imagine

I'm not running away; the hoverboard and the censorship threads were closed; preventing me from responding to critiques. I welcome and in fact seek out the toughest REAL critique I can for you; Simplifying the concepts gives me: "electron" as "modification" "the atmosphere at the stadium before the game was electric": people are constantly un-balancing (modifying) their view of the game result (as different from a game whose result is widely predicted?) A modification creates a "tipping point" e.g. "a + b" modified to become "a + b, + c" "un-balances "a + b" by introducing a third element; by definition it can only modify "a + b" if there is something rigid about "a + b". So "modification" itself implies a "rolled up" geometry; i.e. the very fact that something CAN be modified requires that it DID HAVE a fixed (at least relatively) structure of some sort. In base ten; the hundreds column allows some interchange between "one" and "ten" (i.e. is an "electron" for base ten)(one ten; or ten ones!) Hence "electron" is referred to as a point in geometry; because it is in fact "a geometry" in a point! "Moment" is an instant in time. "time" as seen from "what time did the moon rise? Before or after the sun set?" or from a pendulum path; appears to fit the idea "anywhere within limits". "In stant" is also "in a stance" i.e. the idea "anywhere within limits"? "Instant in time" then requires "a magnetic moment" i.e. a specification moment ("magnetic" involves the idea "the overlap region where two sets overlap in e.g. a Venn diagram; i.e. "specification" e.g. sets of "tables" and "chairs" overlap at "have ground support"; or "dogs" and "animals with tails" overlap with criteria common to both sets (so the overlap region "points beyond the horizontal integration of these sets" ). I can call this "a vertical space" as "ground support" must be a stand-alone idea INDEPENDENT of "chair" and "table" to have any meaning as where these two sets intersect; unless this region is disturbed by another way that the overlap can happen (so at least TWO electrons) in which case you have "a horizontal/ vertical space equation" (or artifical horizon). (A gyro; but to have "gyromagnetic" would require "a constant bias" or "lopsidedness" in defining how these sets get together; so "the illusion of an additional electron" or "electron uncertainty" in principle... actually a ratio (i.e. an artificial balance; i.e. at least two on one side and one on the other; so an imaginary third set.... but to define "gyromagnetic ratio" would make the imaginary third set ( a chair-table hybrid say: like a unicorn: something cobbled together) reversible so that it becomes like how "chairs" and "tables" can be four sets (two of each).) If "moment" requires "magnetic moment" then how to define "magnetic moment" ? Would need to be "para-magnetic" (surrounding magnetism: i.e. a vertical and horizontal integration of the sets by outside data). But that IS an electron, isn't it? To modify something requires some sort of fixed structure; which the two aspects of "chairs" and of "tables" give. To modify a page with a dot on it; requires at least two places the dot can be; AGAIN; so four possible locations for the dot! So the minimum definition requirement for "electron" appears to be "four possible locations, during time" ... To define "electron" AND "magnetic moment" would require "at least two electrons"... given "gyro-magnetic" seems to involve the same idea as this; you would need (formally: at least) one less electron to define "gyro-magnetic + electron + magnetic moment"; SO "electron interchangeability"? (? Could call this "Dirac non-equation" or where NOT to find an electron) (a "fuzzy electron" is a fuzzy fuzzy; so which is "electron" and what is "electron room"?) That allows "ratio" to be seen? So to also define "ratio" would need: "electron NON-interchangeability" i.e. electron group theory i.e. fixed boundaries on where you can place an electron i.e. the Dirac equation!!!!!!!!! Can you define also the Dirac equation if you have got "electron" and "magnetic moment" and "gyro magnetic" plus "ratio"? You would need a "+ ratio" i.e. "a certainty re: electron location"? An electron standing wave. Which is also in the idea of "quantum field theory": "quantum" as in "quantity" as in "at least two" so "meeting": "field" as in "skip-around-place"; "theory" as "more than one possibility"; "quantum field theory" as "meeting skip-around-place more than one possibility" so implies an internal subdivision (or fence) so "a space swap" or time integral; an experiment IS a "time integrated" (it is an attempt at organising objects in space so they have more than one option)(or it wouldn't be an experiment, i.e. if it was too predictable?) An "electron standing wave" is "a fixed rate of exchange" (the intersection of two sets is already "standing via group"; to define all this would require a specified sequence of juggling of information between the two sets to create a third view of the two sets (or analysis of their structure via-a-vis their overlapping so "taking notes"). To define all this would require ability to swap "experiment" with "quantum field theory"; so "electron standing wave" now becomes concrete-like (able to be measured without being overly disturbed)? I.e. "an electron standard"!? BUt if have a "standard model" then you need a standard model: so that just leaves you with a whiole lot of numbers to juggle 11 as 59 ("5 as accommodation ("a" accommodates "b", and "b" accommodates "a" gives 4; an outside view needs give and take with these 4 so "5"; chemistry = accommodation so "5" is significant in chemistry) "9" as one place removed from "5" in "59"; as "5 + 4" is "already one place removed; gives you another way to say "5" in the earlier space EXCEPT for the space itself (i.e. this number 1159 etc. IS a "space equation" it demarcates the boundaries in writing a number in base ten, such as to write it as a multi-part juggling of ten x ten i.e. "ten x ten" could be x another ten, all that could be x another ten it's Rubik's cube! Tell Ernesto Rubik!

If anyone is interested: "do you have a new theory"? YES, lots. Can I tell you about them? NO; not here unfortunately, too much censorship appears to be the rule. Look for me in due course at frostcloud. I can take the calculus and pendulum equation tests there. (Thank God for Captain Panic; how do you survive this place? ) See ya all Imagine (Why does almost nobody? have apparently any lack of cowardice here???? Trying to be nice but dictatorship hacks me off ...)

If equation of motion = 2 observations = grip = centrifugal force; math i.e. categorised version is 2 observations balanced by a third so simple harmonic motion. If a "pendulum" is already present; then you get a time differential- it comes down to the structure of the pendulum string...? No time as coin-opeerated computer while travelling

" Equation of motion" is really cool puzzle. Gotta run; be back to look at that. Thought: E.R. in same world as Q.M. would require 2 observations. A continuous feedback loop between two observer posts? Is that grip? Also: a weighted bowl: is like in two places at once as it leaves the bowler's hand. So when it hits another bowl along the surface it rolls on; since it is "already" in 2 places at once; it creates more of an impact and stops early but sends the other bowl "flying"...? What if drop a block that is traveling left to right; and has had impacts on each side that balance, except that the impacts that occurred on say the right side are exactly more than the left side so as to exactly brake the object equal to causing the object to take exactly twice as long to travel left to right than it would have? looks like "drifting" i.e. the object has another kind of mass? It starts to hold its own boundary i.e. to differentiate itself as an object from the surrounding environment (space) .... ????? The climber effect may have involved same gravity but some of it pulling me more towards the climbing surface than down to the ground. With seconds to respond; initially; "equation" as "swap"; "motion" as "a" to "b" ; passing point c (non-directional at this stage) looks like its going to need a form like "(x,y) z" at right angles to w (Objectively defined direction?) ...

Mr. Skeptic: I have to rush to catch a bus today. I have in mind to take your test; I will not memorise the puzzle, what I have in mind is to use my method on it, and see what happens. Klaynos: I have explained my method. It is NOT "playing with words" exactly; but a very precise technique that LOOKS like I'm playing with words. It does not even require words as such so much as "patterns of information". I am utterly amazed that no one has followed the logic of it yet. I DO solve science problems, by simplifying them and using my compare and match patterns method; which you ALSO use without even realising it; as "comparing and matching patterns:" is basic in: how thinking works; it seems to me. The shocking thing is, I can look at a massive technical physics paper full of pages of math; yet discover key things that took the guy who wrote maybe years to find; almost instantly. That is very shocking to anyone who has not come to grips with that sea-change in science. By the way; I figured that there is an error margin in astronomy due to the fact that Earth-6-month change in orbit around the sun is not an absolute base-line; that the parrallax of nearby stars has an error-margin 'Parallax relativity" suggests that many if not all "extra-solar planets" could be, due to the highly deductive way they are allegedly "discovered"; may be perturberations in Earth's orbit by other planets in our solar system. "Dark matter" I found = "conserved energy" or "conservation of alternatives"; "dark energy" I found = "conservation of matter" or "conserrvation of disturbance"; both of these superimposed = "the Hioggs boson" = "gearing comparison" = "unit". You want the fabriic of the universe? HOW ABOUT the "fabrication" of the universe; i.e. the MAP. Problems in modern-day physics/astronomy appear to be analogous to the distortion of a spherical Earth when drawn on a flat page in an Atlas. "Einstein Relativity"= two trains that could be going back or forward relative to each other; but if only have a third train as reference; need to take an observation to get at least the impression of two trains moving togther in the same direction re: the third train (also called "parrallax"). "I'm not staying relativity" = quantum mechanics ('the mechanics of meeting") (the two trains that seem coupled in E.R. "meet" at the third train. How define both E.R. and Q.M. if they are different views of the same phenomenon?

"numerology": treating numbers as if they have "magical powers"?; as if they have meaning, like words do? "Lexicon equivalent of numerology": treating words as if....as if what? as if they have meaning---- words already have meaning; so as if they have 2 meanings? Similes? Similes are supposed to be similar in meaning to words; what I do is look for "essential defining criteria in patterns of information"; this can be done without words incidentally. Interesting comment, however. "Function" incorporates the simple pattern "group": a social function does (that's kind of like a simile, i.e. "social function" vis-a-vis "math-function"?) Math function requires distributing the item about which there is a function? So requires more than one way of looking at the item, so a "group" is inherently involved in defining "function"? "function" and "group" do not mean the precisely the same thing; but 'function" CONTAINS the idea "group"? This :"containment" reminds me of the ideas of Christopher Michael Langan, who's CTMU (Cognitive Theoretic Model Of the Universe) notes the significance of "same-difference" and has obvious links to what I do.)

Thank you. I'm short of time, need to travel so very briefly: "Playing with words" is a relatively common complaint. Who says you cannot solve problems this way? (I explained my method in "math-free analysis". It is a bit like how Sudoku puzzles work) (I was inspired incidentally, by a movie "Monster's Inc." and the wisecracking conversations between Mike and Sully)(And also by the explanation of how words are defined in the book "An Introduction To Philosophical Analysis" by John Hospers; among other things. Re: John Hospers: how do you define an elephant? Stand at a zoo and point at an elephant? Said to be too narrow- what about other elephants? "something with four legs"? Too wide, surely? What about zebras, or even tables, they have four legs. This "broadening and narrowing" I found fitted the pattern "electro-magnetism"; sets that intersect (narrowing) then broaden via overlap with another set in higher dimensional space ) I didn't quote other people at length, I don't get resources for searching for them plus my methods allow me to discover things very fast. This freaks out people? who cannot believe how much can be done with one's own sensitivity to one's ability to be aware of reality......? The maths I discovered as you know this week. That doesn't make me a bigwig; the universe is an open book to anyone who wants to read it. Quoting: "In maths, the derivative of a function f is defined as the limit of f(x + delta x) - f(x)/ delta x; as delta x tends toward zero." Analysing this (simplifying it to apparent minimum essential defining criteria; finding common ground between patterns and differentiating them as different aspects of the common ground by typically one-step only): function = group delta x = change in x x + change in x = two views of x Since "function" already involves "group" so at least two views of x; function (x + change in x) = two views of bracketed two views, so at least three views of x - f(x) = - at least two views of x so f(x + delta x) - f(x) = at least three views of x - at least two views of x which = the ability to flip x i.e. to turn x upside down i.e. to carry x around i.e. to treat x as an exchangeable unit i.e. x's ability to divide through itself so implies another dimension to x; this whole thing was divided by x so that gives x divisible, divided by x = another dimension to x, divided by x = a space factor of x i.e. how x integrates with something else which is the local limit in defining x as x tends to zero but since the phrase "limit ......as x tend to zero" is already used then this gives twice this pattern so how x "integrates" with something else in 2 dimensions i.e. how x can have factors i.e. quite l i t e r a l l y THE DERIVATIVE OF x! Another Nobel prize given me by you guys. Incredible. I didn't know this till you "told" me. (In conversations, each party tells the other all kinds of stuff they may not even realise is there, like a higher dimensional code; you can receive anything if you put aside prejudices as much as you can, it seems- or ...?)(Here what happened though was I just logically analysed what Mr. Skeptic quite plainly said; and without knowing whether it would pan out, the answer arrived consistent with the word "derivative" as being an appropriate word for the formal mathematical description Mr. Skeptic gave).

Wot av we 'ere then? ? for what it is worth (yes, I can explain the maths of space differentiation, which has only just been found this week ! ): the proposed "new branch of physics" which is claimed to be "the science of GRIP" and can also be called "centrifugal force" or "the inverse of electro-magnetism" (i.e. "magno-electricity" or a name I've seen somewhere that happens to fit: "electro-gravity" (i.e. generalising gravity) (and given the discovery that "gravity" apparently = the general measurement of space (i.e. the general metry of space i.e. the geometry of space)(so generalising gravity = the specific measuring of "space" i.e. "where to draw the line")(or "relativistic quantum electro dynamics" i.e. Weighing things up i.e. "a constant pressure differential" i.e. "inflation theoretical" ); I worked out the formal structure of this proposed branch of physics which I posted as four space-time diagrams (of which one is 4 sub-diagrams) where each diagram is closely related to each of the four Maxwell equations of electro-magnetism. In this subject one may wonder what is math; what is physics. The climber experiment was real, a substantial effect, the real evidence you can experience yourself (but need a wall about 23 degrees beyond vertical (so 113 degrees) and sufficiently weak arms that even though the holds are good, when you stop for a rest 40ft up you cannot but help notice the astonishing "extra" rest you get i.e. the temporary apparent weakening of the pull of gravity. If it is true that a "weighted" bowl presses less on the ground than a non-weighted bowl; in bowling a heavy bowling ball; then an experiment could be devised to test that. Be interesting to figure out how to do that. Also; possibly not properly part of this subject: but suppose that you dropped two blocks of highly-vibratiional material simultaneously, but one had been set vibrating via a sudden pattern of collision with other items each side; and if the internally vibrating block fell slower than the other block, that would be interesting. The only solid evidence so far is the climbing result; and possibly the skidding meteorite theory as I know where such a "gravitational semi-conductor" was found. The math, at least what looks like math; I didn't have till I came to this forum; it is quite amazing so here it is to entertain and delight: (The scientists at CERN are possibly about to discover this subject; so perhaps you might like to tell them about it)(!)(fabric of the universe: space differentiation: path integrals in hyperspace; fun as! ) What is a derivative? "Derived from" e.g. "contained within" What is "quantum derivative"? It is "meeting contained within" So quantum derivative of "x squared" can be drawn as a square of two sides marked "x" that requires a third side (or multiplicity of additional "sides") i.e. room for + or - in defning "x times x". (Note: x squared already has an unknown that is fully differentiated and integrated as a flattening of x-space (so the quantum derivative of x cubed is just "x squared" given that it is by definition you have a meeting contained within x cubed of every way x squared can happen consistent with keeping aligned with x squared i.e. the quantum derivative of x cubed is a kind of volumetric view of x squared)(i.e. it differentiates the space in x cubed as a singularity (or cross-over minimum requirement) being x squared ) Looking at quantum derivative of x squared i.e. a meeting contained within x squared: this requires a third aspect in defining "x squared"; and this third aspect must "evenly differentiate the space in x squared". So there needs to be room for + or - in defining "x times x". "x" has 2 views (the two sides of the square in drawn form) in "x squared"; plus or minus the role of the unknown (the unknown was introduced to create a "meeting contained within x squared") ; so a bias is possible to one of the "x" 's in "x squared". (This apparently involves the science of how a pebble gets its shape; through a multiplicity of collisions in a wave-action environment) There is a possible bias or difference in one of the "x"'s in "x squared"; this bias is caused by the possibility that the unknown has more effect on one "x" than the other. If the first "x" is quantifiably different than the second "x"; then the second "x" is already different from the first. So you need to define the second "x" in the meeting of the two "x"s in "x squared:" in the space "unknown" as "+ or - the role of the unknown" in order to balance out any bias that occurs from the effect of the unknown on the first x automatically defining BOTH x's as different (causing immediate inflation towards u)(so creating "hyperspace"); and thus, whatever happens; there is still going to be a possible bias towards "u" (the unknown) even when both x's are balancing! So the whole "second x package" can be added or subtracted to the first x system, to allow "u" to have two "x-factors". That is to allow "u" to be floating in "x squared". The quantum derivative; that is; the meeting contained within; "x squared" (so requiring an unknown "u" to provide this meeting potential; so requiring at least a cube or expansion into at least one new dimension of x-squared space) is written: qd x squared = x(2+u) + or - x(2-u) (a) the "u" refers to the unknown introduced to give the two "x"s room to meet another way; so that a meeting is contained within x squared (synonomous with "larger hadron collider"... or "near the speed of light") (near the comparison of comparison)(one bias) (b) the "2" refers to the 2 perspectives inherent in x-squared from a x,x,u perspective (i.e,. where these perspectives are all interchangeable so allow room for floatation) (could be synonomous with "Michelson Morley experiment" or "diagonal")(two mirrors opposite each other)(no bias except a perfect distribution i.e. a constant change in direction i.e. spin) In x(2+u) + or - x(2-u) (Michio Kaku's dreamed-of two-inch equation for a hyper-space by-pass! ? ) the first "x package" gave linear factors i.e. assume "u" and "x" were in perfect alignment but the other "x" could disturb this (so an "uncertainty principle" as a "round" flattening of space i.e. "directional sorting") so this other x has to be a perfect mirror on what the first x does regarding "u" to ensure mutual factors i.e. a 3d minimum in defining the "assembly" of x,x,u reverses the factors and pushes them out in to 3d (or more?) producing a quantum derivative!

I have been censored by Sayonara. He is afraid of having a fair discussion. My door is open. Peace be with you. Thanks for providing the opportunity to clarify my thoughts in certain matters, and stimulating the discovery of "quantum derivative". There is apparently lot of misunderstanding at this website. "Space differentiation" is something you guys have a lot to learn about, it appears. The climber phenomenon is real, I have experienced it.

Well, thankyou especially Bignose because incredibly; last night i found the "math": (no guarantees you are going to like this) (It's unbelievable though) QUANTUM CALCULUS ("hard math") too easy? You decide.... What is "calculus"? (By the way, my techniques allow rapid navigation through maths; also I get the impression that modern scientists have locked themselves in to a "mathematical jail" and could use a hand in breaking out of this mathematicalisation mentality... ; there are other ways of looking at creation ) Calculus is differentiating and integrating, say. "Quantum" involves "more than one" (to know an object is a unit, it must be one of a category (or potential category of more than one; or how would you know what it was a unit of? ); Quantum relates to quantity ; or items that meet. So I refer to "quantum" as "meeting" .... "Quantum Calculus" is "meeting differentiating integrating". This is "integrating and differentiating in 2 dimensions". Regular Calculus: the derivative of x squared, I seem to recall, is 2x. I can draw this to explain: if I draw a square, with two sides marked "x"; this shows that there are two ways of looking at "x". The "background" of x squared are these two perspectives on "x". What you can derive from "x, in the expression "x squared", is that there are 2 ways of looking at "x". Consider now, an uncertainty in the background: I can draw this as a cube, with two sides marked "x"; and with a third side marked "u" ("u" refers to "unknown", even whether there is a third side, or a fourth, or fifth, is not quantifiable at this stage ) What is the "quantum derivative" of x 'squared'? (It is written as "x 'squared' " to denote the uncertainty or higher dimension in defining "x", i.e. to show the existence of a crossover in defining "x" and defining "squared")(i.e. x is at least "cubed" ; you could have a whole lot of different calculations: x squared + 10x to the power of 5 , + 7 x to the power of 10, and whatever)(this string of x variations is an "information series" ) (How do you know x is squared? It could be cubed or more, it could have many extra dimensions? You quantise all the dimensions into a string) The "quantum derivative" of x squared is: x times (2+u) + or - x times (2-u) A drawing of a square, with two sides marked "x"; gives "two perspectives" on "x". If add an "unknown" to this (giving a drawing of a cube with two sides marked "x", and one "side" (or multiple sides)(where "how many sides" and "what these sides are" are rather muddly so far) marked "u"; then this divides x (so partial derivative?) yet this also times x (partial integral?) (once you have both, "x" is differentiated and integrated in a higher dimensional space, without actually having to see it. x is now a quantisable difference in the "many worlds" of x) The "partial derivative?" and "partial integral?" = an "imaginary x squared" one might say, or at least "x cubed" so denotes volume i.e. the idea of sphere i.e. round (dimension unsure but at least 3)(say "x factorisation"?) + or - x(2-u) could call this "teleport" in other words: imaginary "y" i.e. other side (two sides were x) or: "2" "squared" i.e. volume differentiation i.e. stitching i.e. polar i.e. the reverse of x factorise so establishes priority. So this gives "dimension unsure but at least 3" i.e. (x factorisation) (you know x is factorised but you don't know how or in what way (i.e. "how much") it is factorised) and volume differentiation i.e. stitching i.e. polar i.e. reverse of x factorisation so establishes priority giving a result that looks like a soccer ball i.e. a sphere-like object with surfaces stitched together otherwise can be called "parallax relativity" or "relativistic quantum electro dynamics" (fixed angle on background, is relative) (relativistic meeting generalisation room to move) a bar code how things stack up a constant pressure differential ? grip flotsam (floats the same) quick comments: examples of localised "switching off" of Earth's gravity effect on things: when a heavy ball is bowled along a lawn; a "weighted" shot versus a non-weighted shot: a constant pressure is maintained over a period of time with the ball in hand to create the weighted shot. This I think is pressing LESS on the ground than the non-weighted shot, as it's "weighting" due to Earth's gravity is reduced by its differential weighting at right angles to Earth's gravity (causing it to partially "hover" board i.e. to create a fixed template; and to locally partly fix its position in space i.e. an "auto gyro" (note: "forces after the big bang" translates via math-free analysis to "gyroscopic x 2" or "auto gyro"!) (The LHC at Cern may create this effect causing the whole ring to sink in to the ground a bit due to vibrations between becoming heavier and becoming ighter or something (called a "black hole" as it's a hole but you "don't know what caused it" ! - idea) ("Nothing" caused it i.e. "gravitational diffraction" ) A class of meteorites that are NOT "heavy" or necessarily magnetic; but which are objects that have skidded to a stop high in Earth's atmosphere due to their shallow angle and the direction of Earth's rotation with respect to the angle the object came on, and fluttered down to Earth; shedding mass so becoming unusually light (due to experiencing "gravitational electric charge"). A class of rocks which, though they may look massive, have shed "mass" through collisions and are now slightly or partly "floating" i.e. they do not press nearly as much on the ground as their bulk (or apparent bulk) suggest.... A climber can become "lighter" through how they synchronise pushing off holds and pulling on holds creating another way to differentiate their body's position in (geo) space...

In response to your request (I'm not expecting you to like what I am about to say, but you never know, I do not want to prejudge your response): what I have discovered can include things that are much harder to stomach than what I have demonstrated so far; but note; if a being from a far distant part of the galaxy turned up at this place, and tried to explain to you their science, they would probably get a similar reaction to what I have had. It is not necessarily a question of hierarchies of civilisation; the boomerang is thousands of years old aboriginal technology that’s pretty incredible. If you had never heard of it, scientists might have said that anything thrown by hand cannot surely travel so far away yet come back? And to the ancient tribal group, what would they make of a mini video camera? Yes I have discovered a lot; including a new branch of physics which I describe as the inverse of electro-magnetism. It comes with a vast array of potential new inventions. When I investigated electro-magnetism, I found that it appears that everything written in this science fits the pattern: "electro" as "generalisation" as "a set" (like "the set of horses" is a generalisation as it involves more than one horse)(although some may argue of a set containing one item; such a set relies on the potential of more than one, or how could you refer to what it was?) "magnetic" as "specification": like two sets that overlap; "magnetic" as the region of overlap. To my knowledge, ALL electro-magnetic physics is now derivable (Ohm's law, Maxwell. etc.etc.). FROM A POST IN ANOTHER FORUM 3 YEARS AGO: (NOTE: I AM MAPPING PHYSICS AS PATTERNS OF INFORMATION AT A VERY SIMPLE WAY. THIS IS PRE-MATH: MATH HAS AN EFFECT OF CATEGORISING SO MAY “FLIP” THE “MATH_FREE” PATTERNS SO THE “LAWS OF ELECTRO-MAGNETISM MAY SEEM TO SWAP NAMES”) ****************************************************************************** “What if categorise a field of common factors? common to "car" and "truck": engine wheels chassis brakes doors If I categorise this field of common factors to "car" and "truck" by: "vehicle" (as they are all parts of vehicles) I need a "double slit experiment". The sample has to go through one hole ("car" or "truck") or the other hole ("truck" or "car"). All on the list are parts of vehicles so there are other ways of combining these items (ways that don't involve cars or trucks) by definition of "vehicle" being independently defined (outside "car; truck" ) . These other ways of combining the items in the field of common factors to "car" and "truck"; allow free association into INTERNAL GROUPS e.g. "engines wheels". These "internal groups" = Russell's "grains of spacetime" -time ("vehicle" being "space" to complete "space-time"). *************************************************************** Maxwell's Equations: How differentiate "vehicle" from the Lie Group: "car and truck"; "car"; "truck"? That is: "how make the string, theoretical? Or: how maximise wellness (how MAX WELL)? (curious: scientist inspired by own name?) If "equation" (If allow all concepts to be units so exchangeable so equated in this manner by mathematics: vehicle units; car units, truck units, car truck "units" (obviously a problem!)(No wonder you get vectors) you get "vector space". "vehicle vehicle": Faraday's Law of induction! "car" plus "truck": Ampere "car" OR "truck": guess the generalisation (Gauss Law Electricity)(could be car or truck)(Keeping options open)("feel the electricity" say) "truck" only (I could have said "car" only): I've specified which one (but which one did I specify?) Guess the specification (Gauss Law of magnetism) ************************************************************** Newton's Laws: How differentiate "vehicle"? How "new town" !? How gravitate (how come together)? Need car truck) car truck) that is "action, reaction"; OR car car) or truck truck): the car truck (the force) = mass (car or truck) times the acceleration note: acceleration = meters per second per second = speed per time per time. time = self referent reference distance (a clock self-refers to the center in defining a distance on its perimeter; a pendulum self-refers in defining the distance of one swing by being defined as maintaining same start and end of that swing in next swing) acceleration = distance per self referent reference distance per self referent referent distance = distance (any direction) PER distance ONE direction = "Meters" that is "distance comparison" that is "light on distance". car car) or truck truck): the car truck (the force)(the freedom of "car" and "truck" to associate) is in the pattern of TWO "car" and TWO "truck" is = to the mass (The uncertainty: the "car" OR "truck") times the acceleration ("this "car" or "that "car")(this "truck" or that "truck"). (car or car; truck or truck) = light on distance = acceleration. Inertia: "IN hurts ya": "car" "truck" just stay as they are. They come together by staying apart (The background is fixed). A field of common factors; common to "car" and to "truck": engine, wheels, chassis, brakes, doors. Categorised by "vehicle" (as all are parts of vehicles). The question was asked "how differentiate "vehicle" from "car and truck; car; truck"? How new town and max well? Need new town max well; that is "probe ability amplitudes" or "the mechanics of meeting" i.e. "quantum mechanics". Now ("car and truck"; "car"; "truck") can split (Rutherford: rather ford: rather cross (associations here: "ford a river" = "cross a river"): split the split)(nucleate: integrate by double differentiation i.e. split the atom by atomising the split (firing modifications (alpha paricles) at it)(keep doing stuff like that and you'll get a limit on differentiation; i.e. "6 quarks for Mr. Mark (Mr. Integration by a slip differential (By a Higgs mechanism)(By gearing!) IF carry "car" "truck" (Einstein Relativity) then get: counting vehicles (Plank quantum) 2 vehicles = ghost (car truck, car truck). One must be "car" of these "quantum superpositions", one must be "truck"; but which is which? Go est (need movement to establish identity, i.e. "location". A collision took place (EPR experiment)(note: double slit experiment = Michelson-Morley-like? EPR-"experiment(?)" = large-hadron-supercollider-like)... THREE vehicles = "universal time" = (car truck car OR truck car truck) = vehicle certainty uncertainty (vehicle relativity)(speed of light constant) = Eigen functions (I gain functions)(engine x 2 etc.? ) Relative Eigen functions = Eingen value (I gain value)(engine/2 e.g.) (Unchecked these last ideas) Wednesday, November 30, 2005 04:07 AM Correction: "These "internal groups" = Russell's "grains of spacetime" -time ("vehicle" being "space" to complete "space-time")." An omission here; should read: = Russell's "grains of space-time" (car trucks, cars, trucks): time (as self referent reference) vehicle: space” ****************************************************************************** INVERSE OF ELECTRO-MAGNETISM: “MAGNO-ELECTRICITY” OR “CENTRIFUGAL FORCE”: Not four equations as with Maxwell, but four space-time diagrams of which one is a group of four related diagrams: From recall: “space” on horizontal axis, “time” on vertical axis: The diagrams are (“non-equations of magno-electricity” i.e. “of” inverse polarisation - hence the link with Van de Waals forces” and what happens when a climber sets up shock-waves travelling in opposite directions through his body, affecting how his body stacks-up- i.e. how his body is able to be differentiated by a local; gravity such as Earth)(He creates “an artificial earth” you may suppose- a local blindness to Earth’s gravitational field. (This is ALIEN MATHEMATICS)(I’m supposing/thinking !) The rare earth elements are postulated to already have this- if you vibrate them at the right frequency within the appropriate spacial structure; you get an inversion of how they are defined as matter-distibution) (Somewhat speculative) The Space-Time diagrams; for the science of “magno-electricity” (or “centrifugal force”(or “grip”)(the inverse of “electro-magnetism” i.e. the inverse of “juxta-positioning” i.e. NON-juxtapositioning i.e. “non-polar ionisation” i.e. “constantly (re)arranging in groups” (“your soaking in it” i.e. (super) liquidity (non-polar ionisation requires a continuous rotation (so steering)(“drift” catch) are: DIAGRAM ONE (relates Gauss electricity) A short vertical line somewhere within the space between the horizontal (space) and vertical (time) axes DIAGRAM TWO (relates Gauss magnetism) A short horizontal line somewhere within the space between the horizontal (space) and vertical (time) axes DIAGRAM THREE (relevant Ampere’s Law) A dot somewhere within the space between the horizontal (space) and vertical (time) axes DIAGRAM FOUR (linked to Faraday’s Law of Induction) A group of four diagrams: a short vertical line connected to a short horizontal line (forming a little corner) somewhere within the space between the horizontal (space) and vertical (time) axes three more such diagrams, each shows a different “corner” so all four ways of depicting this “corner” shape are shown.

If anyone is interested, here goes: it is obviously impossible to have a free conversation here. I have witnessed the (alleged) appalling abuse of people here. Einstein would never survive this forum, nor anyone genuinely able to discover hitherto unrecognised secrets of the natural world; so it seems. The problem may partly come from what has happened in the university physics world itself; where ego, status, self-importance, "hero-worship" etc. etc. result in an output of repressed over-subservient-to-authority graduates and under-graduates whose native talents have been firmly squashed. It is very sad. The only way to rescue this forum, is to make it fair. That means no person who actually participates, should have any power to move posts to a "trash can" called "pseudo science and speculations". If participants in discussions are to talk freely, it will have to be somewhere where everyone has no more power to move posts or ban than the next person. Rules of decency are then applied by mediators who are not participants. If scientific standards are really a worry; "pseudoscience" and "speculations" should be separated; "challenges to orthodox thinking" could be added; and only a non-participant could shift posts and only in extreme circumstances (speculating is part of breaking new ground and developing new theories and belongs in my opinion, to at least some degree, in ordinary physics discussions) I appreciate that some people are trying to be decent.

If anyone is interested, here goes: it is obviously impossible to have a free conversation here. I have witnessed the (alleged) appalling abuse of people here. Einstein would never survive this forum, nor anyone genuinely able to discover hitherto unrecognised secrets of the natural world; so it seems. The problem may partly come from what has happened in the university physics world itself; where ego, status, self-importance, "hero-worship" etc. etc. result in an output of repressed over-subservient-to-authority graduates and under-graduates whose native talents have been firmly squashed. It is very sad. The only way to rescue this forum, is to make it fair. That means no person who actually participates, should have any power to move posts to a "trash can" called "pseudo science and speculations". If participants in discussions are to talk freely, it will have to be somewhere where everyone has no more power to move posts or ban than the next person. Rules of decency are then applied by mediators who are not participants. If scientific standards are really a worry; "pseudoscience" and "speculations" should be separated; "challenges to orthodox thinking" could be added; and only a non-participant could shift posts and only in extreme circumstances (speculating is part of breaking new ground and developing new theories and belongs in my opinion, to at least some degree, in ordinary physics discussions) I appreciate that some people are trying to be decent. Incidentally, a real ollie does not require, as far as I am aware, the back of the board to touch the ground; it is not jumping. It involves pushing down say on one leg causing the other half of the board to tip up; but countering that with a down-and sideways-movement with the other leg, and kind of canter-levering the board in to the air. I've done it briefly. (If you are REALLY interested, and there is some speculation at this point: the elements involved in "magno-electricity" are the Rare earths. If you look at their electron shell configuration; and the role of "much-of-a-muchness" in both how a TRUE ollie is executed; and how a climber gets an "unexpected weakening of gravity", it's all related. The relevant everyday material is clay. The trick with the Van de Waals is a factorisation of them. At its limit (gravitational disconnection) you have a shell effect: there are no internal "walls" stacking up against gravity; the only wall is the outer boundary of the object. It is real freaky stuff this, probably could scare people as it's quite "other-worldy" or "off the earth" science. Now there is speculation here; the climbing evidence is real; so is the physics of skidding (which is related: a skier effectively makes a "hover board" out of their skis during a skid); no-one to my knowledge has fully "switched off" local gravity. However, as it is a REAL science; you can work it out. Just as you know how to make a magnet; there is a process of building this kind of charge. The climber pushing and pulling themselves up an overhanging cliff builds enough of this charge to experience first-hand an unexpected additional rest from gravity when they stop. It is not magic. It is not psychological (nice guess though). It is also related to why different ways of hitting a golf ball produce different results. Now here is a speculation you can try for yourself: another pattern related to this whole thing is a geometrical shape called a "pebble" (or oblate speroid). A metal called "misch metal" or similar aparently contains traces of all the Rare earths. Get some, shape it like a particular kind of pebble; vibrate it at a particular frequency; and watch what happens. You want a flying saucer, you might just have one. Now that I agree is speculation. The rock-climb effect of an unexpected "holiday" from gravity" is real; is evidence; is part of a brand-new (If you like) science which I have worked out to a considerable extent. To you, this science challenges your pre-conceptions. It is "alien" to you. It is vast. For every invention that uses electro-magnetism, it is like there is one in this new science. Now it is true that some of it is speculative. I decided in principle I most probably need to leave this forum, as you cannot have a discussion (I don't mind severe scientific critique that's valuable; but being constantly threatened with posts being booted away or being banned is not a power participants should be allowed to intimidate each other with in my humble opinion) . Re: local "gravity invisibility": A related subject appears to be "drifting": A DVD "Need for Speed: Tokyo Drift" (special features) explains how to drift a motor vehicle. It includes a world champion. I apparently figured out the physics of 'drifting"; and what I found is consistent with the comments people made in the DVD. First: about "carving" of skis: In "How The Racers Ski", by Warren witherall, an all-time classic book of ski-racing from the late 80s (when skis were longer and straighter, but had enough sidecut to carve a curved narrow line if pressured and placed at an angle to the snow), the author gives the "biggest secret" in his book. called "The Rise-Line Secret"; it is: If you are skiing a round turn down the hill around a gate; the "fall-line" is the path a ball would take rolling down the hill from the gate. The "rise-line" is if you extend the fall-line uphill from the fall-line. Get in a light inside edge for the new turn, then wait till your skis cross the rise-line above the gate. At that point, strongly pressure and edge the skis- a "comma-shape" turn will result with excellent grip. Why? because at the moment the skis cross the rise-line; centrifugal force and gravity are in opposition to each other. Minimum tendency to skid here. (This works amazingly) A modification of this secret may be needed now-a-days due to changes in ski design. I worked out: Drifting on skis: When the skier comes horizontally level with the gate, centrifugal force and gravity are at right angles to each other. Maintain this balance, and I call that "drifting"- the line doesn't come under the gate but "drifts off partly down, partly across the slope, gradually more downhill. To drift on skis: keep an even keel: i.e. keep an equal balance between centrifugal force (traction control) and gravity (creates a "plank" or board effect (like you could walk up and down the ski like a surfer on a long board): a "wave equation" for skis (they seem to float ). (Many discoveries can follow: take this "drift-line and map a parallel drift-line through the gate. The point above the gate where a skier crosses the "drift-line" occurs a little earlier than where they cross the "rise-line". Using modern carver skis; briefly engage the carver skis edges at the moment of crossing the "drift-line" and you can carve the skis as much or as little as you want after that through the turn (a theory). (Rise-line secret produces "drift acceleration" so comma-shaped turn; so easy to step the skis (to carve a variable line). Drift-line secret produces "step acceleration" so round-shape turn; so easy to ski the steps (bump skiing)(accelerate and decelerate the skis at will)(theory). (Figured out Bode Miller's (U.S. ski-racer) breakthrough in how bindings are mounted may be allowing "double turn" technique related to above) Drifting a motor vehicle: (this is not intended to substitute for professional instruction ) My theory; Brief counter rotation from applying the handbrake (causes extra (sudden) traction inducing a start to skid)(Clutch in) Sudden grip of tyres gives an overlap in defining wheel spin and momentum. Wheel spin<->momentum so uncertainty of where the road is. Momentum drives the car. (handbrake takes time to engage so put clutch in after so engine spin and wheelspin "engage" gyroscopically to prevent "overtaking" i.e. gyroscopic swing of vehicle ). If accelerate: the car rotates inwards about ita centre approximately. Engine drives wheels, get car spins in; it holds its overall curved trajectory i.e. "in control". If decelerate: engine slows down wheels; get engine braking/braking (one or other or both): car could go either way i.e. "out of control" (car spins out both ways) By using various visual and other cues a driver bcan develop "perfect pitch"i.e. can "tune the car" while driving (accelerate and decelerate at will to create a car that seems to flip over from end to end; as if the car is 'weightless" in that it keeps to a narrow track even while turning because it makes a fair balance between gravity and centrifugal force (grip). Theory: gravitational drifting and gravitational repulsive force: What is centrifugal force? Going around a circular path, the centrifugal force is directed where you were heading a quarter-turn ago. As you travel over rough ground, the ground brakes you (lurch backward) and you trip forward (lurch forward). After a quarter turn, these two merge (they are residual effects now acting at right angles to the quarter-turn-later (new) direction of travel. The structure of the Van De Waals forces appears to be identical to this lurch forwards, lurch backwards concept. This would mean Van De Waals is centifugal force in the making! Going down a ski slope, a drift will incorporate gravity. "Gravitational drifting" would require a second lot of gravity. The ordinary drifting of skis on a slope involves the same idea as a drifted car: as if the whole length of the ski (or frame of the motor vehicle) is mapping itself lengthwise. Could call this effect a "board". Question is how to make a "hover board"- a "board" is already hovering in the sense it is frame-mapping (at least to some extent) along its path. (This is all apparently related to the tail structure of comet MacNaught on its spectacular re-emergence from going around the sun!) A drifted ski can easily be rotated about a central axis at right angles to the ski extending above the ski. Same I guess with a drifted car in some way- not exactly - the car does some rotation around this axis as it takes a drift path around a corner. An axel (this is inspired by DrP) at right angles to the first axel , in a plane parallel to the ski; alows a full range of movement in any direction- (?) i.e. a "hoverboard effect". Like an astronaut in outer space! If the drifting skier put their poles out to each side at right angles to their direction of travel (or the car-driver put their elbow out the window and their hand on the roof of the car) then perhaps conservation of momentum (and momentum is doing the steering in drifting!) would cause this "steering uncertainty" to be repelled. But if you resist pulling the poles in, then maybe momentum has nowhere to go; gravity is fed back a gravitational repulsive force is generated? Another perspective is: by analysing gravity I found: that the equation for the force of gravity F = G m1m2/r squared can be derived by asking the question "how do you know what is background"? I found "gravity" appears to be consistent with: gravity as background gravity as the geometry of space gravity as conservation of information gravity as space-grip force of gravity as "parallax" (a fixed angle of background) inertia as "time grip" gravity as "resistance to inertia" ("quantum gravity" as a fixed background "loop quantum gravity" as "loop x 2" as "a string".) It is possible for information to be internally "scanned" by a body such as to make it independent of a local gravity field? Edtharan gives a plausible alternative explanation of an "ollie"; the type I was describing does not involve any contact between the back of the board and the ground. The climbing effect is significant and very real; I was amazed by it and afterwards worked out a way of explaining it. It lasts for a short while. My activity in physics has real consequences, so far in sport. I figured out many secrets of nature that sports people must have stumbled across! My methods can deliver: Someone bounced on their back to standing for ten bounces on a trampoline; wearing a polarfleece jacket. They held out their hand and invited me to make contact. I got an electric shock. Using my thinking, I figured out if I tensed the muscles in my hand, the shock would be neutralised. The experiment was done again, I tensed the muscles of my hand; a crackle occured- but no electric shock! I might not get it right al the time, but get it right often enough, so far I think!

As I said, there is censorship at this forum- it isn't a forum; it is a place where people aere bullied; and I find this highly offensive.

You want to make a hoverboard? There is a problem. How am I supposed to talk to you about this here? There is censorship. I have worked out the science, apparently, of real hoverboards. That is, like in the Michael J. Fox movie "back to the future". I have discovered an entire branch of physics, unknown to those who might claim to be leading scientists, it appears. We need to talk somewhere else; I am looking for investors in this technology. I can give some clues: there is a phenomenon in skateboarding, called "the ollie". It is the most basic trick. The physics of it are amazing. I discovered a direct link to the science-fiction-like physics of potentially real back-to-the-future style hoverboards. Another amazing phenomenon is, some people can "ollie" with a "fingerboard" (apparently some people can do awesome tricks, visible on You-Tube). A fingerboard is a tiny precision skateboard that instead of two legs, you place two fingers on it. There is an entire new branch of physics I discovered, which has an old name "centrifugal force" (alleged to be a pseudo force)(I call it "grip"; as to experience this always involves "grip": if you are sitting on the back bench seat of a car and it goes around a corner and you feel yourself being "thrown" sideways ("centrifugal force"), if there was no friction, how would you know "centrifugal force" existed?) The science I discovered is the inverse of electro-magnetism. There is a formal representation of this new science which is closely related to Maxwell's Equations of electro-magnetism. I call this inverse science (which happens to also be called "centrifugal force", and be very misunderstood by orthodox physics) "magno-electricity". Like "electro-magnetism"; it has real natural world examples. Not "lightning" , which is a real world example of "electro-magnetism" ( which I also can call "slip"); but "lightening" which is a real world representation of "magno-electricity" (or "grip"). Sometimes rocks fall, and collisions among the rocks are such that they experience a kind of "charge" (which I might call "Van de Waals charging") (or magno-electric charging), which partially disconnects a rock e.g. from Earth's gravity. It doesn't float necessarily, just doesn't press as much into the ground as its mass would suggest. You can experience this yourself. Go to a climbing wall with a steep overhang and lots of good holds. Climb up (with top-rope protection) and after 40ft you may be surprised when you take a rest, that gravity is "weaker" than expected. Reason: the synchronisation of pushing and pulling as you climbed the overhanging cliff sets up a series of internal "collisions" re: inside your body, such that the Van De Waals forces (which resist gravity) are re-organised in a broader way: gravity is diluted. It's a weird experience. I worked out heaps about this whole subject. Even where on the periodic table to find elements asssociated with this phenomenon. I worked out how in theory to build a hoverboard of full sci-fi capability! I need investors!

I had to do other things but will post this for now: Quoting: "Klaynos;430587]Cutting threw the waffle... You'd have to be more specific, the prediction would have to be "It will rain in grid reference XXXX between the hours of 1200 and 0000UTC on 28th August 2008" That is the same finding that I made: i.e. you have given an independent background to time; in this case, you have given a grid reference!!! QED ("Quo Erat Demonstrandum" Latin for "that which was to be proved" and ironically closely matched to Quantum Electro Dynamics which turns out to be identical to "logic" if you write out the requirements of defining "logic"!!) (By the way: "independent background to time" = "juxtapositioning constant" (obviously: it allows you to safely juxta-position "rain" and "no rain" AND "the time i.e. the rain/no rain available slot" without losing track of which is which; and previous work has shown me that "juxta positioning constant" = "electro magnetic constant"; and that "e-m constant" = "gearing comparison" which = Higgs boson. Nobel Prize number ten billion on its way- yeah right please excuse my bad attitude to your esteemed superiors in the halls of power and whatever...!)( ) ? Quote: "Then to falsify it you wait untill the times have passed if it hasn't rained the theory fails." No argument. However, if the prediction was logically inconsistent; then you could falsify it without even waiting; by simply showing it to be "a contradiction in terms". The advantage of "math-free analysis" is to pass a "razor" over science and expose logical inconsistencies, thus clarifying the view, removing unneccessary barriers (due to obfuscations of the ideas) and opening vast new areas of insight and discoveries...)(it does this by simplifying ideas to minimal defining criteria; then integrating and usually one-step differentiating, so as to allow maximum freedom of interaction of the concepts. Anything against freedom is immediately exposed..? ) (Some comments that appeared here criticised math-free analysis for finding common ground, as if this "math-free thing" would create confusion. Math-free analysis doesn't just find common ground and leave it at that; it then DIFFERENTIATES (usually by onestep only- which makes "counting" (repeats of the same pattern) optional: which is why I thought of calling it "math-free"; it doesn't rule out math; it is simply larger than math; it encompasses math; it is a foundation without which there is no math?)) It is the comparing (seeking out common ground) and matching (seeing how the things that have something in common are yet still different so can be MATCHED) of patterns; so IS AN UNDERLYING INGREDIENT TO ALL THOUGHT. It is "Child's play". (It is not word-dependent; it is about patterns; these can be drawings or other types of information.) Quote: "It is possible to forumlate unfalsifiable predictions using words, becaues you could predict "It will rain this afternoon" and when I wait and it hasn't rained I can tell you that but you'll say "yeah but I meant the afternoon in UTC+10"... Now not only do you have to make predictions, but these have to be testable, which generally means having some numerical output, and then measuring something." Most predictions do not require numerical output; that's just window-dressing? A ruler is not required to know whether or not rain is occuring? ? Numerical output is a convenient way of comparing pedictions; e.g. "how much rain will fall betwen 1pm and 2pm" etc. A list of compared predictions incorporates "a gearing comparison"; or "floating unit"- (i.e. the information pattern known as "a Higgs boson"...). The "unit" of rainfall (say one inch if you like) must be conserved across all the compared predictions- so how do you know what "number" is as distinct from what "a unit of rainfall" is? To know "5" from "10" requires an imaginary number "One", i.e. a constantly carried "one". If "unit" used to define "number"; and "unit" used to define rainfall; are to be kept distinct; THEN THERE MUST BE SOME LEEWAY (which I call "probe ability"; i.e. room for each to "see" something of each other; to find one another). (This is known as "Schrodinger's cat" or "imaginary category" one may say). ("Gearing" implies "unit" (the projections of the gear wheels); "gearing comparison" implies interchangeable units (a feature of human number system!) If you didn't have leeway in defining "rain inch" and "unit in 5 or 10"; the numbers would be hollow (meaningless). And then it wouldn't matter! if your boss paid you 20, or 10 million; 20 or 10 million nothings is all much the same.... Quote: "But these predictions have to match experimental evidence BETTER than any currently excepted theory." "Experimental evidence" can do two things; it can provide a default setting (if you put certain things together in a certain way, such-and-such will result)(I.e. manifestation of inherent bias) plus manifest logical consistencies in Nature... Quote: "So take F=ma If I apply a force of 5N for 10seconds to a mass of 1kg which starts at rest, it will have an acceleration of 5m/s/s and therefore afterwards a velocity of 50m/s. The above looks like a word description but it's a fully mathematical one with an word explination of what the steps are, finding the numbers I put numbers into the first equation in my head. Using words you can't do this as accurately, you can do "If I push something it will move" but that's all... And then you can't formulate anythign else from that." Thinking about this.... With math-free analysis and other experience I found that: "F=ma" translates as "freedom surface SWAPS with uncertainty multiplied by self-reference" . To define "force" requires some sort of pressure. But "pressure" (such as pushing on a desk) requires "a constant switiching from one side to the other (of your hand for example- try it and you'll see it is apparently so). So "force" freedom to change your hand's being on the surface of the desk (if ever so subtly). If a constant uncertainty (or relative position) is needed to define "force"; then how can you define "force" and "mass" simultaneously? "mass" I discovered translates to "uncertainty": how do you define "mass"? Comon English usage is very handy here; "a mass of leaves" would be "an uncertainty of leaves"- i.e. their exact number is not required? In physics "mass" appears to be asociated with :"bulk flow"; or an uncertain quantity that remains uncertain over time (conservation of indeterminate number- curiously; makes it look like a Higgs boson- how cool is that? The Higgs boson has been blamed as being responsible for giving particles "mass"- that's a story which could be figured out...) So given that pressing on a desk with one's hand demonstrates the idea that "force" involves "uncertainty" in position of one's hand; and "mass" inviolves "uncertainty"; to define both yet to know which is which; would require "2-d mass" i.e. a self-referential mass i.e. an accelerating mass. Now "force" and "mass" can SWAP; so I can write this as (given that "=" denotes "swappable" from one side to the other) : F = ma (number-free)(i.e. a law of logic) ("Acceleration" is rate of change of speed per time; "time" like a pendulum swing involves "anywhere within limits"; "speed" involves at least two ways of subdividing space (distance say) that can be directly compared (so "no-where" within limits i.e. a "wall"); "rate of change" involves "A" changes to "B" with reference to "C" so "space collapse" so also involves a wall; to differentiate these two "walls" requires a space-time continum (Time in another dimension i.e. at right angles to space!) i.e. "per time"; but "per time" is already included in the concept "acceleration" so to differentiate one "per time" from the other requires a constant self-reference (frame) i.e. boundary identification or "LIMIT". (The technology that flows from this discovery is absolutely stunning- anyone like a flying saucer that can travel the length of the Milky Way galaxy? No I am not an alien!) Quote: "If I apply a force of 5N for 10seconds to a mass of 1kg which starts at rest, it will have an acceleration of 5m/s/s and therefore afterwards a velocity of 50m/s". A good challenge; in that I have mostly used math-free analysis (or comparing and matching of patterns) to shed light on confusion and think of new inventions. I once analysed a totally traditional exam-type physics problem and found mfa was relevant. To solve this proble, mfa is assumed: if "Newton" involves "kg per metre per second"; and mass involves "kg"; and time involves "second"; I'm thinking that the traditional way of solving a physics exam problem is "math-free analysis going backwards in time" (just thought of that now)(often think new things in debate). Time: interchangeability between contents of brackets and items outside the brackets e.g. "(a , b) c" to "a (b, c)' so "anywhere within limits" or "floating brackets"... Math-free analysis (or "comparing and matching of patterns"): e.g. "(square, circle) compared in "shape"" to "shape" as a hollow in a wood board that COULD BE "square OR circle". So "math-free analysis IS "time" so doing mfa "Stops time" (or stops number). (Makes counting optional, and you have all the time you need... unless logic intervenes?) If mfa is time; how know which is which? (-this is a typical mfa question i.e. a typical "comparing and matching patterns" question ? ) By going backwards? I.e. by information processing; by sorting out the sequences of bracketing so as to make sense of the information? If Newton is seen as "Kgm/s and mass as "kg' and time as 's"; and acceleration as "m/s/s"; then you need to be able to shuffle these patterns around to form a "matrix" or computer. Would take a while to figure out translating exam-physics into mfa but did it once.... Quote: "Again classical mechanics, in the above example we've equations that describe the motion in terms of time and acceleration, we can then manipulate these using calculus to find velocity and position, you CAN'T do that with words." It isn't about words; its about patterns of information; comparing the patterns (looking for common ground); and matching the patterns (seeing how they are different aspects of the common ground).

If anybody out there is interested, as I depart these hostile shores for now; consider this: in answer to "what colour is an invisible elephant": the answer is "any colour you want". What "math-free analysis" does, is make the future free. It overthrows all forms of coercion. You no longer have to live in fear (like so many do?) of a "scary" universe that could spring unpleasant surprises. It stops time. How? By finding common ground between concepts; then differentiating them (usually by one step only to allow maximum freedom of interaction between the concepts as aspects on the common ground); it allows the "next step" (i.e. the future- or the past for that matter- as these are not distinguished at this stage) to be "a free association space". That is, the concepts can co-exist, and get together and come apart whenever. What is "a falsifiable prediction"? A typical prediction might be: it will rain this afternoon. What are the minimum defining criteria for "a prediction"? Is "it will rain" a prediction? What about after 10,000 years and it hadn't rained? Is it still a prediction? Doesn't "prediction" require "a fixed background" such as "this afternoon" or "within ten thousand years" or whatever? If so, "prediction" requires something "predictable". If it could ONLY rain this afternoon, if it COULDN'T not rain; would "it will rain this afternoon" be a prediction? If the future is compulsory, there is NOTHING to predict! It's a given, surely? So to define "prediction" includes the concept "falsifiability"! It MUST be possible to "not rain" for "it will rain this afternoon" to be defined as a "prediction"- don't you think? If this is so; then what is "a falsifiable prediction"? If the concept "prediction" ALREADY contains within it, the idea of "falsifiability" i.e. of an alternative existing to what the prediction is (this alternative I can call "carry the one"). How do I differentiate the concept "falsifiable" from "prediction" if "prediction" BY DEFINITION contains within it the concept "falsifiable"? How would I "falsify" the prediction "it will rain this afternoon"? If I waited till "this afternoon" (this "Property-less event" i.e. the event of the arrival of "afternoon- hey- how do I know "afternoon has arrived? The "rain/no rain" cannot tell me; or how would I know if it was raining or not raining - to see BOTH patterns I would need "a third point of reference" i.e. another way to tell the time!) So to distinguish a "falsifiable prediction" requires TWO TIMES? An independent background to time; so you know the difference, between "this afternoon" and "rain/no rain"? ... .... ... .... . .... ... .... ... . . .

Thank you; very briefly: quoting: "your method fails on its own terms let alone the reasons why it fails physicly for one quantum is not derived from "quantity" but rather from "quanta" which is a word that effectively means "a unit of", thats the problem in that words especially names are rather imprecise, and analyzing what I said based on reinterpreting the words that I said ends up wih you getting a different meaning than what was intended" There is no dispute here? How do you know something is "a unit of"? You would need more than one, or the term "a unit of" is meaningless? I am looking at two computers; that is what enables me to regard ONE of them "as a unit". Plurality is essential (at least potential plurality) to define the concept "unit". Is that correct? (If there was only one computer in the world, how would you know it was a "unit"? Unless there COULD be more than one!!! (I rest my case! )) If so, then your understanding of the word "quantum" as related to "quanta" and "a unit of" incorporates the pattern I found, of "plurality" or "more than one" or "a meeting of items" (as in a group). My claim was simply that an essential defining characteristic of the word "quantum" was to involve the concept "more than one". In practice a short cut was discovered in navigating quantum mechanics by regarding "quantum" as "meeting"; and "quantum mechanics" as "the mechanics of meeting" (e.g. we could meet at New York or at Chicago- where we meet is "the mechanics of meeting.' This level of simplification may surprise some people but is very beneficial as allows much faster solving of the puzzles associated with quantum mechanics. Quote: "And in this case I know what te physics are and you don't, so it is much better for you to try to understand exactly what I am telling you and not try to pull more information out of a sentance than it contains. although I highly recommend checking what I say and learning more on your own from other sources. But I speak plainly and when I want to be clear I'm clear. now on to your post responding to me. for the most part its meaningless gobbldy gook much less than is a mathematical concept meaning vanishingly small in comparison to some other number. It has nothing to do with sets." Let us look at this: "Much less than is a mathematical concept meaning vanishingly small in comparison to some other number": What is "number"? I discovered that "number" involves the notion "anywhere within limits", e.g. "a number of oranges" refers to "anywhere within limits of defining what is an orange". What is "compared to some other number"? To define "other" number; would require e.g. in "some other number of oranges"; a division in how oranges are defined (so as to separate out the two numbers: e.g. heavy oranges and light oranges). What does "vanishingly small " mean? To define "small" requires a scale, e.g. a set and a subset; with a way to identify the subset (as "small"). With "oranges" this would require an overlap between light and heavy oranges (so providing a subset?). Curiously it is already "vanishingly" (as the overlap between number of heavy oranges and number of light oranges creates a localised limit in defining these kinds of oranges. Since the concept "vanishingly" is already included here; to differentiate this concept (at least by one-step only) requires e.g. a second way the overlap can occur. So the concept "vanishingly small compared to some other number" can be represented as "two kinds of oranges, heavy and light; which overlap in two ways" (creating a "polarisation" effect you might say (metaphorically at least) in the category "orange"). Given my claim that "speed of light" translates to "comparison of comparison"; like two movies compared via one potentiallly two locations; compared again again in one potentially two weather conditions; this pattern looks very much like "much less than"! Think about it. Quote: "I'm not going to answer the questions as you posited them because they are so far off the reservation that the only response is to tell you how your definitions are wrong from the get go special relativity does not require a third observer it works for any number of observers and merely describes how the time and distance scales between these observers will differ from one another, the reason why it is "special" is that it cannot describe situations in which an observer is accelerating." I claimed that Newtonian Relativity is like sitting in a train wondering if your train is going forwards, or the next-door train is gioing backwards; and that Einstein Relativity is the same but with only a third, possibly moving train, as reference. Therefore Einstein relativity involves a relatively fixed coupling of (any) two of the three trains. In this sense it is already general. If the concept "special" is added to it; then that would need two positions for the third train; which has the effect of creating a floating fixed reference frame. In other words, allowing a plurality of observers! Exactly as you say. Of course it cannot describe conventionally circumstances where the observer is accekerating; because acceleration is self-referential; but in Special Einstein Relativity the observer (as the twice located third train) is ALREADY self-referential. NO DISPUTE HERE; we have no disagreement; my technique is simply alien to you? Quoting "General relativity solves this problem and describes how measurement scales differ from observer to observer regardlesss of acceleration (and as a consequence how gravity works)" Well given that "Einstein Relativity" is already general; then to generalise it again would involve two locations for the two trains that are effectively moving together relative to the third train.Which would give them a swappability re: each other's location (creating a default single train relative the third). Now it doesn't matter who is the observer; the default single train or the third train! Now two differentiate three trains, a fourth (or fixed background) is projected. This appears to allow a means for an observer to accelerate (to be self-referential) without losing the three trains (you just get Einstein Relativity going backwards in time so-to-speak i.e. an alternative way for the two-train reversible coupling to happen). All three trains come together via "acceleration"; so "coming togther" (gravity) here is apparently synonomous with defining "acceleration" in Einstein Relativity? If so, then to define "acceleration due to gravity" would require a permanent fourth; i.e. a space-time differential (or "curvature of space-time"). Quoting: "quantum mechanics is the physics of small things to which newtonian mechanics is an approximation for large bodies." If "quantum mechanics" involves "the mechanics of meeting" (e.g. two people could meet at an airport or at a bus station); and if "physics" is "logic" and "logic" is "path"; and if "small things" are subsets; then the "path of subsets" is what "physics of small things is... Are "the mechanics of meeting" the "path of subsets"? "Bus station" or "airport" are subsets of where two people meet ("Two people" implies they are already categorised so "meeting"; two people AGAIN implies a secondary meeting; divided into two subsidery locations (airport and bus station). To know the difference between "two people" and "two locations" requires "stretching" the locations (making them into paths)? Which is ALREADY special Einstein Relativity! I.e. a second observation (stretching!) So to add "special Einstein Relativity" to quantum mechanics, since Quantum Mechanics already contains special Einstein Relativity; would require "path integrating" (i.e. combining more than one path (or "bundling" you might say?). Quantum field theory is "meeting move-around-space more than one option" ; but "meeting move-around-space" is "path"; "more than one option" added to this pattern gives... path combining! Quote: "Quantum field theory is a theory that puts special relativity into quantum mechanics, thus relativistic mechanics is an approximation to quantum field theory." So who's arguing? It's hard to see any disagreement!

Well, unfortunately I have limited internet access and it would take a while to persuade you that the technique I use, which I call "math-free analysis", appears to work incredibly well and allow the unravelling of any information-containing puzzle! It appears that every concept (concepts are often represented by words, but sometimes are represented by pictures and even sounds or other types of data) contains within it what one might call "essential defining characteristics". Often these essential defining characteristics can be found by looking at a simpler version of the patterns in the puzzle; often in very ordinary ideas. Once these essential defining characteristics have been found; you can then solve the information distributions in the puzzle; bypassing complicated mathematics. I have applied this technique to many problems, resulting in a vast number of newly discovered inventions and technologies (for which I am currently seeking investors/ buyers /sponsors/ publishers!) (One of these involves a breakthrough in earthquake forecasting, by figuring out the physics of how a certain animal is able to respond prior to an earthquake happening. I also apparently found how to see the foreshock sequences in the supposed 80% of earthquakes that "don't" have foreshock sequences. The techniques work; but may surprise "old-school" physicists with their audacity and simplicity!) I was able to discover that if you work out what "logic" is; the patterns you get are identical to the patterns found in "quantum electro dynamics". So it appears that QED is logic. If so, this immediately explains Richard P. Feynman's comment "nobody understands it"; as to understand QED would involve trying to be logical about logic? My technique is very similar to Feynman's; except I deal with concepts, not sub-atomic particles. Quote: "Do you have a new theory? Very often people come to these fora with a belief that our current theories of physics, such as the Standard Model or relativity, are flawed and present some alternative of their own. On the whole, this is a fine attitude to take - we should always be skeptical, and it is good if people can think a little 'out of the box' and generate ideas which more standard thinkers may not have come up with. I have always thought that genius was not an ability to think 'better' than everyone else - it is an ability to think differently from everyone else. However, when coming up with a new theory it is important that it should be better than the old one. Therefore the first step of coming up with a new theory is a sufficient understanding of the old one. You have to make sure that your new theory does everything at least as well as the old theory, otherwise the old theory remains more attractive. This is very difficult mainly because our current theories are so spectacularly good in their predictions." The question is though, do "our curent theories" make real predictions, or is it a trick? If they are logic, then the "predictions" may be illusory. I.e. is modern physics "a self-fulfilling prophesy"? With my technique, I was able to discover why you "square the final arrow, in Feynman QED, to get a probability". My technique is based on honesty and freedom; it automatically incorporates any and all data, including current theories; but goes far beyond this. Quote: "Let me give an example: the magnetic moment of the electron. If we look at the energy (Hamiltonian) of an electron in an electromagnetic field, we find that there is a contribution from the interaction of the electron's angular momentum and the magnetic field." Experience with simplifying physics showed me that "energy" translates (incorporates the idea) to "alternatives". An "electron" translates as "a modification". An "electro-magnetic field" translates as a "specification-generalisation move-around space". "The energy of an electron in an electro-magnetic field" becomes: the "alternatives of a modification in a specification-generalisation move-around space". But "specification" is like the overlap area between two sets; "generalisation" is like one set. "specification generalisation" then is presumably the sections of the two sets not in the overlap! But the overlap IS a modification (as it is where each set "modifies"; the other. So to have alternatives of a modification (different ways of looking at the overlap betwen the two sets) is to talk of the two remnant (non-overlap) sets? And this is the same pattern as "specification-generalisation" i.e. "electro-magnetism"! So how do you differentiate "electro-magnetism" from "energy of electron" if they are different ways of describing the same thing? You would need a third set, i.e. "spin". If you include the "spin" via the concept "field" (i.e. so providing alternative ways for electro-magnetism to happen); then the electron's angular momentum (its conservation of spin) cannot be described unless it is differentiated requiring 2 electro-magnetic fields (1 creates a default electron by allowing the residual sets on each side of the overlap of two sets, to swap sides; 2 creates "back to where you were before" so "a stitch in time" so-to-speak). That IS a "specification move-around space" i.e. a "magnetic field"! (A place to juggle sets' content/s).(An information exchange place) To define this pattern "magnetic field" also would require a contribution from the magnetic field and from the electron's angular momentum (I.e. a constant displacement). Which is in accordance with what has been written in standard physics. Only with this method, not only can I check if standard physics is logically consistent; the wider view allows many new discoveries to be made (and many new inventions to be invented). (Of course; "orbital angular momentum" is another name for "a constant displacement", so to add then differentiate that concept; will require "a fixed observation" ("gyro not-magnetic ratio"; i.e. "a constant displacement x 2" otherwise describable as "a firm mat" or "level". This has enormous consequences in new technology.) I am not about to claim that "the standard model" is wrong; (I figured out how to deduce its content and even explain the 19 constants); only, that "the standard model" is like perhaps digging a hole with teaspoons; when a mechanical digger is available.............. .

Quoting: "not really" True, in that the title "Einstein Relativity meets Quantum Mechanics" was used when the subject I wrote on was "Einstein Relativity meets Quantum Theory"; a subtle difference. Quoting: "quantum mechanics is a theory that more accuratly describes things with P/m <<(much less) c than newtonian mechanics. where p is the momentum, m is the mass and c is the speed of light, (this is equivalent to saying that the velocity is much less than the speed of light) if that condition is not met, then one must resort to Quantum Field theory. which has special relativity implicitly guaranteed in the equations. its general relativity and quantum field theory that have a problem, not quantum and special relativity." By simplification this can be solved as: Assuming that "Einstein Relativity" is represented by someone sitting in a train, looking at the next door train, and wondering if it is their train going forwards or the next-door train going backwards, with only a third train to act as reference (and that Quantum theory is the perspective on the first two trains as seen from two locations of the third); what happens (in this non-mathematical version- introducing mathematics cateorises everything) when the word "special" is introduced? Since Einstein Relativity (as described non-mathematically above via three trains) gives "a fixed coupling of two trains, moving relatively forward or backward as one vis-a-vis the third train) is "general" (in that it involves two, so a generality); to make it "special" would require a second movement. (this second movement is the "specification moment", like "magnetic moment") Now the pattern is special Einstein relativity; the "forwards or backwards" can now cancel each other out (on the second movement) or extend further. This has the effect of doubling the location of the third train (making it "fuzzy" like an "electron") (Here one can see that "magnetic moment" and "electron" may be different ways of looking at the same idea)(Hence by pure logic, one can deduce that to define "magnetic moment" and "electron" so as to differentiate these concepts, would require the number "2"!)(If you do an experiment, by definition an experiment contains some uncertainty, i.e. some "two-ness", so you will not get a value of exactly 2!- by logic?) Quantum field theory: can be simplified as: quantum involves quantity involves more-than-one; "field" is a space you can move around; "theory" involves more than one candidate. "Quantum field" then is like a field with a fence somewhere dividing it into two; "Quantum field theory" is like a field with two fences somewhere dividing it into three; but could be regarded as two fields one containing the second fence, but which side is the extra fence in? So QFT is like a block that could be lopsided (the field without the extra fence being on one side) one way or the other. This pattern of static position with potential lopsidedness one side or the other- isn't that identical to the pattern of two trains cancelling their forward or backward moements, or extending them, representing the idea "special Einstein Relativity"? If so the "clash" between these two concepts is apparently explained. However, mathematicalising everything converts "special ER" into categorised special ER; and QFT into categorised QFT. Newtonian mechanics: Newtonian Relativity can be represented as: being in a train, and wondering if it is your train going forwards, or the next-door train going backwards; solved by looking at the railway tracks. That is, it is "mechanical", as it allows movement against a; for the purposes of experiment; fixed background (i.e. it implies "macro-scale"- the background is deemed bigger (or more still) than the movement). Newtonian mechanics: Since "Newtonian Relativity" is already "mechanical" as described above; how to define "Newtonian mechanics"? A clock? Movement against a fixed background + mechanical = background against a fixed movement!? "light" can be regarded as "comparison"; as can "speed"; "speed of light" becomes in this view "comparison of comparison" i.e. e.g. compare two movies e.g. their location, implies a possible second location; compare the at-least-two locations via e.g. weather, implies at least two types of weather; the pattern here is two juxta-posing subsets (weather and location) of "movies". So "speed of light" involves the pattern "much less than"! (A subset is less than a superset; two juxtaposing subsets might be regarded as being "much less than" a superset. "Much less than the speed of light" to be distinct would require apparently: a definite bias (one of the subsets being smaller) so a stack of sets getting smaller (and a stack of three sets getting smaller gives "a fixed direction"!) Which gives "position" (i.e. to where the fixed direction points)? If so, how to differentiate the concept "position" if include it? Could call it "mass" which appears to translate into the concept "uncertainty". Here "mass" already includes the idea "a fixed direction"; so "mass x velocity" (mass x directed distance per time) gives mass x2 i.e. an enclosed space (i.e. volume)(mass implying two locations; x2 so the locations can swap places so enclose a space!) so volume per time. But "time" involves the idea "anywhere within limits" (like a pendulum swing); volume (an enclosed space) per anywhere within limits; so gives a buffer zone around the enclosed space. Also called "momentum"? (This discovery has remarkable consequences) Momentum divided by mass then gives "a buffer zone surrounding an enclosed space" divided by uncertainty; gives "movement between the walls" (i.e. the buffer zone implies two walls on each side of the enclosed space; divide by the uncertainty (the two-ness) gives back-and-forth between the walls, like a shuttle). For this "shuttle" to be "much less than the speed of light" i.e. to have a fixed direction (as a stack of decreasing subsets) would require breaking through a wall. If the above reasoning is accurate; then "p/m much less than c" translates into "breaking through a wall"; "Newtonian mechanics" translates as "clock"; given that "quantum mechanics" can be regarded as "the mechanics of meeting" it is "clock breaking through a wall" (time freeze)(which is why I guess "freezing time" via a stopwatch plays such a large role in making QM work...?!?!). Why would QM hold for "p/m much less than c" more than Newtonian Mechanics? QM appears to contain both patterns; how can it hold for one more than the other of two patterns it contains within? Ahh- if it has become biased (all those clock-watching experiments !) creating AN UNCERTAINTY in defining Newtonian mechanics (i.e. in defining a clock); so apparently making QM increasingly inaccurate in its very "accuracy"? (like a hedge fund; ...?) I misread "general relativity" as "special"; anyway if Einstein Relativity is two ways of bracketing; and Quantum Field Theory is bracketing two ways; special ER is one-sided bracketing, general ER is the same thing as QFT (hence a clash) ?

By suspending "number" you can solve this: Simple relativity: you are in a train and you notice the train next to you has started moving backwards...or is it your train moving forwards? Eistein Relativity: you are in a train and you notice that RELATIVE to a third train, you and the next door train are both moving (forwards OR backwards)... Quantum theory: "quantum" involves the same pattern as "quantity" which involves "More than one". Note that Einstein Relativity also involves "at least two items moving as one RELATIVE to a third "fixed" (strictly "floating fixed" i.e. relatively fixed re: the other two "together" items) background item. To make the quantum (the together items) "theoretical" requires a "fixed rate of exchange" (a constant feedback (loop) betwen the three items (otherwise known as "gravity" i.e. a "shrinking" of the three items in space-time (because a varying of the three items relative locations IS "space in time" so clashes with superposed "SPACE-TIME", this clash resolved by incorporating a solid-looking i.e. a conserved division (or where time meets space) i.e. like an atom. If an atom is already defined then this "atom" now becomes "one of two possible atoms"; which is which? By vibrating this "vibrated" atom you get a modicum of certainty (i.e. a solid-looking atom that keeps switching sides, like it is in some kind of time-warp (spin?). Given "Einstein Relativity" AND "quantum theory" are apparently different ways of describing the pattern known as "bracketing"; (ER being two items bracketed against a (floating) fixed background; and QT being two "backgrounds" floating against a third fixed-fixed (I.e. solid-looking) item; how does one tell which is which? By generalising the Einstein Relativity. Now they are distinct, but there is always a "hidden" Einstein Relativity existing in between. I.e. ER is using a third train as reference to the movement together of two trains; QT is how this looks from the third train (where two locations of this third train ("fixed-fixed") makes the other two trains look as if they are travelling togther (forwards or backwards) hence generating "an uncertainty principle" re: the other two trains (as they are moving this gives them two positions but they are already two trains!

Hello, this is my first post at this forum. To my knowledge, it breaks no laws, but I do not know all the laws of the world. I have a method of analysing information. It is like calculus, as it involves integration, and differentiation. I call it "math-free analysis; because it effectively makes number (or "counting") optional. You could say it "stops time"' allowing time to run as you please. The method is this: write out the problem as simply as possible. Find common ground between two of the concepts in the problem. When this common ground has been found, separate the two aspects on the common ground, usually by one step only (that is the "math-free" part) so as to maintain maximum ways these two aspects can interact. This gives a pattern where the two (original) concepts can share (meet) and separate; their association is free. Take this pattern (this "together-apart")(or "quark") and find common ground between it and another concept in the problem. On finding common ground, differentiate (usually by one step only); getting a pattern that allows all three concepts to free associate. And so on till every concept in the problem has been included. This gives a final "free association space" for the problem. Now the future (or "time") has become space-like. This method is very similar to quantum electro dynamics. Applying this method to "physics standard model" I get: from previous thinking I found that "physics" may equal "logic"; and that "logic" may equal "path". A model is a copy of something. A standard is a source of multiple copies. How does one 'know the difference" between "model" as a copy; and the copies made from a standard (using this link as common ground between the concepts)? The difference is obvious- they are coming from different directions- one is a copy, the other is that from which copies are made. (keeping this discussion in free-association space) This gives a pattern of "something which is seen from two linked but opposite perspectives, one being the standard from which copies are made; the other a model. Since "copies" is plural; this implies a bent path (hopping from one copy to the next to the standard, and since the concept "model" is included (as 'a copy"), a third copy is needed but one doesn't know which of the three is the model (and which are the two copies that relate to "standard"). So at one end there is "standard"; at the other is two copies distributed among three (allowing both "standard" and "model" to be integrated and one-step-only-differentiated by this pattern). The pattern gives a "triangle" of three attached to a one. A path is also three ("A", the middle, and "B") all together (as one...) So how differentiate "Physics" ("logic") ("path") from "standard model" given this common ground both concepts appear to have? You would need (if differentiating by one-step only) for example "a 2-d path" (Two paths as one) (a path integrated). This gives a final pattern of: "physics standard model" AS "path integrate". If you then try to integrate paths with "physics standard model" you would experience an interference in their respective definitions it appears likely. Unless the path integrating was done in 2 dimensions (i.e. via Shrodinger's equation). If you want "accuracy", it should now be possible to deduce everything that is known in physics from here (by pure logic). Because it involves free association; time is "frozen" (or independent of space- i.e. it belongs to you). People tend to treat time as something forced on them by a relentlessly changing universe. However, it appears that a harmony is available such that nothing happens without your being "looked after" by the universe.