Naked Science Forum
On the Lighter Side => New Theories => Topic started by: guest39538 on 30/01/2018 00:16:04

Can two opposite polarities occupy the same space?
I think they can......

Not exactly the same space and exactly opposite charges, otherwise there would be no net charge.
But it is possible to come very close:
 The proton has a very small volume, and is made of 3 quarks: two up quarks of charge +⅔ e and one down quark of charge –⅓ e, for a net charge of 1e.
 The neutron also has a very small volume, and is also made of 3 quarks: two down quarks with charge −⅓ e and one up quark with charge +⅔ e, for a net charge of 0.
 But these quarks are still discrete entities within the tiny volume of a proton or neutron, so they don't occupy exactly the same space. This was discovered by bombarding nuclei by highenergy electrons.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Proton
Please explain how you think it is possible to have 2 charges occupying exactly the same space without releasing an infinite amount of energy in the formation of this hypothetical particle.

Not exactly the same space and exactly opposite charges, otherwise there would be no net charge.
But it is possible to come very close:
 The proton has a very small volume, and is made of 3 quarks: two up quarks of charge +⅔ e and one down quark of charge –⅓ e, for a net charge of 1e.
 The neutron also has a very small volume, and is also made of 3 quarks: two down quarks with charge −⅓ e and one up quark with charge +⅔ e, for a net charge of 0.
 But these quarks are still discrete entities within the tiny volume of a proton or neutron, so they don't occupy exactly the same space. This was discovered by bombarding nuclei by highenergy electrons.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Proton
Please explain how you think it is possible to have 2 charges occupying exactly the same space without releasing an infinite amount of energy in the formation of this hypothetical particle.
I do not just think it possible, the laws of physics suggests it is possible because in two individual matrices of opposite polarities, all 0 points of matrice neg would be attracted to all 0 points of matrice pos and vice versus.
000→←111
000→←111
000→←111
There is no apparent reason both matrices could not merge to occupy the same space.
P.s I was considering electrical fields rather than atoms in this instance although this does associate with my nfield idea.
added Both matrices will be in a natural state of expansion unless merged .
added if the merged super matrice was to become polarised or part polarised , the super matrice would then expand.

I drew it in 3d for you
[ Invalid Attachment ]

I have no idea why all of a sudden I know about matrices, I think Jeff posts sunk in somewhere.
Thanks Jef..

[ Invalid Attachment ]
And here is the monopole matrice.

I have no idea why all of a sudden I know about matrices,
What makes you think that you do?

I have no idea why all of a sudden I know about matrices,
What makes you think that you do?
Because it is a pretty easy subject really, now I am using it.
and it tells you here what it means
(maths) a rectangular array of elements set out in rows and columns, used to facilitate the solution of problems, such as the transformation of coordinates. Usually indicated by parentheses:
and it tells you here what transformation of coordinates means
Coordinate Transformations. A Cartesian coordinate system allows position and direction in space to be represented in a very convenient manner. Unfortunately, such a coordinate system also introduces arbitrary elements into our analysis.
I have stated force vectors and linear direction , and my conclusion is ΔX=Δq when considering these particular, well thought out, matrices.
Also in conclusion Matrice (A) cannot exist without Matrice (B) simultaneously.
Both matrice (A) and (B) will be in continuous expansion unless the event of the merge happens and two opposite polarities occupy the same space.
added  and this I why I stated before
→
E=(q1+q2)/4/3πr³
and any fluctuations in the super matrice being measured a negative or a positive relative to the neutral of the super matrice.

in two individual matrices of opposite polarities
000→←111
000→←111
000→←111
It appears that you have illustrated two 3x3 mathematical matrices here (you need TeX to get nice braces :( ):
1. The Zero matrix, with all elements = 0. This is a very important matrix to know, being similar to "0" in the integer numbers.
2. A matrix with all elements = 1. This is a runofthemill matrix.
These matrices do not have opposite polarity. The "0" matrix has no polarity or sign.
By way of introduction to matrices, another important matrix to know is the Identity matrix "I", similar to "1" in the integer numbers:
100
010
001
See: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zero_matrix
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Identity_matrix
opposite polarities
Just like the integer numbers, you know that two matrixes have opposite polarity (or sign) if they add to give zero.
The two matrices you described do not add to give zero.
Just like in the integers, zero plus any matrix gives you the original matrix.
all 0 points of matrice neg would be attracted to all 0 points of matrice pos and vice versus.
Why would one matrix be attracted to any other matrix?
That's like saying "0 is attracted to 1".
A force of attraction (or repulsion) exists between electrical charges, magnetic fields, masses, protons and neutrons.
You have not provided a mapping from a matrix (a mathematical object) onto electrical charges, magnetic fields, masses, protons and neutrons (physical objects).
Mathematics can be used to represent all these physical things, but I don't see how your 3x3 matrices represent any of these things.
There is no apparent reason both matrices could not merge to occupy the same space.
There are several ways that two matrices can be merged to fill the same space.
Just as with integers, where 0 + 2 = 2 (where two numbers become 1 number), there is a form of matrix addition (where 2 matrices become one matrix):
000 111 111
000 + 111 = 111
000 111 111
Just as with integers, where 0 x 2 = 0 (where two numbers become 1 number), there is a form of matrix multiplication (where 2 matrices become one matrix). But it helps if you learn to add before you try to multiply.
See: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Matrix_addition

Just like the integer numbers, you know that two matrixes have opposite polarity (or sign) if they add to give zero.
The two matrices you described do not add to give zero.
Just like in the integers, zero plus any matrix gives you the original matrix.
????
[ Invalid Attachment ]

Why would one matrix be attracted to any other matrix?
Because my matrices are fields, positions in the field represented by numbers.

A force of attraction (or repulsion) exists between electrical charges, magnetic fields, masses, protons and neutrons.
A force of attraction (or repulsion) exists between polarities , polarity unifies all the above forces. Polarity is the force.

You have not provided a mapping from a matrix (a mathematical object) onto electrical charges, magnetic fields, masses, protons and neutrons (physical objects).
You mean like 0→0 ?
Let {\displaystyle V} V and {\displaystyle W} W be vector spaces over the same field {\displaystyle \mathbf {K} .} {\displaystyle \mathbf {K} .} A function {\displaystyle f:V\to W} f : V \to W is said to be a linear map if for any two vectors
Im here https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Linear_map
added  Ok my new matrice looks like this
any closer to explaining what I am explaining?
linear maths.jpg (58.4 kB . 1914x922  viewed 1501 times)
and in my mono pole example I am at f: V ←→V

Can two opposite polarities occupy the same space?
What do you think "polarities" means here?

Can two opposite polarities occupy the same space?
What do you think "polarities" means here?
Iol I do see your point because polarity is not an object. Polarity is a 0 point of repulsive or attractive force.
added so if two polarities can occupy the same space simultaneously, we have a ''dot'' product.

(matrices) is a pretty easy subject really, now I am using it
It helps if you learn to recognise 0 and 1 before you try to add.
It helps if you learn add before you try to multiply.
I suggest you get the basics right first!
000 000
000 + 000 = 0
000 000
Congratulations! This is the first of your equations that made sense in a long time!
(I am charitably assuming that you meant the "0" on the righthand side as a shorthand for a 3x3 null matrix, otherwise it is still gobbledygook...)
my matrices are fields, positions in the field represented by numbers.
There is a gravitational field in the Solar System, with the Sun and the planets.
I would like to see the 3x3 matrix which describes the Solar System.
There is an electrical field around my 1.5 volt battery.
I would like to see the 3x3 matrix which describes the battery.
There is a magnetic field around a horseshoe magnet.
I would like to see the 3x3 matrix which describes the magnetic field.
There is an atmospheric pressure field over my country.
I would like to see the 3x3 matrix which describes this aspect of the weather.
polarity unifies all the above forces. Polarity is the force.
As far as we know, gravitational mass has no polarity.

As far as we know, gravitational mass has no polarity.
I can't put the parentheses in but yes it is a 3*3 matrix
I will try the other matrices
And I think your as far as you know is ostensible.

Can two opposite polarities occupy the same space?
What do you think "polarities" means here?
Iol I do see your point because polarity is not an object. Polarity is a 0 point of repulsive or attractive force.
added so if two polarities can occupy the same space simultaneously, we have a ''dot'' product.
"polarity is not an object."
Nobody said or implied that it was I asked you what you thought it meant.
Your answer "Polarity is a 0 point of repulsive or attractive force."
is nonsense.
Added so is this
"added so if two polarities can occupy the same space simultaneously, we have a ''dot'' product. "

And I think your as far as you know is ostensible.
This is also nonsense. It is a collection of random words.

And I think your as far as you know is ostensible.
I think I can parse it (based on the assumption that he just forgot that punctuation is important)
He may have meant And I think your "as far as you know" is ostensible.
And I presume it refers to this "As far as we know, gravitational mass has no polarity."
I which case, it has a meaning, it's damned hard to find, and it's wrong.

And I think your as far as you know is ostensible.
I think I can parse it (based on the assumption that he just forgot that punctuation is important)
He may have meant And I think your "as far as you know" is ostensible.
And I presume it refers to this "As far as we know, gravitational mass has no polarity."
I which case, it has a meaning, it's damned hard to find, and it's wrong.
Measuring two equal weights at once can only give a null result. And thanks for correcting my punctuation.

Measuring two equal weights at once can only give a null result.
I have two sets of bathroom scales. If I stand on both of them I can weigh my left half and my right half.
The answer isn't zero.
So your post isn't just irrelevant, it's also factually incorrect.
What purpose did you think it served?

Measuring two equal weights at once can only give a null result.
I have two sets of bathroom scales. If I stand on both of them I can weigh my left half and my right half.
The answer isn't zero.
So your post isn't just irrelevant, it's also factually incorrect.
What purpose did you think it served?
You really have a problem with reading. A set of bathroom scales is not a set of pan scales.

(matrices) is a pretty easy subject really, now I am using it
It helps if you learn to recognise 0 and 1 before you try to add.
It helps if you learn add before you try to multiply.
I suggest you get the basics right first!
000 000
000 + 000 = 0
000 000
Congratulations! This is the first of your equations that made sense in a long time!
(I am charitably assuming that you meant the "0" on the righthand side as a shorthand for a 3x3 null matrix, otherwise it is still gobbledygook...)
my matrices are fields, positions in the field represented by numbers.
There is a gravitational field in the Solar System, with the Sun and the planets.
I would like to see the 3x3 matrix which describes the Solar System.
There is an electrical field around my 1.5 volt battery.
I would like to see the 3x3 matrix which describes the battery.
There is a magnetic field around a horseshoe magnet.
I would like to see the 3x3 matrix which describes the magnetic field.
There is an atmospheric pressure field over my country.
I would like to see the 3x3 matrix which describes this aspect of the weather.
polarity unifies all the above forces. Polarity is the force.
As far as we know, gravitational mass has no polarity.
Evan buddy, I have been doing abstraction math, that is why nobody understands it.

Measuring two equal weights at once can only give a null result.
I have two sets of bathroom scales. If I stand on both of them I can weigh my left half and my right half.
The answer isn't zero.
So your post isn't just irrelevant, it's also factually incorrect.
What purpose did you think it served?
You really have a problem with reading. A set of bathroom scales is not a set of pan scales.
I have a problem reading your mind.
You never said anything about what sort of scales.
You need to stop assuming that you are right.

Evan buddy, I have been doing abstraction math, that is why nobody understands it.
Do you mean abstract maths or mathematical abstraction?
Or were you just stringing "sciency sounding" words together?

Evan buddy, I have been doing abstraction math, that is why nobody understands it.
Do you mean abstract maths or mathematical abstraction?
Or were you just stringing "sciency sounding" words together?
Mathematical abstraction, very difficult to understand as well.

(q1+q2)=n→←(q1+q2)=n
(q1+q2)=n←→(q1+q2)=n
Mathematical abstraction can and does explain gravity mechanism in my honest opinion. Whether you could ever understand this though, well...!
I was nether stupid I was just doing things differently.
[000]→←[000]
[000]←→[000]
Gravity matrix
q represents polarity
the direction arrows represent vector force
each 0 in the matrice is a field space or an object ''space'' and is equal to n which is equal to 0.
q1+q2 matrice
[000]→←[000]
The same as the gravity matrice but without repulsion until the merge.
ΔX=>f1+f2
For the above just simple imagine 2 spheres right next to each other, then expand any of the spheres , this will push the other sphere changing vector position.
added My apologies to people reading this post who do not know what abstraction maths is, here is an explanation
Abstraction in mathematics is the process of extracting the underlying essence of a mathematical concept, removing any dependence on real world objects with which it might originally have been connected, and generalizing it so that it has wider applications or matching among other abstract descriptions of equivalent ..

+ve
↑
↓
ve
I have so many that does gravity and all fits my work.
pushes back
↑
↓
g
A+B=C
C=N=0

;D ;D ;D ;D
einstein.jpg (26.04 kB . 259x194  viewed 1773 times)
Understand I see symbols as words, it is just a language,
added Einstein wanted one equation, Gods equation, so did I.
p.s had to add some drama lol
My favourite videos of all time

A and B can turn into C and vice versus C can turn into A and B
E=mc²
Ohhhhhhh, if you split A and B you have , ohhhhhhhh, I think I finally understand E=mc² now
added
E=(A+B)/F

Evan buddy, I have been doing abstraction math, that is why nobody understands it.
Do you mean abstract maths or mathematical abstraction?
Or were you just stringing "sciency sounding" words together?
Mathematical abstraction, very difficult to understand as well.
OK, thanks for clarifying.
Recognising that there is a pattern to the following observations is mathematical abstraction.
If someone has 2 apples and you give them 2 more apples, they end up with 4 apples.
If they have two oranges and someone gives them anther two oranges they end up with 4 oranges.
In general 2+2 =4
That's mathematical abstraction.
I see you find it difficult to understand
That explains a lot.

Evan buddy, I have been doing abstraction math, that is why nobody understands it.
Do you mean abstract maths or mathematical abstraction?
Or were you just stringing "sciency sounding" words together?
Mathematical abstraction, very difficult to understand as well.
OK, thanks for clarifying.
Recognising that there is a pattern to the following observations is mathematical abstraction.
If someone has 2 apples and you give them 2 more apples, they end up with 4 apples.
If they have two oranges and someone gives them anther two oranges they end up with 4 oranges.
In general 2+2 =4
That's mathematical abstraction.
I see you find it difficult to understand
That explains a lot.
You do not need any values in abstraction maths.
Abstraction in mathematics is the process of extracting the underlying essence of a mathematical concept, removing any dependence on real world objects with which it might originally have been connected, and generalizing it so that it has wider applications
A formal system or logical calculus is any welldefined system of abstract thought based on the model of mathematics. A formal system need not be mathematical as such;
Simplification and ordering[edit]
Abstraction uses a strategy of simplification, wherein formerly concrete details are left ambiguous, vague, or undefined; thus effective communication about things in the abstract requires an intuitive or common experience between the communicator and the communication recipient. This is true for all verbal/abstract communication.
Maybe you need to understand this .

Why do you keep saying " abstraction maths" rather than abstract maths?
It suggests you haven't actually read about it.
You certainly need some values, for example you need the identity elements for most operations such as zero for addition and 1 for multiplication.
It's possible to do some maths without numbers, but you need numbers to get the more complete picture.
Also do you realise that "Abstraction in mathematics is the process of extracting the underlying essence of a mathematical concept, removing any dependence on real world objects with which it might originally have been connected, and generalizing it so that it has wider applications"
is exactly what I was doing when I took the fruit out of the discussion, and just left the arithmetic.

Simplification and ordering[edit]
Abstraction uses a strategy of simplification, wherein formerly concrete details are left ambiguous, vague, or undefined; thus effective communication about things in the abstract requires an intuitive or common experience between the communicator and the communication recipient. This is true for all verbal/abstract communication.
Do you realise
Simplification and ordering[edit]
Abstraction uses a strategy of simplification, wherein formerly concrete details are left ambiguous, vague, or undefined; thus effective communication about things in the abstract requires an intuitive or common experience between the communicator and the communication recipient. This is true for all verbal/abstract communication.
I do not have to define values, I am attracting the symbols and using them appropriately to explain . However I will consider what you have said and read more about abstraction maths.

You wanted a value
[000]+[000]=1
A monopole positive can not exist without a monopole negative, so it is nothing .
Place these two nothings at 0 point simultaneously to create 1.

I am attracting the symbols and using them appropriately to explain .
Irony; much

[000]+[000]=1
Not in any accepted use of those symbols.

;D ;D ;D ;D
einstein.jpg (26.04 kB . 259x194  viewed 1773 times)
Understand I see symbols as words, it is just a language,
added Einstein wanted one equation, Gods equation, so did I.
p.s had to add some drama lol
My favourite videos of all time
You post a ridiculous jpeg like that and wonder why people do not take you seriously?

[000]+[000]=1
Not in any accepted use of those symbols.
Its an abstraction it does not have to mean what the accepted symbols mean.

;D ;D ;D ;D
einstein.jpg (26.04 kB . 259x194  viewed 1773 times)
Understand I see symbols as words, it is just a language,
added Einstein wanted one equation, Gods equation, so did I.
p.s had to add some drama lol
My favourite videos of all time
You post a ridiculous jpeg like that and wonder why people do not take you seriously?
Discussing science, does not mean you cannot joke and have a bit of fun at the same time.

Its an abstraction it does not have to mean what the accepted symbols mean.
Unless you tell us what it means, it means nothing. Why waste the form's bandwidth with it?

Its an abstraction it does not have to mean what the accepted symbols mean.
Unless you tell us what it means, it means nothing. Why waste the form's bandwidth with it?
It means what I have already explained.
A monopole positive cannot exist so I have give this the value of 0
A monopole negative cannot exist so I have give this the value of 0
0+0=1 existence
In the mono pole matrice
A←→A
B←→B

[ Invalid Attachment ]

A monopole negative cannot exist
You need to tell the electrons about that; they don't seem to have noticed.
And your socalled explanation makes no sense so it explains nothing.
(Don't try to blame me for that it's your job to explain your weird ideas)

A monopole negative cannot exist
You need to tell the electrons about that; they don't seem to have noticed.
And your socalled explanation makes no sense so it explains nothing.
(Don't try to blame me for that it's your job to explain your weird ideas)
You are correct , it is my ''job'' to explain my weird ideas. I even admit they are weird ideas. The electron and proton exist in the model, but do they exist in reality?
Let us start with an electron and work from there. An electron is a negative polarity isn't it?

So here is our electron matrice
[000] = 2.82 x 1015 m
Δx=F
F=likewise polarity
0←→0
How can an electron exist when all 0 points in the matrice are likewise in polarity?
P=0 and yes that one is probability.
added maybe your language
U[000]+V[000]=U.V

I perhaps should of watched Khan's introduction into a matrix before I started, but you know me I tend to do things backwards.
Anyway I learnt about the size of the Matrix and now know my matrix is really small
0+0=1
A[]+B[]=1
Au=0
Bu=0
a 0*0 matrice. added ΔR³=A+B
I will investigate further into matrices i need to find out more.

Let us start with an electron and work from there. An electron is a negative polarity isn't it?
No
An electron has a negative charge.
The word "polarity" has a number of meanings, dependent on the context.
Since you are using it outside any of the established contexts you need to say what you are using the word to mean.
What is "polarity" in this context?

but you know me I tend to do things backwards.
And you make an annoying fool of yourself by doing so. While you are at it you waste the forum's bandwidth and you run the risk of misleading people.
Why don't you stop?
Or at least put in a disclaimer pointing out that you really don't know what you are talking about.
0+0=1
No it isn't.
Not even with matrices.

but you know me I tend to do things backwards.
And you make an annoying fool of yourself by doing so. While you are at it you waste the forum's bandwidth and you run the risk of misleading people.
Why don't you stop?
Or at least put in a disclaimer pointing out that you really don't know what you are talking about.
0+0=1
No it isn't.
Not even with matrices.
Do you realise that your negativity towards me and other negativity from other people is what is driving me to prove you all wrong?
I will get my maths correct eventually and show you that you are wrong, it is only a matter of time as I am getting close.
In a 0*0 matrix
[]+[]=1
I will prove this in time and then you negativity will account for nothing.

Any maxwells on want to help me in a joint effort?
explain this matrices actions in maths please,
expansion u.jpg (47.01 kB . 1914x922  viewed 892 times)
Δ0=Δ1/t=1/k where k is space

Operating on an Empty Matrix
The basic model for empty matrices is that any operation that is defined for mbyn matrices, and that produces a result whose dimension is some function of m and n, should still be allowed when m or n is zero. The size of the result of this operation is consistent with the size of the result generated when working with nonempty values, but instead is evaluated at zero.
For example, horizontal concatenation
C = [A B]
I am sure I already did a+b=c are people lying to me?

Do you realise that your negativity towards me and other negativity from other people is what is driving me to prove you all wrong?
But you are not proving us wrong, you are proving yourself wrong.
BTW, you forgot to cite this quote (along with others)
"The basic model for empty matrices is that any operation that is defined for mbyn matrices, and that produces a result whose dimension is some function of m and n, should still be allowed when m or n is zero."
And, more importantly, you failed to understand that it's from a programming language site which isn't quite the same usage as you would get from a mathematics site.

but you know me I tend to do things backwards.
And you make an annoying fool of yourself by doing so. While you are at it you waste the forum's bandwidth and you run the risk of misleading people.
Why don't you stop?
Or at least put in a disclaimer pointing out that you really don't know what you are talking about.
0+0=1
No it isn't.
Not even with matrices.
Try this
A[]+A[1u]A[1u]=A[]??
added  If I really want to learn something, I learn it! You can read that can't you Mr Chemist?

A ⇒ B
B[]+B[1u]B[1u]=B[]
A+B=C
A[1u]+B[1u]=AB[1u]=C

If I really want to learn something, I learn it! You can read that can't you Mr Chemist?
I can read it.
I see no evidence of it.
You continue to post nonsense.
None of the terms you use
[]
[1u]
⇒
has been defined, so it's impossible to ascribe any meaning to your posts.

If I really want to learn something, I learn it! You can read that can't you Mr Chemist?
I can read it.
I see no evidence of it.
You continue to post nonsense.
None of the terms you use
[]
[1u]
⇒
has been defined, so it's impossible to ascribe any meaning to your posts.
OH come off it, you are good at this and know what the signs mean without me having to explain everything.
an empty matrice []
1u is 1 internal energy
A ⇒ B means if A is true then B is also true;
Would it help if defined 1u as β− or e for B and +1e for A?

A[]+A[+1e]A[+1e]=A[]
A ⇒ B
B[]+B[β−]B[β−]=B[]
A+B=C
A[+1e]+B[β−]=[AB]

It would be a start if you learned to spell matrix.
Matrices don't have energy (internal or otherwise) and energy isn't a matrix.
"A ⇒ B means if A is true then B is also true"
OK, that's the conventional use of the symbol, but matrices don't imply anything, not are they implied by anything.
So none of your post makes sense.

It would be a start if you learned to spell matrix.
Matrices don't have energy (internal or otherwise) and energy isn't a matrix.
"A ⇒ B means if A is true then B is also true"
OK, that's the conventional use of the symbol, but matrices don't imply anything, not are they implied by anything.
So none of your post makes sense.
Ok lets talk the physics involved in either matrix.
Let us give matrix A dimension and we use a 3*1 matrix
A[uuu]
Every u in the above matrix is +1e
The mechanism of the force in the matrix will cause x to expand?
[u←→u]

The matrix would be massless, without gravity.
A ⇒ B
A+B=G
As maybe Maxwell would put it
→
E(+1e)+E( β−)=G=M
You can't have a mass of something that does not want to stay together......

Let us give matrix A dimension and we use a 3*1 matrix
A[uuu]
Every u in the above matrix is +1e
That's not physics.

Let us give matrix A dimension and we use a 3*1 matrix
A[uuu]
Every u in the above matrix is +1e
That's not physics.
Well it certainly is not golf . You obviously know what I am trying to explain in maths, so why can't you work some of your magic and produce the maths?
Can you read this
If u = <3,2> and v = <4,5> then u · v = (3)(4) + (2)(5) = 12  10 = 2. (b) If u = 2i + j and v = 5i  6j then u · v = (2)(5) + (1)(6) = 10  6=4. Proof: We prove only the last property. Let u = <a, b> . Then u · u = <a, b>·<a, b> = a · a + b · b = a2 + b2 = (/a2 + b2)2 except when quantified by any 7point artimace exemplified by stasus elements found in field mortification parameters.
Let u, v and w be three vectors in R3 and let λ be a scalar. (1) v × w = − w × v. (2) u × ( v + w) = u × v + u × w. (3) ( u + v) × w = u × w + v × w. (4) λ( v × w)=(λ v) × w = v × (λ w). We then end up in obvious paradoxity instigated by v x y intigers elevated beyond tartus secondary aspects.
What does it say?

What is this person saying?
Let's untranslate some of it:
If u = <3,2> and v = <4,5> then u · v = (3)(4) + (2)(5) = 12  10 = 2.
Looks like the dot product of two vectors, u and v. But, <u,v> (the inner product) is another way to write the dot product
(usually restricted to 2 or 3 dimensional vectors). Hence it should be: If u = (2, 2) and v = (4,5) . . ., otherwise it looks ok.
If u = 2i + j and v = 5i  6j then u · v = (2)(5) + (1)(6) = 10  6=4.
This uses the i,j,k unit vector notation, looks pretty standard for 2 dimensions.
Let u = <a, b> . Then u · u = <a, b>·<a, b> = a · a + b · b
ok so far, but the rest goes off the rails more than a little.
v × w = − w × v.
Yep. The cross product is antisymmetric. There seems to be no problem with the rest of it, including the scalar multiplication. I have no idea what the "paradoxicity" is. Perhaps it means you shouldn't take any without food or a parachute (or something).
In mathematics, particularly in linear algebra, a skewsymmetric (or antisymmetric or antimetric) matrix is a square matrix whose transpose equals its negative; that is, it satisfies the condition AT = −A.
transpose
transˈpəʊz,trɑːnsˈpəʊz,tranzˈpəʊz,trɑːnzˈpəʊz/Submit
verb
1.
cause (two or more things) to exchange places.
"the situation might have been the same if the parties in opposition and government had been transposed"
synonyms: interchange, exchange, switch, swap (round), transfer, reverse, invert, rearrange, reorder, turn about/around, change (round), move (around), substitute, trade, alter, convert
"a pair of pictures in which the colours of the flowers and foliage are transposed"
2.
transfer to a different place or context.

To get that answer I wrote
u ⋅ v=C
u ⇒ v
U[000]+V[000]=U.V
added  I think I am improving?
Let u = <a> and v = <b>. Then u · v = <a>·<b> = a · b

@Evan vectors
Is this ok?
[ Invalid Attachment ]

sorry guys more practise .
[1,0,0]+[+1,0,0]=[0,0,0]?
Isn't this calculus?
[1,1,0]+[+1,+1,0]=[0,0,0]?
[1,1,1]+[+1,+1,+1]=[0,0,0]?

Δ<[]> = Δu = c ~ 1/a
<[]> =empty matrix span
u= internal energy

raindrops.jpg (22.75 kB . 852x480  viewed 1037 times)
I sit and watch the rain drops fall onto the flattened state of the pond, the energy of force released in an expanding ripple that fluctuates the calmness of the pond.
I sit and ask myself a question, where did that raindrop go?
The pond swallowed it up and the consequence was a tidal wave from where the pond was upset.
So how do I explain this in matrix form?

I think I am improving
Uniquely.

So how do I explain this in matrix form?
You don't.
Not everything is a matrix.

So how do I explain this in matrix form?
You don't.
Not everything is a matrix.
Maybe not.... However I could not ''see'' the pond or the rain drop, I could only 'see' the ripple appear then disappear.

U[000]+V[000]=U.V
I think I am improving?
Nope.
 The lefthand side is the vector equivalent of addition.
 The righthand side is (one of) the vector equivalents of multiplication.
 Keep on with the Khan Academy introduction to vectors and matrices (linear algebra).
[1,0,0]+[+1,0,0]=[0,0,0]?
Much better.
This really is the vector equivalent of addition.
I have no idea why all of a sudden I know about matrices
Vectors and Matrices are a generalisation of the numbers you learned in primary school and high school.
They can do some things that numbers can't do.
But simple numbers can do things that matrices can't, so it's not a perfect generalisation.
For example,
 if a & b are integers, a x b = b x a
 but if A & B are 3x3 matrices, A x B does not necessarily equal B x A.
That gives matrices a lot of power to represent the real world; in the real world, "a rotation around the Z axis followed by a rotation around the X axis" is not the same as "a rotation around the X axis followed by a rotation around the Z axis".
Another example:
 if c is a real number, the inverse of c (c^{1}) is defined, providing c is not 0.
 but if C is a 3x3 matrix, the inverse of C (C^{1}) is often undefined, even if C is not null.
In the real world, a set of equations may not give a unique answer; you can determine this by solving the equation (which effectively takes the inverse of the matrix).

U[000]+V[000]=U.V
I think I am improving?
Nope.
 The lefthand side is the vector equivalent of addition.
 The righthand side is (one of) the vector equivalents of multiplication.
 Keep on with the Khan Academy introduction to vectors and matrices (linear algebra).
[1,0,0]+[+1,0,0]=[0,0,0]?
Much better.
This really is the vector equivalent of addition.
I have no idea why all of a sudden I know about matrices
Vectors and Matrices are a generalisation of the numbers you learned in primary school and high school.
They can do some things that numbers can't do.
But simple numbers can do things that matrices can't, so it's not a perfect generalisation.
For example,
 if a & b are integers, a x b = b x a
 but if A & B are 3x3 matrices, A x B does not necessarily equal B x A.
That gives matrices a lot of power to represent the real world; in the real world, "a rotation around the Z axis followed by a rotation around the X axis" is not the same as "a rotation around the X axis followed by a rotation around the Z axis".
Another example:
 if c is a real number, the inverse of c (c^{1}) is defined, providing c is not 0.
 but if C is a 3x3 matrix, the inverse of C (C^{1}) is often undefined, even if C is not null.
In the real world, a set of equations may not give a unique answer; you can determine this by solving the equation (which effectively takes the inverse of the matrix).
Thank you
I think I finally have my function correct using the eigenvalues and mapping.
How do I describe an isotropic transformation (T) of an empty matrix (a) across an open space K , ?
T(a)=λa/K?
eigenvectors of a?
aX,Y,Z = λX,Y,Z
or
aX,Y,Z=λn?
or mapped
ƒ:a→n?
ƒ:[]→[n]?
n being ndimension , the function in bold being the correct map I think?

Abstract
ƒ: x=(a→←b) = ƒ:R³=ƒ:xyz=ƒ:(a.b)=ƒ:(a.b)→←(a.b)=ƒ:(a.b)←→(a.b)=Gravity
→
E (A) = negative polarity
→
E (B) = positive polarity
A.B = dot product
(a.b)→←(a.b)
(a.b)←→(a.b)

You seem to be doing to mathematics what this does to the English language.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Doge_(meme)

You seem to be doing to mathematics what this does to the English language.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Doge_(meme)
I should hope so, it is my abstract which attempts to explain gravity mechanism. It is not my fault it is a different language than you are use to, ostensible things are hard to diagnose so would you really expect the conventional language to be used?
ƒ: x=(a→←b) = ƒ:R³=ƒ:xyz=ƒ:(a.b)=ƒ:(a.b)→←(a.b)=ƒ:(a.b)←→(a.b)=Gravity
Would you like me to break down the cause and affect that this equation ''illustrates''?
I drew you the first function in the order of events.
function1.jpg (17.8 kB . 882x476  viewed 1021 times)

so would you really expect the conventional language to be used?
Yes.
Because otherwise nobody will be able to read what you have written.
http://dilbert.com/strip/19920803

ƒ:R³=ƒ:xyz=ƒ:(a.b)
Read it in pictures, here is function 2 of the order
[ Invalid Attachment ]

And here is the final function which is g and Newtons third law
[ Invalid Attachment ]

Open your mind Mr Chemist
Take the red pill or the blue pill?
[ Invalid Attachment ]

Enter the Matrix Neo.
nfield1.jpg (43.51 kB . 882x476  viewed 1212 times)

1=(a+b)c³ I think maybe.
second thoughts , scrap the above notion.
Matrix A , u= positive
(AT)i,j = Aj,i.

Open your mind Mr Chemist
If you had posted stuff in Chinese and I had said that I don't understand it, would you say that I need to open my mind, or would you accept that you need to post in a different language?

Open your mind Mr Chemist
If you had posted stuff in Chinese and I had said that I don't understand it, would you say that I need to open my mind, or would you accept that you need to post in a different language?
I would suggest you learn Chinese and the Chinese person should also learn the different language.
I think if you wanted too, you could create the correct maths I need.
I am learning by the frequency of about 1 post a day if I am lucky........so I will keep having a stab at the maths until somebody says I am correct. I am mostly self learning and abstracting.

OK, I might learn Chinese in that situation.
Imagine that I learned Chinese and I still couldn't understand what you are saying because, while you are using legitimate Chinese words, you are putting them in random patterns and claiming that you have invented a new language.
Nobody but you "understands" this "language".
Obviously, I can't understand it.
Is that because I'm not open minded?

OK, I might learn Chinese in that situation.
Imagine that I learned Chinese and I still couldn't understand what you are saying because, while you are using legitimate Chinese words, you are putting them in random patterns and claiming that you have invented a new language.
Nobody but you "understands" this "language".
Obviously, I can't understand it.
Is that because I'm not open minded?
Well then if you are open minded , let me teach you my language while I learn yours. Let us compare languages.
This will be productive.
I will start with a few ''words''
1)Δt
2)ΔS
3)ΔV
4)ΔT
5)ΔF
In my words
1)change of time
2)change of entropy
3)change of velocity
4)change of temperature
5)change of force
Your language?

Oh WOW!
This was one difficult convo to follow. I would like to say that I understood everything Thebox said, but I can't. However, I was able to follow about 75% of it...maybe 77%. I think Bored chemist has a point about the language. I am not an "abstractian"  coining a new word  but I am one of those guys who knows a little about numbers and those funny squiggly lines, and such. I do so enjoy Vector analysis, Linear Algebra, and matrix conceptualization. I think Thebox has some intriguing "stuff" in what he was trying to say, but I had to work exceptionally hard to dig it out. I would very much like Thebox posting, or emailing me, what he is trying to say, only in a slightly different way.
Again, I enjoyed this convo. Thank you  both of you. I bookmarked it, and will be coming back to it as soon as I take some Tylenol.

Oh WOW!
This was one difficult convo to follow. I would like to say that I understood everything Thebox said, but I can't. However, I was able to follow about 75% of it...maybe 77%. I think Bored chemist has a point about the language. I am not an "abstractian"  coining a new word  but I am one of those guys who knows a little about numbers and those funny squiggly lines, and such. I do so enjoy Vector analysis, Linear Algebra, and matrix conceptualization. I think Thebox has some intriguing "stuff" in what he was trying to say, but I had to work exceptionally hard to dig it out. I would very much like Thebox posting, or emailing me, what he is trying to say, only in a slightly different way.
Again, I enjoyed this convo. Thank you  both of you. I bookmarked it, and will be coming back to it as soon as I take some Tylenol.
Thank you for your kind words , I will try to write a short version and inbox it you on here, I will also post the short version in this thread.

The use of Δt for a change in time is pretty standard (Though it's not actually something you have said in this thread so defining it is pointless.)
But you must be using a different notation when you say
"Δ0=Δ1/t=1/k "
Because zero doesn't change.
So, rather than pointlessly explaining fairly standard symbols, why don't you try explaining what you actually said?

The use of Δt for a change in time is pretty standard (Though it's not actually something you have said in this thread so defining it is pointless.)
But you must be using a different notation when you say
"Δ0=Δ1/t=1/k "
Because zero doesn't change.
So, rather than pointlessly explaining fairly standard symbols, why don't you try explaining what you actually said?
I think I know the problem, it is the equals sign,
Δ0=Δ1/t=1/k
change of 0 dimension is the change of 1 over a period of time which results in 1 divided/spread by space , missed off the over time at the end.
Δ0=Δ1/t=(1/k)/t
added Looking at it now I could of left a Delta sign out
Δ0=1/t=(1/k)/t

Okay, now I think I'm up to about 80%. :)

]Ok, I have had some good advice and help and now I am going to change my approach. The new discussion will start with :
For the purposes of this discussion consider an array to be a rectangular arrangement of coordinate values, similar to, but not exactly like the classical "matrix". My first question is , can a monopole retain form in a single array?
Now quite clearly all the coordinate points of a monopole array, would be repulsive points to all other points of the same array.
By the laws of Physics and Coulomb's laws , the monopole array should always be in a state of expansion.
The array would have no strong nuclear force or gravity. All the force would be ''centrifugal'' (outwards from a central point) .
I then considered free electrons and free protons, meaning ones that are not paired.
How could an electron exist when considering the first array?
In a similar fashion to a Matrix, all electron points in the array of an electron would be repulsive to each other.
I then considered the proton , what seems true for the electron, must also be true for the proton.
So in my first array A, I want to describe this part first. I want to describe that array A cannot retain form and is always in a state of expansion.

I think I got it.
end of argument.jpg (13.76 kB . 592x335  viewed 1230 times)
Schematic depiction of the matrix product AB of two matrices A and B.

Diagram error , sorry my bad , new edit
[ Invalid Attachment ]

change of 0 dimension is the change of 1 over a period of time which results in 1 divided/spread by space , missed off the over time at the end.
That's exactly the sort of word salad you need to explain.My first question is , can a monopole retain form in a single array?
Ditto

change of 0 dimension is the change of 1 over a period of time which results in 1 divided/spread by space , missed off the over time at the end.
That's exactly the sort of word salad you need to explain.My first question is , can a monopole retain form in a single array?
Ditto
Whatever.....who cares

a + (−a) = 0
b + (b) = 0
a+b= 1
proof if (a)=(b) then (a)+(b)<(ab)
That must be close?
I think I may be getting the hang of this, in practise
a + (bb) = a?