jump to last post 1-50 of 58 discussions (140 posts)

the theory of infinity and the laws of relativity between dimensions.

  1. profile image61
    effilnucposted 6 years ago

    my name is thomas boyd cunliffe from eastern australia.  this is the theory of infinity with the laws from infinity and some of the corresponding ratios.

    PLEASE FORWARD ON TO RESEARCHERS IN ALL FIELDS AS IT IS CAN BE TESTED THROUGH ITS APPLICATION TO EACH SCIENTIFIC DISCIPLINE FROM ASTRONOMY TO QUANTUM MECHANICS.

    INFINITY x 10^0 x PI^0 - or 1 times by 10 to the power of 0 x the PI ratio to the same power or dimension - ZERO STATE or darkness

    II x 10^1 x PI^1 - or the first dimension which is the separation of INFINITTY - THE PHOTON - into II EXAPANDING AT THIS RATIO WITH RESPECT TO EITHER THE ZERO STATE OR INFINITY

    III x 10^2 x PI^2 - the creation of the first OXYGEN  atom and as a ratio of the first dimension creates the MAGNETIC LAW  between PHOTONS OF THE FIRST DIMENSION and monatomic oxygen.

    IIII x 10^3 x PI^3 - the  LAW OF GRAVITY as a ratio to the first dimension of light and at a harmonic ratio of 3/2 with the second dimension of THE MAGNETIC LAW - GRAVITY IS A FUNCTION OF MAGNETISM

    IIIII x 10^4 x PI^4 - the law of space/time/matter - A FUNCTION OF SPACE TIME AND LIGHT.

    IIIIII x10^5 x Pi^5 - E = mc^2 - the law of destruction and at disharmony (ratio)  with the first four dimensions and the 6th but harmonic with the ZERO STATE...sort of...lol

    IIIIIIIx10^6 x ^6 - the present dimension that is in  harmony (ratio)  with the first five laws BUT not the 5th.

    and on it goes back to INFINITY.

    the Negative - the opposite of this universe and the zero state exists as the same functions but to the negative powers for EG II x10^-1 x PI^-1

  2. wilderness profile image94
    wildernessposted 6 years ago

    Pretty words.  It is unfortunate that there is less meaning than a politicians promise in them.

    1. profile image61
      effilnucposted 6 years agoin reply to this

      Deleted

      1. profile image0
        jomineposted 6 years agoin reply to this

        What is this trash all about?

  3. profile image61
    effilnucposted 6 years ago

    Within the harmonic ratios of the above 9 dimensional laws (the zero state is not a dimension) one can find the laws of relativity between electromagnetism, gravity, magnetism and photon wave/particles...plus much more!

  4. Newton's Rival profile image79
    Newton's Rivalposted 6 years ago

    I think you have to be a little more specific in what your wanting ppl to know. You state equations, but not too much of an explanation 4 them.

  5. profile image61
    effilnucposted 6 years ago

    sorry ignore the words...do the maths

    INFINITY IS THE WHOLE OR I

    Ix10^0 x the PI ratio^0
    IIx10^1 x the PI ratio^1
    III
    IIII
    IIIII
    IIIIII
    IIIIIII
    IIIIIIIII
    IIIIIIIIII X 10^9 x PI^9

    where the power factors of 1 to 9 are either -ve or +ve

    where the zero state or black hole (monatomic magnet in parallel universe) is where the photon goes if it is not transformed by pressure into a monatomic magnet (reverse pole to photon) that then becomes the magnetic pole for magnetic force to flow which then creates space and that space in flux with magnetic force creates time or frequency which creates matter and gravity (time/space ratio).

    1. profile image0
      jomineposted 6 years agoin reply to this

      Ignore the maths and get real.
      What is infinity? What has incessant counting got anything to do with infinity?
      What is universe for it to be parallel?
      What is photon?
      How does a force flow?
      What is "space" to be created?
      What is time?

  6. profile image61
    effilnucposted 6 years ago

    THE ABOVE IS BACK the front, here is some more to try.

    THE THEORY IS BASED on einstein's law of relativity where the speed of light is a function of movement through 3 axis in space xyz/t where x=y=t = PI ratio.

    CONSIDER EACH EQUATION BEING FOR TOTAL SPACE FOR THAT DIMENSION WITH POTENTIAL ENERGY (SPACE) DIFFERENCES OCCURRING AS A FUNCTION OF THE DIFFERENCE IN SPACE BETWEEN EACH OTHER DIMENSION.


    INFINITE ENERGY SPACE = 1/11 x 10^1 x PI ratio = ZERO STATE, INFINITY - THE FIRST POTENTIAL.

    1ST DIMENSION = 1/11 x 10^1 x PI^2 - LIGHT OR PHOTON OR PROTON

    2ND DIMENSION = 1/11 x 10^2 x PI^3 - SPACE 

    THIRD DIMENSION = 1/11 x 10^3 x PI^3/2 - FREQUENCY

    FOURTH DIMENSION = 1/11 x 10^4 x PI^9/4 - MATTER -   
    NEWTON'S LAW OF GRAVITY WORKS IF LIGHT/FREQUENCY RATIO KEPT CONSTANT


    FIFTH DIMENSION = 1/11 x 10^5 x PI^27/8 ??????

    It would be nice if some maths folk could test these as i am struggling to extrapolate.

    1. profile image0
      jomineposted 6 years agoin reply to this

      Oh! yo just wanted to play some number games without any touch of reality, go on.......
      But you should have selected some other forum!!

      1. recommend1 profile image66
        recommend1posted 6 years agoin reply to this

        Just because you do not understand is no reason to make a personal attack. 

        As nobody knows the answer to the question then this could be right and the answer to everything, including how matter and energy came to exist.

        Personally I doubt it but would not want to display my ignorance of the basic subject.

        1. profile image0
          jomineposted 6 years agoin reply to this

          Where is the attack?
          Did you understand?
          From when on, energy started existing?

    2. Newton's Rival profile image79
      Newton's Rivalposted 6 years agoin reply to this

      Perhaps yahoo answers website can help you, They have many ppl that can test math. It's free, just ask someone to check your math .

  7. Manna in the wild profile image77
    Manna in the wildposted 6 years ago

    I tested the maths.
    There is nothing to say. It's all garbage.

    1. profile image61
      effilnucposted 6 years agoin reply to this

      @ Manna - thanks for your patience, know my maths has a lot to be desired.
        i am trying to express that each dimension is based on a sphere that is relative to the next and eachother understanding that the functions are based on the sphere and the interactions/forces between points on the surface of the sphere are a relative function of the 3d shapes (connecting lines) that fit these points inside a sphere...and so that each dimension/sphere can be produced fromf the last and eachother

      1 2 8 27 64 125
      1 2 3 4 6 9
      1/2 1/3 3/2 4/3 9/4 64/12
      1/9 2/9 3/9 4/9 ....1*2/9 1*3/9 1*4/9
      1^2 2^2 3^2 4^2
      1^3 2^3 3^3 4^3

      there is a relationship between these numbers as part of the sphere and prisms...there is a function/ratio/cube/inverse relationship that fits...i just can't express it mathematically....yet...someone else of more skilled mind than i should be able to find it.

      1. mathsciguy profile image59
        mathsciguyposted 6 years agoin reply to this

        Sweet merciful Cantor, would you please explain what the H-E-Double-Hockey-Sticks you are talking about?  Dropping down a series of numbers and ratios with a dash of infinity thrown in is NOT enough for anybody to comprehend what you mean.  So, start over, begin by stating your theorem and THEN you can proceed to demonstrate how "the maths check out."  At this point, I've got no clue as to what in the world those numbers are supposed to verify!

  8. kmackey32 profile image80
    kmackey32posted 6 years ago

    Im confused....

    1. Robert pires profile image61
      Robert piresposted 6 years agoin reply to this

      @effilnuc..........it's very interesting!  i want to know more about your conceptual theory.

      1. profile image61
        effilnucposted 6 years agoin reply to this

        would you like to now more of the overall theory relating the dimensions and forces or more specifically the magnetic construction of the earth as a superconducting monatomic oxygen crystal with a hollow space and magnetised (on both sides) crust and magnetised air force/field that repels protons (at a particular angle/frequency) and a moon of magnetised material but no magnetic core of its own orbiting around it?

  9. profile image61
    effilnucposted 6 years ago

    @ THE MATHS DUDES

    a better understanding of the maths can be found at

    http://farside.ph.utexas.edu/teaching/j … ode50.html

    this explains the theory of a uniformly magnetized sphere.

    next read the thread

    http://www.physicsforums.com/showthread.php?t=208607

    this explains the concept of a monopole or superconducting sphere with a magnetic shell around it...planet earth.

    @ EVERYONE

    GRAVITY IS A FUNCTION OF MAGNETIC FORCE RELATED TO THE NUMBER OF MAGNETIC POLES AND FIELDS AND FLUX BETWEEN THEM AS SHOWN BY THE LAWS OF GRAVITY AND MAGNETISM BEING INVERSE SQUARE LAWS RELATED AS A FUNCTION OF THE INVERSE CUBE...  A MAGNETIC FORCE/FIELD WITHIN A STRONGER FIELD.

    TESTING TO SEE IF MAGNETS BEND LIGHT IS DIFFICULT AS ONE IS CONDUCTING THE EXPERIMENT WITH THE VERY STRONG EARTHS MAGNETIC FIELD.  TO BEND LIGHT WITH A MAGNET WITHIN THIS FIELD...REQUIRES A COMBINATION OF #POLES AS A FUNCTION OF DISTANCE BETWEEN THEM AND THE RELATIVE FLUX TO CREATE A SUFFICIENT RELATIVE CHANGE IN THE MAGNETIC FIELDS RELATIVE TO THE DISTANCE OF THE LIGHT SOURCE...ALMOST IMPOSSIBLE HERE ON EARTH BUT SEEN AS LIGHT BENDING IN SPACE INTO BLACK HOLES WHICH ARE MONOPOLE MAGNETS WITHOUT A MAGNETIZED SPHERE OF MATTER SURROUNDING THEM!

    THANKS NEWTONS'S RIVAL FOR YOUR PERSISTENCE OVER THE LAST 28 YEARS WITH THIS UNDERSTANDING.

  10. Manna in the wild profile image77
    Manna in the wildposted 6 years ago

    To anyone who could be slightly fooled by this verbal barf - forget it. There is no 'maths' involved of any substance, the 'theory' is nothing but a random collection of scientific terms and other made-up pointless baseless rambling.

  11. knolyourself profile image59
    knolyourselfposted 6 years ago

    "and a moon of magnetised material but no magnetic core of its own orbiting around it?" I like this one.

    1. Robert pires profile image61
      Robert piresposted 6 years agoin reply to this

      effilnuc............it's a good thought.atleast you try to do something special.i admire the way you think!yes i really want to know about this theory!

  12. profile image61
    effilnucposted 6 years ago

    The mathematical system of numbers we use today was developed by EUCLID and is based on a set of axioms.

    (In traditional logic, an axiom or postulate is a proposition that is not proved or demonstrated but considered to be either self-evident, or subject to necessary decision. That is to say, an axiom is a logical statement that is assumed to be true. Therefore, its truth is taken for granted, and serves as a starting point for deducing and inferring other (theory dependent) truths.)

    the first axiom of our ENTIRE number system is based on a flat plane! 
    flat planes do not exist - hence our mathematical system is trapped in 4 dimensions!

    this then led to Newtons Laws of Motion

       1. First law: The velocity of a body remains constant unless the body is acted upon by an external force.
       2. Second law: The acceleration a of a body is parallel and directly proportional to the net force F and inversely proportional to the mass m, i.e., F = ma.
       3. Third law: The mutual forces of action and reaction between two bodies are equal, opposite and collinear.

    the third law is an obvious lie.  Put together an equilateral 4 side prism and push down on the top. 

    Force is not distributed oppositely and collinear...it is distributed throughout 3 directions that all add up to 90 degrees!  it is a function of sin and cosine using a constant ratio that is not constant.

    ACCELERATION IS NOT PARALLEL
    THE VELOCITY OF AN OBJECT IS STATIONARY UNLESS ACTED UPON BY A FUNCTION OF 4 DIMENSIONAL MAGNETIC FORCE - X Y Z AND FREQUENCY/TIME.

    the reason we see force appear to work perpendicularly is because we are viewing it from within a uniform magnetic field, thereby rendering 1 of the 4 variables of force constant...TIME.  TIME IS NOT PARALLEL/LINEAR BUT MOVES IN A SPIRAL MOTION.

    YOU CANNOT USE CONVENTIONAL MATHS TO PROVE THIS THEORY AS OUR MATHEMATICAL SYSTEM IS RELEVANT ONLY WHEN 1 OF THE 4 DIMENSIONS IS CONSTANT.

    AS FORCE REALLY IS A FUNCTION OF 3 DIMENSIONS/FREQUENCY, THEN BY KEEPING FREQUENCY AT A CONSTANT FOR ALL THREE DIMENSIONS, WE ARE BLIND TO ITS SOURCE AND ARE CURRENTLY ONLY LOOKING AT THE RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN THE OTHER 3 DIMENSIONS.

    LIGHT TRAVELS IN A SPIRAL WAVE NOT A PERPENDICULAR OR HORIZONTAL WAVE MAKING SPEED REALLY A FUNCTION OF DISTANCE/DISTANCE/DISTANCE/TIME WHERE THE RATIO OF DISTANCE/DISTANCE/DISTANCE IS A CONSTANT...RATHER THAN THE AXIOM NEWTONS LAWS ARE BASED ON WHICH IS THAT THE RATIOS OF X,Y OR Z DISTANCE/TIME IS CONSTANT.

    1. Robert pires profile image61
      Robert piresposted 6 years agoin reply to this

      great work! join me at achillesofearth@gmail.com.i have to ask many questions.

      1. Manna in the wild profile image77
        Manna in the wildposted 6 years agoin reply to this

        Did you know that it is unscientific to lift chunks from other people and not credit them? The bits that make sense in your last post came at least from wikipedia, the stuff that makes no sense, you wrote.

        1. profile image61
          effilnucposted 6 years agoin reply to this

          yes.

  13. profile image61
    effilnucposted 6 years ago

    if you had only thought this a theory...here is proof of crystal cores at the centre of planets in lieu of black holes...both have a magnetic pull stronger than light!

    From http://www.dailygalaxy.com/my_weblog/20 … bigge.html

    The diamond is actually the crystallized interior of a white dwarf – or the hot core of a star that is left over after the star uses up its nuclear fuel and dies. It is made mostly of carbon and is coated by a thin layer of hydrogen and helium gases.

    From me
    liquid oxygen burns diamond...starting to see the relationship...also diamond is the BEST conductor of heat/electricity we know of!

  14. profile image61
    effilnucposted 6 years ago

    no wonder i can't do the maths...

    it was first attempted in the 1800's by much greater minds than mine including Fourier with his Fourier Series which then lead to the Fourier transform and then quantum mechanics, string theory etc...

    See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fourier_transform

    this equation is still based on the PI ratio which means it is  only applicable whilst 2 of the 5 directions are kept constant.

    As i have previously stated, using conventional mathematics based on the euclidian plane will not prove that there is a direct relationship between magnetic force and gravity...

    until there is a fundamental shift in the schema of scientific approach and appraisal, we will be stuck going round in circles...the only way out of a a circle is using a Fourier Transform!

    i  cannot continue to try and prove this fact with words and numbers...it is like trying to prove that the sun will rise tomorrow...nobody can prove it but nearly everybody believes it!

    the only way to really prove something is with hindsight...au revoir!

  15. Manna in the wild profile image77
    Manna in the wildposted 6 years ago

    http://math.ucr.edu/home/baez/crackpot.html

    The Crackpot Index
    John Baez

    A simple method for rating potentially revolutionary contributions to physics:

    A -5 point starting credit.

    1 point for every statement that is widely agreed on to be false.

    2 points for every statement that is clearly vacuous.

    3 points for every statement that is logically inconsistent.

    5 points for each such statement that is adhered to despite careful correction.

    5 points for using a thought experiment that contradicts the results of a widely accepted real experiment.

    5 points for each word in all capital letters (except for those with defective keyboards).

    5 points for each mention of "Einstien", "Hawkins" or "Feynmann".

    10 points for each claim that quantum mechanics is fundamentally misguided (without good evidence).

    10 points for pointing out that you have gone to school, as if this were evidence of sanity.

    10 points for beginning the description of your theory by saying how long you have been working on it. (10 more for emphasizing that you worked on your own.)

    10 points for mailing your theory to someone you don't know personally and asking them not to tell anyone else about it, for fear that your ideas will be stolen.

    10 points for offering prize money to anyone who proves and/or finds any flaws in your theory.

    10 points for each new term you invent and use without properly defining it.

    10 points for each statement along the lines of "I'm not good at math, but my theory is conceptually right, so all I need is for someone to express it in terms of equations".

    10 points for arguing that a current well-established theory is "only a theory", as if this were somehow a point against it.

    10 points for arguing that while a current well-established theory predicts phenomena correctly, it doesn't explain "why" they occur, or fails to provide a "mechanism".

    10 points for each favorable comparison of yourself to Einstein, or claim that special or general relativity are fundamentally misguided (without good evidence).

    10 points for claiming that your work is on the cutting edge of a "paradigm shift".

    20 points for emailing me and complaining about the crackpot index. (E.g., saying that it "suppresses original thinkers" or saying that I misspelled "Einstein" in item 8.)

    20 points for suggesting that you deserve a Nobel prize.

    20 points for each favorable comparison of yourself to Newton or claim that classical mechanics is fundamentally misguided (without good evidence).

    20 points for every use of science fiction works or myths as if they were fact.

    20 points for defending yourself by bringing up (real or imagined) ridicule accorded to your past theories.

    20 points for naming something after yourself. (E.g., talking about the "The Evans Field Equation" when your name happens to be Evans.)

    20 points for talking about how great your theory is, but never actually explaining it.

    20 points for each use of the phrase "hidebound reactionary".

    20 points for each use of the phrase "self-appointed defender of the orthodoxy".

    30 points for suggesting that a famous figure secretly disbelieved in a theory which he or she publicly supported. (E.g., that Feynman was a closet opponent of special relativity, as deduced by reading between the lines in his freshman physics textbooks.)

    30 points for suggesting that Einstein, in his later years, was groping his way towards the ideas you now advocate.

    30 points for claiming that your theories were developed by an extraterrestrial civilization (without good evidence).

    30 points for allusions to a delay in your work while you spent time in an asylum, or references to the psychiatrist who tried to talk you out of your theory.

    40 points for comparing those who argue against your ideas to Nazis, stormtroopers, or brownshirts.

    40 points for claiming that the "scientific establishment" is engaged in a "conspiracy" to prevent your work from gaining its well-deserved fame, or suchlike.

    40 points for comparing yourself to Galileo, suggesting that a modern-day Inquisition is hard at work on your case, and so on.

    40 points for claiming that when your theory is finally appreciated, present-day science will be seen for the sham it truly is. (30 more points for fantasizing about show trials in which scientists who mocked your theories will be forced to recant.)

    50 points for claiming you have a revolutionary theory but giving no concrete testable predictions.
    <

    1. profile image61
      effilnucposted 6 years agoin reply to this

      @ manna - thanks for that, i did not know who feynmann was/is and i discovered some more information that may help you understand what i am trying to say.

      i am sorry if i am offending you, it is not my intention.

      PS I ONLY HAVE CAPS AND lower case...my shift key doesn't work for most letters.

      http://www.azimuthproject.org/azimuth/s … kov+chains

      1. Manna in the wild profile image77
        Manna in the wildposted 6 years agoin reply to this

        feynmann ? Never heard of him. But I've heard of Feynman.
        There are some of his lectures on-line. Look them up.

        1. Robert pires profile image61
          Robert piresposted 6 years agoin reply to this

          he was a great physicist.i think you are talking about richard feynman.

          1. Manna in the wild profile image77
            Manna in the wildposted 6 years agoin reply to this

            Of course. I was being sarcastic. Note the spelling error?
            Anyway - seriously - search out the on line lectures. It will put a lot into perspective.

            1. Robert pires profile image61
              Robert piresposted 6 years agoin reply to this

              thanks.but what is wrong in effilnuc theory????i think it's a great approach!

              1. Manna in the wild profile image77
                Manna in the wildposted 6 years agoin reply to this

                What's wrong? Are you serious? I'll take some thing at random:

                """THE THEORY IS BASED on einstein's law of relativity where the speed of light is a function of movement through 3 axis in space xyz/t where x=y=t = PI ratio."""

                The speed of light is not a function. It is a number. Furthermore, this number is a constant. Specifically it is 299 792 458 m / s.

                I could stop there, but let's proceed.

                Light actually moves through 4 dimensional space [x,y,z,t]. This 4-dimensional space is a manifold that we call 'spacetime' and if you want to find out more about it, look up Minkowski space.

                Let's go further ok?

                Take the statement, """xyz/t where x=y=t = PI ratio"""

                This 'statement' mathematically reduces to

                (3.141...)(3.141...)(3.141...)/(3.141...) = (pi x pi x pi) / pi = 9.8696044

                So the whole of 'space' in his theory is simply a single number.

                Let's do some more analysis:

                ----------- he says ----------
                INFINITY IS THE WHOLE OR I

                Ix10^0 x the PI ratio^0
                IIx10^1 x the PI ratio^1
                ------------------------------

                It's not clear what 'The whole' means, but let's assume
                that he is using the symbol I to represent a concept known
                as 'infinity'.

                Note that anything to the power zero works out to be 1, so 7^0=1
                and 44.3234^0=1, even 0^0=1.

                Therefore
                Ix10^0 x the PI ratio^0

                is translated to:

                infinity x 1 x 1 = infinity.

                IIx10^1 x the PI ratio^1

                translates to

                infinity x infinity x 10 x 3.141... = infinity

                'infinity is NOT a number' and to treat is as such is getting off to a really bad start for this so called theory.

  16. profile image61
    effilnucposted 6 years ago

    @ Manna - are you actually reading what you are writing?

    the speed of light is 299 792 458 m/s which is METRES PER SECOND which is based on a function of two dimensions - not a number! it is a constant ratio relating the matrix of space to time.

    as for the rest...you seem to be starting to understand the flaws in our current decimal system of numbers...keep working on it.

    i would recommend delving deeper into the pythagorean approach to numbers and harmonies if you are truly serious about understanding this.

    1. Manna in the wild profile image77
      Manna in the wildposted 6 years agoin reply to this

      I don't think you know what a function is.

      There are no flaws in our 'current' decimal system of numbers. Here is a quick evolution of numbers:

      a) Counting integers.
      b) invention of zero
      c) The set of integers ( negative, zero and positive )
      d) The quotients e.g. 1/3 , -5/2 etc
      d) The 'reals' i.e. decimals.
      e) The complex numbers e.g. 2 + i7

      In all these, infinity is not a number - it is a limit.

      Each number system has it's applications. Some have limitations but not 'flaws'.

      The complex number system is the only to provide roots for all quadratic equations.

      I was a little bit sloppy by saying 'the speed of light' and should say 'the speed of light in vacuum' But what you probably don't realise is that the speed of light can be on average for a beam of light (beam == many photons), slower in a medium. In that case, the formula is

      v = f lambda

      where lambda is the wavelength of the light, and f is the frequency.

      An INDIVIDUAL photon has zero rest mass and therefore must travel at 299 792 458 m/s ( But in QCD we have the concept of virtual photons - that's a whole new area beyond the scope of this argument. )

      m/s does mean 'meters per second' and these are the DIMENSIONS
      of the constant we call speed of light. If you want to know more about that, then the key-phrase to look up is 'dimensional analysis'

      Pythagorean approach? Do you realise that you are describing one part of the complex number system? Namely

      given complex number C = a + ib, then |C|=sqrt(a^2 + b^2)
      which is the magnitude of the vector represented by C.

      I'll leave it to you to work out the direction of the vector C.

      I think you threw in the word 'harmonies' because it sounded good.

    2. profile image61
      effilnucposted 6 years ago

      Gravitational force is an extension of the atomic organization.
      Pursuing force to the macro leads to the Pythagorean Tetractys and organization under the constructs of degrees of freedom.
      Pursuing force to the micro leads to the Hunab Ku (under the constructs of spin and symmetries.
      Pursuing movement and placement leads to numbers.
      Pursuing numbers leads to the truth.
      By Mike Ivsin

      1. profile image0
        zampanoposted 6 years agoin reply to this

        Ha ha ha !
        Hey man ! Tomorrow, when you'll be sober, read it all over again and then send it to "Science Magazine" for publishing to see what they say about it.

        Next time, try not to mix your pills with alcohol.

        Hehehe.

        1. mathsciguy profile image59
          mathsciguyposted 6 years agoin reply to this

          A Mark Z Danielewski fan?

          1. profile image0
            zampanoposted 6 years agoin reply to this

            without the poetry ...

            1. profile image61
              effilnucposted 6 years agoin reply to this

              sorry for the word games, old habit!

              Have a read of the latest posts regarding  numbers and π and the definitions.

              i agree that light is a constant - being a precise relationship between the three parts of the light packet as they move in a precise way such that halfway through their relative movement (wavelength) they have left a 'paper trail' that draws a  tetrahedron.

              All atoms relate to one another and as groups within the confines of the dimensions created by the light/wave/particle (one part dividing into three waves and returning to one whole per period...this is the speed of light.

    3. cobras profile image86
      cobrasposted 6 years ago

      effilnuc,

      I'm not mathematically sophisticated enough to judge the soundness of your theory.  I know enough to agree that the speed of light is a function of something, just as the speed of an automobile is a function of wind resistance, size of tires, etc., though, again, I can't say whether it's a "funcion of movement through 3 axis in space xyz/t where x=y=t = PI ratio."

      You've failed to get any point across to us mere mortals, but you HAVE created quite a conversation piece.  Thanks for that.  I've posted 17 hubs and, between all of them, haven't generated nearly the response you've inspired with your single post.

      I don't want to know what THAT'S a function of.

      Cheers, mate.

      1. Manna in the wild profile image77
        Manna in the wildposted 6 years agoin reply to this

        Hi Cobras,

        Mathematically, a function is a mapping between two sets. One set is called the domain, the other codomain. The function tells you how take an element of the domain and go to one (and only one) element of the codomain. Thus, strictly, y=x^2 is a function, but its inverse is not a function because the square root of a positive number is either + or -. Thus the term 'function' in mathematics has a very specific meaning.

        The speed of light (as in the typical way people use the term) is not a function. It is a property of space itself. Take two measured constants of the universe. Vacuum permittivity ε0 and vacuum permeability μ0 Then the speed of light is calculated as the constant c = 1/(ε0μ0)

        I need to qualify my answer above to that typically people say 'the speed of light' to mean c -- that is the speed of a massless particle (in free space). 

        A related operation is how to calculate the speed of propagation of a wave in a medium, and since light may be treated as a wave for this purpose, v = f lambda , where f is the frequency of the light, and v is its velocity in the particular medium. That is a valid example of a function. You might get tricked into thinking that the speed of light is a function - but you need to qualify it by actually saying or implying from context, that the speed of this particular light wave in this particular medium is
                f * lambda.

        From v = f lambda, if you are talking about a photon in free space, then you MUST set c = v. It's a constant. Then you can see
        that frequency is inversely proportional to wavelength and vice versa.

        1. cobras profile image86
          cobrasposted 6 years agoin reply to this

          Hey Manna,

          Let me preface this by saying that I'm not taking up effilnuc's case here and reminding you that I'm not a mathematician.  It would probably be fair to say that I'm not as strict as you.  I appreciate your response.

          Let's assume that Einstein was correct and E=mc^2, where E equals energy, m equals matter and c equals the speed of light in a vacuum.  Then

          E=mc^2  -->  E/m=c^2  -->  c=sqrt(E/m)

          which maps c as a function  of E and m.

          An interesting aside (to me):  Your analysis of the statement "xyz/t where x=y=t = PI ratio" is obviously correct,  but it's not inconceivable to me that space can be modeled by a mathematical term that equates to an indeterminate number - a number that might be said to be in an infinite quest for identity, or resolution.

          Science is endlessly fascinating to me, but I've noticed with the passage of time that it becomes more and more embedded as dogma, so I tend to be skeptical, yet try to keep an open mind.

          Thanks again for your response.

          1. Manna in the wild profile image77
            Manna in the wildposted 6 years agoin reply to this

            Just because you re-arrange the equation, it does not turn c into a function. c is still a constant, 

            E=mcc
            cc=E/m
            c=root(E/m)

            The constant c does not increase when mass decreases and does not increase when energy increases. If e increases, you must decrease m and vice versa. This is why this is called the mass-energy equivalence formula.

            wiki is quite good at this technical stuff. Here is a link explaining how physicists often set dimensioned constants to 1 because it simplifies formulas. You cannot do this for dimensionless constants. This trick alters the units of measurement as a consequence of the convenience.

            As a simple practical example, you can learn stuff about the world through maths like this:

            An important formula : Q = CV
            Q = charge,
            C = Capacitance
            V = Voltage.

            Given: the experimental observation that capacitance decreases as the distance between the plates separate further.

            If you rub your feet on carpet and wear insulating shoes on a cold dry day, you know you get a shock when you touch something grounded right? We've all done this. Zapping 'sister' is a common boyhood passtime. The act of scuffing builds up a charge Q. The capacitance C is between your body and the ground, with your shoes as the separating insulating dielectic. When you touch something grounded (your sister) then the charges suddenly rush to ground, pushed by the voltage V.

            V = Q/C

            Assuming you don't move, Q is a situationally defined constant.
            (It's a constant for the purposes of this experiment).

            We can vary C because it is an independent variable. From the above formula, you can see that if C decreases, then V increases.

            We can decrease C by separating ourselves from the floor further.

            This means to REALLY zap your sister, jump off the floor (reduce C) and then zap her as voltage V will have increased dramatically.

            In this context, Q is constant. Once you leap off the floor, there is no way to gain more charge.

            Obviously, the act of zapping releases all the charge.

            This is an example of a variable in a function that has been held constant for the purposes of the particular experiment.

            c is a *universal* constant. All our observations and experiments say so.

            1. cobras profile image86
              cobrasposted 6 years agoin reply to this

              In regards to

              c = sqrt(E/m)

              I will accept that c is a constant when E and m are also constants.

              1. profile image0
                zampanoposted 6 years agoin reply to this

                I agree to discuss Algebra too.
                I agree with the expression.

              2. mathsciguy profile image59
                mathsciguyposted 6 years agoin reply to this

                C is a constant regardless of what E and m are.  A constant is a value that does not change in a mathematical expression.  Any statement of one's conditional acceptance of c as a constant is meaningless. 

                Now, there are very specific criteria for determining what is or isn't a function.  As far as I can tell without going into a rigorous analysis of it, there's nothing mathematically improper about a function having a single value for its range, so long as no element of the domain is mapped to two different values (which is impossible anyway if the range consists of only one value: the speed of light).  However, I think it's a bit meaningless to say that the speed of light is dependent upon values of mass and energy (mass of what? energy of what?), which is what you are essentially asserting if you say that c is a function of E and m. 

                It's an instance of technically-okay math that doesn't actually describe the real world.  For example, there's nothing mathematically wrong with saying G = 15 m/s^2 to describe the acceleration due to gravity, since it is a completely legal expression.  However, it just doesn't describe the way the world really works.

                1. Manna in the wild profile image77
                  Manna in the wildposted 6 years agoin reply to this

                  Nice explanation.

          2. A Troubled Man profile image60
            A Troubled Manposted 6 years agoin reply to this

            You can't just take the square root function from it's symbol and place it on it's own in an equation.

            Algebra is made up of both constants and variables.

            1. profile image0
              zampanoposted 6 years agoin reply to this

              what's wrong with the expression ?
              It's valid. The constant should be c = LightSpeed
              E = mc2
              c2 = E/m
              sqr(c2) = sqr(E/m)
              c = sqr(E/m)
              No ?
              What troubles you ?

              1. A Troubled Man profile image60
                A Troubled Manposted 6 years agoin reply to this

                Okay, I see how you got that. Thanks.

    4. profile image61
      effilnucposted 6 years ago

      the main issue is that

      energy = momentum

      momentum is made up of a function of linear and spiral movement.

      this is proved by the atom, which contains vast amounts of potential energy stored in the potential momentum of the proton which is represented by the electron pathways.

      through nuclear fission, the energy that is stored as momentum  in spriral wave motion around the centre of the atom is released in some degree when some of the spiral wave momentum is transferred to linear momentum.

    5. profile image61
      effilnucposted 6 years ago

      a bit of background to what and who inspired this understanding can be found at http://hubpages.com/hub/Gravity-is-Magnetism - thanks  Newton's Rival.

    6. profile image61
      effilnucposted 6 years ago

      an individual photon has zero rest mass because all its energy/mass/force is contained in its linear MOMENTUM.  it must be moving at this constant momentum in order to have a mass which equals energy.

      this should help you understand the virtual photon concept...

      Surely you can see this...please!

      try this on for size

      an individual photon at rest is actually a proton!  e = mc^2

      the more photons that are in zero state  - the bigger the atom and the more energy it has...

      a proton is a photon whose linear momentum/energy/movement has been completely transformed into spiral momentum and zero nett movement!

      1. Manna in the wild profile image77
        Manna in the wildposted 6 years agoin reply to this

        effilnuc is not an idiot. But effilnuc is writing idiotic stuff.

    7. profile image61
      effilnucposted 6 years ago

      thanks manna - a bit nicer, but what is the difference in your mind between the two?  saying idiotic stuff is just a twist  - it makes one an idiot in my mind.

    8. profile image61
      effilnucposted 6 years ago

      WRITTEN BY Mike Ivsin

      In the atomic environment the waves (PHOTONS) wrap around and make a closure around the nucleus (SPACE). If the number two divides a circle exactly, two full (PHOTONS(s)) waves can wrap around the core (SPACE) without a remainder and the closure of such wave would be (IS) stable. (THIS CREATES AN ATOM) Some numbers, in and of themselves, could be (ARE) the building components of atomic orbitals.

      “Hypothesis non fingo.”
      Newton
      “I frame no hypothesis.”
      Newton translated
      “I do not make hypothesis out of thin air.”
      Newton interpreted
      “I don’t spin it to create hypothesis.”
      Newton restated


      this is music to my hairy ear!

      1. Robert pires profile image61
        Robert piresposted 6 years agoin reply to this

        @ effilnuc........i think you are doing well.you need to continue your great work in future.the world needs you.i read all your theory and now i also believe that light is a function and from NEWTON's RIVAL link,we can easily conclude that gravity is a function of magnetism.full credit to newton's rival and you effilnuc.

        1. profile image61
          effilnucposted 6 years agoin reply to this

          thanks robert, i emailed you, did you receive?

    9. profile image0
      Sherlock221bposted 6 years ago

      I always know something very meaningful is being said, when I can't understand a word of it.

      1. Robert pires profile image61
        Robert piresposted 6 years agoin reply to this

        @ effilnuc..............yes i received and in return,i emailed you too.

    10. Manna in the wild profile image77
      Manna in the wildposted 6 years ago

      ""In regards to

      c = sqrt(E/m)

      I will accept that c is a constant when E and m are also constants.""

      Of course that is not wrong, but E and m can vary while c remains constant. Perhaps a numerical example will help...

      Let c = 2
      Let m = 3
      then E = 12

      or E = 24
         m = 6
         c = 2

      or E = 4
         m = 1
         c = 2

      There are an infinite number of examples like this.

      1. cobras profile image86
        cobrasposted 6 years agoin reply to this

        You're saying E and m vary in proportion to each other.  I hadn't considered that.

        You're very patient.  Thanks.

        1. profile image61
          effilnucposted 6 years agoin reply to this

          energy is proportionate to mass
          energy is proportionate to mass and momentum x lightspeed
          energy is proportionate to momentum
          energy is momentum as a function of lightspeed
          momentum of what?

          suggestion!
          the only thing that we can understand so far is the three parts of photons of a light wave
          so, everything is a relative function of intersections of the three parts of the light wave according to the dimensions defined by the movement of the lightwave in three directions as defined by each of the three photons' direction relative to the other two as part of the lightwave packet.
          where there is harmony in the intersects, there is matter, where there is disharmony, there is space.

    11. profile image61
      effilnucposted 6 years ago

      perhaps we can all agree that, in geometry, PI is a whole number. But when a computer attempts to calculate a problem with PI in it (ANY ATOMIC OR ASTRONOMICAL CALCULATION), the calculation eventually goes awry because the computer cannot understand PI as a whole number.

      PI IS APPARENTLY 3.141.......to infinity

      because we are relying on computers to calculate a lot of seemingly complex problems, and the computers are physically incapable of solving some of the problems to do with LARGE OR SMALL distances of space and time, the developed world is starting to allow computers to calculate what is, and what is not possible or real.

      the human brain is a geometric computer, it is far more capable of understanding the elements, ourselves and the planets and stars than any binary computer ever will. 

      this understanding of the of EVERYTHING is found in harmony.
      harmony is not well understood by a computer...a computer can not make anywhere near as beautiful a symphony as a human has, or the orbits of a galaxy does.

      the mathematical number for the universe is 0 or 1...either is a WHOLE,  this means that when the entire universe is taken into account, there must be a total balance that renders everything back to 0 or the whole or 1.

      THIS IS THE SAME FOR ALL ENERGY TRANSFERS WITHIN A SYSTEM OR BETWEEN SYSTEMS...THE INSTANT AND BALANCED ENERGY RESULT AT ANY POINT IN TIME and space AS DEFINED BY LIGHTSPEED, IS 0 OR 1 OR BALANCED. 

      ENERGY IS MOMENTUM - THE INERTIA OF MATTER MOVING WITH EITHER ANGULAR, LINEAR OR ROTATING (TORQUE) MOMENTUM, OR A COMBINATION OF ANY TWO OR ALL THREE.

      IN E = MC^2 ALL OF THE POTENTIAL ENERGY (MOMENTUM) OF THE ATOM IS BEING HELD IN BALANCE AS ANGULAR AND ROTATING TORQUE OF A NUMBER OF ELECTRONS.  BY OVERBALANCING AN ALREADY UNSTABLE ATOM, ONE TURNS THE TORQUE MOMENTUM INTO LINEAR MOMENTUM.

      THE DIMENSIONS OF THE LIGHT WAVE GIVE A CLUE AS TO HOW MUCH ENERGY IS TRANSFERRED FROM SPIN AND TORQUE MOMENTUM INTO LINEAR MOMENTUM, WHICH BECOMES ACCELERATION (GRAVITY =  METRES/SEC/SEC).

      BECAUSE THE MASS RATIO BETWEEN THE EARTH AND AN APPLE IS SO LARGE, IT MAKES THE BALANCE ENERGY TRANSFER APPLY ALL THE ENERGY IN A LINEAR FASHION AT CLOSE DISTANCES.

      AT FURTHER DISTANCES OUT OF THE EARTH'S ATMOSPHERE, ONE NOTES THAT SOME OF THE LINEAR MOMENTUM OF ACCELERATION IS TURNED INTO ANGULAR MOMENTUM OF ORBIT AND POSSIBLY TORQUE.

      AT VERY CLOSE DISTANCES LIKE IN MAGNETS, THERE IS MORE ANGULAR AND TORQUE MOMENTUM AS ENERGY THAN LINEAR MOMENTUM.

      AT EVEN CLOSER DISTANCES LIKE ATOMS, THERE IS TOTAL ANGULAR TORQUE MOMENTUM AN ZERO LINEAR MOMENTUM...BALANCED ATOMS LIKE HYDROGEN.

      SO THE RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN ALL STATES OF MATTER IS A FUNCTION OF ITS RELATIONSHIP IN SPACE AS DEFINED BY THE DIMENSIONS AND FREQUENCY OF THE LIGHTSPEED WAVE WHERE ENERGY IS A FUNCTION OF THE MOMENTUM (LINEAR, ANGULAR AND SPIN) OF THE THREE ELEMENTS/PHOTONS/PROTONS OF THE LIGHT PACKET.

    12. profile image61
      effilnucposted 6 years ago

      lets assume that the big bang was a light wave whereby the three parts/photons of the light wave packet (currently seen as photon linear wave movement) was returned to relatively zero linear momentum, ie  angular and torque momentum,  (which creates a tetrahedron shape) similar to that found in the electron paths in a stable atom.

      the outer boundary of the three electrons' paths define the outside of a sphere, the point in the middle where the three packets intersect defines the centre of the sphere.

      now, at the outer edge of this newly defined sphere, a new lightwave packet the same as the first, of three light particles or photons, can begin a new, the same as the first.

      this has been happening in all three directions since the big bang at lightspeed!

      do this a few billion, trillion, gazzilion times and you will have a universe because the ratios of the movements of each photon as part of the light wave are precise dimensions of a sphere - not an indefinite number called PI that a binary computer cannot understand.

      this is why the powers of a computer are limited to interactions that are very close in either mass, distance or time but if you try and do a calculation without the exact number for PI, you will eventually spin into chaos.

      chaos theory was invented by a binary computer trying to understand its creator!

      because e = mc^2 involves a complete change from angular torque momentum into linear moment, the lightspeed is sqaured,and the calculations are easy for a binary computer...
      but when more subtle changes occur that do not involve a  90 degrees change in angular/torque momentum to linear momentum, we need geometry to calculate, particularly over large quantums of space or frequency or number of bodies or difference in mass of bodies.

      know yourself....trust yourself....be yourself!

    13. Manna in the wild profile image77
      Manna in the wildposted 6 years ago

      ha ha ha ha ha ha!
      HA HA HA HA!

      Pi is a whole number you say! Right. That caps it.

      I reckon for anything that poster has written is true, then it's by accident. Furthermore - he's having a lend of us.

      Ok - Here is a challenge. Please prove that Pi is a whole number.

      Remember - Pi is a universal dimensionless constant, and before you get excited, note that even on a curved surface where the ratio of the circle's circumference to its diameter is a variable - this is NOT the definition of pi. You can do all the calculations about that curved surface using the value of pi as it is measured and calculated in a whole bunch of different ways. Pi pops up in loads of easily repeatable practical and experimental situations. No matter how you derive the value of Pi it will always work out (in the case of base 10) as an irrational number approximating 3.1415927... It is never never never anything different. You might be able to express it in a different number base - like base pi for example and in that case it's value would be 1_pi.

      If you would like to be rigorous in maths, then you should always state the number base. We use a convention that base 10 is in use unless otherwise indicated.

      If I have free reign of number base, then each of these values
      could be in a different base:

      23
      23
      23

      ... and be different values. I missed out their number-base. Can you spot the one that means (2*10)+3 ? No. Because I have not indicated the number base.

      Let's re-write it:

      23_3
      23_10
      23_4

      ( Note in normal text, convention says _x indicates a subscript)

      23_2 = (2*3) + 2 = 8 (in base 10)
      23_10 = decimal = 23 = (2*10)+3
      23_4 = (2*4) + 3 = 11 (in base 10)

      Pi is Pi is Pi in any coordinate system, in any number system, and for all space and time and the only way you can force it to look like a whole number is to use base Pi. But if you do that things get messy for all the integers and everything else... eg

      24_pi = (2 * 3.1415927...) + 4
      and
      234_pi = (3.1415927...^2)+(3*3.1415927) + 4

      1. Manna in the wild profile image77
        Manna in the wildposted 6 years agoin reply to this

        HA HA at me now ---

        I have probably made a mistake that bolsters my case even more. It could be that only a positive number > 1 can be used as the base of a number.

        1. Manna in the wild profile image77
          Manna in the wildposted 6 years agoin reply to this

          Right - I am calling myself a twit for saying:

          234_pi = (3.1415927...^2)+(3*3.1415927) + 4

          It should read:

          234_pi = (2 * 3.1415927...^3.1415927 )+(3*3.1415927) + 4

          Which for a number system, is a mathematical no no since you need an infinite number of digits to accurately represent it. So you can't even use base pi.

        2. profile image61
          effilnucposted 6 years agoin reply to this

          before you start off in your typical kneeJERK manna, can i politely ask that you fully read and consider what i have written...it appears to me as though you are responding to one aspect of this, instead of all three...so to speak.

          1. Manna in the wild profile image77
            Manna in the wildposted 6 years agoin reply to this

            "before you start off in your typical kneeJERK manna, can i politely ask that you fully read and consider what i have written"

            I did. It's crap.

      2. profile image61
        effilnucposted 6 years agoin reply to this

        saying that pi is an irrational number is like saying blue is black relative to yellow

        pi is an irrational number according to you when relative to your  'rational' number system.

        lets change the definition of 'rational numbers' by using geometry,
        and pi will become a whole rational number - from the new rational perspective anyway!

        lol

        1. mathsciguy profile image59
          mathsciguyposted 6 years agoin reply to this

          Do you actually know what is meant by the term "rational number?"

          I'm asking in all sincerity, not to poke fun at you or be contentious.  A rational number is defined as being any number n which can be expressed as n = p/q, where p and q are integers (counting numbers, such as 1, 2, 3 etc).  Nothing is gained by "changing the definition of rational numbers," except that you are allowed to call something else a rational number and everyone who goes by the standard definition will have no clue whatsoever of what you're trying to say.

          That's the verbal equivalent of me saying that the sky is actually usually green.  In fact, if we use [insert method here] to change the definition of blue, then the color of the sky will become green. 

          Standard definitions aren't there to hold back great minds such as yourself - they exist so that such great minds have a way of communicating effectively and succinctly to one another without having to constantly reduce every term to its basest description.  So, please refrain from changing any definitions in order to achieve semantic gains - there are those of us here who would genuinely like to know what it is you are saying, and playing three card monte with your definitions doesn't help.

          1. profile image61
            effilnucposted 6 years agoin reply to this

            lets change the definition of integers... i believe that 1/2 is a real integer, not a function of integers!

            in wavelengths and circles, a half is a real number of the whole, how do we get around this?  no pun intended!

            a real number must exist as a function of a circle/wavelength or it is not a real number...that is my point and where we all seem to be getting confused...i know it makes me sound like i am BABELing...my sincerest apologies, i can see it so clearly in my head and i can make it work in reality, i cannot explain it mathematically which made me question where numbers came from.

            numbers came from the circle originally and then at some point we changed what numbers are real and what numbers aren't and that means that we have a completely new understanding of rational and irrational that has been extrapolated and interpolated to the nth degree by computers using the wrong definition of rational and irrational.

    14. profile image61
      effilnucposted 6 years ago

      as i said before, our number system is restricted in its interpretation of the universe...micro or macro or PI.  if we cannot grasp the true dimension of PI, we will be stuck in the so called fourth dimension! 

      stop using a limited number system to prove something that is outside of the number system, use your head and work in 3d geometric shapes...seriously!

      so, as PI IS A UNIVERSAL, DIMENSIONLESS CONSTANT, IT SHOULD BE THE WHOLE NUMBER ON WHICH OUR MATHEMATICAL SYSTEM IS DERIVED.

      1. profile image61
        effilnucposted 6 years ago

        we all know how rational it is that the ratio of the circumference of a circle is directly related to its radius but we do not accept the rationality that it is defined throughout all of space and time by the relationship between the three parts of the lightwave packet.

        why are we pursuing a number and computing system that STATES ABSOLUTELY that PI is not a rational number...

        any personal or computer that tells me that the most rational, logical number in the universe is IRRATIONAL... i am going to question it...as Manna has taught me to do!

        it is also apparently rational to say that one cannot teach an old dog new tricks...personally, i disagree with this "rational" statement as well!

        1. profile image61
          effilnucposted 6 years agoin reply to this

          in summary, we all need to work together to redefine what is and isn't possible based on a new understanding of relationships that is very different to any computer model that can be generated...
          computer models are destroying our planet and our lives...
          from psychological modeling of group dynamics through to weather modeling and energy exchange modeling systems and financial modeling systems.

          has anyone noticed that humanity was on the fast track of social and scientific renaissance at the end of the 1800's and early 1900s...that is until computers (binary computers) started to get involved?

          don't get me wrong, binary computers certainly have their uses and are making this communication a lot more efficient...maybe, just maybe, it could be even better or we could be even better if we detached our reality from theirs.

          has anyone noticed that nasa has reached the limit of its computing capabilities due to the nature of the binary system, that our financial system is crashing all over (binary) our weather predictions are starting to go every which way but loose and our energy systems are in disarray?

          All of these systems are operated by binary computers such that we are responding to the system rather than the computers responding to us.

          we should be responsive to the universal system not the binary system.

          a binary system understands that there must be multiple universes as it is only a part of the whole.

          a universal system understands there is only one universe and one unifying harmony amongst all parts of the whole so that the whole is always in balance.

          a binary system believes that it is either positive or negative to base 10 infinity  as a function of its separate state to the whole or 0 or 1.

      2. Manna in the wild profile image77
        Manna in the wildposted 6 years ago

        Hmmm - Fractional bases could be useful and I might explore that for an encryption algorithm. (Irrational bases are not nice) Pi is irrational.

        Do you know the definition of an irrational number?

        It's a real number that cannot be represented as a fraction.

        Do you know what is meant by a 'real' number? It is a member of the set of numbers represented by decimal notation like -4.23 or 5.0

        Sqrt(2) is irrational because there is no exact representation as a real number. (Same for pi)

        1. mathsciguy profile image59
          mathsciguyposted 6 years agoin reply to this

          Hmm... Looks like I need to read the whole thread through to make sure you and I aren't saying the same things twice.

          Great minds think alike, eh?
          ;-)

      3. Manna in the wild profile image77
        Manna in the wildposted 6 years ago

        "pi is an irrational number according to you"

        Not just according to me... according to anyone who understands what's really being said.

      4. Manna in the wild profile image77
        Manna in the wildposted 6 years ago

        Look - I made an error, and noticed it and corrected it. If I've made another, point it out. I'll check my facts or reasoning and concede or re-state. Kindly re-read your posts and do the same. Are you actually learning anything or just playing word games?

        1. profile image61
          effilnucposted 6 years agoin reply to this

          in a sense i am playing word games to show how numbers are playing us and everything else...and yes i am learning heaps at the same time.  i love your posts (when they don't try to call me an idiot) as they are very factual...

          in my opinion - your fundamental and only true error is in believing the current definitions of rational and irrational numbers and that the calculations of binary powered computers are undeniable.

      5. profile image61
        effilnucposted 6 years ago

        i don't have the tools or training as a mathematician (sounds like magician lol) to express this to other mathematicians but i know that there is someone/somepeople who can understand the basis of what i am saying and express it much more clearly than i.

        Manna - can you see the basis of what i am saying?  perhaps this is why you are starting to go round in circles (funny punny) trying to understand PI using traditional maths.

      6. profile image61
        effilnucposted 6 years ago

        lets assume nothing and start from the beginning and see what develops...i need your help manna to work this through and prove me wrong.

        First assumption - start with PI AS BEING THE FIRST RATIONAL NUMBER.

        where do we go from there?

        the first time i did this it made my brain go funny (as you could tell) , and i came up with all the crazy equations about PI x10^y etc!

        i don't think you can use conventional maths.

        ie  plus and multiplication should equal minus and division or something like that!

        the key to it is in the tetrahedron as recognised by Aristotle, Pythagoras, Newton, Einstein and the list goes on.

        1. Manna in the wild profile image77
          Manna in the wildposted 6 years agoin reply to this

          "First assumption - start with PI AS BEING THE FIRST RATIONAL NUMBER."

          Mistake number one. Do not proceed beyond this point using this assumption as it is provably incorrect. Therefore everything you deduce from this will also be incorrect.

          1. profile image61
            effilnucposted 6 years agoin reply to this

            prove it incorrect please manna.

            i would appreciate three opinions on this.

            1. Manna in the wild profile image77
              Manna in the wildposted 6 years agoin reply to this

              Pi has been studied for thousands of years. Here are several proofs. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Proof_that … irrational

              Unfortunately, you will see that the proof is deeply mathematical, and there is nothing I can do to mitigate that. You cannot simply wave all that solid logic away and create your own reality.

              I understand the maths involved, but to explain it clearly to a non-mathematician would probably take a small book's worth of writing. It might be worth a hub but I know it would take several hours to complete.

              This deep mathematical complexity is not confined to irrationality. It takes some 300 pages to prove that 1 + 1 = 2.

              1. profile image61
                effilnucposted 6 years agoin reply to this

                FROM THAT SITE IT SAYS

                The number π (pi) has been studied since ancient times, and so has the concept of irrational number. An irrational number is any real number that cannot be expressed as a fraction a/b, where a is an integer and b is a non-zero integer.

                It was not until the 18th century that Johann Heinrich Lambert proved that π is irrational. In the 19th century,


                sounds to me that it was not until one declared PI as an irrational number in the 1800s that one became locked into this confining mathematical reality...Aristotle understood π  better than you (truthbeknown) and he said that if he knew the 'point' he could move earth.  that point is the point where the three parts of the light wave converge and then re-emerge and is exactly mathematically defined in relation to every other thing in the universe using π ergo π is a real constant.

                this nonsense about irrational and real numbers hides the truth about numbers and the nature of π.

                the proof of π is deeply mathematical, the concept of irrational and real is very recent!

                1. mathsciguy profile image59
                  mathsciguyposted 6 years agoin reply to this

                  I think you are mistaking the classification of Pi as irrational to be akin to the classification of a human or an idea as irrational.  This is not an evaluative term, it does not at all imply that "Pi doesn't make sense."  This is simply a way of calling a certain set of numbers that share the quality both Manna in the wild and I have described for you. 

                  In regard to the assertion that the declaration of Pi to be irrational in the 1800's "locked [one] into this confining mathematical reality," I can only say that Pi has always fit the definition characterized by irrational numbers (namely, that they are not rational!).  It's just that the classification of ANY numbers as rational (and likewise irrational) did not come about until one astute mathematician noticed that it was expedient to categorize numbers according to their ability or inability to be expressed as a ratio of two integers.  Please understand that the naming of this attribute did not suddenly cause it to come into existence. 

                  For example, 2 added to 2 always was and always will be 4, even before a smart little Stone Age person discovered the operation of addition.  The role of the mathematician in both cases is simply to give name and description to the characteristics of numbers.  Mathematicians don't bring new things into the world, they only unveil properties and relations that were always there in the obscurity beneath the surface of counting one's sheep or cows or tares or missiles or whatever.

                  1. profile image61
                    effilnucposted 6 years agoin reply to this

                    because the universe is made of π and that is an irrational number according to our number system, the computer is unable to rectify reality when large integers are used as most integers are actually irrational numbers according to π.

                    we need to get a definition for π THAT IS UNDERSTOOD TO BE AN INTEGER if we are to solve THE GRAND UNIFIED THEORY

                    1. mathsciguy profile image59
                      mathsciguyposted 6 years agoin reply to this

                      Oh, my Lord, you're a Pythagorean!

                      This explains very much, actually, and I'm quite glad I realized it. 

                      smile

                      Anyhow, I shall probably not continue with this discussion, even though it has been very good exercise for me.  I leave you in the capable (and presumably still willing) hands of Manna in the wild. 
                      Fare well, and good luck with your exploration of the foundations of the universe.

                      1. profile image61
                        effilnucposted 6 years agoin reply to this

                        no, i am not a pythagorean, i am aware there were some so called cults that stemmed from Pythagoras (and many others') postulations but i have not studied any of them, nor do i intend to involve myself in their subjective approaches to reality.


                        you seem to have some experience with pythagoreans(?) from your reaction.

                        can you tell my why?

                      2. profile image61
                        effilnucposted 6 years agoin reply to this

                        this is from a websearch done by google "what is a pythagorean" it was number three after two references to pythagoras' theorem
                        it is a definition by James McKinnon

                        If we define a Pythagorean as someone who follows Pythagoras' example in the pursuit of the Love of Wisdom, with the attainment of Wisdom being the goal, then anyone engaged in that pursuit could reasonably be called a Pythagorean. Some people, however, feel that a Pythagorean might be anyone engaged in the study of quantitative and qualitative reasoning.

                        Pythagoras went to every available culture to learn their mysteries in the pursuit of his "Love of Wisdom," or Philosophy. If the Pythagoras' Golden Verses and the biographical accounts of Pythagoras' life are at all a reflection of Pythagoras' interests then these things alone are enough to suggest that he was looking for something deeper than a good approach to quantitative reasoning.

                        Nicomachus of Gerasa was a fairly early Pythagorean who wrote a book called Introduction to Arithmetic. This document is an excellent point of reference for answering the question of what a Pythagorean is.


                        from that, i suppose i am slightly 'pythagorean' except that i believe that the approach is a balanced qualitative and quantitative one where the quantum is correctly qualified!

                      3. profile image61
                        effilnucposted 6 years agoin reply to this

                        if you wish to label me, call me a/n

                        CUNLIFFE or EFFILNUC

                        as this is my Family name, however you wish to look at it!

                  2. profile image61
                    effilnucposted 6 years agoin reply to this

                    2 + 2 = 4

                    1 x 2 + 1 x 2 = 4

                    2π + 2π = 4π

                    4π = 4π

                    4/4 = π/π

                    π is a whole integer, not an irrational number.

                    we knew this 2600 years ago, but we have tried to confuse ourselves with other definitions...over zealous mathematicians!

            2. profile image61
              effilnucposted 6 years agoin reply to this

              perhaps PI as the first REAL number might make more sense using current definitions.

      7. profile image61
        effilnucposted 6 years ago

        if we create numbers from functions of a three part spiral helix moving in two opposite directions then PI becomes rational and positive/negative does not exist except where an equation is imbalanced.

        this should allow for more precise and real calculations by computers as they will not be wasting their time and memory calculating imbalanced (positive/negative impossibilities) outcomes but only the REAL possibilities based on the real numbers as a function of the lightspeed 3 particle tetrahedron wave.

        computers might be fast, but that is because they have to calculate unreal possibilities, humans brains only deal in real possibilities and so can actually process reality faster than a computer can!

        this is why virtual reality computers are way behind as they are trying to calculate impossible possibilities because of the current definition of PI as an irrational number.

        change the processing method of a computer to deal only with real possibilities based on the tetrahedron and you will increase their processing power/speed infinitely!

        that little clue is for free - as should everything be!

        1. mathsciguy profile image59
          mathsciguyposted 6 years agoin reply to this

          "if we create numbers from functions of a three part spiral helix moving in two opposite directions then PI becomes rational and positive/negative does not exist except where an equation is imbalanced."

          I'd be very much obliged if you could detail how this is to be done.  Specifically, create a number, any number, from a function (or functions) of a three part spiral helix moving in opposite directions.  Then, if you please, show how this leads to Pi being rational.

          1. profile image61
            effilnucposted 6 years agoin reply to this

            based on this, the number would be a representation of the fabric of the universe and with which one could relate all things to the universe itself and to any other thing within the universe.

            this number is the tetrahedron...how do you express a shape as a number?  it is the only shape that can move in a double helix pattern in which each tetrahedron does not occupy the same point in space at the same period of rotation

            the universe is made of patterns from cycles, not a number!  the pattern and cycle of all things in the universe comes from the tetrahedron which is the light/wave/particle dimensions that make up lightspeed...

      8. profile image61
        effilnucposted 6 years ago

        π as an irrational number means you think that matter is energy!


        π as a rational real number means you understand that energy is contained in the geometric structure of matter.
        Matter is the space needed when the linear momentum of light is stored as vector/spiral momentum about central point(s) of balance.

        e = mc^2 is therefore the potential linear momentum as related exactly to the collective spiral/torque paths of each atom as represented by electron orbits, which move as a predictable function within (atomic stability) or extrapolated out linearly as in an atomic explosion) from the light/wave/particle tetrahedron shape.

      9. profile image61
        effilnucposted 6 years ago

        using π as an irrational number MEANS YOU CAN NEVER GET TO THE REAL POINT of a circle or sphere or wavelength unless the pencil you used to draw the circle is considered to be the size of the point!

        as we all know a point is a point.  if you use a really sharp pencil and π, you can draw a really close approximation of the point but you still have many points in that one tiny pencil point!

      10. profile image61
        effilnucposted 6 years ago

        original alphabets of greek and hebrew involve aspects, angles and vectors,

        these alphabets are able to express mathematically what the numbers 1234567890 cannot.

        translate π into english and back into numbers and you get the integer 8 which is two circles put together which is also the shape created by the tetrahedron moving in two helix patterns in opposite directions.

        one must understand π if one is to progress as individuals and as a whole society.  how does a computer understand π?

        1. profile image0
          zampanoposted 6 years agoin reply to this

          π ~= 3.1415926535 8979323846 2643383279 5028841971 6939937510 5820974944 5923078164 0628620899 8628034825 3421170679 8214808651 3282306647 0938446095 5058223172 5359408128 4811174502 8410270193 8521105559 6446229489 5493038196 4428810975 6659334461 2847564823 3786783165 2712019091 4564856692 3460348610 4543266482 1339360726 0249141273 7245870066 0631558817 4881520920 9628292540 9171536436 7892590360 0113305305 4882046652 1384146951 9415116094 3305727036 5759591953 0921861173 8193261179 3105118548 0744623799 6274956735 1885752724 8912279381 8301194912 9833673362 4406566430 8602139494 6395224737 1907021798 6094370277 0539217176 2931767523 8467481846 7669405132 0005681271 4526356082 7785771342 7577896091 7363717872 1468440901 2249534301 4654958537 1050792279 6892589235 4201995611 2129021960 8640344181 5981362977 4771309960 5187072113 4999999837 2978049951 0597317328 1609631859 5024459455 3469083026 4252230825 3344685035 2619311881 7101000313 7838752886 5875332083 8142061717 7669147303 5982534904 2875546873 1159562863 8823537875 9375195778 1857780532 1712268066 1300192787 6611195909 2164201989 3809525720 1065485863 2788659361 5338182796 8230301952 0353018529 6899577362 2599413891 2497217752 8347913151 5574857242 4541506959 (source Wikipedia)

          I fed the computer the calculation series (the polygon one).
          I went to have myself a pee (hehehe) and when I came back I had to reboot the computer because the calculation was still going on and nothing else would work.
          Can't fool it. Either you give the computer a limit for the number of output digits in which case it will eventually stop computing and output a result, or it goes on forever.
          This is called an irrational. It's a limit never attained by a turtle because there's still a small amount remaining forever.

          But 5 decimals (3.14159) are enough for me if I want to build a bridge or a boat's hull, for instance.

          It reminds me of a time when someone tried to drink all wine brands on earth and never succeeded. He had to be "rebooted" and now he only shares one botlle from time to time and even though he knows there's a lot remaining, he's just happy with a small quantity.

          Otherwise, I don't think I can follow you boys in the exploration of the infinitely small.

      11. profile image61
        effilnucposted 6 years ago

        when one can appreciate that all of reality is actually functions of real numbers related to π, then one can appreciate why some things are fundamentally impossible and some things seem to happen over and over and over again...and why chaos theory is a computer model and the world in which we live is the real model that is very, very, very mathematical! the universe is so mathematical it is in perfect harmony (balance) with itself and everything in it!

        anything that is not real, not live, or evil, is really just a function of π that is out of balance according to the definition of balance created by the light/wave/particle tetrahedron!

        as humans we have choice to function outside of the laws of π, but only within a limited set of parameters, otherwise it eventually spins into chaos. 

        by taking from the earth and not understanding the whole number of π is in balance, we are able to convince ourselves that we will not have to give back to the earth immediately.

        by not understanding π, banks continue to create credit (imbalance) that is used to build machines to further try and prove that π is not real and that imbalance can rule the universe!

        to put it in laymans terms the mathematical term for π is = or balance!  this is hidden in the equation

        e = mc^2

        1. profile image61
          effilnucposted 6 years agoin reply to this

          if π is an indefinite number in the e = mc^2 equation then you result in uncontrolled (misunderstood) nuclear reactions.

          if π is a definite whole integer, one can better understand the nature of nuclear fission and fusion.

      12. profile image61
        effilnucposted 6 years ago

        so integer 8

        this is the base integer for the oxygen molecule and also the hydrogen molecule and also defines the energetic (momentum or momentous) relationship between the two!

        hydrogen and oxygen separate and reunite in reality in complete harmony/balance.  fission and fusion of elements not of atoms!

        by becoming involved with that relationship in a balanced way as demonstrated by the integer/letter 8, humans can harness the momentum or energy released each time hydrogen unites with water and also each time it separates.

        this is the true hydrogen, oxygen, water economy in balance with our environment, and as there is no money to be made...perhaps it will lead to living in balance with one another also....again!

      13. profile image61
        effilnucposted 6 years ago

        @ manna & mathsciguy - thank you. your persistent adherence and patient explanations of the accepted definitions of numbers, integers, factors, functions and ratios is crucial to understanding how the scientific and mathematical communities have been slowly veering off centre for at least 2500 years.

        it also helps understand why some things are theoretically possible according to computers, such as anti-matter, but in reality matter or antimatter is the same - a function of relative balance of collective momentum related to lightspeed according to a precise mathematical formula in which π must be an integer.

        language allows for positive and negative - the universal law only allows for relative momentum.  if language labels a group of outcomes as positive, then the apparent opposite group of outcomes is automatically labeled as negative according to the laws of linguistic communication.

        whilst the media transforms indefinite and irrational mathematical, financial and scientific models (based on an incorrect understanding of π and real integers) into words that automatically separate and define the variables of these models into subsets, one will never be able to grasp reality, the present, past or future.

      14. profile image61
        effilnucposted 6 years ago

        i charge all mathematicians around the world to come up with the list of all natural numbers using PI and the tetrahedron as a starting point.

        this has been attempted previously, 2,500 years ago and got lost in time and translation.

        it will unveil the link between sub-atomic and cosmic interactions of bodies of light/mass/matter, however you wish to term it!

        i know that PI is a natural number and so is 8 and possibly 9 and 11 but i do not have the tools to communicate the rest of the natural numbers nor their relationship using axioms understood by qualified minds, nor can i extrapolate for potential interactions between bodies that can be tested in order to verify this.

      15. profile image61
        effilnucposted 6 years ago

        the maths science financial guys are the ones using the system of unnatural numbers (decimal, binary, 1-9) to model our society.

        they are doing their best but they are using the wrong numerical system and trying to apply their results to reality.

        we need to re-base any and every system that uses decimal/binary/or 1-9 positive and negative integers as its base.

        i know it seems odd, perhaps crazy, even perhaps bordering on lunacy... but it is not the first time societies have re-based these systems...financial systems have been re-based several times in recent history in an attempt to RE BALANCE them.

        it will be the first time we have done it globally though - at least try to harmonise with the cycles of the universe rather than dominate them!

        ironically, with this prehistoric binary computer network called the internet that we have set up around the globe, we can do this within 6 months... go figure!

        this is the 111th post by coincidence!

      16. profile image61
        effilnucposted 6 years ago

        5 decimals is enough for a bridge but it must be a real number for space travel or nuclear fission/fusion.

        computers cannot understand π as a real number using a binary system of storing data!

        humans use symbols, we can process heaps, heaps more.

        1. Manna in the wild profile image77
          Manna in the wildposted 6 years agoin reply to this

          Computers don't "understand anything" -- what's your point?

          Yes humans understand. Some do anyway.

          1. profile image0
            zampanoposted 6 years agoin reply to this

            Very clearly exposed, Manna.
            And that is precisely the point. Tolerancies.
            And the way we communicate with other worlds, dimensions, ensembles, whatever we might call it.
            In my professional life, I used to communicate with logarithm ensemble, by means of a table.
            5 decimals were enough to get my results and after some calculations, get to the conclusion that I had an 80% probability of finding myself in a 5 mile radius circle whose center I knew the coordinates.
            Tolerancies.
            This was Earth surface travel.
            About time travel, I know nothing. I suppose 39 decimals would be enough.

            1. profile image61
              effilnucposted 6 years agoin reply to this

              @ Manna - i did not say computers don't understand anything, i said that computers do not understand π...you're attempts to divert are obvious.
              just because you do not wish to follow this manna, does not mean other people can't, please do not project your insecurities into this forum.

        2. Manna in the wild profile image77
          Manna in the wildposted 6 years ago

          "5 decimals is enough for a bridge but it must be a real number for space travel or nuclear fission/fusion"

          No you are wrong again.

          15 decimals is probably good enough for space travel up to some fairly long distance.

          39 decimal places will get you the calculation of a circle the size of the known universe to within an accuracy of about the size of a hydrogen atom.

          It's all about tolerances. Take the measurement of the length of your tabletop. Let's say it's 2m. But it's not 2m is it? It's not a perfect table and your measuring tool it not perfect, so the best you can do is consider both your error in measuring tool, and the maximum and minimum measured result of the length of your tabletop. It also varies with humidity and temperature.

          Depending upon whether you use a high accuracy laser tool or a cheap ruler, the result can only be known to within a certain tolerance, like 2m +/- .1mm

          So from that point of view, using an irrational number in a practical situation is no different to using an integer.

          1. profile image61
            effilnucposted 6 years agoin reply to this

            the universe is built on atoms with zero tolerance so π must be a real, whole number!

        3. Manna in the wild profile image77
          Manna in the wildposted 6 years ago

          "translate π into english and back into numbers and you get the integer 8 which is two circles put together which is also the shape created by the tetrahedron moving in two helix patterns in opposite directions."

          What the bazoogah are you on about? This is the ramblings of a mad person. Still - it's impressive how you can string together so many totally unrelated random strings of babbldegook. Let me try:

          Let's see... Upside the morgan and deposit four gamma-epsilon wheels into the brine and you instantly get a foam of twice forthcoming dehydrogenase photon based wiki.

          I have to admit. It's kind of fun.

          1. profile image61
            effilnucposted 6 years agoin reply to this

            come on Manna - you can do better than that crap!

        4. Manna in the wild profile image77
          Manna in the wildposted 6 years ago

          "just because you do not wish to follow this manna, does not mean other people can't, please do not project your insecurities into this forum."

          It's not 'wish' to follow. You have not written anything TO follow.

          If I was insecure, then I would not be comfortable to expose you as a fraud. I've given thoughtful and accurate counter arguments to your baseless wild conjecture. You asked for review and I have given honest review. On the odd occasion where you have made sense, I've acknowledged that.

          Despite your claims, it is you who has the closed mind. You seem to doggedly reject all established knowledge in favor of your own private lunatic ideas.

          I do find your responses curious, from a psychological viewpoint at least, but not at all from a scientific angle. You will have noticed that people who have real knowledge have popped in, tried to help you, realized it's impossible, and then left. I will now do the same. This is my last response.

          1. profile image61
            effilnucposted 6 years agoin reply to this

            check out the shape of a quark...it is a tetrahedron...you should  re read what we have all written!

            1. profile image0
              zampanoposted 6 years agoin reply to this

              Man you got a real good sight !!!

        5. profile image61
          effilnucposted 6 years ago

          THE CURRENT STANDARD MODEL OF PARTICLE PHYSICS (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Standard_M … ulation%29) DOES NOT PERMIT A CONCLUSIVE UNDERSTANDING OF, NOR DEFINED RESULTS WHEN USED TO WIDELY EXTRAPOLATE ON THE PRESENT FUNCTIONS OF LIGHT-WAVE/PARTICLES, MATTER, SPACE, ENERGY OR FORCE...THE UNDERSTANDING OF ALL THESE FUNCTIONS IS WIDELY BASED ON AN IRRATIONAL CONCEPT CALLED PI.

          THE TRUE NUMBER SYSTEM RECOGNIZES THE INTRINSIC NATURE OF THE THEORY OF RELATIVITY AND CAN DEFINE PI AND OTHER 'IRRATIONAL' NUMBERS AS RATIONAL NUMBERS.

          THE TRUE NUMBER SYSTEM IS A FUNDAMENTAL BUT SIMPLE INTERPRETATION  OF THE ON/OFF ASPECT OF MAINSTREAM BINARY COMPUTER TECHNOLOGY THAT IS MORE RELATIVE TO OUR EXPERIENCE OF THE REAL UNIVERSE THAN THE CURRENT BINARY DECIMAL SYSTEM - BASE 10. 

          IT PERMITS THE PRECISE CALCULATION OF E=MC^2 IN AND BETWEEN ANY NUMBER OF SUBSYSTEMS OVER AND BETWEEN ANY SET OF PERIODS. 

          AS WE KNOW, LIFE AND DEATH ARE PART OF A WHOLE SEQUENCE IN WHICH 'ON' IS DEFINED BY ITS RELATIVE POSITION TO 'OFF' AND VICE VERSA...ERGO THE PRESENT BINARY SYSTEM BEING - 0 AND 1 - ON (LIFE) AND OFF (DEATH) - DOES NOT REFLECT THE FUNCTION OF OUR KNOWN UNIVERSE - IT IS A THEORY THAT IS WIDELY ACCEPTED, READILY APPLIED AND BLINDLY FOLLOWED - NONETHELESS IT IS GROSSLY MISPLACED AND ARGUABLY MISLEADING.

          IF YOU ARE AWARE OF THE FUNDAMENTAL FLAWS OF MAINSTREAM BINARY COMPUTER HARDWARE, PLEASE CONTACT ME DIRECTLY BY EMAIL USING EFFILNUC@CLUBTELCO.COM AS I WOULD LIKE TO DEVELOP AND DISCUSS RELEVANT APPLICATIONS OF THIS TECHNOLOGY.

          1. Robert pires profile image61
            Robert piresposted 6 years agoin reply to this

            great!

        6. profile image0
          zampanoposted 6 years ago

          Hey effilnuc !

          I read almost all you wrote.
          I promise to keep this between us. And I suppose our fellow Hubbers will not denounce you either.

          Never speak in public like you do in here.
          Otherwise, I fear for your freedom.

          Sicerelly

         
        working