Why Bring Up Astronomy

Just to give everyone, pro or con, fair warning, here's what I've been up to.
http://www.pas.rochester.edu/~emamajek/WGSN/IAU-CSN.txt
That's a list of named stars. It's hardly close to a complete list of all stars. But there's already plenty of information to work with and I have the big gun coming up after this.


Other than being somewhat mentally unstable (hopefully in the quirky, eccentric manner) and willing to invest time into the subject, I have a larger than normal capacity to identify that after a claim has been made to ask, "Ok, what's wrong with that"? Some things are better than others. I doubt anyone doing gematria ever thought about continental drift. The circle being the Mark of the Beast is a work in progress for me. I'm still building up my evidence that it is actually the triangle. Which works because it's so ridiculously easy to play with the numbers and turn them into anything you want. I could have made it into a Wollongong reference, but figured triangles would be much nicer for an upcoming post.


Why on earth would I whine about astronomy outside the monthly awards yesterday?


How about because we were bringing up Saturn being a sun and the universe is a big whomping place. Our Sun is a sun. There are lots of other suns. Lots and lots and lots. The universe isn't big enough to hold Graham's number of things, but there's still lots of things. Oodles of lots of things like suns.


Do you realize how easy it is to find a 93 reference amidst that oodles of information? Do they realize that I get Urked about this 93 meaning Sun thing *not* based on WORD=NUMBER gematria is overused? Or realize that it doesn't matter what they think as much as what an unbiased reviewer of the information gets from the data? Especially when science is brought up? (Have I mentioned I'm a scientist lately?)


The first step is to reduce the information from Whomping oodles to what scientists call a Standard Practical Oodle, or Standard Poodle. That link is named stars. They've already had words attached to them. The evil media has made sure to get them listed off a Wikipedia reference.


Obviously Sirius has some significance, being the Dog Star amidst that standard poodle. DOG STAR=39, the mirror of 93. I like that in the Vmag column there are several candidates of 39's =93's. We all know you're allowed to truncate and round at will in gematria. I was hoping UNURGUNITE=93 because it sounds cool. Either some super heroes weakness or a kick ass dishwasher soap. But, no. Sometime I can go through the list looking for anything that suggests that 93 doesn't mean our Sun, but another star. There's got to be something better than this dumbass lack of elliptical orbit crap for our Sun.


That can wait. I spread have a decent alternative. A star cluster, M93. Look at that, a 93 right off the bat. The M is for Messier. So we get


MESSIER CLUSTER 93 = 93 (Reverse Reduced). No prime numbers. No made up phrases.
http://www.messier.seds.org/cluster.html
"One should keep in mind almost all Messier clusters are members in our own Milky Way Galaxy.". No messier(!) alteration of the gematria by lopping off a zero or mirror images.


Because gematria sucks bigger than a black Labrador hole, these things will always crop up when your database gets so big. The Earth not big enough, ok let's bring in the universe! What could possibly go wrong!


113 - busted. 98 as important to this NFL season - busted. 666 - busted. Pi - busted. Circles - busted. (TWO RIGHT TRIANGLES and MARK OF THE BEAST=234 in reverse. 360 degrees in two right triangles, same as a circle. More on the way!)


The pattern should be obvious. Don't make a commitment to a number meaning something. Because gematria doesn't work.