The Universe say's ''NO!'' to Biased Directions

[Reiku]

Now, I have sat down and pondered this more, and you can more or less create any physical law using elementary algebra… But if there are mistakes here, please point them out… as I am sure you will do anyway if there is

Since

$$i^0$$
$$i^1=i$$
$$i^2=-1$$
$$i^3=-1.i=-i$$
And
$$i^4=-i.i=-i^2=-(-1)=1$$

Then we can integrate some variables, so long as we abide by the powers of

$$\sqrt{1}$$ and $$\sqrt{-1}$$

Then…

On a real right triangle, we have the Pythagorean Discipline $$a^2+b^2=c^2$$ where the solution is the $$c=\sqrt{a+b}$$ so $$c^2-b^2=a^2$$ or $$c^2-b^2=a^2$$, because $$a_{1}*b_{1}><b_{2}*a_{2}$$, so $$a$$ and $$b$$ are true, if there is no biased attack that $$b$$ cannot also be $$a$$.

These are called Logic Deductions, so $$\Inot (P\land\lnot P)$$ holds it as a pure logic that not only in a single vector, does one see it has no real directionality, even in three dimensions, vector + vector components cannot be biased either.

$$a^2-a(i)=b$$

So

$$a^2-a(i^0) \pm b$$

Then

$$i^0=-(-1)=-i^2=-1$$

Then it must hold true that the values of $$\sqrt{1}$$ and $$\sqrt{-1}$$ play exactly the same roles, when conditionally that each can never yield a positive value of when $$b>0$$. Here, we role on:

$$a^2-a(i^{0}_{(j)i}) \pm b >< (-1)=-i^2=\sqrt{-1}$$

Then we have yielded a negative value, from something which is positive to begin with, so we can then arbitrarily say the reverse is always the same. Again, there is no forward direction at these scales, if there is no complex-conjugate.

Now let the trace variables have

$$(j)i=-i^2$$ and $$i(j)=i^4$$

So then $${(j)i}x{(i(j)}=\sqrt{-1}$$

But as I thought about it some more, it came to realize that this is only true if $$i^2 \pm \sqrt{1}$$, hence them acting analogous to complex conjugated functions. So $$\psi \psi* =1$$ is one way to yield a real value in any vector function.

We can work out some of these real attributes, by working off the values of the known three dimensions we see in operation everyday we go to work, or read a book, or simply noticing the sides of a cube, that in what are called row vectors $$|V|=0,0,0$$, yields real values if we allow:

$$i^{2}=i*k^{2}$$

Then in a three-dimensional coordinated system, we can reduce the real parts of any connected vectors like so ~

$$a+b-i^2*k^{2^2}=0$$

So long as

$$a+b+c+k^{2^2}=0$$

Other than this being proof, if there are no mistakes, then you can also prove that a vector has two directionalities, (one negative and one positive), any power of $$i$$ can be either $$\sqrt{1}$$ or $$\sqrt{-1}$$ so long as the exponent is only ever a multiple of $$2$$, so we can have what we call ‘’odd powers,’’ since they are strictly given only as $$\sqrt{1}$$ or $$\sqrt{-1}$$ since $$-i=i^3$$.

Out of further analysis, going back to $$a^2-a(i^{0}_{(j)i}) \pm b >< (-1)=-i^2=\sqrt{-1}$$, we can allow (by geometrical methods and mathematical disciplines), that $$\sqrt{-1}=i^{n}$$, so long as it has a remainder of $$2$$, so as far as I have deducted,

$$i^{n}=i^{18}=i^{2}=\sqrt{-1}$$

So the $$i^0$$ in $$a^2-a(i^{0}_{(j)i}) \pm b >< (-1)=-i^2=\sqrt{-1}$$ is $$i^{40}$$ if there is absolutely no remainder at all, so $$i^0=(a^{2}-a(i^{40}))$$.

Let is know what you think, because if there are any errors, I would like to see why…Ta Ta 4 the now!

 

[AlphaNumeric]

As usual, incoherent crap.

Do you want to admit to several errors in your post now or are you going to claim it's all correct and then I prove you wrong?

 

[Reiku]

Is that it... ''incoherent crap''?

Ok. Show me where it is wrong then, apart from not being able to display an equation correctly in the latex form...???

 

[AlphaNumeric]

Then we can integrate some variables

Misuse of terminology. The multiplication tables/properties of i is irrelevent to integration because it's not a function, it's a number. Hence, by linearity $$\int i f(x) dx = i \int f(x) dx$$ irrespective of the properties of the constant number 'i'.

Then we can integrate some variables

so long as we abide by the powers of

$$\sqrt{1}$$ and $$\sqrt{-1}$$

Not a coherent sentence.

On a real right triangle, we have the Pythagorean Discipline $$a^2+b^2=c^2$$

No, on a triangle in Euclidean space you mean. You can put a triangle into a complexified space and still have that formula or you can put a triangle into a real space which is not Euclidean and get a different formula.

where the solution is the $$c=\sqrt{a+b}$$ so $$c^2-b^2=a^2$$ or $$c^2-b^2=a^2$$

You should define what you're solving for if you're saying "The solution is..." otherwise you're just rearranging formulae pointlessly.

because $$a_{1}*b_{1}><b_{2}*a_{2}$$, so $$a$$ and $$b$$ are true, if there is no biased attack that $$b$$ cannot also be $$a$$.

Not a coherent sentence. $$a_{1}*b_{1}><b_{2}*a_{2}$$ isn't a meaningful expression. And what is a 'biased attack'?

These are called Logic Deductions, so $$\Inot (P\land\lnot P)$$ holds it as a pure logic that not only in a single vector, does one see it has no real directionality, even in three dimensions, vector + vector components cannot be biased either.

More incoherence.

$$a^2-a(i)=b$$
So
$$a^2-a(i^0) \pm b$$

The first is an equation. The second in an expression. Completely meaningless.

Then $$i^0=-(-1)=-i^2=-1$$

False, you just said that 1 = -1.

And so on and so forth. The post continues with the same nonsense. Why do you even bother? You know you make it up. We know you do. Noone cares what your psychologically disfunctional, compulsively lying, incoherent, desperately needy, "Hey, look at me!" attention desiring ignorance wants to post about topics you don't understand. So stop posting these.

£10 this gets moves to the Cesspool. It's not even pseudoscience, it's just incoherent babble. At least when you post 'essays' on conciousness it's not instantly debunkable and might make it to pseudoscience. This thread is obvious crap and you know it. So why post it? Really, what do you hope to acheive?

 

[Reiku]

Misuse of terminology. The multiplication tables/properties of i is irrelevent to integration because it's not a function, it's a number. Hence, by linearity $$\int i f(x) dx = i \int f(x) dx$$ irrespective of the properties of the constant number 'i'.

Not a coherent sentence.
No, on a triangle in Euclidean space you mean. You can put a triangle into a complexified space and still have that formula or you can put a triangle into a real space which is not Euclidean and get a different formula.
You should define what you're solving for if you're saying "The solution is..." otherwise you're just rearranging formulae pointlessly.
Not a coherent sentence. $$a_{1}*b_{1}><b_{2}*a_{2}$$ isn't a meaningful expression. And what is a 'biased attack'?
More incoherence.

The first is an equation. The second in an expression. Completely meaningless.
False, you just said that 1 = -1.

And so on and so forth. The post continues with the same nonsense. Why do you even bother? You know you make it up. We know you do. Noone cares what your psychologically disfunctional, compulsively lying, incoherent, desperately needy, "Hey, look at me!" attention desiring ignorance wants to post about topics you don't understand. So stop posting these.

£10 this gets moves to the Cesspool. It's not even pseudoscience, it's just incoherent babble. At least when you post 'essays' on conciousness it's not instantly debunkable and might make it to pseudoscience. This thread is obvious crap and you know it. So why post it? Really, what do you hope to acheive?

Misuse of terminology. The multiplication tables/properties of i is irrelevent to integration because it's not a function, it's a number. Hence, by linearity $$\int i f(x) dx = i \int f(x) dx$$ irrespective of the properties of the constant number 'i'.[/QOUTE]

I honestly see no difference, other than you adding new variables describing the wave vector function of such a schematic as I have been developing. Ironically enough, I will admit, hands to the ground, I used a similar equation to show that all the work I showed above holds true if:

$$\int_{a}^{b} \int_{a*}^{b*} f(x)$$

‘’ Not a coherent sentence.’’

Doesn’t make it bullshit though.

‘’ No, on a triangle in Euclidean space you mean.’’

Did you even understand it when I said vectors can’t even be biased in a simple flat three-dimensional space???????? I give up already. Ben, if you really think this should be moved, then go right ahead. I only presented the work as actual questions, and once again, Alphanumeric has made it into some kind of flame-fest.

 

[Reiku]

Just to add how the expression above yeilds all sorts of methods,

$$\int_{a}^{b} \int_{a*}^{b*} f(x)$$

$$a*$$ must have an imaginary value $$i$$, so when we work off a relativistic map a distance when we move through space (1), the expression is seen in light of the well-known fact in physics that Special Relativity is an observer-dependant theory, so we need to have some kind of relative connection to why we observe three dimensions, and not four. This was why Euclids Proof $$c=\sqrt{a+b}$$ → $$a^2+b^2=c^2$$ was necessery to explain how even three dimensions from a relativistic prospectus could not be biased either, unless there is a collapse in the wave function $$f(d(x))=|\psi|^2=1$$ where the field has to be within perfect conditions required for such a collapse, and that includes decoherence itself.

... and also, that we work off the real vectors as via the added logic,

$$a^2 + b^2 + c^2 - i^2$$

Let $$i^2 = i *k^{2^2}$$

Then the real part would be

$$a^2 + b^2 + c^2 - i^2*k^{2^2} = 0$$

which simplifies to:

$$a^2 + b^2 +c^2 + 2k^2 =0$$

The only solution is $$a=b=c=k^2=0$$

(1) - However, we can sit absolutely still, and have the imaginary vector flow past us at the the speed of light, despite the paradox that our bodies, or any cold body for an example, like a vacuum with a temperature of $$-273$$, there is still an infinite amount of movement still happenening.

 

[AlphaNumeric]

Did you even understand it when I said vectors can’t even be biased in a simple flat three-dimensional space????????

That's rich. You don't understand integrals, vectors, relativity, quantum theory, complex numbers, algebra and yet all of them you've mentioned in this thread.

I bet any question I ask you to do relating to those things you won't answer, because you cannot.

This was why Euclids Proof $$c=\sqrt{a+b}$$ → $$a^2+b^2=c^2$$ was necessery

That isn't the result of Euclid. And besides, it's wrong.

unless there is a collapse in the wave function $$f(d(x))=|\psi|^2=1$$ where the field has to be within perfect conditions required for such a collapse, and that includes decoherence itself.

For about the 10th time, normalisation is $$\int |\psi(x)|^{2} dx = 1$$, not $$|\psi(x)|^{2} = 1$$. The vast majority of functions which satisfy for latter will not satisfy the former.

And stop with the d(x). It's dx. No brackets. It's not that d is a function of x, it's that dx is a single coherent entity in and of itself. You don't realise this because you don't know any calculus.

Then the real part would be

If you knew how to take real and imaginary parts of things, you'd not be claiming over and over again that $$(a+ib)(a-ib) = a^{2}-b^{2}+2abi = a^{2}+b^{2}$$.

$$a^2 + b^2 + c^2 - i^2*k^{2^2} = 0$$
which simplifies to:
$$a^2 + b^2 +c^2 + 2k^2 =0$$

No, it doesn't.

Go on, whine away. I bet you don't step up and accept the challenge of doing a few short questions on topics you claim to know.

 

[Reiku]

That the catch 22 though ain't it??? Who really is doing the whining???

 

[Reiku]

Besides... i will humor one thing you said...

''No, it doesn't.''

Never say never Alphenumeric, unless all of a sudden you have become a world-wide known professor of physics that can counterclaim an absolute proof that a vector must oscillate, so that there is no real direction. I did however note, which your obviously either ignored or just missed, was that we do experience a time vector that is continuous without recourse, and it turns out to have a complex-related set of equations that makes SR an Observer-Dependant Theory, when distance and time are involved with a conscious measurement.

 

[AlphaNumeric]

Never say never Alphenumeric, unless all of a sudden you have become a world-wide known professor of physics that can counterclaim an absolute proof that a vector must oscillate, so that there is no real direction.

Where does the factor of 2 come from then? Or did that pass you by?

I did however note, which your obviously either ignored or just missed, was that we do experience a time vector that is continuous without recourse, and it turns out to have a complex-related set of equations that makes SR an Observer-Dependant Theory, when distance and time are involved with a conscious measurement.

What? I ignored your usual method of trying to dig yourself out of these holes you find yourself in where you try to dial up the BS even more and hope people back off!

Noone thinks you know any relativity. Go on, answer a few. Just to prove me wrong.

 

[Reiku]

''Where does the factor of 2 come from then? Or did that pass you by?''

Because you can also prove that a vector has two directionalities, (one negative and one positive), any power of $$i$$ can be either $$\sqrt{1}$$ or $$\sqrt{-1}$$ so long as the exponent is only ever a multiple of 2, so we can have what we call ‘’odd powers.''

Did that miss you more like?

 

[Reiku]

And... eh no...

The time vector is very very very important, in physics as a whole. It increases suspisions that it can be only an abstract theory, whilst it somehow operates next to the ''experience'' of a time passing. If you didn't know Alphanumeric, this is called the ''psychological arrow of time'', and is linear by nature, and pure science seems to contradict this, since no vector can be linear or as i have been saying... biased to a certain direction...

/... so, it means that somehow time is the mind, and this relationship has been attributed by hundreds of scientists as being considered valid proof that time is somehow a 'thing' that links our perception to the flat spacetime we come to observe. This is again, of course, on top of the Relativistic fact that time and the observer when distance and measurement are concerned, you cannot talk of a flat space alone, without some observer there to measure the reality, or even better, the wave distributions of probabilities, we come to only ever collapse in real time. This is why real time forumla's in this work are important... at least... I think they are.

 

[CptBork]

As I've explained to you before, Reiku, your biggest problem seems to be communication. You need to learn how to express your ideas in terms of language that scientists actually use. Not only is the math you write nonsensical, unless every symbol you use actually means something totally different from what anyone else uses it for, but your sentence construction is terribly incoherent as well. Call it crossed wires or whatever you want, the fact is you're not even able to communicate a coherent idea here, and until you can do that you're gonna keep seeing these threads of yours dumped in the Pseudoscience or Cesspool sections. If you're telling us the truth when you say you're taking introductory math courses, then you should be patient and wait until you've actually completed these courses before you post about things you haven't even learned yet.

 

[Reiku]

As I've explained to you before, Reiku, your biggest problem seems to be communication. You need to learn how to express your ideas in terms of language that scientists actually use. Not only is the math you write nonsensical, unless every symbol you use actually means something totally different from what anyone else uses it for, but your sentence construction is terribly incoherent as well. Call it crossed wires or whatever you want, the fact is you're not even able to communicate a coherent idea here, and until you can do that you're gonna keep seeing these threads of yours dumped in the Pseudoscience or Cesspool sections. If you're telling us the truth when you say you're taking introductory math courses, then you should be patient and wait until you've actually completed these courses before you post about things you haven't even learned yet.

First, do not patronize me. You may have been doing physics longer than me, but i know a few things too.

Secondly -- if you have a problem with the math, i have five sheets of paper here that i devised over the last week that elementary algbera was in fact akin to binary-codial digits, and even possibly a method that could be used indescribing the universe (as we know it) -- which, by the way, no modest physicist would sit and claim to know the great mystery of QM, whilst a student can devise new ways at looking at TRUE mathematical systems which, even if a single equation above has a wrong expression or calculation, you still cannot deny the original premise. That was:

There is a no one-way vector in modern science, as we are contemplatively taught that even a single vector of space CANNOT HAVE any real directionality, unless a process of decoherence, or for the human term, the observer-effect collapses a wave state vector $$|S>$$, and if you did actually know anything about the wave state vector, it's probabilistic values determine all the knowable factors behind it's own value.

For reference to these claims, you should read up on Absorber Theory, The Speed of Consciousness, the Transactional Interpretation, ect ect, because, i think you will already know that these things i speak of, cannot be denied, unless someone else can mathematically provide me with a counterclaim.

 

[Reiku]

''If you're telling us the truth when you say you're taking introductory math courses, then you should be patient and wait until you've actually completed these courses before you post about things you haven't even learned yet.''

But i do, do math. I use it nearly everyday. I won't however talk about something i am not aware of as being true, even if i don't know all the facts. It's like asking why the particles spin and planets themselves, as just a remedial ''intrinsic property of matter.''

I ask... what? What mechanism here makes a thing spin????? I know what i think, do you?

 

[BenTheMan]

Is that it... ''incoherent crap''?

Ok. Show me where it is wrong then, apart from not being able to display an equation correctly in the latex form...???

$$i^3=-1.i=-i$$

no.

In fact,

$$i^3 = -i$$.

 

[Reiku]

Oh dear... what a terrible mistake..!!!!! I forgot to raise the $$i$$ in $$i^3=-1.i=-i$$, because that would just be totally wrong wouldn't it?

Look, you think you all here so far who have challenged the OP have done so only out of their own ego. I posted the work as a genuine question, and now it's placed in psuedoscience, because $$i^3=-i...$$

Forgive me, but that's just unfair. Afterall, to evaluate the conjecture you make from my math, you are essentially saying that

$$i^0$$
$$i^1=i$$
$$i^2=-1$$
$$i^3=-1.i^2=-i$$
And
$$i^4=-i.i=-i^2=-(-1)=1$$

Is that better???

The universe may not be biased about Her direction, but the mods around here certainly are.

 

[CptBork]

First, do not patronize me. You may have been doing physics longer than me, but i know a few things too.

Don't patronize us. I have yet to see you correctly complete even the most basic of calculations, aside from very tiny tidbits that even a 12 year old could do. You don't even know how to multiply algebraic brackets out, again these are things I and most of my friends (even the ones who hated math) could do when we were kids. For you to come and lecture us on topics you clearly never learned and don't understand is the biggest insult of all. It's also an insult to all your friends in the pseudoscience section when you advertise to them that you have a deeper understanding than they do about these topics.

Secondly -- if you have a problem with the math, i have five sheets of paper here that i devised over the last week that elementary algbera was in fact akin to binary-codial digits, and even possibly a method that could be used indescribing the universe (as we know it) --

How could you know that your "math" is correct, when you don't even know basic algebra? How do you know you didn't just write up another 5 pages of gibberish? You just don't seem to get it, there are basic rules in mathematics, you can't just go making up your own rules and then pretend they relate in any way to numbers or reality.

which, by the way, no modest physicist would sit and claim to know the great mystery of QM, whilst a student can devise new ways at looking at TRUE mathematical systems which, even if a single equation above has a wrong expression or calculation, you still cannot deny the original premise.

It seems to me that you're claiming here, as you've claimed before, that you've found a deeper insight into QM than what we physicists have already discovered. I can smell your hypocrisy, since you accuse us of not being modest while you pretend that you have crucial answers to problems we haven't solved yet.

That was:

There is a no one-way vector in modern science, as we are contemplatively taught that even a single vector of space CANNOT HAVE any real directionality, unless a process of decoherence, or for the human term, the observer-effect collapses a wave state vector $$|S>$$, and if you did actually know anything about the wave state vector, it's probabilistic values determine all the knowable factors behind it's own value.

This shows you have no understanding of what a vector is- neither a spatial vector, nor a state vector. It seems clear to me you don't even know what the difference is between the two types of vector.

For reference to these claims, you should read up on Absorber Theory, The Speed of Consciousness, the Transactional Interpretation, ect ect, because, i think you will already know that these things i speak of, cannot be denied, unless someone else can mathematically provide me with a counterclaim.

None of these topics have anything to do with what you're saying, because you're not saying anything coherent.

 

[AlphaNumeric]

As usual, Reiku doesn't step up. He's got plenty of time to write the original post in this thread but no time to spend 5 minutes answering a single question someone gives him. Surprising? Not in the slighest.

And all the time he whines about how we're patronising him!

 

[Reiku]

Don't patronize us. I have yet to see you correctly complete even the most basic of calculations, aside from very tiny tidbits that even a 12 year old could do. You don't even know how to multiply algebraic brackets out, again these are things I and most of my friends (even the ones who hated math) could do when we were kids. For you to come and lecture us on topics you clearly never learned and don't understand is the biggest insult of all. It's also an insult to all your friends in the pseudoscience section when you advertise to them that you have a deeper understanding than they do about these topics.



How could you know that your "math" is correct, when you don't even know basic algebra? How do you know you didn't just write up another 5 pages of gibberish? You just don't seem to get it, there are basic rules in mathematics, you can't just go making up your own rules and then pretend they relate in any way to numbers or reality.



It seems to me that you're claiming here, as you've claimed before, that you've found a deeper insight into QM than what we physicists have already discovered. I can smell your hypocrisy, since you accuse us of not being modest while you pretend that you have crucial answers to problems we haven't solved yet.



This shows you have no understanding of what a vector is- neither a spatial vector, nor a state vector. It seems clear to me you don't even know what the difference is between the two types of vector.



None of these topics have anything to do with what you're saying, because you're not saying anything coherent.

I want people to now reflect on some subtle ''tones'' in the wording of this post, and i now want the mods to admit, that Cpt is Alphnumeric.

Once this is done, well... you'll see...