Post by: Ve9aPrim3 on 17/02/2018 21:26:18
http://www.quantumspaceelements.com/
For the in depth scientific proposal.
To follow my train of thought on reaching such a conclusion, please continue reading.
Challenge your minds to see the big picture, instead of just looking at the individual pieces.
TI-83 results.png (211.69 kB . 1092x565 - viewed 4957 times)"(Y3 & Y4) X=ERROR" indicates a shift to the Z axis to me.
x=y=z=n
f(x)=f(y)=f(z)=n
f(xx)=f(xy)=f(xz)=f(yy)=f(yz)=f(zz)=n
f(xxx)=f(xxy)=f(xxz)=f(xyz)=....=n
f(x)≠f(xx)≠f(xxx)≠....≠n
f(n)=f(x)=f(xx)=f(xxx)=....=n
(f(n)=x)±(f(n)≠x)±π=±n
(f(n)≈x)±π=±n
f(nx)±π≈n
f(nx)/n±π≈n/n
f(x)±π≈1
f(x)±π-1=0
f(x)-1=±π
(f(x)-1)/±π=±π/±π
(f(x)-1)/±π=1
(f(x)-1+1)/±π=0
f(x)/±π=0
±f(x)π=0
±f(x)π/f(x)=±0/f(x)
±π=±0
π=0
f(n)=n°π
For those of you whose toes I unwittingly stepped on, this is my thought journey to this point. I have the unfortunate inability to communicate my thoughts properly until they are completely formed. I thank all of you for your infinite patience and having allowed me to remain a member of this forum to it's bitter conclusion.
Here goes;
I would normally get bored during Math class, finding more interesting things to do than learn. Like how to mess around with the TI-83 and make it look like you were actually working. I found it much more fun to graph random gibberish into the equation inputs and mess around with what I'd get. I eventually learned to calculate the sum of an infinite series towards the (x,y) axis... then the (-x,y) then the (-x,-y) then the (x,-y). I ended up with circles in all the squares, and I thought to myself "that's neat" and left it at that. All these years later, I found myself wondering about those little circles, and what they would look like as spheres inside a cube. The problem I then faced was "where did the gap in space between the outside edge of the sphere and the inside edge of a cube go? It's gotta be around here somewhere?" This is when I came up with "In"verse and "Out"verse to describe what I was picturing. After being told everything I was doing was nonsense and to stop wasting my time, I felt even more motivated to get to the bottom of this. How many times throughout history has a revolutionary idea been squashed by naysayers? I had to find my solution. More poking, more prodding. At some point realizing that a truly balance equation is balanced at "±" because both sides are equally zero. I even look at "±" and it looks like a little teeter-totter balancing an equation... Sway to the left, sway to the right, sway from side to side, always in equilibrium. Pissed off A LOT of people trying to say so too (Sorry guys :-[). A little more poking around and I finally figured it out, I'm dealing with a circumference of a circle to it's unit square (face palm) it's π! Duhh.
If you take +Spacetime, invert it into -Spacetime, and overlap the results, it should give you a 3D shadow of the parts we can't actually see. The discrepancies would reveal themselves. A "True Zero" aka "Zero Point".
Effectively working as 4D cross-hairs in the meantime. ("Pause" a holographic movie for instance)
Conclusion:
π="True Zero"
Point is I knew I was looking at something, I just couldn't figure out exactly what until the journeys end.
Post by: Colin2B on 18/02/2018 14:34:11
You also imply that π=½
Post by: guest39538 on 18/02/2018 14:41:36
f(x) = f(xy) = f(xz) ≠ f(yz)
I don't get it, how can the last part of this be unequal?
X=
y=
z=
x=y=z there is no inequality
Post by: Ve9aPrim3 on 18/02/2018 15:48:11
If your first line is true, then some of your later lines are false.Actually, I'm implying that 0/0=π and that "π" itself is the intersection of both real and imaginary numbers. The perfect center of a sphere overlaid on a hypercube.
You also imply that π=½
x=y=z is TRUE
f(x)≠f(y)≠f(z) is TRUE
f(T/F)=f(T±F)
(T/F)≠(T±F)
OR
True over(/) False is equal to(=) True next to(±) False in terms of function ONLY.
Example:
If you only look at one face of a rubix-cube (xy), you can kinda guess about the rest of its shape.. ish.. maybe. All you know is it's at least a 2D shape, or a partial 3D shape (a red shifted image on the surface of an event horizon?),
BUT, if you turn the cube and balance it on one of its corners (y) and look at it from the (xz) perspective, then you can spin it like a top, and know its complete 3D shape.
Post by: Ve9aPrim3 on 18/02/2018 15:57:26
x=y=z there is no inequalityAgreed.
x=y=z
BUT
f(x)≠f(y)≠f(z)
kinda like 10(decimal)≠10(hex)
Post by: Colin2B on 18/02/2018 16:33:29
Actually, I'm implying that 0/0=πThen you still have a falsehood in your list.
Also it would be best to reserve π for its conventional meaning and use a different, but defined, symbol for whatever you are trying to say.
Post by: guest39538 on 18/02/2018 16:36:48
Huh, you can't agree with one equality then say in the next sentence there is an inequality,x=y=z there is no inequalityAgreed.
x=y=z
BUT
f(x)≠f(y)≠f(z)
kinda like 10(decimal)≠10(hex)
ƒ:(x)=ƒ:(y)=ƒ:(z)
Because :
ƒ: (c/x) = ƒ: (c/y) = ƒ: (c/z)
Because
ƒ:Δt = ƒ:Δi,j
Because
(1+1) = (0.5 + 0.5 ) = 1
Because
i = 0.5 i,j
and
j = 0.5 i,j
but
i also = 1 and j also = 1
Post by: Ve9aPrim3 on 18/02/2018 16:46:18
Maybe, but if π is equal to the circumference ratio of a circle to a square, wouldn't π also be the volume ratio of a sphere to a cube? ie: no answer with an infinite margin of error; ∅±∞=πActually, I'm implying that 0/0=πThen you still have a falsehood in your list.
Also it would be best to reserve π for its conventional meaning and use a different, but defined, symbol for whatever you are trying to say.
Post by: Ve9aPrim3 on 18/02/2018 16:49:36
Huh, you can't agree with one equality then say in the next sentence there is an inequality,x=y=z there is no inequalityAgreed.
x=y=z
BUT
f(x)≠f(y)≠f(z)
kinda like 10(decimal)≠10(hex)
ƒ:(x)=ƒ:(y)=ƒ:(z)
Because :
ƒ: (c/x) = ƒ: (c/y) = ƒ: (c/z)
Because
ƒ:Δt = ƒ:Δi,j
Because
(1+1) = (0.5 + 0.5 ) = 1
Because
i = 0.5 i,j
and
j = 0.5 i,j
but
i also = 1 and j also = 1
What i'm implying is;
YES, the function of x works identical to the functions of y and z, so for theoretical purposes it's fine. However, the x plane itself is not the y plane nor the z plane, therefore not so great for practical purposes.
f(x) = f(xy) = f(xz)
≠ ± = ± =
f(y) = f(xy) = f(yz)
≠ ± = ± =
f(z) = f(xz) = f(yz)
It's 3D Math! ;)
Post by: guest39538 on 18/02/2018 16:53:07
So you are just trying to explain different ''directions'' with a rather needless explanation?Huh, you can't agree with one equality then say in the next sentence there is an inequality,x=y=z there is no inequalityAgreed.
x=y=z
BUT
f(x)≠f(y)≠f(z)
kinda like 10(decimal)≠10(hex)
ƒ:(x)=ƒ:(y)=ƒ:(z)
Because :
ƒ: (c/x) = ƒ: (c/y) = ƒ: (c/z)
Because
ƒ:Δt = ƒ:Δi,j
Because
(1+1) = (0.5 + 0.5 ) = 1
Because
i = 0.5 i,j
and
j = 0.5 i,j
but
i also = 1 and j also = 1
What i'm implying is;
YES, the function of x works identical to the functions of y and z, so for theoretical purposes it's fine. However, the x plane itself is not the y or z planes themselves.
X,Y, Z already specifies they are different directions, no more is needed ....
Post by: Ve9aPrim3 on 18/02/2018 16:57:48
So you are just trying to explain different ''directions'' with a rather needless explanation?Huh, you can't agree with one equality then say in the next sentence there is an inequality,x=y=z there is no inequalityAgreed.
x=y=z
BUT
f(x)≠f(y)≠f(z)
kinda like 10(decimal)≠10(hex)
ƒ:(x)=ƒ:(y)=ƒ:(z)
Because :
ƒ: (c/x) = ƒ: (c/y) = ƒ: (c/z)
Because
ƒ:Δt = ƒ:Δi,j
Because
(1+1) = (0.5 + 0.5 ) = 1
Because
i = 0.5 i,j
and
j = 0.5 i,j
but
i also = 1 and j also = 1
What i'm implying is;
YES, the function of x works identical to the functions of y and z, so for theoretical purposes it's fine. However, the x plane itself is not the y or z planes themselves.
X,Y, Z already specifies they are different directions, no more is needed ....
Not so needless in terms of logical expression. You and I know the difference that up=left=forward, but a computer doesn't.
Post by: guest39538 on 18/02/2018 17:01:31
A computer does not know anything other than what we tell it to ''know'' by programming . We can position things like in cgi software because we have put in the plots, a computer will never ''know'' the difference. or know.So you are just trying to explain different ''directions'' with a rather needless explanation?Huh, you can't agree with one equality then say in the next sentence there is an inequality,x=y=z there is no inequalityAgreed.
x=y=z
BUT
f(x)≠f(y)≠f(z)
kinda like 10(decimal)≠10(hex)
ƒ:(x)=ƒ:(y)=ƒ:(z)
Because :
ƒ: (c/x) = ƒ: (c/y) = ƒ: (c/z)
Because
ƒ:Δt = ƒ:Δi,j
Because
(1+1) = (0.5 + 0.5 ) = 1
Because
i = 0.5 i,j
and
j = 0.5 i,j
but
i also = 1 and j also = 1
What i'm implying is;
YES, the function of x works identical to the functions of y and z, so for theoretical purposes it's fine. However, the x plane itself is not the y or z planes themselves.
X,Y, Z already specifies they are different directions, no more is needed ....
Not so needless in terms of logical expression. You and I know the difference that up=left=forward, but a computer doesn't.
Post by: Ve9aPrim3 on 18/02/2018 17:21:33
A computer does not know anything other than what we tell it to ''know'' by programming . We can position things like in cgi software because we have put in the plots, a computer will never ''know'' the difference. or know.So you are just trying to explain different ''directions'' with a rather needless explanation?Huh, you can't agree with one equality then say in the next sentence there is an inequality,x=y=z there is no inequalityAgreed.
x=y=z
BUT
f(x)≠f(y)≠f(z)
kinda like 10(decimal)≠10(hex)
ƒ:(x)=ƒ:(y)=ƒ:(z)
Because :
ƒ: (c/x) = ƒ: (c/y) = ƒ: (c/z)
Because
ƒ:Δt = ƒ:Δi,j
Because
(1+1) = (0.5 + 0.5 ) = 1
Because
i = 0.5 i,j
and
j = 0.5 i,j
but
i also = 1 and j also = 1
What i'm implying is;
YES, the function of x works identical to the functions of y and z, so for theoretical purposes it's fine. However, the x plane itself is not the y or z planes themselves.
X,Y, Z already specifies they are different directions, no more is needed ....
Not so needless in terms of logical expression. You and I know the difference that up=left=forward, but a computer doesn't.
If (xy) = Picture of Policeman
Then (xyz) = Policeman
They are exremely similar but not the same.
Post by: Bored chemist on 18/02/2018 18:12:19
f(x) = f(xy) = f(xz) ≠ f(yz)What do you mean by that?
Also "How to plot a course in 3D space"
x=f(t)
y=g(t)
z=h(t)
Actually, I'm implying that 0/0=π and that "π" itself is the intersection of both real and imaginary numbers.It isn't.
The real and imaginary number lines cross at zero.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Complex_plane
And 0/0 (like anything else divided by zero) is undefined.
Post by: Ve9aPrim3 on 18/02/2018 18:24:00
f(x) = f(xy) = f(xz) ≠ f(yz)What do you mean by that?
Also "How to plot a course in 3D space"
x=f(t)
y=g(t)
z=h(t)Actually, I'm implying that 0/0=π and that "π" itself is the intersection of both real and imaginary numbers.It isn't.
The real and imaginary number lines cross at zero.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Complex_plane
And 0/0 (like anything else divided by zero) is undefined.
I'm defining 0/0 as π
0/x is an infinite answer
x/0 is a non-answer
An infinite non-answer sounds like π to me, or True 0. aka ±0
Post by: guest39538 on 18/02/2018 18:46:39
If (xy) = Picture of Policeman
Then (xyz) = Policeman
They are exremely similar but not the same.
And that would write xy ≠ xyz which is nothing new
Post by: Ve9aPrim3 on 18/02/2018 18:51:52
If (xy) = Picture of Policeman
Then (xyz) = Policeman
They are exremely similar but not the same.
And that would write xy ≠ xyz which is nothing new
Prove it to me beyond a shadow of a doubt then as simply as you can to someone who has no formal education and is 100% self taught. Go.
Post by: Colin2B on 19/02/2018 18:13:33
Prove it to me beyond a shadow of a doubt then as simply as you can to someone who has no formal education and is 100% self taught. Go.The onus is on you to prove your case.
Currently you haven’t done that.
I’m happy to discuss further if you can do that, but until then I see no reason to engage.
Post by: Ve9aPrim3 on 19/02/2018 18:51:27
Prove it to me beyond a shadow of a doubt then as simply as you can to someone who has no formal education and is 100% self taught. Go.The onus is on you to prove your case.
Currently you haven’t done that.
I’m happy to discuss further if you can do that, but until then I see no reason to engage.
LOL now I understand. :D
My formula is an attempt to do just that. I'm challenging you to disprove it. That would be an error in my communication, and I apologize for that... Honestly I've been told that I'm a bit of a "Sheldon" in terms of social navigation. I've been diagnosed with extremely high functioning autism.
That being said, I have a tendency to see the world in ways other people just take for granted.
I honestly believe that with my theorem, you can now (xyz/0=a) without "destroying the universe", where a=π.
I "see" π defined as "xyz/0" where π = ±0
-or-
The space between Zeros;
-0xπ+0x
-0yπ+0y
-0zπ+0z
Therefore
0=1≠±0(or π)
It's very logical in it's inherent illogicality.
Post by: Bored chemist on 19/02/2018 19:10:50
someone who has no formal education and is 100% self taught.I'm sorry to say it, but it shows.
I'm defining 0/0 as π
OK
I will simply state that 0/0=52 because that's my age.
Now let's have a look at that equation
0/0=52
OK multiply both sides of the equation by zero.
0 = 52 *0
So 0=0
And that's plainly true, so I must have been right in the first place, in which case 0/0 certainly isn't pi because it's 52
Or you can accept that 0/0 is not defined.
Post by: Bored chemist on 19/02/2018 19:11:31
I'm challenging you to disprove it.That's not the way it goes.
Proving it is your job.
Post by: Ve9aPrim3 on 19/02/2018 19:52:43
Okeydokey ;DI'm challenging you to disprove it.That's not the way it goes.
Proving it is your job.
-xyz0π+xyz0
0=1≠±0 (or π)
f(xyz)=π
Now you can go ahead and solve space and time simultaneously.
Tadah!
I just made "E=mc²" my Bitch!
I just followed a roundabout way to get there.
Boom! (Mic drop, walks off stage)
Post by: Bored chemist on 19/02/2018 22:22:39
You seem to have left a turd on the stage, rather than a microphone.Okeydokey ;DI'm challenging you to disprove it.That's not the way it goes.
Proving it is your job.
-xyz0π+xyz0
0=1≠±0 (or π)
f(xyz)=π
Now you can go ahead and solve space and time simultaneously.
Tadah!
I just made "E=mc²" my Bitch!
I just followed a roundabout way to get there.
Boom! (Mic drop, walks off stage)
The turd in question is this bit
"
-xyz0π+xyz0
0=1≠±0 (or π)
f(xyz)=π
"
which makes no sense at all.
Post by: Ve9aPrim3 on 19/02/2018 22:37:08
You seem to have left a turd on the stage, rather than a microphone.Okeydokey ;DI'm challenging you to disprove it.That's not the way it goes.
Proving it is your job.
-xyz0π+xyz0
0=1≠±0 (or π)
f(xyz)=π
Now you can go ahead and solve space and time simultaneously.
Tadah!
I just made "E=mc²" my Bitch!
I just followed a roundabout way to get there.
Boom! (Mic drop, walks off stage)
The turd in question is this bit
"
-xyz0π+xyz0
0=1≠±0 (or π)
f(xyz)=π
"
which makes no sense at all.
I'm sorry to hear you think a turd looks like a microphone. I'd hate to see your bathroom after you were done with it.
I RE-INVENTED MATH
No more fractions! It's either a whole number, or π.
And if you still need a clearer picture, the number line now looks like this;
...,-3,π,-2,π,-1,π,-0,π,0,π,1,π,2,π,3,...
Are you wrapping your head around this yet?
Can I go back off stage now? Are you done heckling me?
Post by: Colin2B on 19/02/2018 23:01:57
I'm challenging you to disprove it.We don’t have to bother, you are doing such a really good job all on your own.
I wouldn’t normally respond to your last post or pm, but it might be useful to other posters if I make a few comments.
One of the most common statements we get in New Theories goes along the lines of “Galileo was found suspect of heresy", implying they are the new Galileo. This is usually from posters claiming to have invented a perpetual motion machine, or have proof that the world is flat and there is a conspiracy to cover it up, or that gravity is an illusion and it is really air pressure, one poster even claimed he had a revelation from etheric beings living underground.
The second most common statement is that they are able to think outside the box whereas scientists are programmed to think inside the box. This despite evidence to the contrary that shows that as a group scientists do more thinking outside the box and accepting of new ideas than any other group.
Such comments are water off a ducks back to any scientist, because the proof of any new theory is in its writing. Is it coherent, understandable, logical, consistent and does it align with known facts. Very few do. It is possible to conclude that the poster either has no idea what they are talking about, is delusional, or is a troll.
One thing that marks out a troll is that they will typically post gibberish and challenge anyone to disprove it.
It’s up to you, you can continue to behave like a troll or you can smarten up and try to explain you ideas in words not random symbols.
Otherwise, it posts like a troll ...........
Post by: Ve9aPrim3 on 20/02/2018 16:44:15
Otherwise, it posts like a troll ...........I'm trying to re-imagine the concept of plotting points on a graph. That is all.
I believe it changes our fundamental understanding of Math as a simple YES/NO binary equation, to a YES/NO=MAYBE trinary equation.
Traditionally, the number line basically equated to 0±1=(x or y or z) while only being able to change course at 90 degree angles.
I'm re-imagining the number line as (0±1≠π)=(x and y and z)
I believe that π is actually a non-number. It acts as the point in between 0.999‾ (repeating infinite number) and 0.999 (non-repeating finite number). That's why π sits in the middle. It is by it's very nature an anomaly (a non-repeating infinite number).
Thus effectively removing the limits of plotting coordinates in simple 3D space.
π acts as an (xyz) pivot point between "1(on)/0(off)" effectively giving you infinite directions to plot from in between every finite point, actively opening yourself up to plotting whatever formula you want in a 4D environment instead.
It's not my fault I had to ask a million and one "non-sense" questions to reach this conclusion. It WILL revolutionize basic algebra, AND do so WITHOUT discrediting anybody's work. It will only enhance everyone's understanding of the Universe we live in.
Ps.: People forget that Einstein did his best work as a patent clerk, imagining what it would be like to sit upon a photon and see the universe from that point of view. It was only years later that he eventually came up with his famous equation. I'm not trying to disprove anyone's hard work. I'm only trying to prove my theorem can fit alongside all the others that are currently accepted by mainstream science. This is where I find myself dealing with "inside the box" thinkers. They have been trained to look for the answers to their problems by tinkering away at a specific problem until all possible ideas become exhausted. I'm simply stating that, being left in the dust by everyone else rushing towards learning the next challenge that "awaits" them, that maybe they missed something? All I'm saying is I think I found something, and it might be wise to at least poke around a bit with it and see what happens. That's all I ask. I have NO WAY of testing this theorem. I'm asking the community to do so for me, if they have the tools capable of doing so. And pretty please with a gosh darn cherry on top!
Pps.: Common! I'm trying to have fun here bouncing new ideas up in the air, I thought that was what the internet was built for. Just because you can't imagine what I'm trying to describe doesn't mean you (the scientific community) should knock it down. That's a little bit like the asshole bully in the school yard taking your ball and playing keep away. That's not very nice people, you should be encouraging people to explore strange new ideas that challenge the status quo, and force yourselves to re-think the world we live in every once in a while. If it doesn't work out, you're not any further behind. So where's the harm?
"The mark of intelligence is not defined by ones ability to be educated, but by the ability to educated oneself."
-Me (Today)
And before anyone says "so and so already said that..." Maybe that's true, but only means it resonated within me all the more... If that's the case.
Post by: Colin2B on 20/02/2018 19:33:03
People forget that Einstein did his best work as a patent clerk, imagining what it would be like to sit upon a photon and see the universe from that point of view.No, the science community recognises this. What they also recognise is that part of Einstein's genius was his ability to communicate his ideas. He wrote to a number of people explaining is some detail what his thinking was, he didn't just drop a pile of unexplained symbols in their laps.
you should be encouraging people to explore strange new ideas that challenge the status quoThis works both ways.
I appreciate that you think everyone except yourself is a miseducated, narrowminded arsehole, but if you tried treating them with just a small amount of respect you might get a better response.
The first steps in not dissing your audience are:
Define the bounds of your idea eg “I'm trying to re-imagine the concept of plotting points on a graph”
Define any symbols you use – trying not to use existing common usage symbols like π
Explain carefully and clearly each step of your reasoning
do everything you can to communicate your idea rather than being smart arsed and esoteric.
You still have a long way to go with your explanation, but at least it's a step in the right direction.
You will find that folks on this forum can have a great deal of fun with ideas, but you will also find that they do not suffer fools gladly and you have a way to go before you can convince them you don't belong in that category.
PS do you realise that you have spent more words dissing your audience than you have trying to properly explain your ideas. Jury is still out on the troll view.
Post by: Ve9aPrim3 on 20/02/2018 19:45:06
No, the science community recognises this. What they also recognise is that part of Einstein's genius was his ability to communicate his ideas. He wrote to a number of people explaining is some detail what his thinking was, he didn't just drop a pile of unexplained symbols in their laps.That's just it... I don't people good. Personal interactions are my ultimate weakness. I'm trying to contact people who know their stuff to try and make sense of a jumbled mess of symbols. I had all the pieces to a puzzle, and I was asking for help assembling it. I was trying to make sense out of nonsense, knowing there was a complete picture in there somewhere. I was asking for help. I was told not to waste my time. I believe how I spend my time is up to me. I was just asking for a little Yes/No guidance.
My EQ is extreemly low. Consequently my IQ is ludicrously high.
Post by: Ve9aPrim3 on 20/02/2018 19:58:10
PS do you realise that you have spent more words dissing your audience than you have trying to properly explain your ideas. Jury is still out on the troll view.No, I did not realize I was "dissing" my audience. That was not my intention at all. I apologize to anyone on the forum who may have been offended by my words.
Expressing ideas through text is a very ambiguous thing. That's why I don't like having conversations with my wife over text message. Ideas and meaning get lost in the translation.
Einstein may have corresponded over written word as well, but there is at least a conveyance of feeling when you put pen to paper rather than homogenizing the language with "Times New Roman". I am not an author after all. I have a difficult time painting with words... especially when such a complex problem with an obvious solution that I can't see is plainly in front of me. It holds 95% of my focus, giving me 5% communication skills.
Post by: Bored chemist on 20/02/2018 20:33:25
I RE-INVENTED MATHI don't know what you invented, but it isn't math.
, knowing there was a complete picture in there somewhere.There is no evidence you were correct about that.
My EQ is extreemly low. Consequently my IQ is ludicrously high.
It's not a consequence.
When it comes down to it, much of what you have written is incomprehensible, and many of the bits that are understandable are plainly wrong.
Your continued insistence that it's valuable makes me question the idea that you have a high IQ.
Post by: Ve9aPrim3 on 20/02/2018 20:55:13
Fair. My statement was misrepresented. My fault. Meant redefined. And only basic algebra at that.I RE-INVENTED MATHI don't know what you invented, but it isn't math.
There's no evidence to the contrary either., knowing there was a complete picture in there somewhere.There is no evidence you were correct about that.
Agree to disagreeMy EQ is extreemly low. Consequently my IQ is ludicrously high.
It's not a consequence.
When it comes down to it, much of what you have written is incomprehensible, and many of the bits that are understandable are plainly wrong.
Your continued insistence that it's valuable makes me question the idea that you have a high IQ.
Just because it's incomprehensible to you doesn't mean it isn't so. The difference is clear as day in my head. I'm comparing it to having an analog 2D(xy) frame photo of a car, to a holographic 3D(xyz) frame photo of a car contained in a 3x3x3 matrix...
Kind of like a "Computer, freeze program" holodeck moment in time, instead of a "Pause the DVD player" moment in time.
It is literally a way to calculate an object's position and velocity at the same time.
I knew where I was headed, I just didn't know how to get there. I'm also no good at asking for help, I tend to come across as "Hey you, come help me!" rather than trying to politely ask... That last part is a Me problem though.
Post by: Bored chemist on 20/02/2018 21:04:49
There's no evidence to the contrary either.Yes, there is.
For example, your stuff contradicts itself.
Agree to disagreeThat's not how it works in science and maths.
We don't "agree to disagree" with the evidence; we follow it.
Just because it's incomprehensible to you doesn't mean it isn't so.Again, you miss the point.
It it contradicts itself then it isn't comprehensible to anyone.
At best you have written it too badly to understand.
"Kind of like a "Computer, freeze program" holodeck moment in time, instead of a "Pause the DVD player" moment in time."
That might make sense if the issue was moving from 2D to 3D, but that's not where we are.
Why not try presenting the 2D version of your idea, just for comparison.
Post by: Bored chemist on 20/02/2018 21:06:01
It is literally a way to calculate an object's position and velocity at the same time.
Prove it.
Use it to calculate the position of something- the moon, a ball on a billiard table, the bob of a pendulum- anything.
Post by: Ve9aPrim3 on 20/02/2018 21:09:04
It is literally a way to calculate an object's position and velocity at the same time.
Prove it.
Use it to calculate the position of something- the moon, a ball on a billiard table, the bob of a pendulum- anything.
LOL
See that's the thing. I don't know how to do that part...
Post by: Ve9aPrim3 on 20/02/2018 21:17:03
It it contradicts itself then it isn't comprehensible to anyone.It's supposed to contradict itself though. That's why it only equals to approximately zero... just at that point you might as well just call it zero.
At best you have written it too badly to understand.
It's the difference between going around with one eye closed in the dark, to both eyes open in the light.
Left Eye Open
f(x)=x±π
Right Eye Open
f(x)≠x±π
Put them together and you have a "Zero sum" image just like what your brain does when it combines two marginally different 2D images into a 3D visualization.
Only instead it's from 3D to 4D.
Use it to calculate space + time instead of just calculating for space OR time.
Post by: Bored chemist on 20/02/2018 21:33:37
It's supposed to contradict itself though.Then it is neither maths nor science.
Post by: Bored chemist on 20/02/2018 21:34:50
See that's the thing. I don't know how to do that part...So the only person who "understands" it- i.e. you, can't use it.
Can you explain how that's different from a total waste of time?
Post by: Ve9aPrim3 on 20/02/2018 21:39:34
It really only ever ALMOST contradicts itself.It's supposed to contradict itself though.Then it is neither maths nor science.
Have you never calculated the sum of infinity towards zero? You can do that on both sides of an axis... Do that on all 3 axis and you end up with a 4th dimension, the dimension between time(xyz). This is where you would find "Zero Point Energy". Time and space work identically after all, do they not?
Post by: Bored chemist on 20/02/2018 21:48:54
It really only ever ALMOST contradicts itself.Nope.
0=1
That's a contradiction. (or meaningless).
This is where you would find "Zero Point Energy".No.
Really; just No.
Trying to introduce quantum Woo at this point just makes you look like a crank or a troll (and there's already not a lot of indications that you are not)
Post by: Ve9aPrim3 on 20/02/2018 21:53:22
Okay. If you want to see it that way. At this point your the only one who really seems to care anymore. I honestly don't care if you believe me. I'll take Crank though.. Really not trying to be a Troll dude. Just the picture I'm trying to paint. You don't have to like it if you don't want to. I honestly don't know a lick of Quantum math and this is the conclusion I came to. Take it or leave it.It really only ever ALMOST contradicts itself.Nope.0=1
That's a contradiction. (or meaningless).This is where you would find "Zero Point Energy".No.
Really; just No.
Trying to introduce quantum Woo at this point just makes you look like a crank or a troll (and there's already not a lot of indications that you are not)
Post by: Bored chemist on 20/02/2018 22:06:40
Okay. If you want to see it that way.You say that as if it's personal.
That's not the way it works.
It's not that "I see it that way".
It's the evidence that shows it that way.
Post by: Ve9aPrim3 on 20/02/2018 22:08:07
Yes/No=MaybeOkay. If you want to see it that way.You say that as if it's personal.
That's not the way it works.
It's not that "I see it that way".
It's the evidence that shows it that way.
Post by: Colin2B on 20/02/2018 22:52:52
Consequently my IQ is ludicrously high.Having a high IQ isn't unusual, being able to use it is less usual.
Expressing ideas through text is a very ambiguous thing.It is even more ambiguous and difficult with symbols.
I have a difficult time painting with words...I’ll be honest, you have even greater difficulty when using symbols.
Keep trying to explain your ideas in words. Symbols are only shorthand for writing down very long sentences, sometimes even paragraphs and chapters. If you can’t do the longhand it’s because you don’t understand the shorthand, and if you can’t no-one can.
Post by: Ve9aPrim3 on 20/02/2018 23:03:09
Keep trying to explain your ideas in words. Symbols are only shorthand for writing down very long sentences, sometimes even paragraphs and chapters. If you can’t do the longhand it’s because you don’t understand the shorthand, and if you can’t no-one can.Thank you for the advice... I reworded my entire introductory paragraph if you wouldn't mind giving it a once over please? I'm really working backward from my answer to my question... But I think it makes all the sense, especially now that I have finished my though to completion.
I understood the longhand in my head.. I'm just really not a poet. I use big words that sound great sure but... It all boils down to "I'm just a grunt trying to build a better house, with only a stone and some twigs".
Post by: alancalverd on 20/02/2018 23:11:51
Post by: Bored chemist on 21/02/2018 19:36:14
Yes/No=MaybeThere isn't any "yes", it's all "no".