Iwonderaboutthings

Wow that is a lot of memory chips! 2,000 years on a regular desktop that is outrageous lol... Well I guess we will need to wait for when a Quantum Computer comes along, I hope to get incredible in my years to come with science and hope that all my efforts pays off...

Thanks for this information especially about the closed algebraic forms, I am definitely investing time on this...

Is Gravity " g and G" not included because unification takes place in another dimension IE ' The Speed of Light, Or the Quantum World"? Why is this? I thought that G was constant throughout the universe, similar to the speed of light? From what I am seeing then,,, "IN ATOMS THE FORCES ARE ENTIRELY DIFFERENT THAN G AND g? Residual, Force Carriers and Strong Nuclear Forces??? too?? YIkes! WAIT A MINUTE! I LOGGED BACK ON... You mean to tell me that even in the human body our atoms are not related to g and G??

G, g, and Strong Nuclear forces.... Are these forces all the same, or are they different??? Yes I know about acceleration, but it is still a force. G from what I know is the same in all the universe yes?? Science talks about forces, but if these forces have never been seen, how then can these forces be either related, the same things, or have different values, on different planets, altitudes and etc.. As per the periodic table being involved with invisible forces, only obscures matters even more... Please pardon this, but I don't get the point, this makes no sense whats so ever...

Your model is " incredible" but I think you are going a bit over board in " detail" and complexity.. One thing I am now doing, is never relating any of my models, concepts, nor ideas in general to anything in science I have never seen. For instance, have you ever seen a quark? I have not, this does not mean they don't exist, but if I did see one, I would then be able to describe this in my own way shape and form maybe even completely different than what science would consider legit.. As you can see, I do have a bad reputation here, just " by thinking" Now about CBS Cosmic Backgrounds, again I have never seen this, so I would not have an answer, " at least the correct one." Looking at your model, I can already tell you, that you are looking at physics in an incredible way! But allow yourself time to understand the basic properties.. For instance, this photo resembles much like a " computer screen" in hexadecimal format... But in a different light of things, it also resembles Sacred Geometry. In one area, it reminds me of the Z buffer in computer 3d graphics that uses Cartesian Coordinates, the camera in this 3d world faces you " the viewer" at 180 degrees, its called the frustum.. THEN! it looks like the electron configuration and table of elements.. DO YOU SEE WHAT HAPPENS WHEN 2 PEOPLE DON'T KNOW WHAT A MODEL IS DOING????? It opens ideas! and that is good! Now, you speak of quarks in this model, then that is where things get a little confusing for me, because again, I have not seen a quark so why would I put time and energy into something I have not seen? Dont get me wrong, it may be something good to do and may help the imagination visualize science much much better it just does not work for me... I hope your familiar with the strong nuclear forces " at least as it is described" in where its mentioned that the source of this " Strong Nuclear Force, is still not fully understood I imagine this force to be not seen by the naked eye... Perhaps, this is where your model can come in handy

Hymmm that " is " interesting... thanks...

I see, so I assume that the commutative rules of real algebra more apply to the real values of the imaginaries?? " or something like that." I just want to make sure before investing time in this area of math, I keep hearing i units, are a waste of time, don't provide solutions of any, and yet QM uses them.. There seems to be " on the internet" so much information that denotes so many areas in science, its hard to believe anything anymore... Any suggestions???

Ok now I am very confused, I thought that the commutative laws such as in algebra??? did not allow a solution to x^2 = -1? What confuses me about imaginary numbers is that it does " seem like a pointless method of calculations for applied "physics" But I have seen and read over and over again how so many find i units incredible.. Its best to ask around,,, The 12i deal? Sorry I should have placed this: The Square Root of 12 = 3.46410161514 The reason I am thinking this is because they say i is basically the " root " of the absolute value of a number, So when I see for example: A number such as 12i, or 46i or xi, I am thinking just " get the square root of the absolute value of that number.. Now in terms of all applied Methods for complex numbers usage, you really recommend that I just use these for fun?? I am wondering if this is why QM appears to be counter-intuitive?? Maybe its just the math involved?? Wave Function and Imaginary numbers. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wave_function Yes that is x^2 But one question, what is this that you are using --> +/- In your example here, where did the 100 come from?? it looks like 10^2/2 = 1/2 = .5 (6 +/- SQRT(36-100))/2 = (6 +/- SQRT(-1)*SQRT(64))/2 = 3 +/- 4*SQRT(-1) = 3 +/- 4i This area is really " where" I tend to focus the most" it looks like a " base 10 limit" If this is the case, " their is something missing" a unit of measure I would say... I don't mean to get deep, but a " black hole perhaps is missing?? For example it is known that in two "phase cycles" one of them always lags behinds the other, and appears to be unavoidable. http://www.mathworks.com/help/signal/ug/cross-correlation-of-phase-lagged-sine-wave.html You say: Also, the roots of a quadratic equation in this form are the point(s) where the plot of the quadratic function crosses the x axis i.e. where y = 0. Seriously " What is the point of this graph?? To me it looks like a Kepler orbit of some kind, coupled with Minowski Space Time.. Also, why is -3 so common in these types of graphs? Now it looks like 10^3 as a time plot period for frequencies, in where 10^3 decays " exponentially" with the distance of x dependent on y.. But due to imaginary units I am obscured on my ability to explain this correctly.. In this graph 3 and -4 clearly look like a maximum on a crest peak, but upside down... Does this " curve " have any other numbers attached to them in the form of the number line? Such as conjugate numbers? Matrix? Binary? I find it hard to think, that only 3 and -4 " 2 numbers " can explain if anything " anything about science." Unless those " 2 numbers " are really the exponents of x I assume this is where Summation comes in>>>?

Hey question here: About computers calculations: Could these calculations be done with a set of constants that can handle "exponentiation" therefore alleviate all the redundant processes time ? I hear much about processing power " issues" of the CPU, I have also read that a computer does not understand ratios which is why we adapted the rounding off to the nearest ten coupled with stack over flow and other precession base issues in the logic and registry of the CPU?? was that right?? They say quantum computers are not possible??? Not sure if this is the case, I think a simple algo rhythm with constants that do the exponentiation IE, the distances from manifold to manifold redundant calculations of multiples instances of code/ instruction/ and etc. Even beyond that, it could be a possibility to calculate billions of poly gons, triangulation, tessellation and may " just a thought here" allow video game creation with high " poly counts" versus low res models with " tiny texture maps and normal maps to " fake" high definition in the 3d game pipe line.. Or am I thinking way ahead of myself?? Thanks for the PDF...

The quadratic equation x2 -6x + 25 = 0 where the 2 roots are 3 + 4i and 3 - 4i X=2 (X - 3 -4i) * (X - 3 + 4i) = X2 -3x +4Xi -3X +9 -12i -4Xi +12i -(4i)2 I am mostly into " normal' calculus derivatives and just started learning imaginary units because many people use them and thought I better upgrade ASAP.. So, the issue is basically the order of operations and this 12i deal. for instance when I see 12i, I am thinking the square root of 12 logically *-1 = -12 My mind just sees the easy way out..These imaginary units seem to be counteractive, but I am willing to give it a try,,,I hear they are used in QM and other rigorous forms of dimensional analyzing as well. I am wondering if there is also a numerical example online I can see, have not had much luck other than number theory.. thanks!

Hey thanks for the response and the links, I need to say that it is interesting stuff, one thing I do find interesting is how physical formulas are able to predict " out comes" per say, meaning that the laws of nature can be predicted by a formula and yet the prediction appears to follow the evolution of time as a frequency rather energy. The whole thing is cloudy to me as to which is really which...

I think you are " over looking the simple concepts here" "Forces" are a phenomena, you cannot expect to understand " Cosmology" with a complex model of which you posted without having a solid generalization on "AT-LEAST" Trigonometry. Calculus, Derivatives And imaginary units... Why? Because they help you derive a unit of measure that can be tested " with those constants" ... But I Still have no idea, what your model describes, what it means or what you are doing. I searched this------------->CMB Spectrum, Is this Cosmology??? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cosmic_microwave_background I keep asking you to describe in detail what you are trying to express, line per line in your model using --->sentences.. To me your model "looks" of mixture: Minkowski Space time and Special Relativity in one sense, but then you talk about CMB Spectrum which from what I see relates to Cosmology??? It would help here, if you would add more detail to what you are talking about... F4, what is an F4??? Type the entire word, but F4 may just be a term I am not familiar with other than the button on my lap top.

If you don't understand String Theory, then how do you expect to understand your models, what they can achieve and how science can benifit from your knowledge? It looks like theoretical mathematics??? At least to me, your model is very and extremely complex... I would recommend you to describe every number with a " written description" of what " it means." Do this line by line, step by step with everything on your photos.. It looks like you will need to re-write them " over again to." This will give others a clue in how to formulate a response and grasp the mental visualization of what you are trying to describe through your work here.. I have found that science becomes easier when you apply " visualization and concept examples" to your theories and or questions about your work especially dealing with other scientist of whom may describe something different but still under the guidelines of the physical laws of nature . Do you understand??? Remember, mathematics and modeling physical phenomena is based solely on a generalization of the idea. It is a generalization of physical phenomena... Remember when I asked if you could give a simple numerical example???? I asked twice already... Sometimes it best to be simple, versus extreme..

,,,Hymm I see, I got the link thanks for the info..

Understood, but if Electromagnetism is a separate phenomenon. why do they refer to this as Electromagnetism, I think really its the grammar in the books and the online information, because it does seem to be totally separated... Hym, it seems that I have really miss- understood what g was, I always thought it to be the actual--->force.. F= ma, I think its the algebraic expression that has me " twisted" with words and insight here... However, can you say that as per the link: ""the attractive and repulsive forces"" That this force , JUST THE WORD ' force with no interaction' , is found at the atomic level??? Pardon the weird question, but I have no idea what force is,,, yes I understand about interaction with matter, what I don't get is the reasoning for force in the first place... Do we really need it??? maybe its not even there?? What proof besides what we have today, prove something that is not seen?? It is very hard to understand science dealing with something invisible its like trying to catch a ghost...

If you change your radius or the amount of mass involved, g is no longer relevant. Is this what causes, weight phenomena?? I look at this as angular momentum, but could be wrong.. However, if this is the case, then g seems to have a relation to time...

Drag (physics) http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Drag_(physics) The drag points up and g points down on earth, understood. Since outer space is basically an empty vacuum, how can electro magnetism travel through it and yet still be correlated with G, the Constant of Proportionality? I think somewhere in Maxwell's equation they use Force, but I am very confused on what this F is???it seems to have different values on planets, on earth's surface then in empty space, so please pardon my confusion.. Its the Force I don't understand here, what is it?????????? Maxwell's Equations and Electromagnetic Waves http://galileoandeinstein.physics.virginia.edu/more_stuff/Maxwell_Eq.html Limits to Resolution http://www.ou.edu/research/electron/bmz5364/resolutn.html Ok, I understand, What causes this limits of resolution?? Distance and Time??? Atomic force microscopy http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scanning_tunneling_microscope What is this force?? Is it still g = 9.8 m/s ? What about red shifts??? Redshift http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Redshift On another note, but closely related: Angular Size, why divide by 12??? Here is an example: A tennis ball is 2.5 inches in diameter. At what distance would it have to be so that it would have the same angular size as the Moon (about 30 minutes of arc) ? We want to solve for distance, so we click that button. Since we are going to input the angle in-minutes we click that button. Input 30 minutes and 2.5 inches, click "calculate" and your answer is 286.48 inches. Dividing this by 12, the answer is about 23.87 feet. We also could have input .5 degrees and still arrived at the same answer. What is the point to this calculation, when . 5 could have still been used??? HERE IS THE LINK: Angular Size Calculator http://www.1728.org/angsize.htm On another note, but closely related: Minkoswki Space Time, And The Center of Mass..Gravitational constant Both appear to resemble the same " form and structure of calculation" Minkoswki Space Time calculates about a fixed axis. Gravitational constant calculates about a fix point between 2 masses in empty space.. Both share relation to the center of a masses in empty space, similar as Minkoswki Space Time, about a fixed point in empty space as well..... If Issac newton never saw an electron he sure did understand many properties of " force" that are able to predict outcomes and derive results

Earth is very very huge and yet still we experiment weight phenomena on the surface of earth, not earth as a whole?? why????? This formula describes a huge planet, and yet that same value can be found on the surface of earth.. why????? Accelerometers prove this: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Accelerometer Yes I know it deals with acceleration, but it registers 1 g and deduces motion from there... Why??

So centuries ago Issac knew this in our current time? The terminal velocity of a falling object is the velocity of the object when the sum of the drag force (Fd) and buoyancy equals the downward force of gravity (FG) acting on the object. Since the net force on the object is zero, the object has zero acceleration. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Terminal_velocity certain limits? Ok I can understand that through IE: exponentially decay, singularities, periodic waves, degrees, minutes seconds, especially frequencies and periods, other sources of physical phenomena, red shifts, e^x, x^n+1 " summations " the list goes on and on, not to mention the weight phenomena on the surface of earth, let alone having other values on other planets, from terminal velocities to Special Relativity, limits appear to be everywhere. You say certain limits, but it was these limits he understood through his work centuries ago, I assume also with no microscope? and yet g and G in general seems to be more and more left in the dark, IE not really talked about anymore why bother... Maybe he simply " derived those limits?" he did invent calculus.. Yes I am aware that Newton's Equation are still used today, but they seem to clash with "electrical limits" discrete ones too, IE limits that deal with say, seconds, ie frequencies and etc light refraction. And yet g points up and down simultaneously on earth ? I am reading that Wiki Page Correctly??? Doesn't the electron have mass? I assume Issac Newton must have known about it, due to these limits we mention, I see it all the time in math and science, and yet " I see " distance is always relative to distance, its never seconds relative to seconds... If he never seen the electron, the pure geometry has the upper hand and everything we've known in the whole of science.. Doesn't an electron microscope bring the subatomic world closer to the human eye sight??? So, you say that gravity has not connection within the atom?? it took me a while to figure that one out " " It makes sense! Question: Taylor Series, Sin Functions, Fourier Series , Wave Function etc, they seem to use the same " thing" and that is a curve that goes in both directions sin and cos... It gets very very frustrating, and annoying on making proper judgement as to which is which let alone to a constant limits...should be a cosmic limit! Am I the only one rethinking about sine and cosines? I assumed something like this was the case and the mention of it now brings it back to me, I remembered reading this some years ago... But I am thinking more on the electron side, because of the original Bore Models perspective But then on the behalf of the solar system, Einstein found that light and gravity behave differently... So maybe now this link complicates things

I Googled this entire title but really no luck at all... I assume no he did not? But if this is the case, then how on earth was he able to conclude so much about what we know today as " science." Perhaps it was all geometrically understood in his time? And maybe its those geometrical gaps of Euclidean Space that make our understanding of QM and Physics Clash?? Sin: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trigonometric_functions Under: Series definitions Regarding : Tangent When this series for the secant function is expressed in a form in which the denominators are the corresponding factorials, the numerators, called the "secant numbers", have a combinatorial interpretation: they enumerate alternating permutations of finite sets of even cardinality.

Is it true that in the space shuttle, 9.8 m/s is still the affect of acceleration ?? I don't remember the link, but they stated as per special relativity, that if you are inside a closed system " per say" that g = 9.8 m/s still holds true in empty space as it still would on the earth's surface if and only if you are inside this " system" IE space ship, rocket space suit even I assume... In the case of the space suite, would a naked human body in outer space " Their Skin" be applicable as a system on itself?? Since I am here, if a placed a rock in my hand and held it still, " here on earth" is g still constant with no acceleration?? Meaning that so long I don't move my hand while holding the rock " but feeling its weight" does g still register as 9.8 m/s ? Does 9.8 m/s also apply at the atomic scale as well. Meaning that do residual forces, strong and weak " within the atom" also register 9.8 m/s From what I am gathering gravity seems to be very complex and I am rethinking many things over from what I had understood years ago...

So then earth would need to be calculated relative to another planet?

Here is the link, the area in which this is stated is right a bit above the 10th page, close to the end of the article: Spacetime at the Planck Scale: The Quantum Computer View http://arxiv.org/ftp/gr-qc/papers/0304/0304032.pdf Planck Scale defines the laws of Physics.. Here is the copied area of interest: As we have already said, we believe that the recursive functions computed by quantum space-time at the Planck scale are the laws of Physics in their discrete, abstract, and fundamental form. Does this mean that the laws of nature are " pre-defined" by a deductive logical " computer" system defined as Quantum Mechanics, or did I miss-interpret something? Now, I am not condoning any beliefs, nor fashion and or styles of theories, maths and etc and I have quite an opened mind to many things... But am I reading that article correctly? I perceive that they are saying that " The Physical Laws" Such as those from Albert Einstein Max Plank, Newton and many others, are predefined and regulated by this super quantum computer in the universe... When thinking however about the extremes of the Double Slit, it kinda makes you wonder..

YOUR 100% CORRECT AND THANKS! I was wondering if this was the case, but rather be told by professionals, now things are much clearer.. states it here too: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/G-force Since such a force is perceived as a weight, any g-force can be described as a "weight per unit mass" Many online resources refer to g as 9.8 m/s on the earth's surface so it was a tid but confusion, I should have remember this from some time back... SO THEN?????????? What is the earth's surface then in relation to this g force of acceleration??

No time, no frequency, no electricity at all in this experiment. Then what was the point of this experiment and Hook's Law?? Everyone makes such a big deal about how famous he became after this law.. I assume the restoring force would be g 9.8 m/s on the earth's surface then? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Restoring_force What does g on the earth's havto do do with this "No time, no frequency, no electricity at all in this experiment" Does this mean earth's g force on the surface of earth is null = 0???? I heard it said before that earth " appears to be stationary" in lectures dealing with Holographic Universes And String Theory. When I said distance as mass, I really should have said radians since this would be the case of distance being = 0.. But never quite figured out its multi-purpose uses... Much wave phenomena uses radians to describe a wave disturbance, I figured the mass on the spring " and spring in general" system had something to do with waves phenomena since the experiment is basically =0 Like I said I am finding " now " the very basics becoming quite difficult to understand. pedantry "excessive concern with minor details and rules" https://www.google.com/search?q=pedantry&oq=pedantry&aqs=chrome..69i57j0l5.727j0j4&sourceid=chrome&es_sm=93&ie=UTF-8 727 runs out of gas in mid air because of unit error Fuel loading was miscalculated due to a misunderstanding of the recently adopted metric system which replaced the imperial system. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gimli_Glider ""Feynman avoids exposing the reader to the mathematics of complex numbers by using a simple but accurate representation of them as arrows on a piece of paper or screen"" http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quantum_electrodynamics NASA's metric confusion caused Mars orbiter loss - CNN.com http://www.cnn.com/TECH/space/9909/30/mars.metric/ I think you get the point