[paul cotter]

Nonsense.

[KiltedWeirdo (OP)]

cool. thanks for that brilliant input mate.
can you point me to an explanation of the effects of 2n+1 and 2n interactions like described?
Please?
sense its nonsense, it should be fully explored.
either that, or you just haven't wrapped your head around it enough to realize, that within 2n+1=3 where n=1 where 2n=6 where n=3 and 2n+1=7 where n=3, that we have a double gap with +2 shown, by adding our ends and beginning just like in a+b=c+b where b=1.
it takes the -2.5 to -3, with the 2.5 to 3 to make 1. then from -0.5 to 0.5 as another one.
at 2n+1=15, split to 2n+1=3,
(-15,-14,-13), (-12,-11,-10), (-9,-8,-7), (-6,-5,-4), (-3,-2,-1),0,(1,2,3),(4,5,6),(7,8,9),(10,11,12),(13,14,15)
(-15,-14,-13)=(2n+1=3 where n=1)
 (-12,-11,-10)=(2n+1=3 where n=1)
(-9,-8,-7)=(2n+1=3 where n=1)
(-6,-5,-4)=(2n+1=3 where n=1)
(-3,-2,-1)=(2n+1=3 where n=1)
0 (gain location)
(1,2,3)=(2n+1=3 where n=1)
(4,5,6)=(2n+1=3 where n=1)
(7,8,9)=(2n+1=3 where n=1)
(10,11,12)=(2n+1=3 where n=1)
(13,14,15)=(2n+1=3 where n=1)

((-15,-14,-13),(-12,-11,-10))=(2n=6 where n=3)
(-9,-8,-7)= (2n+1=3 where n=1) (gain location)
((-6,-5,-4),(-3,-2,-1))=(2n=6 where n=3)
0 (gain location)
((1,2,3),(4,5,6))=(2n=6 where n=3)
(7,8,9)=(2n+1=3 where n=1) (gain location)
((10,11,12),(13,14,15))=(2n=6 where n=3)
so. what would your way of breaking down and explaining a similar step system be?
pair it with:
https://www.desmos.com/calculator/b8pbnqdhnu
for explosive gains.
what we are doing is giving ourselves more than spot that operates as zero within a smaller system. it splits just like Choas theory logistics maps shows. heck the calculator somehow follows a perfect path but goes offscreen, showing that it might circumnavigate a numbers sphere via z axis.
but, i'm full of nonsense. You guys don't even consider if natural numbers lie on a sphere instead of our normal line constructs of counting.
Odds, evens, odds
evens, odds, evens.
that seems to make two triangles which gives us an ability to measure loss per step between whole and real numbers, but only if we have mass and energy both present, meaning past mass's creation in atomic building.
if energy has to be equal to the first step, and mass starts when the second step starts, it all lines up.
if atoms create sound or vibrations, they emit energy, meaning they are a natural perpetual system.
perpetual does not mean indestructible. it doesn't mean no expiration date. It just generates in excess, an ability needed to have continuality dependent on more than one atom. if its energy=1, an atom cannot effect its surroundings. but 1.001 it can.
Now, electron travel paths can have a lot of movement that compresses down energy.
to figure that out requires a lot of info. working that far is beyond my capabilities, currently.
You guys act like me checking perpetual constructs is a bad thing. if nothing else it adds to humanities knowledge pool. What harm could come to investigating it?
but what harm could come from not investigating it?
could we potentially never complete our standard model if no one ever thinks to see if its based in perpetual systems because someone said they can't exist?

[KiltedWeirdo (OP)]

we have to think outside the box for ideas, then move to prove through backtracking work.
like numbers being spheres.
target area:
(n-xn)-(n-yn)=1 where 0<x<1 where x>y where y+x=1
if 0<x<1, and y+x=1, then 0<y<1

if x=0.55, y=0.45
(n-0.55n)-(n-0.45n)=1
(0.55,1.1,1.65,2.2,2.75,3.3,3.85,4.4,4.95,5.5,6.05)
(0.45,0.9,1.35,1.8,2.25,2.7,3.15,3.6,4.05,4.6,5.05,5.6,6.05)
1-0.55>1-0.45=0.1
2-1.1>2-0.9=0.2
3-1.65>3-1.35=0.3
4-2.2>4-1.8=0.4
5-2.75>5-2.25=0.5
6-3.3>6-2.7=0.6
7-3.85>7-3.15=0.7
8-4.4>8-3.6=0.8
9-4.95>9-4.05=0.9
10-5.5>10-4.5=1 (our sphere diameter size)
11-6.05>11-4.95=1.1
12-6.6>12-5.4=1.2
13-7.15>5.85=1.3

(n-xn)-(n-yn)=1 where 0<x<1 where x>y where y+x=1
if 0<x<1, and y+x=1, then 0<y<1
if x=0.55, y=0.45
10-5.5>10-4.5=1 (our sphere diameter size)
n=10 where x-y=0.1
from this we can infer:
n=5 where x-y=0.2
n=1 where x-y=0
n=20 where x-y=0.05
knowing this limit, we can limit things with whole numbers like Collatz Conjecture for physics interactions.

[Bored chemist]

Unless you have tried to test possible perpetual systems, you can't outright deny them from personal knowledge.

Yes I can.
Because of this.

That wouldn't work. Noether's theorem guarantees that such a perpetual motion machine cannot exist:

Why are you ignoring the mathematical proof that you are wrong?
Don't you like science?

[KiltedWeirdo (OP)]

i love science. I hate scientists that allow another to set or limit the way they think.I downright loathe one that implies because another's work states what seems to be (proofs can later be found as workarounds), they immediately disregard everything else stated. or else you would have considered checking into the 2n+1 and 2n interactions.
like i asked. what's wrong with chasing knowledge of possible perpetual systems.
it could explain our unknown gains. with all traditional scientists following the thought that it can't exist, few try to understand if people missed something. considering the matter to antimatter mutual destruction line was only confirmed in 2012.

"What makes antimatter unique is that when antimatter comes in contact with its regular matter counterpart, they mutually destroy each other and all of their mass is converted to energy. This matter-antimatter mutual annihilation has been observed many times and is a well-established principle. Jul 25, 2014"
so. if matter and antimatter are mutual destructive, what is the relation between mass and energy?
what if there is a 9 step solution to convert them back and forth?
isn't fission releasing energy stored in mass? leaving a radioactive effect?
apparently, you like studying science but not progressing it.
energy cannot be created nor destroyed, except under special circumstances.
I'm asking if there might be a perpetual based natural system to create energy. say possibly in atoms. possibly in a few cosmological systems?
does inertia have a form? how does nature treat inertia?

[Bored chemist]

I hate scientists that allow another to set or limit the way they think.

It's not scientists who are the limit here.
It's the nature of the universe.

You can waste as much time as you like trying to get round it.
But, do you understand why some of us would rather you didn't clutter up the site with your pointless rambling?

[Bored chemist]

what's wrong with chasing knowledge of possible perpetual systems.

It is known to be a total waste of time.

[KiltedWeirdo (OP)]

just like chasing alternative ways to find pi approximates, right?
π-(3^1.1-1.2^1.1+1-1/60+1/33+1/600)=-6.474385213170439547662684971158e-7

or the border suggestion?
but wait, you assume its a waste of time because you were told it was. hear something enough, you believe it. especially when people hound you about it, in example, look at the effort your taking to convince me it don't exist, when you have pretty much admitted what you think of inspecting for it.
lol. stockholm syndrome is an effect that many mathematicians and physicists should learn about. the more time you spend with something, the less you begin to question how you see it. That's the inherit nature of things. science is no different. You get told something is impossible enough, you don't need to see or understand if it's possible, you believe it. the fact that you don't consider the possibility that one may be used in atoms for sound or vibrations (both energy) is laughable. but yet, that is your definition of science. so, what does nature do with inertia?

[KiltedWeirdo (OP)]

Lithium showing a ghost particle interaction.
the ghost particle interaction is made up of charge, but positioned by the electron cloud. its not a particle, but acts as a particle. it exists between the shared walls that become a rectangle between particles.

Its a shining example of where nature would use what i'm talking about.

[KiltedWeirdo (OP)]

Deuterium.
pay close attention to wake zone interactions. Like a boat. two parts. by the nucleus and not near the nucleus. Its limited size prevents locomotion theory.

[KiltedWeirdo (OP)]

helium's stability is due to the opposing nature of its flips. one is going down where another is going up.

[KiltedWeirdo (OP)]

Singularity Particle Systems (hexagonal atom) repeating:
https://www.desmos.com/calculator/jiim8hx4mb
Singularity Particle Systems (hexagonal atom) overtime:
https://www.desmos.com/calculator/cqhjfp9sle
Magnetism:
https://www.desmos.com/calculator/zjiyoixopm
+1 Ripple Effect of Growth, Chaos Theory
https://www.desmos.com/calculator/b8pbnqdhnu
Basic Perpetual math
https://www.desmos.com/calculator/yfuslieaxf
https://drive.google.com/drive/folders/1glfOpH4WQdiH6VJI_HrSnH-HT-yxbnz7?usp=sharing
all my work on it, so far. summed up. well. the stuff that will be easiest to kinda work with.
when i separate 9 and 10 via 10^2-9^2, it's for the greater systems and relations to atoms.
we split it. It calls for 4 layers like the electron shell diagram. multiverse and greater. which explains why we see so much light. there will be a lens effect from certain systems being flattened on skins of other systems. (sol system is an example)
that's dependent on electrons swaying charge allocation in neutrons and protons creating the ghost particle interaction. sorry i can't explain it better.

The electron and flip work in tandem with + and - to create a four part line. it must flip to keep patterns steady. ---- to -+-+ to ---- to -+-+.
This is mostly in charge (leaving mass and spin steady,) and goes so fast it appears neutral.
(-1,0,1) is to electron, proton, neutron,
as (1,2,3) is to electron, neutron, proton.
if electron= point, proton=line, neutron=triangle.
electron=active force, proton=inertia battery (depleted), neutron= inertia battery (charged)

electron=-1
where proton=+2
where neutron=-2+1 (mirror)
if proton mass=3, neutron mass=5
2n+1=3 where n=1
2n+1=5 where n=2

[Bored chemist]

just like chasing alternative ways to find pi approximates, right?

Well... yes.
In order to verify that your new approximation is correct, you need to know what pi is to a batter accuracy than your approximation.
So, you are putting effort into finding out something you already know.

But, in that case of perpetual motion machines, we know they won't work.

Do you understand that?
Do you realise that your efforts will be in vain?

[KiltedWeirdo (OP)]

wheres the scientific curiosity friend?
all i did was take nature and minimalize it.
look up nassim haramein and his work on flower of life.
might I specifically suggest the 64 tetrahedron breakdown by planc.
also, Robert Edward Grant.
how does nature build pi, since we know pi. how does nature build it?
my suggesting is doubling phi then removal. where we build phi with pi being halved then increasing it.
kind of a chicken or egg first situation.
even though eggs came first. before the chicken evolved.

[KiltedWeirdo (OP)]

"Well... yes.
In order to verify that your new approximation is correct, you need to know what pi is to a batter accuracy than your approximation.
So, you are putting effort into finding out something you already know.

But, in that case of perpetual motion machines, we know they won't work.

Do you understand that?
Do you realise that your efforts will be in vain?"


this kind of language shows that its more important to you that i admit defeat in someone else's work, than that i follow scientific scrutiny by verifying. which i think we can actually, unverify with my work, some statements that have been made.
 Noether's theorem may prove under normal circumstances, but does it allow sway to be involved?
does it account for possible stacking micro-vibrations?
a perpetual atom requires no big bang, but allows an indefinite timespan.
if a big bang occurs, how does time move around it? before it? what excites the big bang. in this theory, its explainable.
tesseracts send energy faster than speed of light. its always sending energy bidirectionally. hence why our universe expands in the beginning. because it has incoming energy because of a separation of time by relative association of system we are talking about. meaning a universe has different time characteristics then a multiverse.
the universe, breaks down into expansion and contraction, allowing the higher layers expansion only. except the tesseract interaction keeps it stable. feeding internally its ability to stay stable.

[KiltedWeirdo (OP)]

and before you say flower of life is not an acceptable tool. The Ancient Egyptians (creators of physics foundations at library of Alexandria) would disagree.

the blue triangles represent 3 queen chambers.
the two red are the sizing of the smaller of the two great pyramids.

[Bored chemist]

So that's "no".
You don't understand that Noether's theorem shows that you can't get perpetual motion.
If you understood it you wouldn't be posting waffle like "

but does it allow sway to be involved?
does it account for possible stacking micro-vibrations?

The things about science is not just that you try to think of new things, but also that you start by learning what is already known.

Newton talked about "standing on the shoulders of giants".
You appear not to want to climb that far.

(For what it's worth, yes, I know. Hooke wasn't tall. It's debatable)

[Bored chemist]

before you say flower of life is not an acceptable tool.

I wasn't going to bother.
Emmy Noether saved me the trouble of reading your prattle.
It's a pity you won't let her spare you writing it.

[KiltedWeirdo (OP)]

most religion actually has a physics origin. it seems.

So that's "no".
You don't understand that Noether's theorem shows that you can't get perpetual motion.
If you understood it you wouldn't be posting waffle like "

but does it allow sway to be involved?
does it account for possible stacking micro-vibrations?

The things about science is not just that you try to think of new things, but also that you start by learning what is already known.

Newton talked about "standing on the shoulders of giants".
You appear not to want to climb that far.

(For what it's worth, yes, I know. Hooke wasn't tall. It's debatable)

ever heard of Voynich Manuscript?
check page 63v.
https://drive.google.com/file/d/1THatvBe1hp6lQRsTmgqYOgGht58D9O5I/view?usp=sharing
seems to me like a european church wanted to sway our approach to physics. why?
matter to antimatter reaction. negating forces that can unlock an antimatter stream of changed air?
by the way. why do you feel the need to prove me wrong. for me to admit to being wrong?
scary thought. maybe it's because of your uncertainty in what is being spoke about.
ask why i haven't tried building it... its because i see enough signs that it may have existed already.
have an amazing day.

Mediterranean Sea.jpg (957.05 kB . 1774x1504 - viewed 1370 times)

[KiltedWeirdo (OP)]

I wasn't going to bother.
Emmy Noether saved me the trouble of reading your prattle.
It's a pity you won't let her spare you writing it.

its a pitty you can't think without emmy's permission, or feely,
or act like a decent human being towards another human being. lol. but yet, still not wrong.
science has been mislead. voynich manuscript. study it. page 63v, then return to the atomic weight breakdown problem.
1500's too far back to insert bad math into physics, nonrules being made rules, because no one could defeat it in time.
science is commonly accepted conjecture bro. not guaranteed fact.
by the way. Ramses defeated the "water people" between 2000 bc and 1000 bc. never heard of again. people of atlantis?