LittleBoPeep Posted August 14, 2012 Posted August 14, 2012 (edited) Time is the degree of variation between two points in space. Below is the equation the information plugged into the equation will be the observation of the observer. Everything with time is in reference of now that is always the starting point. Second point can be history, Future or another object right now... This is the scientific explanation justified with an actual verifiable equation... If you actually take the time to plug in some numbers you will find that TIME = DISTANCE this remove light from the equation which is our current misunderstanding of everything. Time was the measurement of the motion of light across the linear plane. NOW IT IS... _________________________ Time = ((pi)2r/360)({-+}L) -+ ((pi)2r/360)D pi2r = is the equation for circumference points observed based on altitude position of planet/object it resides upon. L = is the total Longitudinal degrees to the shortest distance between the current (NOW) starting position to the destination, which never exceeds 180 because that is the defining characteristic for the next step.. {+} = L moves with the gravitation rotation up to 180 degrees Longitudinal from the starting position (if over 180 then repeat step for opposing sign) {-} = L moves against the gravitation rotation up to 180 degrees Longitudinal from the starting position (if over 180 then repeat step for opposing sign) + = Future - = Past D = is our current understanding of time expressed in degrees (1 day = 360 Degrees) _______________________ Time is the degree of variation between NOW and a second point in space. Space is 3D. Altitude, Longitude, Latitude and is restricted by position. Time is the 2D representation of Space. Altitude, Longitude and is restricted by motion. Both provide the exact same information but the deference lies in the visual representation... EXAMPLE: Pie graph vs line graph.... ADDITIONALLY, In the equation there are two forms of energy that may eventually use the same formula to explain energy... Force Energy is observer dependent and momentum energy is environmental constant. The force energy of the two points can be combined to create an average but two momentum will require you solve for one and then convert to the other planet size... Time = (Degree of Change)(Force Energy)+-(Degree of Change)(Momentum Energy) Information is received from our senses and is stored by our brain. We can only interpret 3D in the moment if the information is radiated like a wave (Allowing multiple angles of the same point)and all other information is perceived 3D by past/future stored information in the brain. While the equation may allow absolute calculation it is still based on relative reality/information/perception or misperception of the observer... Edited August 14, 2012 by LittleBoPeep
Klaynos Posted August 14, 2012 Posted August 14, 2012 ! Moderator Note Hi LittleBoPeep, I've split your post into a new thread and moved it to the speculation section of the forums.Can you please review our speculation rules which can be found here:http://www.scienceforums.net/index.php?app=forums&module=forums§ion=rules&f=29 Can you please define force energy and momentum energy?How do you explain the vast experimental evidence for special relativity and show that your equation produces the same results?Your equations also appear to be linked to the earth, that is not a good idea so the earth is a terrible clock. Using seconds is the common standard. Could you show how your equation could be used to describe clocks in different space ships as observed from each other?
LittleBoPeep Posted August 14, 2012 Author Posted August 14, 2012 (edited) CASE STUDY: A Sundial!!! A sundial allows us to tell what time it is on a 2D Plane Latitude and Longitude and is our current understanding... When a sundial is placed on the absolute north pole AXIS It demonstrates degree of change base from the 360 Degree rotation of the earth... Times measurement remains constant at every longitudinal degree as long as the dial is perpendicular to the AXIS of rotation. For this contraption to work it requires an interpreter of the to translate time from Altitude and longitude Information to Latitude and longitude. Technologies developed upon the Latitudinal and Longitudinal method of measurement furthered our ability understand to comprehend the information hitting us in the face... If I am able to express that a sundial uses an Item standing in the plane of altitude OR simply uses ALTITUDE to create a measurable method; that our current time equation and definition does not take ALTITUDE into account and give you a math mathematical equation that can express time absolutely in the relative reality of the observer; then what I am I suppose to do? This is the science community what pieces am I missing in communicating that this is the time equation... It can be seen in the original measuring technology... Advances in math and science removed the defining information and expressed it with inaccuracy... PLEASE Let me know my errors... I will say one thing time is right angle that is current but not to space.... No No Nooo Time is right angle to our current understanding of time and that is ALTITUDE... Edited August 14, 2012 by LittleBoPeep
LittleBoPeep Posted August 14, 2012 Author Posted August 14, 2012 (edited) Hi LittleBoPeep, I've split your post into a new thread and moved it to the speculation section of the forums. Can you please define force energy and momentum energy? I can not really explain difference of energy completely yet... But in-terms of the what I have so far: FORCE is the ability to resist, accept or accelerate gravitational rotation on a planet. This can be increased with observer dependent items; like trains plains and automobiles. It is the observers controllable potential energy of change from moment to moment. MOMENTUM is the energy provided universally in a controlled environment. This is still needs more additional thought because if we are discussing two planets in our solar system as the points; then the Sun becomes the momentum constant and the planets energy is transferred into the equation's force energy. I do insist in other post that "the equation is defined by its parts"... How do you explain the vast experimental evidence for special relativity and show that your equation produces the same results? I can explain it with a simple case study or I should say the original case study... CASE STUDY: A Sundial!!! A sundial allows us to tell what time it is on a 2D Plane of Latitude and Longitude and is our current understanding and measurement of time... When a sundial is placed on the absolute north pole AXIS It demonstrates degree of change based happening by the 360 Degree rotation of the earth... Times measurement remains constant at every longitudinal degree as long as the dial is perpendicular to the AXIS of rotation. For this contraption to work it requires an interpreter of the to translate time from Altitude and longitude Information to Latitude and longitude measurements. Technologies developed upon the Latitudinal and Longitudinal method of measurement furthered our ability to understand and comprehend the information... I will say one thing "time is at right angles" that is correct but not to space.... No No Nooo Time is right angle to our current understanding of time and that is ALTITUDE... The error developed or missed is a globe has a restrictive outer layer and to exceeds that we would have to crate a new layer that is in reference to or right angle of the previous but if we cut the globe in half with an infinite knife we would be able to see and account for all layer seen and unseen... SPECIAL RELATIVITY: Is smashing two graphs together and calling it a new item without know it is wrong... The variation in gravity/force/warp was Einsteins way to express the momentum energy from the proposed equation. The outer most shell is its defining ability to apply momentum to an object... Time restricting properties of motion does not make any sense if viewing information based on Position and LIKEWISE, Spaces restrictive properties of position will not make sense if viewing information base on motion. Space is our whole and we can now pull different data from these items to create new absolute understanding of other ideas that elude our understanding. Your equations also appear to be linked to the earth, that is not a good idea so the earth is a terrible clock. Using seconds is the common standard. Could you show how your equation could be used to describe clocks in different space ships as observed from each other? Ok TIME is always linked to the observers interpretation of space yes. Basically lets clear up how to image how times equation is viewed in a visual sense... LITERALLY like placing a huge single arm clock flat on the ground and placing many different navigational compasses on that arm. What would we see? It starts at a rotating point and then stretches out like a clock hand to infinite length... As the moments pass so does the arm in time if we measure the distance of change at point on the arm we will see that distance increases as we move away from the center. BUT the degree of distance traveled compared to the circumference of each point remains constant... To travel increase distance in the same amount as smaller ones require increased speed. SO!!! as you travel farther away form the center the speed of items Increase... Since the altitude as our constant now 0 altitude is attached to this line and its position is determined by the speed at which planets are change from moment to moment.. Now hopefully that makes sense if not let me know what I need to convey clearer. Most likely I will Have to draw a diagram but it will make sense when it makes sense... -------------------------- The reason for the long explanation was to explain that the degree of change is constant and when items are place at the appropriate speed in times line we will see uniform rotation. LITERALLY like placing a huge single arm clock flat on the ground and placing many different navigational compasses on that arm. What would we see? Everything would rotate and spin at the same degree in accordance to their position in time. Since everything is constant the now moment is constant..... I believe the question that many will have is will my clock change? No but I would insist that there would be classifications between/requirement by some fields to incorporate this new time into work... Simple tasks as planing a party probably will remain the same until society requires transition... Edited August 15, 2012 by LittleBoPeep
Bignose Posted August 15, 2012 Posted August 15, 2012 If you actually take the time to plug in some numbers you will find that TIME = DISTANCE Science has been supremely successful with the dimension of time and the dimensions of distance being independent and orthogonal. For example, the equation that describes how concentration profiles change over time and space: [math]\frac{\partial c}{\partial t}= D \frac{\partial ^2 c}{\partial x^2}[/math] has been proved incredibly accurate time and time again. How exactly do you plan on replacing time with distance in this? Or, maybe start simpler: How many angstroms is it going to take me to wash the cat when it normally takes over an hour (he really doesn't like bath time)?
LittleBoPeep Posted August 15, 2012 Author Posted August 15, 2012 (edited) Science has been supremely successful with the dimension of time and the dimensions of distance being independent and orthogonal. For example, the equation that describes how concentration profiles change over time and space: [math]\frac{\partial c}{\partial t}= D \frac{\partial ^2 c}{\partial x^2}[/math] has been proved incredibly accurate time and time again. How exactly do you plan on replacing time with distance in this? Thank you for your equation... My equation suggusts that "Time = Distance" and assuming that your equation states that C is the speed of light or [math]c= \frac{\ d^2}{\ t^2}[/math] and t is Time and D is distance and I would state that... Since I can prove Time = Distance your equation is now: [math] t^2 = \frac{\ x^2}{\partial}[/math] and [math] D^2 = \frac{\ x^2}{\partial}[/math] THE MATH; EQUATION: [math]\frac{\partial c}{\partial t}= D \frac{\partial ^2 c}{\partial x^2}[/math] Since Distance equals Time then Light is removed from the equation:[math]\frac{\partial}{\partial t}= D \frac{\partial ^2}{\partial x^2}[/math] Anything Divided by itself is 1 so: [math] t= D \frac{\partial}{\ x^2}[/math] (**** t is suppose to be 1/t but I keep getting a syntex error But it is removed in the next step anyways) I multiply t to both sides: [math]1= t^2 \frac{\partial}{\ x^2}[/math] or [math]1= D^2 \frac{\partial}{\ x^2}[/math] If the 1 is bothersome then: [math] t^2 = \frac{\ x^2}{\partial}[/math] and [math] D^2 = \frac{\ x^2}{\partial}[/math] If my equation is verified and accepted by the appropriate community things will be simpler because we will be working with the appropriate tools... Or, maybe start simpler: How many angstroms is it going to take me to wash the cat when it normally takes over an hour (he really doesn't like bath time)? Again I appreciate the comment because you chose to at least share your knowledge... This is not my field and I am not knowledgeable in the field of physics; I am asking the knowledgeable community to disqualify the equation and not state that it doesn't deserve merit for research because another equation already exist... I am simple asking everyone to do the math... and disprove the equation based on the level of math that the equation is presented not some advanced formula mathematics... It has simple terms and its answer works at all levels reality and theory... Possibly absolute... I understand that it will be filled with relative perception of information by the observer making the answer relative but the Equation itself should stand as ABSOLUTE... If you could spell out the terms of the symbols in the equation in the future I can then look it up and do further research again this is not my field... Thank you for your interaction... ----------------- I am sorry I did not know what angsroms am still not sure but I think it is a time telling question... The equation lines everything on one arm of a clock so everything is experienced the same LIKE many navigational compasses on a large clock arm all AXIS stay perpendicular to one another creating the perfect time... If a planet rotates opposite of ours then it will be placed opposite side and it will rotate counter clockwise... To get this to swing on one are we would indicate the opposite rotating object with an opposing sign indicating that the hemispheres are switched but still perpendicular with everything else... NOW there are still 360 degrees in every day or full rotation of the planet or moon or rotating object. So we would switch time to degrees and we would just adjust the need degree of variation to make 0 degrees mean high noon... But days will be the same... ABSOLUTELY: Let say we are at absolute 0 degrees but are sun is beaming directly at the 90 degrees of our planet (The right side would be lit up.) Our planet would have a 90 degree variation to 0 or High Noon (Lights maximum presence) Then Each person would have take reference how far they are from the planets observered High NOON before they actually observer High Noon OR Observational 0 degrees for themselves... Much like our Time Zones But absolute... The reasons for this would be to maintain our routine in how time is presented and observered, otherwise I hope we would just change to the planets observered High Noon because we need to separate light from our understanding of time... In future post I will stop using absolute I got my point across... But telling time will still be from Day to Day with only 360 degrees to worry about but our understanding will allow for changes in light positions, of the orbital track, an increase/decrease in spin and variation in altitudes... Edited August 15, 2012 by LittleBoPeep
LittleBoPeep Posted August 15, 2012 Author Posted August 15, 2012 (edited) Now to adjust for varying circumferences at different Latitudes Or connecting time to space... This is the easy part to explain... The equator is the maximum point and will receive 0 percent variation from times equation while each pole will receive 100 percent. Space dictates that the Equator is 0 as well but each poll is 90 degrees so a conversion is needed to attain the appropriate percentage of change needed to account for varying circumferences in Latitudes... Equation: [math]\frac{\ 90}{\ 100}= \frac{\ y}{\ x}[/math] Y = the average Latitude maintained between the two points traveled in space X= Corrected percentage to multiple times equation to account for varying distance in Latitude And replug the distance back into your starting point on the equator and you will have an accurate position on the equator that accounts for Latitude variation... This entire idea has defined Time as 2 dimensional and connecting it to 3 dimensional with functional mechanics of Space while maintaining basic mathematics that removed errors created by lights presence... Right angle.... At this point I do not know what else needs to be stated to get the idea across.... Any Input is welcomed... Edited August 15, 2012 by LittleBoPeep
LittleBoPeep Posted August 15, 2012 Author Posted August 15, 2012 (edited) I have attached a file a that show where the errors is coming from and what the right angle Spacetime Issue is really telling use... This is not a finished image but can convey what is going one the top row messes with the mind perception but if you ignore the additional colored arcs that failed at indicating spins direction... In the final image this will be fixed... ------------------------------ Altitude is infinite at any point of the planet. And time is a 2 dimensional problem. If we use altitude as one of the dimensions then which dimension would the second one be? Latitude has varying circumferences that would require changing the equation while Longitude has a constant circumference the entire 360 degrees of measurement... So is we paired Longitude and Altitude then we could say. Time is 100% infinite. If we paired Latitude with altitude then we would say: Time has varying degrees of infinity... Which one is right? Is should we use? Is there additional information needed? ------------------------------------------------------ IMAGE DISCUSSION: The Top two rows are a visual representation of what I have been trying to state through this entire thread about what the equation is? Time is motion measurement of motion and motion is the measurement of distance traveled. I know this will sound crazy but if we remove the Time/motion= Motion/Distance if we solve Time/distance or Distance/Time any which way Time is a degree of distance traveled... The Bottom is a visual representation of our current time measurement and explains the right angle shift... Time is the motion of light and motion is the measurement of distance traveled... SOOOO Time/(Light)Motion = Motion/Distance and we have Time/Light(Distance) or Light(Distance)/Time... If you have any issues with the image it was done with math not forced perspective. Do the math of the proposed equation and verify whether it is right or wrong. Have question about the image... Look at the shadowed series and imagine time as the second from the top row and you are standing at the north pole shining light down to cast an image... Time is producing the shadow on our current measurement of Time; Time is not the Shadow or restricted by light the visual representation of time is restricted by light........ Light is just an interpreter of time to allow us to try to figure it out... RIGHT ANGLE SHIFTING; is depicted in the bottom still trying to figure out how depict in 2d picture... KEY point is to realize that the top half of the suns side is one side of the planet ant the bottom is the opposite. So in order to read time on latitudes and longitude plane light has to connect the errors forcing the shift... I WILL REFINE THIS BUT HAVE BEEN WORKING ON THIS ALL DAY... PLEASE LEAVE A INPUT... :lol::lol: Please enjoy share and hand to your teacher and say you just figured it out.. or say hey if I solve the error in time will you give me an A... I JUST CRACKED IT!!!! Time Is 3d and here is an equation that utilizes all three dimension appropriately Time is the degree of variation between the position of NOW and a second point in space. Time = ((pi)2r/360)({-+}L) -+ ((pi)2r/360)D --------------------------------------------------------------- pi2r = is the averages of Latitudinal circumferences of the observered points calculated with the average Altitudinals or the positions on the planet/object it resides upon. L = is the total Longitudinal degrees to the shortest distance between the current (NOW) starting position to the destination, which never exceeds 180. (if you count over 180 stop and repeat step counting longitude going the other direction from the starting point) {+} = L moves with the gravitation rotation up to 180 degrees Longitudinal from the starting position {-} = L moves against the gravitation rotation up to 180 degrees Longitudinal from the starting position + = Future - = Past D = is our current understanding of time expressed in degrees (1 day = 360 Degrees) ---------------------------------------------------------------- The circumference is a combination of Altitude and Latitude... The Altitude adjusts the restrictive/varying properties of Latitude. L account for Longitudinal change D is the motion While the word may be lacking elegance this is the equation that corrects everything... It is an average of the two points but the equation is a 100% Infinite that can account for variation... Edited August 16, 2012 by LittleBoPeep
LittleBoPeep Posted August 16, 2012 Author Posted August 16, 2012 (edited) Here is a brief one page of the entire idea that you can explain to friends why this is correct The function of space needs to fit into times equation.. Our errors occur when we try to adjust for in inadequate input information or data... After working the equation out you will notice light is removed from all equations... You will also see that the "right angle infinity" the defining quality of space time is removed... SIMPLE EASY FUN... and IGNORE THE WORD JOKE THIS IF FOR A PRESENTATION... Edited August 16, 2012 by LittleBoPeep
Klaynos Posted August 16, 2012 Posted August 16, 2012 Can you calculate the correction that is needed on a GPS satellite using your idea? I'll try and address your reply to my previous post this evening. It's a little wall of word salad though.
LittleBoPeep Posted August 16, 2012 Author Posted August 16, 2012 (edited) I'll try and address your reply to my previous post this evening. It's a little wall of word salad though. I completely agree... I apologize about it I have been trying to get approval to go back and re edit but have not received word yet... I have been using these sites as a form of brain storming and journal to break through a dry-spell or circular thinking loops that are not progressing the concept.. Additionally, As I progress with this Idea or working concept it becomes easier to express... The problem lies in having to learn math and the appropriate terminology... Here is a that explains the Image that has the word joke in it... In the description of the video it sums everything up pretty clearly of what I have done... Can you calculate the correction that is needed on a GPS satellite using your idea? I do not know what gps satellite correction is needed or literally what you are talking about... If GPS uses current NOW position in space and has another point in space for its Destination then yes... ---------------------- The only way to combine the space and time Is to literally change Times Equation to be 2 Points of SPACE AND 1 motion of TIME... Or Beginning(SPACE) Middle(TIME) and End(SPACE)... This equation places the 3 dimensional of Space distance on one side and Times motion distance on the other side of equation; Maintaining our current Idea of time as 2d PAST-PRESENT-FUTURE Linear line. Time is the degree of variation between NOW and a second point in Space. [math] TIME = \frac{\ SD}{\ 720}([+ - ]L) +-(\frac{\ SD}{\ 720})P[/math] S = is the average Latitudinal circumference at the Altitudinal position of the observed on the planet/object it resides upon of the STARTING position. D = is the average Latitudinal circumference at the Altitudinal position of the observed on the planet/object it resides upon of the DESTINATION position. L = is the total Longitudinal degrees to the shortest distance between the current (NOW) starting position to the destination, which never exceeds 180. (if you count over 180 stop, repeat step and reverse the counting direction of the longitude from the starting point.) [+] = L moves with the gravitation rotation up to 180 degrees Longitudinal from the starting position [-] = L moves against the gravitation rotation up to 180 degrees Longitudinal from the starting position + = Future - = Past P = is period of time in degrees (1 day = 360 Degrees) _______________________ The circumference is a combination of Altitude and Latitude... The Altitude adjusts the restrictive/varying properties of Latitude. L account for Longitudinal change P is the motion Edited August 16, 2012 by LittleBoPeep
LittleBoPeep Posted August 17, 2012 Author Posted August 17, 2012 (edited) attempt to express that time degree/percentage of change can adjust for errored math at varying altitudes (I think its called Doppler Effect) in 3 dimensional space. Times equation has Longitudinal degree of change which is viewed as a percentage on one side between the starting and Finishing points; Time Motion is the percentage of change between the starting and Finishing points on the other-side and the singular finite Measurement that is defined by the averages of Altitudes and Latitudes from both point on both sides... BASICALLY Side 1 accounts for the percentage of change an observer can resist accept or accelerate the movement of his environment and side 2 the percentage of time changed from one points to the other point... My next video will be Defining the parts. Time is the degree of variation between NOW and a second point in Space. [math] TIME = \frac{\ SD}{\ 720}([+ - ]L) +-(\frac{\ SD}{\ 720})P[/math] S = is the average Latitudinal circumference at the Altitude of the STARTING position observer of the planet/object it resides upon. D = is the average Latitudinal circumference at the Altitude of the Destination position observer of the planet/object it resides upon. L = is the total Longitudinal degrees to the shortest distance between the current (NOW) starting position to the destination, which never exceeds 180. (if you count over 180 stop, repeat step and reverse the counting direction of the longitude from the starting point.) {+} = L moves with the gravitation rotation up to 180 degrees Longitudinal from the starting position {-} = L moves against the gravitation rotation up to 180 degrees Longitudinal from the starting position + = Future - = Past P = is period of time expressed in degrees (1 day = 360 Degrees) Edited August 17, 2012 by LittleBoPeep
LittleBoPeep Posted August 17, 2012 Author Posted August 17, 2012 (edited) I built a Google Doc and it will be public by next week It will be basic but it will be constructed to be able to plug and play.... With the appropriate verification system built in... ONLY A 2% error.... I did get one 6 % but I will post the first testing session of the Google Spreadsheet... I understand this is hard to accept but It is not faked the math is real and the concepts are solid... I am looking for the appropriate community to develop upon it... ------------------------------- The image below is an error with time provided because we measure it with light but the light use items perpendicular to the axis which can be described as Altitude... Additionally, explains that our current time system is built upon latitude and Longitude and is 100% Finite or does not allow variation or change and when one is needed they both call right angle and altitude come to help to allow them another layer of 100% Finite and this will continue the right angle bandits for infinity because Altitude is infinitely giving to its Right angled counter parts... BANG! BANG!!!! Edited August 17, 2012 by LittleBoPeep
LittleBoPeep Posted August 18, 2012 Author Posted August 18, 2012 (edited) https://docs.google.com/spreadsheet/ccc?key=0AgX5y-75MtwCdF9FbXBDNzZ3NGNZMk8yWV92bTFuUFE <br><br>Here it the working equation.. It has got a 6 - 8 Inch error... But as stated before it works... and <a href=" Is Distance and light is removed from the equation</a>...<br><br> Edited August 18, 2012 by LittleBoPeep
LittleBoPeep Posted August 18, 2012 Author Posted August 18, 2012 (edited) https://docs.google....Mk8yWV92bTFuUFE Here it the working equation.. It has got a 6 - 8 Inch error... But as stated before it works... and ...http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Fsu16fY5Jsg Altitude, Longitude and latitude as described by a Starting-(a,b,c) and Ending-(x,y,z) Position In space restricts Times degree of change. OLD:[math] TIME = \frac{\ SD}{\ 720}(+-L) -+(\frac{\ SD}{\ 720})P[/math] NEW:[math] TIME = \frac{\ 3.14(AX)cos(CZ)}{\ 360}(B-Y)-+ \frac{\ 3.14(AX)cos(CZ)}{\ 360}P[/math] IF THE SUM OF THE LONGITUDE POINTS EXCEED 180 THEN IS [math] 360-(B-Y)[/math] OR [math] TIME = \frac{\ 3.14(AX)cos(CZ)}{\ 360}(360-(B-Y))-+ \frac{\ 3.14(AX)cos(CZ)}{\ 360}P[/math] There Is a percentage of error but I contribute this to pi in the equation much like I do not know how to input it here I do not know how to input it into Google docs... Just tested pi in Google and pi is not the error then I remembered that this is an average of two points... Plus have to update the error calculation in order for it to work dynamically.... I which some would paint an etire field of measurement so I could verify the accuracy or inaccuracy... Here are the three videos that expresses what this means... 4th Dimension 1 Minute 21 TIme Solved 1 Minute 20 Times Distance Explained 1 Minute 20 Edited August 18, 2012 by LittleBoPeep
Klaynos Posted August 18, 2012 Posted August 18, 2012 I do not know what gps satellite correction is needed or literally what you are talking about... If GPS uses current NOW position in space and has another point in space for its Destination then yes... GPS satellites have very accurate clocks on board to calculate the position of receivers. As the Satellites are orbiting the earth they need both a correction due to their relative movement to the earth and a correction due to their different position in a gravitational potential well. I was asking if you could calculate the correction due to the relative speed of the satellites? So I'm looking for a number of seconds per day say. Also a 2% error is enormous, to what experimental results have you compared your results and what was the discrepancy?
LittleBoPeep Posted August 18, 2012 Author Posted August 18, 2012 (edited) Also a 2% error is enormous, to what experimental results have you compared your results and what was the discrepancy? I know you just posted as I posted mine but I contribute this error to pi not set appropriately. The working video had a van error to which I said many times it is a little off and the big number would be affected greatly by an innfinite decimal number being removed from the equation. I went back and placed in a percentage of error place in the documents just now and went back to the Video about the van error took the numbers at the 2 minute 41 second marker and placed an error @ 8 Foot At the circumference 23852.6893658678 miles the resulting percentage error was .00143555557308%. And in a single foot that would be .00143555557308' I am blaming this error to averaging the two points... Which Is Actually 6 separate pieces of data... Edited August 18, 2012 by LittleBoPeep
Klaynos Posted August 18, 2012 Posted August 18, 2012 I know you just posted as I posted mine but I contribute this error to pi not set appropriately. The working video had a van error to which I said many times it is a little off and the big number would be affected greatly by an innfinite decimal number being removed from the equation. Ah, I see, I assumed you got to 2% due to an error analysis method. Can you produce the result re. GPS I requested, or show how say the muon decay time changes due to relative velocity to the lab frame?
LittleBoPeep Posted August 18, 2012 Author Posted August 18, 2012 (edited) Ah, I see, I assumed you got to 2% due to an error analysis method. Can you produce the result re. GPS I requested, or show how say the muon decay time changes due to relative velocity to the lab frame? I just found my Error and it is that I am restricted by the measuring tools IE our GPS System... There is no more velocity... TIME=Distance!!! Lights motion is no longer a viable... This equation was a simple Idea if how could you navigate through space with a time machine. I assumed that traveling faster that light I would be void of gravities hold and be left in empty space.. What I found is where Times Motion truly was... I saw that I light is our fastest translator that we have. But its speed is relative to the force provide... IE if we travel faster than the particles of electromagnetic radiation we would be void, Because nothing can increase our energy rate... Now does this mean that light is removing out energy then I do not know. But what I can say that if something is see as ultimate black it is probable due the the speed at which it is moving and nothing more. Until we develop we will not see what is going on and are wasting time and resource because non of the data we collected would be accurate because it was collect by tools restricted by light speed and functions... Edited August 18, 2012 by LittleBoPeep
Klaynos Posted August 18, 2012 Posted August 18, 2012 I just found my Error and it is that I am restricted by the measuring tools IE our GPS System... There is no more velocity... Lights motion is no longer a viable... This equation was a simple Idea if how could you navigate through space with a time machine. I assumed that traveling faster that light I would be void of gravities hold and be left in empty space.. No motion, now that would make for a boring, universe, and is not what is observed. GPS works, the corrects made to it are required for it to work. These corrections are based around a 4 dimensional space time. The universe doesn't agree with your view of it. What I found is where Times Motion truly was... I saw that I light is our fastest translator that we have. But its speed is relative to the force provide... IE if we travel faster than the particles of electromagnetic radiation we would be void, Because nothing can increase our energy rate... Now does this mean that light is removing out energy then I do not know. If I have understood you correctly what you are saying is that you cannot travel faster than the thing that you are trying to use to accelerate you? I can think of two situations where this is false, the case where you are accelerating due to a change of mass (stand on a skateboard with something heaving, throw the heavy thing backwards and you will move forwards) the other situation is in sailing where a sail boat can move faster than the wind speed. But what I can say that if something is see as ultimate black it is probable due the the speed at which it is moving and nothing more. Until we develop we will not see what is going on and are wasting time and resource because non of the data we collected would be accurate because it was collect by tools restricted by light speed and functions... I don't really get your point here. What you seem to be saying is that we can't measure something that is unmeasurable in our universe. 1
LittleBoPeep Posted August 18, 2012 Author Posted August 18, 2012 (edited) The disheartening thing is now we must go back and redefine all our 2D models of concepts and force them to use all 3D data or we will never be able to utilize an absolute equation to its fullest capability relative to the observer... In other words we all have some work to fix the math of centuries of man... It was not that they were less smarter than anyone else in fact they were 1000 time more resourceful... Any time a new technology came out it was tested and against all constrains the item observed and the tools of measurement. NOTHING WAS CONSTANT EVERYTHING IS A VARIABLE FOR SOMETHING ELSE. They knew this and loved this life because they knew that if their current means of translation was proven obsolete a new realm of possibility was theirs for the taking... SADLY We lost this pioneering spirit a longtime ago... Placing rules and regulation does not give us the right to stop questioning the process merely because it is accepted by the majority. This is what I had faced the entire month journey from the idea form to this finished product... If I had been any weaker I would have given up... I really needed the help of the professionals in the field but was shunned because how could I someone who spent less that an hour in his life talking about physics compared to them who have spent a lifetime dedicating their life.... Almost every conversation that I had felt the same... Polite because I had the courage to come forward but only given enough focus so the other person can say... WHEN NOONE ELSE LISTENED I WAS THERE FOR YOU.... And they can add this to their list of accomplishments if the idea eventually was proven... AND THAT IS A LIE that they feel is worth give false hope to people... While I hated the negative crack pot remarks from the community, I appreciated them 1000 time more than the lies provided by the professionals just doing the bare minimum inorder to say they tried... NO I would rather appreciate the words NO I do not think you have found anything and am not willing to give you the time.... THAT IS HONEST and Effective communication for both parties... Now we both can close the door.. You will not have that little pest saying I really don't want to do that but I never said what I really wanted while the other person may be not doing anything because they put to much faith in your powers. Either way it is in effective communication of appropriate information from both parties. Final rant for now... If you are the leader in your career but do not want to give the other guy a chance to possible change you thought on the world then CHANGE YOUR PROFESSION to something else and do your current job as hobby and people wont ask you to do your job. If you would never do this as a hobby then JUST QUIT!!!!! anyways out of my system no more about the past months confusion it is about making a better future for tomorrow today.... No motion, now that would make for a boring, universe, and is not what is observed. GPS works, the corrects made to it are required for it to work. These corrections are based around a 4 dimensional space time. The universe doesn't agree with your view of it. This is the philosophy part of the discussion NOW... What the equation is YELLING at use is there is no motion.... There Is no Past there is no FUTURE there is only RIGHT NOW... This is not me saying this this is the Universe telling us through the function of time... Like I stated in the VIDEO TIme SOLVED. Time is a two dimensional Idea this is a key point to be heard... IF something can be only described on a 2D level but cannot translate using 3D measurement of space then it is an Idea in the observers mind... Just like you say the Universe doesn't agree.... Since my equation removes light and state that is our restrictive area of how we see the universe. I would reply by stating yes the Our Universal translator does not agree... Sadly this will be the burden we as observer must carry, but guess what? We are different and your observation and my observation do not ever have to align as long as we can agree all that is important is now... If I have understood you correctly what you are saying is that you cannot travel faster than the thing that you are trying to use to accelerate you? I can think of two situations where this is false, the case where you are accelerating due to a change of mass (stand on a skateboard with something heaving, throw the heavy thing backwards and you will move forwards) the other situation is in sailing where a sail boat can move faster than the wind speed. Acceleration has the property of velocity... My view is different than yours and I am willing to agree on the idea, in-order for velocity to exist TIME can not EQUAL DISTANCE and I completely agree with you... I don't really get your point here. What you seem to be saying is that we can't measure something that is unmeasurable in our universe. Then maybe this information is not for you... I do greatly appreciate all your information that we have shared. But my job here is done this was only a hobby project for me. And YEAH I AM SAYING EXACTLY THAT!!!! (VELOCITY) I am sorry I had to get one last one in... It was meant to be fun humor... please do not take offense to the jab... and that was a perfect setup I had to take it... Edited August 19, 2012 by LittleBoPeep
Klaynos Posted August 18, 2012 Posted August 18, 2012 It fails dimensional analysis. It doesn't agree with reality. It doesn't work. It's not really opinion that motion happens, more observably true.
LittleBoPeep Posted August 18, 2012 Author Posted August 18, 2012 (edited) I don't really get your point here. What you seem to be saying is that we can't measure something that is unmeasurable in our universe. The environment I Am speaking of here is a Vehicle such as a Train that can travel faster than light... The observers inside that vehicle NOW have the Right tools that will give them the appropriated data to test and pioneer the next step of existence by understand nothing is constant, but infinity... So NOW IS WHEN EVERYTHING CHANGES in the literal sense... ALL WE HAVE IS NOW whether we are traveling at 1000 miles an hour by earths environment or faster than light powers... We only have right now to change everything in our restrictive environment. Edited August 18, 2012 by LittleBoPeep
Klaynos Posted August 18, 2012 Posted August 18, 2012 The environment I Am speaking of here is a Vehicle such as a Train that can travel faster than light... The observers inside that vehicle NOW have the Right tools that will give them the appropriated data to test and pioneer the next step of existence by understand nothing is constant, but infinity... So NOW IS WHEN EVERYTHING CHANGES in the literal sense... ALL WE HAVE IS NOW whether we are traveling at 1000 miles an hour by earths environment or faster than light powers... We only have right now to change everything in our restrictive environment. Our "restrictive" environment is not a man made construct, it appears to be a universal constraint.
LittleBoPeep Posted August 18, 2012 Author Posted August 18, 2012 (edited) It's not really opinion that motion happens, more observably true. Listen, go grab a picture look at it and tell me how motion applies to the events recorded in that image... You can not because it is trapped. Some Say Trapped in time.... Not space because the events in that photo are not the object. The object is a picture.... No we define that photo (3d) with the event (2d) and we call this process spacetime... The problem with SPACETIME NOW it is too LITERAL and many are going to have a hard time letting go or their defining properties (2d) they put on space or 3D items, because this would mean that nothing they have or will do does not matter now... WE CAN NOW be able to DEFINE MATTERS OF EVENTS that disCONCERN us NOW, removing past and future our away a single point IN SPACE. Do you SEE EVERYTHING can mean what you want... It all matter IN how structures are OBSERVED in your ENVIRONMENT because that IS what restricts your REALLITY... Do you SEE the BIG picture??? If you do not see it the past three lines were ment to have caps and lower case in order to mean two different items while in the original context of the conversation... Listen I will gain nothing from anyone accepting this concept... If I wanted to monetize this I could have but I stated my purpose was to give to who ever wanted it so documentation process for future generation was my goal for the future... ONCE AGAIN... It does not matter me that you believe or not. I would rather you communicate the truth than LIE, Because we can only deal with whats in your mind NOW LITERALLY NOW or a later sense of NOW... Everything else is 3D SPACE... Our "restrictive" environment is not a man made construct, it appears to be a universal constraint. Can you agree a restrictive environment it is a restriction of an object in an environment (Finite force) while restricting the object from other outside environments (outside forces)? Edited August 18, 2012 by LittleBoPeep
Recommended Posts