Klaynos Posted August 18, 2012 Posted August 18, 2012 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... 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)? Science isn't about belief it is about evidence, you have none. I will agree that a restrictive environment is a restriction, in this case we are restricting it to be what can be observed in the universe, or to put it another way what can be testing in the universe, or the universe, which is all science can concern itself with, not making stuff up.
LittleBoPeep Posted August 18, 2012 Author Posted August 18, 2012 (edited) 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. I am not arguing with you are correct. GPS does work and it was based from a 4 dimensional model of space-time and the universe doesn't agree... 100% agree that you are correct.. 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. I saw my misspelling in the beginning and I proposed a un-researched thought at the end I will refrain from doing that from this point forward, because it is stating to seems less about the idea and more about proving I am inadequate hence the idea must be inadequate. Again I am not concerned whether you agree with me or not because everyone is their own world but if you are actually trying to define the validity of this proposed concept then I will share my views but again they are my views shared right now for you to choose to define what is 3d SPACE... Back to the Traveling restrictions as posted previously about environments; Light is our current defining restriction of our environment if we remove light from the equation then light will not define our restriction. 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. This statement was me thinking out loud. I understand that this is not the forum for that. I am sorry that will end NOW. Second, part about research black holes and they are just matter traveling faster than light(Thought out loud not discussing that part). Science isn't about belief it is about evidence, you have none. I will agree that a restrictive environment is a restriction, in this case we are restricting it to be what can be observed in the universe, or to put it another way what can be testing in the universe, or the universe, which is all science can concern itself with, not making stuff up. I completely agree with you. Lets not call the equation time lets call it the universal equation that all Items need to reference because it is built from the spherical definitions of the that have multiple layers of force. Is the definition of what it is bothering because I have stated from the beginning that I do not know what it is but it is huge... The equation is on Google docs can be down loaded an probably is the best option for NOW because understanding Is now gone... thank you for your replies I have enjoyed your correspondence. and good luck Set two point 3D and define the length of time... https://docs.google.com/spreadsheet/ccc?key=0AgX5y-75MtwCdF9FbXBDNzZ3NGNZMk8yWV92bTFuUFE Edited August 18, 2012 by LittleBoPeep
LittleBoPeep Posted August 20, 2012 Author Posted August 20, 2012 (edited) What if we already existed faster than lights speed? What would Items look like? How would we tell time? Would we even know what time was? Literally all we would know is nothing moves and DISTANCE is the answer for everything... I also discussed altitudes in my newest video that pretty much sums up the idea... https://docs.google....Mk8yWV92bTFuUFE Altitude, Longitude and latitude as described by a Starting-(a,b,c) and Ending-(x,y,z) Positions In space restricts Times degree of change(P). ------------------------------------------------------------------- [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] ------------------------------------------------------------------- 4 Minutes 38 Edited August 20, 2012 by LittleBoPeep
LittleBoPeep Posted August 22, 2012 Author Posted August 22, 2012 (edited) THIS IS NOT A GPS EQUATION!!!! THE ERROR WAS BEING PRODUCE WHEN I WAS USING IT A GPS Distance calculator... It is a NEW EQUATION for TIME.... What the equation is doing is calculating the amount of change between two position of longitude the Altitude and Latitude determines the circumference.... It is not a stop watch yet... Will be developed... I believe it would be either the recorded distance of the observed Item divided by the earth/environment providing distance... or a variation of our original time telling measurements distance in seconds but seconds would be distance of the earth rotation... Logic would then state that the first option would inevitably happen.... Edited August 22, 2012 by LittleBoPeep
Klaynos Posted August 22, 2012 Posted August 22, 2012 Seems like everyday classical mechanics can do all of that for you already. I still don't think this is new, interesting or useful.
LittleBoPeep Posted August 25, 2012 Author Posted August 25, 2012 (edited) Seems like everyday classical mechanics can do all of that for you already. I still don't think this is new, interesting or useful. AGREED: If I may try once again... If I were born, raised, lived and died faster than the speed of light... I would see no movement, everything would be half light from the sun and my constant would be distance. LITERALLY, my answer to anything would derive from a specific distance, because nothing would move... How would I translate this to our existence of motion... CURRENT: (Distance = Speed x Time) is defined by lights restrictive properties... Distance = (Speed of the OBSERVER) -+ (Time) removes light from the equation and become infinitely true... Once again, I completely agree with you, I have not come up with anything new... I only see a different way to advance our society with the existing tools on the table... I think if classical mechanics would have already stated this then we would not have many of the nonsensical theories out there right now.... I understand I have been yelping this is Times equation but it was DISTANCES equation for everything... The issue was with time being restricted.... THIS IS THE NEXT BIG ADVANCEMENT IN SCIENCE WHETHER YOU CARE TO BELIEVE IT OR NOT... This simple equation connects everything by distance or a varied degree... all of science and math will need to be redefined.... Altitude, Longitude and latitude as described by a Starting-(a,b,c) and Ending-(x,y,z) Positions In space restricts Times degree of change(P). ------------------------------------------------------------------- [math] DISTANCE = \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] DISTANCE = \frac{\ 3.14(AX)cos(CZ)}{\ 360}(360-(B-Y))-+ \frac{\ 3.14(AX)cos(CZ)}{\ 360}P[/math] ------------------------------------------------------------------- 4 Minutes 38 Edited August 25, 2012 by LittleBoPeep
LittleBoPeep Posted August 27, 2012 Author Posted August 27, 2012 Seems like everyday classical mechanics can do all of that for you already. I still don't think this is new, interesting or useful. Our current understanding and mathematics will not be of any use to anyone that would be traveling faster than the speed of light... If we can devise a mathmatic system that is designed for environment of non-moving object that translates to our current mathematics then I would say it is absolutely useful. Light is our current misunderstanding of the world we assume that is what makes things appear and anything faster is.... Since a specific distance is the answer for everything faster than light then it would imply that this equation is not interchangeable... It is what it is... While our current mathematics states otherwise....
LittleBoPeep Posted August 31, 2012 Author Posted August 31, 2012 (edited) I want to propose a new distance equation that will increase our understanding too scientifically accurate and precise by utilizing percentages... Our current equation for Distance = Time x Speed requires dependance upon another factor to produce a definitive answer for Time, Distance or Speed. Distance = Time x Speed or Distance(Constant Variable) = Time(Constant) x Speed(Variable) Speed = Distance/Time or Speed(Variable) = Distance(Constant Variable) / Time(Constant) Time = Distance/Speed or Time(Constant) = Distance(Constant Variable) / Speed(Variable) This is correct until zero is inputted into the equation; This equation is lacking altitude making this equation inadequate or flawed. The answer produced will either be scientifically accurate depending upon the variable data inputted- NEITHER BOTH. -------------------------------- Distance = Time x Speed or Distance(Constant Variable Altitude^2) = Time(Constant^Altitude) x Speed(Variable^Altitude) Speed = Distance/Time or Speed(Variable^Altitude) = Distance(Constant Variable^Altitude^2) / Time(Constant^Altitude) Time = Distance/Speed or Time(Constant^Altitude) = Distance(Constant Variable^Altitude^2) / Speed(Variable^Altitude) This is incorrect correct because Distance becomes is altitude squared; NEITHER SCIENTIFICALLY ACCURATE OR PRECISE. The answer would state that the variable constant is expressed at an (Altitude^2) were each of its defining parts is expressed at (Altitude)... HERE IS WHERE THE ERROR IN OUR MATH IS AT!!! To maintain the original properties of the equation(ACCURACY & PRECISION); while removing the precision error by a constant altitude or distance traveled at a certain altitude defined by restricted latitudes. We must change the equation to an independent variable equation.. OR!!! -------------------------------- Distance = Time + Speed or Distance(Constant Variable Altitude) = Time(Constant^Altitude) + Speed(Variable^Altitude) Speed = Distance-Time or Speed(Variable) = Distance(Constant Variable^Altitude) - Time(Constant^Altitude) Time = Distance-Speed or Time(Constant) = Distance(Constant Variable^Altitude^2) - Speed(Variable^Altitude) NOW - the answer produced will be scientifically accurate and precise UNIVERSALLY... -------------------------------- While additional steps have been taken to adjust this error in Time, all attempts fall short due to the constant property of TIME in a variable altitude equation. If time was not a requirement to produce an answer but maintained its consistent property through a connection of variated altitude at different latitudes(Variable Circumferences) then a Scientifically accurate and precise equation can be formed. To achieve an equation that is independent of each variable expression; while enabling Time's constant property to be expressed as a variable; we combine the amount of speed by the amount of time defined by a variable altitude restricted by latitude properties. By defining our current properties of TIME(Constant) and Speed(Variable) as a percentages, each multiplied by the 1 degree of a variable Circumference turns each property into a variable that is capable of attaining a scientifically accurate and precise answer universally... --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Distance = (Variable/360)(Variable (+/-SPEED %))+(Variable/360)(Constant(+/-TIME %)) This equation constructs an absolute position in space... or two position in space in relation to the universe vs my relative position... BASICALLY: While I(SPEED) am not moving on earth; TIME is moving me through space... TRUE (Functional Answer) While TIME is not moving me through space; I(SPEED) am moving on earth... TRUE (Functional Answer) While I(SPEED) am moving on earth; TIME is moving me through space... TRUE (Functional Answer) --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- If I apply this to our current formula of distance=TIME x SPEED... It states: If I(SPEED) am not moving on earth, then TIME is not moving me through space... TRUE (TIME = ZERO) requiring a specific distance to solve for TIME If TIME is not moving me through space, then I(SPEED) am not moving on earth... TRUE (SPEED = ZERO) requiring a specific distance to solve for SPEED If I(SPEED) am moving on earth, then TIME is moving me through space... TRUE (Functional Answer) Since, two thirds of our current understanding is inaccurate then all math built upon this errored understanding is FLAWED. Altitude, Longitude and latitude as described by a Starting-(a,b,c) and Ending-(x,y,z) Positions In space restricts Times degree of change(P). ------------------------------------------------------------------- [math] DISTANCE = \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] DISTANCE = \frac{\ 3.14(AX)cos(CZ)}{\ 360}(360-(B-Y))-+ \frac{\ 3.14(AX)cos(CZ)}{\ 360}P[/math] Distance = (Variable/360)(Variable (+/-SPEED %))+(Variable/360)(Constant(+/-TIME %)) DISTANCE = SPEED + TIME (Scientifically accurate and precise)SPEED = DISTANCE - (Variable/360)(Constant(+/-TIME %)) DISTANCE = SPEED (Faster than Light travel)TIME = DISTANCE - (Variable/360)(Variable (+/-SPEED %)) DISTANCE = TIME (Removes light from the equation) Edited September 1, 2012 by LittleBoPeep
LittleBoPeep Posted September 1, 2012 Author Posted September 1, 2012 (edited) -------------------------------- Distance = Time + Speed or Distance(Constant Variable Altitude) = Time(Constant^Altitude) + Speed(Variable^Altitude) Speed = Distance-Time or Speed(Variable) = Distance(Constant Variable^Altitude) - Time(Constant^Altitude) Time = Distance-Speed or Time(Constant) = Distance(Constant Variable^Altitude^2) - Speed(Variable^Altitude) SHOULD BE!!!! ------------------------------- Distance = Time + Speed or Distance((Constant+Variable)^Altitude) = Time(Constant^Altitude) + Speed(Variable^Altitude) Speed = Distance-Time or Speed(Variable^Altitude) = Distance((Constant+Variable)^Altitude) - Time(Constant^Altitude) Time = Distance-Speed or Time(Constant^Altitude) = Distance((Constant+Variable)^Altitude) - Speed(Variable^Altitude) NOW - the answer produced will be scientifically accurate and precise UNIVERSALLY... This maintains that the distance is restricted to the defined altitude(NOT ALTITUDE^2) of its restrictive parts, creating an independantly definable equation that maintains its original accuracy while gaining the precision of altitude restricted latitudinal circumference. Edited September 1, 2012 by LittleBoPeep
Bignose Posted September 1, 2012 Posted September 1, 2012 Distance = Time + Speed I don't see how the units are compatible here. What is the distance of 7 years plus 14 knots?
LittleBoPeep Posted September 2, 2012 Author Posted September 2, 2012 (edited) I don't see how the units are compatible here. What is the distance of 7 years plus 14 knots? Distance = Time + Speed is not technically the equation. If you solely look at the equation in that form the logic is removed... I merely used this as a way to convey some steps to understanding of how the existing Distance = Time x Speed becomes flawed at a 3-dimensional level. Distance altitude is squared Separating it from its defining parts. This should not of happened because the original equation was expressed and defined on the same plane. In order to maintain the consistence expression property of the original equation one must become creative and develop a common denominator that would enable separation of the restrictive signs and maintain the equation definitive properties... We achieve this new equation the degrees. Time is currently just 360 degrees on a clock and the earth rotates in a 360 degrees and we Speed through both TIME and SPACE, if we accept the proposed change now we have the opportunity to accelerate accept or resist time and earths function because of the independent properties... Simply put time is distance and all mathematics that have been built upon this is error-ed... Light is removed from the equation and distance is no longer restricted by time... I do not have the answer of how things will change but I am finishing a functional Google Doc that will enable a person to determine GPS navigation with only two points of input Either from the same device or satellite or from two separate objects... Technically this equation will allow you to take a photo from a stationary object base where a shadow is being cast and the program can calculate your GPS location based on two different reference inputs... This is not imagination but reality. Additionally those same photos will be able to tell you time... with out a clock function... We as a society have a huge undertaking for the next generation to clean up or error but excelling towards our wildest dreams... If you would forgive me I have been up for 48 trying to finish the GPS equation before my sisters birthday so I can dedicate it to her... I know I did not explain well but If you could explain specifically what you wanting to know I can express what I am trying to attain through this transition... MPH is no more anything restricted by time needs to be redefined... Nautical mile per hour is just a set distance traveled by the observer who can choose to resist accept or accelerate the rotation provided by space and defined by time... Edited September 2, 2012 by LittleBoPeep
ACG52 Posted September 2, 2012 Posted September 2, 2012 Nautical mile per hour is just a set distance traveled by the observer who can choose to resist accept or accelerate the rotation provided by space and defined by time This sentence makes no sense at all. But then, it's unfair to single out just one nonsensical line, when this thread is composed of such.
LittleBoPeep Posted September 2, 2012 Author Posted September 2, 2012 (edited) I don't see how the units are compatible here. What is the distance of 7 years plus 14 knots? (I KNOW THIS NEEDS TO BE EDITED REFINED AND CONCISE BUT I CURRENTLY NOT dedicating my time to this grammar soup... If my time allowed to edit does not lapse I will edit this post.) Now that I got some sleep I would like to say thank you for the perfect question and response.... I am not sure if you know what you provided me with but it is exactly what this post needed. EXACTLY, We are all having a hard time seeing the importance of what this proposed Idea or equation means, because of all the error-ed concepts in mathematics we hold as true accurate and untouchable... The fact known since Einstein's space-time proposal of mathematics is the only professions in our society that is allowed to continue to build over flawed and broken system using the error produced as the justification for maintaining the broken system which compounds the PROBLEM with quantitative errors exponentially. The original equation is the first idea that lays out the rule of how everything built upon it should follow, but when we define the properties of the original equation to any equation that has built upon it non have held absolute and precise... This is seen when we define this finite equation in reference to our relative level plane at another altitude. It does not matter what I input to maintain the original property that enabled each individual expression to be described on the same plane... By, not fixing the error of differences in squared with an appropriate equation that are not defined by the rules of connection but by the desired outcome produced, We are guaranteed errors exponentially squared - right angled too each other. This proposed Idea requires all math and science to understand that nothing holds true and the tools create the error. continuing using the same tools over and over will continue creating the same error over and over. I understand that the desired outcome is the only constant thing in the equation, when you define your desired outcome appropriately you can choose the appropriate tools to build the solution. Each equation built upon it is only tied by the defining solution not its restrictive process of development. Distance equation solution states that all expressed parts are expressed and defined on the same plane. Understanding that this equation is just a tool that will be built upon or turn apart by future Ideas and concepts as long as the required result maintains true throughout the equation - the parts are irrelevant; is the desired outcome I am hoping to produce through this equation. My profession does not classify me as a professional to teach new improved processes, this is clearly stated and known, but this classification of profession should not restrict the progression of ideas. Literally, millions of society progressive rich ideas are lost because of the career classification. It is required that you are able to justify your imagined solution with the existing tools of the trade. An Idea that is not justified does not make it wrong or irrelevant or not true, it only states that you lack the knowledge of the tools needed to produce the solution, and that the desired result is the correct answer absolutely and the tools of the trade are wrong for adequate expression of your desired outcome. So new tools can and will be developed to desired that will bridge the gap of professionally trade restrictive to your correct answer. Since we have many different ideas of the same thing we will have many different equation expressing each idea, understanding the solution produced will allow us to choose the right tool needed from our tool box. NO LONGER, are the single tool regulation Scientific method of restricting creative ideas, like every language has its own rules so shall each idea as long as that new language tools can produce a scientific accurate and precise answers absolutely then a simple translation is needed to become apart of your current language solution. I apologize I have so much more to say but need to get back to work... Hope this has assisted the understanding of my desired solution further... Edited September 2, 2012 by LittleBoPeep
Bignose Posted September 2, 2012 Posted September 2, 2012 Distance = Time x Speed becomes flawed at a 3-dimensional level. Starting with a Cartesian coordinate system, a particle moves from the point (0,0,0) to the point (1,1,1). It does so in 1 second. The distance is given by [math]\sqrt{(1-0)^2+(1-0)^2+(1-0)^2}=\sqrt{3}[/math]. This is distance, time, and speed in 3 dimensions. Show me where the flaw is. While you are at it, you may want to expound a little as to why this 'flawed' (your descriptor) method has been so supremely successful at erecting buildings & bridges, setting up a system of GPS satellites that work pretty darn well, and successfully launching probes around the solar system and beyond.
LittleBoPeep Posted September 3, 2012 Author Posted September 3, 2012 (edited) Starting with a Cartesian coordinate system, a particle moves from the point (0,0,0) to the point (1,1,1). It does so in 1 second. The distance is given by [math]\sqrt{(1-0)^2+(1-0)^2+(1-0)^2}=\sqrt{3}[/math]. This is distance, time, and speed in 3 dimensions. Show me where the flaw is. While you are at it, you may want to expound a little as to why this 'flawed' (your descriptor) method has been so supremely successful at erecting buildings & bridges, setting up a system of GPS satellites that work pretty darn well, and successfully launching probes around the solar system and beyond. Completely Right, as stated before not my profession. I just figured our a new logic processing opportunity... But has taken a little bit to get the possibilities out... in two videos... one 45 minutes long that the microphone was muted because of user error... OOOPS the second was a mental release of ideas to progress forward.... Current Understanding states accurate at a single plain and with altitude expression added to this restrictive equation creates Distance * Altitude^2 OR two points of altitude... Sorry about the word jumble that is about to come but the concepts aren't figured out yet. I know that distance = Time x speed this equation can be placed at infinite altitudes independent of each others restriction and be 100% accurate but when we want to define at a different altitude with the original concept of expression would state....... NEW THOUGHT OK, I think the (Distance)Altitude^2 is the expression for a square 3D representation that is not taking Sphere rotation into account... Image each expressed property as a dimension of the whole. the first input (Speed) is a dot... then (Time) is the line growing and (distance) would be the destination (SECOND) point and that technically is the idea of distance. If we add altitude to the equation it takes the line and two point and pulls it 90 degrees from the starting location making a continual path of the two altitudes... Dot - Altitude - Right ANGLE SHIFT - Distance - Right ANGLE SHIFT - Altitude - Dot all 90% degrees of each other or a square U on both starting and ending right angles or 180 of each other... I have not tested whether the distance traveled is correct in a spherical equation yet I will test after this post and video processing.... IF the equation test work then it would state that altitude simple is added to each end, but I know that altitude is right angle of my original line of Distance and Altitude is stretched square from my starting point..... Dot - Altitude - Right ANGLE SHIFT - Distance - Dot.... OR an L... this does not give me the most accurate answer and can be proven with the Pythagorean theorem Interesting note the image provided is a visual representation of the math of the Pythagorean theorem and is expressing what I have just proposed in the past paragraph Dot - Altitude - Distance - Altitude - Dot all 90% degrees of each other or a square U... or the distance line express under the current restricting distance which creates altitude SQUARED or two exact altitudes right angle from the the two points, maintaining the restrictive qualities of the original points resulting in the complete 180 rotation of the right angle for the starting or the image below... YOU ARE COMPLETELY CORRECT in your understanding of the tools... but the error is not found at that points and data because our current equation is accurate at only one plane of reference and is seen in the equation provided.... Simply put any three dimensional Cartesian coordinate system equation will allow distance to be correct when time equals one and we cant reference zero because we already know we will never be able to return a result, because zero divided by zero.... So the distance equation would be figuring speed. [math] \frac{\ \sqrt{27}}{\ 1} = SPEED[/math] THEN [math] 3.46410161513775 = SPEED[/math] CORRECT!!! at this Time (0,0,0,);(3,3,3,) [math] \frac{\ \sqrt{12}}{\ 1} = SPEED[/math] THEN [math] 3.46410161513775 = SPEED[/math] CORRECT!!! at this Time (0,0,0,);(2,2,2,) [math] \frac{\ \sqrt{3}}{\ 1} = SPEED[/math] then [math] 1.73205080756888 = SPEED[/math] CORRECT!!! at this Time (0,0,0,);(1,1,1,) [math] \frac{\ \sqrt{0}}{\ 1} = SPEED[/math] then [math] \sqrt{3} = SPEED[/math] ERRORED at this Time (0,0,0,);(0,0,0,) Because not distance was capable of being produced and we know that we move through time... Can you tell me what the where the two defining positions of the new outcome are because I will be able to do that with a little fix of the current equation formula.... This will take at least a few hours to construct but give me some time and I can show you... What the Cartesian coordinate system equation is doing is quit simple if you understand the restriction of Pythagorean theorem and a cube.... So we need to choose a corner for a starting point resulting in three different distances we will call latitude longitude and altitude or X,Y,Z... and then choose two planes right angle of each other and average the distances . RESULTING in a simple average of 3 Pythagorean theorem solution gained for each plain protruding forward from your stating position... lets use the suggestion points of 000 and 111 creating cube that is same length at all sides or 1 basically visually after the theorems completed move their connecting point to the the the center of each line... Then gab the end of any one of the planes this is going to define the horizontal spin of averages is going to happen for the other planes... or define that as the odd man out and the other are merge together through averages like any normal average equation and since this is correct at the half way point of the odd man out solution then we divide him by to and get..... Lets use 000 and 222 stating point is zero... [math] \frac{\ 18+18}{\ 2} + \frac{\ 18}{\ 2} = 27 [/math] CORRECT!!! at this Time (0,0,0,);(3,3,3,) [math] \frac{\ 8+8}{\ 2} + \frac{\ 8}{\ 2} = 12 [/math] CORRECT!!! at this Time (0,0,0,);(2,2,2,) [math] \frac{\ 1+1}{\ 2} + \frac{\ 1}{\ 2} = 1.5 [/math] ERRORED!!! at this Time (0,0,0,);(1,1,1,) But if I did not divide by The common denomator and simply add the solutions it would remain true.... LATER ON THAT... [math] \frac{\ 0+0}{\ 2}+ \frac{\ 0}{\ 2} = 12 [/math] CORRECT!!! at this Time (0,0,0,);(0,0,0,) If the resulting solution are the exact same... like the 1+1+1 to equal the desired answer 3 then sums are multiplied by three... Which is the resulting or connecting Idea between Pythagaream therom and Cartesian coordinate system that took 3 hrs to get to this point I new their was an error but connection the dots of error is the trick.... not since Pythagorean theorem requires duplicates of the lengths you would have to sub track that out... the question is can we determine the point on the graph from a specific distance which is space and time???? THE CRAZY THING IS YOU JUST DID WAS SHOW ME REASONING TO MY WORKING EQUATION ARE YOU SURE YOUR NOT PULLING MY LEG AND I am just explaining an existing concept??? My equation divided speed up by longitude and latitude and placed time separately.... or a separating concept above so there is a constant a piece that will enable the calculation of center of everything... All calculated with the same common restriction of circumference but the two speeds are corrected by Pythagorean theorem... The variable of the changes of each 2 points of altitude latitude and Longitude almost match the Cartesian coordinate system except my altitude can never be less than zero because of the defining restriction of latitude(Constant at 360) and longitude(Constant at 180) and Time (Told from the axis same as Longitudes(180) but the altitude is defined by the axis). Something is right here and I do not know what! I am processing a video massively long that explains some of the concepts that can be derived from the proposed equation as well as naming this collective brainchild Sisters theory of everything... The video is actually two different sessions gone wrong I accidentally muted one video and the second was not recording my screen so I connected them... I am going to do another commentated video of the visually recorded hopefully to repeat the dialog of the ideas I was trying to express which will result in a choppy video and audio... I am start to think that this is not Flawed but restricted basically distance*Altitude^2 it was flawed at Cartesian coordinate system because reversing the processes will always give us a positive result because of the squares root... My equation says Distance*Altitude = Speed*Atlitude + Time*Altitude and if we want to find the right angle understanding to that we would Pythagorean theorem (Speed*Altitude) + (Time*Altitude) = SPEED^2*Altitude^2 + TIME^2*Altitude^2 DO YOU SEE IT??? Take the Pythagorean distance and create the new problem with that step... using the I have the answer in math but am tired too completely explain so i will attempt in math and may still be errored sorry.... I have the concept but super tired... Altitude (3) Speed (5) Time (4) 5(3) x 4(3) = ORIGINAL 5(3) + 4(3) = Proposed The Answers 5(3) x 4(3) = (180)ORIGINAL 5(3) + 4(3) = (27)Proposed PROPOSED CONNECTION through Pythagorean theorem (5)(4)(3)+(5)(4)(3)+ (5)(4)(3) = (180)PROPOSED ((5)^2+(3)^2) - (4)^2+(3)^2))/2) Sum expressed@Both + - of ((4)^2+(5)^2)/2 = (16,-25) for the Original DO YOU SEE IT NOW??? if not here: (SPEED^2*+ TIME^2)*Altitude^2 Since altitude is entered into each equation at the same level and two Then I need to change what ever it takes to gain SO FOLLOW ME what this equation is actually telling us when squared attained when a singularity is required to be expressed the equation is then defining the requirement of the opposing equation that allows Pythagorean theorem solutions to be attained by the opposing realm (Spherical or Cubical)... I haven't fully understood the process of the what is happening I have found the working equation. listed above... (16,-25) = (SPEED^2*-+ TIME^2)*Altitude^2 The error was in Cartesian coordinate system (Cartesian version of Pythagoras' theorem.) look at sqrt of(16,-25) or (4,-5) which is describing plus or minus of a single element(Time) and the - maintains true because averaged points are interchangeable not restricting variation in positive or negative signs... BASICALLY due to times forward and backward opportunity and the Distance*Altitude^2 we come one step closer to finding the next solution for our errors n math (5)(4)(3)+(5)(4)(3)+ (5)(4)(3) = (180)PROPOSED The error was in Cartesian coordinate system (Cartesian version of Pythagoras' theorem.) Now we have verified and see what the proposed equation did... It fixed the sign error in the equation... If we plug in (4,-5) back into the ORIGINAL formula it would be... -5(3) x 4(3) = (180)ORIGINAL -5(3)(3) = (45) ORIGINAL -(3)(3) = (9) ORIGINAL Altitudes answer expressed correctly In times understanding... Again as stated in the times new equation video series specifically the reason why we do not see this is because speed is actually the average of distance between latitudes circumference and Longitudes circumference. explaining it at a finished outcome removed the need for circumference to be inputted... All I was wanting to do is develop an equation that would allow me to apply speed when time was zero to remain accurate I just thought why not change the sign and it has lead me down this road.... I beleive both are infinite in there restrictive properties... I have been here for 7 hours trying to answer you... and found what you wanted... I HOPE??? I understand this may be jumbled but I have to take a break and start posting the videos I have done and work on developing the google doc that is increasing with every question you ask this is helping me to gain the next step... I am going to take an 2 - 8 hour break and then come back to refine the word jumble... As for the rest of the paragraph at the end... This is not my career nor my passion but I understand I have found some thing that cleans up the errors in math and science and it should be up to the professionals... Edited September 4, 2012 by LittleBoPeep
Bignose Posted September 3, 2012 Posted September 3, 2012 ... RESULTING in a simple average of 3 Pythagorean theorem solution gained for each plain protruding forward from your stating position... Why would you use an average here? The distance metric for Cartesian spaces is very well defined, and doesn't introduce the errors of averaging. This seems to be you trying to fix a problem of your own introducing. Any examples where the tried and true distance metric fails?
LittleBoPeep Posted September 4, 2012 Author Posted September 4, 2012 (edited) Starting with a Cartesian coordinate system, a particle moves from the point (0,0,0) to the point (1,1,1). It does so in 1 second. The distance is given by [math]\sqrt{(1-0)^2+(1-0)^2+(1-0)^2}=\sqrt{3}[/math]. This is distance, time, and speed in 3 dimensions. Show me where the flaw is. HERE THE SHORT VERSION: Edited September 4, 2012 by LittleBoPeep
Bignose Posted September 4, 2012 Posted September 4, 2012 You video did not show a specific example where the tried and true Cartesian metric -- when correctly used and not some averaging thing -- fails. And you mispronounced Cartesian.
LittleBoPeep Posted September 4, 2012 Author Posted September 4, 2012 Why would you use an average here? The distance metric for Cartesian spaces is very well defined, and doesn't introduce the errors of averaging. This seems to be you trying to fix a problem of your own introducing. Any examples where the tried and true distance metric fails? Well simply put I was using the properties of my equation to test the Cartesian... I stated with speed altitude and time then i thought about my equation and how I was using latitude and longitude and how I restricted altitude to become the rotating plain... Technically speaking I envision what is happening and then look for the closest equation that can define that and then I tested it until it worked or got me closer to a new understanding... The infinite right angle shift is a Pythagorean thereon Cartesian variation that holds to and expresses the next steps answer or terms to progress to the next step... I was near an explanation with Pythagorean theorem with Fell asleep and woke up with the answers I had the answer n the previous of the host AND WILL EXPLAIN THE ERRORA Starting with a Cartesian coordinate system, a particle moves from the point (0,0,0) to the point (1,1,1). It does so in 1 second. The distance is given by [math]\sqrt{(1-0)^2+(1-0)^2+(1-0)^2}=\sqrt{3}[/math]. This is distance, time, and speed in 3 dimensions. Show me where the flaw is. What my first proposed equation was one of the Altitude of the squared altitudes right angle of the equation of the other equation or IF 100% Accurate is required by the proposed Idea. (CONES OF APPOSING SIDES) OR you can picture two different size BOOBS on the same female.... Equations(LINE 100% ACCURETE WHEN Less than EXPRESSED @@ (-) >: ( 100% finite ACCURATE DOT ONLY CURRENT AT A SINGLE POINT) CURRENT EXPRESSED @@ (-): < (LINE 100% ACCURETE WHEN greater than EXPRESSED @ (+) Equations OR Equations(LINE 100% ACCURETE WHEN Less than EXPRESSED @ (+) >: (100% finite ACCURATE DOT ONLY CURRENCT AT A SINGLE POINT) CURRENT EXPRESSED @ (+): < (LINE 100% ACCURETE WHEN greater than EXPRESSED @ (-) Equations IF 100% PRECISION is required by the proposed Idea. (CONES OF PERFECTIONS) OR you can picture two exact sized BOOBIES that GROW and SHINK Depending upon the desired OUTCOME Able to function in @ either - OR + .... (BOOYAH F***ING MONEY SHOT EVERYWHERE!!! SHUT UP AND OPEN YOUR MOUTH AND LOVE IT, ACCEPT IT, SHARE IT!!!) a Equations(LINE 100% PRECISE WHEN Less than EXPRESSED @ (+ OR -) >: (100% finite PRECISION DOT ONLY CURRECT AT A SINGLE POINT) CURRENT EXPRESSED @ (+ OR -) : < (LINE 100% PRECISE WHEN greater than EXPRESSED @ (+ OR -) Equations 3 VARIATIONS OF EQUATIONS * 2 VARIATIONS OF SIGNS = ANSWERED SQUARED (REMEMBER!!! ALWAYS BE PREPARED TO TAKE IT FROM BOTH ENDS!!! This is a LIFE lesson learned!!!) ((S^2)*T*A+(A^2)*S*T > (A^2)*S*T < (A^2)*S*T+(T^2)*S*A ) EXPRESSED @ (+ OR -).... Its Baby Makin Time!!! ____________________________ The Pythagorean theorem NON-RESTRICTIVE solutions are for the answers Right angle: are the averages of the non-restrictive properties EXPRESSED @ EITHER (+ or -) of itself... THE Pythagorean theorem restrictive SOLUTION is for the FINITE answers: are the differences of the restrictive properties SQUARED of itself... -------------------------------------------- My original logic before this point was to find a restrictive property squared of the ANSWER RESTRICTED BY THE SQUARE!!! I literally saw what was happening but could not justify why but her it is not go clean up the next few dimensions that have the same Right angled conundrum with the SISTER THEORY OF EVERYTHING!!!
LittleBoPeep Posted September 4, 2012 Author Posted September 4, 2012 (edited) You video did not show a specific example where the tried and true Cartesian metric -- when correctly used and not some averaging thing -- fails. And you mispronounced Cartesian. HERE IS THE EXPLANATION THAT YOU WANTED>>>> THIS IS THE SISTER THEORY OF EVERYTHING!!!! The question if I am right or wrong based from our current mathematics is not relevant any more I know there is a theory of exponential change it is like log^???? I am needing this to see how it needs to place into the equation.... That equation will be the deciding factor between two points of connection... The deciding rule that will allow us to navigate through the worlds restricts... What I was trying to explain is I found a 3D {EXPLANATION (Pythagoras theorem)} Observer {(THE MISSING EQUATION) Imagined Future Restricted By the past}... I am not being pompous I am just mathematically able to explain everything in the form of Right - ALMOST - Wrong.... I will do another video to hopfully fully convey what is our restricting reality... A*T THIS TIME!!! Edited September 4, 2012 by LittleBoPeep
Bignose Posted September 5, 2012 Posted September 5, 2012 IF 100% Accurate is required by the proposed Idea. What percent inaccurate is: Starting with a Cartesian coordinate system, a particle moves from the point (0,0,0) to the point (1,1,1). It does so in 1 second. The distance is given by [math]\sqrt{(1-0)^2+(1-0)^2+(1-0)^2}=\sqrt{3}[/math]. This is distance, time, and speed in 3 dimensions. Show me where the flaw is. While you are at it, you may want to expound a little as to why this 'flawed' (your descriptor) method has been so supremely successful at erecting buildings & bridges, setting up a system of GPS satellites that work pretty darn well, and successfully launching probes around the solar system and beyond. I am really only going to ask one more time for a concrete specific example where the Cartesian distance metric calculates a distance in error. If you can't provide one, I just don't understand the motivation for 'fixing' something that isn't broken.
LittleBoPeep Posted September 5, 2012 Author Posted September 5, 2012 (edited) Let me ask where my mistake is without lifting a pen... IF THAT IS TO LONG THEN HERE Edited September 5, 2012 by LittleBoPeep
imatfaal Posted September 5, 2012 Posted September 5, 2012 ! Moderator Note LittleBoPeep The members are asking specific questions - the rules of this forum is that you are not allowed to dodge or ignore requests for information. Your videos do not contain a valid answer to the questions. Please provide - for starters - "a concrete specific example where the Cartesian distance metric calculates a distance in error" . If this is not forthcoming then we will consider closing this thread.
LittleBoPeep Posted September 5, 2012 Author Posted September 5, 2012 (edited) My apologize.... My proposed equation has the potential to be a Concave cone... If the which allowed for a circumference and I found some crazy things what should not have been possible kept smacking me in the face... this will probably be my last post her because I solved everything Will check back... I could not of done it with out big nose help I truly appreciated versus some of the other because they were judging my on my communication style to which I visual and calculate in my head... I can explain the string theory and how it works and well as the boson particle error and what it actually is... ENERGY and which holds the Flux capacitor to the ultimate REALITY... GOt it down pat..... NO JOKE... THe equation was the literal sense of the opposite equation... That is why you guys and the entire science community would have never fount it... Becuase LIGHT WAS MASSES restrictive property and LATITUDE AND LONGITUDE... If you do not beleive me My TRIANGLE conection wast connecting me to time and and space... Which TA and SA or three points that would remove time from the equation... Here is the equation expressed in the terms of SPACE: TIME Hidden in plain sight SPACE is why passing ships in the night capture moments of time like dust in the wind against all odds light removed dust for Many life scenes flash across the sky like .. That is what is happening here this above is the equation now I turned this into the opposite terms of your understanding of mathematics... The passing ships were the two defining characteristic separating use from connecting Ideas...... The reason why we cand picture this Edited September 6, 2012 by LittleBoPeep
ACG52 Posted September 5, 2012 Posted September 5, 2012 Would the word 'crank' be inappropriate here?
Recommended Posts