Conundrum

Post Reply New Topic

You have made a statement without logic.

There is only logic and evidence.

Theories are logic that consolodate and simplifies previous logic and evidence.

Math is just symbolized logic.
I'm claiming that all the math that is currently in use is correct . . .*except* that using the imaginary 4th dimension

You claim I provide no evidence yet I give logical explanations of curent scientific mysteries using the evidence presented in those mysteries.

What is your problem?

My problem is that your theory contains only a half hearted excuse of an abstract.
My problem is that you make no attempt whatsoever to explain any of the concepts you work with.
My problem is that you want me to believe you have explained to me the mysteries of physical entities so huge they are impossible to explore in a human life, and that you have done so in a tiny essay.


If you want to explain to me what a cow is, you can simply use the word cow. If I don't know the word, you could say it's a prominent member of the Bovinae family. But if I also don't know about that particular family, perhaps a reference to it's common usage, say, meat in burgers, is in place. Where I come from we don't eat cows, though, for whatever cultural reasons, so what then? You could keep finding references to what a cow is that's nested in various cultures, but if I'm from another planet, what good are they?

Say, I really fancy Dijkstra's algorithm. If I am to explain it to someone, I could easily say it's a greedy shortest path algorithm that uses a priority queue and works on non-negative weighted directed graphs and derives the shortest path from a to b in O((|E| + |V|) lg |E|) time. If you don't know what an algorithm is, I could say it's a series of steps through which an input data will always provide the desired output. I could use examples of everyday algorithms, like brute forcing a combination lock, making coffee, or sending an email.
As for what a non-negative weighted directed graph is, that would probably take a little more time, but the basic of the graph being a series of vertices representing places, which are connected by edges, which represent roads. The roads have different length, some are perhaps one way streets, and some places aren't directly connected to one another. The graph represents this mathematically, and once the representation has been made, shortest path algorithms, such as Dijkstra's, can thus give you the length of the shortest path, as well as what roads you should follow to get there.
The time it takes to run it requires some more understanding of math and data structures, but it's less relevant to the concept of the algorithm. It becomes relevant when compared to other algorithms, but that will only be interesting to people already familiar with their complexity.

Edit: What I wrote above I consider a semi decent explanation of what the algorithm is, not how it works. But in contrast, consider the task of solving a sudoku with a brute force algorithm. I say dynamic programming. If you already know how to solve the sudoku with brute force, likely it will make sense, if not, it's just an empty buzzword. A slap in the face, really. It will not lead you any closer to understanding the underlying concept. *coughstringscough*

Now, what you have done is try to explain a theory revolving around all matter being composed of strings. You explain it by making references to concepts like dimensions and timerate, saying that invisible matter known as dark matter would be visible when observed with a different timerate, and that the four dimensions apparently commonly believed in are actually just three.
And that's where you start to bother me. I don't have any problems with many dimensions. I'm very much aware of how difficult they can be to represent visually, but in a programming language it's very easy to make an array with six dimensions, or 600. What I'm troubled by is that you refer to dimensions as this logical thing that everybody perceives the same way. You also seem to believe everyone is familiar with timerate and the time dimension. I'm not. What you say gives me no clue what you're talking about. When I ask for an explanation, you tell me it's already there.

You have to realize that I'm an idiot. I'm from a whole other universe and my understanding of English is only what I could pull out of a cheap dictionary and low budget movies. If you cannot explain to me what your theory is about, you will likely not be able to explain it to anyone. You cannot introduce a concept like time, say it's totally different from what some people are only vaguely familiar with, and expect them to make any sense of what you say.

So to speak, you need to explain what your idea of time is, without using the word time. You need to explain what a dimension is, without using dimension.
Oh, and while you're at it, you should probably also explain what the consequence of the strings you introduce is. I read a bit about quarks when I was small, and managed to at least superficially understand what they do and why they make the elementary particles behave the way they do. How do your strings differ? How can you prove, or at least supply some evidence, of their existence? What does your theory matter?

Mathematics is the language of physics. Without math a physical theory cannot be properly formulated.

Newton invented calculus just so he could deal with motion.

Vector calculus was invented so that theories of electrodynamics could be properly formulated.

Try stating Maxwell's theory of the elctromagnetic field without mathematics.

Try stating Einstein's theory of gravitation without tensors.

ruveyn

Why can't either of you ask a simple question?

Let me try:
Please explain what a photon is.
My answer:
A spinning partial loop of a 1D quanta string.
With that you get an individual "packet" of energy that has frequency.
It is also two dimensional.

Do your experiments disprove this?
Or maybe . . .



Can you prove that space warps?

I'm saying that the relativity equation is correct.
The only difference being the the distance compensation turns into an increase in mass.
The only "error" in the math is taking the distance compensation and creating black holes, time travel, and wormholes.

Explain Dark Energy - Your argument is that the stuff you learned is all correct.

What is a 1D quanta string.

Basically;

The only "thing" in the universe.

We call them "magnetic flux lines".

It is the basis of first electrimagnetic energy and as it "spins up" it transitions into being matter.

The is only one "force" and it is applied by these strings.

My conundrum is that this bolis down to a single iterative equation that can't be solved (only approximated - thus uncertainty).
The basis of probability is the chaotic nature of the equation.
The periodicity of the equation results in the periodic table.

Share a Nobel with me, derive the equation.
(I'm a philosopher, not a mathematician)

For the second time! Have you submitted a paper to arxiv so that the intellectual community can read your ideas?

I tried contacting physicists by email. No replies.

I am a sculptor and not currently connected with any academic community.

I was hoping to get help with the math, since submitting a paper would be useless without it ( as already pointed out )

"There is only one type of "thing" in the universe. It is a quanta string. It is one dimensional and only has length. *Everything* in the universe is built from these quanta strings. The smallest divisible unit in a quanta string is a quantum.

If any one of the quanta string moves it creates time. Time is a force created by the movement of of a quanta string. Time could be considered the universe's resistance to movement."

How small is a quantum? What are quantums made of? How many quantums are on average in the elementary particles?
What does it mean that time is resistence to movement? Do quanta strings always move? In comparison to what is movement measured?
How does this affect the meaning of the concept time? How should time be defined? How should time be measured?

That's better!

figure about a planck length.
Have no idea what they are - (god made 'em )
An "elementary particle" other than a quanta string doesn't exist - Sub atomic particles are helixes of quanta string, smashed 3D loops. I *first* figured just one quantum length - but the periodic table makes me think that you can combine lengths - therefore "quanta" strings. Might be just one. Most experiments focus on the "smallest" so not much data to support the quanta theory, but I went with it anyway..

Time is the energy given to loops in the flow of the magnetic field.
The "drag" through the 1D strings is time & gravity.
The density of the flow is related to the "speed" of the flow.
Cutting across the flow increases the relative flux density thereby increasing spin > mass > energy. That extra energy makes it "last longer" but reciprocally increases the timerate.
The math goes in circles here.

This particular orbit around our sun is our overall timerate.
We have measured it many many times. But only *here*.
Pushing something to a higher timerate moves its orbit towards the sun.
We can calculate timerate from the distance to mass.

The quantum of action is the value of Planck's Constant. It is in units of Joule-Seconds

Planck's constant = 6.626068 × 10-34 m2 kg / s or 6.62068 x 10 ^ -34 Joule Seconds

It is a very small quantity which is why it took so long to find it. Discovered by Max Planck in January of 1900. A new constant for a new physics in a new century.

ruveyn

Quanta strings are streaming into every mass that is large enough to convert them into matter by spinning them up into electrons, protons, helium, lithium etc.

Can't tell how much mass is necessary for which - our sun is only doing helium.
(more math)

antennae must be oriented.
polarizing filters.
coherent light.
E & H fields.
zero mass.
And no one guessed 2D?

Strong force = energy required for castastrophic perturbation of a 3D path.
Weak force = energy required for quantum jump in peroidicity of the path.

radioactive decay points towards quanta strings that can split.

I wish you luck as I give up. Too little detail, too incoherent explanation, and too unkind to the reader. I hope someone can decipher your ideas though and help you compile it into an actual theory. =/

In all honesty, you sound exactly like a crank. In fact, you sound so much like a crank that I think that you should give serious thought to the possibility that you might be a crank.

I *have* considered it. Humans *are* delusional, I am human.

I don't get what you don't get about it.
What happens in your physics if you remove the 4th dimension?

Can you imagine real mass increasing as an object moves?
Or time being reduced to an averaged transfer of energy? (imparted by 1D magnetic fields)
Or time slowing as gravity decreases?


I find "bending space like a rubber sheet" to be "unbelievable".

See this is what you're not grasping: science has nothing to do with imagination or belief. It doesn't matter if you can't imagine it. Mathematics is pure logic, not imagination, and the pure logic of the math combined with the empirical evidence, yields these results. Observation and experimentation confirm them.