zerotwoone

If a disc was spinning in microgravity, and while the disc was spinning, the disc ejected some mass. The ejected mass would continue to travel in the in the direction of tangential velocity, but what would happen to the disc? Would it be pushed in the opposite direction of the ejected mass's tangential velocity? I am speculating that this is so, but I am not sure since I do not have access to microgravity to experiment.

Mea Culpa. I didn't realize that it was a comtinuation of the uncertainty principle. Instead of just one superimposed state you have two. The first superimposed state is unknown, but as soon as the first is known, the second is known as well, while collapsing the wave function. I could have saved myself some embarrassment by doing a little bit of research. I still stand by my hypothesis, even if the original premise was wrong, because it could still be a plausible explanation.

It's not a real stick And it's not even about the stick. The point was what we perceive as two particles that are entangled, that they are really one particle, hence the instantaneous transmission of information. Or otherwise there is no distance for the information to travel.

Quantum entanglement is what appears to be the instant transmission of information that two particles share, regardless of distance. For instance if one particle is spinning cw, the other is spinning ccw. If one of these particles is forced to reverse direction, the corresponding particle will reciprocate by reversing direction also, instantaneously, regardless of distance. My explanation: these entangled particles are not seperate particles, but instead to them, is one particle. Imagine a stick, a very long stick, that stretches from one side of the universe to the other. At each end of the stick is a dot, when you twirl this stick, one moves up, the other moves down. This is also a perfect stick that will not bend or any other thing that a stick can do. Instant transmission of information because it is the stick that moves, which is the overall particle. This also has implications for dark matter. Just a muse. Sorry, on a cracked iPhone, so if I don't make sense, it's the phones fault.

I appreciate your inquiries, these are the sincere responses that I've been hoping for. I am really busy right now (I work full time and I just started a business), but I will try to answer your questions in the near future. I think I understand Godel's first incompleteness theorem about infinities, but I still don't understand his second theorem. And the question about whether it fits the definition of being an equation is spot on, I never really thought about it, and with a quick glance, I don't think it is an equation, I don't know what you would call it. It's definitely mathematics and it's definitely mechanical, but other than that, I don't know. I will think about it and post an answer.

It is my opinion, because it can't be verified, but I think that math = nature. Like I said before, just because you haven't found a physical analog to a mathematical expression, it doesn't mean that it can't exist in nature. So what if I told you that I have an equation, an algorithm that can produce every point between 0 (is a perception not a real value) and 1 including 1 and every geometric object from a point to an object with complexity approaching infinity? What if I told you that on a cursory glance objects appear that look like to be electrons, protons and neutrons are produced? What if I told you that something that looks like strong, weak and electromagnetic force appear as well? And the first "massive" particle looked like Hydrogen? And the Next "massive" particle looked like Helium? And if a mathematician took a cursory glance, that would see trigonometry, calculus, topology, series, powers etc... fall out? And all of this is based on what my perception of what gravity is? What if I had only had pregraduate level in physics and chemistry but with a layman's interest in theoretical physics, but I was a pure mathematician and I described this equation to a trained physicist friend? What would my friend tell me? Note: If my equation is correct, there will never be a more powerful equation, nor will there ever be a more complex structure, therefore, this equation if accurately descripted. would be the "master equation" with all other equations and geometries being a subset. Is an equation like this thought possible? Has there been talk about an equation like this? What would the ramifications of this equation be? I just would like to know what your opinions are. Thank you.

I do know better, and it very well may be fear. Fear that I am wrong, and fear that I am right. I fear if I'm wrong that I have failed and I need to reevalute and will subject myself to public ridicule. My fear of being right is what I will unleash. To be truthful, I have no idea what to do next. I keep looking irrationally for "signs" and I am getting none. That's why I've started a business to hopefully pursue my "madness" privately. It's just when you hear or read something, you can still detect logical errors, and that's what I'm doing, hoping and not hoping that you find logical fallacies in my explanations. I'm not taking your post as a personal attack, but of personal introspection. It's one small step at a time. I just can't release a small bit here and there, I have to release it in it's entirety, that's the way it works. And I am not ready for that yet. I know I will be someday, just not right now. But thank you for your post, I appreciate your sincere response.

How do you prove your existence without using yourself as a reference? I know the answer.

I just want to know what you guys think the final theory will look like.

I remember sitting in my calc II class when the professor came in the room. He proceeded to tell the class that there are people who can do math, and people who know math. He pointed to me and said that I know math. He then pointed to some portraits of some of the greatest mathematicians who've ever walked the Earth and said that someday my picture will be among them. I thought at that time that the statement was a little overstated, but the difference between me and the other students was critical. I wasn't striving to just complete the mechanics, fill in the blanks, I was interested in the reasoning, the logic. I wanted to understand why we were doing this instead of doing that and for what. And if you understand math, you can do math, after all, it's just mechanics. The first instance that gave me a clue that calculus wasn't the final mathematical framework when I found out that calculus has holes, unexplained discontinuities. I was stunned. The second instance was when I was doing integrals and we had to add constants, where were they coming from? I wasn't satisfied because "it works." Under the unmbrella of Mathematics there are two major subsets, applied mathematics and pure mathematics. I do pure mathematics, I work with generalizations and abstractions, my mathematical framework is the most generalized and pure abstraction, but it can yield every possibility and every geometry. You can't get this framework without physics or chemistry, these properties are integrated into the framework. There is no branch of mathematics, however abstract, which may not someday be applied to the phenomena of the real world.Nikolai Lobachevsky If Nikolai Lobachevsky is correct, then nature uses my math. I'm not choosing which one is better between pure and applied mathematics, I just chose pure mathematics because I was interested in the mechanics and the discovery. I know some of you on here are applied mathematicians, but don't accuse me of not knowing applied math, it's just not that interesting for me. Besides, your work starts where my work ends. I am not going to release my framework at this time. I am releasing the mechanics in a "word salad" format. The written word precedes mathematical symbology. Realize that I am giving word problems like back in elementary school and physics class. Then refute my logic, my mechanics. I want you to, if you are able to then that will only make me think harder. With an exposition like this you almost have to refer to some mechanical process, it is an extremely complicated process and to keep this idea in a word salad format would be near impossible. And also, I am giving original explanations and mechanics to problems probably only a few can give. Current theoreticians are telling you what could be possible, and I am telling you how. So who is using the higher math? And if you like, ask me a question that has not been answered yet in physics and I will try to give an explanation using my framework. It will be fun for both you and me, me to answer and you to try to find flaws. It will be productive for both of us.

28 Oct. 2011 Here is my exposition on "Time Travel" and the "Multiple Universe" theory. When I first heard of theorists talking about this I was kind of disgusted. I thought maybe some of them were taking one too many nips from the ole' sauce, but now I am even more impressed with their vision and genius to be able to extrapolate this. But as I examined my mathematics, I suddenly realized what they were seeing. I constantly check my work with the experimental fact and what current theories are predicting to gauge the correspondence of my own mathematics. a: They are talking about time travel to not this world, but to a parallel world. b: And they are also talking about an infinite amount of parallel universes in the "Metaverse." a: Could be true. b: Could be true. Let me tell you why through what I see. This can all be possible dependent on where we are on the number line (reference www.zero-2-one.com for a further explanation on this line). All of the above scenarios are dependent if we exist on this line, or in this line. If we live on this line, nothing is greater, we are seeing the Universe in its full glory, but if we live in this line, and dependent on how "deep" in the line, there could be an infinite amount of "universes" above. I think a little bit more explanation on this line is warranted than what I gave with the above link. With this number line, every point is a possibility. Now stretch out every point to so it is approaching zero, every point on every point you just stretched out is also a possibility, now stretch every one of those points out so it's approaching zero. You can do this forever. Alright, time travel. Time travel is possible with time control; and only possible if we live in the line. If we live in the line we could "jump" to a "higher" dimension, but if we live on the line there is no place to jump, therefore time travel is not possible, although time control still is. When you jump to the higher dimensional universe, you will be able to see your previous universe completely and be able to control it's time. What about the "Grandfather Paradox?" When you jump, you removed yourself from that system, since that system is part of a greater system the "arrow of time" is still moving "forward" regardless of how you manipulate the time within the system you just left. Meaning you can't erase history, but you can rearrange all of the particles inside this system to "emulate" the system's history with the future evolving with or without you. The number of parallel worlds is dependent in which way you jump. If you jump towards One, there will be less and less possibilities as you jump, the sum has to equal the Universe, but if you jump towards Zero, the number of these possibilities will increase. I don't know how "you" could jump towards zero though, unless you sent a nano sized doppelganger of yourself, since if you would jump, your mass would probably create a black hole in their universe. And I don't know the effectiveness of jumping towards One either, since your mass would not change, it's not like you would all of sudden increase in mass and energy. My point was just to talk about the realm of possibility, not the realm of practicality or feasibility. Where do I think we exist? I think we exist on the line. I have no proof, since I don't really know what I'm looking for yet, but since I don't know, why not pick the greatest version? I'm not complaining, just inquiring why this was moved. I thought Time Travel and Parallel Worlds was being discussed in Main Stream theoretical physics. I mean if people can talk about "Dark Matter" and "Dark Energy" and "Super String Theory" I thought I could talk about this. Was it because I sound like a "know it all?" Or because it's based on non-conventional mathematics? Or because I referenced my webpage? Or because you don't know how I'm coming to these conclusions? Because according to your own stipulations "Please note that all posts that are baseless in scientific fact or that are outside of mainstream physics can and will be moved to the Speculations forum. Make sure that you think about the nature of your post before you hit the "post" button," I satisfy at least one condition. I don't want to put myself in a adversarial position so please let me know, so I can discuss issues in a way that I won't be removed. Thank you.

I would like to add my 2 cents, but considering monetary inflation (reported), it's probably only worth 1.2 cents. I don't think of time as a dimension, if a dimension is a reference point in space, but instead it's a property within a dimension, that's why space and time is so tightly woven together. If time is a property of a dimension, then in the first dimension, it doesn't manifest, or it's nonsensical, but in the second dimension, time manifests, two points in relation to each other.

Hi Max, don't belittle yourself, I think the hallmark of being intelligent is realizing that what you know is only a fraction of what there is to know. I consider myself intelligent, but not that smart, I don't have an eidetic memory, and my interests only encompasses a small realm of possibilities. My premise is if freewill exists, then the particle that is "you," behaves in a quantum manner. But not only as a wave function, but a variable wave function, this would explain why our thoughts aren't processed linearly, but instead following every path for a solution. But this particle governs a relativistic body, so even if our minds/souls behave in a quantum manner, our actions/reactions are relativistic. You could possibly program an AI to emulate human behavour, like an emotion; response to sadness: someone died, therefore I am sad, therefore I will adjust my facial expressions to match my emotion, therefore I will shed a tear, maybe two... But it will never, well with current linnear logic, have that raw emotion when you hear someone who died who was close to you. You can also make AI emulate deceitfulness, but at it's core function, everything still has to be if/else, and/or 1/0, while humans seem to have this trait perfected. I could right a book on this "human" particle, but for now, it's your choice to believe or not, that is what freewill is all about. And I also wouldn't say "changes" an outcome, but instead, "verifies" an outcome. Thanks for your sincere response.

I apologize, I should have explain the setting a little bit more clearly. I was envisioning a perfect system. This system is infinitely complex, but I was trying to make it as simple as possible. I was actually imagining this scenario in a perfect vaccum with no other exterior influences. Just the negatively charged sheet and the negatively charged balls, and the mysterious force known as gravity. The common perception of the singularity of the Big Bang was that it was infinitely massive, but all of space was released when the singularity inflated. So is space massive? My opinion is yes.

It is just two particles. Two particles predicting all of space when approaching One. But the collision doesn't necesarily have been huge or violent, just that the over all condition was changed. Imagine an Othello game. By placing just one piece on the board, you can change the entire complexion of the board.

The issue is that coefficient of friction is a property in the Universe, not of the Universe. Some engineer maybe able to invent something using your idea to provide energy someday, but will it be "perpetual?" No.

I want to preface my response with "I could be and most likely am, bat sh!t crazy." Alright I'm going to try to describe an analagous mechanism for this system. Imagine a rubber sheet that is negatively charged. You also have some balls that are negatively charged. If you throw the balls on the sheet, the balls will be repelled. But on the way up, some mysterious force, let's call it gravity, forces these balls to act against their nature and forces them together until some point in time the inherent nature of these balls forces them apart again propelling the balls against the rubber sheet. The balls are then repelled by the sheet and driven up again, gravity takes over, inherent nature takes over, balls propelled toward sheet, etc, etc. When a theoretical physicist explains the big bang, they say people have a misconception, that people think when the big bang happened, they think of an explosion in space, but when in actuality it is an explosion of space. Exactly. The answer was in front of us the whole time. I apologize, I should have explain the setting a little bit more clearly. I was envisioning a perfect system. This system is infinitely complex, but I was trying to make it as simple as possible. I was actually imagining this scenario in a perfect vacuum with no other exterior influences. Just the negatively charged sheet and the negatively charged balls, and the mysterious force known as gravity.

I want to preface my response with "I could be and most likely am, bat sh!t crazy." Alright I'm going to try to describe an analagous mechanism for this system. Imagine a rubber sheet that is negatively charged. You also have some balls that are negatively charged. If you throw the balls on the sheet, the balls will be repelled. But on the way up, some mysterious force, let's call it gravity, forces these balls to act against their nature and forces them together until some point in time the inherent nature of these balls forces them apart again forcing the balls against the rubber sheet. The balls are then repelled by the sheet and driven up again, gravity takes over, inherent nature takes over, balls propelled toward sheet, etc, etc. When a theoretical physicist explains the big bang, they say people have a misconception, that people think when the big bang happened, they think of an explosion in space, but when in actuality it is an explosion of space. Exactly. The answer was in front of us the whole time.

Thanks Justin for the comment. Freewill is a personal issue, you either believe or you don't. But broken down into the simplest terms, I think freewill is undeniable. Mathematicians and physcists are correct. In the purest sense of perpetual motion, the concept cannot exist in the Universe. Everything does change in the Universe over time. Perpetual motion does not exist for the Universe either. The Universe stops at Zero and at One. But because of the Universe's inherent nature, the Universe is propelled into motion again. I can't think of an analogy right now to visualize what I am expressing, but I will post one if I think of one. But I do think that we could come up with a mechanism that for all sense and purposes might as well be considered "perpetual" motion considering human longevity. An analogy would be like tossing a ball into the air, the ball goes up, pauses, then comes back down. Again, thanks for your post.

a: I will try to be more precise, I realize that every term has to be specific. I do not have a phd, so I have no experience in writing a dissertation. b: In process c: My proposal unifies QM with Relativity* d: Falsifiable Prediction: The volume or diameter of the nucleus of an atom should decrease as it approaches decay (as "h" approaches "0"). The volume or diameter of the nucleus of an atom will be the same when "h = 0" for equally massive particles. Suggested experiment: measure two or more radioactive atoms independently overtime until decay. If energy levels of atoms remain constant, the entire atom should decrease in volume or diameter as "h" approaches "0." *I do have a complete Mathematical Framework, but I do not wish to release it at this point in time. I know it sounds like a copout, and I do not blame you or anyone else for being skeptical. Most everybody I'm seeming to discover has their own pet unification theory. I understand my claim from your viewpoint as beyond belief. I want people to know that I know, but I don't want you to know how I know. That is why I am hopefully releasing experimental predictions to validate my theory. It's like the veritable pandora's box, once it's open, it can never be closed. And I don't think that something like this should be common knowledge. My intentions are to predict unanswered questions in science as I understand my math. I am not claiming I understand it's full power. Look at the products of CERN or LHC, my math can track that in one equation. If my mathematics is not representative of nature, then at the least it will revolutionize computive power by allowing a solution to be found by an "explosion" by following an infinite number of paths rather than linearly. Some chip makers are trying to do this with multi-core solutions, but this is a finite solution due to inefficiencies in materials and energy consumption. Another reason I am so reluctant to show my mathematics is because it is so simple. All it takes is one glance to understand the undeniability of it's product. Whether you start at "0" or "1" the whole page explodes with motion. Instead of seeing strings of equations, you see infinite motion. The beginning of the equation at "0" starts with alpha-sub one is less than alpha-sub two. And at "1" the equation starts with h equals zero. If you can solve the next step of either expressions, then you have solved it all, the rest falls into place.

If you would like, please read today's entry, 25 Oct. 2011. I talk about a mechanism for freewill. It may be interesting for some of you. www.zero-2-one.com

Max, thanks for your thoughtful argument. You are correct on asserting that there are areas outside of our control. However, if you feel like, please read today's entry, it may provide some interest to you. www.zero-2-one.com

I hate to weigh in on this thread, but if you believe in symmetry then ghosts almost have to exist since their opposites exists, as in human "vegetables." If you can have one extreme, then is the other out of the realm of possibility? My mathematics doesn't predict ghosts, but it doesn't predict life with freewill either. But to throw another wrench in the machine, my mathematics does predict possession. Yeah, I probably threw out any sort of credibility I may have had, oh well. Going back to freewill, I'm not saying it doesn't exist, because I do have a mechanism for it, however fantastic it may be. I will release it on my webpage: www.zero-2-one.com later.

Thanks for your tip.

Please read if you like. Feel free to disagree or to agree. Discourse is welcome. Thank you. http://www.zero-2-one.com/