noonespecial

Guys, I appreciate you taking the time to discuss this with me. Feel free to argue it out amongst yourselves. I'm out.

Studiot, I'm sorry I preached at you. I got frustrated. This is difficult for me. I appreciate you sticking around. It might be best if you explored the system for yourself a while. The system can be used to make predictions and answer hypothetical questions the same way pure mathematics can. Not every problem will have an equal inverse relationship to something else. It's just that the ones that do will have the best chance of supporting the conjecture. I think i got hung up on that. I appologize for that too. And it is possible to use positive and negative numbers as conventions in doing your math. The main rules set only uses them to denote additions and subtractions but after looking into the sine waves as you suggested I can see why they are useful. I don't see them as positive and negative though. I see them as directional. Take some time with the math then get back to me if you are still interested. My guess is that you will find things I didn't. Don't forget that the conjecture offers a second coordinate system. I don't believe these are spatial coordinates. They may have other uses. If you have questions feel free to ask. I will try to be less excitable when answering.

Studiot, if you have evidence that shows that an object can be added to a given location in space without subtracting that object from another location then you have broken the laws of physics. Matter can't be created or destroyed. If you can show evidence that you can remove an object from a location without leaving empty space where the object was located then you have done something extremely grand indeed. You may even have found a physical example of multiplication as it is presented in pure mathematics if instead of a hole you have another object of the same type. Because there are a lot of people who say that negative mass has not yet been proven. Hence my conjecture and the reason why I have been asking people not to confuse it with pure mathematics. The mathematics presented here (which is not pure mathematics) uses observable occurrences found through experimentation in the real world to formulate a system of mathematics that expresses the observed results. The experiment is to find the fundamental rules to the mathematics that our universe follows. The conjecture based on my findings suggests that it does. The resultant mathematics follow a different rule set than the set of rules that pure mathematics follows. The conjecture assumes that our universe does indeed follow the system of mathematics presented. It needs to be tested to see if it can be of any use. Since the system is based on very real occurrences it must be tested to see if the physical world expresses the rules as well. Please, if you are willing, study what I have written to you as well as the opening post. If you can think of a physical occurrence where these rules are followed or not followed directly, let me know. Concepts that are only theoretical and have not been observed cannot be considered as there is no way to test their validity. Examples that describe the physical world directly are what I am looking for. Finding averages, for example, is not a physical event. There must be an action and a reaction. For every action there is an equal and opposite reaction. This math describes (as a conjecture) the laws of the universe. Studios, I found a page with some electrical math that sounds like what you were describing. http://www.allaboutcircuits.com/textbook/alternating-current/chpt-3/ac-inductor-circuits/ I will write an analysis of my thoughts on it after I study it.

Studios, I have read many articles stating that negative mass has never been found. Some of the comments were posted just this year. Can you (or anybody else) post a link to information confirming that negative mass exists? The only thing I could find was that researchers from the Max Born Institute in Berlin had demonstrated that negative mass exists but the information was written in 2010. There are many people who still disagree as recent as February of this year. Please don't take this as an attack but I need to know if this is real or purely theoretical. If I happen to find a page that has information that confirms that negative mass has been observed I will post a link if nobody has beat me to it. Electron holes are also said to be purely theoretical. I will still address this one, purely theoretical or not. Electron holes are said to occur when an electron leaves a valence. The hole is not a physical object. In this case the electron leaves it's position (subtraction) to go elsewhere (addition.) This leaves a hole where the electron was. Scooping a shovel full of dirt out of the ground (subtraction) and dumping the dirt on the ground (addition) leaves a hole in the ground. In order for an object to occupy a given location there must be room for the object to occupy that location. When you subtract an object (which must be added to another location that has room for it to move to) from it's location, it returns the area to it's origin state which is then free for another object to occupy it. The origin of addition and subtraction is zero (or empty if you prefer.) Physical addition and subtraction describes relocation of energy or matter in space. If there is enough space to accommodate an object, it can be added there. When an object is subtracted from a location it leaves a space open where another object can be added if it fits in the space. Multiplication and division works in a similar way. The origin of multiplication and division is one (a single unit or group designated as the unit.) Let's use a picture as our starting point (origin.) We can divide the picture into multiple divisions and make a jigsaw puzzle out of it. The number of pieces (multiplication) our puzzle has is inversely proportionate to the average size (division) of the pieces. So if we divide the picture into 100 (multiplication) pieces, the average size of each piece will be equal to 1/100 (division) of the size of the whole picture. We can then work the puzzle to return the picture to it's state of origin (one picture.) In some cases the origin object will remain fractured, as in our jigsaw puzzle example (100/100 = 1.) Physical multiplication and division involves altering inverse properties of energy or matter. I know this isn't what you expected to read but it really isn't difficult to understand once you accept the fact that this conjecture is not about pure mathematics. The mathematics of the conjecture were determined by observing physical addition, subtraction, multiplication, and division as they occur in nature. Pure mathematics was not. The two systems are different. Do I believe that negative numbers exist? Most certainly. I have seen them. I even use negative numbers to describe physical subtraction. What i haven't seen is negative quantities. I can place an apple on my table (0+1=1.) I can have zero apples on my table (0+0=0.) Pure mathematics says that zero minus one equals negative one. If I have zero apples on my table I cannot remove an apple from the table and leave a negative apple in it's place.

Studiot, so how does absolute zero power occur? Does absolute zero power mean that there is no power or does it mean that the alternating currents are exactly equal (positive and negative at equal strength causing no flow?) Also, don't be discouraged if this first example does not do the trick. Science is about trial and error and very demanding in the proof department. Even if this example agrees with the conjecture and can be considered as evidence it would not suffice to show total proof. No single example can show total proof. A large number of examples that can supply evidence can only be seen as support of the conjecture. And all it will take to ultimately defeat the conjecture is one example of failure. I am open to as many examples as you care to give.

Studiot, I did not mean for my reply to offed you. If I have given offense then I apologize. I have been quite excited in fact since you decided to join the conversation. The fact that you are an experienced electrical engineer seems valuable to my interests here. The broader the range of professional experience that can contribute to this investigation the better. You are correct when you say that not finding examples doesn't mean they don't exist. Please read the opening statement I wrote to you in my assessment again. I welcome your comments and opinions. I do not pretend to have mastered electricity in the short time I have had to assess your example. I studied one single mathematical process. The example of multiplication did not break the rules of the conjecture. The multiplication provided is also involved in taking an average. Since taking an average is not a physical action, there is no equal and opposite reaction to observe. The conjecture needs evidence of physical multiplication and division of energy or matter. Averaging values simply does not qualify to show sufficient proof needed. For your last point, I covered this under step 1 and included more information under step 2. Also reread the original post again where the rules for addition and subtraction are written. The only thing I did not cover was absolute zero power. What exactly does absolute zero power mean? What is happening in the circuit when this occurs?

.............. Abj, thank you for your patience. When I was in high school learning about math and science I was amazed at how well the two worked together. I have always had questions that occupy my mind. "Who am I?" "What is this place?" "Why am I here?" These are not easy questions and it is probable that I will never know the answers. When I was a kid, I believed the most likely paths to answering those questions were science or religion. There were things about the fundamentals of mathematics that I could not accept as being able to answer my questions. Since science was (in my mind) tied to mathematics, I discarded the idea that science could help me. I turned to religion instead. That path turned into a dead end for me quickly. I started studying the world around me instead. Everywhere I looked I found evidence of mathematics. Logic, philosophy, science, art, music, the physical world itself. So I returned my attention to the fundamental rules of mathematics. The problems I had with math were the concepts of negative quantities,the lack of physical examples of multiplication, and the undefined functions involving division of or by zero. I spent many years with pads of graph paper trying to understand why I couldn't make sense of what should be the most fundamental parts of mathematics. I had reasoned that if math could describe so many aspects of this world then it might be possible that math is (at least part of) the fundamental laws of how everything in our universe works. I spent twenty years trying to make sense of it before I gave up. I figured twenty years was enough. I never found anything in this world that would actually represent a negative quantity. I also never found a single example of physical multiplication. To me, if mathematics was indeed one of the physical pillars of the laws of nature then it wouldn't have components that aren't physically observable. It wasn't long after that I was at it again. One day I picked up a stick and was playing with it while pondering math. It occurred to me that every time I moved the stick I was subtracting it from one location and adding it to another. I had the thought that it would be nice if multiplication and division worked like that too. It made me so upset that I broke the stick. I was staring at the pieces in disgust wondering how I could make one object become two when it dawned on me that I just had. I laughed at myself and told myself I was being stupid. A few days later I was back to the graph paper. I was exploring the possibilities of what I discovered that day. To my surprise I found a system of mathematics. I didn't understand it at first. I don't fully understand it still but I have yet to disprove it. That's why I am here. I've never been a social person and I don't speak often. I am not a scientist, a mathematician, or a philosopher. I study the human condition with the hope that I can find the truth about myself. In finding this new rules set for a different set of mathematics than I was taught in school, I feel obligated to share it. I don't know if it truly is a set of rules that our universe adheres to. What I do know is that I don't want to be the guy who takes the information to his grave if it happens to be just that.

Ajb, thanks, I will. And I will respond to you soon. Studiot, wow, ac current is very cool! I have evaluated the process for determining the root mean square that you have suggested. If you see any mistakes or do not agree with my assessment please let me know. 1. Sample the current. This is just taking readings. In alternating current the flow of electric charge periodically changes directions. If the flow is moving away from you it has the opposite charge as when the the flow is moving toward you. So the direction of the flow determines whether the voltage is positive or negative. This follows the rules for addition and subtraction where there are two locations. Electrons flow from (subtraction) one location to (addition) another. By selecting one end of a circuit you can use positive (addition) numbers for voltages moving in one direction and negative (subtraction) numbers for voltages moving in the opposite direction. 2. Square the values. This is taking each value and multiplying it by itself. All of the values are positive. With addition and subtraction it does not matter to the object whether you call it an addition or a subtraction. The object remains an object. With a flow of electrons the flow does not care if you call it positive or negative. It still remains a flow of electrons regardless of the polarity (which represents a property not a quantity) of the electrons that constitute the flow. RMS is designed to average the voltages of an alternating current. When calculating the average, the flow direction is not important. Only the voltages themselves actually count. The rules of pure mathematics say that the product of a square is always positive. With the mathematics presented in this post there are no negative quantities to begin with. 3. Add the squared values. The values for this addition are the same for both pure mathematics and the mathematics presented here. 4. Divide squared values by number of samples. This division does not include either zero or negative numbers. 5. Find square root of total. This step does not include either a value of zero or negative numbers. Sine wave: The sine wave uses a single addition and subtraction axis and has a second axis to describe time. The graph does not go against the rules of the mathematics presented here as there are no multiplication or division elements involved. The numbers on the sine wave graph represent values of a current as they occur over time. Assessment: The math involved does not refute the conjecture presented in this post. Since the process of finding the root mean square of the values of an alternating current do not describe a physical alteration of energy or matter the process is not a good test of the rules of the conjecture. While the rules of the mathematics presented in this conjecture have not been broken here, this example cannot be considered as any kind of evidence supporting the conjecture.

Studiot, I looked briefly into RMS. Let me look again and see what I can see. I hope you are right. I might have some questions though. I'm not an electrical engineer and I don't like leaving things to chance. This might take a while. Thanks for the reply.

Studiot, the example you gave is actually using the rules for pure mathematics. I already know that pure mathematics is different from the mathematics I have shown here. Is there a way to calculate voltage of an alternating current system using the mathematical rules I have presented here? I honestly don't know. You tell me. I realize that pure mathematics can give answers. Pure mathematics is mathematical after all. I am very intrigued by your answer though and am glad that you shared it. When you say that an outlet has zero power I assume you are referring to the fact that when you try to average the voltage in an alternating current over time the answer is zero (according to the way the math was devised using pure mathematics.) Due to the average being calculated as zero a different method (RMS) had to be devised that would give the correct value of the voltage? Doesn't that mean that an outlet really doesn't have zero power? Otherwise why would RMS even be necessary? Also, the negative numbers you mentioned are in connection to the sin wave? The values on a sin wave denote distances from an origin point (represented as a line.) This is covered by addition and subtraction as it does not entail multiplication or division. There is not a physical component of the power that is actually less than zero power. The negative numbers are there because an inverse relationship exists and only pure mathematics was available at the time the math was being devised (not that i'm saying it is wrong or doesn't produce a correct value.) Pure mathematics (as far as I am aware) only uses positive and negative numbers when dealing with inverse functions. Let's also look at a different example involving electricity as it applies to multiplication and division using the math I presented instead of pure mathematics. For showing the rules of multiplication and division I used the physical division of an object. I showed that two properties of the object were inversely changed when an object is physically divided and that zero was an invalid number for multiplication and division. The same can be done with electric current. Imagine a circuit where one watt goes in and one watt comes out. In the circuit there is a transformer. Our current has a voltage of one and an amperage of one. If the transformer doubles the voltage then the amperage is halved. If the transformer triples the volts then the amperage is cut to one third. This follows the rules for multiplication and division perfectly. What would happen if the transformer cut the voltage to zero? Remember that one watt of power flows constantly through the circuit. A transformer that reduces the voltage to zero is a faulty transformer and breaks the flow of electricity. When you have a current that flows, neither the voltage nor the amperage can be equal to zero. This follows the rules presented. Those of you who like relativity, I previously stated that I like relativity too but don't know much about it. The theory of relativity has at least one problem though. There is a YouTube video called "The Collapse of Physics as We Know it" that describes this problem. The portion of the video containing this problem starts at 3:20 and lasts until 7:23. The problem with relativity comes in when the equation is divided by zero. I understand that this is how it's done with pure mathematics. With pure mathematics you can assume that mass can be contained in an area of zero height, width, and depth. The mathematics I have shown says that you cannot divide down to zero. With this mathematics you can assume that mass cannot be contained in an area of zero height, width, depth. Why not try the equations with the mathematical rules presented here and see what happens? The origin for the rules of this math is one. Also, I am sure that many if not all of you are familiar with the laws of decreasing by inverse square. Take a look at the multiplication and division table from my first entry on this post and see if you can't see a representation of decreasing by inverse square presented in a fundamental way. I'm not saying my way is correct. This mathematics is so far largely untested. Most people seem to want to argue pure mathematics instead.

Mordred, You are still arguing pure mathematics. This is not pure mathematics. I like relativity although I don't know all that much about it. Not everyone agrees with relativity though. Relativity as far as I know has never been able to stand up as the one unarguably true theory amongst all the theories out there. If you like pure mathematics then use pure mathematics. If you like relativity then work to further relativity. If you can prove my conjecture wrong with physical proof then do so. Write the results of your experiment here but make sure you are using the mathematics I have presented here and not the rules for pure mathematics. This isn't a test to see if pure mathematics works or not. If you want to prove me wrong then show how the rules presented here actually fail in an experiment. Don't just keep arguing pure mathematics because this isn't about pure mathematics. This is about the mathematics presented here.

Mordred, the goal of the example I gave you was to double the temperature of the sample. You can't argue that decreasing the temperature is the same as doubling it. That's not scientifically sound. Reducing the heat present in a sample is not even remotely close to doubling the amount of heat in the sample. As far as sliding scales go, it sounds like you have that down. Coordinate systems too. However, every sliding scale you use is based off of positive numbers and negative numbers. That scale exists in the mathematics I have presented here under the rules for addition and subtraction. The rules for the multiplication and division I have presented offer a new avenue for using sliding scales and coordinate systems: sliding scales and coordinates based off of the operations of multiplication and division. Whether these scales and coordinates have any use for physicists remains untested. Pure mathematics defines multiplication as an easy and quick way to add up values that are the same. The rules I presented for this mathematics represent something else. Multiplication in this system is the inverse of physical division. You will notice in the example I gave in the first entry of this post, multiplication has nothing to do with addition since no additional objects were added. The one object became multiple objects when the object was physically divided. Addition doesn't describe that action. Multiplication describes it perfectly. Once again I would say that this system of mathematics is not the same system as pure mathematics. Read the experiment again along with everything that has been posted so far. I can't say whether this system ultimately has any merit. What I can say is that science is about testing things and doing experiments. Science is not about personal glory and is certainly not about my personal glory. I have presented here a puzzle. A puzzle needs people to solve it. Experiment for yourselves and if you have success present it here. Anything you do here is your own accomplishment. And whether or not this mathematics turns out successful or not, good science will still have been accomplished. Science is not always about finding some new discovery. Sometimes science is about eliminating possibilities. Everyone is welcome to participate in this discussion if they want to. Even if it turns out that my conjecture is wrong the possibility exists that something useful could be learned. Discarding an idea before even trying to experiment is just not good science. Experiment with the math. Make discoveries if you can. Be proud of the efforts you apply toward science. And for goodness sakes, remember that this is not pure mathematics.

Mordred, the goal of the example I gave you was to double the temperature of the sample. You can't argue that decreasing the temperature is the same as doubling it. That's not scientifically sound. Reducing the heat present in a sample is not even remotely close to doubling the amount of heat in the sample. As far as sliding scales go, it sounds like you have that down. Coordinate systems too. However, every sliding scale you use is based off of positive numbers and negative numbers. That scale exists in the mathematics I have presented here under the rules for addition and subtraction. That scale is still valid here. The rules for the multiplication and division I have presented offer a new avenue for using sliding scales and coordinate systems: sliding scales and coordinates based off of the operations of multiplication and division. Whether these scales and coordinates have any use for physicists remains untested. Pure mathematics defines multiplication as an easy and quick way to add up values that are the same. The rules I presented for this mathematics represent something else. Multiplication in this system is the inverse of physical division. You will notice in the example I gave in the first entry of this post, multiplication has nothing to do with addition since no additional objects were added. The one object became multiple objects when the object was physically divided. Addition doesn't describe that action at all. Multiplication describes it perfectly and so exists in this system as the physical inverse mathematical operation of physical division. Not the same as pure mathematics. Once again I would say that this system of mathematics is not the same system as pure mathematics. Read the experiment again along with everything that has been posted so far. I can't say whether this system ultimately has any merit. What I can say is that science is about testing things and doing experiments. Science is not about personal glory and is certainly not about my personal glory. I have presented here a puzzle. A puzzle needs people to solve it. Experiment for yourselves and if you have success present it here. Anything you do here is your own accomplishment. And whether or not this mathematics turns out successful or not, good science will still have been accomplished. Science is not always about finding some new discovery. Sometimes science is about eliminating possibilities. Everyone is welcome to participate in this discussion if they want to. Even if it turns out that my conjecture is wrong the possibility exists that something useful could be learned. Discarding an idea before even trying to experiment is just not good science. Experiment with the math. Make discoveries if you can. Be proud of the efforts you apply toward science. And for goodness sakes, remember that this is not pure mathematics. The rules are presented here and they are not quite the same as pure mathematics. I can't stress that enough. This is not pure mathematics.

Mordred, using a sliding scale does indeed make a difference. Let's look again at the example I gave you previously. If you have a sample that is currently -5 degrees Celsius and you wanted to double the temperature of that sample using the Celsius scale, multiplying -5 by 2 (doubling) gives you - 10 degrees Celsius. Not only did you not double the temperature of your sample, you actually reduced it. The rules of addition and subtraction presented above work great with sliding scales like celsius. Setting zero at a point between the ends of your scale allows you add or subtract to determine a value relative to your designated zero. Trying to use multiplication or division on such a scale doesn't produce good science. I imagine this is why the kelvin scale was invented in the first place. Also, you can have a "sliding scale" using the rules for multiplication and division. Instead of setting a value of zero (which does not appear in the rules of multiplication and division I have presented) you change the value of one. Let's use an example everyone should be familiar with. Let's say we are currently using meters as our unit. We can "slide" the scale by changing the value of our unit (our designated value of the number: one) from being a meter to being a centimeter. Anything less than a centimeter on this scale is a division of our unit. Everything greater than our scale is a multiple. In this context, the multiple or division can be a fraction. So long as the fraction is less than one, it counts as a division (much like negative numbers equal subtractions on an addition and subtraction sliding scale.) If the fraction is greater than one, it counts as a multiple (like a positive number equals an addition on an addition and subtraction sliding scale.)

Mordred, now you are getting somewhere. I don't know about the baseline of quantum mechanics. So if you don't mind, I have a few questions. First, is the baseline used for addition and subtraction, or is multiplication and division used as well? If the zero point energy is not absolute zero and multiplication or division is used what happens when the energy is equal to the zero point? If division is used, the results would give us a clear picture of the true answers involving the value of zero when used in division. It is currently unable to be defined as far as I am aware. If multiplication and division is not used with baseline in quantum mechanics then you would use the rules for addition and subtraction.