties, which are vital for life. So again, the precise tuning of the electromagnetic force determines whether we live or not. Equally vital is the intensity of the electromagnetic force in relation to the other three. For example, some physicists figure this force to be 10,000,- 000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000 (1040) times that of gravity. It might seem a small change to that number to add one more zero (1041). Yet that would mean that gravity is proportionally weaker, and Dr. Reinhard Breuer comments on the resulting situation: “With lower gravity the stars would be smaller, and the pressure of gravity in their interiors would not drive the temperature high enough for nuclear fusion reactions to get under way: the sun would be unable to shine.” You can imagine what that would mean for us! What if gravity were stronger proportionately, so that the number had only 39 zeros (1039)? “With just this tiny adjustment,” continues Breuer, “a star like the sun would find its life expectancy sharply reduced.” And other scientists consider the fine-tuning to be even more precise. Indeed, two remarkable qualities of our sun and other stars are long-term efficiency and stability. Consider a simple illustration. We know that to run efficiently, an automobile engine needs a critical ratio between fuel and air; engineers design complex mechanical and computer systems to optimize performance. If that is so with a mere engine, what of the efficiently “burning” stars such as our sun? The key forces involved are precisely tuned, optimized for life. Did that precision just happen? The Two Nuclear Forces The structure of the universe involves much more than fine-tuning just gravity and the electromagnetic force. Two other physical forces also relate to our life. These two forces operate in the nucleus of an atom, and they give ample evidence of forethought. Consider the strong nuclear force, which glues protons and neutrons together in the nucleus of the atom. Because of this bonding, various elements can form—light ones (such as helium and oxygen) and heavy ones (such as gold and lead). It seems that if this binding force were a mere 2-percent weaker, only hydrogen would exist. Conversely, if this force were slightly stronger, only heavier elements, but no hydrogen, could be found. Would our lives be affected? Well, if the universe lacked hydrogen, our sun would not have the fuel it needs to radiate life-giving energy. And, of course, we would have no water or food, since hydrogen is an essential ingredient of both. The fourth force in this discussion, called the weak nuclear force, controls radioactive decay. It also affects thermonuclear activity in our sun. ‘Is this force fine-tuned?’ you might ask. Mathematician and physicist Freeman Dyson explains: “The weak [force] is millions of times weaker than the nuclear force. It is just weak enough so that the hydrogen in the sun burns at a slow and steady rate. If the weak [force] were much stronger or much weaker, any forms of life dependent on sunlike stars would again be in difficulties.” Yes, this precise rate of burning keeps our earth warm—but not incinerated—and keeps us alive. Furthermore, scientists believe that the weak force plays a role in supernova explosions, which they give as the mechanism for producing and distributing most elements. “If those nuclear forces were in any way slightly different from the way they actually are, the stars would be incapable of making the elements of which you and I are composed,” explains physicist John Polkinghorne. More could be said, but you likely understand the point. There is an amazing degree of fine-tuning in these four fundamental forces. “All around us, we seem to see evidence that nature got it just right,” wrote Professor Paul Davies. Yes, the precise tuning of the fundamental forces has made possible the existence and operation of our sun, our delightful planet with its life-sustaining water, our atmosphere so vital for life, and a vast array of precious chemical elements on earth. But ask yourself, ‘Why such precise tuning, and from where?’ Earth’s Ideal Features Our existence requires precision in other respects as well. Consider the earth’s measurements and its position relative to the rest of our solar system. As never before, many questions beg for answers. Why? Because of the amazing things that have been discovered about our earth—including its size and its position in our solar system. No planet like earth has been found elsewhere in the universe. True, some scientists point to indirect evidence that certain stars have orbiting them objects that are hundreds of times larger than the earth. Our earth, though, is just the right size for our existence. In what sense? If earth were slightly larger, its gravity would be stronger and hydrogen, a light gas, would collect, being unable to escape the earth’s gravity. Thus, the atmosphere would be inhospitable to life. On the other hand, if our earth were slightly smaller, life-sustaining oxygen would escape and surface water would evaporate. In either case, we could not live. The earth is also at an ideal distance from the sun, a factor vital for life to thrive. Astronomer John Barrow and mathematician Frank Tipler studied “the ratio of the Earth’s radius and distance from the Sun.” They concluded that human life would not exist “were this ratio slightly different from what it is observed to be.” Professor David L. Block notes: “Calculations show that had the earth been situated only 5 per cent closer to the sun, a runaway greenhouse effect [overheating of the earth] would have occurred about 4 000 million years ago. If, on the other hand, the earth were placed only 1 per cent further from the sun, runaway glaciation [huge sheets of ice covering much of the globe] would have occurred some 2 000 million years ago.”—Our Universe: Accident or Design? To the above precision, you can add the fact that the earth rotates on its axis once a day, the right speed to produce moderate temperatures. Venus takes 243 days to rotate. Just think if the earth took as long! We could not survive the extreme temperatures resulting from such long days and nights. Another vital detail is our earth’s path around the sun. Comets have a wide elliptic path. Thankfully, this is not so with the earth. Its orbit is almost circular. Again, this prevents us from experiencing death-dealing extremes of temperature. Nor should we ignore the location of our solar system. Were it nearer the center of the Milky Way galaxy, the gravitational effect of neighboring stars would distort the orbit of the earth. In contrast, were it situated at the very edge of our galaxy, the night sky would be all but devoid of stars. Starlight is not essential to life, but does it not add great beauty to our night sky? And based on current concepts of the universe, scientists have calculated that at the edges of the Milky Way, there would not have been enough of the needed chemical elements to form a solar system like ours. I'd say beware of those writing scientific books that are actually a cover for science fiction. Many grants and financing motives fertilize the composition of many theories while yet the facts that have been proven to stay the same for millions of years are mostly overlooked........Nobody seems to want to answer to intelligent design and creation because most are afraid they may have to answer to someone that would consider their actions selfish and unwholesome. My you sure do have a wonderful knowledge of poetry. I have never studied it like that but I can see you are a real student of the art. Great write! Eric |
||
|
OwlSA Member Rara Avis
since 2005-11-07
Posts 9347Durban, South Africa |
Thank you Marc. I enjoyed your poem and your response. Ethome, your proof of God's existence is in wonderful balance and harmony with my 4-word one - "Look at a butterfly" - and I mean "look" in every possible way, including and especially aesthetically, scientifically and compassionately. - Owl |
||
|
Marc-Andre Senior Member
since 2008-12-07
Posts 501 |
Thanks Eric, that was most interesting The poem is basically a word play on the syllable-per-line numbers, I do agree that maths and sciences are more advanced now. A Happy New Year to you Mark |
||
|
Alison
since 2008-01-27
Posts 9318Lumpy oatmeal makes me crazy! |
Still so very interesting - the responses are too. A |
||
|
Chalmette Guy Senior Member
since 2009-03-11
Posts 1257Louisiana |
I hate math. But I love the poem and the deep discussions here. |
||
|
Marcia MT Junior Member
since 2009-05-15
Posts 36California USA |
You've writtn in a genre that is new to me and I thought I knew them all - just goes to show you as soon as you think you know it all something new comes up like this poem which is obviously written by a poet who has done his homework. I'm new here so don't know you but I do applaud your talent and look forward to reading more of your works. |
||
|
serenity blaze Member Empyrean
since 2000-02-02
Posts 27738 |
Now this is what I was trying to do!  thank you Saving the entire thread now...I read and learn. Very much enjoyed this, as well as the fresh insight in the replies. |
||
|
|
⇧ top of page ⇧ |
|
| All times are ET (US). All dates are in Year-Month-Day format. | ||
