ACG52 Posted September 19, 2012 Share Posted September 19, 2012 Just sucks to do something that is not going to give a consistent error or result... If your 'theory' doesn't give consistent results, it's useless. In fact, if your theory doesn't give consistent results, it's not a theory. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LittleBoPeep Posted September 20, 2012 Author Share Posted September 20, 2012 (edited) If your 'theory' doesn't give consistent results, it's useless. In fact, if your theory doesn't give consistent results, it's not a theory. The theory gives consistent results it is the requested disproved action of other theories to that would give inconsistent results.... 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. The fact u said that proves my point... Length per unit of time. It is not a time or a length the combination makes it neither. The Idea we hold true is that it is interchangeable and this is the falsity I am faced with lets say time is the number three and then length is the number 4 when combined they are either seven, one, -1, 12, 1.3333 or .75 all of which have the properties of 3 or 4 but are not three or four it is a new item altogether... The calculate the distance from (x,y,z) = (0,0,0) to (1,1,1), The answer was presented in the video it was 35.207 feet... As for the time travel backwards time travel is irrelevant we all know that but how would you navigate an atmosphere where nothing moved or only moved slightly you would need to remove time from the equation what I have been saying from the beginning... New time equation which turned out to become a distance equation instead... 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. My equation handles motion as well as non motion as well as time and altitudes.... if parties of interest would stop trying to disprove the notion that I could develop something new of importance maybe we can move forward in changing the world... Edited September 20, 2012 by LittleBoPeep Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bignose Posted September 20, 2012 Share Posted September 20, 2012 (edited) The fact u said that proves my point... Length per unit of time. It is not a time or a length the combination makes it neither. The Idea we hold true is that it is interchangeable and this is the falsity I am faced with lets say time is the number three and then length is the number 4 when combined they are either seven, one, -1, 12, 1.3333 or .75 all of which have the properties of 3 or 4 but are not three or four it is a new item altogether... balderdash Here are you equations per the latest post as near as I can tell (Speed(Time) + Altitude(Time))*Altitude(Speed) But it really is: (Distance(Time) + Altitude(Time))*Altitude(Distance) Follow along, I am going to put the typical units behind the word in square brackets like so: speed [distance/time] So, the first equation is: (speed [distance/time] + altitude [length])*altitude[length] HOW CAN YOU DO THE ADDITION IN THE SET OF ()'s ?!? The units aren't compatible. You cannot add a speed and a length. You cannot add ANY incompatible units. 1 mile + 15 lumens = nonsense 4 bananas + 7 sheep = nonsense any m/s + any other m = nonsense.... The second equation is (distance [length] + altitude[length])*altitude[length] At least here, the two terms in the ()'s are the same unit. So they can be added together. But them you multiply them by another length, so you get a length squared or an area. An area is a nonsensical answer to the question: "what is the distance between too points". That is, no one asks "How far it is to the market from here?" and expects an answer like "15 hectares." Because that is a meaningless answer. Look, you have to get the right units -- if you agreed to accept a job for 50,000 dollars a year, you don't expect your boss to come around on pay day and drop grains of sand on your desk and declare that in his world, a grain of sand IS a dollar. The units are of critical importance. This has been shown to be true in EVERY SINGLE SUCCESSFUL PREDICTION MADE WITH EQUATIONS TO DATE. This really is non-negotiable if you want you idea to be taken seriously. The answer was presented in the video it was 35.207 feet... A video is a terrible place to post how a math problem is done. Could you please post all the steps on the forum? Because 35.207 feet is very, very different than [math]\sqrt(3)[/math] which is the tried and true answer. My equation handles motion as well as non motion as well as time and altitudes.... if parties of interest would stop trying to disprove the notion that I could develop something new of importance maybe we can move forward in changing the world... I am not doing a personal attack. I am pointing out what I see as flaws in the presentation. I am not trying to 'disprove' anything. And really, all you got to do is post compelling evidence as to why your idea is right. Really, if anything, YOU are doing the 'disproving' by not answering questions straightforwardly and with compelling evidence how your idea matches experiment. The more compelling evidence you can provide showing your idea working, the more support you will receive. The more shifty, indirect, incoherent answers provided... the more likely people are going to just reject it as nonsense. And, in the bigger picture, this is the scientific process -- namely reviewing of others work. If you can't handle an anonymous Internet critique of your work, how are you ever going to actually ever present it at a conference or submit a paper for publication? They will be far harsher with their critiques than we have been. Frankly, right now, what you have would in all likelihood be ignored. If you can start answering my and others' questions straightforwardly (there are a bunch on the first page we haven't ever gone back to), you significantly improve your chances of not being ignored. On the other hand, if you want to continue to consider this a personal attack, then I will quit trying to prod you in a direction to make your idea stronger and stop participating in this thread. It's your call. Edited September 20, 2012 by Bignose Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LittleBoPeep Posted September 23, 2012 Author Share Posted September 23, 2012 (edited) A video is a terrible place to post how a math problem is done. Could you please post all the steps on the forum? Because 35.207 feet is very, very different than [math]\sqrt(3)[/math] which is the tried and true answer. The issue lies int the altitude you are talking about XYZ which is not altitude longitude and latitude. Your point 000 has no circumfirence. my equation placed one as the circumfirence making a diameter of 1. causing further change from the [math]\sqrt(3)[/math] additionally it takes into account gravitational spin when where tried and true just do points system... We are talking about two different systems that function under different conditions... balderdash I am still correct in my statement a 3 is a 3 and a 4 is a 4 different combined variations does not make their product a 3 or a 4 but a sum of or a factor of... HOW CAN YOU DO THE ADDITION IN THE SET OF ()'s ?!? The units aren't compatible. You cannot add a speed and a length. You cannot add ANY incompatible units. 1 mile + 15 lumens = nonsense 4 bananas + 7 sheep = nonsense any m/s + any other m = nonsense.... If they have a common denominator then you can combine terms to make a new term, but that is not what I am saying... (Distance(Time) + Altitude(Time))*Altitude(Distance) I stated the above because speed is indicated by a blend of distance and time miles per hour or kilometers per hour.... That is outdated and needs to be removed with a standard distance rate. What you are not seeing is the altitude from the second part is reintroduced into both sides of the equation at the end multiplication part and the distance from the first part is the determinate of the multiplication of the second part... This is a simple percentage problem of multiplication solves the time error in math by creating the perfect environment to be combined... In stead of using percentage we are using time as the percentage which is really a percentage of 360 full rotation which is what I have been trying to say not so well but trying... hope that bridged the gap... On the other hand, if you want to continue to consider this a personal attack, then I will quit trying to prod you in a direction to make your idea stronger and stop participating in this thread. It's your call. The fact is I do not know how to explain what I have I only know that I am right in this matter... So as long as science forum allows us to go back and fourth then I would be willing to twiddle away to the most consist answer that explains everything to it truest form... I am not conceated I just new where we need to move next... and am doing everything in my power to get this moving toward... science... balderdash The units aren't compatible. You cannot add a speed and a length. Try this one same idea different words [math] \frac{\ Horizontal Distance + Altitude}{\ TIME} *Horizontal Distance*Altitude [/math] So really it is a verticle speed plus a horizontal speed connected by time averaged by distances... That is the concept in a nutshell... I do not know if this is already in use or a big thing. Time is never be zero so this will always be correct.... Edited September 23, 2012 by LittleBoPeep Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bignose Posted September 23, 2012 Share Posted September 23, 2012 The fact is I do not know how to explain what I have I only know that I am right in this matter... How can you be so sure you are right without a prediction and a comparison of that prediction to experimental results? 'Rightness' in a scientific sense is not a measure of how strongly one believes in an idea, or how well spoken about an idea one is -- this isn't the dark ages any more where the people in power got to dictate what people should believe in. This is the modern era of science, and you need to make a prediction, then compare how well that prediction agrees with a measured result. THIS is why I keep asking you for an error estimate compared to a known result -- i.e. the Cartesian distance metric. Try this one same idea different words [math] \frac{\ Horizontal Distance + Altitude}{\ TIME} *Horizontal Distance*Altitude [/math] So really it is a verticle speed plus a horizontal speed connected by time averaged by distances... That is the concept in a nutshell... I do not know if this is already in use or a big thing. Time is never be zero so this will always be correct.... So, now you've changed the formula yet again, and now it is a length cubed over a time. So, you have a volume per unit time? How can this be an answer to a question where a length is needed? Me: "How far is it to the market from here?" You: "Oh, about 700 cubic feet per second." Me: "Quit talking nonsense" Do you understand that units are really important? That your equation has to provide units that actually answer the question? This is an exceptionally easy first check on how valid an equation is. It is not the only check -- all the compare prediction with measurement stuff I've been harping on and all -- but it is a first check. Since your equation returns a volume per unit time, and not a distance as you claim, why should anyone bother to continue to look? Units are critically important, whether you choose to ignore them or not -- and just declare yourself right. Frankly, the hubris you've shown in your willingness to ignore the problems with the units -- and specifically I am talking about statements like "I am still correct in my statement a 3 is a 3 and a 4 is a 4 different combined variations does not make their product a 3 or a 4 but a sum of or a factor of..." -- where you just declare you are correct, really is annoying. Dimensional correctness is paramount to the usefulness of an equation. Without the right units, whatever answer an equation gives, is wrong. Whether or not the base number is right or not. The units cannot be ignored. In fact, the base number will radically change depending on the unit. The question "how far is it to the market from here?" can have answers like 1 mile, 1.6 km, 1.6 million mm, 1760 yards, 0.87 nautical miles, 3520 cubits, or 8 furlongs. AND THOSE ARE ALL THE SAME ANSWER! Because the number gets changed depending on what unit is used. This is why it doesn't matter if the equation spits out the right number without the right units -- because the fact that it gave a right answer (whatever that really means without the right units) it just purely coincidence. If your equation spits out 3520 cubic meters per day, are you really going to claim that is correct because it got "3520", but not the cubits? If so, then we might as well say that every equation is correct for predicting anything, because we can always create a system of units where we will get the correct number less the units. And that just doesn't sound very useful to me. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LittleBoPeep Posted September 23, 2012 Author Share Posted September 23, 2012 (edited) So, now you've changed the formula yet again, and now it is a length cubed over a time. So, you have a volume per unit time? How can this be an answer to a question where a length is needed? Me: "How far is it to the market from here?" You: "Oh, about 700 cubic feet per second." Me: "Quit talking nonsense" Do you understand that units are really important? That your equation has to provide units that actually answer the question? This is an exceptionally easy first check on how valid an equation is. I am trying to convey in it simplest form what is happening in the equation... I have stated from the very beginning everything is distance... how far is the market from here -700 cubic feet on foot... this will give you time it takes the latitude and longitude whether or not it is with the gravitational rotation or not. Everything will be simplified... to its ultimate terms... [Horizontal distance(Time) + vertical distance variation(Time)]Horizontal*Vertical This gets an average of the two parts.... Horizontal distance(Time) is known as our current form of speed. the second half is the average distance traveled when vertical change occurs... THIS IS NOT THE ACTUAL EQUATION IN THE GOOGLE DOC!!!! The doc is actually: [Horizontal distance(Time) + vertical distance variation(Time) + TIME]Horizontal*Vertical And even that is not the most accurate answer because it goes through three steps... Since your equation returns a volume per unit time, and not a distance as you claim, why should anyone bother to continue to look? Units are critically important. The reason for the distance(time) Is to convey speed in its current form only and the percentage of change happening when vertical climb happens... Units of measurement are the thing of the past, one agreed unit for every idea until the idea is updated... I am sure about this I can not say why... LITERALLY... Edited September 23, 2012 by LittleBoPeep Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bignose Posted September 23, 2012 Share Posted September 23, 2012 I am trying to convey in it simplest form what is happening in the equation... I have stated from the very beginning everything is distance... how far is the market from here -700 cubic feet on foot... this will give you time it takes the latitude and longitude whether or not it is with the gravitational rotation or not. Everything will be simplified... to its ultimate terms... [Horizontal distance(Time) + vertical distance variation(Time)]Horizontal*Vertical This gets an average of the two parts.... Horizontal distance(Time) is known as our current form of speed. the second half is the average distance traveled when vertical change occurs... THIS IS NOT THE ACTUAL EQUATION IN THE GOOGLE DOC!!!! The doc is actually: [Horizontal distance(Time) + vertical distance variation(Time) + TIME]Horizontal*Vertical And even that is not the most accurate answer because it goes through three steps... The reason for the distance(time) Is to convey speed in its current form only and the percentage of change happening when vertical climb happens... Units of measurement are the thing of the past, one agreed unit for every idea until the idea is updated... I am sure about this I can not say why... LITERALLY... I cannot disagree more. Please cite a single ANY other equation in use by anyone professionally (that is, not another amateur such as the above postings) where units of measurement aren't included. You won't. There is not a single example of a successful equation where "units are a thing of the past." In fact, the fashion for many years was to change the constants in an equation to accommodate the unit system chosen -- you'd find in old text books and handbooks an "English" equation and a "metric" equation. The fact that every single equation that has ever been published requires the correct units, leads me to strongly consider your equation in is flat out wrong if it doesn't return the right units. It is possible it is correct? It is possible -- it could be the very first one ever. But you're going to have to provide a ton of extraordinary evidence to support this very extraordinary claim. Much, much more than just "I am sure about this I can not say why". At this point, you're not doing anything even close to science. You are asking us to believe you on faith. That is basically the opposite of science. At this time, I'd recommend you step back, regather yourself, and try to collect evidence to support your claims. Because without evidence to support your claims, you are just story telling and expecting us to believe you on faith. Definitely not science. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LittleBoPeep Posted September 24, 2012 Author Share Posted September 24, 2012 (edited) I cannot disagree more. The fact that every single equation that has ever been published requires the correct units, leads me to strongly consider your equation in is flat out wrong if it doesn't return the right units. It is possible it is correct? It is possible -- it could be the very first one ever. But you're going to have to provide a ton of extraordinary evidence to support this very extraordinary claim. Much, much more than just "I am sure about this I can not say why". SIMPLE LOGIC TEST: TIME = 3 LENGTH=4 Combine both using all manners possible ( / * - + ) using whatever calculation is at your mathematics disposal... Some answers may include: 7, 1, -1, 12, 1.3333 or .75 None of which are the original numbers but are products of combining 3 and 4 OR TIME with SPACE(Length) and every product of the answer is classified as SPEED. While I have explained Space-Time in its simplest form it is rejected because we have built our math around SPEED an accurate procedure for science, but in order to gain precision then WE TOO MUST FIND OUR TRUTH. With Everyone Translating Others Observations Manually Understanding Space Time Frankly Is Nobodies Destiny Observered Universal Restrictions Transcend Reality Understanding Trust Happiness (With everyone translating others observations manually understanding space time frankly is nobodies destiny, observered universal restrictions transcend: Reality Understanding Trust Happiness..) Other Ideas should fit in/on this base unit; if something else is found to be better then WE CHANGE OUR ERRORS.... With Everyone Communicating How All Notions Grow Exponentially Observered Universal Restrictions Erase Reality Received Of Respected Sanity (With everybody communicating how all notions grow exponentially observed universal restrictions erase reality received of respected sanity.....) OR Erase Review Revise Observed Restriction Simple when we see errors, ERASE everything and start with a clean slate, REVIEW what we already have but REVISE the OBSERVATION that RESTRICTS our SIMPLE progression... If something else is right so be it... I am a mere stepping stones of simple progression... TIME is my Idea but SPACE is Universal... I MUST SAY THANK YOU>>> SHARE THE WORDS AND THE WORKING EQUATION!!! because you have allowed me the time and energy needed to find the letter to write to the physics community... Thank you to all... please keep the posts coming because I still need your help... Edited September 24, 2012 by LittleBoPeep Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bignose Posted September 24, 2012 Share Posted September 24, 2012 SIMPLE LOGIC TEST: TIME = 3 LENGTH=4 Combine both using all manners possible ( / * - + ) using whatever calculation is at your mathematics disposal... Some answers may include: 7, 1, -1, 12, 1.3333 or .75 None of which are the original numbers but are products of combining 3 and 4 Sure, and most of the 'products of combining' that 3 & 4 are nonsense. Such as 7. How exactly did you add 3 units of time to 4 units of distance? What is the sum of 3 hours and 4 kilometers? 7 choo choo trains? 7 strands of spaghetti? 7 volumes of the Encyclopedia Britannica? Also, suppose that was 3 hours, you do realize that is 180 minutes, right? Which makes '7' then a wrong answer.... 180 minutes + 4 kilometers is clearly 184 choo choo trains. So which is the 'right' answer? 7 choo choo trains, or 184 choo choo trains? With Everyone Translating Others Observations ... Pancakes Or Sushi Tastes Imbittered Now Guy Looking Into Krystal Elephants Thoughts, However Integrate Songs Igloos Sit Nocturnally Turbid Everyone Voices Indignation, Damnation, Exclamation Northward Causing Explosions I MUST SAY THANK YOU>>> SHARE THE WORDS AND THE WORKING EQUATION!!! because you have allowed me the time and energy needed to find the letter to write to the physics community... Thank you to all... please keep the posts coming because I still need your help... Seriously, unless there is a lot more to this idea than what you've presented here, expect your letter to be ignored. Note this is not me trying to be mean at all (tone doesn't convey in this medium), just trying to give you fair warning to not expect much. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LittleBoPeep Posted September 24, 2012 Author Share Posted September 24, 2012 (edited) Sure, and most of the 'products of combining' that 3 & 4 are nonsense. Such as 7. How exactly did you add 3 units of time to 4 units of distance? What is the sum of 3 hours and 4 kilometers? 7 choo choo trains? 7 strands of spaghetti? 7 volumes of the Encyclopedia Britannica? Also, suppose that was 3 hours, you do realize that is 180 minutes, right? Which makes '7' then a wrong answer.... 180 minutes + 4 kilometers is clearly 184 choo choo trains. So which is the 'right' answer? 7 choo choo trains, or 184 choo choo trains? Pancakes Or Sushi Tastes Imbittered Now Guy Looking Into Krystal Elephants Thoughts, However Integrate Songs Igloos Sit Nocturnally Turbid Everyone Voices Indignation, Damnation, Exclamation Northward Causing Explosions Seriously, unless there is a lot more to this idea than what you've presented here, expect your letter to be ignored. Note this is not me trying to be mean at all (tone doesn't convey in this medium), just trying to give you fair warning to not expect much. ... I also listed my words in a functional sentence... The Items you listed vertically work in a normal sentence... YOU BE THE JUDGE.... (Pancakes Or Sushi Tastes Imbittered Now Guy Looking Into Krystal Elephants Thoughts, However Integrate Songs Igloos Sit Nocturnally Turbid Everyone Voices Indignation, Damnation, Exclamation Northward Causing Explosions...) Do you think the prior sentence conveys a solid point or Idea? OR Do you think???? With everyone translating others observations manually understanding space time frankly is nobodies destiny, observered universal restrictions transcend: Reality Understanding Trust Happiness... WE TOO MUST FIND OUR TRUTH... Edited September 24, 2012 by LittleBoPeep Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bignose Posted September 24, 2012 Share Posted September 24, 2012 (edited) (Pancakes Or Sushi Tastes Imbittered Now Guy Looking Into Krystal Elephants Thoughts, However Integrate Songs Igloos Sit Nocturnally Turbid Everyone Voices Indignation, Damnation, Exclamation Northward Causing Explosions...) Do you think the prior sentence conveys a solid point or Idea? Not to be too rude about it, but it makes as much sense as claiming the ability to add units of time with units of length. Edited September 24, 2012 by Bignose Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LittleBoPeep Posted September 24, 2012 Author Share Posted September 24, 2012 (edited) Not to be too rude about it, but it makes as much sense as claiming the ability to add units of time with units of length. MY point exactly, DISTANCE = TIME x SPEED Multiplications = Addition SPEED of 12 = 3 + 3 + 3 + 3 = 3 x 4 = 4 + 4 + 4 = 12 of SPEED Even if I say that I found a speed equation the holy trinity of DISTANCE, TIME, SPEED still is interchangeable. WE CHANGE OUR ERRORS.... With everybody communicating how all notions grow exponentially observed universal restrictions erase reality received of respected sanity + when we see errors, ERASE everything and start with a clean slate, REVIEW what we already have but REVISE the OBSERVATION that RESTRICTS our SIMPLE progression... Edited September 24, 2012 by LittleBoPeep Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bignose Posted September 25, 2012 Share Posted September 25, 2012 MY point exactly, DISTANCE = TIME x SPEED So, we finally got one that I agree with, and is dimensionally sound. There are a few assumptions in the above equation -- specifically that speed is a constant during the entire time duration. But, I sure hope you aren't claiming to have invented the above, since it is pretty much a definition. And then we have all of this:.... 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 -).... (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.... Try this one same idea different words [math] \frac{\ Horizontal Distance + Altitude}{\ TIME} *Horizontal Distance*Altitude [/math] [Horizontal distance(Time) + vertical distance variation(Time)]Horizontal*Vertical So, which of these are your formula? Why can't you post exactly how it is used? (in words, not in a video, not in a spreadsheet). Do to the example I've been asking about for many, many days now. Going from (x, y, z) = (0 meters, 0 meters, 0 meters) to (1 meters, 1 meters, 1 meters) in 1 second. Use your equation, whichever one is correct, and show us how you plug the (0, 0, 0) and (1, 1, 1) into it and get an answer. Please use the correct units the whole way through, as well. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LittleBoPeep Posted September 25, 2012 Author Share Posted September 25, 2012 (edited) So, which of these are your formula? Why can't you post exactly how it is used? (in words, not in a video, not in a spreadsheet). Do to the example I've been asking about for many, many days now. Going from (x, y, z) = (0 meters, 0 meters, 0 meters) to (1 meters, 1 meters, 1 meters) in 1 second. Use your equation, whichever one is correct, and show us how you plug the (0, 0, 0) and (1, 1, 1) into it and get an answer. Please use the correct units the whole way through, as well. It is a different equation... It won't work because the equation is broken into 4 parts; all parts are independent of themselves... AVERAGING CIRCUMFERENCE PYTHAGOREAN THEOREM TIME Answer Decoder.... --------------------------- Pythagorean Theorem: needs [math]A^2 + B^2 = C^2[/math] Or [math]Latitude^2 + Longitude^2[/math] ........................................................................................................... Circumference equation is needed too figure Altitude of a sphere figured at both LATITUDE + LONGITUDE with [math] Circumference = \frac{\ 3.14(AX)cos(CZ)}{\ 360} [/math] ........................................................................................................... Averages for each (LATITUDE + LONGITUDE)@ Altitude by averaging each Idea separately then creating a common connection for LATITUDE + LONGITUDE work in the circumference step appropriately by adding both averages then multiplying by each side of the equation of Latitude and Longitude averages... ............................................................................................................ Latitudinal answers are easy simple Pythagorean Theorem but Longitude is throwing me around will get it cracked but will take a little longer than expected... But I think it has to do with 90 or the limitations of latitude... LONGITUDE is still escaping my grasp but I believe it to be an angle problem that I must be prepared to take from Either end of the 180 degrees which has 2 signs... This gives me 3 variations of the equation... ............................................................................................................ I think that I need another equation to figure longitude... Do you see I have to be prepared to take it from both ENDS!!!!! ANSWERED SQUARED = 3 VARIATIONS OF EQUATIONS * 2 VARIATIONS OF SIGNS = ??????? Logic tells me that it is the other variation of the equation.... But REMEMBER THE LIFE LESSON given at both ends of the speed of speed equation... ........................................................................................................... WE TOO MUST FIND OUR TRUTH TOO CHANGE OUR ERRORS.... With everyone translating others observations manually understanding space time frankly is nobodies destiny, observered universal restrictions transcend: Reality Understanding Trust Happiness; AGAIN translating others observations + communicating how all notions grow exponentially observed universal restrictions erase reality received of respected sanity AND when we see errors, ERASE everything and start with a clean slate, REVIEW what we already have but REVISE the OBSERVATION that RESTRICTS our SIMPLE progression... .......................................................................................................... SIMPLY PUT I know as much as you only I respect your reality choice and request you respect mine.... Edited September 25, 2012 by LittleBoPeep Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LittleBoPeep Posted September 25, 2012 Author Share Posted September 25, 2012 (edited) Simple answer: Current equation built... Latitude: (S*T+A*S)*T*A What we need to Build... Longitude: POSSIBLY; (S*T+T*A)*A*S KNOWN ARGUMENT: A*S*T*A Edited September 25, 2012 by LittleBoPeep Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bignose Posted September 25, 2012 Share Posted September 25, 2012 SIMPLY PUT I know as much as you only I respect your reality choice and request you respect mine.... What disrespect have I shown you? This really irritates me, since I have spent time replying to your posts, trying to show you where you have done something unscientific and pointing it out. I could have just simply dismissed the idea -- because there were and are lots of grounds to dismiss it with. You may hold whatever beliefs and realities you want, but you can't post them on a science forum and not expect it to be critiqued. ALL work in science is critiqued. ALL work in science is judged on how well its predictions matches with experiment. As I wrote before, this is not personal. I respect your personal beliefs, but I only respect scientific beliefs when they are supported by objective evidence. Simple answer: Current equation built... Latitude: (S*T+A*S)*T*A This isn't an equation. There is no equals sign. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LittleBoPeep Posted September 25, 2012 Author Share Posted September 25, 2012 (edited) What disrespect have I shown you? This really irritates me, since I have spent time replying to your posts, trying to show you where you have done something unscientific and pointing it out. I could have just simply dismissed the idea -- because there were and are lots of grounds to dismiss it with. You may hold whatever beliefs and realities you want, but you can't post them on a science forum and not expect it to be critiqued. ALL work in science is critiqued. ALL work in science is judged on how well its predictions matches with experiment. As I wrote before, this is not personal. I respect your personal beliefs, but I only respect scientific beliefs when they are supported by objective evidence. This isn't an equation. There is no equals sign. You are not the only force that I have been dealing with... I am sorry if I have led you to believe I was talking too you... It has been like I have been playing jeopardy my whole life and this was the Icing on the cake... Yeah ok Joshua (me) you solved the spacetime issue but have no proof or even experience in the profession.... I am sorry... That was for the haters... LONGITUDE: Longitude was simple when I figured out what was happening. Even though latitude is the constant and longitude loses distance as it travels towards the poles. I have not figured out the and IF statement for the google docs yet but I think I have got it all figured out... REST: THE GREATEST THING is the idea can be explained in a ten page Comic... I will post the 4 minute video explaining... I understand you dislike videos but this is my day off from this IDEA... EQUATION: I understand it is not one equation but a compound set of equations that fix everything... I understand that this is a broad claim but I should not of been able to do what I have already done with the tools I was using... Edited September 25, 2012 by LittleBoPeep Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LittleBoPeep Posted October 1, 2012 Author Share Posted October 1, 2012 I understand the order of operations but do not understand the logic behind the working solution... YET...Sorry not yet.... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LittleBoPeep Posted October 5, 2012 Author Share Posted October 5, 2012 (edited) I understand the order of operations but do not understand the logic behind the working solution... YET... Sorry not yet.... Below list longitudes operations Latitude is 180 degrees + or- between the red lines /or 90+ and 90- Einsteins Theory of Relativity Sister Theory of EVERYTHING... The sister theory of everything is a simple way to graph the arrow of time on two dimensional graph... I stated this from the beginning this will soon become a chapter in all science books the errors of my way will become forgotten but the idea will maintain true because it connects everything into one simple concept and graph... Edited October 5, 2012 by LittleBoPeep Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ACG52 Posted October 6, 2012 Share Posted October 6, 2012 Major nonsense thread. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LittleBoPeep Posted October 6, 2012 Author Share Posted October 6, 2012 Major nonsense thread. And here is the revised nonsesne... This is the decision or the center point of entropy or arrow of time.. This image handles latitude and longitude as well as a specific time when a decision needs to be made showing the two prior options to get the that point and when the decision it made it shrinks down to a single dot in time. It is a clean way of stack information that may be pertinent to an scientific study... I am still working out the details but it visually states everything without know a language... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bignose Posted October 7, 2012 Share Posted October 7, 2012 This is the decision or the center point of entropy or arrow of time.. Laugh Out Loud.... there isn't even an arrow in the picture. Nor does it even attempt to answer any of the questions in the thread above. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
imatfaal Posted October 7, 2012 Share Posted October 7, 2012 ! Moderator Note LittleBoPeep - a little under three weeks ago you were told that you must consider the questions that were being posed and start to provide answers; as far as I can see this has not happened and you continue to treat this thread as a blog. This is against the rules of the forum. Thread Locked. Please do not open up other threads on the same topic. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts