Strange

There was a software update but I haven’t seen any new features. I haven’t had any cookie notices so I don’t know what’s going on there

! Moderator Note You were told not to bring this nonsense up again unless you had some evidence to support your claims.

But you made up this sound. Presumably so you can hear what you want in it, to support your delusions/beliefs.

Quite. A quick search found zero results for noise from a simulation of a Bose Einstein Condensate. So I can't even begin to guess what input source you used. And I cannot imagine what sort of "common algorithm" would turn noise into a synthesised instrument. Edit: Ah, I see on the other thread where you posted this, you admit it is a guess. I'm afraid your guesses about non-existent musical sounds don't count as evidence for gods. Do try harder. And try to be honest next time.

Get a life, man. Sheesh. It’s a bit of fun.

You’ll have to read the paper to see if they meet your exacting standards or just used a realistic approximation.

A great circle. (Obviously?) The paper is here, if you want more details: https://arxiv.org/abs/1804.07389 What is that? It is not a term I have heard before (apart from once living on El Camino Real).

In computer graphics, there are certainly problems that are easier to solve using the equation of a plane than vectors; this includes clipping, shading and some hidden surface algorithms. This is not the same thing you are talking about (it is very simple mathematics) but it does confirm that transforming from one representation to another can simplify some problems. Which brings us to another important question: how does one transform a "traditional" definition of direction (an x,y,z unit vector) to your system? And then how does one reverse the process?

This article talks about the same concepts from a different perspective: https://www.quantamagazine.org/how-space-and-time-could-be-a-quantum-error-correcting-code-20190103/

Interesting article on the longest straight line land route (from Portugal to China) and sailable sea route. https://bigthink.com/strange-maps/these-are-the-worlds-longest-straight-lines

Good point. And I suppose this implies a single atom can have a colour, even if we need some number of them for it to be detectable. (In my mind "bulk materials" included gases, but it may well have a more formal definition that doesn't.)

You won't. Fundamental particles are too small to see. Colour is a property of bulk materials, not fundamental particles.

Colour is a property of bulk materials, caused (mainly) by the way light interacts with the electrons in the material. So, for example, most conductors (such as metals) are highly reflective of most wavelengths because they have a "sea" of free electrons. Some materials are coloured because the microscopic structure causes interferences patterns - this is the reason for the colour of some butterflies and beetles. Individual fundamental particles may interact with light but they won't have a colour (they are two small to be seen, anyway).

For some reason you have to reload the page before you can see it.

Yes. Non sequitur This approaches dangerous levels of incoherence. Please try harder.

Einstein never claimed his theories were correct because of intuition and no one else accepted them because of intuition. Apart from that, you might have a good point. Remind me, what was it?

If that is the case, then you need to do a better job of defining the domain of the function. Of course I believe in chirality (after all, I wear left and right socks!). It is a fundamental property of asymmetrical systems. However, it has no obvious place in your equation which is why I think it would be (yet another) unnecessary distraction at this point. So, again: Can you give an example of a problem that can't be solved using vectors, and show us how your equation solves it?

In what sense?

Must ... resist ... must ... not ... downvote ...

Science doesn't really deal with "why". Or at least, not the "ultimate why". That is a question for philosophy or religion. The nearest that science gets is "how" something happens. For example: Whatever explanations or theories you have, in science you will ALWAYS end up with "we don't know" or "because it is" as the final answer to "why". That is true of your "theory" as well. Even if, by some chance, you were to be correct then someone can always as "why is space divided into cells" or "why do the cells behave that way" or whatever. And you will only be able to say (as you have already) "because I say so." By the way, the above list is from "Unsolved Mysteries of Fundamental Physics" by the (always excellent) John Baez. There is a video of him presenting it and a copy of his slides here: https://johncarlosbaez.wordpress.com/2019/01/02/unsolved-mysteries-of-fundamental-physics/ You might like it: No it can't. You are just moving the goalposts back one step. (And then insisting for no reason that no one can question it.)

Done: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Large_Electron–Positron_Collider

I have only asked "the sign of what". But I assume, from later comments, that you mean the sign of alpha, is that right? You said earlier that you couldn't tell N from S or E from W. Isn't that the meaning of the sign of alpha? So +alpha would be "forward" out of the plane and -alpha would be "backward" relative to the plane. No? (That is the usual sense of the sign of a surface normal.) I'm not even going to ask what you mean by chirality in this context. It just looks like another rabbit hole! Won't solve what problem? Can you give an example of a problem that can't be solved using vectors, and show us how this system solves it? So if we set v to 0.1 (radians) and lambda to pi/2 then the value of alpha is 2.98986 i In other words an imaginary number. I can't understand what that means. Maybe I have calculated wrong, see here: https://www.wolframalpha.com/input/?i=cot^-1(cos(v)+tan(sin^-1(sin(L%2F2)%2Fsin(v)))),+v%3D0.1,+L%3Dpi%2F2

The sign of what? And why does introducing distance make a difference? Direction has a sign (is that what you are referring to?) but distance doesn't. And this seems unbelievably complicated. You are starting with a very complex equation, then you think you need to add octonions (another very complex mathematical structure) to address its shortcomings. But you can't provide any rational reason for that, it is just a belief. And for what? You have not yet shown that this equation has any advantages. You claim it will solve all sorts of problems, but have presented no reason for anyone to believe that. You can't even use this equation to solve problems that are trivial using existing geometry. While we are are on that, can you go from this equation: to an equation for v or lambda? Go on then. A couple of questions (which have been asked before). 1. You asked people to provide an example circle and position and the equation would calculate alpha, the direction they were facing. When I do that for the most recent example, I get the value of alpha = 0°. Can you explain what that means? 0° with respect to what? 2. For some value of v and lambda, the resulting value of alpha is imaginary; what does that mean?

Some of us have only just started!

It looks like that wasn't true.