imatfaal Posted September 6, 2012 Share Posted September 6, 2012 Would the word 'crank' be inappropriate here? ! Moderator Note Yes. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LittleBoPeep Posted September 12, 2012 Author Share Posted September 12, 2012 What percent inaccurate is: I honestly can not tell you what percentage of inaccuracy there is.... I can tell yo that their are two that I know of... Altitude squared and the speed of light.... I fully understand that we have items placed into our mathematics that will adjust for this error but why would we ignore this challenge fo creating a better mathematical solution for the future generations.... 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. I am confused as to why I am the one the professional to answer these questions in a manner that tickles you delight... IF this whole process does not confuse you yet try this one for size..... Will be posting some videos that I have not been able to make sense of yet..... I know it will sound crazy.... Your equation seems to be correct but there are many ways to skin a cat would be my answer to you.... Not trying to offend truly big nose you have been the only one give any light to this proposal... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LittleBoPeep Posted September 13, 2012 Author Share Posted September 13, 2012 (edited) I honestly can not tell you what percentage of inaccuracy there is.... I can tell yo that their are two that I know of... Altitude squared and the speed of light.... IF this whole process does not confuse you yet try this one for size..... Will be posting some videos that I have not been able to make sense of yet..... I fully understand that we have items placed into our mathematics that will adjust for this error but why would we ignore this challenge for creating a better mathematical solution for the future generations.... Our technology requires that we we update our formulas... After finding out why Altitude is squared and energy is light squared it almost seems barbaric not to move forward to the most logical choice a solution that would allow for any type of terrain and does not rely on time... Edited September 13, 2012 by LittleBoPeep Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LittleBoPeep Posted September 13, 2012 Author Share Posted September 13, 2012 QUICK VID on how to download the Spreadsheet.... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bignose Posted September 14, 2012 Share Posted September 14, 2012 I'm not watching any more videos. If there is an answer to my question, it doesn't require a video; all that is needed is a post. The answer to my question is a number. Something like "5% error". Our technology requires that we we update our formulas... Why? If there is no error in the tried and true formulas, why does it need to be replaced? Mathematics doesn't expire, it doesn't get old. We aren't declaring Euclid's Elements wrong just because they are some 2500 years old. Because they are still right. And the distance metrics set up in mathematics don't need to be replaced, because they are still right, too. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LittleBoPeep Posted September 15, 2012 Author Share Posted September 15, 2012 Why? If there is no error in the tried and true formulas, why does it need to be replaced? Mathematics doesn't expire, it doesn't get old. We aren't declaring Euclid's Elements wrong just because they are some 2500 years old. Because they are still right. And the distance metrics set up in mathematics don't need to be replaced, because they are still right, too. My point is simple E = M C^2... This we can agree on what I found is that M is not mater but the symbol for ZENITH and the D^2/T^2 was explaining the Latitude shift with the sun of opposing sides of the equator... Energy is a mystery to us because we built equations and science off of navigational tools... That equation was a visual guide to navigate using the sun... Altitude or ALT-itude(state of) is A(Right Angle) from L(Distance protruding from earth) is T(Time{Which may mean Tides???}) LAT-itude L(Distance protruding from earth) transmitting light A(Right Angle) to observers to indicate T(Time{Which may mean Tides???}) LONG-itude L(Distance protruding from earth) transmitting light to O(Observered) N(Zenith) with option to G(right angle shift the light to attain multiple pieces of data) BY NOT UNDERSTANDING THE INFORMATION we are creating redundant future that will not progress beyond the falsities it was built upon.... Gravity, Frequency are still important as for as I can see at this moment.... but using a mathematics system that stops at a certain speed is childish... I am not here to tear into math or science I was asked to justify my equation and have done so... Now it is time for existing science to justify why they did not catch these errors and fix them... Mathematics does expire and will get old that is what I am saying as we progress further than we will ever image science and math must push the bounds of our understanding and restriction we have placed on them in-order to achieve greater successes that they could have never imagined. That is life and change in inevitable... AS FOR THE ZENITH altitude longitude latitude information that is currently being verified by three independent firms who were dumb founded and intrigued by the proposed idea of lost in translation... One has already returned stating everything indicates that I am correct with the proposal of the Zenith issue with energy... I was stating from the very beginning that this equation will allow us to travel faster than light because time is not a restrictive factor... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ACG52 Posted September 15, 2012 Share Posted September 15, 2012 My point is simple E = M C^2... This we can agree on what I found is that M is not mater but the symbol for ZENITH and the D^2/T^2 was explaining the Latitude shift with the sun of opposing sides of the equator... This is not right, it's not even wrong. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LittleBoPeep Posted September 15, 2012 Author Share Posted September 15, 2012 (edited) This is not right, it's not even wrong. I am lost with the emoticon and what this is trying to say so let me rephrase:\ E = MC ^ 2 is perhaps the most famous equation of all time. It stands for E(negery) = M(ass) times the Speed of Light © squared. But Really the M was making an ass out of us through Longitude at the point of Zenith. (Side,angle,Side equation) The Observer was calculating the angle of the sun by two sides of the equation altitude and latitude BUT these were two systems of calculation for the M of ZENITH... OR WHAT I am thinking is really that is literal instructions again. Where n one leg of n would be the base of the shadow and a splinting extinction at the top of a staff or stick would be use to indicate and create a shadowed triangle... I will work on this to better understand what is going on..... Edited September 15, 2012 by LittleBoPeep Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bignose Posted September 15, 2012 Share Posted September 15, 2012 My point is simple E = M C^2... This we can agree on what I found is that M is not mater but the symbol for ZENITH and ... Nope. I certainly don't agree. You haven't shown a single piece of supporting evidence for ANY of the claims you've made here, despite my asking you to specifically do so. So, there is no real reason to believe you. Just like I would hope that you wouldn't agree to believe that I keep a pet unicorn in my garage without providing ample evidence. Right now, all your claims are about as believable as a family of unicorns that speak fluent Armenian living in my garage (yes, it's huuuuuge). Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LittleBoPeep Posted September 16, 2012 Author Share Posted September 16, 2012 (edited) Nope. I certainly don't agree. You haven't shown a single piece of supporting evidence for ANY of the claims you've made here, despite my asking you to specifically do so. So, there is no real reason to believe you. I am not sure if you would allow for an equation that could calculate latitude and longitude from an objects height and shadow it produces from the suns rays as enough proof, but that is the next logical steps. I am currently testing and data mining all possible formation. THIS IS VERY EARLY TO BE STATING, but I think I have the two morning equations handled now working on the evening equations... The goal I am doing is if I can get a close approximation at short shadows and long shadows both before and after noon than I will just tear apart the formulas strip it down to the minimalist parts and release a final version... I am only at confirmed morning random data parts.. Next is evening and afternoon then onto exact point data step calculation... AS STATED BEFORE I SHOULD NOT EVEN RETURN A SINGLE POSITIVE if idea is FALSE, let alone multiple random point positives.... I understand videos are frowned here but it explains the course of action and the process I am taking to attain an appropriate solution. Edited September 16, 2012 by LittleBoPeep Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
imatfaal Posted September 16, 2012 Share Posted September 16, 2012 ! Moderator Note LittleBoPeepIf we don't see some answers to Bignose's very relevant questions, and requests for information I will feel forced to lock this thread. Take a moment to look back through the thread, make a note of the requests and at least try to answer them. The speculations forum does not exist to provide a pulpit from which to expound your ideas - it is a testing ground and as such you must play by the rules. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bignose Posted September 16, 2012 Share Posted September 16, 2012 Considering I do think that you haven't really understood my objections to date, I hope that you don't just run crazy with the following information and misuse and misinterpret and otherwise not understand it. BUT, have you even looked at the spherical coordinate system? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Spherical_coordinate_system Mathematicians have already solved the problem of describing velocities in a spherical system. That is, the r in the coordinate can interpreted as the altitude, and the two angles are related to latitude and longitude. But MOST importantly -- When done properly, the answer one gets when using Cartesian coordinates is exactly the same as the answer one gets when using spherical coordinates. (and any other set of properly defined coordinates when the conversions are done correctly.) That is, is you have two points in space, the distance between them are exactly the same no matter if you measure the distance with a Cartesian metric, a spherical metric, or any other properly defined ones. AS STATED BEFORE I SHOULD NOT EVEN RETURN A SINGLE POSITIVE if idea is FALSE, let alone multiple random point positives.... I understand videos are frowned here but it explains the course of action and the process I am taking to attain an appropriate solution. All you have posted are results of your calculation -- you have not compared them to anything. So you don't have any idea if something is "positive", "negative", "pink", or "watermelon". Without comparing the results of your calculation with something, you have zero context about what you are calculating. Anyone can just throw symbols together and calculate something. That doesn't make what they calculated meaningful. And to this point, this is why I've been trying to get you to compare your calculating against the tried-and-true Cartesian distance metric. You claimed that all 3-D distance measurements had errors -- why can't you demonstrate exactly how much error there is? Why can't you repeat the same calculation I did in your model? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LittleBoPeep Posted September 17, 2012 Author Share Posted September 17, 2012 This is a thank you to to staff and big nose for guiding me down the appropriate venues to effectively answer the question... I apologize if It seems as if I was going of topic will read up and answer your question. How Is the current system errored as well as the percentage of errors found? Is that correct? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LittleBoPeep Posted September 17, 2012 Author Share Posted September 17, 2012 (edited) All you have posted are results of your calculation -- you have not compared them to anything. So you don't have any idea if something is "positive", "negative", "pink", or "watermelon". Without comparing the results of your calculation with something, you have zero context about what you are calculating. I am not a scientist or mathematician restricted by the scientific method. So I have not been trying to prove existing items that have been used by millions just trying to find out why they are the way they are.... Anyone can just throw symbols together and calculate something. That doesn't make what they calculated meaningful. Removing the restriction of light and allowing gps positioning to becalculated with only two point of reference and enabling calculations for faster than light travel is not meaningful? And to this point, this is why I've been trying to get you to compare your calculating against the tried-and-true Cartesian distance metric. You claimed that all 3-D distance measurements had errors -- why can't you demonstrate exactly how much error there is? Because I do not know how to show you that time is inherently restrictive and no matter what you do you cannot use zero in the equation... Secondly light maximum speed is no longer a constant and I do not know how to show you that.... I can not place imaginary dot point systems in the model... SO you want 000 and 111 as altitude, lat, long.... simple easy doing now... the calculation are going to be different because spreadsheet is not setup that way... so here is without alterations... -36.75 miles.... The negative indicates that you are walking into the gravitational rotation. YOU wanted just literal without the earths circumference built into the equation... = 105.62 ' This is because we were traveling at radius of 1.5 and this is the actual distant traveled between that time.... Future my spreadsheet is not currently setup for different planetary sizes yet... Easily done but just not there yet... if you are wanting additional input from the data then place it into the forum... I was under the impression that you wanted me to find the error n the original system... Why can't you repeat the same calculation I did in your model? The spreadsheet is growing and will beable to hand zeros but currently can not do this because of the limitations with the spreadsheet not the equation... The same distance will be traveled if you use 111 to 222 so hope this help bridge the gap in communications... Edited September 17, 2012 by LittleBoPeep Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ACG52 Posted September 17, 2012 Share Posted September 17, 2012 (edited) I am not a scientist or mathematician restricted by the scientific method. So you're free to just make up nonsense? Because that's all this thread is. Edited September 17, 2012 by ACG52 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bignose Posted September 17, 2012 Share Posted September 17, 2012 I am not a scientist or mathematician restricted by the scientific method. I have to agree with ACG in comment to this. If you are really going to stick to this, then you need to not post on a science forum. Because on a science forum, we expect some semblance of science. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LittleBoPeep Posted September 18, 2012 Author Share Posted September 18, 2012 I have to agree with ACG in comment to this. If you are really going to stick to this, then you need to not post on a science forum. Because on a science forum, we expect some semblance of science. Did I answer the question as requested? I said that statement because people keep harping that I am not answering there questions, but when a question is answered it is ignored and criticized about the extra information added... Did you get the information that you requested or not? I answered why you cannot put 000 into the spreadsheet due to the statement in the sheet itself not because it cant be done.... This is not a new system of mathematics just a new system of calculating distance that is not restrictive by speed or time... As far as I can see neither one of the coordinating system are build for real world environments but My real world equation.... If anything It should stand up to current gps equation or distance equations... Not an entire system of calculation from a 000 point... I am not trying to argue or idk talk but seriously I have provided a working equation that can calculation gps location with two point of requested data. I do not know what background you are coming from but mine is not science or math. This has been a hobby for me that lead my down some crazy roads of inspiration. I appreciate you input but if it is not going to be about the concept at hand I must part my ways.... I greatly appreciate all this forum has done and wish it the best.... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bignose Posted September 18, 2012 Share Posted September 18, 2012 (edited) Did I answer the question as requested? No, you didn't. You summarily declared that you didn't have to answer the question because "I am not a scientist". That's all fine and dandy for your personal beliefs, but on a science forum, it doesn't fly. The fact that (0,0,0) doesn't work with your equations should be a huge flag that something is wrong. Because the positioning of (0,0,0) is completely arbitrary. Nature doesn't know if I have labelled a point (0,0,0), (6,12,954), or [math](\pi, e, \pi^e)[/math]. This is a related issue to what I pointed out above that you get the exact same answer no matter what coordinate system you use as well. Nature doesn't know whether I am applying a Cartesian, cylindrical, spherical or any other coordinate system. Nature's laws are coordinate-system independent. This is not a new system of mathematics just a new system of calculating distance that is not restrictive by speed or time... When I compute the distance between (x, y, z) = (0,0,0) and (1,1,1) using the Cartesian metric.... I don't need a speed or a time. All I need is [math]\Delta x = 1-0[/math], [math]\Delta y = 1-0[/math], and [math]\Delta z = 1-0[/math], no speed, no time in there, just the differences between the coordinates. Again, I think you are seeking a solution to a problem that doesn't exist. AND, you certainly haven't provided any example where the distance metric fails. Edited September 18, 2012 by Bignose Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LittleBoPeep Posted September 18, 2012 Author Share Posted September 18, 2012 (edited) The fact that (0,0,0) doesn't work with your equations should be a huge flag that something is wrong. Because the positioning of (0,0,0) is completely arbitrary. Nature doesn't know if I have labelled a point (0,0,0), (6,12,954), or [math](\pi, e, \pi^e)[/math]. You keep arguing this point the equation can handle to point 000 for new worlds as well as this one but it is not buiilt into to spreadsheet. I had some and if statement that need to be removed... THE EQUATION CAN HANDLE 000 the spreadsheet is not there yet... When I compute the distance between (x, y, z) = (0,0,0) and (1,1,1) using the Cartesian metric.... I don't need a speed or a time. All I need is [math]\Delta x = 1-0[/math], [math]\Delta y = 1-0[/math], and [math]\Delta z = 1-0[/math], no speed, no time in there, just the differences between the coordinates. the proposed equation describes everything in its appropriate terms... If I get this to work for zero will you move on the the next piece of information? The speed is only attained when a second location is set into the equation time shows the restrictive properties of the earths spin... Again, I think you are seeking a solution to a problem that doesn't exist. The problem of altitude^2 when altitude is multiplied in... when researched pointed toward zenith and M which changed the energy equation.... I know that this single statement is making waves so lets work on the spreadsheet to get it to where you will accept it is valid solution for something... OK. ok Edited September 18, 2012 by LittleBoPeep Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bignose Posted September 18, 2012 Share Posted September 18, 2012 If I get this to work for zero will you move on the the next piece of information? If the next piece of information is an actual calculation of the error of the tried-and-true distance metrics, then yes. Don't forget your claim above is that "distance ... becomes flawed at a 3-dimensional level". If you can actually demonstrate that flaw, and how much error that flaw causes, then I will move on. I don't plan to move on without it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LittleBoPeep Posted September 19, 2012 Author Share Posted September 19, 2012 (edited) If the next piece of information is an actual calculation of the error of the tried-and-true distance metrics, then yes. Don't forget your claim above is that "distance ... becomes flawed at a 3-dimensional level". If you can actually demonstrate that flaw, and how much error that flaw causes, then I will move on. I don't plan to move on without it. ALTITUDE SQUARED is the error.... The understanding is simple speed at altitude one is going to be different than speed at altitude two. This is the same with distance traveled during time at altitude one will be different than altitude two.. Additionally the direction of movement is lost when you square the Items in question this is not a problem if you just want a destination point, but distance is motion or movement from one place to another and should be able to describe that. By separating the time by speed and altitude and adding them back together.... Speed(Time) + Altitude(Time) may be our current idea but what is missing if the key to the whole IS Altitude(Speed) multiplied by both parts... Speed is a compound Idea of motion over time... (Speed(Time) + Altitude(Time))*Altitude(Speed) But it really is: (Distance(Time) + Altitude(Time))*Altitude(Distance) The idea of motion is removed and is a definitive answer not a compounded problem... No more mile per anything... You traveling at a rate of seventy miles... SIMPLE... Accelerate to fifty miles then maintain course on route 66... I understand that this sounds like I am just repeating the same Ideas over and over but I do not understand how else to convey the information.... Edited September 19, 2012 by LittleBoPeep Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ACG52 Posted September 19, 2012 Share Posted September 19, 2012 ALTITUDE SQUARED is the error.... The understanding is simple speed at altitude one is going to be different than speed at altitude two. This is the same with distance traveled during time at altitude one will be different than altitude two.. Additionally the direction of movement is lost when you square the Items in question this is not a problem if you just want a destination point, but distance is motion or movement from one place to another and should be able to describe that. By separating the time by speed and altitude and adding them back together.... Speed(Time) + Altitude(Time) may be our current idea but what is missing if the key to the whole IS Altitude(Speed) multiplied by both parts... Speed is a compound Idea of motion over time... (Speed(Time) + Altitude(Time))*Altitude(Speed) But it really is: (Distance(Time) + Altitude(Time))*Altitude(Distance) The idea of motion is removed and is a definitive answer not a compounded problem... No more mile per anything... You traveling at a rate of seventy miles... SIMPLE... Accelerate to fifty miles then maintain course on route 66... I understand that this sounds like I am just repeating the same Ideas over and over but I do not understand how else to convey the information.... Put in actual, real numbers, instead of a lot of hand waving. Do the calculations. Compare your results to reality. How else would you do it? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bignose Posted September 19, 2012 Share Posted September 19, 2012 ALTITUDE SQUARED is the error.... The understanding is simple speed at altitude one is going to be different than speed at altitude two. This is the same with distance traveled during time at altitude one will be different than altitude two.. Additionally the direction of movement is lost when you square the Items in question this is not a problem if you just want a destination point, but distance is motion or movement from one place to another and should be able to describe that. By separating the time by speed and altitude and adding them back together.... Speed(Time) + Altitude(Time) may be our current idea but what is missing if the key to the whole IS Altitude(Speed) multiplied by both parts... Speed is a compound Idea of motion over time... (Speed(Time) + Altitude(Time))*Altitude(Speed) But it really is: (Distance(Time) + Altitude(Time))*Altitude(Distance) The idea of motion is removed and is a definitive answer not a compounded problem... No more mile per anything... You traveling at a rate of seventy miles... SIMPLE... Accelerate to fifty miles then maintain course on route 66... I understand that this sounds like I am just repeating the same Ideas over and over but I do not understand how else to convey the information.... 3 thoughts: 1) still no error estimate using actual numbers, and still no calculation I gave you using tour method 2) "(Speed(Time) + Altitude(Time))*Altitude(Speed)" is dimensionally unsound. How does one add a speed and an altitude (in the first set of parentheses)? What is 5 m/s plus 1000 feet of altitude? 3) "This is the same with distance traveled during time at altitude one will be different than altitude two" really? if I travel 1000 feet at an altitude of 1000 feet, this will be different than travelling 1000 feet at an altitude of 10,000 feet? How is that possible? They are both 1000 feet! 1000 feet is 1000 feet! Do you mean in relation to degrees of latitude & longitude? That is, at an altitude of 1000 feet, travelling 1 degree latitude is a different distance than when at an altitude of 10,000 feet? If so, there is a known answer to this too -- it simply involves calculating the great circle between the two points at that altitude. And the arc length along that great circle is dependent on radius (altitude). Again, this is a consequence of the definition of the distance metric in spherical coordinates. I really, really think you need to be very clear about what you are trying to do here. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LittleBoPeep Posted September 19, 2012 Author Share Posted September 19, 2012 (edited) Put in actual, real numbers, instead of a lot of hand waving. Do the calculations. Compare your results to reality. How else would you do it? OK understood... Just sucks to do something that is not going to give a consistent error or result... 3 thoughts: 1) still no error estimate using actual numbers, and still no calculation I gave you using tour method Working on a formula to show the errors but I think it is going ot be a range not a singe percentage... 2) "(Speed(Time) + Altitude(Time))*Altitude(Speed)" is dimensionally unsound. How does one add a speed and an altitude (in the first set of parentheses)? What is 5 m/s plus 1000 feet of altitude? Ths equation breaks up time because it understands that time is experienced differently from the original speed vs Altitude SPEED.. So it multiplies in the speed of the new average to attain the perfect meld of information.... SPEED was an idea of motion and truly is just two different locations the connection would be called speed. But I change that to distance in the original statement. 3) "This is the same with distance traveled during time at altitude one will be different than altitude two" really? if I travel 1000 feet at an altitude of 1000 feet, this will be different than travelling 1000 feet at an altitude of 10,000 feet? How is that possible? They are both 1000 feet! 1000 feet is 1000 feet! Except when you calculate the earths spin into the equation and if we ever want to travel the speed of light we must take that into effect...The enviroment of the person can be added retained or resisted depending upon the desired outcome of the observer..... Do you mean in relation to degrees of latitude & longitude? That is, at an altitude of 1000 feet, travelling 1 degree latitude is a different distance than when at an altitude of 10,000 feet? If so, there is a known answer to this too -- it simply involves calculating the great circle between the two points at that altitude. And the arc length along that great circle is dependent on radius (altitude). Again, this is a consequence of the definition of the distance metric in spherical coordinates. I really, really think you need to be very clear about what you are trying to do here. I wanted to create an equation that would be able to navigate space when light and time are removed from the equation... I have done that but people are wanting my to alter the equation to suit their needs... First was GPS not it is disprove distant altitude Squared.... I have given a new incite on life but am told I am wrong.... The equation if for time travel but people are not viewing it as such.... NEW EDIT AND THOUGHT: altitude is can not be built into the current distance equation because of the limiting equation D=S*T it will always remove what was added... because you have to multiply to both sides. I understand you will get a compound answer. At this altitude you will be traveling .... but this will fall short when we start traveling to other planets very fast we will become confused... My system solves the confusion.... When expressed appropriately to the appropriate people... thank you both for being patient with my system and understanding... Edited September 19, 2012 by LittleBoPeep Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bignose Posted September 19, 2012 Share Posted September 19, 2012 This equation breaks up time because it understands that time is experienced differently from the original speed vs Altitude SPEED.. So it multiplies in the speed of the new average to attain the perfect meld of information.... SPEED was an idea of motion and truly is just two different locations the connection would be called speed. But I change that to distance in the original statement. Except when you calculate the earths spin into the equation and if we ever want to travel the speed of light we must take that into effect...The enviroment of the person can be added retained or resisted depending upon the desired outcome of the observer..... I wanted to create an equation that would be able to navigate space when light and time are removed from the equation... I have done that but people are wanting my to alter the equation to suit their needs... First was GPS not it is disprove distant altitude Squared.... I have given a new incite on life but am told I am wrong.... The equation if for time travel but people are not viewing it as such.... The above doesn't address the dimensional inconsistency. You can't add 4 bananas to 7 sheep and call it 11 Volkswagons. You have to add like units to like units. You can add a foot to a mile, because both a lengths. You can't add a velocity to a distance, because one is a length per unit time and the other is just a length. If you want to account for motion of the Earth, there are mathematics for rotating and translating coordinate systems. The math is a little trickier than non-moving coordinates, but again, this is a problem mathematics has addressed already. Lastly, I don't know how you can claim this equation allows 'time travel'. Unless you mean the trivial case in that we all move forward in time. Because if you are invoking the extraordinary claim of 'time travel' in the 'Back to the Future', H.G. Wells, 'Star Trek' sense, then this claim is going to require some awfully extraordinary evidence. Since it has been a struggle to even get you to calculate the distance from (x,y,z) = (0,0,0) to (1,1,1), I suspect that the evidence for time travel in the Star Trek sense doesn't exist. I would be pleasantly surprsied to be proven wrong, but without evidence, this claim really should be flat out rejected. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts