ImplicitDemands

Which yields accurate changes in depth perception over the z direction. But what about x and y? The objects along the horizontal and vertical plane if lined up at the same point in the z line doesn't matter because those objects are further away too but because they are at the same point in the z line the changes in depth for x and y can't be shown this way even though they are further from the observer looking straight on. It is a dimensional problem. Of course knowing this I'd figured out a wholly different way to get an accurate calculation of all dimension, it having to do with the post above. This is the problem Newton would have had with the motion of more than two gravitational orbits not a physics problem, really it would be a problem for more than one object if it weren't for our ability to find the Lagrangian coordinate between the two. Due to the fact that redshift is based on the doppler effect it couldn't be a culprit for redshift but like I said my actual physics based dataset for the actual mechanics of light doesn't say enough to rule out tired light as a cause. It says there is an increase redshift over greater distances due to some assumptions about what light is and what forces at play. Obviously you'd need a larger dataset to measure against cosmological redshift. It even explains why it takes so long for light to be emitted from inside the sun very nicely and why neutrinos are exempt. It even says something about particle wave duality at close distances. It says a different color has nothing to do with the doppler effect at all. The light's wavelength isn't increasing because it is coming from an object that is moving away, or because it has some negative motion, which doesn't make sense to begin with you can't change the velocity of light, that's what relativity is about.

In my experience the content in the OP was learned before the power rule which is the basis of both the product rule and derivatives. I found that through limits prior to learning (a/(b+1))^(b+1). You'd think looking at the power rule a^b; f(a)=(ba)^(b-1) that an integral would be f(a)=(a/b)^(b+1) where does that a/b+1 come from. Before learning integration I learned R=r+1 to work on a miss-written derivation problem: The diameter of the garden was actually 8", the radius was for 4" on the bottom lift picture there. Anyway the problem was admittedly miss-written. I learned why the integral adds one to the dividend which had the same value as the exponent from an error in the construction of a word problem. If I had to guess I'd assume I was in a simulation where a learning computer feeds off what I figure out to create more arithmetic. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Intelligence_amplification

Well that doesn't tell me how they came up with the product rule. As for my post, I was showing how to break down all the 10 digit passwords below the obvious 10^10 possible combinations so one could work with them. I even made it more difficult of a task by having the number 1 repeated, that means there would have been two ones in any arrangement of 10 different digits. I had to take the zero out and find the 1-9 combinations. Then, I would have eliminated all the combinations with 9 in them, and I would have put 0 back in to replace the nine. Therefore, when computing for zero you'd have one set of 9^9 combinations where 9 is included and a second set of 9^9 combinations where 0 is included if 1 weren't repeating twice. So the 123456789 {0} is the equivalent of a square exponential, if you did the product rule it would be like you base^2, and then doing the process shown and swapping the 9 and the 0 would be like performing the product rule on base^2, that is (2 x base)^(2-1) = 2 x base. In essence, the difference between the 10^10 combinations of all the digits on your keyboard and the combinations you get when you sum up 123456789 {0} & 123456780 {9} is the same difference between base^2 and 2 x base (it's derivative). A Rubik's cube would be treated the same, with 54 digits instead of 10.

As far I can discern when inventing combinatorics I also found the product rule for differentiation and derivatives. Not "Isaac Newton" or some other name that I can't confirm ever existed. When pertaining to the scientific method, empirical evidence is based on observation which I don't rely on as heavily as mathematics for separating fact from fiction. I know I don't get anything out of sharing an arithmetic that can literally be used to earn a person money for cracking a password combination or solving any type of Rubiks cube. I should be retired for this alone. I only share it because I know some things that are potentially worth a lot more. Just realize whenever I post one of these there's an implied expectation somewhere in there for doing so.

I will say that when you go from a radius of 3 to a radius of 4, that this is accurate even with my maths if you look at the object straight on. However, if you were to do it this way when calculating depth you'd need to realize that if you fitted the 7, 11, or 12 other spheres around that surface volume (9pi) you would need to adjust your xy and yx planes because now all the other spheres need to be placed differently giving different perceived radii to stack further iterations upon. I don't think calculus takes this into consideration. I do know that when it's 8 spheres around the sphere of origin the way I do it if you took the two spheres on the bottom and right and had them where you have the two spheres in front it would look exactly the same as it did before. No change to the xy and yx planes.

I wouldn't do that either. This a problem with the calculability of depth perception, it is essentially geometrically accurate animation. Earth is the only observer of Mars and its moons. If we were to continue this line of discussion I would have to get back into this. But, alas, the hour is getting late and I must rest.

We have have the gravity as the G term. We don't need all that yet for testing the numbers, if you wanted to get more complicated and try and apply theoretical physics best fix the methods used if they are wrong about the numbers in predicting trajectories for completely different reasons i.e. purely geometrical. Best use a system we can test from an Observatory where we don't have to worry too much about it. Mars and its Moons would be perfect for the three body problem.

That one doesn't, no. And I have already pointed out I did it wrong it was supposed to be: The change in radius relative to observer was I had also performed that one wrong at first on the previous page.

I'm sorry this topic is titled, "New Math, Old Theories" not "Old Math, New Theories". There is a geometric method not explicitly shown in this thread, how I got the 3.8etc number as opposed to using derivation for area expansion and integration to define the radius of a sphere at one radii into the k vector. I have determined that it is a strong candidate for the solution to the three body problem but admitted however that it might not be the culprit for redshift, since redshift is SELF-inconsistent using calculus. Of course if you were to take this New Theory and apply it to, say, teleporting back in time, you'd need the New Math as well.

My revised survey was done on hand this week, it only tables a particle over a distance of approximately 9 planck lengths over about 18 planck times and that is where I saw the pattern of redshift but not enough data to really tell much else. A number was wrong too but that doesn't effect much else other than velocity. The mechanics treated this event as occurring over the same duration as if it had happened in positive time (meaning from what I did it was blueshifted). Really it doesn't matter which direction the arrow of time is pointing, the event still translates the same forward and backward but in reverse order. The reason cause precedes effect at my interpretation's version of quantum scale is because I could not find the mechanism for photon ejection in our arrow of time. You'd need to understand that matter is held by these fields that originated from events in the future, when those events occur some of these fields will be subtracted/replaced by new events. But the light is actually being ejected in retrograde causality (what we call observation of said signal).

It is not anti-gravity from our point of view, it is just gravity as far as we perceive it. But our perception of events in the past is rather irrelevant to cause and effect. Simply put what we see as a cause might actually be an effect. I'd have to show you the numbers, why the pattern produces a redshift from our point of view, why fields get subtracted from our point of view, what matter and energy actually are, why the have wavelengths+frequencies, what those are, etc.

When I revised that table it actually reads that the universe is doing something similar to expanding but it is not Past->Future: Gravity FIELD gets turned off slightly before observation occurs Future->Past: Anti-gravity FIELD gets turned on when signal was sent which looks to us like a gravity field being turned off as well. But the process leading to the generation of these fields has not occurred yet. Memory runs off the basis of incorporating a series of other synaptic patterns into the current one. Causality exists outside of the subjective perception of the arrow of time that memory falsely manufactures. It just so happens that in my interpretation the wave-guide is retrograde only. If predicting the orbits of three gravitational bodies, my solution to the three body problem would use the central orbiting body (about the z-plane, vector k) as a reference point. From that point, space curves both inward and outward direction as you get closer to and further from the observer, numerically expressing the depth increasing G as you get closer, and decreasing it as you get further.

I will admit that there is some truth to the fact that cosmological redshift may not be as much (or at all) connected to the three body problem, nor might it be a problem with the math. But the three body problem is certainly the result of a problem with the mathematics in the way that I have described. As a physicist, I know of other culprits for cosmological redshift that do not really require even calculus to define mathematically, as much as the physics concepts. Although you still need calculus to compare the simplistic math to, it is totally unrelated to the New Math I have been describing so far. It is not new math it is basic arithmetic, the table produced does describe that redshift will increase overtime (tired light). Is my answer related to the curvature of space and how this effects light? Yes and no. Does my solution involve a novel interpretation of quantum physics? Yes. Does my interpretation affirm that the universe is expanding? No. The outline I have for it needs revision as I was erroneously operating under the preconceived notion that the system is being guided by events that had occurred in the past instead of events that occur in the future. How egocentric to believe that, just because we have memory then causality itself must be bound by it.

The equation for redshift tells you how far away both Galaxy A (nearer) is and Galaxy B (further) is. It tells you how much they have redshifted, and this gives you S(t), which is the distance light would have to travel to redshift to those Hz numbers based on the inverse square law. The problem is that when you redshift by the distance light of Galaxy B has traveled to get to Galaxy A, you find the "redshift discrepancy" between galaxy B's cumulative redshift from galaxy A's position to the observer, and what it should be based on Hz for Galaxy B. So either the distance is changing (and the universe is expanding) or there's some problem with the mathematics being implemented. The same issue could be the culprit, specifically for adjusting the Gravitational Constant, of the three body problem. Unlike the calculus shown above my method only uses right triangles, this much I can tell you. When you deviate from a 45 degree angle, that's when problems tend to occur.

Here's a small extra tidbit, there are electroluminescent wires used in two phases, in the first phase they do get a charge from multiple photoconductive electrodes (that can be powered by the fusion itself after it begins). But other electroluminescent wires (this time underneath a fiber optic material) are going to get an additional charge of electrons in the second phase of the fusion cycle seemingly out of no where (on top of the same quantity of charge the first set of wires get hit with). How does it get extra charge from the first cycle without adding new energy into the system? And what is the extra light the wire releases used for? For the latter, well phase 3 of course! I'll leave the former to the imagination.

We can control fusion when employing 192 converging lasers but they lose energy that isn't regained. My solution involved requiring less energy to power the lasers of the same magnitude that can easily be sustained by the fusion events. The solution involves photovoltaic panels to reincorporate the energy released by the fusion events, while both prolonging the photoelectric effect and intensifying the energy it receives/produces over time.

It is the equation. a(t) = V(t)/s(t)^2 or miles/hours^2 aka mph^2 Position=S(t)->(distance over time) Velocity=v(t)->s(t)/time Acceleration=a(t)->v(t)/S(t)->distance/time^2 Time squared, yes it is covering the same distance over more time. Hence the outside world is experiencing a greater passage of time. Whether or not the observer is experiencing more time as well is a matter of debate. We really can't go fast enough to tell.

Acceleration is velocity over time. Velocity is distance over time. So, acceleration is distance over time^2

From what I understand they behave more like this:

Then Hz is the number in which to factor by the value my equations yield, to be concise about what I'm stating here. It has nothing to do with gravity bending light or even the curvature of space it has to do with the calculus not maximizing surface volume to a concise enough detail, which in turn effects the depth and therefore throws off the redshift measurements. So you really do have to measure it against the calculus if that is the case. Pixelate any 2 galaxies in the cosmos from the observatory.

Up to this date every single scientific development pertaining to R&D has been made widely accessible to the point that it has become very difficult for any one authority to maintain said authority without mutually assured destruction. Total global compromise is policy. This is why we can't have nice things. This one technology, if it exists, we would need to find out a way to use it without using calculators, every-single input made has a digital signature. We need to seriously discuss the security of our technological apparatus.

Technically, A/int(r)*int(A) would be how you get the 4 radius for 4/3pi*r^3. You get the 3 radius as the dividend because the radius was 3 before being moved forward by it's own radius along the z plane. Anyway later on it was thought you could fit 12 spheres around the center https://plus.maths.org/content/newton-and-kissing-problem But that doesn't work for the factoring of G based on the principle that one can fit only 8 spheres around the central sphere if they were all to be equidistant and all making surface contact. And only 4 of those 8 can be used to measure z.

If it is factored into integral of the area -> A/(integral of r * integral of A) ->9pi/((3/1+1)^(1+1) x (3/2+1)^(2+1)pi) -> 9pi/(3/2)^2 x (3/3)^3 pi -> 9pi/(9/4 x pi) = 4; where r=3 Then you get your 4G/r for:

His problem when you consider that a 9pi area over the integral of its radius is just 4 which is exactly what he's factoring in for the gravitational constant. And you should really use my optimization of the surface volume about an origin sphere instead because it isn't factoring in 4 it is factoring in 3.87553041018 that's only a 1.3% difference which adds up when you consider all of the angular momenta involved in the observation of gravitational bodies.