ImplicitDemands

A=pi*3^2=9pi; A'=(2*3)^(2-1)pi the integral is (6pi/(1+1))^(1+1)=(6/2)^2 * pi=9pi If you have a radius of R around an inner circle with a radius of r and wanted to maximize the amount of space in that outer ring R and minimize what is in the center circle r you would say lim x->infinity f(R)=r+r/x ; x=r, meaning that R=r+1 I suppose Newton is some shadow program working on maths adjacent to me Also: Having to make some corrections here, the 5.121 number extruded another radius from the original radius of 3 inches. So let's so how close we are with 2.121 (I just went back in and realized I did my own math wrong it was 2.74 something that was the point). And yes I realized you can still fit 9 spheres inside the second iteration without all of their surfaces touching so it is like squaring the volume of a sphere to get a hypersphere. Shouldn't second guess myself.

You don't know whether the redshift is higher than it should be or not if the problem is a lack of some sinusoidal application to factor in the proximity values of galaxy A and B relative to the observer as I explained earlier. So you don't even know whether the cosmic event horizon or CMBR is the oldest light that's had time to reach the lens or whether it is just a blending that makes objects invisible as the tip of the cone becomes infinitesimal.

Because the gravitational constant appears smaller at a distance. This dynamic is literally missing dimensions when you use calculus, it is the difference between how the cylindrical portion of the cone constantly decreases from base to dip to how that same cylinder constantly curve from top to bottom on a half sphere. Look, if the universe has said volume, is that the volume of a cube or of a sphere?

Thank you for repeating that. Proteins are made out atoms which have electrons. So at the very most basic level what is happening is literally ionization from light in the dna composing the retina. Yes when you get to the cellular level things like photosynthesis seem more complex but it's all just light and electricity interacting with each other just like the computer.

You understand that this math is designed to be factored into change the gravitational variance along a scale that must be adjusted for f(n) each time (n)sin(any deg) changes the radius of a circle along the z plane. With both the degree angle changing and the radius changing so there can be no constant which is why it is variant. A forum I feel is as good a place as any. Accredited or not, if it works to predict the orbital behavior of planetary objects in relation to one another it works. However, it is getting late.

An LED is basically the reverse of photovoltaics, i.e. electroluminescence. As for it's own magnetic moment, whatever the culprit is that doesn't change the fact that magnetization is the point where the two opposing orbitals cross paths as those sides of the atom are adjacent. When I said spin I meant orbital magnetization. As in the port where the fiber optic cable connects to battery a, photoionization occurs and the conductor connecting battery a to battery b adopts one atomic orbital which attracts one end of the cylinder which has a magnet, then the orbitals reverse throughout the conductor as the positive ionized battery a takes back the additional electrons from the negatively ionized batter b, attracting the other end of the cylinder which has an anti-magnet. Your retina are like little photovoltaic batteries, their cells can experience photoinization which is not unlike the process of photosynthesis or why ionized gas in hydrothermal vents are the culprit for the creation of chemical bonds leading to the carbon based dna in our cells. If you have LEDs that are small enough, I'd wage the easiest was to program them to light up in just the right combination to produce a picture through our retina I'd wager the easiest way to program a touch screen interface is what I described here but I can use math to figure out exactly how that interface needs to be set up.

Photoelectric effect - As an electron returns to its normal state upon one photon entering and exiting a system, two photons are released. Electroluminescence - Electricity takes grazes through in an atomic orbital, and light is released continually Photovoltaics - A photon passes through an atomic medium and electrons are released Fiber optic cable - Is the photoelectric effects applied to the atoms along the cable Photoionization - A photon enters into a system and an electron is released from the atomic orbital and the atom is now a positive ion Magnetism - The electrons have opposite spin causing the bodies to be magnetized Notice I use the term "grazing through an atomic orbital continually" for electroluminescence now photoionization can also cause this to happen at one positive interval followed by a negative interval. Hence induction motor.

Where there's ionization, there's a change in charge, i.e. magnetism. The LEDs in a touchscreen are also examples of the photoelectric effect. If you were to ionize a neutrally charged material via the photoelectric effect, say porting a fiber optic cable to it and applying a ray of the right frequency to that cable would cause it to become positively charged and any other neutrally charged material adjacent to it, connected via a conductor, would acquire capacitance momentarily before the two neutralized.

Like the mouse on a laptop. Yes well, there are other ways that are easier to interface, more specifically controlling the EM motor rotations of PLFs and fiberoptics that can photoionize these motors.

I know I know. If you are curious what exactly it is I am doing to place a second circle atop the surface of a sphere with r=3 at the top right to get the r=5.121 value, or at what point the two given volumetric surfaces make contact, I assure you it is not a trigometric function that has been discovered yet or it would have been covered in my education which has been extensively mathematical oriented. Derivations were unknown until discovered. I'm sorry, I must correct something I said earlier about how many spheres can make contact about the surface volume of the first iteration. constant at any iteration at any 3-sided pyramidal angle gravitational interaction though I said 9 but but if you look at the values you will find that you can only wrap two in the front of the first sphere and one in the back. Much like the up and down quarks in a nucleus. It is the dimensions being used in the mathematics of motion other than calculus which also does this but it misses how relative perspective factors into the parameters governing change over time. One needs to know how to factor (not integrate as if we were doing calculus) in the gravitational variance. As all shapes have a triangle at their core, trigonometry is really the basis of all geometry, and therefore change over time. If I were speaking to Newton I would to stress the importance taking a second or a third look at trigonometry, considering it as the primary basis for the geometry of motion. Then, he might have had a more complete representation of the third dimension, so as to understand why things became so murky when orbital bodies exceeded two, using his process. As an engineer, it is easier when looking at gravity in this sense, to affect my thinking about how time may be why some atomic mediums can react to light passing through, and other do not. And by react I mean change energy state, for one. Maybe not a wave fluctuation but a velocity governing time in a relativistic sense. Note, this is not what is written here about observational variance in the gravitational interaction due to relative perspective, there is a distinction between perspective and the interactions. I'm trying to clarify that this math with no name IS the former.

Because the issue is that objects in proportion of space shaped like a half sphere are not constant, a cone facing upright has a perfect linear v, a half sphere facing upright is more of a u shape. Objects don't increase in scale by the same amount as they approach. If the sphere gets larger after repeating what I just did, the next time the amount in which it scales up changes. The third iteration is based off of the second iteration not the first iteration. For the redshift problem much like in the 3 body problem, Galaxy A's distance from Galaxy B depends heavily upon two different angles where this math deviates from calculus in the way I demonstrated before. On top of this, you need to know how to use that half sphere metric in order to factor in how the relative perspective of the gravitational constant is effected. Differences in the calculus versus observation, depending upon how space is actually shaped, could produce some affects associated with the wave function.

How to build a smart phone, and program every single task that it performs. You can do more than that, you can control lasers, which can help you make smaller parts.

There I even gave you the new radius produced by New Math (bolded and underlined).

Differential Calculus Circle slice of a cone r=3in moves forward toward the wide end of the cone by one unit of 3 inches, A = pi(r^2) & A' = 2pi(r) x dA/dt; A'/A = (6pi x dA/dt)/(9pi)) -> (6pi x (3+3))/9pi = 2. That's 2r. New Math Which is fine for flat space but for curved space I have a different when it moves forward that same distance but also moves up and across (x&y) by a 45 degree angle because of the curve in the surface volume of the sphere across 2 radii or one circumference away from the sphere of origin (that's 3 iterations of spheres in which you can fit a total of 27 spheres where all of the spherical surfaces make contact). The difference between discrepancies in redshift of receding galaxies could be a simple matter of the difference between the shape of a cone and the shape of a half sphere. I can map the dimensions that are parametrized by curved space, I'm just dealing with a situation right now can you please be patient until my situation changes?

I thought it was clear. What are you unable to understand?

It's all based on the photo electric effect Einstein wrote. The layout of the touchscreen uses photoelectronics. The process Microsoft uses to interface is say light reflected through the glass off the fingertip, reflected again off of a mirror based on trigonometric functions into particular photovoltaic particles through fiber-optics. The current let off through electron excitation travels through conductive wires into LEDs which let out frequencies at alternating intervals (01s) into photo-ionics of opposing charge into a series of em motors which can change the outputs of leds which ones are on or off. The process of installing an app that uses that interface has to do with lasers sending certain intervals of light frequencies into remote servers, usually with the satellite being the proxy, which then returns a set that makes that interface behave in a new way. You know, anything from flash-drives to neural interfaces in nanotechnologies use these. Beyond that I have designed a stationary nanorobotic arm with two axes of rotation and now I do know how to control and automate its motion with a digital interface like an iphone. The actual operational specs require trigonometric functions as well maths in order to direct light reflected off the fingertips into the right fiber optic cables for ported to those particular induction motors which open and close the contacts for the LEDs whilst charging a microlaser (keylogging). It is important for any interested parties to know that if you want to manufacture any type of relevant technology in this day and age it all uses this technology.

The cmb is sending light through a cone but the galaxy's actual position is about a half sphere When I'm in the mood

It is not just the curvature being wrong due to a miscalculation of how the grav const is effected by range due to perspectives. The positions of the objects in question (receding galaxies) effects this, why my math differs for these positions is that it takes into account not only the position in the half sphere as it curves representing the entire volume of space observed, it also adjusts for how perspective effects the circumference of that circular slice which can be factored into the grav const without calculus. Alas, yes light wouldn't be effected by that grav const but but the origin of that light would be as well as the space it's traversed.

The calculations used for a) just two orbital objects had to reintegrate the lagrange coordinate (gravitational equilibrium between them) in order to continuously adjust the derivative for the same reason that b) the 3 body problem or even c) the theory of expansion, were posed in the first place. Point a) As you move about in the z plane not only does gravity's effects at a distance (dz/dt) have to be recalibrated (the gravitational constant as an integral of the inverse square law), but also the curvature of space has to be accounted for, that is because space is curved and not flat. I was exposed to the same amount of algebra and trig that Newton was when he came up with calculus but unlike Newton I was also more informed about spacetime when I came up with how to use the sine function to map the entire surface volume of the sphere in order to use perspective of how circles placed anywhere on that surface (which can be made into spheres using the same .707sin(45deg) process) as a numerical value for objects falling along the z plane. The first trick to that was knowing that only 8 spheres could fit around the center without crossing into each others space. 3^2 also confirms that it can only be 8 on the outside plus one on the inside. The next iteration is trickier because the next 18 spheres don't fall along one entire sphere but parts of eight individual spheres whose surfaces are already partially occupied. If you could find out how to expand or shrink the circumferences of even the first eight outer spheres by the exact amount if they were to be placed in the only eight points about the original sphere's surface volume you'd still only have half of the puzzle in which I've memorized for my approach to deviating from trigonometry's two dimensional world, in a similar but wholly different way than Newton did when developing his derivations. Point b) This mathematics has a net of spheres along the z plane that can be used to calculate that curvature without needing to reincorporate the Lagrangian. Point c) As for discrepancies in the redshift coming from older galaxies which are further away, being greater than they should be, there's no need for expansion if the gravitational constant isn't mathematically expressible using any form of calculus.