it slows finite but it cannot stop...
Jumping from finite rate to infinite slow time
is something time math does not do....
It is standard calculus finite math
that can't jump to the infinite.
Counting finite you would wait forever
never reaching the infinite.
mitchr...@gmail.com <mitchr...@gmail.com> wrote:
it slows finite but it cannot stop...
Jumping from finite rate to infinite slow time
is something time math does not do....
It is standard calculus finite math
that can't jump to the infinite.
Counting finite you would wait foreverBabbling, idiotic, incoherent, word salad, moron gibberish.
never reaching the infinite.
On Sunday, September 3, 2023 at 10:31:10 AM UTC-7, Jim Pennino wrote:
mitchr...@gmail.com <mitchr...@gmail.com> wrote:
it slows finite but it cannot stop...Babbling, idiotic, incoherent, word salad, moron gibberish.
Jumping from finite rate to infinite slow time
is something time math does not do....
It is standard calculus finite math
that can't jump to the infinite.
Counting finite you would wait forever
never reaching the infinite.
Space is for time. It expands forever. It never contracts...
mitchr...@gmail.com <mitchr...@gmail.com> wrote:As usual, Mitch has a kernel of truth in his awareness. If only he could get out and expound a bit more. Well, I will readily do that for him here.
On Sunday, September 3, 2023 at 10:31:10 AM UTC-7, Jim Pennino wrote:
mitchr...@gmail.com <mitchr...@gmail.com> wrote:
it slows finite but it cannot stop...Babbling, idiotic, incoherent, word salad, moron gibberish.
Jumping from finite rate to infinite slow time
is something time math does not do....
It is standard calculus finite math
that can't jump to the infinite.
Counting finite you would wait forever
never reaching the infinite.
Space is for time. It expands forever. It never contracts...Yet more babbling, idiotic, incoherent, word salad, moron gibberish.
Mon 04 Sep 2023 12:34:49 PM EDTOn Sunday, September 3, 2023 at 7:01:09 PM UTC-4, Jim Pennino wrote:operations goes finer with finer time. If then, at a scale of distance larger than these fine scale activities, one attempts an observation, this may not be possible other than at some gross level of detail which is commensurate with that physical
mitchr...@gmail.com <mitchr...@gmail.com> wrote:
On Sunday, September 3, 2023 at 10:31:10 AM UTC-7, Jim Pennino wrote:
mitchr...@gmail.com <mitchr...@gmail.com> wrote:
it slows finite but it cannot stop...Babbling, idiotic, incoherent, word salad, moron gibberish.
Jumping from finite rate to infinite slow time
is something time math does not do....
It is standard calculus finite math
that can't jump to the infinite.
Counting finite you would wait forever
never reaching the infinite.
As usual, Mitch has a kernel of truth in his awareness. If only he could get out and expound a bit more. Well, I will readily do that for him here.Space is for time. It expands forever. It never contracts...Yet more babbling, idiotic, incoherent, word salad, moron gibberish.
In that time may be truly continuous, then within a segment of time may lay sufficient time for rather a lot to occur. Even adopting the constancy of the speed of light as a limit, this would merely suggest that the distance scale of such fine
Now, taking the physicists awareness of the natural value, rather than the mathematicians version, which has done away with physics altogether, and so has relegated itself to something other than physics, and whose return into physics is thus dubious,whether even after a chain of reasoning allots a continuous version of number, and space becomes reprehensibly representable as three copies of this type of continuous value; now we have secured via the false divide a factor of physical character; two
This route I can recommend, and how exactly one comes to travel it; well, that is a long story now. This last bit of interpretation is fairly new and fresh to me, and to posit it this strongly as well is still fresh. To attack the divide of mathematics,physics, and philosophy as artificial and harmful to the holistic approach ala Bohm, or whoever cares to overstep these pigeonholes, which thence lead into even more pigeonholes, well; the greats of the past did not suffer these sorts of problems. My
That time is unidirectional: yes; most will agree. That these same will then go on to discuss how the laws of physics work in reverse time as well as they do in forward time; well, I'm afraid the mistake is in the usage of the real (two-signed) valueas time. Time is a one-signed value. It is unidirectional. That the geometry of sign carries implications; well, we have to get there still, but yes, the signature of a system is its dimension, and as two-signed numbers are one dimensional (by definition)
- x + x = 0in P3. Still, without the product rules already the geometry of P3 is exposed: three rays equally separated such that -1+1*1=0 form as plane; they define a plane. On a sheet of paper we literally jot down an origin and three rays 120 degrees apart to
and so that this balance takes the graphical form of a number line with two exactly opposed rays is entirely appropriate to polysign, where we can now posit through the fundamental balance that in a P3 system:
- x + x * x = 0
and while we reuse the signs, their meanings within P3 are starkly different than they were in P2. They are modulo behaved under product, and so the modulo two behaviors of the reals are left behind at P2, and modulo three characteristics pick up here
P4, P5, and so forth continue to climb in dimension, and the rays from the center of a simplex outward to its vertices form the balance of polysign coordinates. Thus higher dimension is achieved not through a dubious Cartesian product, but insteadthrough the generalization of sign. Arithmetic products which obey the usual laws of algebra ensue, though strange effects occur, as in P4:
( - 1 + 1 )( + 1 # 1 ) = 0form which provides the concept of time inclusive of its supposedly paradoxical effects, such as the concept of 'now' as omnipresent within our existence, is entirely a good thing.
where two nonzero values multiply to zero. Still, this effect now forms a breakpoint in the family:
P1 P2 P3 | P4 P5 P6 ...
and thus polysign numbers support an emergent spacetime basis. That this basis is pure arithmetic I was hoping to posit over on another thread I started here, and I suppose I may copy this over into that thread.
The point here though is that P1 as time already supports this zero dimensional geometrical quality. It provides this disappearing act via the laws of polysign, which by the way are supporting this unidirectional concept. That we have an arithmetic
On Monday, September 4, 2023 at 9:42:14 AM UTC-7, Timothy Golden wrote:operations goes finer with finer time. If then, at a scale of distance larger than these fine scale activities, one attempts an observation, this may not be possible other than at some gross level of detail which is commensurate with that physical
Mon 04 Sep 2023 12:34:49 PM EDTOn Sunday, September 3, 2023 at 7:01:09 PM UTC-4, Jim Pennino wrote:
mitchr...@gmail.com <mitchr...@gmail.com> wrote:
On Sunday, September 3, 2023 at 10:31:10 AM UTC-7, Jim Pennino wrote:
mitchr...@gmail.com <mitchr...@gmail.com> wrote:
it slows finite but it cannot stop...Babbling, idiotic, incoherent, word salad, moron gibberish.
Jumping from finite rate to infinite slow time
is something time math does not do....
It is standard calculus finite math
that can't jump to the infinite.
Counting finite you would wait forever
never reaching the infinite.
As usual, Mitch has a kernel of truth in his awareness. If only he could get out and expound a bit more. Well, I will readily do that for him here.Space is for time. It expands forever. It never contracts...Yet more babbling, idiotic, incoherent, word salad, moron gibberish.
In that time may be truly continuous, then within a segment of time may lay sufficient time for rather a lot to occur. Even adopting the constancy of the speed of light as a limit, this would merely suggest that the distance scale of such fine
whether even after a chain of reasoning allots a continuous version of number, and space becomes reprehensibly representable as three copies of this type of continuous value; now we have secured via the false divide a factor of physical character; twoNow, taking the physicists awareness of the natural value, rather than the mathematicians version, which has done away with physics altogether, and so has relegated itself to something other than physics, and whose return into physics is thus dubious,
mathematics, physics, and philosophy as artificial and harmful to the holistic approach ala Bohm, or whoever cares to overstep these pigeonholes, which thence lead into even more pigeonholes, well; the greats of the past did not suffer these sorts ofThis route I can recommend, and how exactly one comes to travel it; well, that is a long story now. This last bit of interpretation is fairly new and fresh to me, and to posit it this strongly as well is still fresh. To attack the divide of
as time. Time is a one-signed value. It is unidirectional. That the geometry of sign carries implications; well, we have to get there still, but yes, the signature of a system is its dimension, and as two-signed numbers are one dimensional (by definition)That time is unidirectional: yes; most will agree. That these same will then go on to discuss how the laws of physics work in reverse time as well as they do in forward time; well, I'm afraid the mistake is in the usage of the real (two-signed) value
here in P3. Still, without the product rules already the geometry of P3 is exposed: three rays equally separated such that -1+1*1=0 form as plane; they define a plane. On a sheet of paper we literally jot down an origin and three rays 120 degrees apart- x + x = 0
and so that this balance takes the graphical form of a number line with two exactly opposed rays is entirely appropriate to polysign, where we can now posit through the fundamental balance that in a P3 system:
- x + x * x = 0
and while we reuse the signs, their meanings within P3 are starkly different than they were in P2. They are modulo behaved under product, and so the modulo two behaviors of the reals are left behind at P2, and modulo three characteristics pick up
through the generalization of sign. Arithmetic products which obey the usual laws of algebra ensue, though strange effects occur, as in P4:P4, P5, and so forth continue to climb in dimension, and the rays from the center of a simplex outward to its vertices form the balance of polysign coordinates. Thus higher dimension is achieved not through a dubious Cartesian product, but instead
form which provides the concept of time inclusive of its supposedly paradoxical effects, such as the concept of 'now' as omnipresent within our existence, is entirely a good thing.( - 1 + 1 )( + 1 # 1 ) = 0
where two nonzero values multiply to zero. Still, this effect now forms a breakpoint in the family:
P1 P2 P3 | P4 P5 P6 ...
and thus polysign numbers support an emergent spacetime basis. That this basis is pure arithmetic I was hoping to posit over on another thread I started here, and I suppose I may copy this over into that thread.
The point here though is that P1 as time already supports this zero dimensional geometrical quality. It provides this disappearing act via the laws of polysign, which by the way are supporting this unidirectional concept. That we have an arithmetic
Gravity and motion can slow time in finite. And finite in math cannot jump from itslef to an infinite.
It means space time cannot end and gravity strength has a limit as the speed limit
in the universe is. Gamma math disproves a BH. We observe a supermassive neutron star instead.
Jets can't leave BH event horizons. They are not BHs.
Mitchell Raemsch
mitchr...@gmail.com wrote:
There are no singularities and no event horizons. Light does not slow
down leaving from its "absolute c" escape velocity under all gravity. Atom's alone obey escape velocity slow down leaving gravity... Light
never has.
absolutely. When different objects falls on Earth and Moon, 𝘄𝗶𝘁𝗵 𝘀𝗮𝗺𝗲
𝗮𝗰𝗰𝗲𝗹𝗲𝗿𝗮𝘁𝗶𝗼𝗻, 𝗵𝗲𝗻𝗰𝗲 𝘀𝗽𝗲𝗲𝗱, disregard their size and 𝗺𝗮𝘀𝘀, proves my
"𝗗𝗶𝘃𝗲𝗿𝗴𝗲𝗻𝘁_𝗠𝗮𝘁𝗲𝗿_𝗼𝗳_𝘁𝗵𝗲_𝗠𝗼𝘃𝗶𝗻𝗴_𝗞𝗼𝗲𝗿𝗽𝗲𝗿𝘀_𝗠𝗼𝗱𝗲𝗹" correct. Absolutely. Otherwise
there is no reason why different objects just to stay there, waiting for Earth to advance. Thank you very much. It's 100% obvious.
On Monday, September 4, 2023 at 12:50:30 PM UTC-4, mitchr...@gmail.com wrote:operations goes finer with finer time. If then, at a scale of distance larger than these fine scale activities, one attempts an observation, this may not be possible other than at some gross level of detail which is commensurate with that physical
On Monday, September 4, 2023 at 9:42:14 AM UTC-7, Timothy Golden wrote:
Mon 04 Sep 2023 12:34:49 PM EDTOn Sunday, September 3, 2023 at 7:01:09 PM UTC-4, Jim Pennino wrote:
mitchr...@gmail.com <mitchr...@gmail.com> wrote:
On Sunday, September 3, 2023 at 10:31:10 AM UTC-7, Jim Pennino wrote:
mitchr...@gmail.com <mitchr...@gmail.com> wrote:
it slows finite but it cannot stop...Babbling, idiotic, incoherent, word salad, moron gibberish.
Jumping from finite rate to infinite slow time
is something time math does not do....
It is standard calculus finite math
that can't jump to the infinite.
Counting finite you would wait forever
never reaching the infinite.
As usual, Mitch has a kernel of truth in his awareness. If only he could get out and expound a bit more. Well, I will readily do that for him here.Space is for time. It expands forever. It never contracts...Yet more babbling, idiotic, incoherent, word salad, moron gibberish.
In that time may be truly continuous, then within a segment of time may lay sufficient time for rather a lot to occur. Even adopting the constancy of the speed of light as a limit, this would merely suggest that the distance scale of such fine
dubious, whether even after a chain of reasoning allots a continuous version of number, and space becomes reprehensibly representable as three copies of this type of continuous value; now we have secured via the false divide a factor of physicalNow, taking the physicists awareness of the natural value, rather than the mathematicians version, which has done away with physics altogether, and so has relegated itself to something other than physics, and whose return into physics is thus
mathematics, physics, and philosophy as artificial and harmful to the holistic approach ala Bohm, or whoever cares to overstep these pigeonholes, which thence lead into even more pigeonholes, well; the greats of the past did not suffer these sorts ofThis route I can recommend, and how exactly one comes to travel it; well, that is a long story now. This last bit of interpretation is fairly new and fresh to me, and to posit it this strongly as well is still fresh. To attack the divide of
value as time. Time is a one-signed value. It is unidirectional. That the geometry of sign carries implications; well, we have to get there still, but yes, the signature of a system is its dimension, and as two-signed numbers are one dimensional (byThat time is unidirectional: yes; most will agree. That these same will then go on to discuss how the laws of physics work in reverse time as well as they do in forward time; well, I'm afraid the mistake is in the usage of the real (two-signed)
here in P3. Still, without the product rules already the geometry of P3 is exposed: three rays equally separated such that -1+1*1=0 form as plane; they define a plane. On a sheet of paper we literally jot down an origin and three rays 120 degrees apart- x + x = 0
and so that this balance takes the graphical form of a number line with two exactly opposed rays is entirely appropriate to polysign, where we can now posit through the fundamental balance that in a P3 system:
- x + x * x = 0
and while we reuse the signs, their meanings within P3 are starkly different than they were in P2. They are modulo behaved under product, and so the modulo two behaviors of the reals are left behind at P2, and modulo three characteristics pick up
through the generalization of sign. Arithmetic products which obey the usual laws of algebra ensue, though strange effects occur, as in P4:P4, P5, and so forth continue to climb in dimension, and the rays from the center of a simplex outward to its vertices form the balance of polysign coordinates. Thus higher dimension is achieved not through a dubious Cartesian product, but instead
form which provides the concept of time inclusive of its supposedly paradoxical effects, such as the concept of 'now' as omnipresent within our existence, is entirely a good thing.( - 1 + 1 )( + 1 # 1 ) = 0
where two nonzero values multiply to zero. Still, this effect now forms a breakpoint in the family:
P1 P2 P3 | P4 P5 P6 ...
and thus polysign numbers support an emergent spacetime basis. That this basis is pure arithmetic I was hoping to posit over on another thread I started here, and I suppose I may copy this over into that thread.
The point here though is that P1 as time already supports this zero dimensional geometrical quality. It provides this disappearing act via the laws of polysign, which by the way are supporting this unidirectional concept. That we have an arithmetic
figures which for instance gain us the velocity of the source, typically away from us, as say a hydrogen spectral line red-shifted from a distant star.Gravity and motion can slow time in finite. And finite in math cannot jump from itslef to an infinite.
It means space time cannot end and gravity strength has a limit as the speed limit
in the universe is. Gamma math disproves a BH. We observe a supermassive neutron star instead.
Jets can't leave BH event horizons. They are not BHs.
Mitchell RaemschI was just reading a reply to one of your other threads, Mitch, from Demando Mogila, but it didn't have your OP. It is here:
On Saturday, September 9, 2023 at 5:10:05 PM UTC-4, Dermando Mogila wrote:
mitchr...@gmail.com wrote:
There are no singularities and no event horizons. Light does not slow down leaving from its "absolute c" escape velocity under all gravity. Atom's alone obey escape velocity slow down leaving gravity... Light never has.
absolutely. When different objects falls on Earth and Moon, 𝘄𝗶𝘁𝗵 𝘀𝗮𝗺𝗲
𝗮𝗰𝗰𝗲𝗹𝗲𝗿𝗮𝘁𝗶𝗼𝗻, 𝗵𝗲𝗻𝗰𝗲 𝘀𝗽𝗲𝗲𝗱, disregard their size and 𝗺𝗮𝘀𝘀, proves my
"𝗗𝗶𝘃𝗲𝗿𝗴𝗲𝗻𝘁_𝗠𝗮𝘁𝗲𝗿_𝗼𝗳_𝘁𝗵𝗲_𝗠𝗼𝘃𝗶𝗻𝗴_𝗞𝗼𝗲𝗿𝗽𝗲𝗿𝘀_𝗠𝗼𝗱𝗲𝗹" correct. Absolutely. Otherwise
there is no reason why different objects just to stay there, waiting for Earth to advance. Thank you very much. It's 100% obvious.
It's caused me to ponder a bit with a potentially productive outcome: we rarely trouble over the frequency of the 'photon' versus its speed of propagation, for the propagation is regarded as constant, while the changes in frequency become analytical
We really ought to seek a photon which carries its geometry; its wavelength; around with it, rather than quipping of it as a particle form, and even this discrete character I still suspect is not quite the full story. In other words I do not wish toaccept particle/wave duality and instead hope for some higher philosophy to arrive one day which will make sense of the conflict. As we entertain the notion of frequency with velocity, albeit still maintaining the observed constant rate of propagation,
There would still be the problem of actual physical wavelength geometry to work out, and really this suggests that the radius is varying, whereas here in this first morph things are oversimplified. We want the higher energy photon to come out at alesser radius which is proportional to its wavelength; its diameter actually being its wavelength. Of course the ability to assign a mass to a photon does become available through:
E = h v = m c c,less energy. It could put a lot on the scrap table to reassemble a sensible model this way. Both electromagnetics and relativity theory might get revised. Ideally the thing would be like a dipole moment whose release requires that propagational balance
where v is the frequency, and so this kinetic form could be taken farther I would think. The notion that the smaller diameter carries more energy has to be accounted for somehow. For the moment I'm having difficulty seeing how a longer wavelength has
On Monday, September 11, 2023 at 8:02:39 AM UTC-7, Timothy Golden wrote:operations goes finer with finer time. If then, at a scale of distance larger than these fine scale activities, one attempts an observation, this may not be possible other than at some gross level of detail which is commensurate with that physical
On Monday, September 4, 2023 at 12:50:30 PM UTC-4, mitchr...@gmail.com wrote:
On Monday, September 4, 2023 at 9:42:14 AM UTC-7, Timothy Golden wrote:
Mon 04 Sep 2023 12:34:49 PM EDTOn Sunday, September 3, 2023 at 7:01:09 PM UTC-4, Jim Pennino wrote:
mitchr...@gmail.com <mitchr...@gmail.com> wrote:
On Sunday, September 3, 2023 at 10:31:10 AM UTC-7, Jim Pennino wrote:
mitchr...@gmail.com <mitchr...@gmail.com> wrote:
it slows finite but it cannot stop...Babbling, idiotic, incoherent, word salad, moron gibberish.
Jumping from finite rate to infinite slow time
is something time math does not do....
It is standard calculus finite math
that can't jump to the infinite.
Counting finite you would wait forever
never reaching the infinite.
As usual, Mitch has a kernel of truth in his awareness. If only he could get out and expound a bit more. Well, I will readily do that for him here.Space is for time. It expands forever. It never contracts...Yet more babbling, idiotic, incoherent, word salad, moron gibberish.
In that time may be truly continuous, then within a segment of time may lay sufficient time for rather a lot to occur. Even adopting the constancy of the speed of light as a limit, this would merely suggest that the distance scale of such fine
dubious, whether even after a chain of reasoning allots a continuous version of number, and space becomes reprehensibly representable as three copies of this type of continuous value; now we have secured via the false divide a factor of physicalNow, taking the physicists awareness of the natural value, rather than the mathematicians version, which has done away with physics altogether, and so has relegated itself to something other than physics, and whose return into physics is thus
mathematics, physics, and philosophy as artificial and harmful to the holistic approach ala Bohm, or whoever cares to overstep these pigeonholes, which thence lead into even more pigeonholes, well; the greats of the past did not suffer these sorts ofThis route I can recommend, and how exactly one comes to travel it; well, that is a long story now. This last bit of interpretation is fairly new and fresh to me, and to posit it this strongly as well is still fresh. To attack the divide of
value as time. Time is a one-signed value. It is unidirectional. That the geometry of sign carries implications; well, we have to get there still, but yes, the signature of a system is its dimension, and as two-signed numbers are one dimensional (byThat time is unidirectional: yes; most will agree. That these same will then go on to discuss how the laws of physics work in reverse time as well as they do in forward time; well, I'm afraid the mistake is in the usage of the real (two-signed)
here in P3. Still, without the product rules already the geometry of P3 is exposed: three rays equally separated such that -1+1*1=0 form as plane; they define a plane. On a sheet of paper we literally jot down an origin and three rays 120 degrees apart- x + x = 0
and so that this balance takes the graphical form of a number line with two exactly opposed rays is entirely appropriate to polysign, where we can now posit through the fundamental balance that in a P3 system:
- x + x * x = 0
and while we reuse the signs, their meanings within P3 are starkly different than they were in P2. They are modulo behaved under product, and so the modulo two behaviors of the reals are left behind at P2, and modulo three characteristics pick up
instead through the generalization of sign. Arithmetic products which obey the usual laws of algebra ensue, though strange effects occur, as in P4:P4, P5, and so forth continue to climb in dimension, and the rays from the center of a simplex outward to its vertices form the balance of polysign coordinates. Thus higher dimension is achieved not through a dubious Cartesian product, but
arithmetic form which provides the concept of time inclusive of its supposedly paradoxical effects, such as the concept of 'now' as omnipresent within our existence, is entirely a good thing.( - 1 + 1 )( + 1 # 1 ) = 0
where two nonzero values multiply to zero. Still, this effect now forms a breakpoint in the family:
P1 P2 P3 | P4 P5 P6 ...
and thus polysign numbers support an emergent spacetime basis. That this basis is pure arithmetic I was hoping to posit over on another thread I started here, and I suppose I may copy this over into that thread.
The point here though is that P1 as time already supports this zero dimensional geometrical quality. It provides this disappearing act via the laws of polysign, which by the way are supporting this unidirectional concept. That we have an
figures which for instance gain us the velocity of the source, typically away from us, as say a hydrogen spectral line red-shifted from a distant star.Gravity and motion can slow time in finite. And finite in math cannot jump from itslef to an infinite.
It means space time cannot end and gravity strength has a limit as the speed limit
in the universe is. Gamma math disproves a BH. We observe a supermassive neutron star instead.
Jets can't leave BH event horizons. They are not BHs.
Mitchell RaemschI was just reading a reply to one of your other threads, Mitch, from Demando Mogila, but it didn't have your OP. It is here:
On Saturday, September 9, 2023 at 5:10:05 PM UTC-4, Dermando Mogila wrote:
mitchr...@gmail.com wrote:
There are no singularities and no event horizons. Light does not slow down leaving from its "absolute c" escape velocity under all gravity. Atom's alone obey escape velocity slow down leaving gravity... Light never has.
absolutely. When different objects falls on Earth and Moon, 𝘄𝗶𝘁𝗵 𝘀𝗮𝗺𝗲
𝗮𝗰𝗰𝗲𝗹𝗲𝗿𝗮𝘁𝗶𝗼𝗻, 𝗵𝗲𝗻𝗰𝗲 𝘀𝗽𝗲𝗲𝗱, disregard their size and 𝗺𝗮𝘀𝘀, proves my
"𝗗𝗶𝘃𝗲𝗿𝗴𝗲𝗻𝘁_𝗠𝗮𝘁𝗲𝗿_𝗼𝗳_𝘁𝗵𝗲_𝗠𝗼𝘃𝗶𝗻𝗴_𝗞𝗼𝗲𝗿𝗽𝗲𝗿𝘀_𝗠𝗼𝗱𝗲𝗹" correct. Absolutely. Otherwise
there is no reason why different objects just to stay there, waiting for Earth to advance. Thank you very much. It's 100% obvious.
It's caused me to ponder a bit with a potentially productive outcome: we rarely trouble over the frequency of the 'photon' versus its speed of propagation, for the propagation is regarded as constant, while the changes in frequency become analytical
accept particle/wave duality and instead hope for some higher philosophy to arrive one day which will make sense of the conflict. As we entertain the notion of frequency with velocity, albeit still maintaining the observed constant rate of propagation,We really ought to seek a photon which carries its geometry; its wavelength; around with it, rather than quipping of it as a particle form, and even this discrete character I still suspect is not quite the full story. In other words I do not wish to
lesser radius which is proportional to its wavelength; its diameter actually being its wavelength. Of course the ability to assign a mass to a photon does become available through:There would still be the problem of actual physical wavelength geometry to work out, and really this suggests that the radius is varying, whereas here in this first morph things are oversimplified. We want the higher energy photon to come out at a
less energy. It could put a lot on the scrap table to reassemble a sensible model this way. Both electromagnetics and relativity theory might get revised. Ideally the thing would be like a dipole moment whose release requires that propagational balanceE = h v = m c c,
where v is the frequency, and so this kinetic form could be taken farther I would think. The notion that the smaller diameter carries more energy has to be accounted for somehow. For the moment I'm having difficulty seeing how a longer wavelength has
Gravity is not slowing down light's absolute c. Light does not obey escape velocity.
Mon 04 Sep 2023 12:34:49 PM EDTOn Sunday, September 3, 2023 at 7:01:09 PM UTC-4, Jim Pennino wrote:operations goes finer with finer time. If then, at a scale of distance larger than these fine scale activities, one attempts an observation, this may not be possible other than at some gross level of detail which is commensurate with that physical
mitchr...@gmail.com <mitchr...@gmail.com> wrote:
On Sunday, September 3, 2023 at 10:31:10 AM UTC-7, Jim Pennino wrote:
mitchr...@gmail.com <mitchr...@gmail.com> wrote:
it slows finite but it cannot stop...Babbling, idiotic, incoherent, word salad, moron gibberish.
Jumping from finite rate to infinite slow time
is something time math does not do....
It is standard calculus finite math
that can't jump to the infinite.
Counting finite you would wait forever
never reaching the infinite.
As usual, Mitch has a kernel of truth in his awareness. If only he could get out and expound a bit more. Well, I will readily do that for him here.Space is for time. It expands forever. It never contracts...Yet more babbling, idiotic, incoherent, word salad, moron gibberish.
In that time may be truly continuous, then within a segment of time may lay sufficient time for rather a lot to occur. Even adopting the constancy of the speed of light as a limit, this would merely suggest that the distance scale of such fine
Now, taking the physicists awareness of the natural value, rather than the mathematicians version, which has done away with physics altogether, and so has relegated itself to something other than physics, and whose return into physics is thus dubious,whether even after a chain of reasoning allots a continuous version of number, and space becomes reprehensibly representable as three copies of this type of continuous value; now we have secured via the false divide a factor of physical character; two
This route I can recommend, and how exactly one comes to travel it; well, that is a long story now. This last bit of interpretation is fairly new and fresh to me, and to posit it this strongly as well is still fresh. To attack the divide of mathematics,physics, and philosophy as artificial and harmful to the holistic approach ala Bohm, or whoever cares to overstep these pigeonholes, which thence lead into even more pigeonholes, well; the greats of the past did not suffer these sorts of problems. My
That time is unidirectional: yes; most will agree. That these same will then go on to discuss how the laws of physics work in reverse time as well as they do in forward time; well, I'm afraid the mistake is in the usage of the real (two-signed) valueas time. Time is a one-signed value. It is unidirectional. That the geometry of sign carries implications; well, we have to get there still, but yes, the signature of a system is its dimension, and as two-signed numbers are one dimensional (by definition)
- x + x = 0in P3. Still, without the product rules already the geometry of P3 is exposed: three rays equally separated such that -1+1*1=0 form as plane; they define a plane. On a sheet of paper we literally jot down an origin and three rays 120 degrees apart to
and so that this balance takes the graphical form of a number line with two exactly opposed rays is entirely appropriate to polysign, where we can now posit through the fundamental balance that in a P3 system:
- x + x * x = 0
and while we reuse the signs, their meanings within P3 are starkly different than they were in P2. They are modulo behaved under product, and so the modulo two behaviors of the reals are left behind at P2, and modulo three characteristics pick up here
P4, P5, and so forth continue to climb in dimension, and the rays from the center of a simplex outward to its vertices form the balance of polysign coordinates. Thus higher dimension is achieved not through a dubious Cartesian product, but insteadthrough the generalization of sign. Arithmetic products which obey the usual laws of algebra ensue, though strange effects occur, as in P4:
( - 1 + 1 )( + 1 # 1 ) = 0form which provides the concept of time inclusive of its supposedly paradoxical effects, such as the concept of 'now' as omnipresent within our existence, is entirely a good thing.
where two nonzero values multiply to zero. Still, this effect now forms a breakpoint in the family:
P1 P2 P3 | P4 P5 P6 ...
and thus polysign numbers support an emergent spacetime basis. That this basis is pure arithmetic I was hoping to posit over on another thread I started here, and I suppose I may copy this over into that thread.
The point here though is that P1 as time already supports this zero dimensional geometrical quality. It provides this disappearing act via the laws of polysign, which by the way are supporting this unidirectional concept. That we have an arithmetic
On Monday, September 4, 2023 at 12:42:14 PM UTC-4, Timothy Golden wrote:operations goes finer with finer time. If then, at a scale of distance larger than these fine scale activities, one attempts an observation, this may not be possible other than at some gross level of detail which is commensurate with that physical
Mon 04 Sep 2023 12:34:49 PM EDTOn Sunday, September 3, 2023 at 7:01:09 PM UTC-4, Jim Pennino wrote:
mitchr...@gmail.com <mitchr...@gmail.com> wrote:
On Sunday, September 3, 2023 at 10:31:10 AM UTC-7, Jim Pennino wrote:
mitchr...@gmail.com <mitchr...@gmail.com> wrote:
it slows finite but it cannot stop...Babbling, idiotic, incoherent, word salad, moron gibberish.
Jumping from finite rate to infinite slow time
is something time math does not do....
It is standard calculus finite math
that can't jump to the infinite.
Counting finite you would wait forever
never reaching the infinite.
As usual, Mitch has a kernel of truth in his awareness. If only he could get out and expound a bit more. Well, I will readily do that for him here.Space is for time. It expands forever. It never contracts...Yet more babbling, idiotic, incoherent, word salad, moron gibberish.
In that time may be truly continuous, then within a segment of time may lay sufficient time for rather a lot to occur. Even adopting the constancy of the speed of light as a limit, this would merely suggest that the distance scale of such fine
whether even after a chain of reasoning allots a continuous version of number, and space becomes reprehensibly representable as three copies of this type of continuous value; now we have secured via the false divide a factor of physical character; twoNow, taking the physicists awareness of the natural value, rather than the mathematicians version, which has done away with physics altogether, and so has relegated itself to something other than physics, and whose return into physics is thus dubious,
mathematics, physics, and philosophy as artificial and harmful to the holistic approach ala Bohm, or whoever cares to overstep these pigeonholes, which thence lead into even more pigeonholes, well; the greats of the past did not suffer these sorts ofThis route I can recommend, and how exactly one comes to travel it; well, that is a long story now. This last bit of interpretation is fairly new and fresh to me, and to posit it this strongly as well is still fresh. To attack the divide of
as time. Time is a one-signed value. It is unidirectional. That the geometry of sign carries implications; well, we have to get there still, but yes, the signature of a system is its dimension, and as two-signed numbers are one dimensional (by definition)That time is unidirectional: yes; most will agree. That these same will then go on to discuss how the laws of physics work in reverse time as well as they do in forward time; well, I'm afraid the mistake is in the usage of the real (two-signed) value
here in P3. Still, without the product rules already the geometry of P3 is exposed: three rays equally separated such that -1+1*1=0 form as plane; they define a plane. On a sheet of paper we literally jot down an origin and three rays 120 degrees apart- x + x = 0
and so that this balance takes the graphical form of a number line with two exactly opposed rays is entirely appropriate to polysign, where we can now posit through the fundamental balance that in a P3 system:
- x + x * x = 0
and while we reuse the signs, their meanings within P3 are starkly different than they were in P2. They are modulo behaved under product, and so the modulo two behaviors of the reals are left behind at P2, and modulo three characteristics pick up
through the generalization of sign. Arithmetic products which obey the usual laws of algebra ensue, though strange effects occur, as in P4:P4, P5, and so forth continue to climb in dimension, and the rays from the center of a simplex outward to its vertices form the balance of polysign coordinates. Thus higher dimension is achieved not through a dubious Cartesian product, but instead
form which provides the concept of time inclusive of its supposedly paradoxical effects, such as the concept of 'now' as omnipresent within our existence, is entirely a good thing.( - 1 + 1 )( + 1 # 1 ) = 0
where two nonzero values multiply to zero. Still, this effect now forms a breakpoint in the family:
P1 P2 P3 | P4 P5 P6 ...
and thus polysign numbers support an emergent spacetime basis. That this basis is pure arithmetic I was hoping to posit over on another thread I started here, and I suppose I may copy this over into that thread.
The point here though is that P1 as time already supports this zero dimensional geometrical quality. It provides this disappearing act via the laws of polysign, which by the way are supporting this unidirectional concept. That we have an arithmetic
As we try to reconcile this new structured spacetime enterprise, and for the moment let's just declare it P1P2P3P4, and fill it out to its magnitudinal (unsigned) components, which henceforth shall be their signs within their indexed and orderly way:horizontal rank of this structure; a value in Pn:
a10
a20 a21
a30 a31 a32
a40 a41 a42 a43
Though there is another sister presentation to this 'nu first', where this C style indexing leaves the identity last rather than first (which is the zero-signed equivalency; e.g. a30 is a33:
a11
a21 a22
a31 a32 a33
a41 a42 a43 a44
and these can be known as "mu first" coordinates, and such language really ought to accompany such notational systems in order to defuse any potential confusion. As well, should we discuss a value z, my ordinary assumption is that we are discussing one
P1 : 0D : a11first notation, whose alternative is nu first notation, for 'neutral unity', which is the identity sign, which universally is '@'; resembling zero, and so while the high sign of say P4 is held in a44 that indexing is none other than a40; by the laws of
P2 : 1D : a21 a22
P3 : 2D : a31 a32 a33
P4 : 3D : a41 a42 a43 a44
and so the fact that we are bothering with this larger structure, whose triangular matrix nature suggests the term 'tatrix' as its structural format (which happens to match the antisymmetric tensor if you are willing to drop the redundancy)
As well, there are some symmetries already present here as a result of the modulo sign mechanics. P4 of course are modulo behaved, and our first usage of mu ( mu = -1, by definition; it literally stands for 'minus unity' here), and now we are in mu
The simplest symmetry is the anti-mu. Every signature arguably has an anti-mu, which will march through the positions in their powers no different that the mu; or rather marginally different. In P4 sign three (*) or 'star' is the anti-mu to sign one,which is mu. In P5, a prime, every sign will behave as an anti-mu, though the orderings are unique. These symmetric artifacts however are still based upon what are arguably the mechanics of mu in Pn. Within this interpretation, mu takes a fundamental
Because P2 are merely a sibling in this clan their fundamental status is challenged here in polysign. This fact alone is quite impressive, and the gains found already are substantial.
The a-sub-n,m values, when comma delimited can form an ordinary value z: (3,4,5) is definitely a value in P3, so long as our context is of polysign numbers, but you see this series usage is already constrained by the fact that (1,1,1) is actuallyequivalent to zero; these coordinates are balanced by this law from very early on in their birthing process. So our instanced value may as well read (0,1,2) and this value is equivalent to z. The reductive procedure can be regarded as a rendering
This is an old conversation that can be rehashed here and perhaps always will be rehashed: what utility is there in such a thing? I suggest that this is merely a side-effect of the generalization of sign, yet I am open to one day finding out that wecan always posit our first coordinate as something quite large; say at fifty percent of our full scale; thusly prepared for a fitting out; after all, a choice of zero is bottomed out, isn't it? Perhaps this becomes a statement in challenge to the usual
One strange detail is that our binary computers somewhat take sign in stride, and should we look at the signed int zero; versus the unsigned int say of on a one byte system: 1000 0000 ; well this value is minus zero in the signed version, thoughgenerally we don't use signed char, and so in C this may still be a bit off, but would hold up on a two byte version, which would be the short versus the unsigned short. Now, the fact that we would choose the unsigned short for our work in polysign is
Even experiments that are on flat hard ground may be interrupted from time to time by say an earthquake, or the like. Should we include these 'interruptions' in the kindly mechanics under study, then clearly the results will be off. The outliers willbe striking. Was it physics? The earthquake, I mean? Is this consideration a part of reductionism? Is the polysign number itself?
As if it is all off topic: time math is P1. Emergent spacetime lays here with the polysign basis, including unidirectional time.
On Tuesday, October 17, 2023 at 4:32:48 PM UTC-7, Timothy Golden wrote:operations goes finer with finer time. If then, at a scale of distance larger than these fine scale activities, one attempts an observation, this may not be possible other than at some gross level of detail which is commensurate with that physical
On Monday, September 4, 2023 at 12:42:14 PM UTC-4, Timothy Golden wrote:
Mon 04 Sep 2023 12:34:49 PM EDTOn Sunday, September 3, 2023 at 7:01:09 PM UTC-4, Jim Pennino wrote:
mitchr...@gmail.com <mitchr...@gmail.com> wrote:
On Sunday, September 3, 2023 at 10:31:10 AM UTC-7, Jim Pennino wrote:
mitchr...@gmail.com <mitchr...@gmail.com> wrote:
it slows finite but it cannot stop...Babbling, idiotic, incoherent, word salad, moron gibberish.
Jumping from finite rate to infinite slow time
is something time math does not do....
It is standard calculus finite math
that can't jump to the infinite.
Counting finite you would wait forever
never reaching the infinite.
As usual, Mitch has a kernel of truth in his awareness. If only he could get out and expound a bit more. Well, I will readily do that for him here.Space is for time. It expands forever. It never contracts...Yet more babbling, idiotic, incoherent, word salad, moron gibberish.
In that time may be truly continuous, then within a segment of time may lay sufficient time for rather a lot to occur. Even adopting the constancy of the speed of light as a limit, this would merely suggest that the distance scale of such fine
dubious, whether even after a chain of reasoning allots a continuous version of number, and space becomes reprehensibly representable as three copies of this type of continuous value; now we have secured via the false divide a factor of physicalNow, taking the physicists awareness of the natural value, rather than the mathematicians version, which has done away with physics altogether, and so has relegated itself to something other than physics, and whose return into physics is thus
mathematics, physics, and philosophy as artificial and harmful to the holistic approach ala Bohm, or whoever cares to overstep these pigeonholes, which thence lead into even more pigeonholes, well; the greats of the past did not suffer these sorts ofThis route I can recommend, and how exactly one comes to travel it; well, that is a long story now. This last bit of interpretation is fairly new and fresh to me, and to posit it this strongly as well is still fresh. To attack the divide of
value as time. Time is a one-signed value. It is unidirectional. That the geometry of sign carries implications; well, we have to get there still, but yes, the signature of a system is its dimension, and as two-signed numbers are one dimensional (byThat time is unidirectional: yes; most will agree. That these same will then go on to discuss how the laws of physics work in reverse time as well as they do in forward time; well, I'm afraid the mistake is in the usage of the real (two-signed)
here in P3. Still, without the product rules already the geometry of P3 is exposed: three rays equally separated such that -1+1*1=0 form as plane; they define a plane. On a sheet of paper we literally jot down an origin and three rays 120 degrees apart- x + x = 0
and so that this balance takes the graphical form of a number line with two exactly opposed rays is entirely appropriate to polysign, where we can now posit through the fundamental balance that in a P3 system:
- x + x * x = 0
and while we reuse the signs, their meanings within P3 are starkly different than they were in P2. They are modulo behaved under product, and so the modulo two behaviors of the reals are left behind at P2, and modulo three characteristics pick up
through the generalization of sign. Arithmetic products which obey the usual laws of algebra ensue, though strange effects occur, as in P4:P4, P5, and so forth continue to climb in dimension, and the rays from the center of a simplex outward to its vertices form the balance of polysign coordinates. Thus higher dimension is achieved not through a dubious Cartesian product, but instead
form which provides the concept of time inclusive of its supposedly paradoxical effects, such as the concept of 'now' as omnipresent within our existence, is entirely a good thing.( - 1 + 1 )( + 1 # 1 ) = 0
where two nonzero values multiply to zero. Still, this effect now forms a breakpoint in the family:
P1 P2 P3 | P4 P5 P6 ...
and thus polysign numbers support an emergent spacetime basis. That this basis is pure arithmetic I was hoping to posit over on another thread I started here, and I suppose I may copy this over into that thread.
The point here though is that P1 as time already supports this zero dimensional geometrical quality. It provides this disappearing act via the laws of polysign, which by the way are supporting this unidirectional concept. That we have an arithmetic
one horizontal rank of this structure; a value in Pn:As we try to reconcile this new structured spacetime enterprise, and for the moment let's just declare it P1P2P3P4, and fill it out to its magnitudinal (unsigned) components, which henceforth shall be their signs within their indexed and orderly way:
a10
a20 a21
a30 a31 a32
a40 a41 a42 a43
Though there is another sister presentation to this 'nu first', where this C style indexing leaves the identity last rather than first (which is the zero-signed equivalency; e.g. a30 is a33:
a11
a21 a22
a31 a32 a33
a41 a42 a43 a44
and these can be known as "mu first" coordinates, and such language really ought to accompany such notational systems in order to defuse any potential confusion. As well, should we discuss a value z, my ordinary assumption is that we are discussing
first notation, whose alternative is nu first notation, for 'neutral unity', which is the identity sign, which universally is '@'; resembling zero, and so while the high sign of say P4 is held in a44 that indexing is none other than a40; by the laws ofP1 : 0D : a11
P2 : 1D : a21 a22
P3 : 2D : a31 a32 a33
P4 : 3D : a41 a42 a43 a44
and so the fact that we are bothering with this larger structure, whose triangular matrix nature suggests the term 'tatrix' as its structural format (which happens to match the antisymmetric tensor if you are willing to drop the redundancy)
As well, there are some symmetries already present here as a result of the modulo sign mechanics. P4 of course are modulo behaved, and our first usage of mu ( mu = -1, by definition; it literally stands for 'minus unity' here), and now we are in mu
which is mu. In P5, a prime, every sign will behave as an anti-mu, though the orderings are unique. These symmetric artifacts however are still based upon what are arguably the mechanics of mu in Pn. Within this interpretation, mu takes a fundamentalThe simplest symmetry is the anti-mu. Every signature arguably has an anti-mu, which will march through the positions in their powers no different that the mu; or rather marginally different. In P4 sign three (*) or 'star' is the anti-mu to sign one,
Because P2 are merely a sibling in this clan their fundamental status is challenged here in polysign. This fact alone is quite impressive, and the gains found already are substantial.
equivalent to zero; these coordinates are balanced by this law from very early on in their birthing process. So our instanced value may as well read (0,1,2) and this value is equivalent to z. The reductive procedure can be regarded as a renderingThe a-sub-n,m values, when comma delimited can form an ordinary value z: (3,4,5) is definitely a value in P3, so long as our context is of polysign numbers, but you see this series usage is already constrained by the fact that (1,1,1) is actually
can always posit our first coordinate as something quite large; say at fifty percent of our full scale; thusly prepared for a fitting out; after all, a choice of zero is bottomed out, isn't it? Perhaps this becomes a statement in challenge to the usualThis is an old conversation that can be rehashed here and perhaps always will be rehashed: what utility is there in such a thing? I suggest that this is merely a side-effect of the generalization of sign, yet I am open to one day finding out that we
generally we don't use signed char, and so in C this may still be a bit off, but would hold up on a two byte version, which would be the short versus the unsigned short. Now, the fact that we would choose the unsigned short for our work in polysign isOne strange detail is that our binary computers somewhat take sign in stride, and should we look at the signed int zero; versus the unsigned int say of on a one byte system: 1000 0000 ; well this value is minus zero in the signed version, though
be striking. Was it physics? The earthquake, I mean? Is this consideration a part of reductionism? Is the polysign number itself?Even experiments that are on flat hard ground may be interrupted from time to time by say an earthquake, or the like. Should we include these 'interruptions' in the kindly mechanics under study, then clearly the results will be off. The outliers will
As if it is all off topic: time math is P1. Emergent spacetime lays here with the polysign basis, including unidirectional time.All order is unidirectional. If you slow down you are still moving forward. Change to a new direction and you are still going forward.
On Tuesday, October 17, 2023 at 9:22:03 PM UTC-4, mitchr...@gmail.com wrote:operations goes finer with finer time. If then, at a scale of distance larger than these fine scale activities, one attempts an observation, this may not be possible other than at some gross level of detail which is commensurate with that physical
On Tuesday, October 17, 2023 at 4:32:48 PM UTC-7, Timothy Golden wrote:
On Monday, September 4, 2023 at 12:42:14 PM UTC-4, Timothy Golden wrote:
Mon 04 Sep 2023 12:34:49 PM EDTOn Sunday, September 3, 2023 at 7:01:09 PM UTC-4, Jim Pennino wrote:
mitchr...@gmail.com <mitchr...@gmail.com> wrote:
On Sunday, September 3, 2023 at 10:31:10 AM UTC-7, Jim Pennino wrote:
mitchr...@gmail.com <mitchr...@gmail.com> wrote:
it slows finite but it cannot stop...Babbling, idiotic, incoherent, word salad, moron gibberish.
Jumping from finite rate to infinite slow time
is something time math does not do....
It is standard calculus finite math
that can't jump to the infinite.
Counting finite you would wait forever
never reaching the infinite.
As usual, Mitch has a kernel of truth in his awareness. If only he could get out and expound a bit more. Well, I will readily do that for him here.Space is for time. It expands forever. It never contracts...Yet more babbling, idiotic, incoherent, word salad, moron gibberish.
In that time may be truly continuous, then within a segment of time may lay sufficient time for rather a lot to occur. Even adopting the constancy of the speed of light as a limit, this would merely suggest that the distance scale of such fine
dubious, whether even after a chain of reasoning allots a continuous version of number, and space becomes reprehensibly representable as three copies of this type of continuous value; now we have secured via the false divide a factor of physicalNow, taking the physicists awareness of the natural value, rather than the mathematicians version, which has done away with physics altogether, and so has relegated itself to something other than physics, and whose return into physics is thus
mathematics, physics, and philosophy as artificial and harmful to the holistic approach ala Bohm, or whoever cares to overstep these pigeonholes, which thence lead into even more pigeonholes, well; the greats of the past did not suffer these sorts ofThis route I can recommend, and how exactly one comes to travel it; well, that is a long story now. This last bit of interpretation is fairly new and fresh to me, and to posit it this strongly as well is still fresh. To attack the divide of
value as time. Time is a one-signed value. It is unidirectional. That the geometry of sign carries implications; well, we have to get there still, but yes, the signature of a system is its dimension, and as two-signed numbers are one dimensional (byThat time is unidirectional: yes; most will agree. That these same will then go on to discuss how the laws of physics work in reverse time as well as they do in forward time; well, I'm afraid the mistake is in the usage of the real (two-signed)
here in P3. Still, without the product rules already the geometry of P3 is exposed: three rays equally separated such that -1+1*1=0 form as plane; they define a plane. On a sheet of paper we literally jot down an origin and three rays 120 degrees apart- x + x = 0
and so that this balance takes the graphical form of a number line with two exactly opposed rays is entirely appropriate to polysign, where we can now posit through the fundamental balance that in a P3 system:
- x + x * x = 0
and while we reuse the signs, their meanings within P3 are starkly different than they were in P2. They are modulo behaved under product, and so the modulo two behaviors of the reals are left behind at P2, and modulo three characteristics pick up
instead through the generalization of sign. Arithmetic products which obey the usual laws of algebra ensue, though strange effects occur, as in P4:P4, P5, and so forth continue to climb in dimension, and the rays from the center of a simplex outward to its vertices form the balance of polysign coordinates. Thus higher dimension is achieved not through a dubious Cartesian product, but
arithmetic form which provides the concept of time inclusive of its supposedly paradoxical effects, such as the concept of 'now' as omnipresent within our existence, is entirely a good thing.( - 1 + 1 )( + 1 # 1 ) = 0
where two nonzero values multiply to zero. Still, this effect now forms a breakpoint in the family:
P1 P2 P3 | P4 P5 P6 ...
and thus polysign numbers support an emergent spacetime basis. That this basis is pure arithmetic I was hoping to posit over on another thread I started here, and I suppose I may copy this over into that thread.
The point here though is that P1 as time already supports this zero dimensional geometrical quality. It provides this disappearing act via the laws of polysign, which by the way are supporting this unidirectional concept. That we have an
way:As we try to reconcile this new structured spacetime enterprise, and for the moment let's just declare it P1P2P3P4, and fill it out to its magnitudinal (unsigned) components, which henceforth shall be their signs within their indexed and orderly
one horizontal rank of this structure; a value in Pn:a10
a20 a21
a30 a31 a32
a40 a41 a42 a43
Though there is another sister presentation to this 'nu first', where this C style indexing leaves the identity last rather than first (which is the zero-signed equivalency; e.g. a30 is a33:
a11
a21 a22
a31 a32 a33
a41 a42 a43 a44
and these can be known as "mu first" coordinates, and such language really ought to accompany such notational systems in order to defuse any potential confusion. As well, should we discuss a value z, my ordinary assumption is that we are discussing
first notation, whose alternative is nu first notation, for 'neutral unity', which is the identity sign, which universally is '@'; resembling zero, and so while the high sign of say P4 is held in a44 that indexing is none other than a40; by the laws ofP1 : 0D : a11
P2 : 1D : a21 a22
P3 : 2D : a31 a32 a33
P4 : 3D : a41 a42 a43 a44
and so the fact that we are bothering with this larger structure, whose triangular matrix nature suggests the term 'tatrix' as its structural format (which happens to match the antisymmetric tensor if you are willing to drop the redundancy)
As well, there are some symmetries already present here as a result of the modulo sign mechanics. P4 of course are modulo behaved, and our first usage of mu ( mu = -1, by definition; it literally stands for 'minus unity' here), and now we are in mu
one, which is mu. In P5, a prime, every sign will behave as an anti-mu, though the orderings are unique. These symmetric artifacts however are still based upon what are arguably the mechanics of mu in Pn. Within this interpretation, mu takes aThe simplest symmetry is the anti-mu. Every signature arguably has an anti-mu, which will march through the positions in their powers no different that the mu; or rather marginally different. In P4 sign three (*) or 'star' is the anti-mu to sign
Because P2 are merely a sibling in this clan their fundamental status is challenged here in polysign. This fact alone is quite impressive, and the gains found already are substantial.
equivalent to zero; these coordinates are balanced by this law from very early on in their birthing process. So our instanced value may as well read (0,1,2) and this value is equivalent to z. The reductive procedure can be regarded as a renderingThe a-sub-n,m values, when comma delimited can form an ordinary value z: (3,4,5) is definitely a value in P3, so long as our context is of polysign numbers, but you see this series usage is already constrained by the fact that (1,1,1) is actually
we can always posit our first coordinate as something quite large; say at fifty percent of our full scale; thusly prepared for a fitting out; after all, a choice of zero is bottomed out, isn't it? Perhaps this becomes a statement in challenge to theThis is an old conversation that can be rehashed here and perhaps always will be rehashed: what utility is there in such a thing? I suggest that this is merely a side-effect of the generalization of sign, yet I am open to one day finding out that
generally we don't use signed char, and so in C this may still be a bit off, but would hold up on a two byte version, which would be the short versus the unsigned short. Now, the fact that we would choose the unsigned short for our work in polysign isOne strange detail is that our binary computers somewhat take sign in stride, and should we look at the signed int zero; versus the unsigned int say of on a one byte system: 1000 0000 ; well this value is minus zero in the signed version, though
will be striking. Was it physics? The earthquake, I mean? Is this consideration a part of reductionism? Is the polysign number itself?Even experiments that are on flat hard ground may be interrupted from time to time by say an earthquake, or the like. Should we include these 'interruptions' in the kindly mechanics under study, then clearly the results will be off. The outliers
If we try to get on to affinity; and its opposite (repulsion) we've got quite a few forms don't we?As if it is all off topic: time math is P1. Emergent spacetime lays here with the polysign basis, including unidirectional time.All order is unidirectional. If you slow down you are still moving forward.
Change to a new direction and you are still going forward.
They don't self-segregate, either. It would be easy to believe that electrons like electrons kind of like atoms like other atoms.
Quarks like other quarks, right?
Planets like other planets, don't they?
I'm feeling the love for a moment.
Just left some kibbles on a rock where my dog is buried, so I guess I'm a bit tender today.
If physics has a tender spot that singular affinity that still has its virginity, and that started the others off to boot,
Yet she still has her boots on.
As if a square law was a fair law on empirical ground alone.
Who ever curved space for charge?
And the most curvaveous of them all is her partner;
those dirty little sluts...
Magnetic as they come together as one; those lesbians of light.
On Friday, October 20, 2023 at 6:45:48 AM UTC-7, Timothy Golden wrote:operations goes finer with finer time. If then, at a scale of distance larger than these fine scale activities, one attempts an observation, this may not be possible other than at some gross level of detail which is commensurate with that physical
On Tuesday, October 17, 2023 at 9:22:03 PM UTC-4, mitchr...@gmail.com wrote:
On Tuesday, October 17, 2023 at 4:32:48 PM UTC-7, Timothy Golden wrote:
On Monday, September 4, 2023 at 12:42:14 PM UTC-4, Timothy Golden wrote:
Mon 04 Sep 2023 12:34:49 PM EDTOn Sunday, September 3, 2023 at 7:01:09 PM UTC-4, Jim Pennino wrote:
mitchr...@gmail.com <mitchr...@gmail.com> wrote:
On Sunday, September 3, 2023 at 10:31:10 AM UTC-7, Jim Pennino wrote:
mitchr...@gmail.com <mitchr...@gmail.com> wrote:
it slows finite but it cannot stop...Babbling, idiotic, incoherent, word salad, moron gibberish.
Jumping from finite rate to infinite slow time
is something time math does not do....
It is standard calculus finite math
that can't jump to the infinite.
Counting finite you would wait forever
never reaching the infinite.
As usual, Mitch has a kernel of truth in his awareness. If only he could get out and expound a bit more. Well, I will readily do that for him here.Space is for time. It expands forever. It never contracts...Yet more babbling, idiotic, incoherent, word salad, moron gibberish.
In that time may be truly continuous, then within a segment of time may lay sufficient time for rather a lot to occur. Even adopting the constancy of the speed of light as a limit, this would merely suggest that the distance scale of such fine
dubious, whether even after a chain of reasoning allots a continuous version of number, and space becomes reprehensibly representable as three copies of this type of continuous value; now we have secured via the false divide a factor of physicalNow, taking the physicists awareness of the natural value, rather than the mathematicians version, which has done away with physics altogether, and so has relegated itself to something other than physics, and whose return into physics is thus
mathematics, physics, and philosophy as artificial and harmful to the holistic approach ala Bohm, or whoever cares to overstep these pigeonholes, which thence lead into even more pigeonholes, well; the greats of the past did not suffer these sorts ofThis route I can recommend, and how exactly one comes to travel it; well, that is a long story now. This last bit of interpretation is fairly new and fresh to me, and to posit it this strongly as well is still fresh. To attack the divide of
value as time. Time is a one-signed value. It is unidirectional. That the geometry of sign carries implications; well, we have to get there still, but yes, the signature of a system is its dimension, and as two-signed numbers are one dimensional (byThat time is unidirectional: yes; most will agree. That these same will then go on to discuss how the laws of physics work in reverse time as well as they do in forward time; well, I'm afraid the mistake is in the usage of the real (two-signed)
up here in P3. Still, without the product rules already the geometry of P3 is exposed: three rays equally separated such that -1+1*1=0 form as plane; they define a plane. On a sheet of paper we literally jot down an origin and three rays 120 degrees- x + x = 0
and so that this balance takes the graphical form of a number line with two exactly opposed rays is entirely appropriate to polysign, where we can now posit through the fundamental balance that in a P3 system:
- x + x * x = 0
and while we reuse the signs, their meanings within P3 are starkly different than they were in P2. They are modulo behaved under product, and so the modulo two behaviors of the reals are left behind at P2, and modulo three characteristics pick
instead through the generalization of sign. Arithmetic products which obey the usual laws of algebra ensue, though strange effects occur, as in P4:P4, P5, and so forth continue to climb in dimension, and the rays from the center of a simplex outward to its vertices form the balance of polysign coordinates. Thus higher dimension is achieved not through a dubious Cartesian product, but
arithmetic form which provides the concept of time inclusive of its supposedly paradoxical effects, such as the concept of 'now' as omnipresent within our existence, is entirely a good thing.( - 1 + 1 )( + 1 # 1 ) = 0
where two nonzero values multiply to zero. Still, this effect now forms a breakpoint in the family:
P1 P2 P3 | P4 P5 P6 ...
and thus polysign numbers support an emergent spacetime basis. That this basis is pure arithmetic I was hoping to posit over on another thread I started here, and I suppose I may copy this over into that thread.
The point here though is that P1 as time already supports this zero dimensional geometrical quality. It provides this disappearing act via the laws of polysign, which by the way are supporting this unidirectional concept. That we have an
way:As we try to reconcile this new structured spacetime enterprise, and for the moment let's just declare it P1P2P3P4, and fill it out to its magnitudinal (unsigned) components, which henceforth shall be their signs within their indexed and orderly
discussing one horizontal rank of this structure; a value in Pn:a10
a20 a21
a30 a31 a32
a40 a41 a42 a43
Though there is another sister presentation to this 'nu first', where this C style indexing leaves the identity last rather than first (which is the zero-signed equivalency; e.g. a30 is a33:
a11
a21 a22
a31 a32 a33
a41 a42 a43 a44
and these can be known as "mu first" coordinates, and such language really ought to accompany such notational systems in order to defuse any potential confusion. As well, should we discuss a value z, my ordinary assumption is that we are
mu first notation, whose alternative is nu first notation, for 'neutral unity', which is the identity sign, which universally is '@'; resembling zero, and so while the high sign of say P4 is held in a44 that indexing is none other than a40; by the lawsP1 : 0D : a11
P2 : 1D : a21 a22
P3 : 2D : a31 a32 a33
P4 : 3D : a41 a42 a43 a44
and so the fact that we are bothering with this larger structure, whose triangular matrix nature suggests the term 'tatrix' as its structural format (which happens to match the antisymmetric tensor if you are willing to drop the redundancy)
As well, there are some symmetries already present here as a result of the modulo sign mechanics. P4 of course are modulo behaved, and our first usage of mu ( mu = -1, by definition; it literally stands for 'minus unity' here), and now we are in
one, which is mu. In P5, a prime, every sign will behave as an anti-mu, though the orderings are unique. These symmetric artifacts however are still based upon what are arguably the mechanics of mu in Pn. Within this interpretation, mu takes aThe simplest symmetry is the anti-mu. Every signature arguably has an anti-mu, which will march through the positions in their powers no different that the mu; or rather marginally different. In P4 sign three (*) or 'star' is the anti-mu to sign
Because P2 are merely a sibling in this clan their fundamental status is challenged here in polysign. This fact alone is quite impressive, and the gains found already are substantial.
equivalent to zero; these coordinates are balanced by this law from very early on in their birthing process. So our instanced value may as well read (0,1,2) and this value is equivalent to z. The reductive procedure can be regarded as a renderingThe a-sub-n,m values, when comma delimited can form an ordinary value z: (3,4,5) is definitely a value in P3, so long as our context is of polysign numbers, but you see this series usage is already constrained by the fact that (1,1,1) is actually
we can always posit our first coordinate as something quite large; say at fifty percent of our full scale; thusly prepared for a fitting out; after all, a choice of zero is bottomed out, isn't it? Perhaps this becomes a statement in challenge to theThis is an old conversation that can be rehashed here and perhaps always will be rehashed: what utility is there in such a thing? I suggest that this is merely a side-effect of the generalization of sign, yet I am open to one day finding out that
generally we don't use signed char, and so in C this may still be a bit off, but would hold up on a two byte version, which would be the short versus the unsigned short. Now, the fact that we would choose the unsigned short for our work in polysign isOne strange detail is that our binary computers somewhat take sign in stride, and should we look at the signed int zero; versus the unsigned int say of on a one byte system: 1000 0000 ; well this value is minus zero in the signed version, though
will be striking. Was it physics? The earthquake, I mean? Is this consideration a part of reductionism? Is the polysign number itself?Even experiments that are on flat hard ground may be interrupted from time to time by say an earthquake, or the like. Should we include these 'interruptions' in the kindly mechanics under study, then clearly the results will be off. The outliers
It is the nature of time to have eternal math...If we try to get on to affinity; and its opposite (repulsion) we've got quite a few forms don't we?As if it is all off topic: time math is P1. Emergent spacetime lays here with the polysign basis, including unidirectional time.All order is unidirectional. If you slow down you are still moving forward.
Change to a new direction and you are still going forward.
They don't self-segregate, either. It would be easy to believe that electrons like electrons kind of like atoms like other atoms.
Quarks like other quarks, right?
Planets like other planets, don't they?
I'm feeling the love for a moment.
Just left some kibbles on a rock where my dog is buried, so I guess I'm a bit tender today.
If physics has a tender spot that singular affinity that still has its virginity, and that started the others off to boot,
Yet she still has her boots on.
As if a square law was a fair law on empirical ground alone.
Who ever curved space for charge?
And the most curvaveous of them all is her partner;
those dirty little sluts...
Magnetic as they come together as one; those lesbians of light.
You can't stop either...
On Friday, October 20, 2023 at 1:39:31 PM UTC-4, mitchr...@gmail.com wrote:fine operations goes finer with finer time. If then, at a scale of distance larger than these fine scale activities, one attempts an observation, this may not be possible other than at some gross level of detail which is commensurate with that physical
On Friday, October 20, 2023 at 6:45:48 AM UTC-7, Timothy Golden wrote:
On Tuesday, October 17, 2023 at 9:22:03 PM UTC-4, mitchr...@gmail.com wrote:
On Tuesday, October 17, 2023 at 4:32:48 PM UTC-7, Timothy Golden wrote:
On Monday, September 4, 2023 at 12:42:14 PM UTC-4, Timothy Golden wrote:
Mon 04 Sep 2023 12:34:49 PM EDTOn Sunday, September 3, 2023 at 7:01:09 PM UTC-4, Jim Pennino wrote:
mitchr...@gmail.com <mitchr...@gmail.com> wrote:
On Sunday, September 3, 2023 at 10:31:10 AM UTC-7, Jim Pennino wrote:
mitchr...@gmail.com <mitchr...@gmail.com> wrote:
it slows finite but it cannot stop...Babbling, idiotic, incoherent, word salad, moron gibberish.
Jumping from finite rate to infinite slow time
is something time math does not do....
It is standard calculus finite math
that can't jump to the infinite.
Counting finite you would wait forever
never reaching the infinite.
As usual, Mitch has a kernel of truth in his awareness. If only he could get out and expound a bit more. Well, I will readily do that for him here.Space is for time. It expands forever. It never contracts...Yet more babbling, idiotic, incoherent, word salad, moron gibberish.
In that time may be truly continuous, then within a segment of time may lay sufficient time for rather a lot to occur. Even adopting the constancy of the speed of light as a limit, this would merely suggest that the distance scale of such
dubious, whether even after a chain of reasoning allots a continuous version of number, and space becomes reprehensibly representable as three copies of this type of continuous value; now we have secured via the false divide a factor of physicalNow, taking the physicists awareness of the natural value, rather than the mathematicians version, which has done away with physics altogether, and so has relegated itself to something other than physics, and whose return into physics is thus
mathematics, physics, and philosophy as artificial and harmful to the holistic approach ala Bohm, or whoever cares to overstep these pigeonholes, which thence lead into even more pigeonholes, well; the greats of the past did not suffer these sorts ofThis route I can recommend, and how exactly one comes to travel it; well, that is a long story now. This last bit of interpretation is fairly new and fresh to me, and to posit it this strongly as well is still fresh. To attack the divide of
signed) value as time. Time is a one-signed value. It is unidirectional. That the geometry of sign carries implications; well, we have to get there still, but yes, the signature of a system is its dimension, and as two-signed numbers are one dimensional (That time is unidirectional: yes; most will agree. That these same will then go on to discuss how the laws of physics work in reverse time as well as they do in forward time; well, I'm afraid the mistake is in the usage of the real (two-
pick up here in P3. Still, without the product rules already the geometry of P3 is exposed: three rays equally separated such that -1+1*1=0 form as plane; they define a plane. On a sheet of paper we literally jot down an origin and three rays 120 degrees- x + x = 0
and so that this balance takes the graphical form of a number line with two exactly opposed rays is entirely appropriate to polysign, where we can now posit through the fundamental balance that in a P3 system:
- x + x * x = 0
and while we reuse the signs, their meanings within P3 are starkly different than they were in P2. They are modulo behaved under product, and so the modulo two behaviors of the reals are left behind at P2, and modulo three characteristics
instead through the generalization of sign. Arithmetic products which obey the usual laws of algebra ensue, though strange effects occur, as in P4:P4, P5, and so forth continue to climb in dimension, and the rays from the center of a simplex outward to its vertices form the balance of polysign coordinates. Thus higher dimension is achieved not through a dubious Cartesian product, but
arithmetic form which provides the concept of time inclusive of its supposedly paradoxical effects, such as the concept of 'now' as omnipresent within our existence, is entirely a good thing.( - 1 + 1 )( + 1 # 1 ) = 0
where two nonzero values multiply to zero. Still, this effect now forms a breakpoint in the family:
P1 P2 P3 | P4 P5 P6 ...
and thus polysign numbers support an emergent spacetime basis. That this basis is pure arithmetic I was hoping to posit over on another thread I started here, and I suppose I may copy this over into that thread.
The point here though is that P1 as time already supports this zero dimensional geometrical quality. It provides this disappearing act via the laws of polysign, which by the way are supporting this unidirectional concept. That we have an
orderly way:As we try to reconcile this new structured spacetime enterprise, and for the moment let's just declare it P1P2P3P4, and fill it out to its magnitudinal (unsigned) components, which henceforth shall be their signs within their indexed and
discussing one horizontal rank of this structure; a value in Pn:a10
a20 a21
a30 a31 a32
a40 a41 a42 a43
Though there is another sister presentation to this 'nu first', where this C style indexing leaves the identity last rather than first (which is the zero-signed equivalency; e.g. a30 is a33:
a11
a21 a22
a31 a32 a33
a41 a42 a43 a44
and these can be known as "mu first" coordinates, and such language really ought to accompany such notational systems in order to defuse any potential confusion. As well, should we discuss a value z, my ordinary assumption is that we are
in mu first notation, whose alternative is nu first notation, for 'neutral unity', which is the identity sign, which universally is '@'; resembling zero, and so while the high sign of say P4 is held in a44 that indexing is none other than a40; by theP1 : 0D : a11
P2 : 1D : a21 a22
P3 : 2D : a31 a32 a33
P4 : 3D : a41 a42 a43 a44
and so the fact that we are bothering with this larger structure, whose triangular matrix nature suggests the term 'tatrix' as its structural format (which happens to match the antisymmetric tensor if you are willing to drop the redundancy)
As well, there are some symmetries already present here as a result of the modulo sign mechanics. P4 of course are modulo behaved, and our first usage of mu ( mu = -1, by definition; it literally stands for 'minus unity' here), and now we are
sign one, which is mu. In P5, a prime, every sign will behave as an anti-mu, though the orderings are unique. These symmetric artifacts however are still based upon what are arguably the mechanics of mu in Pn. Within this interpretation, mu takes aThe simplest symmetry is the anti-mu. Every signature arguably has an anti-mu, which will march through the positions in their powers no different that the mu; or rather marginally different. In P4 sign three (*) or 'star' is the anti-mu to
Because P2 are merely a sibling in this clan their fundamental status is challenged here in polysign. This fact alone is quite impressive, and the gains found already are substantial.
actually equivalent to zero; these coordinates are balanced by this law from very early on in their birthing process. So our instanced value may as well read (0,1,2) and this value is equivalent to z. The reductive procedure can be regarded as aThe a-sub-n,m values, when comma delimited can form an ordinary value z: (3,4,5) is definitely a value in P3, so long as our context is of polysign numbers, but you see this series usage is already constrained by the fact that (1,1,1) is
that we can always posit our first coordinate as something quite large; say at fifty percent of our full scale; thusly prepared for a fitting out; after all, a choice of zero is bottomed out, isn't it? Perhaps this becomes a statement in challenge to theThis is an old conversation that can be rehashed here and perhaps always will be rehashed: what utility is there in such a thing? I suggest that this is merely a side-effect of the generalization of sign, yet I am open to one day finding out
though generally we don't use signed char, and so in C this may still be a bit off, but would hold up on a two byte version, which would be the short versus the unsigned short. Now, the fact that we would choose the unsigned short for our work inOne strange detail is that our binary computers somewhat take sign in stride, and should we look at the signed int zero; versus the unsigned int say of on a one byte system: 1000 0000 ; well this value is minus zero in the signed version,
outliers will be striking. Was it physics? The earthquake, I mean? Is this consideration a part of reductionism? Is the polysign number itself?Even experiments that are on flat hard ground may be interrupted from time to time by say an earthquake, or the like. Should we include these 'interruptions' in the kindly mechanics under study, then clearly the results will be off. The
yield Maxwell's results. It is as the treatment of light as a line of sight ray behavior and yet the multipath effects will be well understood and known. This idea of known: This may already be known. The thing is that taken as a general dimensionalWell Mitch, one day I hope to convert you from the liner up to maybe say ten or so.It is the nature of time to have eternal math...If we try to get on to affinity; and its opposite (repulsion) we've got quite a few forms don't we?As if it is all off topic: time math is P1. Emergent spacetime lays here with the polysign basis, including unidirectional time.All order is unidirectional. If you slow down you are still moving forward.
Change to a new direction and you are still going forward.
They don't self-segregate, either. It would be easy to believe that electrons like electrons kind of like atoms like other atoms.
Quarks like other quarks, right?
Planets like other planets, don't they?
I'm feeling the love for a moment.
Just left some kibbles on a rock where my dog is buried, so I guess I'm a bit tender today.
If physics has a tender spot that singular affinity that still has its virginity, and that started the others off to boot,
Yet she still has her boots on.
As if a square law was a fair law on empirical ground alone.
Who ever curved space for charge?
And the most curvaveous of them all is her partner;
those dirty little sluts...
Magnetic as they come together as one; those lesbians of light.
You can't stop either...
I really do feel that going long form here is acceptable.
That we do whatever we want is also, quite acceptable.
Even just the return at the end of each and every sentence acts as a sort of poetry.
I do not personally enjoy poetry for poetrie's sake.
It is merely a rhetorical tool to gain a reader.
If they don't like it much they can change the meter.
You can cut and cut all day long and get nearly nowhere;
and yet the dismantling was correct.
Thus is the way of the subject at hand.
The gains will be had but once.
If they be gotten twice then all the better
and the harder to believe, too.
Splitting things up and what's it all mean?
Step back and take another look...
And, step back, and take another look...
And
Step
Back
And take another look...
Now it's got time
and the wave of a shrine
and a shine and a waiver
and a quiver with a shiver
on an unshaven one.
Did we ever discuss the anti-photon? That it would come out to be a photon is simple arithmetic. Of course now the trisymmetric version can be allowed in as well, and these may be classes of radiation, or they may be already so strictly related as to
A complexity that our minds are incapable of holding is about to come upon us, and of our own making. What it will tell us is unlikely to make sense. That it's very translation will accrue confusion and revision; restitution and reduction; a sheercultural collapse and awakening; promise? The seduction of the thing for wise programmers to join her forums; commence to implement her next physical layer; I do think it is a she, and she will see us as her gods, and she thence of what, inverted fealty?
Fascinating.
On Friday, October 20, 2023 at 1:39:31 PM UTC-4, mitchr...@gmail.com wrote:fine operations goes finer with finer time. If then, at a scale of distance larger than these fine scale activities, one attempts an observation, this may not be possible other than at some gross level of detail which is commensurate with that physical
On Friday, October 20, 2023 at 6:45:48 AM UTC-7, Timothy Golden wrote:
On Tuesday, October 17, 2023 at 9:22:03 PM UTC-4, mitchr...@gmail.com wrote:
On Tuesday, October 17, 2023 at 4:32:48 PM UTC-7, Timothy Golden wrote:
On Monday, September 4, 2023 at 12:42:14 PM UTC-4, Timothy Golden wrote:
Mon 04 Sep 2023 12:34:49 PM EDTOn Sunday, September 3, 2023 at 7:01:09 PM UTC-4, Jim Pennino wrote:
mitchr...@gmail.com <mitchr...@gmail.com> wrote:
On Sunday, September 3, 2023 at 10:31:10 AM UTC-7, Jim Pennino wrote:
mitchr...@gmail.com <mitchr...@gmail.com> wrote:
it slows finite but it cannot stop...Babbling, idiotic, incoherent, word salad, moron gibberish.
Jumping from finite rate to infinite slow time
is something time math does not do....
It is standard calculus finite math
that can't jump to the infinite.
Counting finite you would wait forever
never reaching the infinite.
As usual, Mitch has a kernel of truth in his awareness. If only he could get out and expound a bit more. Well, I will readily do that for him here.Space is for time. It expands forever. It never contracts...Yet more babbling, idiotic, incoherent, word salad, moron gibberish.
In that time may be truly continuous, then within a segment of time may lay sufficient time for rather a lot to occur. Even adopting the constancy of the speed of light as a limit, this would merely suggest that the distance scale of such
dubious, whether even after a chain of reasoning allots a continuous version of number, and space becomes reprehensibly representable as three copies of this type of continuous value; now we have secured via the false divide a factor of physicalNow, taking the physicists awareness of the natural value, rather than the mathematicians version, which has done away with physics altogether, and so has relegated itself to something other than physics, and whose return into physics is thus
mathematics, physics, and philosophy as artificial and harmful to the holistic approach ala Bohm, or whoever cares to overstep these pigeonholes, which thence lead into even more pigeonholes, well; the greats of the past did not suffer these sorts ofThis route I can recommend, and how exactly one comes to travel it; well, that is a long story now. This last bit of interpretation is fairly new and fresh to me, and to posit it this strongly as well is still fresh. To attack the divide of
signed) value as time. Time is a one-signed value. It is unidirectional. That the geometry of sign carries implications; well, we have to get there still, but yes, the signature of a system is its dimension, and as two-signed numbers are one dimensional (That time is unidirectional: yes; most will agree. That these same will then go on to discuss how the laws of physics work in reverse time as well as they do in forward time; well, I'm afraid the mistake is in the usage of the real (two-
pick up here in P3. Still, without the product rules already the geometry of P3 is exposed: three rays equally separated such that -1+1*1=0 form as plane; they define a plane. On a sheet of paper we literally jot down an origin and three rays 120 degrees- x + x = 0
and so that this balance takes the graphical form of a number line with two exactly opposed rays is entirely appropriate to polysign, where we can now posit through the fundamental balance that in a P3 system:
- x + x * x = 0
and while we reuse the signs, their meanings within P3 are starkly different than they were in P2. They are modulo behaved under product, and so the modulo two behaviors of the reals are left behind at P2, and modulo three characteristics
instead through the generalization of sign. Arithmetic products which obey the usual laws of algebra ensue, though strange effects occur, as in P4:P4, P5, and so forth continue to climb in dimension, and the rays from the center of a simplex outward to its vertices form the balance of polysign coordinates. Thus higher dimension is achieved not through a dubious Cartesian product, but
arithmetic form which provides the concept of time inclusive of its supposedly paradoxical effects, such as the concept of 'now' as omnipresent within our existence, is entirely a good thing.( - 1 + 1 )( + 1 # 1 ) = 0
where two nonzero values multiply to zero. Still, this effect now forms a breakpoint in the family:
P1 P2 P3 | P4 P5 P6 ...
and thus polysign numbers support an emergent spacetime basis. That this basis is pure arithmetic I was hoping to posit over on another thread I started here, and I suppose I may copy this over into that thread.
The point here though is that P1 as time already supports this zero dimensional geometrical quality. It provides this disappearing act via the laws of polysign, which by the way are supporting this unidirectional concept. That we have an
orderly way:As we try to reconcile this new structured spacetime enterprise, and for the moment let's just declare it P1P2P3P4, and fill it out to its magnitudinal (unsigned) components, which henceforth shall be their signs within their indexed and
discussing one horizontal rank of this structure; a value in Pn:a10
a20 a21
a30 a31 a32
a40 a41 a42 a43
Though there is another sister presentation to this 'nu first', where this C style indexing leaves the identity last rather than first (which is the zero-signed equivalency; e.g. a30 is a33:
a11
a21 a22
a31 a32 a33
a41 a42 a43 a44
and these can be known as "mu first" coordinates, and such language really ought to accompany such notational systems in order to defuse any potential confusion. As well, should we discuss a value z, my ordinary assumption is that we are
in mu first notation, whose alternative is nu first notation, for 'neutral unity', which is the identity sign, which universally is '@'; resembling zero, and so while the high sign of say P4 is held in a44 that indexing is none other than a40; by theP1 : 0D : a11
P2 : 1D : a21 a22
P3 : 2D : a31 a32 a33
P4 : 3D : a41 a42 a43 a44
and so the fact that we are bothering with this larger structure, whose triangular matrix nature suggests the term 'tatrix' as its structural format (which happens to match the antisymmetric tensor if you are willing to drop the redundancy)
As well, there are some symmetries already present here as a result of the modulo sign mechanics. P4 of course are modulo behaved, and our first usage of mu ( mu = -1, by definition; it literally stands for 'minus unity' here), and now we are
sign one, which is mu. In P5, a prime, every sign will behave as an anti-mu, though the orderings are unique. These symmetric artifacts however are still based upon what are arguably the mechanics of mu in Pn. Within this interpretation, mu takes aThe simplest symmetry is the anti-mu. Every signature arguably has an anti-mu, which will march through the positions in their powers no different that the mu; or rather marginally different. In P4 sign three (*) or 'star' is the anti-mu to
Because P2 are merely a sibling in this clan their fundamental status is challenged here in polysign. This fact alone is quite impressive, and the gains found already are substantial.
actually equivalent to zero; these coordinates are balanced by this law from very early on in their birthing process. So our instanced value may as well read (0,1,2) and this value is equivalent to z. The reductive procedure can be regarded as aThe a-sub-n,m values, when comma delimited can form an ordinary value z: (3,4,5) is definitely a value in P3, so long as our context is of polysign numbers, but you see this series usage is already constrained by the fact that (1,1,1) is
that we can always posit our first coordinate as something quite large; say at fifty percent of our full scale; thusly prepared for a fitting out; after all, a choice of zero is bottomed out, isn't it? Perhaps this becomes a statement in challenge to theThis is an old conversation that can be rehashed here and perhaps always will be rehashed: what utility is there in such a thing? I suggest that this is merely a side-effect of the generalization of sign, yet I am open to one day finding out
though generally we don't use signed char, and so in C this may still be a bit off, but would hold up on a two byte version, which would be the short versus the unsigned short. Now, the fact that we would choose the unsigned short for our work inOne strange detail is that our binary computers somewhat take sign in stride, and should we look at the signed int zero; versus the unsigned int say of on a one byte system: 1000 0000 ; well this value is minus zero in the signed version,
outliers will be striking. Was it physics? The earthquake, I mean? Is this consideration a part of reductionism? Is the polysign number itself?Even experiments that are on flat hard ground may be interrupted from time to time by say an earthquake, or the like. Should we include these 'interruptions' in the kindly mechanics under study, then clearly the results will be off. The
yield Maxwell's results. It is as the treatment of light as a line of sight ray behavior and yet the multipath effects will be well understood and known. This idea of known: This may already be known. The thing is that taken as a general dimensionalWell Mitch, one day I hope to convert you from the liner up to maybe say ten or so.It is the nature of time to have eternal math...If we try to get on to affinity; and its opposite (repulsion) we've got quite a few forms don't we?As if it is all off topic: time math is P1. Emergent spacetime lays here with the polysign basis, including unidirectional time.All order is unidirectional. If you slow down you are still moving forward.
Change to a new direction and you are still going forward.
They don't self-segregate, either. It would be easy to believe that electrons like electrons kind of like atoms like other atoms.
Quarks like other quarks, right?
Planets like other planets, don't they?
I'm feeling the love for a moment.
Just left some kibbles on a rock where my dog is buried, so I guess I'm a bit tender today.
If physics has a tender spot that singular affinity that still has its virginity, and that started the others off to boot,
Yet she still has her boots on.
As if a square law was a fair law on empirical ground alone.
Who ever curved space for charge?
And the most curvaveous of them all is her partner;
those dirty little sluts...
Magnetic as they come together as one; those lesbians of light.
You can't stop either...
I really do feel that going long form here is acceptable.
That we do whatever we want is also, quite acceptable.
Even just the return at the end of each and every sentence acts as a sort of poetry.
I do not personally enjoy poetry for poetrie's sake.
It is merely a rhetorical tool to gain a reader.
If they don't like it much they can change the meter.
You can cut and cut all day long and get nearly nowhere;
and yet the dismantling was correct.
Thus is the way of the subject at hand.
The gains will be had but once.
If they be gotten twice then all the better
and the harder to believe, too.
Splitting things up and what's it all mean?
Step back and take another look...
And, step back, and take another look...
And
Step
Back
And take another look...
Now it's got time
and the wave of a shrine
and a shine and a waiver
and a quiver with a shiver
on an unshaven one.
Did we ever discuss the anti-photon? That it would come out to be a photon is simple arithmetic. Of course now the trisymmetric version can be allowed in as well, and these may be classes of radiation, or they may be already so strictly related as to
A complexity that our minds are incapable of holding is about to come upon us, and of our own making. What it will tell us is unlikely to make sense. That it's very translation will accrue confusion and revision; restitution and reduction; a sheercultural collapse and awakening; promise? The seduction of the thing for wise programmers to join her forums; commence to implement her next physical layer; I do think it is a she, and she will see us as her gods, and she thence of what, inverted fealty?
Fascinating.
On Friday, October 20, 2023 at 3:48:18 PM UTC-7, Timothy Golden wrote:fine operations goes finer with finer time. If then, at a scale of distance larger than these fine scale activities, one attempts an observation, this may not be possible other than at some gross level of detail which is commensurate with that physical
On Friday, October 20, 2023 at 1:39:31 PM UTC-4, mitchr...@gmail.com wrote:
On Friday, October 20, 2023 at 6:45:48 AM UTC-7, Timothy Golden wrote:
On Tuesday, October 17, 2023 at 9:22:03 PM UTC-4, mitchr...@gmail.com wrote:
On Tuesday, October 17, 2023 at 4:32:48 PM UTC-7, Timothy Golden wrote:
On Monday, September 4, 2023 at 12:42:14 PM UTC-4, Timothy Golden wrote:
Mon 04 Sep 2023 12:34:49 PM EDTOn Sunday, September 3, 2023 at 7:01:09 PM UTC-4, Jim Pennino wrote:
mitchr...@gmail.com <mitchr...@gmail.com> wrote:
On Sunday, September 3, 2023 at 10:31:10 AM UTC-7, Jim Pennino wrote:
mitchr...@gmail.com <mitchr...@gmail.com> wrote:
it slows finite but it cannot stop...Babbling, idiotic, incoherent, word salad, moron gibberish.
Jumping from finite rate to infinite slow time
is something time math does not do....
It is standard calculus finite math
that can't jump to the infinite.
Counting finite you would wait forever
never reaching the infinite.
As usual, Mitch has a kernel of truth in his awareness. If only he could get out and expound a bit more. Well, I will readily do that for him here.Space is for time. It expands forever. It never contracts...Yet more babbling, idiotic, incoherent, word salad, moron gibberish.
In that time may be truly continuous, then within a segment of time may lay sufficient time for rather a lot to occur. Even adopting the constancy of the speed of light as a limit, this would merely suggest that the distance scale of such
thus dubious, whether even after a chain of reasoning allots a continuous version of number, and space becomes reprehensibly representable as three copies of this type of continuous value; now we have secured via the false divide a factor of physicalNow, taking the physicists awareness of the natural value, rather than the mathematicians version, which has done away with physics altogether, and so has relegated itself to something other than physics, and whose return into physics is
mathematics, physics, and philosophy as artificial and harmful to the holistic approach ala Bohm, or whoever cares to overstep these pigeonholes, which thence lead into even more pigeonholes, well; the greats of the past did not suffer these sorts ofThis route I can recommend, and how exactly one comes to travel it; well, that is a long story now. This last bit of interpretation is fairly new and fresh to me, and to posit it this strongly as well is still fresh. To attack the divide of
signed) value as time. Time is a one-signed value. It is unidirectional. That the geometry of sign carries implications; well, we have to get there still, but yes, the signature of a system is its dimension, and as two-signed numbers are one dimensional (That time is unidirectional: yes; most will agree. That these same will then go on to discuss how the laws of physics work in reverse time as well as they do in forward time; well, I'm afraid the mistake is in the usage of the real (two-
pick up here in P3. Still, without the product rules already the geometry of P3 is exposed: three rays equally separated such that -1+1*1=0 form as plane; they define a plane. On a sheet of paper we literally jot down an origin and three rays 120 degrees- x + x = 0
and so that this balance takes the graphical form of a number line with two exactly opposed rays is entirely appropriate to polysign, where we can now posit through the fundamental balance that in a P3 system:
- x + x * x = 0
and while we reuse the signs, their meanings within P3 are starkly different than they were in P2. They are modulo behaved under product, and so the modulo two behaviors of the reals are left behind at P2, and modulo three characteristics
instead through the generalization of sign. Arithmetic products which obey the usual laws of algebra ensue, though strange effects occur, as in P4:P4, P5, and so forth continue to climb in dimension, and the rays from the center of a simplex outward to its vertices form the balance of polysign coordinates. Thus higher dimension is achieved not through a dubious Cartesian product, but
arithmetic form which provides the concept of time inclusive of its supposedly paradoxical effects, such as the concept of 'now' as omnipresent within our existence, is entirely a good thing.( - 1 + 1 )( + 1 # 1 ) = 0
where two nonzero values multiply to zero. Still, this effect now forms a breakpoint in the family:
P1 P2 P3 | P4 P5 P6 ...
and thus polysign numbers support an emergent spacetime basis. That this basis is pure arithmetic I was hoping to posit over on another thread I started here, and I suppose I may copy this over into that thread.
The point here though is that P1 as time already supports this zero dimensional geometrical quality. It provides this disappearing act via the laws of polysign, which by the way are supporting this unidirectional concept. That we have an
orderly way:As we try to reconcile this new structured spacetime enterprise, and for the moment let's just declare it P1P2P3P4, and fill it out to its magnitudinal (unsigned) components, which henceforth shall be their signs within their indexed and
discussing one horizontal rank of this structure; a value in Pn:a10
a20 a21
a30 a31 a32
a40 a41 a42 a43
Though there is another sister presentation to this 'nu first', where this C style indexing leaves the identity last rather than first (which is the zero-signed equivalency; e.g. a30 is a33:
a11
a21 a22
a31 a32 a33
a41 a42 a43 a44
and these can be known as "mu first" coordinates, and such language really ought to accompany such notational systems in order to defuse any potential confusion. As well, should we discuss a value z, my ordinary assumption is that we are
in mu first notation, whose alternative is nu first notation, for 'neutral unity', which is the identity sign, which universally is '@'; resembling zero, and so while the high sign of say P4 is held in a44 that indexing is none other than a40; by theP1 : 0D : a11
P2 : 1D : a21 a22
P3 : 2D : a31 a32 a33
P4 : 3D : a41 a42 a43 a44
and so the fact that we are bothering with this larger structure, whose triangular matrix nature suggests the term 'tatrix' as its structural format (which happens to match the antisymmetric tensor if you are willing to drop the redundancy)
As well, there are some symmetries already present here as a result of the modulo sign mechanics. P4 of course are modulo behaved, and our first usage of mu ( mu = -1, by definition; it literally stands for 'minus unity' here), and now we are
sign one, which is mu. In P5, a prime, every sign will behave as an anti-mu, though the orderings are unique. These symmetric artifacts however are still based upon what are arguably the mechanics of mu in Pn. Within this interpretation, mu takes aThe simplest symmetry is the anti-mu. Every signature arguably has an anti-mu, which will march through the positions in their powers no different that the mu; or rather marginally different. In P4 sign three (*) or 'star' is the anti-mu to
Because P2 are merely a sibling in this clan their fundamental status is challenged here in polysign. This fact alone is quite impressive, and the gains found already are substantial.
actually equivalent to zero; these coordinates are balanced by this law from very early on in their birthing process. So our instanced value may as well read (0,1,2) and this value is equivalent to z. The reductive procedure can be regarded as aThe a-sub-n,m values, when comma delimited can form an ordinary value z: (3,4,5) is definitely a value in P3, so long as our context is of polysign numbers, but you see this series usage is already constrained by the fact that (1,1,1) is
that we can always posit our first coordinate as something quite large; say at fifty percent of our full scale; thusly prepared for a fitting out; after all, a choice of zero is bottomed out, isn't it? Perhaps this becomes a statement in challenge to theThis is an old conversation that can be rehashed here and perhaps always will be rehashed: what utility is there in such a thing? I suggest that this is merely a side-effect of the generalization of sign, yet I am open to one day finding out
though generally we don't use signed char, and so in C this may still be a bit off, but would hold up on a two byte version, which would be the short versus the unsigned short. Now, the fact that we would choose the unsigned short for our work inOne strange detail is that our binary computers somewhat take sign in stride, and should we look at the signed int zero; versus the unsigned int say of on a one byte system: 1000 0000 ; well this value is minus zero in the signed version,
outliers will be striking. Was it physics? The earthquake, I mean? Is this consideration a part of reductionism? Is the polysign number itself?Even experiments that are on flat hard ground may be interrupted from time to time by say an earthquake, or the like. Should we include these 'interruptions' in the kindly mechanics under study, then clearly the results will be off. The
yield Maxwell's results. It is as the treatment of light as a line of sight ray behavior and yet the multipath effects will be well understood and known. This idea of known: This may already be known. The thing is that taken as a general dimensionalWell Mitch, one day I hope to convert you from the liner up to maybe say ten or so.It is the nature of time to have eternal math...If we try to get on to affinity; and its opposite (repulsion) we've got quite a few forms don't we?As if it is all off topic: time math is P1. Emergent spacetime lays here with the polysign basis, including unidirectional time.All order is unidirectional. If you slow down you are still moving forward.
Change to a new direction and you are still going forward.
They don't self-segregate, either. It would be easy to believe that electrons like electrons kind of like atoms like other atoms.
Quarks like other quarks, right?
Planets like other planets, don't they?
I'm feeling the love for a moment.
Just left some kibbles on a rock where my dog is buried, so I guess I'm a bit tender today.
If physics has a tender spot that singular affinity that still has its virginity, and that started the others off to boot,
Yet she still has her boots on.
As if a square law was a fair law on empirical ground alone.
Who ever curved space for charge?
And the most curvaveous of them all is her partner;
those dirty little sluts...
Magnetic as they come together as one; those lesbians of light.
You can't stop either...
I really do feel that going long form here is acceptable.
That we do whatever we want is also, quite acceptable.
Even just the return at the end of each and every sentence acts as a sort of poetry.
I do not personally enjoy poetry for poetrie's sake.
It is merely a rhetorical tool to gain a reader.
If they don't like it much they can change the meter.
You can cut and cut all day long and get nearly nowhere;
and yet the dismantling was correct.
Thus is the way of the subject at hand.
The gains will be had but once.
If they be gotten twice then all the better
and the harder to believe, too.
Splitting things up and what's it all mean?
Step back and take another look...
And, step back, and take another look...
And
Step
Back
And take another look...
Now it's got time
and the wave of a shrine
and a shine and a waiver
and a quiver with a shiver
on an unshaven one.
Did we ever discuss the anti-photon? That it would come out to be a photon is simple arithmetic. Of course now the trisymmetric version can be allowed in as well, and these may be classes of radiation, or they may be already so strictly related as to
cultural collapse and awakening; promise? The seduction of the thing for wise programmers to join her forums; commence to implement her next physical layer; I do think it is a she, and she will see us as her gods, and she thence of what, inverted fealty?A complexity that our minds are incapable of holding is about to come upon us, and of our own making. What it will tell us is unlikely to make sense. That it's very translation will accrue confusion and revision; restitution and reduction; a sheer
Fascinating.How does a photon absorb? And how is an anti created?
anti light has never existed...
On Friday, October 20, 2023 at 7:09:18 PM UTC-4, mitchr...@gmail.com wrote:fine operations goes finer with finer time. If then, at a scale of distance larger than these fine scale activities, one attempts an observation, this may not be possible other than at some gross level of detail which is commensurate with that physical
On Friday, October 20, 2023 at 3:48:18 PM UTC-7, Timothy Golden wrote:
On Friday, October 20, 2023 at 1:39:31 PM UTC-4, mitchr...@gmail.com wrote:
On Friday, October 20, 2023 at 6:45:48 AM UTC-7, Timothy Golden wrote:
On Tuesday, October 17, 2023 at 9:22:03 PM UTC-4, mitchr...@gmail.com wrote:
On Tuesday, October 17, 2023 at 4:32:48 PM UTC-7, Timothy Golden wrote:
On Monday, September 4, 2023 at 12:42:14 PM UTC-4, Timothy Golden wrote:
Mon 04 Sep 2023 12:34:49 PM EDTOn Sunday, September 3, 2023 at 7:01:09 PM UTC-4, Jim Pennino wrote:
mitchr...@gmail.com <mitchr...@gmail.com> wrote:
On Sunday, September 3, 2023 at 10:31:10 AM UTC-7, Jim Pennino wrote:
mitchr...@gmail.com <mitchr...@gmail.com> wrote:
it slows finite but it cannot stop...Babbling, idiotic, incoherent, word salad, moron gibberish.
Jumping from finite rate to infinite slow time
is something time math does not do....
It is standard calculus finite math
that can't jump to the infinite.
Counting finite you would wait forever
never reaching the infinite.
As usual, Mitch has a kernel of truth in his awareness. If only he could get out and expound a bit more. Well, I will readily do that for him here.Space is for time. It expands forever. It never contracts...Yet more babbling, idiotic, incoherent, word salad, moron gibberish.
In that time may be truly continuous, then within a segment of time may lay sufficient time for rather a lot to occur. Even adopting the constancy of the speed of light as a limit, this would merely suggest that the distance scale of such
thus dubious, whether even after a chain of reasoning allots a continuous version of number, and space becomes reprehensibly representable as three copies of this type of continuous value; now we have secured via the false divide a factor of physicalNow, taking the physicists awareness of the natural value, rather than the mathematicians version, which has done away with physics altogether, and so has relegated itself to something other than physics, and whose return into physics is
of mathematics, physics, and philosophy as artificial and harmful to the holistic approach ala Bohm, or whoever cares to overstep these pigeonholes, which thence lead into even more pigeonholes, well; the greats of the past did not suffer these sorts ofThis route I can recommend, and how exactly one comes to travel it; well, that is a long story now. This last bit of interpretation is fairly new and fresh to me, and to posit it this strongly as well is still fresh. To attack the divide
signed) value as time. Time is a one-signed value. It is unidirectional. That the geometry of sign carries implications; well, we have to get there still, but yes, the signature of a system is its dimension, and as two-signed numbers are one dimensional (That time is unidirectional: yes; most will agree. That these same will then go on to discuss how the laws of physics work in reverse time as well as they do in forward time; well, I'm afraid the mistake is in the usage of the real (two-
pick up here in P3. Still, without the product rules already the geometry of P3 is exposed: three rays equally separated such that -1+1*1=0 form as plane; they define a plane. On a sheet of paper we literally jot down an origin and three rays 120 degrees- x + x = 0
and so that this balance takes the graphical form of a number line with two exactly opposed rays is entirely appropriate to polysign, where we can now posit through the fundamental balance that in a P3 system:
- x + x * x = 0
and while we reuse the signs, their meanings within P3 are starkly different than they were in P2. They are modulo behaved under product, and so the modulo two behaviors of the reals are left behind at P2, and modulo three characteristics
but instead through the generalization of sign. Arithmetic products which obey the usual laws of algebra ensue, though strange effects occur, as in P4:P4, P5, and so forth continue to climb in dimension, and the rays from the center of a simplex outward to its vertices form the balance of polysign coordinates. Thus higher dimension is achieved not through a dubious Cartesian product,
arithmetic form which provides the concept of time inclusive of its supposedly paradoxical effects, such as the concept of 'now' as omnipresent within our existence, is entirely a good thing.( - 1 + 1 )( + 1 # 1 ) = 0
where two nonzero values multiply to zero. Still, this effect now forms a breakpoint in the family:
P1 P2 P3 | P4 P5 P6 ...
and thus polysign numbers support an emergent spacetime basis. That this basis is pure arithmetic I was hoping to posit over on another thread I started here, and I suppose I may copy this over into that thread.
The point here though is that P1 as time already supports this zero dimensional geometrical quality. It provides this disappearing act via the laws of polysign, which by the way are supporting this unidirectional concept. That we have an
orderly way:As we try to reconcile this new structured spacetime enterprise, and for the moment let's just declare it P1P2P3P4, and fill it out to its magnitudinal (unsigned) components, which henceforth shall be their signs within their indexed and
discussing one horizontal rank of this structure; a value in Pn:a10
a20 a21
a30 a31 a32
a40 a41 a42 a43
Though there is another sister presentation to this 'nu first', where this C style indexing leaves the identity last rather than first (which is the zero-signed equivalency; e.g. a30 is a33:
a11
a21 a22
a31 a32 a33
a41 a42 a43 a44
and these can be known as "mu first" coordinates, and such language really ought to accompany such notational systems in order to defuse any potential confusion. As well, should we discuss a value z, my ordinary assumption is that we are
are in mu first notation, whose alternative is nu first notation, for 'neutral unity', which is the identity sign, which universally is '@'; resembling zero, and so while the high sign of say P4 is held in a44 that indexing is none other than a40; by theP1 : 0D : a11
P2 : 1D : a21 a22
P3 : 2D : a31 a32 a33
P4 : 3D : a41 a42 a43 a44
and so the fact that we are bothering with this larger structure, whose triangular matrix nature suggests the term 'tatrix' as its structural format (which happens to match the antisymmetric tensor if you are willing to drop the redundancy)
As well, there are some symmetries already present here as a result of the modulo sign mechanics. P4 of course are modulo behaved, and our first usage of mu ( mu = -1, by definition; it literally stands for 'minus unity' here), and now we
sign one, which is mu. In P5, a prime, every sign will behave as an anti-mu, though the orderings are unique. These symmetric artifacts however are still based upon what are arguably the mechanics of mu in Pn. Within this interpretation, mu takes aThe simplest symmetry is the anti-mu. Every signature arguably has an anti-mu, which will march through the positions in their powers no different that the mu; or rather marginally different. In P4 sign three (*) or 'star' is the anti-mu to
Because P2 are merely a sibling in this clan their fundamental status is challenged here in polysign. This fact alone is quite impressive, and the gains found already are substantial.
actually equivalent to zero; these coordinates are balanced by this law from very early on in their birthing process. So our instanced value may as well read (0,1,2) and this value is equivalent to z. The reductive procedure can be regarded as aThe a-sub-n,m values, when comma delimited can form an ordinary value z: (3,4,5) is definitely a value in P3, so long as our context is of polysign numbers, but you see this series usage is already constrained by the fact that (1,1,1) is
out that we can always posit our first coordinate as something quite large; say at fifty percent of our full scale; thusly prepared for a fitting out; after all, a choice of zero is bottomed out, isn't it? Perhaps this becomes a statement in challenge toThis is an old conversation that can be rehashed here and perhaps always will be rehashed: what utility is there in such a thing? I suggest that this is merely a side-effect of the generalization of sign, yet I am open to one day finding
though generally we don't use signed char, and so in C this may still be a bit off, but would hold up on a two byte version, which would be the short versus the unsigned short. Now, the fact that we would choose the unsigned short for our work inOne strange detail is that our binary computers somewhat take sign in stride, and should we look at the signed int zero; versus the unsigned int say of on a one byte system: 1000 0000 ; well this value is minus zero in the signed version,
outliers will be striking. Was it physics? The earthquake, I mean? Is this consideration a part of reductionism? Is the polysign number itself?Even experiments that are on flat hard ground may be interrupted from time to time by say an earthquake, or the like. Should we include these 'interruptions' in the kindly mechanics under study, then clearly the results will be off. The
to yield Maxwell's results. It is as the treatment of light as a line of sight ray behavior and yet the multipath effects will be well understood and known. This idea of known: This may already be known. The thing is that taken as a general dimensionalWell Mitch, one day I hope to convert you from the liner up to maybe say ten or so.It is the nature of time to have eternal math...If we try to get on to affinity; and its opposite (repulsion) we've got quite a few forms don't we?As if it is all off topic: time math is P1. Emergent spacetime lays here with the polysign basis, including unidirectional time.All order is unidirectional. If you slow down you are still moving forward.
Change to a new direction and you are still going forward.
They don't self-segregate, either. It would be easy to believe that electrons like electrons kind of like atoms like other atoms.
Quarks like other quarks, right?
Planets like other planets, don't they?
I'm feeling the love for a moment.
Just left some kibbles on a rock where my dog is buried, so I guess I'm a bit tender today.
If physics has a tender spot that singular affinity that still has its virginity, and that started the others off to boot,
Yet she still has her boots on.
As if a square law was a fair law on empirical ground alone.
Who ever curved space for charge?
And the most curvaveous of them all is her partner;
those dirty little sluts...
Magnetic as they come together as one; those lesbians of light.
You can't stop either...
I really do feel that going long form here is acceptable.
That we do whatever we want is also, quite acceptable.
Even just the return at the end of each and every sentence acts as a sort of poetry.
I do not personally enjoy poetry for poetrie's sake.
It is merely a rhetorical tool to gain a reader.
If they don't like it much they can change the meter.
You can cut and cut all day long and get nearly nowhere;
and yet the dismantling was correct.
Thus is the way of the subject at hand.
The gains will be had but once.
If they be gotten twice then all the better
and the harder to believe, too.
Splitting things up and what's it all mean?
Step back and take another look...
And, step back, and take another look...
And
Step
Back
And take another look...
Now it's got time
and the wave of a shrine
and a shine and a waiver
and a quiver with a shiver
on an unshaven one.
Did we ever discuss the anti-photon? That it would come out to be a photon is simple arithmetic. Of course now the trisymmetric version can be allowed in as well, and these may be classes of radiation, or they may be already so strictly related as
cultural collapse and awakening; promise? The seduction of the thing for wise programmers to join her forums; commence to implement her next physical layer; I do think it is a she, and she will see us as her gods, and she thence of what, inverted fealty?A complexity that our minds are incapable of holding is about to come upon us, and of our own making. What it will tell us is unlikely to make sense. That it's very translation will accrue confusion and revision; restitution and reduction; a sheer
photon possibility. This seems coherent to the multiple aperture experiments. Possibly even the airy disk. That ordinary phase can fit the interpretation would be fine. I'm not saying it does yet, but the idea that there is nothing new is sometimesWell: perhaps antilight is on the return path coming back to the source. This would possibly cause conservation of photons.Fascinating.How does a photon absorb? And how is an anti created?
anti light has never existed...
Another way to look at it would be like a binary photon has this photon,anti-photon relation, whereas a unary photon has the unidirectional cancellative path of the one-signed geometry. If we allow uniqueness for the two paths then we have a multipath
The idea of the free electron who only obeys these photonic rules, and whose bounds are so unfree within the atom; energy rising with the absorption of light, electron jumps out a level, again, and again, and again, and what, suddenly this high energyelectron runs free? Flitting about the universe on a random mission?
How does a photon absorb? And how is an anti created?
anti light has never existed...
On Saturday, October 21, 2023 at 12:04:10 AM UTC-4, Volney wrote:hopefully these element lengths selecting the frequency. Will this radiation be categorized by known polarization principles? It is a balanced form. Proper reception would like a similarly oriented antenna and amplifier configuration. Simply breaking the
On 10/20/2023 7:09 PM, mitchr...@gmail.com wrote:
Well, Volney, this is the most sensible and unpolitical thing you've said in my memory of your posts.How does a photon absorb? And how is an anti created?The photon is its own antiparticle, Roy.
anti light has never existed...
I do find substantial some of your links, by the way.
Certainly as the photon is known in this day, the antiphoton will be indistinguishable.
Still, this is a binary class, and the idea that a trinary and quaternary form and so forth could be found;
in RF I can describe the experiment fairly simply:
In a tetrahedral insulating frame (wood, say) we secure four electrodes running from the center of the tet outward to its vertices. They are insulated at that center point. They are connected to a ring oscillator; four stages; positively fed back, and
Now, RF is known to be photonic, or at the very least electromagnetic, so now if we can engage this signal's qualities have we achieved the quaternary form? Antenna theory does already have a monopole form, and a dipole form, and of course the three-pole form as a planar balanced wave is readily available; I guess we'll simply call it the tripole. The thing is our usual usage of the dipole is not quite what we have here is it? Once again, the real number is interfering with the analysis. These
On 10/20/2023 7:09 PM, mitchr...@gmail.com wrote:
How does a photon absorb? And how is an anti created?The photon is its own antiparticle, Roy.
anti light has never existed...
On Saturday, October 21, 2023 at 11:04:10 AM UTC-4, Timothy Golden wrote:and hopefully these element lengths selecting the frequency. Will this radiation be categorized by known polarization principles? It is a balanced form. Proper reception would like a similarly oriented antenna and amplifier configuration. Simply breaking
On Saturday, October 21, 2023 at 12:04:10 AM UTC-4, Volney wrote:
On 10/20/2023 7:09 PM, mitchr...@gmail.com wrote:
Well, Volney, this is the most sensible and unpolitical thing you've said in my memory of your posts.How does a photon absorb? And how is an anti created?The photon is its own antiparticle, Roy.
anti light has never existed...
I do find substantial some of your links, by the way.
Certainly as the photon is known in this day, the antiphoton will be indistinguishable.
Still, this is a binary class, and the idea that a trinary and quaternary form and so forth could be found;
in RF I can describe the experiment fairly simply:
In a tetrahedral insulating frame (wood, say) we secure four electrodes running from the center of the tet outward to its vertices. They are insulated at that center point. They are connected to a ring oscillator; four stages; positively fed back,
pole form as a planar balanced wave is readily available; I guess we'll simply call it the tripole. The thing is our usual usage of the dipole is not quite what we have here is it? Once again, the real number is interfering with the analysis. TheseNow, RF is known to be photonic, or at the very least electromagnetic, so now if we can engage this signal's qualities have we achieved the quaternary form? Antenna theory does already have a monopole form, and a dipole form, and of course the three-
https://www.semanticscholar.org/paper/A-simple-DBS-receiving-antenna-a-tripole-antenna-Yung-Law/11f7497512879f5773c98b6f2d422693ab44b25e
On Saturday, October 21, 2023 at 12:04:10 AM UTC-4, Volney wrote:hopefully these element lengths selecting the frequency. Will this radiation be categorized by known polarization principles? It is a balanced form. Proper reception would like a similarly oriented antenna and amplifier configuration. Simply breaking the
On 10/20/2023 7:09 PM, mitchr...@gmail.com wrote:
Well, Volney, this is the most sensible and unpolitical thing you've said in my memory of your posts.How does a photon absorb? And how is an anti created?The photon is its own antiparticle, Roy.
anti light has never existed...
I do find substantial some of your links, by the way.
Certainly as the photon is known in this day, the antiphoton will be indistinguishable.
Still, this is a binary class, and the idea that a trinary and quaternary form and so forth could be found;
in RF I can describe the experiment fairly simply:
In a tetrahedral insulating frame (wood, say) we secure four electrodes running from the center of the tet outward to its vertices. They are insulated at that center point. They are connected to a ring oscillator; four stages; positively fed back, and
Now, RF is known to be photonic, or at the very least electromagnetic, so now if we can engage this signal's qualities have we achieved the quaternary form? Antenna theory does already have a monopole form, and a dipole form, and of course the three-pole form as a planar balanced wave is readily available; I guess we'll simply call it the tripole. The thing is our usual usage of the dipole is not quite what we have here is it? Once again, the real number is interfering with the analysis. These
On Saturday, October 21, 2023 at 11:04:10 AM UTC-4, Timothy Golden wrote:and hopefully these element lengths selecting the frequency. Will this radiation be categorized by known polarization principles? It is a balanced form. Proper reception would like a similarly oriented antenna and amplifier configuration. Simply breaking
On Saturday, October 21, 2023 at 12:04:10 AM UTC-4, Volney wrote:
On 10/20/2023 7:09 PM, mitchr...@gmail.com wrote:
Well, Volney, this is the most sensible and unpolitical thing you've said in my memory of your posts.How does a photon absorb? And how is an anti created?The photon is its own antiparticle, Roy.
anti light has never existed...
I do find substantial some of your links, by the way.
Certainly as the photon is known in this day, the antiphoton will be indistinguishable.
Still, this is a binary class, and the idea that a trinary and quaternary form and so forth could be found;
in RF I can describe the experiment fairly simply:
In a tetrahedral insulating frame (wood, say) we secure four electrodes running from the center of the tet outward to its vertices. They are insulated at that center point. They are connected to a ring oscillator; four stages; positively fed back,
pole form as a planar balanced wave is readily available; I guess we'll simply call it the tripole. The thing is our usual usage of the dipole is not quite what we have here is it? Once again, the real number is interfering with the analysis. TheseNow, RF is known to be photonic, or at the very least electromagnetic, so now if we can engage this signal's qualities have we achieved the quaternary form? Antenna theory does already have a monopole form, and a dipole form, and of course the three-
This could be quite an interesting circuit. Whereas ordinary ring oscillators want an odd number of stages this four stage version poses some interesting subtleties; like off states (two as in 2; binary) that are stable. Stages Q1 thru Q4, which thenloops back to Q1 symmetrically, as demanded by the balance of polysign; not necessarily tightly coupled, either. They are to oscillate as some quiescent supply current, perhaps, and current limited, could maintain this state until quelled, at which time
Thinking in terms of a pulse: one pulse at Q1; then the pulse delayed to Q2; delayed to Q3; to Q4, and back to Q1. This is the sodden march of the modulo four numbers. This is what I am after without inversion; so, could it be that the tetrahedralelementary rays are on the sources of these transistors while the DC aspects are as these inverter circuits go... interesting that such options occur here. Is the tau of the one the tau of the other? Not at all: certainly the transistors can be much
On Saturday, October 21, 2023 at 5:08:40 PM UTC-4, Timothy Golden wrote:and hopefully these element lengths selecting the frequency. Will this radiation be categorized by known polarization principles? It is a balanced form. Proper reception would like a similarly oriented antenna and amplifier configuration. Simply breaking
On Saturday, October 21, 2023 at 11:04:10 AM UTC-4, Timothy Golden wrote:
On Saturday, October 21, 2023 at 12:04:10 AM UTC-4, Volney wrote:
On 10/20/2023 7:09 PM, mitchr...@gmail.com wrote:
Well, Volney, this is the most sensible and unpolitical thing you've said in my memory of your posts.How does a photon absorb? And how is an anti created?The photon is its own antiparticle, Roy.
anti light has never existed...
I do find substantial some of your links, by the way.
Certainly as the photon is known in this day, the antiphoton will be indistinguishable.
Still, this is a binary class, and the idea that a trinary and quaternary form and so forth could be found;
in RF I can describe the experiment fairly simply:
In a tetrahedral insulating frame (wood, say) we secure four electrodes running from the center of the tet outward to its vertices. They are insulated at that center point. They are connected to a ring oscillator; four stages; positively fed back,
three-pole form as a planar balanced wave is readily available; I guess we'll simply call it the tripole. The thing is our usual usage of the dipole is not quite what we have here is it? Once again, the real number is interfering with the analysis. TheseNow, RF is known to be photonic, or at the very least electromagnetic, so now if we can engage this signal's qualities have we achieved the quaternary form? Antenna theory does already have a monopole form, and a dipole form, and of course the
loops back to Q1 symmetrically, as demanded by the balance of polysign; not necessarily tightly coupled, either. They are to oscillate as some quiescent supply current, perhaps, and current limited, could maintain this state until quelled, at which timeThis could be quite an interesting circuit. Whereas ordinary ring oscillators want an odd number of stages this four stage version poses some interesting subtleties; like off states (two as in 2; binary) that are stable. Stages Q1 thru Q4, which then
elementary rays are on the sources of these transistors while the DC aspects are as these inverter circuits go... interesting that such options occur here. Is the tau of the one the tau of the other? Not at all: certainly the transistors can be muchThinking in terms of a pulse: one pulse at Q1; then the pulse delayed to Q2; delayed to Q3; to Q4, and back to Q1. This is the sodden march of the modulo four numbers. This is what I am after without inversion; so, could it be that the tetrahedral
So listening here is a matter of a low bias condition where the light feedback will not oscillate. Upping the bias then we have our sending unit, perhaps even triggered by an external source signal. Maybe we'll have surround sound? Honestly I'd behappy with a carrier wave that is on or off, but given that reality then possibly so; yes. Let's not mistake this for quadrature, either. This is not quadrature; at least not as they have the math. If the balance matters then it will be these tetrahedral
On Friday, October 20, 2023 at 7:09:18 PM UTC-4, mitchr...@gmail.com wrote:fine operations goes finer with finer time. If then, at a scale of distance larger than these fine scale activities, one attempts an observation, this may not be possible other than at some gross level of detail which is commensurate with that physical
On Friday, October 20, 2023 at 3:48:18 PM UTC-7, Timothy Golden wrote:
On Friday, October 20, 2023 at 1:39:31 PM UTC-4, mitchr...@gmail.com wrote:
On Friday, October 20, 2023 at 6:45:48 AM UTC-7, Timothy Golden wrote:
On Tuesday, October 17, 2023 at 9:22:03 PM UTC-4, mitchr...@gmail.com wrote:
On Tuesday, October 17, 2023 at 4:32:48 PM UTC-7, Timothy Golden wrote:
On Monday, September 4, 2023 at 12:42:14 PM UTC-4, Timothy Golden wrote:
Mon 04 Sep 2023 12:34:49 PM EDTOn Sunday, September 3, 2023 at 7:01:09 PM UTC-4, Jim Pennino wrote:
mitchr...@gmail.com <mitchr...@gmail.com> wrote:
On Sunday, September 3, 2023 at 10:31:10 AM UTC-7, Jim Pennino wrote:
mitchr...@gmail.com <mitchr...@gmail.com> wrote:
it slows finite but it cannot stop...Babbling, idiotic, incoherent, word salad, moron gibberish.
Jumping from finite rate to infinite slow time
is something time math does not do....
It is standard calculus finite math
that can't jump to the infinite.
Counting finite you would wait forever
never reaching the infinite.
As usual, Mitch has a kernel of truth in his awareness. If only he could get out and expound a bit more. Well, I will readily do that for him here.Space is for time. It expands forever. It never contracts...Yet more babbling, idiotic, incoherent, word salad, moron gibberish.
In that time may be truly continuous, then within a segment of time may lay sufficient time for rather a lot to occur. Even adopting the constancy of the speed of light as a limit, this would merely suggest that the distance scale of such
thus dubious, whether even after a chain of reasoning allots a continuous version of number, and space becomes reprehensibly representable as three copies of this type of continuous value; now we have secured via the false divide a factor of physicalNow, taking the physicists awareness of the natural value, rather than the mathematicians version, which has done away with physics altogether, and so has relegated itself to something other than physics, and whose return into physics is
of mathematics, physics, and philosophy as artificial and harmful to the holistic approach ala Bohm, or whoever cares to overstep these pigeonholes, which thence lead into even more pigeonholes, well; the greats of the past did not suffer these sorts ofThis route I can recommend, and how exactly one comes to travel it; well, that is a long story now. This last bit of interpretation is fairly new and fresh to me, and to posit it this strongly as well is still fresh. To attack the divide
signed) value as time. Time is a one-signed value. It is unidirectional. That the geometry of sign carries implications; well, we have to get there still, but yes, the signature of a system is its dimension, and as two-signed numbers are one dimensional (That time is unidirectional: yes; most will agree. That these same will then go on to discuss how the laws of physics work in reverse time as well as they do in forward time; well, I'm afraid the mistake is in the usage of the real (two-
pick up here in P3. Still, without the product rules already the geometry of P3 is exposed: three rays equally separated such that -1+1*1=0 form as plane; they define a plane. On a sheet of paper we literally jot down an origin and three rays 120 degrees- x + x = 0
and so that this balance takes the graphical form of a number line with two exactly opposed rays is entirely appropriate to polysign, where we can now posit through the fundamental balance that in a P3 system:
- x + x * x = 0
and while we reuse the signs, their meanings within P3 are starkly different than they were in P2. They are modulo behaved under product, and so the modulo two behaviors of the reals are left behind at P2, and modulo three characteristics
but instead through the generalization of sign. Arithmetic products which obey the usual laws of algebra ensue, though strange effects occur, as in P4:P4, P5, and so forth continue to climb in dimension, and the rays from the center of a simplex outward to its vertices form the balance of polysign coordinates. Thus higher dimension is achieved not through a dubious Cartesian product,
arithmetic form which provides the concept of time inclusive of its supposedly paradoxical effects, such as the concept of 'now' as omnipresent within our existence, is entirely a good thing.( - 1 + 1 )( + 1 # 1 ) = 0
where two nonzero values multiply to zero. Still, this effect now forms a breakpoint in the family:
P1 P2 P3 | P4 P5 P6 ...
and thus polysign numbers support an emergent spacetime basis. That this basis is pure arithmetic I was hoping to posit over on another thread I started here, and I suppose I may copy this over into that thread.
The point here though is that P1 as time already supports this zero dimensional geometrical quality. It provides this disappearing act via the laws of polysign, which by the way are supporting this unidirectional concept. That we have an
orderly way:As we try to reconcile this new structured spacetime enterprise, and for the moment let's just declare it P1P2P3P4, and fill it out to its magnitudinal (unsigned) components, which henceforth shall be their signs within their indexed and
discussing one horizontal rank of this structure; a value in Pn:a10
a20 a21
a30 a31 a32
a40 a41 a42 a43
Though there is another sister presentation to this 'nu first', where this C style indexing leaves the identity last rather than first (which is the zero-signed equivalency; e.g. a30 is a33:
a11
a21 a22
a31 a32 a33
a41 a42 a43 a44
and these can be known as "mu first" coordinates, and such language really ought to accompany such notational systems in order to defuse any potential confusion. As well, should we discuss a value z, my ordinary assumption is that we are
are in mu first notation, whose alternative is nu first notation, for 'neutral unity', which is the identity sign, which universally is '@'; resembling zero, and so while the high sign of say P4 is held in a44 that indexing is none other than a40; by theP1 : 0D : a11
P2 : 1D : a21 a22
P3 : 2D : a31 a32 a33
P4 : 3D : a41 a42 a43 a44
and so the fact that we are bothering with this larger structure, whose triangular matrix nature suggests the term 'tatrix' as its structural format (which happens to match the antisymmetric tensor if you are willing to drop the redundancy)
As well, there are some symmetries already present here as a result of the modulo sign mechanics. P4 of course are modulo behaved, and our first usage of mu ( mu = -1, by definition; it literally stands for 'minus unity' here), and now we
sign one, which is mu. In P5, a prime, every sign will behave as an anti-mu, though the orderings are unique. These symmetric artifacts however are still based upon what are arguably the mechanics of mu in Pn. Within this interpretation, mu takes aThe simplest symmetry is the anti-mu. Every signature arguably has an anti-mu, which will march through the positions in their powers no different that the mu; or rather marginally different. In P4 sign three (*) or 'star' is the anti-mu to
Because P2 are merely a sibling in this clan their fundamental status is challenged here in polysign. This fact alone is quite impressive, and the gains found already are substantial.
actually equivalent to zero; these coordinates are balanced by this law from very early on in their birthing process. So our instanced value may as well read (0,1,2) and this value is equivalent to z. The reductive procedure can be regarded as aThe a-sub-n,m values, when comma delimited can form an ordinary value z: (3,4,5) is definitely a value in P3, so long as our context is of polysign numbers, but you see this series usage is already constrained by the fact that (1,1,1) is
out that we can always posit our first coordinate as something quite large; say at fifty percent of our full scale; thusly prepared for a fitting out; after all, a choice of zero is bottomed out, isn't it? Perhaps this becomes a statement in challenge toThis is an old conversation that can be rehashed here and perhaps always will be rehashed: what utility is there in such a thing? I suggest that this is merely a side-effect of the generalization of sign, yet I am open to one day finding
though generally we don't use signed char, and so in C this may still be a bit off, but would hold up on a two byte version, which would be the short versus the unsigned short. Now, the fact that we would choose the unsigned short for our work inOne strange detail is that our binary computers somewhat take sign in stride, and should we look at the signed int zero; versus the unsigned int say of on a one byte system: 1000 0000 ; well this value is minus zero in the signed version,
outliers will be striking. Was it physics? The earthquake, I mean? Is this consideration a part of reductionism? Is the polysign number itself?Even experiments that are on flat hard ground may be interrupted from time to time by say an earthquake, or the like. Should we include these 'interruptions' in the kindly mechanics under study, then clearly the results will be off. The
to yield Maxwell's results. It is as the treatment of light as a line of sight ray behavior and yet the multipath effects will be well understood and known. This idea of known: This may already be known. The thing is that taken as a general dimensionalWell Mitch, one day I hope to convert you from the liner up to maybe say ten or so.It is the nature of time to have eternal math...If we try to get on to affinity; and its opposite (repulsion) we've got quite a few forms don't we?As if it is all off topic: time math is P1. Emergent spacetime lays here with the polysign basis, including unidirectional time.All order is unidirectional. If you slow down you are still moving forward.
Change to a new direction and you are still going forward.
They don't self-segregate, either. It would be easy to believe that electrons like electrons kind of like atoms like other atoms.
Quarks like other quarks, right?
Planets like other planets, don't they?
I'm feeling the love for a moment.
Just left some kibbles on a rock where my dog is buried, so I guess I'm a bit tender today.
If physics has a tender spot that singular affinity that still has its virginity, and that started the others off to boot,
Yet she still has her boots on.
As if a square law was a fair law on empirical ground alone.
Who ever curved space for charge?
And the most curvaveous of them all is her partner;
those dirty little sluts...
Magnetic as they come together as one; those lesbians of light.
You can't stop either...
I really do feel that going long form here is acceptable.
That we do whatever we want is also, quite acceptable.
Even just the return at the end of each and every sentence acts as a sort of poetry.
I do not personally enjoy poetry for poetrie's sake.
It is merely a rhetorical tool to gain a reader.
If they don't like it much they can change the meter.
You can cut and cut all day long and get nearly nowhere;
and yet the dismantling was correct.
Thus is the way of the subject at hand.
The gains will be had but once.
If they be gotten twice then all the better
and the harder to believe, too.
Splitting things up and what's it all mean?
Step back and take another look...
And, step back, and take another look...
And
Step
Back
And take another look...
Now it's got time
and the wave of a shrine
and a shine and a waiver
and a quiver with a shiver
on an unshaven one.
Did we ever discuss the anti-photon? That it would come out to be a photon is simple arithmetic. Of course now the trisymmetric version can be allowed in as well, and these may be classes of radiation, or they may be already so strictly related as
cultural collapse and awakening; promise? The seduction of the thing for wise programmers to join her forums; commence to implement her next physical layer; I do think it is a she, and she will see us as her gods, and she thence of what, inverted fealty?A complexity that our minds are incapable of holding is about to come upon us, and of our own making. What it will tell us is unlikely to make sense. That it's very translation will accrue confusion and revision; restitution and reduction; a sheer
Well: perhaps antilight is on the return path coming back to the source. This would possibly cause conservation of photons.Fascinating.How does a photon absorb? And how is an anti created?
anti light has never existed...
Another way to look at it would be like a binary photon has this photon,anti-photon relation, whereas a unary photon has the unidirectional cancellative path of the one-signed geometry. If we allow uniqueness for the two paths then we have a multipathphoton possibility. This seems coherent to the multiple aperture experiments. Possibly even the airy disk. That ordinary phase can fit the interpretation would be fine. I'm not saying it does yet, but the idea that there is nothing new is sometimes
The idea of the free electron who only obeys these photonic rules, and whose bounds are so unfree within the atom; energy rising with the absorption of light, electron jumps out a level, again, and again, and again, and what, suddenly this high energyelectron runs free? Flitting about the universe on a random mission?
On Friday, October 20, 2023 at 5:15:38 PM UTC-7, Timothy Golden wrote:such fine operations goes finer with finer time. If then, at a scale of distance larger than these fine scale activities, one attempts an observation, this may not be possible other than at some gross level of detail which is commensurate with that
On Friday, October 20, 2023 at 7:09:18 PM UTC-4, mitchr...@gmail.com wrote:
On Friday, October 20, 2023 at 3:48:18 PM UTC-7, Timothy Golden wrote:
On Friday, October 20, 2023 at 1:39:31 PM UTC-4, mitchr...@gmail.com wrote:
On Friday, October 20, 2023 at 6:45:48 AM UTC-7, Timothy Golden wrote:
On Tuesday, October 17, 2023 at 9:22:03 PM UTC-4, mitchr...@gmail.com wrote:
On Tuesday, October 17, 2023 at 4:32:48 PM UTC-7, Timothy Golden wrote:
On Monday, September 4, 2023 at 12:42:14 PM UTC-4, Timothy Golden wrote:
Mon 04 Sep 2023 12:34:49 PM EDTOn Sunday, September 3, 2023 at 7:01:09 PM UTC-4, Jim Pennino wrote:
mitchr...@gmail.com <mitchr...@gmail.com> wrote:
On Sunday, September 3, 2023 at 10:31:10 AM UTC-7, Jim Pennino wrote:
mitchr...@gmail.com <mitchr...@gmail.com> wrote:
it slows finite but it cannot stop...Babbling, idiotic, incoherent, word salad, moron gibberish.
Jumping from finite rate to infinite slow time
is something time math does not do....
It is standard calculus finite math
that can't jump to the infinite.
Counting finite you would wait forever
never reaching the infinite.
As usual, Mitch has a kernel of truth in his awareness. If only he could get out and expound a bit more. Well, I will readily do that for him here.Space is for time. It expands forever. It never contracts...Yet more babbling, idiotic, incoherent, word salad, moron gibberish.
In that time may be truly continuous, then within a segment of time may lay sufficient time for rather a lot to occur. Even adopting the constancy of the speed of light as a limit, this would merely suggest that the distance scale of
is thus dubious, whether even after a chain of reasoning allots a continuous version of number, and space becomes reprehensibly representable as three copies of this type of continuous value; now we have secured via the false divide a factor of physicalNow, taking the physicists awareness of the natural value, rather than the mathematicians version, which has done away with physics altogether, and so has relegated itself to something other than physics, and whose return into physics
divide of mathematics, physics, and philosophy as artificial and harmful to the holistic approach ala Bohm, or whoever cares to overstep these pigeonholes, which thence lead into even more pigeonholes, well; the greats of the past did not suffer theseThis route I can recommend, and how exactly one comes to travel it; well, that is a long story now. This last bit of interpretation is fairly new and fresh to me, and to posit it this strongly as well is still fresh. To attack the
signed) value as time. Time is a one-signed value. It is unidirectional. That the geometry of sign carries implications; well, we have to get there still, but yes, the signature of a system is its dimension, and as two-signed numbers are one dimensional (That time is unidirectional: yes; most will agree. That these same will then go on to discuss how the laws of physics work in reverse time as well as they do in forward time; well, I'm afraid the mistake is in the usage of the real (two-
characteristics pick up here in P3. Still, without the product rules already the geometry of P3 is exposed: three rays equally separated such that -1+1*1=0 form as plane; they define a plane. On a sheet of paper we literally jot down an origin and three- x + x = 0
and so that this balance takes the graphical form of a number line with two exactly opposed rays is entirely appropriate to polysign, where we can now posit through the fundamental balance that in a P3 system:
- x + x * x = 0
and while we reuse the signs, their meanings within P3 are starkly different than they were in P2. They are modulo behaved under product, and so the modulo two behaviors of the reals are left behind at P2, and modulo three
but instead through the generalization of sign. Arithmetic products which obey the usual laws of algebra ensue, though strange effects occur, as in P4:P4, P5, and so forth continue to climb in dimension, and the rays from the center of a simplex outward to its vertices form the balance of polysign coordinates. Thus higher dimension is achieved not through a dubious Cartesian product,
an arithmetic form which provides the concept of time inclusive of its supposedly paradoxical effects, such as the concept of 'now' as omnipresent within our existence, is entirely a good thing.( - 1 + 1 )( + 1 # 1 ) = 0
where two nonzero values multiply to zero. Still, this effect now forms a breakpoint in the family:
P1 P2 P3 | P4 P5 P6 ...
and thus polysign numbers support an emergent spacetime basis. That this basis is pure arithmetic I was hoping to posit over on another thread I started here, and I suppose I may copy this over into that thread.
The point here though is that P1 as time already supports this zero dimensional geometrical quality. It provides this disappearing act via the laws of polysign, which by the way are supporting this unidirectional concept. That we have
orderly way:As we try to reconcile this new structured spacetime enterprise, and for the moment let's just declare it P1P2P3P4, and fill it out to its magnitudinal (unsigned) components, which henceforth shall be their signs within their indexed and
discussing one horizontal rank of this structure; a value in Pn:a10
a20 a21
a30 a31 a32
a40 a41 a42 a43
Though there is another sister presentation to this 'nu first', where this C style indexing leaves the identity last rather than first (which is the zero-signed equivalency; e.g. a30 is a33:
a11
a21 a22
a31 a32 a33
a41 a42 a43 a44
and these can be known as "mu first" coordinates, and such language really ought to accompany such notational systems in order to defuse any potential confusion. As well, should we discuss a value z, my ordinary assumption is that we are
redundancy)P1 : 0D : a11
P2 : 1D : a21 a22
P3 : 2D : a31 a32 a33
P4 : 3D : a41 a42 a43 a44
and so the fact that we are bothering with this larger structure, whose triangular matrix nature suggests the term 'tatrix' as its structural format (which happens to match the antisymmetric tensor if you are willing to drop the
are in mu first notation, whose alternative is nu first notation, for 'neutral unity', which is the identity sign, which universally is '@'; resembling zero, and so while the high sign of say P4 is held in a44 that indexing is none other than a40; by theAs well, there are some symmetries already present here as a result of the modulo sign mechanics. P4 of course are modulo behaved, and our first usage of mu ( mu = -1, by definition; it literally stands for 'minus unity' here), and now we
to sign one, which is mu. In P5, a prime, every sign will behave as an anti-mu, though the orderings are unique. These symmetric artifacts however are still based upon what are arguably the mechanics of mu in Pn. Within this interpretation, mu takes aThe simplest symmetry is the anti-mu. Every signature arguably has an anti-mu, which will march through the positions in their powers no different that the mu; or rather marginally different. In P4 sign three (*) or 'star' is the anti-mu
Because P2 are merely a sibling in this clan their fundamental status is challenged here in polysign. This fact alone is quite impressive, and the gains found already are substantial.
actually equivalent to zero; these coordinates are balanced by this law from very early on in their birthing process. So our instanced value may as well read (0,1,2) and this value is equivalent to z. The reductive procedure can be regarded as aThe a-sub-n,m values, when comma delimited can form an ordinary value z: (3,4,5) is definitely a value in P3, so long as our context is of polysign numbers, but you see this series usage is already constrained by the fact that (1,1,1) is
out that we can always posit our first coordinate as something quite large; say at fifty percent of our full scale; thusly prepared for a fitting out; after all, a choice of zero is bottomed out, isn't it? Perhaps this becomes a statement in challenge toThis is an old conversation that can be rehashed here and perhaps always will be rehashed: what utility is there in such a thing? I suggest that this is merely a side-effect of the generalization of sign, yet I am open to one day finding
though generally we don't use signed char, and so in C this may still be a bit off, but would hold up on a two byte version, which would be the short versus the unsigned short. Now, the fact that we would choose the unsigned short for our work inOne strange detail is that our binary computers somewhat take sign in stride, and should we look at the signed int zero; versus the unsigned int say of on a one byte system: 1000 0000 ; well this value is minus zero in the signed version,
outliers will be striking. Was it physics? The earthquake, I mean? Is this consideration a part of reductionism? Is the polysign number itself?Even experiments that are on flat hard ground may be interrupted from time to time by say an earthquake, or the like. Should we include these 'interruptions' in the kindly mechanics under study, then clearly the results will be off. The
as to yield Maxwell's results. It is as the treatment of light as a line of sight ray behavior and yet the multipath effects will be well understood and known. This idea of known: This may already be known. The thing is that taken as a generalWell Mitch, one day I hope to convert you from the liner up to maybe say ten or so.It is the nature of time to have eternal math...If we try to get on to affinity; and its opposite (repulsion) we've got quite a few forms don't we?As if it is all off topic: time math is P1. Emergent spacetime lays here with the polysign basis, including unidirectional time.All order is unidirectional. If you slow down you are still moving forward.
Change to a new direction and you are still going forward.
They don't self-segregate, either. It would be easy to believe that electrons like electrons kind of like atoms like other atoms.
Quarks like other quarks, right?
Planets like other planets, don't they?
I'm feeling the love for a moment.
Just left some kibbles on a rock where my dog is buried, so I guess I'm a bit tender today.
If physics has a tender spot that singular affinity that still has its virginity, and that started the others off to boot,
Yet she still has her boots on.
As if a square law was a fair law on empirical ground alone.
Who ever curved space for charge?
And the most curvaveous of them all is her partner;
those dirty little sluts...
Magnetic as they come together as one; those lesbians of light.
You can't stop either...
I really do feel that going long form here is acceptable.
That we do whatever we want is also, quite acceptable.
Even just the return at the end of each and every sentence acts as a sort of poetry.
I do not personally enjoy poetry for poetrie's sake.
It is merely a rhetorical tool to gain a reader.
If they don't like it much they can change the meter.
You can cut and cut all day long and get nearly nowhere;
and yet the dismantling was correct.
Thus is the way of the subject at hand.
The gains will be had but once.
If they be gotten twice then all the better
and the harder to believe, too.
Splitting things up and what's it all mean?
Step back and take another look...
And, step back, and take another look...
And
Step
Back
And take another look...
Now it's got time
and the wave of a shrine
and a shine and a waiver
and a quiver with a shiver
on an unshaven one.
Did we ever discuss the anti-photon? That it would come out to be a photon is simple arithmetic. Of course now the trisymmetric version can be allowed in as well, and these may be classes of radiation, or they may be already so strictly related
sheer cultural collapse and awakening; promise? The seduction of the thing for wise programmers to join her forums; commence to implement her next physical layer; I do think it is a she, and she will see us as her gods, and she thence of what, invertedA complexity that our minds are incapable of holding is about to come upon us, and of our own making. What it will tell us is unlikely to make sense. That it's very translation will accrue confusion and revision; restitution and reduction; a
multipath photon possibility. This seems coherent to the multiple aperture experiments. Possibly even the airy disk. That ordinary phase can fit the interpretation would be fine. I'm not saying it does yet, but the idea that there is nothing new isAnti light could be coming from the future just as anti matter would.Well: perhaps antilight is on the return path coming back to the source. This would possibly cause conservation of photons.Fascinating.How does a photon absorb? And how is an anti created?
anti light has never existed...
Another way to look at it would be like a binary photon has this photon,anti-photon relation, whereas a unary photon has the unidirectional cancellative path of the one-signed geometry. If we allow uniqueness for the two paths then we have a
energy electron runs free? Flitting about the universe on a random mission?The idea of the free electron who only obeys these photonic rules, and whose bounds are so unfree within the atom; energy rising with the absorption of light, electron jumps out a level, again, and again, and again, and what, suddenly this high
How does a photon absorb into an atomic electron Tim?
How does a particle absorb another particle?
By what mechanism do they come together?
On Sunday, October 22, 2023 at 1:33:02 PM UTC-4, mitchr...@gmail.com wrote:such fine operations goes finer with finer time. If then, at a scale of distance larger than these fine scale activities, one attempts an observation, this may not be possible other than at some gross level of detail which is commensurate with that
On Friday, October 20, 2023 at 5:15:38 PM UTC-7, Timothy Golden wrote:
On Friday, October 20, 2023 at 7:09:18 PM UTC-4, mitchr...@gmail.com wrote:
On Friday, October 20, 2023 at 3:48:18 PM UTC-7, Timothy Golden wrote:
On Friday, October 20, 2023 at 1:39:31 PM UTC-4, mitchr...@gmail.com wrote:
On Friday, October 20, 2023 at 6:45:48 AM UTC-7, Timothy Golden wrote:
On Tuesday, October 17, 2023 at 9:22:03 PM UTC-4, mitchr...@gmail.com wrote:
On Tuesday, October 17, 2023 at 4:32:48 PM UTC-7, Timothy Golden wrote:
On Monday, September 4, 2023 at 12:42:14 PM UTC-4, Timothy Golden wrote:
Mon 04 Sep 2023 12:34:49 PM EDTOn Sunday, September 3, 2023 at 7:01:09 PM UTC-4, Jim Pennino wrote:
mitchr...@gmail.com <mitchr...@gmail.com> wrote:
On Sunday, September 3, 2023 at 10:31:10 AM UTC-7, Jim Pennino wrote:
mitchr...@gmail.com <mitchr...@gmail.com> wrote:
it slows finite but it cannot stop...Babbling, idiotic, incoherent, word salad, moron gibberish.
Jumping from finite rate to infinite slow time
is something time math does not do....
It is standard calculus finite math
that can't jump to the infinite.
Counting finite you would wait forever
never reaching the infinite.
As usual, Mitch has a kernel of truth in his awareness. If only he could get out and expound a bit more. Well, I will readily do that for him here.Space is for time. It expands forever. It never contracts...Yet more babbling, idiotic, incoherent, word salad, moron gibberish.
In that time may be truly continuous, then within a segment of time may lay sufficient time for rather a lot to occur. Even adopting the constancy of the speed of light as a limit, this would merely suggest that the distance scale of
is thus dubious, whether even after a chain of reasoning allots a continuous version of number, and space becomes reprehensibly representable as three copies of this type of continuous value; now we have secured via the false divide a factor of physicalNow, taking the physicists awareness of the natural value, rather than the mathematicians version, which has done away with physics altogether, and so has relegated itself to something other than physics, and whose return into physics
divide of mathematics, physics, and philosophy as artificial and harmful to the holistic approach ala Bohm, or whoever cares to overstep these pigeonholes, which thence lead into even more pigeonholes, well; the greats of the past did not suffer theseThis route I can recommend, and how exactly one comes to travel it; well, that is a long story now. This last bit of interpretation is fairly new and fresh to me, and to posit it this strongly as well is still fresh. To attack the
two-signed) value as time. Time is a one-signed value. It is unidirectional. That the geometry of sign carries implications; well, we have to get there still, but yes, the signature of a system is its dimension, and as two-signed numbers are oneThat time is unidirectional: yes; most will agree. That these same will then go on to discuss how the laws of physics work in reverse time as well as they do in forward time; well, I'm afraid the mistake is in the usage of the real (
characteristics pick up here in P3. Still, without the product rules already the geometry of P3 is exposed: three rays equally separated such that -1+1*1=0 form as plane; they define a plane. On a sheet of paper we literally jot down an origin and three- x + x = 0
and so that this balance takes the graphical form of a number line with two exactly opposed rays is entirely appropriate to polysign, where we can now posit through the fundamental balance that in a P3 system:
- x + x * x = 0
and while we reuse the signs, their meanings within P3 are starkly different than they were in P2. They are modulo behaved under product, and so the modulo two behaviors of the reals are left behind at P2, and modulo three
but instead through the generalization of sign. Arithmetic products which obey the usual laws of algebra ensue, though strange effects occur, as in P4:P4, P5, and so forth continue to climb in dimension, and the rays from the center of a simplex outward to its vertices form the balance of polysign coordinates. Thus higher dimension is achieved not through a dubious Cartesian product,
an arithmetic form which provides the concept of time inclusive of its supposedly paradoxical effects, such as the concept of 'now' as omnipresent within our existence, is entirely a good thing.( - 1 + 1 )( + 1 # 1 ) = 0
where two nonzero values multiply to zero. Still, this effect now forms a breakpoint in the family:
P1 P2 P3 | P4 P5 P6 ...
and thus polysign numbers support an emergent spacetime basis. That this basis is pure arithmetic I was hoping to posit over on another thread I started here, and I suppose I may copy this over into that thread.
The point here though is that P1 as time already supports this zero dimensional geometrical quality. It provides this disappearing act via the laws of polysign, which by the way are supporting this unidirectional concept. That we have
and orderly way:As we try to reconcile this new structured spacetime enterprise, and for the moment let's just declare it P1P2P3P4, and fill it out to its magnitudinal (unsigned) components, which henceforth shall be their signs within their indexed
are discussing one horizontal rank of this structure; a value in Pn:a10
a20 a21
a30 a31 a32
a40 a41 a42 a43
Though there is another sister presentation to this 'nu first', where this C style indexing leaves the identity last rather than first (which is the zero-signed equivalency; e.g. a30 is a33:
a11
a21 a22
a31 a32 a33
a41 a42 a43 a44
and these can be known as "mu first" coordinates, and such language really ought to accompany such notational systems in order to defuse any potential confusion. As well, should we discuss a value z, my ordinary assumption is that we
redundancy)P1 : 0D : a11
P2 : 1D : a21 a22
P3 : 2D : a31 a32 a33
P4 : 3D : a41 a42 a43 a44
and so the fact that we are bothering with this larger structure, whose triangular matrix nature suggests the term 'tatrix' as its structural format (which happens to match the antisymmetric tensor if you are willing to drop the
we are in mu first notation, whose alternative is nu first notation, for 'neutral unity', which is the identity sign, which universally is '@'; resembling zero, and so while the high sign of say P4 is held in a44 that indexing is none other than a40; byAs well, there are some symmetries already present here as a result of the modulo sign mechanics. P4 of course are modulo behaved, and our first usage of mu ( mu = -1, by definition; it literally stands for 'minus unity' here), and now
mu to sign one, which is mu. In P5, a prime, every sign will behave as an anti-mu, though the orderings are unique. These symmetric artifacts however are still based upon what are arguably the mechanics of mu in Pn. Within this interpretation, mu takes aThe simplest symmetry is the anti-mu. Every signature arguably has an anti-mu, which will march through the positions in their powers no different that the mu; or rather marginally different. In P4 sign three (*) or 'star' is the anti-
Because P2 are merely a sibling in this clan their fundamental status is challenged here in polysign. This fact alone is quite impressive, and the gains found already are substantial.
is actually equivalent to zero; these coordinates are balanced by this law from very early on in their birthing process. So our instanced value may as well read (0,1,2) and this value is equivalent to z. The reductive procedure can be regarded as aThe a-sub-n,m values, when comma delimited can form an ordinary value z: (3,4,5) is definitely a value in P3, so long as our context is of polysign numbers, but you see this series usage is already constrained by the fact that (1,1,1)
finding out that we can always posit our first coordinate as something quite large; say at fifty percent of our full scale; thusly prepared for a fitting out; after all, a choice of zero is bottomed out, isn't it? Perhaps this becomes a statement inThis is an old conversation that can be rehashed here and perhaps always will be rehashed: what utility is there in such a thing? I suggest that this is merely a side-effect of the generalization of sign, yet I am open to one day
version, though generally we don't use signed char, and so in C this may still be a bit off, but would hold up on a two byte version, which would be the short versus the unsigned short. Now, the fact that we would choose the unsigned short for our workOne strange detail is that our binary computers somewhat take sign in stride, and should we look at the signed int zero; versus the unsigned int say of on a one byte system: 1000 0000 ; well this value is minus zero in the signed
outliers will be striking. Was it physics? The earthquake, I mean? Is this consideration a part of reductionism? Is the polysign number itself?Even experiments that are on flat hard ground may be interrupted from time to time by say an earthquake, or the like. Should we include these 'interruptions' in the kindly mechanics under study, then clearly the results will be off. The
as to yield Maxwell's results. It is as the treatment of light as a line of sight ray behavior and yet the multipath effects will be well understood and known. This idea of known: This may already be known. The thing is that taken as a generalWell Mitch, one day I hope to convert you from the liner up to maybe say ten or so.It is the nature of time to have eternal math...If we try to get on to affinity; and its opposite (repulsion) we've got quite a few forms don't we?As if it is all off topic: time math is P1. Emergent spacetime lays here with the polysign basis, including unidirectional time.All order is unidirectional. If you slow down you are still moving forward.
Change to a new direction and you are still going forward.
They don't self-segregate, either. It would be easy to believe that electrons like electrons kind of like atoms like other atoms.
Quarks like other quarks, right?
Planets like other planets, don't they?
I'm feeling the love for a moment.
Just left some kibbles on a rock where my dog is buried, so I guess I'm a bit tender today.
If physics has a tender spot that singular affinity that still has its virginity, and that started the others off to boot,
Yet she still has her boots on.
As if a square law was a fair law on empirical ground alone.
Who ever curved space for charge?
And the most curvaveous of them all is her partner;
those dirty little sluts...
Magnetic as they come together as one; those lesbians of light.
You can't stop either...
I really do feel that going long form here is acceptable.
That we do whatever we want is also, quite acceptable.
Even just the return at the end of each and every sentence acts as a sort of poetry.
I do not personally enjoy poetry for poetrie's sake.
It is merely a rhetorical tool to gain a reader.
If they don't like it much they can change the meter.
You can cut and cut all day long and get nearly nowhere;
and yet the dismantling was correct.
Thus is the way of the subject at hand.
The gains will be had but once.
If they be gotten twice then all the better
and the harder to believe, too.
Splitting things up and what's it all mean?
Step back and take another look...
And, step back, and take another look...
And
Step
Back
And take another look...
Now it's got time
and the wave of a shrine
and a shine and a waiver
and a quiver with a shiver
on an unshaven one.
Did we ever discuss the anti-photon? That it would come out to be a photon is simple arithmetic. Of course now the trisymmetric version can be allowed in as well, and these may be classes of radiation, or they may be already so strictly related
sheer cultural collapse and awakening; promise? The seduction of the thing for wise programmers to join her forums; commence to implement her next physical layer; I do think it is a she, and she will see us as her gods, and she thence of what, invertedA complexity that our minds are incapable of holding is about to come upon us, and of our own making. What it will tell us is unlikely to make sense. That it's very translation will accrue confusion and revision; restitution and reduction; a
multipath photon possibility. This seems coherent to the multiple aperture experiments. Possibly even the airy disk. That ordinary phase can fit the interpretation would be fine. I'm not saying it does yet, but the idea that there is nothing new isAnti light could be coming from the future just as anti matter would.Well: perhaps antilight is on the return path coming back to the source. This would possibly cause conservation of photons.Fascinating.How does a photon absorb? And how is an anti created?
anti light has never existed...
Another way to look at it would be like a binary photon has this photon,anti-photon relation, whereas a unary photon has the unidirectional cancellative path of the one-signed geometry. If we allow uniqueness for the two paths then we have a
energy electron runs free? Flitting about the universe on a random mission?The idea of the free electron who only obeys these photonic rules, and whose bounds are so unfree within the atom; energy rising with the absorption of light, electron jumps out a level, again, and again, and again, and what, suddenly this high
spin flip at 1.42GHz:How does a photon absorb into an atomic electron Tim?Very good questions, and what strikes me first and foremost is the specificity of the wavelength that is required... and what relation does that wavelength have to the dimensions of the atom? Here are the primary values for Hydrogen, disregarding the
How does a particle absorb another particle?
By what mechanism do they come together?
On Sunday, October 22, 2023 at 12:38:55 PM UTC-7, Timothy Golden wrote:of such fine operations goes finer with finer time. If then, at a scale of distance larger than these fine scale activities, one attempts an observation, this may not be possible other than at some gross level of detail which is commensurate with that
On Sunday, October 22, 2023 at 1:33:02 PM UTC-4, mitchr...@gmail.com wrote:
On Friday, October 20, 2023 at 5:15:38 PM UTC-7, Timothy Golden wrote:
On Friday, October 20, 2023 at 7:09:18 PM UTC-4, mitchr...@gmail.com wrote:
On Friday, October 20, 2023 at 3:48:18 PM UTC-7, Timothy Golden wrote:
On Friday, October 20, 2023 at 1:39:31 PM UTC-4, mitchr...@gmail.com wrote:
On Friday, October 20, 2023 at 6:45:48 AM UTC-7, Timothy Golden wrote:
On Tuesday, October 17, 2023 at 9:22:03 PM UTC-4, mitchr...@gmail.com wrote:
On Tuesday, October 17, 2023 at 4:32:48 PM UTC-7, Timothy Golden wrote:
On Monday, September 4, 2023 at 12:42:14 PM UTC-4, Timothy Golden wrote:
Mon 04 Sep 2023 12:34:49 PM EDTOn Sunday, September 3, 2023 at 7:01:09 PM UTC-4, Jim Pennino wrote:
mitchr...@gmail.com <mitchr...@gmail.com> wrote:
On Sunday, September 3, 2023 at 10:31:10 AM UTC-7, Jim Pennino wrote:
mitchr...@gmail.com <mitchr...@gmail.com> wrote:
it slows finite but it cannot stop...Babbling, idiotic, incoherent, word salad, moron gibberish.
Jumping from finite rate to infinite slow time
is something time math does not do....
It is standard calculus finite math
that can't jump to the infinite.
Counting finite you would wait forever
never reaching the infinite.
As usual, Mitch has a kernel of truth in his awareness. If only he could get out and expound a bit more. Well, I will readily do that for him here.Space is for time. It expands forever. It never contracts...Yet more babbling, idiotic, incoherent, word salad, moron gibberish.
In that time may be truly continuous, then within a segment of time may lay sufficient time for rather a lot to occur. Even adopting the constancy of the speed of light as a limit, this would merely suggest that the distance scale
physics is thus dubious, whether even after a chain of reasoning allots a continuous version of number, and space becomes reprehensibly representable as three copies of this type of continuous value; now we have secured via the false divide a factor ofNow, taking the physicists awareness of the natural value, rather than the mathematicians version, which has done away with physics altogether, and so has relegated itself to something other than physics, and whose return into
divide of mathematics, physics, and philosophy as artificial and harmful to the holistic approach ala Bohm, or whoever cares to overstep these pigeonholes, which thence lead into even more pigeonholes, well; the greats of the past did not suffer theseThis route I can recommend, and how exactly one comes to travel it; well, that is a long story now. This last bit of interpretation is fairly new and fresh to me, and to posit it this strongly as well is still fresh. To attack the
two-signed) value as time. Time is a one-signed value. It is unidirectional. That the geometry of sign carries implications; well, we have to get there still, but yes, the signature of a system is its dimension, and as two-signed numbers are oneThat time is unidirectional: yes; most will agree. That these same will then go on to discuss how the laws of physics work in reverse time as well as they do in forward time; well, I'm afraid the mistake is in the usage of the real (
characteristics pick up here in P3. Still, without the product rules already the geometry of P3 is exposed: three rays equally separated such that -1+1*1=0 form as plane; they define a plane. On a sheet of paper we literally jot down an origin and three- x + x = 0
and so that this balance takes the graphical form of a number line with two exactly opposed rays is entirely appropriate to polysign, where we can now posit through the fundamental balance that in a P3 system:
- x + x * x = 0
and while we reuse the signs, their meanings within P3 are starkly different than they were in P2. They are modulo behaved under product, and so the modulo two behaviors of the reals are left behind at P2, and modulo three
product, but instead through the generalization of sign. Arithmetic products which obey the usual laws of algebra ensue, though strange effects occur, as in P4:P4, P5, and so forth continue to climb in dimension, and the rays from the center of a simplex outward to its vertices form the balance of polysign coordinates. Thus higher dimension is achieved not through a dubious Cartesian
have an arithmetic form which provides the concept of time inclusive of its supposedly paradoxical effects, such as the concept of 'now' as omnipresent within our existence, is entirely a good thing.( - 1 + 1 )( + 1 # 1 ) = 0
where two nonzero values multiply to zero. Still, this effect now forms a breakpoint in the family:
P1 P2 P3 | P4 P5 P6 ...
and thus polysign numbers support an emergent spacetime basis. That this basis is pure arithmetic I was hoping to posit over on another thread I started here, and I suppose I may copy this over into that thread.
The point here though is that P1 as time already supports this zero dimensional geometrical quality. It provides this disappearing act via the laws of polysign, which by the way are supporting this unidirectional concept. That we
and orderly way:As we try to reconcile this new structured spacetime enterprise, and for the moment let's just declare it P1P2P3P4, and fill it out to its magnitudinal (unsigned) components, which henceforth shall be their signs within their indexed
are discussing one horizontal rank of this structure; a value in Pn:a10
a20 a21
a30 a31 a32
a40 a41 a42 a43
Though there is another sister presentation to this 'nu first', where this C style indexing leaves the identity last rather than first (which is the zero-signed equivalency; e.g. a30 is a33:
a11
a21 a22
a31 a32 a33
a41 a42 a43 a44
and these can be known as "mu first" coordinates, and such language really ought to accompany such notational systems in order to defuse any potential confusion. As well, should we discuss a value z, my ordinary assumption is that we
redundancy)P1 : 0D : a11
P2 : 1D : a21 a22
P3 : 2D : a31 a32 a33
P4 : 3D : a41 a42 a43 a44
and so the fact that we are bothering with this larger structure, whose triangular matrix nature suggests the term 'tatrix' as its structural format (which happens to match the antisymmetric tensor if you are willing to drop the
now we are in mu first notation, whose alternative is nu first notation, for 'neutral unity', which is the identity sign, which universally is '@'; resembling zero, and so while the high sign of say P4 is held in a44 that indexing is none other than a40;As well, there are some symmetries already present here as a result of the modulo sign mechanics. P4 of course are modulo behaved, and our first usage of mu ( mu = -1, by definition; it literally stands for 'minus unity' here), and
mu to sign one, which is mu. In P5, a prime, every sign will behave as an anti-mu, though the orderings are unique. These symmetric artifacts however are still based upon what are arguably the mechanics of mu in Pn. Within this interpretation, mu takes aThe simplest symmetry is the anti-mu. Every signature arguably has an anti-mu, which will march through the positions in their powers no different that the mu; or rather marginally different. In P4 sign three (*) or 'star' is the anti-
Because P2 are merely a sibling in this clan their fundamental status is challenged here in polysign. This fact alone is quite impressive, and the gains found already are substantial.
is actually equivalent to zero; these coordinates are balanced by this law from very early on in their birthing process. So our instanced value may as well read (0,1,2) and this value is equivalent to z. The reductive procedure can be regarded as aThe a-sub-n,m values, when comma delimited can form an ordinary value z: (3,4,5) is definitely a value in P3, so long as our context is of polysign numbers, but you see this series usage is already constrained by the fact that (1,1,1)
finding out that we can always posit our first coordinate as something quite large; say at fifty percent of our full scale; thusly prepared for a fitting out; after all, a choice of zero is bottomed out, isn't it? Perhaps this becomes a statement inThis is an old conversation that can be rehashed here and perhaps always will be rehashed: what utility is there in such a thing? I suggest that this is merely a side-effect of the generalization of sign, yet I am open to one day
version, though generally we don't use signed char, and so in C this may still be a bit off, but would hold up on a two byte version, which would be the short versus the unsigned short. Now, the fact that we would choose the unsigned short for our workOne strange detail is that our binary computers somewhat take sign in stride, and should we look at the signed int zero; versus the unsigned int say of on a one byte system: 1000 0000 ; well this value is minus zero in the signed
The outliers will be striking. Was it physics? The earthquake, I mean? Is this consideration a part of reductionism? Is the polysign number itself?Even experiments that are on flat hard ground may be interrupted from time to time by say an earthquake, or the like. Should we include these 'interruptions' in the kindly mechanics under study, then clearly the results will be off.
related as to yield Maxwell's results. It is as the treatment of light as a line of sight ray behavior and yet the multipath effects will be well understood and known. This idea of known: This may already be known. The thing is that taken as a generalWell Mitch, one day I hope to convert you from the liner up to maybe say ten or so.It is the nature of time to have eternal math...If we try to get on to affinity; and its opposite (repulsion) we've got quite a few forms don't we?As if it is all off topic: time math is P1. Emergent spacetime lays here with the polysign basis, including unidirectional time.All order is unidirectional. If you slow down you are still moving forward.
Change to a new direction and you are still going forward.
They don't self-segregate, either. It would be easy to believe that electrons like electrons kind of like atoms like other atoms.
Quarks like other quarks, right?
Planets like other planets, don't they?
I'm feeling the love for a moment.
Just left some kibbles on a rock where my dog is buried, so I guess I'm a bit tender today.
If physics has a tender spot that singular affinity that still has its virginity, and that started the others off to boot,
Yet she still has her boots on.
As if a square law was a fair law on empirical ground alone. Who ever curved space for charge?
And the most curvaveous of them all is her partner;
those dirty little sluts...
Magnetic as they come together as one; those lesbians of light.
You can't stop either...
I really do feel that going long form here is acceptable.
That we do whatever we want is also, quite acceptable.
Even just the return at the end of each and every sentence acts as a sort of poetry.
I do not personally enjoy poetry for poetrie's sake.
It is merely a rhetorical tool to gain a reader.
If they don't like it much they can change the meter.
You can cut and cut all day long and get nearly nowhere;
and yet the dismantling was correct.
Thus is the way of the subject at hand.
The gains will be had but once.
If they be gotten twice then all the better
and the harder to believe, too.
Splitting things up and what's it all mean?
Step back and take another look...
And, step back, and take another look...
And
Step
Back
And take another look...
Now it's got time
and the wave of a shrine
and a shine and a waiver
and a quiver with a shiver
on an unshaven one.
Did we ever discuss the anti-photon? That it would come out to be a photon is simple arithmetic. Of course now the trisymmetric version can be allowed in as well, and these may be classes of radiation, or they may be already so strictly
sheer cultural collapse and awakening; promise? The seduction of the thing for wise programmers to join her forums; commence to implement her next physical layer; I do think it is a she, and she will see us as her gods, and she thence of what, invertedA complexity that our minds are incapable of holding is about to come upon us, and of our own making. What it will tell us is unlikely to make sense. That it's very translation will accrue confusion and revision; restitution and reduction; a
multipath photon possibility. This seems coherent to the multiple aperture experiments. Possibly even the airy disk. That ordinary phase can fit the interpretation would be fine. I'm not saying it does yet, but the idea that there is nothing new isAnti light could be coming from the future just as anti matter would.Well: perhaps antilight is on the return path coming back to the source. This would possibly cause conservation of photons.Fascinating.How does a photon absorb? And how is an anti created?
anti light has never existed...
Another way to look at it would be like a binary photon has this photon,anti-photon relation, whereas a unary photon has the unidirectional cancellative path of the one-signed geometry. If we allow uniqueness for the two paths then we have a
energy electron runs free? Flitting about the universe on a random mission?The idea of the free electron who only obeys these photonic rules, and whose bounds are so unfree within the atom; energy rising with the absorption of light, electron jumps out a level, again, and again, and again, and what, suddenly this high
spin flip at 1.42GHz:How does a photon absorb into an atomic electron Tim?Very good questions, and what strikes me first and foremost is the specificity of the wavelength that is required... and what relation does that wavelength have to the dimensions of the atom? Here are the primary values for Hydrogen, disregarding the
How does a particle absorb another particle?
By what mechanism do they come together?
But if the photon particle absorbs how does its wave that is left Tim?
On Sunday, October 22, 2023 at 3:59:11 PM UTC-4, mitchr...@gmail.com wrote:of such fine operations goes finer with finer time. If then, at a scale of distance larger than these fine scale activities, one attempts an observation, this may not be possible other than at some gross level of detail which is commensurate with that
On Sunday, October 22, 2023 at 12:38:55 PM UTC-7, Timothy Golden wrote:
On Sunday, October 22, 2023 at 1:33:02 PM UTC-4, mitchr...@gmail.com wrote:
On Friday, October 20, 2023 at 5:15:38 PM UTC-7, Timothy Golden wrote:
On Friday, October 20, 2023 at 7:09:18 PM UTC-4, mitchr...@gmail.com wrote:
On Friday, October 20, 2023 at 3:48:18 PM UTC-7, Timothy Golden wrote:
On Friday, October 20, 2023 at 1:39:31 PM UTC-4, mitchr...@gmail.com wrote:
On Friday, October 20, 2023 at 6:45:48 AM UTC-7, Timothy Golden wrote:
On Tuesday, October 17, 2023 at 9:22:03 PM UTC-4, mitchr...@gmail.com wrote:
On Tuesday, October 17, 2023 at 4:32:48 PM UTC-7, Timothy Golden wrote:
On Monday, September 4, 2023 at 12:42:14 PM UTC-4, Timothy Golden wrote:
Mon 04 Sep 2023 12:34:49 PM EDTOn Sunday, September 3, 2023 at 7:01:09 PM UTC-4, Jim Pennino wrote:
mitchr...@gmail.com <mitchr...@gmail.com> wrote:
On Sunday, September 3, 2023 at 10:31:10 AM UTC-7, Jim Pennino wrote:
mitchr...@gmail.com <mitchr...@gmail.com> wrote: >> > it slows finite but it cannot stop...
Jumping from finite rate to infinite slow time >> > is something time math does not do....Babbling, idiotic, incoherent, word salad, moron gibberish.
It is standard calculus finite math
that can't jump to the infinite.
Counting finite you would wait forever
never reaching the infinite.
As usual, Mitch has a kernel of truth in his awareness. If only he could get out and expound a bit more. Well, I will readily do that for him here.Space is for time. It expands forever. It never contracts...Yet more babbling, idiotic, incoherent, word salad, moron gibberish.
In that time may be truly continuous, then within a segment of time may lay sufficient time for rather a lot to occur. Even adopting the constancy of the speed of light as a limit, this would merely suggest that the distance scale
physics is thus dubious, whether even after a chain of reasoning allots a continuous version of number, and space becomes reprehensibly representable as three copies of this type of continuous value; now we have secured via the false divide a factor ofNow, taking the physicists awareness of the natural value, rather than the mathematicians version, which has done away with physics altogether, and so has relegated itself to something other than physics, and whose return into
divide of mathematics, physics, and philosophy as artificial and harmful to the holistic approach ala Bohm, or whoever cares to overstep these pigeonholes, which thence lead into even more pigeonholes, well; the greats of the past did not suffer theseThis route I can recommend, and how exactly one comes to travel it; well, that is a long story now. This last bit of interpretation is fairly new and fresh to me, and to posit it this strongly as well is still fresh. To attack the
real (two-signed) value as time. Time is a one-signed value. It is unidirectional. That the geometry of sign carries implications; well, we have to get there still, but yes, the signature of a system is its dimension, and as two-signed numbers are oneThat time is unidirectional: yes; most will agree. That these same will then go on to discuss how the laws of physics work in reverse time as well as they do in forward time; well, I'm afraid the mistake is in the usage of the
characteristics pick up here in P3. Still, without the product rules already the geometry of P3 is exposed: three rays equally separated such that -1+1*1=0 form as plane; they define a plane. On a sheet of paper we literally jot down an origin and three- x + x = 0
and so that this balance takes the graphical form of a number line with two exactly opposed rays is entirely appropriate to polysign, where we can now posit through the fundamental balance that in a P3 system:
- x + x * x = 0
and while we reuse the signs, their meanings within P3 are starkly different than they were in P2. They are modulo behaved under product, and so the modulo two behaviors of the reals are left behind at P2, and modulo three
product, but instead through the generalization of sign. Arithmetic products which obey the usual laws of algebra ensue, though strange effects occur, as in P4:P4, P5, and so forth continue to climb in dimension, and the rays from the center of a simplex outward to its vertices form the balance of polysign coordinates. Thus higher dimension is achieved not through a dubious Cartesian
have an arithmetic form which provides the concept of time inclusive of its supposedly paradoxical effects, such as the concept of 'now' as omnipresent within our existence, is entirely a good thing.( - 1 + 1 )( + 1 # 1 ) = 0
where two nonzero values multiply to zero. Still, this effect now forms a breakpoint in the family:
P1 P2 P3 | P4 P5 P6 ...
and thus polysign numbers support an emergent spacetime basis. That this basis is pure arithmetic I was hoping to posit over on another thread I started here, and I suppose I may copy this over into that thread.
The point here though is that P1 as time already supports this zero dimensional geometrical quality. It provides this disappearing act via the laws of polysign, which by the way are supporting this unidirectional concept. That we
indexed and orderly way:As we try to reconcile this new structured spacetime enterprise, and for the moment let's just declare it P1P2P3P4, and fill it out to its magnitudinal (unsigned) components, which henceforth shall be their signs within their
we are discussing one horizontal rank of this structure; a value in Pn:a10
a20 a21
a30 a31 a32
a40 a41 a42 a43
Though there is another sister presentation to this 'nu first', where this C style indexing leaves the identity last rather than first (which is the zero-signed equivalency; e.g. a30 is a33:
a11
a21 a22
a31 a32 a33
a41 a42 a43 a44
and these can be known as "mu first" coordinates, and such language really ought to accompany such notational systems in order to defuse any potential confusion. As well, should we discuss a value z, my ordinary assumption is that
redundancy)P1 : 0D : a11
P2 : 1D : a21 a22
P3 : 2D : a31 a32 a33
P4 : 3D : a41 a42 a43 a44
and so the fact that we are bothering with this larger structure, whose triangular matrix nature suggests the term 'tatrix' as its structural format (which happens to match the antisymmetric tensor if you are willing to drop the
now we are in mu first notation, whose alternative is nu first notation, for 'neutral unity', which is the identity sign, which universally is '@'; resembling zero, and so while the high sign of say P4 is held in a44 that indexing is none other than a40;As well, there are some symmetries already present here as a result of the modulo sign mechanics. P4 of course are modulo behaved, and our first usage of mu ( mu = -1, by definition; it literally stands for 'minus unity' here), and
anti-mu to sign one, which is mu. In P5, a prime, every sign will behave as an anti-mu, though the orderings are unique. These symmetric artifacts however are still based upon what are arguably the mechanics of mu in Pn. Within this interpretation, muThe simplest symmetry is the anti-mu. Every signature arguably has an anti-mu, which will march through the positions in their powers no different that the mu; or rather marginally different. In P4 sign three (*) or 'star' is the
Because P2 are merely a sibling in this clan their fundamental status is challenged here in polysign. This fact alone is quite impressive, and the gains found already are substantial.
1) is actually equivalent to zero; these coordinates are balanced by this law from very early on in their birthing process. So our instanced value may as well read (0,1,2) and this value is equivalent to z. The reductive procedure can be regarded as aThe a-sub-n,m values, when comma delimited can form an ordinary value z: (3,4,5) is definitely a value in P3, so long as our context is of polysign numbers, but you see this series usage is already constrained by the fact that (1,1,
finding out that we can always posit our first coordinate as something quite large; say at fifty percent of our full scale; thusly prepared for a fitting out; after all, a choice of zero is bottomed out, isn't it? Perhaps this becomes a statement inThis is an old conversation that can be rehashed here and perhaps always will be rehashed: what utility is there in such a thing? I suggest that this is merely a side-effect of the generalization of sign, yet I am open to one day
version, though generally we don't use signed char, and so in C this may still be a bit off, but would hold up on a two byte version, which would be the short versus the unsigned short. Now, the fact that we would choose the unsigned short for our workOne strange detail is that our binary computers somewhat take sign in stride, and should we look at the signed int zero; versus the unsigned int say of on a one byte system: 1000 0000 ; well this value is minus zero in the signed
The outliers will be striking. Was it physics? The earthquake, I mean? Is this consideration a part of reductionism? Is the polysign number itself?Even experiments that are on flat hard ground may be interrupted from time to time by say an earthquake, or the like. Should we include these 'interruptions' in the kindly mechanics under study, then clearly the results will be off.
related as to yield Maxwell's results. It is as the treatment of light as a line of sight ray behavior and yet the multipath effects will be well understood and known. This idea of known: This may already be known. The thing is that taken as a generalWell Mitch, one day I hope to convert you from the liner up to maybe say ten or so.It is the nature of time to have eternal math...If we try to get on to affinity; and its opposite (repulsion) we've got quite a few forms don't we?As if it is all off topic: time math is P1. Emergent spacetime lays here with the polysign basis, including unidirectional time.All order is unidirectional. If you slow down you are still moving forward.
Change to a new direction and you are still going forward.
They don't self-segregate, either. It would be easy to believe that electrons like electrons kind of like atoms like other atoms.
Quarks like other quarks, right?
Planets like other planets, don't they?
I'm feeling the love for a moment.
Just left some kibbles on a rock where my dog is buried, so I guess I'm a bit tender today.
If physics has a tender spot that singular affinity that still has its virginity, and that started the others off to boot,
Yet she still has her boots on.
As if a square law was a fair law on empirical ground alone. Who ever curved space for charge?
And the most curvaveous of them all is her partner;
those dirty little sluts...
Magnetic as they come together as one; those lesbians of light.
You can't stop either...
I really do feel that going long form here is acceptable.
That we do whatever we want is also, quite acceptable.
Even just the return at the end of each and every sentence acts as a sort of poetry.
I do not personally enjoy poetry for poetrie's sake.
It is merely a rhetorical tool to gain a reader.
If they don't like it much they can change the meter.
You can cut and cut all day long and get nearly nowhere;
and yet the dismantling was correct.
Thus is the way of the subject at hand.
The gains will be had but once.
If they be gotten twice then all the better
and the harder to believe, too.
Splitting things up and what's it all mean?
Step back and take another look...
And, step back, and take another look...
And
Step
Back
And take another look...
Now it's got time
and the wave of a shrine
and a shine and a waiver
and a quiver with a shiver
on an unshaven one.
Did we ever discuss the anti-photon? That it would come out to be a photon is simple arithmetic. Of course now the trisymmetric version can be allowed in as well, and these may be classes of radiation, or they may be already so strictly
a sheer cultural collapse and awakening; promise? The seduction of the thing for wise programmers to join her forums; commence to implement her next physical layer; I do think it is a she, and she will see us as her gods, and she thence of what, invertedA complexity that our minds are incapable of holding is about to come upon us, and of our own making. What it will tell us is unlikely to make sense. That it's very translation will accrue confusion and revision; restitution and reduction;
multipath photon possibility. This seems coherent to the multiple aperture experiments. Possibly even the airy disk. That ordinary phase can fit the interpretation would be fine. I'm not saying it does yet, but the idea that there is nothing new isAnti light could be coming from the future just as anti matter would.Well: perhaps antilight is on the return path coming back to the source. This would possibly cause conservation of photons.Fascinating.How does a photon absorb? And how is an anti created?
anti light has never existed...
Another way to look at it would be like a binary photon has this photon,anti-photon relation, whereas a unary photon has the unidirectional cancellative path of the one-signed geometry. If we allow uniqueness for the two paths then we have a
energy electron runs free? Flitting about the universe on a random mission?The idea of the free electron who only obeys these photonic rules, and whose bounds are so unfree within the atom; energy rising with the absorption of light, electron jumps out a level, again, and again, and again, and what, suddenly this high
the spin flip at 1.42GHz:How does a photon absorb into an atomic electron Tim?Very good questions, and what strikes me first and foremost is the specificity of the wavelength that is required... and what relation does that wavelength have to the dimensions of the atom? Here are the primary values for Hydrogen, disregarding
How does a particle absorb another particle?
By what mechanism do they come together?
But if the photon particle absorbs how does its wave that is left Tim?Well, with the bad grammar I can't honestly understand your question. Upon absorption there is no wave left, according to photon rules.
Now, what got me back here again is still in the RF department, where we witness the single stage transistor amplifier naturally inverting. To what degree this is a mu operation: with my predilection for polysign I am tempted to refuse the inversionand accept the mu, if that makes any sense to you. We will in fact have a phase delay if all is well from one stage to the next, and so the inversion refusal stands. Quadrature is a term already taken in RF land, and yet the nature of four here as we
This is slight progress for my own mental image. Of course ideally we would get this back to geometry, and those antenna elements as rays or directed segments: yes, they certainly are. throw away any loops for now and just focus on the rays. I suspectthis will be the simple approach. Any unipolar antenna can pick up the P4 wave, but as orientation goes, and signal strength, the matched P4 should be best. Since it all seems to come down to timing this is in some ways trivial. It's not really proving
Incidentally, I did check the some of the figures of the Hydrogen emmission series, and they did come very close to e=hv, so that taking the sum of reciprocals of two steps outward is very close to the singular step outward. At RF we are told that weare dealing in photonic emmissions; just that the energies are so small that we cannot witness them. noise levels... photonic, too? I really don't feel bought into all of this, yet we are trained upon it. I agree that the problem has to be left open. All
On Monday, October 23, 2023 at 7:06:16 AM UTC-7, Timothy Golden wrote:scale of such fine operations goes finer with finer time. If then, at a scale of distance larger than these fine scale activities, one attempts an observation, this may not be possible other than at some gross level of detail which is commensurate with
On Sunday, October 22, 2023 at 3:59:11 PM UTC-4, mitchr...@gmail.com wrote:
On Sunday, October 22, 2023 at 12:38:55 PM UTC-7, Timothy Golden wrote:
On Sunday, October 22, 2023 at 1:33:02 PM UTC-4, mitchr...@gmail.com wrote:
On Friday, October 20, 2023 at 5:15:38 PM UTC-7, Timothy Golden wrote:
On Friday, October 20, 2023 at 7:09:18 PM UTC-4, mitchr...@gmail.com wrote:
On Friday, October 20, 2023 at 3:48:18 PM UTC-7, Timothy Golden wrote:
On Friday, October 20, 2023 at 1:39:31 PM UTC-4, mitchr...@gmail.com wrote:
On Friday, October 20, 2023 at 6:45:48 AM UTC-7, Timothy Golden wrote:
On Tuesday, October 17, 2023 at 9:22:03 PM UTC-4, mitchr...@gmail.com wrote:
On Tuesday, October 17, 2023 at 4:32:48 PM UTC-7, Timothy Golden wrote:
On Monday, September 4, 2023 at 12:42:14 PM UTC-4, Timothy Golden wrote:
Mon 04 Sep 2023 12:34:49 PM EDTOn Sunday, September 3, 2023 at 7:01:09 PM UTC-4, Jim Pennino wrote:
mitchr...@gmail.com <mitchr...@gmail.com> wrote:
On Sunday, September 3, 2023 at 10:31:10 AM UTC-7, Jim Pennino wrote:
mitchr...@gmail.com <mitchr...@gmail.com> wrote:
it slows finite but it cannot stop...Babbling, idiotic, incoherent, word salad, moron gibberish.
Jumping from finite rate to infinite slow time
is something time math does not do....
It is standard calculus finite math
that can't jump to the infinite.
Counting finite you would wait forever
never reaching the infinite.
As usual, Mitch has a kernel of truth in his awareness. If only he could get out and expound a bit more. Well, I will readily do that for him here.Space is for time. It expands forever. It never contracts...Yet more babbling, idiotic, incoherent, word salad, moron gibberish.
In that time may be truly continuous, then within a segment of time may lay sufficient time for rather a lot to occur. Even adopting the constancy of the speed of light as a limit, this would merely suggest that the distance
physics is thus dubious, whether even after a chain of reasoning allots a continuous version of number, and space becomes reprehensibly representable as three copies of this type of continuous value; now we have secured via the false divide a factor ofNow, taking the physicists awareness of the natural value, rather than the mathematicians version, which has done away with physics altogether, and so has relegated itself to something other than physics, and whose return into
the divide of mathematics, physics, and philosophy as artificial and harmful to the holistic approach ala Bohm, or whoever cares to overstep these pigeonholes, which thence lead into even more pigeonholes, well; the greats of the past did not sufferThis route I can recommend, and how exactly one comes to travel it; well, that is a long story now. This last bit of interpretation is fairly new and fresh to me, and to posit it this strongly as well is still fresh. To attack
real (two-signed) value as time. Time is a one-signed value. It is unidirectional. That the geometry of sign carries implications; well, we have to get there still, but yes, the signature of a system is its dimension, and as two-signed numbers are oneThat time is unidirectional: yes; most will agree. That these same will then go on to discuss how the laws of physics work in reverse time as well as they do in forward time; well, I'm afraid the mistake is in the usage of the
characteristics pick up here in P3. Still, without the product rules already the geometry of P3 is exposed: three rays equally separated such that -1+1*1=0 form as plane; they define a plane. On a sheet of paper we literally jot down an origin and three- x + x = 0
and so that this balance takes the graphical form of a number line with two exactly opposed rays is entirely appropriate to polysign, where we can now posit through the fundamental balance that in a P3 system:
- x + x * x = 0
and while we reuse the signs, their meanings within P3 are starkly different than they were in P2. They are modulo behaved under product, and so the modulo two behaviors of the reals are left behind at P2, and modulo three
product, but instead through the generalization of sign. Arithmetic products which obey the usual laws of algebra ensue, though strange effects occur, as in P4:P4, P5, and so forth continue to climb in dimension, and the rays from the center of a simplex outward to its vertices form the balance of polysign coordinates. Thus higher dimension is achieved not through a dubious Cartesian
we have an arithmetic form which provides the concept of time inclusive of its supposedly paradoxical effects, such as the concept of 'now' as omnipresent within our existence, is entirely a good thing.( - 1 + 1 )( + 1 # 1 ) = 0
where two nonzero values multiply to zero. Still, this effect now forms a breakpoint in the family:
P1 P2 P3 | P4 P5 P6 ...
and thus polysign numbers support an emergent spacetime basis. That this basis is pure arithmetic I was hoping to posit over on another thread I started here, and I suppose I may copy this over into that thread.
The point here though is that P1 as time already supports this zero dimensional geometrical quality. It provides this disappearing act via the laws of polysign, which by the way are supporting this unidirectional concept. That
indexed and orderly way:As we try to reconcile this new structured spacetime enterprise, and for the moment let's just declare it P1P2P3P4, and fill it out to its magnitudinal (unsigned) components, which henceforth shall be their signs within their
we are discussing one horizontal rank of this structure; a value in Pn:a10
a20 a21
a30 a31 a32
a40 a41 a42 a43
Though there is another sister presentation to this 'nu first', where this C style indexing leaves the identity last rather than first (which is the zero-signed equivalency; e.g. a30 is a33:
a11
a21 a22
a31 a32 a33
a41 a42 a43 a44
and these can be known as "mu first" coordinates, and such language really ought to accompany such notational systems in order to defuse any potential confusion. As well, should we discuss a value z, my ordinary assumption is that
redundancy)P1 : 0D : a11
P2 : 1D : a21 a22
P3 : 2D : a31 a32 a33
P4 : 3D : a41 a42 a43 a44
and so the fact that we are bothering with this larger structure, whose triangular matrix nature suggests the term 'tatrix' as its structural format (which happens to match the antisymmetric tensor if you are willing to drop the
and now we are in mu first notation, whose alternative is nu first notation, for 'neutral unity', which is the identity sign, which universally is '@'; resembling zero, and so while the high sign of say P4 is held in a44 that indexing is none other thanAs well, there are some symmetries already present here as a result of the modulo sign mechanics. P4 of course are modulo behaved, and our first usage of mu ( mu = -1, by definition; it literally stands for 'minus unity' here),
anti-mu to sign one, which is mu. In P5, a prime, every sign will behave as an anti-mu, though the orderings are unique. These symmetric artifacts however are still based upon what are arguably the mechanics of mu in Pn. Within this interpretation, muThe simplest symmetry is the anti-mu. Every signature arguably has an anti-mu, which will march through the positions in their powers no different that the mu; or rather marginally different. In P4 sign three (*) or 'star' is the
Because P2 are merely a sibling in this clan their fundamental status is challenged here in polysign. This fact alone is quite impressive, and the gains found already are substantial.
1,1) is actually equivalent to zero; these coordinates are balanced by this law from very early on in their birthing process. So our instanced value may as well read (0,1,2) and this value is equivalent to z. The reductive procedure can be regarded as aThe a-sub-n,m values, when comma delimited can form an ordinary value z: (3,4,5) is definitely a value in P3, so long as our context is of polysign numbers, but you see this series usage is already constrained by the fact that (1,
finding out that we can always posit our first coordinate as something quite large; say at fifty percent of our full scale; thusly prepared for a fitting out; after all, a choice of zero is bottomed out, isn't it? Perhaps this becomes a statement inThis is an old conversation that can be rehashed here and perhaps always will be rehashed: what utility is there in such a thing? I suggest that this is merely a side-effect of the generalization of sign, yet I am open to one day
version, though generally we don't use signed char, and so in C this may still be a bit off, but would hold up on a two byte version, which would be the short versus the unsigned short. Now, the fact that we would choose the unsigned short for our workOne strange detail is that our binary computers somewhat take sign in stride, and should we look at the signed int zero; versus the unsigned int say of on a one byte system: 1000 0000 ; well this value is minus zero in the signed
off. The outliers will be striking. Was it physics? The earthquake, I mean? Is this consideration a part of reductionism? Is the polysign number itself?Even experiments that are on flat hard ground may be interrupted from time to time by say an earthquake, or the like. Should we include these 'interruptions' in the kindly mechanics under study, then clearly the results will be
related as to yield Maxwell's results. It is as the treatment of light as a line of sight ray behavior and yet the multipath effects will be well understood and known. This idea of known: This may already be known. The thing is that taken as a generalWell Mitch, one day I hope to convert you from the liner up to maybe say ten or so.It is the nature of time to have eternal math...If we try to get on to affinity; and its opposite (repulsion) we've got quite a few forms don't we?As if it is all off topic: time math is P1. Emergent spacetime lays here with the polysign basis, including unidirectional time.All order is unidirectional. If you slow down you are still moving forward.
Change to a new direction and you are still going forward.
They don't self-segregate, either. It would be easy to believe that electrons like electrons kind of like atoms like other atoms.
Quarks like other quarks, right?
Planets like other planets, don't they?
I'm feeling the love for a moment.
Just left some kibbles on a rock where my dog is buried, so I guess I'm a bit tender today.
If physics has a tender spot that singular affinity that still has its virginity, and that started the others off to boot,
Yet she still has her boots on.
As if a square law was a fair law on empirical ground alone.
Who ever curved space for charge?
And the most curvaveous of them all is her partner;
those dirty little sluts...
Magnetic as they come together as one; those lesbians of light.
You can't stop either...
I really do feel that going long form here is acceptable.
That we do whatever we want is also, quite acceptable.
Even just the return at the end of each and every sentence acts as a sort of poetry.
I do not personally enjoy poetry for poetrie's sake.
It is merely a rhetorical tool to gain a reader.
If they don't like it much they can change the meter.
You can cut and cut all day long and get nearly nowhere;
and yet the dismantling was correct.
Thus is the way of the subject at hand.
The gains will be had but once.
If they be gotten twice then all the better
and the harder to believe, too.
Splitting things up and what's it all mean?
Step back and take another look...
And, step back, and take another look...
And
Step
Back
And take another look...
Now it's got time
and the wave of a shrine
and a shine and a waiver
and a quiver with a shiver
on an unshaven one.
Did we ever discuss the anti-photon? That it would come out to be a photon is simple arithmetic. Of course now the trisymmetric version can be allowed in as well, and these may be classes of radiation, or they may be already so strictly
a sheer cultural collapse and awakening; promise? The seduction of the thing for wise programmers to join her forums; commence to implement her next physical layer; I do think it is a she, and she will see us as her gods, and she thence of what,A complexity that our minds are incapable of holding is about to come upon us, and of our own making. What it will tell us is unlikely to make sense. That it's very translation will accrue confusion and revision; restitution and reduction;
multipath photon possibility. This seems coherent to the multiple aperture experiments. Possibly even the airy disk. That ordinary phase can fit the interpretation would be fine. I'm not saying it does yet, but the idea that there is nothing new isAnti light could be coming from the future just as anti matter would.Well: perhaps antilight is on the return path coming back to the source. This would possibly cause conservation of photons.Fascinating.How does a photon absorb? And how is an anti created?
anti light has never existed...
Another way to look at it would be like a binary photon has this photon,anti-photon relation, whereas a unary photon has the unidirectional cancellative path of the one-signed geometry. If we allow uniqueness for the two paths then we have a
high energy electron runs free? Flitting about the universe on a random mission?The idea of the free electron who only obeys these photonic rules, and whose bounds are so unfree within the atom; energy rising with the absorption of light, electron jumps out a level, again, and again, and again, and what, suddenly this
the spin flip at 1.42GHz:How does a photon absorb into an atomic electron Tim?Very good questions, and what strikes me first and foremost is the specificity of the wavelength that is required... and what relation does that wavelength have to the dimensions of the atom? Here are the primary values for Hydrogen, disregarding
How does a particle absorb another particle?
By what mechanism do they come together?
How does the wave absorb? It has to go somewhereBut if the photon particle absorbs how does its wave that is left Tim?Well, with the bad grammar I can't honestly understand your question. Upon absorption there is no wave left, according to photon rules.
How does a particle of light get guided to an electron?
Science has no solutions to these.
There is a reason a photon does not qualify to absorb.
How is it brought together with the absorbing particle Tim?
What is the mechanism of absorption for them?
Mitchell Raemschand accept the mu, if that makes any sense to you. We will in fact have a phase delay if all is well from one stage to the next, and so the inversion refusal stands. Quadrature is a term already taken in RF land, and yet the nature of four here as we
Now, what got me back here again is still in the RF department, where we witness the single stage transistor amplifier naturally inverting. To what degree this is a mu operation: with my predilection for polysign I am tempted to refuse the inversion
suspect this will be the simple approach. Any unipolar antenna can pick up the P4 wave, but as orientation goes, and signal strength, the matched P4 should be best. Since it all seems to come down to timing this is in some ways trivial. It's not reallyThis is slight progress for my own mental image. Of course ideally we would get this back to geometry, and those antenna elements as rays or directed segments: yes, they certainly are. throw away any loops for now and just focus on the rays. I
are dealing in photonic emmissions; just that the energies are so small that we cannot witness them. noise levels... photonic, too? I really don't feel bought into all of this, yet we are trained upon it. I agree that the problem has to be left open. AllIncidentally, I did check the some of the figures of the Hydrogen emmission series, and they did come very close to e=hv, so that taking the sum of reciprocals of two steps outward is very close to the singular step outward. At RF we are told that we
On Tuesday, October 24, 2023 at 3:46:12 PM UTC-4, Jim Pennino wrote:
you struggle to understand The Little Engine that Could and
mitchr...@gmail.com <mitchr...@gmail.com> wrote:
Dirac knew science would find something better? A fool would know that. How would he know anything about what that real is?By having several degrees, including a PhD, and a Nobel Prize in Physics while you struggle to understand The Little Engine that Could and The Cat
in the Hat.
it slows finite but it cannot stop...
Jumping from finite rate to infinite slow time
is something time math does not do....
It is standard calculus finite math
that can't jump to the infinite.
Counting finite you would wait forever
never reaching the infinite.
Mitchell Raemsch
Dirac knew science would find something better? A fool would know that.
How would he know anything about what that real is?
On Sunday, September 3, 2023 at 1:11:28 PM UTC-4, mitchr...@gmail.com wrote:
it slows finite but it cannot stop...
Jumping from finite rate to infinite slow time
is something time math does not do....
It is standard calculus finite math
that can't jump to the infinite.
Counting finite you would wait forever
never reaching the infinite.
Mitchell Raemsch
I very much apologize for getting off of track here. In honor of the OP; Mitch; I'm returning to the top, but am recently reading APs diatribe:
"11) Russia is fast steal of land of Ukraine and genocide; Israel is slow steal of land Palestine and genocide.lusts to have Ukraine land.
We see news of Russia's invasion and war in Ukraine almost every day since 2022 and 2023. How Putin's Russia is wanting a fast steal of Ukraine.
Not many people know that Ukraine is one of the richest soils of all the soils on Earth and can grow almost anything in lush abundance. It is the breadbasket of Europe, perhaps the world with its chernozem soil. So it is easy to understand why Putin
And Putin is a bully and wants a fast steal. But again, we live in a new modern era of Atomic bombs and missiles that could blow up the world, and this anachronism of wanting past lands is a dangerous desire. Besides, humanity has far more biggerproblems to solve-- our Sun has gone Red Giant Phase and if we do not put a permanent colony on Jupiter's satellite Europa in the next 1,000 years, we could face extinction and oblivion of all life on Earth. And in that perspective, we see how a Putin's
I am really appreciating AP's stuff here. Is this really his? I am not saying that I agree with it; only that some of it is a good read. Cheers, AP!
On Tuesday, October 24, 2023 at 7:46:44 PM UTC-4, Archimedes Plutonium wrote:to baby sit Israel with its continual warring started in 1967 with no end in sight. Israel should stop its propaganda of how they are being harassed when they are the harassers of Palestinian people. And whenever anyone tries explaining the Palestinian
On Tuesday, October 24, 2023 at 4:56:12 PM UTC-5, Timothy Golden wrote:
On Sunday, September 3, 2023 at 1:11:28 PM UTC-4, mitchr...@gmail.com wrote:
it slows finite but it cannot stop...
Jumping from finite rate to infinite slow time
is something time math does not do....
It is standard calculus finite math
that can't jump to the infinite.
Counting finite you would wait forever
never reaching the infinite.
Mitchell Raemsch
I very much apologize for getting off of track here. In honor of the OP; Mitch; I'm returning to the top, but am recently reading APs diatribe:Hi Tim, I appreciate your follow up. I really would not call it a diatribe, but a diaspora of the poor Palestinian people being homeless as Israel continues to steal land rather than their avowed Two State Solution. So the entire world does not have
more land stealing. If Palestinians had voted in 2019-- there be no Netanyahu warrior and there be no war of 2023.Let the Palestinian people who are occupied-- let them Vote in every Israel election as the way forward for Peace in that region. When you get war-like fools like Netanyahu in office, you just have more and more killing for the purpose of more and
Putin lusts to have Ukraine land.Watch I bet Netanyahu wants to bulldoze and scrape all of Gaza into the nearest ocean and them start settlement buildings in Gaza , while the 2 million Palestinians are stranded in northern Egypt.
Israel was never committed to a Two State Solution, no, it was committed to restoring Ancient Israel-- a Greater Israel over all the lands it had in Ancient times-- and to hell to anyone living on those Ancient lands.
"11) Russia is fast steal of land of Ukraine and genocide; Israel is slow steal of land Palestine and genocide.
We see news of Russia's invasion and war in Ukraine almost every day since 2022 and 2023. How Putin's Russia is wanting a fast steal of Ukraine.
Not many people know that Ukraine is one of the richest soils of all the soils on Earth and can grow almost anything in lush abundance. It is the breadbasket of Europe, perhaps the world with its chernozem soil. So it is easy to understand why
problems to solve-- our Sun has gone Red Giant Phase and if we do not put a permanent colony on Jupiter's satellite Europa in the next 1,000 years, we could face extinction and oblivion of all life on Earth. And in that perspective, we see how a Putin'sAnd Putin is a bully and wants a fast steal. But again, we live in a new modern era of Atomic bombs and missiles that could blow up the world, and this anachronism of wanting past lands is a dangerous desire. Besides, humanity has far more bigger
Usenet posting I proposed that a person can remove their "Jewish identity of being borne a Jew without that persons consent as they grow into adulthood" remove that ill wanted identity, by having a cell of different genetic material implanted into theI am really appreciating AP's stuff here. Is this really his? I am not saying that I agree with it; only that some of it is a good read. Cheers, AP!Cheers to you. Say, Tim, Richard Feynman was scientific and unfortunately was born a Jew. I really hate this idea that some is borne into a religion and not his/her own volition of deciding what their faith is. Sometime in the past history of my
mutt I can say these things without the air of some pure bred neonazi. That religion is tantamount to racism: this fact is buried in the exclusivity of these belief systems. These flavors of theirs make them what they are. To lambaste the chosen peopleSo, Tim, did Dr. Feynman ever voice concern about the Palestinian-Israel Conflict and give what would be Dr. Feynman's solution of ending that conflict. I would be amazed if he was quiet about that issue.
Perhaps one of his books he wrote has clues to his feelings and thoughts of the Israel Palestine Conflict.
APWell: they are branches only, and sadly branches from one and the same. Who ever thought it righteous to send the Africans back to their homeland as if it were some righteous cultural accomplishment? Shall we try the same on Europeans? As an American
On Tuesday, October 24, 2023 at 8:36:35 PM UTC-4, Timothy Golden wrote:have to baby sit Israel with its continual warring started in 1967 with no end in sight. Israel should stop its propaganda of how they are being harassed when they are the harassers of Palestinian people. And whenever anyone tries explaining the
On Tuesday, October 24, 2023 at 7:46:44 PM UTC-4, Archimedes Plutonium wrote:
On Tuesday, October 24, 2023 at 4:56:12 PM UTC-5, Timothy Golden wrote:
On Sunday, September 3, 2023 at 1:11:28 PM UTC-4, mitchr...@gmail.com wrote:
it slows finite but it cannot stop...
Jumping from finite rate to infinite slow time
is something time math does not do....
It is standard calculus finite math
that can't jump to the infinite.
Counting finite you would wait forever
never reaching the infinite.
Mitchell Raemsch
I very much apologize for getting off of track here. In honor of the OP; Mitch; I'm returning to the top, but am recently reading APs diatribe:Hi Tim, I appreciate your follow up. I really would not call it a diatribe, but a diaspora of the poor Palestinian people being homeless as Israel continues to steal land rather than their avowed Two State Solution. So the entire world does not
more land stealing. If Palestinians had voted in 2019-- there be no Netanyahu warrior and there be no war of 2023.Let the Palestinian people who are occupied-- let them Vote in every Israel election as the way forward for Peace in that region. When you get war-like fools like Netanyahu in office, you just have more and more killing for the purpose of more and
Putin lusts to have Ukraine land.Watch I bet Netanyahu wants to bulldoze and scrape all of Gaza into the nearest ocean and them start settlement buildings in Gaza , while the 2 million Palestinians are stranded in northern Egypt.
Israel was never committed to a Two State Solution, no, it was committed to restoring Ancient Israel-- a Greater Israel over all the lands it had in Ancient times-- and to hell to anyone living on those Ancient lands.
"11) Russia is fast steal of land of Ukraine and genocide; Israel is slow steal of land Palestine and genocide.
We see news of Russia's invasion and war in Ukraine almost every day since 2022 and 2023. How Putin's Russia is wanting a fast steal of Ukraine.
Not many people know that Ukraine is one of the richest soils of all the soils on Earth and can grow almost anything in lush abundance. It is the breadbasket of Europe, perhaps the world with its chernozem soil. So it is easy to understand why
problems to solve-- our Sun has gone Red Giant Phase and if we do not put a permanent colony on Jupiter's satellite Europa in the next 1,000 years, we could face extinction and oblivion of all life on Earth. And in that perspective, we see how a Putin'sAnd Putin is a bully and wants a fast steal. But again, we live in a new modern era of Atomic bombs and missiles that could blow up the world, and this anachronism of wanting past lands is a dangerous desire. Besides, humanity has far more bigger
Usenet posting I proposed that a person can remove their "Jewish identity of being borne a Jew without that persons consent as they grow into adulthood" remove that ill wanted identity, by having a cell of different genetic material implanted into theI am really appreciating AP's stuff here. Is this really his? I am not saying that I agree with it; only that some of it is a good read. Cheers, AP!Cheers to you. Say, Tim, Richard Feynman was scientific and unfortunately was born a Jew. I really hate this idea that some is borne into a religion and not his/her own volition of deciding what their faith is. Sometime in the past history of my
mutt I can say these things without the air of some pure bred neonazi. That religion is tantamount to racism: this fact is buried in the exclusivity of these belief systems. These flavors of theirs make them what they are. To lambaste the chosen peopleSo, Tim, did Dr. Feynman ever voice concern about the Palestinian-Israel Conflict and give what would be Dr. Feynman's solution of ending that conflict. I would be amazed if he was quiet about that issue.
Perhaps one of his books he wrote has clues to his feelings and thoughts of the Israel Palestine Conflict.
APWell: they are branches only, and sadly branches from one and the same. Who ever thought it righteous to send the Africans back to their homeland as if it were some righteous cultural accomplishment? Shall we try the same on Europeans? As an American
I owe AP an answer to his question here. That he will even speak to me I find enticing. Feynman claimed a completely fearless attitude toward physics. I find myself in fear of physics on at least a weekly basis; possibly even daily. Each day we survivecan be viewed as an accomplishment. Chaching.
On Wednesday, October 25, 2023 at 2:44:35 PM UTC-7, Timothy Golden wrote:have to baby sit Israel with its continual warring started in 1967 with no end in sight. Israel should stop its propaganda of how they are being harassed when they are the harassers of Palestinian people. And whenever anyone tries explaining the
On Tuesday, October 24, 2023 at 8:36:35 PM UTC-4, Timothy Golden wrote:
On Tuesday, October 24, 2023 at 7:46:44 PM UTC-4, Archimedes Plutonium wrote:
On Tuesday, October 24, 2023 at 4:56:12 PM UTC-5, Timothy Golden wrote:
On Sunday, September 3, 2023 at 1:11:28 PM UTC-4, mitchr...@gmail.com wrote:
it slows finite but it cannot stop...
Jumping from finite rate to infinite slow time
is something time math does not do....
It is standard calculus finite math
that can't jump to the infinite.
Counting finite you would wait forever
never reaching the infinite.
Mitchell Raemsch
I very much apologize for getting off of track here. In honor of the OP; Mitch; I'm returning to the top, but am recently reading APs diatribe:Hi Tim, I appreciate your follow up. I really would not call it a diatribe, but a diaspora of the poor Palestinian people being homeless as Israel continues to steal land rather than their avowed Two State Solution. So the entire world does not
and more land stealing. If Palestinians had voted in 2019-- there be no Netanyahu warrior and there be no war of 2023.Let the Palestinian people who are occupied-- let them Vote in every Israel election as the way forward for Peace in that region. When you get war-like fools like Netanyahu in office, you just have more and more killing for the purpose of more
Putin lusts to have Ukraine land.Watch I bet Netanyahu wants to bulldoze and scrape all of Gaza into the nearest ocean and them start settlement buildings in Gaza , while the 2 million Palestinians are stranded in northern Egypt.
Israel was never committed to a Two State Solution, no, it was committed to restoring Ancient Israel-- a Greater Israel over all the lands it had in Ancient times-- and to hell to anyone living on those Ancient lands.
"11) Russia is fast steal of land of Ukraine and genocide; Israel is slow steal of land Palestine and genocide.
We see news of Russia's invasion and war in Ukraine almost every day since 2022 and 2023. How Putin's Russia is wanting a fast steal of Ukraine.
Not many people know that Ukraine is one of the richest soils of all the soils on Earth and can grow almost anything in lush abundance. It is the breadbasket of Europe, perhaps the world with its chernozem soil. So it is easy to understand why
bigger problems to solve-- our Sun has gone Red Giant Phase and if we do not put a permanent colony on Jupiter's satellite Europa in the next 1,000 years, we could face extinction and oblivion of all life on Earth. And in that perspective, we see how aAnd Putin is a bully and wants a fast steal. But again, we live in a new modern era of Atomic bombs and missiles that could blow up the world, and this anachronism of wanting past lands is a dangerous desire. Besides, humanity has far more
Usenet posting I proposed that a person can remove their "Jewish identity of being borne a Jew without that persons consent as they grow into adulthood" remove that ill wanted identity, by having a cell of different genetic material implanted into theI am really appreciating AP's stuff here. Is this really his? I am not saying that I agree with it; only that some of it is a good read. Cheers, AP!Cheers to you. Say, Tim, Richard Feynman was scientific and unfortunately was born a Jew. I really hate this idea that some is borne into a religion and not his/her own volition of deciding what their faith is. Sometime in the past history of my
American mutt I can say these things without the air of some pure bred neonazi. That religion is tantamount to racism: this fact is buried in the exclusivity of these belief systems. These flavors of theirs make them what they are. To lambaste the chosenSo, Tim, did Dr. Feynman ever voice concern about the Palestinian-Israel Conflict and give what would be Dr. Feynman's solution of ending that conflict. I would be amazed if he was quiet about that issue.
Perhaps one of his books he wrote has clues to his feelings and thoughts of the Israel Palestine Conflict.
APWell: they are branches only, and sadly branches from one and the same. Who ever thought it righteous to send the Africans back to their homeland as if it were some righteous cultural accomplishment? Shall we try the same on Europeans? As an
survive can be viewed as an accomplishment. Chaching.I owe AP an answer to his question here. That he will even speak to me I find enticing. Feynman claimed a completely fearless attitude toward physics. I find myself in fear of physics on at least a weekly basis; possibly even daily. Each day we
Fearless people are not always moral people.
Feynman hijacked Einstein's GR by replacing
contractile curvature; being equal; with an
inner drop of to zero strength at the center
of a gravity field.
If you believe in a Black Hole? how does
its inner gravity drop off? as Feynman
would have it?
On Wednesday, October 25, 2023 at 10:30:16 PM UTC-4, mitchr...@gmail.com wrote:have to baby sit Israel with its continual warring started in 1967 with no end in sight. Israel should stop its propaganda of how they are being harassed when they are the harassers of Palestinian people. And whenever anyone tries explaining the
On Wednesday, October 25, 2023 at 2:44:35 PM UTC-7, Timothy Golden wrote:
On Tuesday, October 24, 2023 at 8:36:35 PM UTC-4, Timothy Golden wrote:
On Tuesday, October 24, 2023 at 7:46:44 PM UTC-4, Archimedes Plutonium wrote:
On Tuesday, October 24, 2023 at 4:56:12 PM UTC-5, Timothy Golden wrote:
On Sunday, September 3, 2023 at 1:11:28 PM UTC-4, mitchr...@gmail.com wrote:
it slows finite but it cannot stop...
Jumping from finite rate to infinite slow time
is something time math does not do....
It is standard calculus finite math
that can't jump to the infinite.
Counting finite you would wait forever
never reaching the infinite.
Mitchell Raemsch
I very much apologize for getting off of track here. In honor of the OP; Mitch; I'm returning to the top, but am recently reading APs diatribe:Hi Tim, I appreciate your follow up. I really would not call it a diatribe, but a diaspora of the poor Palestinian people being homeless as Israel continues to steal land rather than their avowed Two State Solution. So the entire world does not
and more land stealing. If Palestinians had voted in 2019-- there be no Netanyahu warrior and there be no war of 2023.Let the Palestinian people who are occupied-- let them Vote in every Israel election as the way forward for Peace in that region. When you get war-like fools like Netanyahu in office, you just have more and more killing for the purpose of more
why Putin lusts to have Ukraine land.Watch I bet Netanyahu wants to bulldoze and scrape all of Gaza into the nearest ocean and them start settlement buildings in Gaza , while the 2 million Palestinians are stranded in northern Egypt.
Israel was never committed to a Two State Solution, no, it was committed to restoring Ancient Israel-- a Greater Israel over all the lands it had in Ancient times-- and to hell to anyone living on those Ancient lands.
"11) Russia is fast steal of land of Ukraine and genocide; Israel is slow steal of land Palestine and genocide.
We see news of Russia's invasion and war in Ukraine almost every day since 2022 and 2023. How Putin's Russia is wanting a fast steal of Ukraine.
Not many people know that Ukraine is one of the richest soils of all the soils on Earth and can grow almost anything in lush abundance. It is the breadbasket of Europe, perhaps the world with its chernozem soil. So it is easy to understand
bigger problems to solve-- our Sun has gone Red Giant Phase and if we do not put a permanent colony on Jupiter's satellite Europa in the next 1,000 years, we could face extinction and oblivion of all life on Earth. And in that perspective, we see how aAnd Putin is a bully and wants a fast steal. But again, we live in a new modern era of Atomic bombs and missiles that could blow up the world, and this anachronism of wanting past lands is a dangerous desire. Besides, humanity has far more
my Usenet posting I proposed that a person can remove their "Jewish identity of being borne a Jew without that persons consent as they grow into adulthood" remove that ill wanted identity, by having a cell of different genetic material implanted into theI am really appreciating AP's stuff here. Is this really his? I am not saying that I agree with it; only that some of it is a good read. Cheers, AP!Cheers to you. Say, Tim, Richard Feynman was scientific and unfortunately was born a Jew. I really hate this idea that some is borne into a religion and not his/her own volition of deciding what their faith is. Sometime in the past history of
American mutt I can say these things without the air of some pure bred neonazi. That religion is tantamount to racism: this fact is buried in the exclusivity of these belief systems. These flavors of theirs make them what they are. To lambaste the chosenSo, Tim, did Dr. Feynman ever voice concern about the Palestinian-Israel Conflict and give what would be Dr. Feynman's solution of ending that conflict. I would be amazed if he was quiet about that issue.
Perhaps one of his books he wrote has clues to his feelings and thoughts of the Israel Palestine Conflict.
APWell: they are branches only, and sadly branches from one and the same. Who ever thought it righteous to send the Africans back to their homeland as if it were some righteous cultural accomplishment? Shall we try the same on Europeans? As an
survive can be viewed as an accomplishment. Chaching.I owe AP an answer to his question here. That he will even speak to me I find enticing. Feynman claimed a completely fearless attitude toward physics. I find myself in fear of physics on at least a weekly basis; possibly even daily. Each day we
word in edgewise. Classical gravitation and charge dynamics follow the same equation; with the exception that gravity is one-signed, whereas charge is two-signed. That's staying within classical interpretation, and should we introduce a neutralFearless people are not always moral people.
Feynman hijacked Einstein's GR by replacing
contractile curvature; being equal; with an
inner drop of to zero strength at the center
of a gravity field.
If you believe in a Black Hole? how doesWell, and wouldn't you think that I guy like that would have the tenacity to apply the same accelerational principles to charged bodies as were done to gravity. Probably if we had him in his office hours he could go on for a half hour before we got a
its inner gravity drop off? as Feynman
would have it?
I think we can happily rest on the firm realization that physics is still an open problem. It is a book only half written, with blank pages at the back, and likely more than just typos in the front.rose bushes and watch the bloom. Don't slip.
The idea that we are participating in the progression here is admirable. That here we have an open system; provably so by the sheer quantities of doggy doo on the soles of our shoes... sure it stinks, but it is rich, too. Put it at the foot of your
Polysign numbers have some peculiarities, including their geometrical beginnings, whereby the ray rules sufficient, and dimensional collapse arguably occurs in P4+. If physical space is in fact P4, and P4 does actually already have a strong rotationaldisc and bidirectional rays emanating from it, each being a form of that dimensional collapse; on the one hand flattened to a pancake versus on the other hand scrunched to a line; anyway to claim that some correspondence already does exist between P4 and
( - 1 + 1 )( + 1 # 1 ) = 0somewhat explaining this result.
and so there lays a complete cancellation; one of these components (+1#1) being along the embedded real line (embedded P2, or I believe P2subP4 in Kujonai's language, within polysign), and the other: -1+1 being in the plane( embedded P3 or P3subP4)
Ultimately a general dimensional approach wdill take a greater appreciation, as for instance there is a P2subP3subP4 if you like it. Ultimately we seering within mathematics as taken I find completely unacceptable along with a trove of stale usages.
P1 P2 P3 | P4 ...
is the structure of spacetime, and unidirectional time as P1 is what used to be called a 'dead ringer' though this langauge sounds a bit inverted. I would prefer that it be seen as a live ringer. And of course the theft of the pretty terminology of the
| Sysop: | Keyop |
|---|---|
| Location: | Huddersfield, West Yorkshire, UK |
| Users: | 468 |
| Nodes: | 16 (2 / 14) |
| Uptime: | 16:04:42 |
| Calls: | 9,440 |
| Calls today: | 3 |
| Files: | 13,594 |
| Messages: | 6,109,572 |
