Jump to content

steveupson

Senior Members
  • Posts

    296
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Everything posted by steveupson

  1. What do you think the function that you plotted is? Explain to me what you think it is, and then maybe I will know what to say in order to get things on track. I don't want to be a smart ass, but a function has been plotted and graphed. Are you arguing that this was accomplished without math?
  2. I apologize, I meant you all, not you specifically. That's what the model does, in reverse. It fits a series of points to a curve, and then calculates what plane those points lie in. Or I assume that's how it does it. That would be the simplest method, I would think. I have posted the math. The math is the function that strange plotted. What other math do you expect there to be?
  3. I have told you, and you won't believe me because you haven't done the math. The graph shows the invariant quantity of 45 degrees. You want to know how I know that this it true, but you won't look at the math. What we need, what will help it make much more sense, is a similar graph that shows the invariant quantity of 30 degrees, and 60 degrees. How do I know it is invariant? Because it has to be. It has no choice in the matter. It's math. Simply math.
  4. Think about what you're saying. There is a function that was produced by some factors that are implicit in Mathematica and at the same time it is a simple, straightforward, function that no one should waste their time on and because it's so simple and straightforward, no one has ever seen it graphed before and somehow you think that I should know more about it than simply how to create the model. Then, when I say that I do know more about it but I need actual help from actual mathematicians in order to explain it I'm told that I'm simply too lazy to do it myself. Sorry for the rant, but it is very frustrating. I've asked for very specific help with a very specific request and everyone tells me why I should't be doing what I'm doing. I will find a way to do this, eventually. And I do appreciate all the help that has been provided. The graph of the 45 degree function was not at all what I was expecting, not that I was expecting anything in particular. I just wasn't prepared for it to be symmetrical although it does make a lot of sense in retrospect. No, that's a complete misunderstanding of the model. Turn off everything except the longitude, tangent, elevation and equator. There is some spline routine in Mathematica that is returning the function without ever knowing what it is.
  5. The animation shown is for a small circle have a specific dimension and orientation. The animation has a small circle dimension of 45 degrees latitude and is tilted 45 degrees from the horizontal such that it intersects the pole. This produces the function that you graphed. We need another animation with a small circle with a dimension of 30 degrees latitude tilted 30 degrees from horizontal such that it intersects the pole. Then we need a third animation with at small circle with a dimension of 60 degrees lattitude tilted 60 degrees from the horizontal such that it intersects the pole. Each of these will produce a different function. I would think that a passing familiarity with geometry would be beneficial, but sure, it is straightforward for someone with the skills. The math is posted. Why can't you see that. All we have is this model. The function is waaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaay too complicated to describe any other way, at this point in time.
  6. That's the description of the Yes, some trig functions. But if you won't actually do the math then it's simply a lot of handwaving, imho. I have done the math so I do know that all the opinions about how simple (and foolish) it is are incorrect. Everyone is missing the sophistication of the model by many, many orders of magnitude. What is the blue line in the graph. If it is the simple function you claim it is, then you've seen it before. What is it?
  7. Would someone who understands mathematica please graph 30 and 60 degrees between the cardinal and ordinal axes? 90 degrees is not necessary as that would produce a sin curve. If someone would actually take the effort and do the math, then you'd see. I have done the math. I see how the function behaves. I already understand it. First the argument was that there is no function. Now, strange has graphed the function and the argument becomes, yeah, but it ain't nothin special. Someone please take the effort to graph the function at 30 and 60 degrees. I can't (for various reasons) or else I would. 30 or so pages of Q&A shows that there is an interest. Eh not help me out a little? The model IS the function. It IS on paper. It's a protractor. Every angle has a different curve. It's usefulness will be more apparent once graphs are produced for several different angles.
  8. You have to do the math. It looks simplistic, sure, but the function that the model returns has not been derived as of yet. It's been weeks, no, actually months, since this model has been up on the web. I'm sure that other people than myself have had a crack at it, some of whom have some actual skills in this area. One of the statements that Hans made concerning the model is that it is an intrinsic function of Mathematica to automatically return the angles. It HAS been put down on paper. Print out the .cdf file. If you know how to use the program (I don't) then you can look for yourself.
  9. Aha, I see what you mean. Your argument is substantive, not simply semantic. The model that has been prepared by Hans Milton shows, in detail, exactly how it is done.
  10. I agree with that. The "idea" of direction being part of the coordinate system is what is immutable. I'm not saying this part correctly, I know, but there's a lot of resistance or push back to what I'm trying to say, whether I say it correctly or not. Some things, like the use of a coordinate system and how critical that is, are questions that I haven't really explored. You have to understand that all of this math (it's a lot) is being done in my head. We really need a lot of extra horsepressure in order to look much deeper into that question. One thing that I can tell you is that as I've been brought along by studiot, and others, I've looked at the material that's been recommended to me and it has been a wonderful experience for me. I appreciate everyone who has joined the conversation, especially the skeptics, because this is the kind of thing that anyone with a solid grounding in physics should be very skeptical of. There has only been one case where I haven't seen that it's possible to "transform" either a principle or a technique into something that can be true in the new system. That one thing that blew up was the stuff about swirl. I've given up on trying to figure out why that was, but I'm thinking that it has something to do with the inherent or assumed or implied calculus (I don't know what terminology is used). I can't figure it out without a lot of help.
  11. Yes, but this is also true for any line or length that we use in order to find its position. We describe distance in units. We can give these units the attribute of being scalar quantities, depending on how we want to apply them. This assignment (where distance units are the scalar quantity and direction is the vector quantity) is totally arbitrary. I know that doesn't sound right, but it is. The conventional method doesn't allow for this possibility because there's no way to assign the attribute of being a scalar quantity to direction, we can only do that with distance. Direction is expressed as the orientation between two objects. This orientation can only be expressed in non-dimensional units using the conventional method. Because of this (mathematical) fact, it is not possible (mathematically) to assign a scalar attribute to direction. If, however, direction were expressed in a manner where actual, dimensional, units are used, such as |pi/x|, then we will be able to assign a scalar attribute to those units. This isn't really like that. It is a coordinate system where additional geometric equalities are used. So far, I only know how to use the system in order to define direction as an invariant quantity under that geometry. Although I am sure that the new geometry is completely compatible with conventional geometry, I also know that once a scalar or vector attribute has been assigned to something (either direction or distance, but not both) in a particular application that it isn't trivial to undo that assignment.
  12. The difference between direction and polarity (orientation) seems to be symmetrical with the difference between length and line (distance). We don't treat these properties as having any symmetry in the normal system. All of them, except position (direction x distance). Correct, that's what I'm saying. Not knowing some parameter. Therefore, since it can be parameterized, it's a property. Since the coordinate system is a mapping of reality, then we can capture different information if we use a coordinate system that shares the same curvature as spacetime. This can be accomplished by expressing direction as an invariant quantity.
  13. I don't understand what you mean. The classic double-slit experiment is used to explain the wave-particle relationship by looking at the direction of travel of photons. Surely, you're not saying that this direction of travel isn't real? I don't know what you mean. And I agree with you about the coordinate system. It all has to do with how we go about mapping physical things into that system. Anyhow, whether it's a property or not, direction changes when performing relativistic transformations using the standard method.
  14. Direction is a property of the points adjacent to the particle. (which is another way of saying "coordinate system")
  15. I still need two more at 30 and 60 degrees. That might illuminate some things. I would think |pi/2| might be a sine curve.
  16. Thank you Strange. You have no idea how envious I am. http://mymathforum.com/math/331919-i.html
  17. Your participation is very much appreciated. I'm not being facetious, either. Without your help, and many others like you, this discussion would never have come this far. But to answer your question, I've always been a failure at algebra. I don't know why. Everyone tells me it is lack of effort, but that isn't the case. I can read and understand algebraic expressions fairly adequately, but I can't conjugate the formulas myself. This has nothing at all to do with any ability to do the math. If you honestly think that I don't have the ability, how do you think that the model was created? I don't know what your particular vision of math is, but mine doesn't include algebra, except in the superficial sense of being the language that we use to communicate with each other. If you think that proving or disproving things using math is a waste of time, then I'm afraid you'll not be able to follow any explanation that I could give.
  18. Here's the model in Mathematica. He constructed the mathematical model using another set of visual animations. Trust me on this one thing, no one, not even me, has ever derived this function. It seems that the folks with the know-how to do it have some sort of bizarre math phobia that I have trouble understanding. Those who have argued countless times "you're wrong, do the math and you'll see" are now arguing "you are wrong and we don't need to be concerned with math at all." This is a .cdf so you have to change the extension after downloading it. That was my biggest, most childish mistake. There are no spheres. There are only the normal structure that exist with any surface. What people seem to be missing, what is difficult to comprehend without actually doing the math, is that 3space has a structure that survives when it is stretched. NewSphericalTrigFunction, Nr 2, v9.txt
  19. Correct, but here we have the collection of all vectors in the space that is surrounding that point. Edited for clarification> By "space that is surrounding" I mean points adjacent to the origin that are not in the surface of the manifold. We are quantifying the direction of what's in the manifold by quantifying the direction of everything else that isn't in the manifold.
  20. Do you understand that the tangent space in this case represents the quantification (sum or magnitude of all the existing directions in the space surrounding the origin of the vector) rather than simply the surface vector? Or, more importantly, if you do understand, can you see how these two would be different and have different mathematical properties? Hans used some animations posted to youtube in order to create the animation. I don't know if he can derive the formula, but I will ask, thanks for the suggestion.
  21. Because I have no way of contacting him. The thread that we used for our collaboration has been purged from not only the site, but also from the internet archive. Also, as of the last time we communicated, he had not been able to do it. You are not thinking correctly. Seriously. Explain to me how to turn over my cards without math? You don't understand that I do understand the part where you think I don't understand. The reasons you give for our mathematical booking regarding scalars and vectors is correct. You are correct in everything you say except for your continued assumption that I don't know what you are saying. I do! You seem to be stuck on some notion that nature somehow cares how we assign these values. Nature doesn't care, at all. We make the choice of using the assignments that you are familiar with. I have shown a method for making a different choice, one that facilitates modeling the isotropic curvature of space-time. But you simply refuse to do the math. You are not alone.
  22. The specific symmetry that I am talking about involves vectors. The structure of: vector = length x direction where length is the scalar quantity and direction is the vector quantity has symmetry with: vector = length x direction where direction is the scalar quantity and length is the vector quantity. The modulus lines indicate that it is the scalar quantity representing the magnitude: |direction| = magnitude of "direction" First card, tell me what the relationship is between the small numbers that are changing at the top of the animation and the small numbers that are changing in the rectangular box. This might actually be fun. on edit> see attachment length as a vector quantity.doc
  23. Actually, a lightbulb did light up over my head. In reviewing the thread (in order to see what it was I said that made you think that I would benefit somehow from reading what appears to me to be a very standard application of math and physics), it became clear that the miscommunication that has been going on is all on me. I realize now that I'm holding all the cards here, and no one knows what I have. Every time someone asks "show me your cards" I throw them face-down on the table shouting "I've already shown you my cards." Two things, maybe three, can clear a lot of this up. The most productive thing would be to start turning each card over by doing the math. That really is the only way that I can show you my cards. The second thing I can do is ask your indulgence in reading yet another wall of text from me. Having reviewed the thread, I now realize that most (but not all) of the confusion is caused by a phenomenon where I have accepted certain symmetries that have changed the way that I communicate. This is aggravated by the fact that our language is not symmetrical. By this I mean, we only have certain words that mean certain things, and there is no language that can precisely state the symmetries using our current set of structures (which are not symmetrical). Although I have been very precise with my language, it has little or no effect because of the gross lack of symmetry to it. Some people reading this thread have paid very close attention to this (probably intuiting that this is where some of the problem lies) but is hasn't been all that effective because I haven't taken the trouble to ensure that it is understood, even though I have tried to explain it many times. Because of the symmetries, I no longer consider "direction" and "unit vector" to be one and the same. Starting now, I will use the expression |direction| to show that what I am saying is something other than a unit vector. If this shuts down the conversation because of the pseudo-science woo-factor then it really doesn't matter. We'd all be wasting more of our time anyhow. Another forum member here keeps mentioning that a point and a position are not the same thing. I've stated that length and line are different, and now I understand (having considered it in a new light) that line and curve are different if they are considered in different coordinate systems (good catch!). These subtleties are super-important here. Again, this is because the meanings and usage of many of our terms are not symmetrical. Let me take a break here for some navel gazing. If we look at the c/2 situation where a light is bounced off a mirror and its round-trip time is noted, several things can be observed. First, if it is a perfect reflection then the particle will occupy the same space (position) at two different times. One time is on the way there and the other time is on the way back. Since were not seeing a lot of stuff that returns to the same position all the time, we can conclude that there is no perfect reflection in nature. Except - if direction is the property that actually commutes, instead of length as we are taught, then the outcome of a perfect reflection is slightly different in that now the particle is occupying two places at the same time, as is what actually happens in quantum entanglement. Again, if this type of thought experiment is what gets the thread shut down because it's too speculative, oh well. Maybe someone who wants to continue the conversation can join some other group where I'm already a member and start a new thread. Now, back to business. The first piece that is necessary in order to show you my cards is that I need to have an algebraic expression of the function. Without that, we cannot go on. It will be more of: "Show us what the function does." "It does this." "Oh really, how does it do that?" "I'd love to explain how the function works, I've been dying to show you how it works, but in order for you to know what it's actually doing you'll have to actually evaluate it." I really don't see any other way forward without doing some real math. Enough for now, but more to follow. I hope someone, anyone, has questions, and I hope that someone, anyone, will volunteer to help write a "simple looking" formula. Oh, by the way, the function returns |direction|.
  24. There ya go, a plan. The attachment is the .cdf for the model, and credit and gratitude go to Hans Milton, the author. Just change the extension back to .cdf after download. NewSphericalTrigFunction, Nr 2, v9.txt
  25. This whole thread is about direction, yep, sorry, you're right. The only reason for that is because no one is willing to do the math. No one is willing to even help me to do it myself. Thanks for interest and your input. Isn't there some sort of program that can do it if you feed it inputs and outputs? I've never talked to anyone who's used something like that, but it does seem like I've heard of such a thing. Or maybe I'm thinking of de-compilers for computer code. Looks sure fooled me. Doh! Mathematica must have the formula in order to put the numbers into the model. Does anyone know how to get it out of there? How can I post the .cdf file? This might be simple, if anyone knows how to do it.
×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue.