DevilSolution

Okay firstly as previously stated for pi to be irrational one of the 2 variables in finding the ratio must also be irrational this leads me to believe a circle must always have an irrational diameter or circumference which means that before even evaluating the ratio between the 2, 1 is already irrational. A perfect mathematical system is one where everything is a measurement of an accumulation of the smallest possible unit. You cant divide by this unit as it would make no logical sense, if 1 cent is the smallest possible unit, 3 people cannot share a physical cent so theres no logic in dividing it by anything else. I suppose a system where remainders accumulate over time and then become new numbers, not forced into being divided. In theory getting rid of infinity i suppose. In a system where infinity doesnt exist, pi has no meaning. Though its only assigned for human purposes, if one cycle of a sine wave is skewed, could it be a perfect circle?? Or could some exact point relative to the magnetic force create a perfect circle?? How do we prove that a circle has 360 degree's? any idea what happens if we drop 90 and use 270 as a measurement? having 3 sets of right angles instead of 4

Quick question slightly off topic; Do the laws of physics always relate to pure mathematics?? such that a force, mass, energy etc etc exist only as a multiple, divisor, sum etc etc of each other?? is there no abstract relation between the fundamental laws of physics?? for lack of a better example in the same way we might differentiate two subjects like english and philosophy but also understand the direct relation of there existence being entwined but not in any mathematical sense. Also, if we replace atom with boson or fermion (or any particle in the sub atom model), can we relate it to the structure of the universe? perhaps not in a purely mathematical sense (as all the variables / laws are not yet discovered) but in a hypothetical sense.

So i bought a childrens chemistry set and a basic book on chemistry; The book describes the basis of chemistry such as exchanging electrons and bonding at the atomic level as well as some explanation of how chemical equations work and some examples of chemical extractions and different forms of reacting chemicals. I'd like to know where to find a good introductory website or book that shows you some good reactions to do with a basic set of chemicals, maybe walking you through the chemical equations and showing where to go from the new chemical thats been created. Also i could write a list of chemicals i currently have and you could just suggest example experiments to do with them? Thx.

Does this imply that the nature of a circle is irrational?,also where in physical reality does a pure circle exist? im trying to conceptualise how and why a circle doesnt fit into a perfect mathematical system, as i currently understand it, it has something to do with the way in which we represent 3-d space in a 2-d mathematical geometry.

Ive done some reading into the geometries involved, non-euclid geometry isnt 2-d i dont believe, if you take a 3-d sphere and call any point on it the origin A; then draw two lines at 90 degree on A called B and C, like slicing 1/4 of an apple. Now of this 1/4 if we draw 2 new lines across B and C that are parallel (same angle) but not equal in distance called D and E they will both have 2 90 degree angles from the other 2 lines, the problem with euclid's 5th postulate is that these 2 parallel lines eventually meet at some point beyond our current triangle's (i will make an illustration if my explanation is confusing). This essentially means that on a curved surface (3-d), the axioms (or 5th postulate) of 2-d geometry do not hold, however im slightly confused with the 5th postulate anyway considering it is only intuitive and obvious and not actually based on the other 4 postulates. All in all i think 3-d space and the 2-d cortesian plane do not correlate relative to circles, all other the other geometry seems sound. Circles are strange by nature when we try to represent them in numbers, for example in computer graphics, to define the points of circle we multiply the radius by 360 and draw that many vertices, this generally (with the exception of resolution) will always give each vertex of the circle a separate pixel; In the reality however there is no definite points of a circle, its infinite. Unlike euclid triangles which work perfectly on a cortesian plane to represent a flat surface and thats why computer graphics use polygons and not circle geometry. Non-euclidean geometry has real scientific purpose due to things like sailing and air travel where we are traveling on a spherical object instead of a 2-d plane. 2-d geometry also has its scientific purpose when 1 dimension isnt needed, such that we are calculating height of a building based on its angle and distance, the only data needed is forward to back and up to down, the side to side isnt relative. To answer ">Do the rules governing regular 3-d solids change in non-euclidean space?", based on what ive read, yes but only the 5th postulate is contradicted so the rest of the "laws" would stay the same......as to what this means in reality other that whats been stated im not really sure. I presume anything circle related is totally different, all other 3-d shapes act in accordance to the 4 other euclidean axioms and DONT change in non-euclidean geometries. ">and possible a little mind expanding pharmacology".......touche

Very interesting stuff, ill give it a read tomorrow when my heads clear. Purely out of curiosity the numbers that are used as C/D = pi are presumably rational (but not integer)?, if so, can't any of them be created using just the number 1?? ((1 + 1 + 1) / (1) * (1+1)) etc etc...

Just curious as to whether there is an exact formula to calculate pi using algebra.....Disregarding c/d or any approximation such as 22/7. Is there any relation to primes and while im asking is there any formula for finding an Nth term prime. I.E. a pattern showing where a prime will crop up. Im currently trying to formulate an equation that finds pi using only numbers 1-4. Where a = 1, b = 2, c = 3 and d = 4; something like; (d/c) * ((d/c) + (c/b) * ((d/c) / (c/b)))); Makes something within 2 decimal places, obviously this is just random and at some point must happen but im curious whether a formula along these lines already exist and can prove pi in purely mathematical terms? thx P.s Im thinking of writing a program that calculates every value for 1-3 combo, so 1/3, 2/3, 1/2 and then jumbles these answers up so that it does 3/2 + 1/3 * (2*3)/3; etc etc. Has anyone tried this??

I'm basing the word "imagine" on "image" in that you can only imagine something that physically exists. In the same way we might say a blind person cant "imagine" the colour blue, a human cant see an image in any higher dimension than the 3rd. As previously stated i dont have any understanding of any geometric system other than euclidean so i cant imagine how a shape would act outside of that system. I still suppose you would need to offer which specific geometric system you mean.

This is why im confused. You can suggest taking taking 3-d space and making it flat so were looking at it 2-d; then take the 2-d image and fold it over itself connecting the edges etc etc. We could build a bigger and bigger picture using analogies and examples but to physically imagine anything bigger than the 3rd i find is impossible.

I presume this rubiks cube is a 3 dimensional representation of 4 dimensions and that you didnt physically figure it out; I.E. you don't physically have a 4 dimensional cube. Let me offer you this; Remove your conceptualized 4th dimension and now try imagining a spherical object that can be wrapped around itself in any of its euclidean axis's. PERSONALLY, i find this impossible, but feel free to explain how you conceptualize it. What i think this means is that where 2 dimensional geometry can be used to explain 3 dimensional shapes, we cant do the same for 4 dimensional shapes I.E. where other self consistent geometries can. I dont know enough of other geometries that can consistently define 2-3-4-d shapes to offer any explanation on the nature of thats shapes existence outside of the euclidean geometry (which is the only one which i can currently comprehend).

I still don't understand. So let me re-phrase; Where you say "Do the rules governing regular 3-d solids change in non-euclidean space?" you must first have a base premise for exactly what this "non-euclidean space" is. You can say euclidean space is a mathematical concept which therefor might not exist, but you've still offered nothing to for us to base the rules of 3-d solids on. so to answer your question as is; No, the rules of 3-d objects do not change outside euclidean space, as there is nothing outside of euclidean space. To go a little further, if we say the first dimension starts with 2 points (as seen physically with a line), the second is 3 points where the lines connecting are inverse, and the third is created using 4 points, where the third line again is inverse to both the other 2 lines. At this point, with 4 points and 3 lines, there is nothing beyond this that can be conceptualize by us, it can be hypothesized but never physically imagined. Also mathematically how would you attempt to explain shapes in a non euclidean or cartesian way?

This is what i mean, only something on the same size scale would be able to objectively observe it and then again you would have shrink a whole lot more to get a glimpse at the nature of it. I understand that its possible to collide them and record what happens in great detail for a very short period of time but wont it be having some adverse effect on the atom??

Yeh i wasnt exactly sure whether to take your analogy as being scientifically accurate or you just showing me something, although it does make perfect sense and explains waves in a reinvigorating light. I understand what your saying, physically the force of gravitation has an actual connection, not a visible one but physical nonetheless. I dno what a "carrier" is in physics so i dno what you mean by saying a wave distorts it?? a particle? an atom? Is there any physical law that show why mass attracts mass??

Going of the basis that axioms are sets of laws or rules which explain or dictate the core relationship of mathematical concepts, it's got me curious as the whether there is any way of finding patterns in axioms or numerological systems that could create new axiomatic laws; Now from what i know of numbers this would seem rather impossible due to the actual reality in which the numbers are being used, so for example i'd have no way of finding euclidean axiom based on pure numbers per say because euclidic axioms are based firstly on the concept of the cortesian plane and secondly based on the concept of shapes (vectors, vertices, angles, Pythagorean laws etc ) which both are concepts separated from pure number, they have a direct relation and use in the physical world and i think numbers just hypothetically exist to explain some phenomena. However i would argue that although we are hypothetically using numbers to explain a law of physics or chemical reaction, that law would already exist in a purely mathematical world. For example if we take 5 + 7 = 12 as our proof of a simple axiom then we can assert some rule to axioms here on out. Firstly i think we must look at numbers as a single irreducible unit of measurement (the smallest number calculable), so we'd have 5 units of 1 and secondly that there's only 2 functions used in the whole of mathematics, these being addition (of which multiplication is a function and division a function of multiplication etc) and the inverse function (subtraction). If we take these 3 concepts as a base axiom then its conceivable that all axioms already exist within these 3 concepts. This is true because every mathematical formula and variable could be said to already exist in the form of a single irreducible number in combination with the 2 base functions that make all other functions possible. This makes sense if you think of a very complex formula explaining some astronomical phenomena and then break the formula down into base components such as having "A" AIU (amount of irreducible units) divided by "B" AIU multiplied by "C" AIU multiplied by "A" AIU, now this actual axiom is actually just X = A * ( C * ( A / B ) ) The actual equation is quite simple, and within the infinite set mathematical possibilities it would actually be conceived quite early, in so much as if you were to write out every possible type of equation such as a+a,a+b, a-a, a-b. b-a, a/a, a/b, b/a, a*a, a+a+b, a+a-b, a-a+b, a-a-a etc etc etc..................... a * (c * (a / b)), then you'd reach this axiom quite quickly. When speaking of the infinite set mathematical possibilities i'm referring to the infinite amount of different equations you could create. To elaborate a little further; I think we've established that within the infinite set of mathematical possibilities every possible axiom already exists. However the troublesome activity for us humans is finding which axioms are to be used and where. So lets say i handed you 10 double sided a4 pages of these axioms from the simplest upwards and then handed you 3 variables; time, distance and speed, how long would it take you to find the correct 2 formulas that defined this axiom? what would the process be of figuring it out? how could it proven? and quintessentially would it be possible for us to recognise an axiomatic pattern that is capable of giving us the relationship between certain things?? Another thing i would like to offer is that from a computational point of view, iv'e always believed that mathematical and physical laws are only true if they can be simulated and proven by a computer; This works for all mathematics to the extent that we can work in 3d dimensional space, we do things with waves and circles work with primes and probabilities and even prove patterns and relationships between numbers etc. However i'm not quite sure how full of a picture we have from physics, though alot of the laws we currently use for engineering, chemistry and physics are very accurate and do exactly what they're designed to do, which is why planes can fly, speakers can create sound and a microwave oven can heat food in less time time than it takes to eat it). I don't believe every possible law has been found (which means unknown variables still exist) or that we have the full picture of how all the laws relate to one another. Also almost everything in physics is linked at some basic level, if you were to find the axiomatic relationship between what i presume are a few basic laws, then it could be that the other laws are actually an effect of and calculable to these base laws and hence could probably discovered by some axiom that finds relational patterns. One final thing to consider is that for a pattern finding machine to actually discover relative axioms it would need some partial perception of the concept in which its being used, so if you programmed a 2 dimensional cortesian plane into a computer with the core axioms for shapes such as euclidean geometry then it would probably be able to find higher level relationships in things like symmetrical shapes, shapes that are proportional (like 2 right angled triangles and a square), multiple vectored shapes like polygons and perhaps with enough time it would start working in 3 dimensional space after its exerted all possible 2 dimensional axioms (although it wouldnt because quite by accident it would have already be calculating these by using vectors inverse to the tangent) haha thinking about it, it would get stuck number crunching on circles when it starts looking at axioms inside of it, such as how its diameter is proportional to its circumference........ One final final note is that of all the possible knowledge that can be known, its probable that finding even the base axioms for all the different aspects of physics is nigh on impossible, as intelligent as we are and good finding patterns, some concepts are outside the reach of human understand. Cheers for reading it all if you managed to stay with me this far.

You lost me on superluminal neutrinos lol (i have a basic concept of them but you use them in equations i have never seen) nad once you lose track its like reading another language. You obviously know your stuff but you dont simplify the concepts being discussed. Have you ever tried drawing up your own equations??

I'll go from bottom to top. How is it that the empty space of an atom and our universe are not even remotely similar?? Science says they are both over 99%, so i'd say it is. I understand how physics works in general, im merely suggesting that in a hypothetical situation where the time frame of capturing an image doesnt correlate correctly with cycles or nature of the thing being captured, the results would either seem to give a very random output OR if a particular pattern did emerge then it could conceivably be misinterpreted. Okay the third point is quite difficult to explain. the main problem is; how is it possible to get through or view something which is rotating so fast and is so small by using something that is equally as fast and equally as small? As far as the phrase "faster than an atom" goes, im confused at how you can calculate or record something that i presume is the smallest measurement of time. Basically we need a device to capture the inards of an atom, the recording device (not a camera, something magnetic i presume) would have to capture the orbits of the electrons faster than they are cycling to see whats happening inside of the atom. The electricity being used by the recording device and data being sent and even the magnetic waves used to capture the atom are products of atoms themselves (i.e the function of passing information through wave form) and are therefor by definition constrained to pass data only at the rate of which the atom can. I think this would mean the data we collect will be slower than the atom is at creating its own shell (in its natural form). If your using something smaller and faster than the atom then the same principle applies to it, how do you get data about its existence based on the fact its the fastest and smallest thing? Side question; is it possible to view an atom in its natural form?? without having to smash into it Can it be viewed it in its natural state without having to send particles in at ridiculous speeds?? It seems to me that by using this method we can see what the atom is made of but not the nature in which it exists?

And by what means are we testing? Wouldnt we would first need something smaller than atom to look inside of it? And something faster than an atom to take fast enough images or such? Like if we took a picture of the our solar system so it sat flat on an axis and then took another every million years we might see that the planets are circling, but based on the fact we can only take a photo every million years, any prediction of the time each planet takes to orbit would be bogus? even if a pattern emerged, so every million years one moves 27" another 42" etc etc, that still doesnt measure how many cycles each have gone through, infact we'd probably measure that pattern and say its only moving by that many degree's when in actuality that pattern could relate to both distance and speed of origin. In other words if you make time big enough you would probably get totally random results and even if you had found a time that gave a pattern, the pattern doesnt necessarily show the true nature of whats been observed. Also from a cosmological point of view, what do we actually know? This is a map of the universe, i dont know how accurate it is. http://www.openculture.com/2011/05/3d_map_of_universe_captures_43000_galaxies.html There's atleast a distinct (possibly superficial) similarity between the empty space in our universe and that of an atom.

Where does non-euclidean space exist?? i dont get it

We have physical building blocks to all matter, these combine in particular ways to make something bigger, after we do this a few times we will have object on our scale of reality that posses a set of properties. These sets of properties and there relationships then account for everything that can be sensed (and in some exotic cases not), also scientifically these properties and particular relationships can be demonstrated; such as sending and receiving radio wave, but dont necessarily need to be understood; such as the creation of mass? we can measure them over some time scale, observe the behavior of the property and even use proven methods to modify them in a predictable way. What i would like to know however is if the building blocks we are basing everything else on are actually the base at all? If you could calculate a precise amount of energy for a base object, could we calculate the exact energy in our universe? Is there any reason to believe that inside an atom there's not a whole lot of similar things happening to what we observe if we were to encapsulate our entire universe?? Essentially meaning astronomy / cosmology become quantum physics and all the laws we currently use could then be applied to the atom?. Also i imagine to conceptualize an atom existing in the same nature as our entire universe we must first comprehend time in a much faster or slower way (slower for quantum, faster for universal). Also if an atom shares only a superficial relation to the combined universe, then would it be possible sub atomic particles exist which may not be only "superficial", like the thing that creates a proton, neutron or electron. I know on a Quantum level things act particularly strange and i dont claim to understand any of it, but id venture to say its only because we can only observe things or capture things on our scale of time.

How would equate for the increased pull when the points are closer? What is flicking the string? Would the force going into the flick increase proportionally relative to the 2 masses? Could you elaborate? I understand my analogy is a basic example and is probably contradicted by some very well founded laws but which?? What force is created by rotation? i presume you mean that the energy created by the rotation can be converted to a mass?

Thanks for the reply ajb, im grateful someone agrees its possible an orbit could create some perceived mass. Are you proposing that the orbital cycle and the force it creates can be directly convertible to energy? I thought about it and it should definitely be convertible to energy but at the loss of momentum of the orbital. Before extracting the energy the cycles are in a state of perpetual motion, however as soon as you start converting it to another form of energy the laws the thermodynamics dictate that eventually the energy that was in equilibrium will be transferred out the cycle. Im sure gravity plays a role but not exactly sure what it is as its not classed as a form of energy, so perhaps the laws of thermodynamics dont apply in the same way? Back to the main point tho, the fact that this cycle creates a force i think means that things like the speed of orbit and overall mass of the satellite and planet combined would create its calculable mass (pushing force); There would also be other variables involved in what we perceive as mass too because gravity can potentially be speeding up or slowing down the orbit speed based on the locality of other planets. Also gravity holds the satellite in orbit of the larger mass and the relative pull from other neighbor planets are what i imagine cause the relative motion of an orbit, so its gravity itself which causes this pushing effect. Whats the technical stuff skews the picture??

** EDIT ** presume once you've folded the circle into the 3 sets of 90 degrees making the 3 dimensions, that all the axis's extend for infinity, so there is no other vertices except the origin....(so were not creating 3 lots of 180 degree's) Also could you please tell me if this is classed crackpot science (or math)?? I like to get a good grounding in something before i believe something wholeheartedly and i'd happily jolly on down to speculation, but im quite convinced of this direct relation between the 3/4 of a circle that can create the 3 base axis's and then this added extra 90 degrees creating what we perceive as the 2 dimensional circle and running in perceptual cycles which creates...or allows for the perception of ...time to exist in a looped form. P.S. i think the circle cycles would be perceived as either a spiral or cylinder from a 3rd dimensional perspective P.P.S. i have lots of other questions i think ill post at some point soon along the lines of; what would happen if we switched from a 360 degree numbering units to a metric system of 400, or for higher accuracy 4000 etc what exactly is an electro magnetic wave? ive been told its not the passing of current or potential difference between an atoms electrons, so is it based some magnetic theory? can dimensions iterate with a proportional ratio (relativity) in the same way numbers and shapes do? P.S.P.S. ive got a few drawing ive created while thinking it over in my head that might help visualise the theory so ill upload them soon. Thanks in advance xx

I have an idea that i would like a well rounded physicist to give their opinion on. Look at this with open eyes to the extent that science always changes, what was once seen as fact gets discarded for theory's that make more sense or can be proven axiomatically. Okay so basically im thinking that if you had say a planet (or atom) that had only one satellite (or electron) in its orbital, lets use earth, the moon orbits the earth approx 12 times a year. Now if the earth and the moon are the only things in a particularly large vacuum and we zoomed out from earth and moon both in time and size. Now lets say 2 to the 64 in years, that is 2 to the 64th exponent, the amount of orbits is now exponentially large, 18446744073709551615 * 12, quite a large amount of spins. Now say your a human, but your like 2 to the 128 larger than the planet and satellite. What im curious to know is that could the spinning motion of the orbital actually create a mass? its intuitive to conclude there would certainly be a force exerted, for example if you had a finger the same circumference as the earth, then when you go to touch the earth the moon (still spinning at 2 to the 64 * 12) relative to how fast you can move your hand, into the earth, then it would to push your finger away / block you from touching earth (unless you push with a greater force ofcourse). At this point, when we know we have a force working against us based soley on an orbital object, could we say that if we had collection these orbital objects orbiting planets which are orbiting something bigger like the sun, which is then orbiting a black hole or center of a galaxy. Could this combined force create a force that is actually mass? Again guys i dont know a great deal about physics so dont rip me apart to bad and please read this thread with an opan scientific mind, not a scientific mind that says the worlds flat or aids cant be cured. Thanks

Okay so recently ive been studying computer graphics, polygons, triangles, vectors, circles etc, alot of trig and cartesian matrice addition (with trig functions in one matrice to find the position of the new triangles etc). I dont have great background knowledge of trig so i revised over some of the stuff i did back 6-7 years ago which is just SOHCAHTOA and circle trigonomic graphs. After i fully understood the euclidic geometric axioms (or the area's i needed for my specific graphic module), i got to thinking alot about triangles. First i'd like to offer that if you split a circle into 4 equal parts by folding it in half and half again, your left with 4 right angle triangles from the central point / origin. Now if you take a pair scissors and cut 1/4 of the circle out straight down the lines you folded and then attach the points of the remaining shape, your left with an exact example of the X,Y and Z co-ordinates from a trigonomic circle graph. This leads me to believe that using only 270 degrees from origin, 3 dimensions are created. Here's where it gets messy. Now the 4th dimension we know is time and time is a troubling concept to conceptualise. If 270 degree's make the 3 dimension by connecting the 2 spatial points then it seem intuitive that by adding the remaining 90 degree's to the circle were actually creating time. The easiest analogy i can create which kind of explains it is the use of electromagnetic sine waves (or sound), now one cycle (which is measured in time, but also of time) always add up to 360 degrees. You can say each cycle is actually a circle in a loop, 360 degrees going round and round (creating your frequency). Lets re-cap here, 3 dimensions exist within 270 degrees and will exist for infinity in that form without the last 90 degrees, however when you connect the last 90 degree (4th dimension) you have a full circle which goes around in cycles. It seems that in physics electrical charges make up the foundation of every atom (having some oppositely charged electricity flying around itself (perhaps using magnetism or something like gravity(maybe there the same?(and also magnets create 720 degree's i think but not really sure about magnets)))) and if electricity alternates in this 360 way (sine wave) could the very foundation of the universe be based on first the 270 degree's which give us our 3 dimensions and then the last 90 which allow time to exist by completing the circle and hence creating a loop. also could the the reason that pi is irrational be because were trying to perceive the 4 dimensions in a 2 dimensional cartesian plain?? that is a line (diameter (2 dimensional)) is trying to fit into something 4 dimensional. AND the reciprocal of an atomic clock also kind of shows the direct relation between circles and time, given that this is the shortest measurement of it, its completely relative to it. The fact that we use a sine wave to represent electricity doesnt change the fact the frequency creates a measurement of time, im simply offering that the first 270 create an infinite 3 dimensional scape, the last 90 link the 270 to create a loop cycle which is frequency. given that we live in a 3 dimensional world, its fair to say that we can only ever see in 2 dimensions, the skill and intuition of the 3rd dimension (lets say depth for now (2 eyes help alot)) is actually a learned skill, however we know that we exist in 3 dimension, in comparison to say a computer screen which exists in 2 dimension. Also as far as 3 dimensions being an illusion, that concept only extends to our vision. Its interesting that using 2 dimensions you can create a 3 dimensional illusion in 3 dimensional space itself on a single axis, that is looking at something 2 dimensional which is physically 2 dimensional but gives the illusion of being 3 could create the illusion that your actually looking at something that is really 3 dimensional in comparison to looking at 3 dimensional space which were actually only seeing in 2 dimensions. All of this is slightly irrelevant, because regardless of sight our other senses (in conjunction) tell us we can move in any 3 direction at a single time. I also dont believe anything naturally exists as a circle in nature other than electricity (the foundation to both matter and time). The wave created by any electrical charge can be skewed though time to be an exact circle at some exact point in time? This is all probably out the scope of my computer graphics and AI module but it seems extremely interesting if partially insane. Theres also a theory which relates very closely to the above theory, but is more philosophical than physical / mathematical. Let me know your opinions / math knowledge on the matter and also if the excessive use of (brackets) annoy i can edit them to explain things in series rather jump down the hierarchy and then back up. FINAL NOTE, The reason a circle looks as it does to us, especially a sphere which is a perfect example, is because we can only see in 2 dimensions, the sphere appears to be a circle at any angle on the x, y or z. Its true form cant be imagined or conceptualized in an exact form, we see 3 dimensions and feel time pass. A circle is the 2 dimensional representation of this effect. Cheers if you stuck it out to here.

Python seems the easiest to learn because it most resembles our language, you also dont get so bogged down in brackets and has some neat implementations of things you'd otherwise have to create yourself, like the structure of for loops and the deceleration of variables. Basically you can spend more time bashing keys than reading up on how things work.....