Bignose

Why do you think you can just drop the differentiation operators?

OK, so you just get to decide if my point of view is valid or not. Kinda like you get to decide whether a value is a z1 or z2. Whatever. What is the point in positing this to a forum, then? If you aren't going to engage in discussion, then this isn't material for discussion forum. You can go start your own blog. But more than that... my perspective is one of practicality. If you can't demonstrate any practical reason to use this, and furthermore there are many practical reasons demonstrable why it leads to really wrong answers... what is the point? You've created a self-conflicting, only-conway-knowns-what-it-means, demonstrably-wrong-answer-giving system. Huzzah.

But it does matter. Your own rules state that. 0(z1) x 1(z2) = 0 1(z2) x 0(z1) = 0 A(z1) x 0(z2) = A 0(z2) x A(z1) = A Per your own rules here, it is CRITICALLY important to know which is the z1 and which is the z2. I implied it. I gave you an example that specifically brings that up. I made that example to specifically point out that trying to follow your rules here leads to ridiculously wrong conclusions. Simply put, when I program my computer to do some math, I don't want to also have to program some consciousness into it. And even more simply put, the rules of multiplication that we've used for thousands of years now without 'consciousness' seem to have been pretty successful. You have introduced something here that makes it demonstrably far, far less useful. To what end? I have no idea. Your previous threads, you were trying to fix what you perceive as the problem of dividing by zero. Not sure if that is where you're going here. But to date, you haven't shown how this idea improves any situation, and I and others have demonstrated how it makes understanding far, far worse. So again I ask, to what end?

What is velocity/ball? I didn't introduce that at all. I'm not trying to find out how many balls I have. All I am trying to do is basic introduction to physics stuff: measuring displacements given a velocity and observation time. And pointing out that following your rules, either an object a rest has moved when you observe it for some non-zero amount of time or an object moves even when observed for zero time. Either result is unacceptable as it gives an obviously wrong answer. Furthermore, you still, still, still didn't tell me how to tell which is z1 and which is z2. Why can't you just provide some rules on how to know which is which? Or if they are all 'relative', then how can someone use them and NOT get a ridiculously wrong result?

So we're back with this 'space' and 'value' stuff, eh? Been a few years. Any chance you can define them better this time around? Last time -- see http://www.scienceforums.net/topic/89692-understanding-by-zero/?p=874173 -- you never ever could tell me how to know which one was which. Except you always seemed to know which was which because you could get the 'right' answers. But somehow could never explain it to me. Here is an example: A ball moving at 10 m/s is observed for 0 s, how far has it moved during this observation? A second ball moving at 0 m/s is observed for 10 seconds, how for does it move during this observation? I have no idea which number is the z1 or which is the z2 here, but the z1 HAS to be one of the velocity or the time, and the z2 has to be the other. So, let's see: if the velocity is the z1, then first ball moves 10 m/s * observed for 0 seconds (literally no time) = 10 meters (per your 2nd to last equation). WTF?!?! If the velocity if the z2, then first ball moves 10 m/s * observed for 0 seconds = 0 meters (per 6th eqn from bottom). Ok. Good. So velocity must be the z2. But now, we look at second ball. ball moving a 0 m/s (at rest!!!!) * observed for 10 seconds = 10 meters (per last equation). Again, WTF?!?! Your math leads to obviously wrong conclusions. How can you continue to pursue this?

Sure, and I think most mathematicians agree with you. The Collatz Conjecture is generally believed to be true. But proving it has been difficult. That's where the fun in mathematics is.

assumption =/= proof. That's kinda the whole point of proof, buddy.

+1 This is what has to be done guys. And if someone does it, they win several thousand dollars. It's a hard problem.

Sure. But there are a lot more numbers above 2^60. An infinite number of them, to be exact. That's why the proof for all numbers haven't been completed yet. It isn't easy. If you think your proof here is enough, why don't you claim the money?

fiveworlds, if you think it is so easy, why don't you claim the prize for proving it: http://thescienceexplorer.com/universe/earn-two-thousand-dollars-solving-simple-math-problem

And you can always remember that by F = ma. Newtons on left side... the kg m per s per s on the right hand side.

MigL, as soon as you pay taxes to this forum, then maybe you have a point here. On the other hand, this server and its services are provided for free. It's hosting is paid for by someone else. The least we all can do is follow the rules that someone else asks us to. That is why you see "if you don't like it, start your own site". Because it is the Internet, it is actually incredibly easy to start your own site. Hundred of how-to guides out there. This is also where your analogy breaks down because starting your own Internet site is obviously far, far easier than starting your own country. The real problem is how often people post on here claiming some umbrage to their freedoms of speech when -- unlike a country -- this server never has and almost surely never will be covered by that. This site's owners get to decide what is posted. Period. Just like the New York Times gets to decide what to put in their paper, and Houghton Mifflin gets to decide what books they want to publish. We all have no rights here. None. We are here are guests of the site's owner. The sooner we all realize that, the better.

Like swansont said, KE is an always positive quantity. Defining it as such has been supremely successful. If you think it isn't, the onus is on your to provide copious examples where it doesn't. And no, the examples you've given don't count because they are well described by the existing definitions even if you don't understand them.

But if your simplifications are wrong and predict the wrong things, then you've made things worse. The authors of those books didn't make them hundreds of pages long just because they like writing. The books are that long to handle the problems properly. Simplifications are fine, up until the points when they aren't anymore. At the very least, like Swansont said, the beginnings of this stuff is covered in high school level physics. You need to understand that -- and how supremely successful it is -- before you try to come along and introduce simplifications or other changes to it. And then you need to show us how your simplification make even better predictions than what we have now. This will require extraordinary evidence as what we have now has been, well, supremely successful. Your inability to understand it is not a good enough reason to change it -- when again it has been used for a very long time and has been very successful.

I'm not ignoring math. Please see the texts I referred to. There is a lot of math in both of them. I just don't think there is any reason to type it all here when you should be capable of reading those texts yourself.

If you did some reading, you'd find that the study of impacts is very sophisticated. See Werner Goldmsith's text Impact, available very cheaply as a Dover title. 416 pages of not-guesswork. Stronge's Impact Mechanics is also highly regarded. Why don't you take a peak at some of the existing literature before trying to reinvent it yourself and see if it addresses your concerns?

If you apply a strong enough magnetic field, you can make frogs levitate. http://www.sciencemag.org/news/1997/04/floating-frogs I'd imagine that this could be reversed. But you do know that technically what you're asking is impossible, right? You're asking to replace gravity -- a constant acceleration -- without using a constant acceleration? Seems like you may need a little revision on just what gravity is. While doing that, might need to revise on how without any outside references, it is impossible to know what the source of an acceleration is, gravity or otherwise.

Sure. But you have to start somewhere. That's what you came to this forum to ask. We're trying to show you good ideas of where to start. Which is more valuable? Taking a video and letting people look at it and some will call it fake, but others will point out possible other sources of error, or not having any video and leaving us to wonder what other sources of error you might have had? In my opinion, video that could possibly be faked is better than no video at all.

And you need to repeat this multiple times, preferably in a random fashion. And you need to have an independent party record the temperature change. As Phi said, you have to do as little that might interfere as possible. If you want other people to critique it for you, you should film the entire experiment uninterrupted, too.

Exactly. We're on the same page here.

Hence why my full quote was 'the beginning of approaching this scientifically' I agree that 30 alone is too small, but like Phi, the claim of such tremendous improvement should mean that the study group vs. the control group should show at least some differences. As I said, it is a beginning. It is enough to maybe consider further study. On the other hand, if the OP can't show his claims with a small group, there will be no need to even go to a larger, better controlled and defined experiment. 30 people can be gotten from a teacher's class or a typical person's facebook group. 3,000 or so that would make for a much more thorough test (and better in terms of controlling for different levels of innate athletic ability and so on) takes a much larger effort and money. For sure, we can all agree that his single anecdote on himself is utterly meaningless scientifically. So, ἀγάπ, you asked for some suggestion -- you got it -- how soon are you going to be able to get together a group a people and try?

So, you have a single anecdote in which the participant wasn't blind to what you were doing (because that was you). Placebo effect is very, very strong. You want at least the beginning of approaching this scientifically? You need to get 30 people willing to be in the study. You need them to perform some activity to a statistically valid baseline. You need to randomly select half of them to receive your 'treatment', and the other half to undergo the same motions/chants/process but not actually receive the 'treatment'. Then repeat the tests and see if those 15 actually perform "50-80%" better. This will give you a start to maybe, possibly get someone else to investigate. It certainly won't be conclusive, but it would be a start.

This sounds at least a little unfair. I'm not 100% sure if I got it right, but are you unable to do enough vs. what is expected? Was a schedule of what was expected laid out? Part of the reason I think it is unfair is that people learn in different ways. Some people are very hands on, doers, and are the type of people who would ask questions almost to the point of annoyance. Others are more theoretical, quiet, and book learning. If you are being judged on your question asking, then this may be a bit unfair. But, if you have specific performance goals you have to hit, and those are spelled out, then I think that that is fair. And part of learning how to be a good researcher is teaching yourself how to achieve those goals. Be that by asking a lot of questions or doing your own reading and so on. And then overall, sounds like you need to ask for more specifics of your supervisor. If your direct supervisor is unable to have the time to help more, then ask him for suggestions of good mentors. But overall, it really sounds like a disconnect between expectations and communicating those expectations.

Just to add on here, OP should thoroughly read this review paper: http://relativity.livingreviews.org/Articles/lrr-2014-4/ 117 pages dedicated to demonstrating just how good the predictions from relativity agree with what is measured.

I highly suggest you red a copy of Stephen Pope's Turbulent Flows. It is a good introduction to a very complex subject.