[Bored chemist]

I'm challenging you to disprove it.

That's not the way it goes.
Proving it is your job.

[Ve9aPrim3 (OP)]

I'm challenging you to disprove it.

That's not the way it goes.
Proving it is your job.

Okeydokey 

-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)

[Bored chemist]

I'm challenging you to disprove it.

That's not the way it goes.
Proving it is your job.

Okeydokey 

-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)

You seem to have left a turd on the stage, rather than a microphone.
The turd in question is this bit
"
-xyz0π+xyz0
0=1≠±0 (or π)
f(xyz)=π
"
 which makes no sense at all.

[Ve9aPrim3 (OP)]

I'm challenging you to disprove it.

That's not the way it goes.
Proving it is your job.

Okeydokey 

-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)

You seem to have left a turd on the stage, rather than a microphone.
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?

[Colin2B]

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 ...........

[Ve9aPrim3 (OP)]

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.

[Colin2B]

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 quo

This 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.

[Ve9aPrim3 (OP)]

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.

[Ve9aPrim3 (OP)]

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.

[Bored chemist]

I RE-INVENTED MATH

I 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.

[Ve9aPrim3 (OP)]

I RE-INVENTED MATH

I don't know what you invented, but it isn't math.

Fair. My statement was misrepresented. My fault. Meant redefined. And only basic algebra at that.

, knowing there was a complete picture in there somewhere.

There is no evidence you were correct about that.

There's no evidence to the contrary either.

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.

Agree to disagree
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.

[Bored chemist]

There's no evidence to the contrary either.

Yes, there is.
For example, your stuff contradicts itself.

Agree to disagree

That'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.

[Bored chemist]

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.

[Ve9aPrim3 (OP)]

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...

[Ve9aPrim3 (OP)]

It it contradicts itself then it isn't comprehensible to anyone.
At best you have written it too badly to understand.

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.
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.

[Bored chemist]

It's supposed to contradict itself though.

Then it is neither maths nor science.

[Bored chemist]

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?

[Ve9aPrim3 (OP)]

It's supposed to contradict itself though.

Then it is neither maths nor science.

It really only ever ALMOST contradicts itself.
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?

[Bored chemist]

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)

[Ve9aPrim3 (OP)]

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)

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.