My Math Forum timespace, a quantum analog to spacetime

 Physics Physics Forum

April 9th, 2018, 02:59 AM   #11
Senior Member

Joined: Apr 2014
From: Glasgow

Posts: 2,125
Thanks: 714

Math Focus: Physics, mathematical modelling, numerical and computational solutions
This reminds me to the discussion we had a year or two ago when we were discussing spherical polar coordinates and the vectors. I never did get to the bottom of exactly how to find that angle you were trying to find.

Quote:
 And we know a half turn is not the same thing as whole turn divided by two. Why is that?
What do you mean by "a whole turn divided by two"? If you mean "an object rotated by 180 degrees instead of 360 degrees" then it is the same, because $\displaystyle 180 times 2 = 360$. maybe you mean something else?

Quote:
 We believe that we have cracked that particular code. In three dimensional space there is a magnitude that can be defined that is associated with the relative difference between orientations of two directions.
I think we have another "solution looking for a problem".

April 9th, 2018, 03:37 AM   #12
Senior Member

Joined: Jun 2015
From: England

Posts: 848
Thanks: 255

Quote:
 topsquark Not to get pedantic but what is the "magnitude" of a "direction?" Do you mean magnitude in a given direction?
You put your finger right on the point (pun intended) where the hypothesis all falls apart bigtime (pun intended).

The point is, of course, that the zero vector [0, 0, 0] has no direction or all directions at once depending how you look at it.

April 9th, 2018, 06:55 AM   #13
Senior Member

Joined: Jul 2015
From: Florida

Posts: 150
Thanks: 3

Math Focus: non-euclidean geometry
Quote:
 Originally Posted by Benit13 This reminds me to the discussion we had a year or two ago when we were discussing spherical polar coordinates and the vectors. I never did get to the bottom of exactly how to find that angle you were trying to find. What do you mean by "a whole turn divided by two"? If you mean "an object rotated by 180 degrees instead of 360 degrees" then it is the same, because $\displaystyle 180 times 2 = 360$. maybe you mean something else?
Yes, of course, the spherical trig function. Many people helped with that discussion, and you were one of the most probing in your contributions. Thanks for all of your help and I’m happy that you’ve found this conversation. As usual, you ask a good question. I guess I meant a revolution when I wrote that, but what I’m actually talking about is something slightly different. This is another one of those instances where it is necessary to understand the difference between physics and math, and specifically, the difference between quantities and ratios and, most importantly, to be extremely careful in how you think about things.

One of the distinguishing characteristics of an electrical transformer is the turns ratio. This is the ratio between the respective quantities of two instances of the same thing. I’m referring to the thing that comprises those specific quantities. The difference between a ratio and a quantity is the significant new understanding that is behind this particular theory.

Until now, direction has always been a ratio between lengths or distances (diameter and circumference or sides and hypotenuse.) We are no longer using that model of direction. We are tying direction to another completely different object, the turn. The manner in which this is done is not one of those boutique math tricks that are very prevalent these days. It is solidly based in old fashioned (Euclidean) geometry, although spherical trigonometry is useful in solving for some of the unknowns. I suspect quaternions could also be used, but I would predict that someone will show via a mathematical proof that deriving this function using vector manipulation is not possible.

The subtlety of what we are showing mathematically is difficult to comprehend. That’s why no one has understood it until now. The idea that there is a turns ratio has a very deep meaning. This is at the very foundation of physics, and it turns out (pun intended) that the answer is buried deep within the very foundations of mathematics, or more specifically, Euclidean geometry.

The math that we have presented will some day be understood by someone. When that occurs, that person will also realize that what looks like word salad now is actually the way things are. Like much of physics, the underlying math is what shines the light. In this case, the problem is that no one understands the math that supports the theory, and no one thinks that they must. The skeptics believe that they can poke fun at stuff they don’t understand without suffering any backlash. This isn’t one of those cases. And yes, I am familiar with the crank factor, very familiar, because I am generally considered to be one myself. Don't get me wrong, it's very frustrating, but I also realize the important role that the skeptics play in this scientific endeavor.

If anyone can explain how we can have a turns ratio without having a defined thing called a turn, then that explanation will go a long way toward disproving our theory.

April 9th, 2018, 06:59 AM   #14
Senior Member

Joined: Jul 2015
From: Florida

Posts: 150
Thanks: 3

Math Focus: non-euclidean geometry
Quote:
 Originally Posted by studiot You put your finger right on the point (pun intended) where the hypothesis all falls apart bigtime (pun intended). The point is, of course, that the zero vector [0, 0, 0] has no direction or all directions at once depending how you look at it.
Try and comprehend that:

A. we know what vectors are

B. we are not using vectors

 April 9th, 2018, 07:13 AM #15 Senior Member   Joined: Dec 2015 From: Earth Posts: 238 Thanks: 27 Example... Consciousnes has no size or direction Post your reply , im curious
April 9th, 2018, 07:23 AM   #16
Senior Member

Joined: Jul 2015
From: Florida

Posts: 150
Thanks: 3

Math Focus: non-euclidean geometry
Quote:
 Originally Posted by idontknow Example... Consciousnes has no size or direction Post your reply , im curious
That's why there's no such thing as a consciousness ratio. If there were a consciousness ratio, then there would also have to be size (distance) or direction.

April 9th, 2018, 09:38 AM   #17
Senior Member

Joined: Jun 2015
From: England

Posts: 848
Thanks: 255

Quote:
 Originally Posted by steveupson Try and comprehend that: A. we know what vectors are B. we are not using vectors
Thank you for your more detailed explanation introducing turning.

Firstly turning is defined as a vector perpendicular to the plane of rotation.

Setting that aside for the time being consider the attached diagram.

To define a turn you need a start point.
How do you do this?

Assuming you have some way to define OA in the diagram, note that the amount of turn can be represented solely by the distance travelled as from A to B in the diagram.

However, as the distance between A and O tend to zero the distance moved by A also tends to zero ie the amount of turn tends to zero and reaches zero as A reaches O.

Thus we are back to my 0/0 situation with the vector I originally described in my previous post.
Attached Images
 turning1.jpg (6.2 KB, 0 views)

April 9th, 2018, 11:14 AM   #18
Senior Member

Joined: Jul 2015
From: Florida

Posts: 150
Thanks: 3

Math Focus: non-euclidean geometry
Quote:
 Originally Posted by studiot Thank you for your more detailed explanation introducing turning...
Of course, your welcome. Vectors have length. Even the direction vector has length. We are not using length at all. The diagram that you present is not 3D. There’s nothing that I can add to what you already know about 2D. The function in the mathematical proof of the tridentity won’t fit into a plane. You are still barking up the wrong tree when you try to reconcile the function in that manner.

The only way (that we know of) to reconcile this new tridentity with existing geometry is through the mathematical model that is provided in the proof. There are planes in that proof, sure, but the planes only illustrate the dihedral angles between them. There are absolutely no features that exist in any plane, other than the small circle. It’s only the intersections of planes that we use, so the way you are going about this is not going to work.

I understand that this criticism isn’t helping to explain anything. I think that you may better get the idea of what we’re talking about by looking at the Banach-Tarski paradox. They break the sphere into an infinite number of directions in 3D, then they use a reference that is not part of the surface (sphere center) in order to re-position these directions in space, and then they reassemble the surface using this infinite number of directions, only in another orientation.

There is a reason why everything holds together when they do this. Each of the infinite number of directions is a certain magnitude of direction from all of the other directions. This magnitude has nothing at all to do with any length. The magnitude is based on all of the other directions. In other words, we are using the relationship that exists between directions in 3D to specify a quantity of direction.

This relationship fits the function $\displaystyle \alpha = f(\lambda)$, or:

$\displaystyle \alpha={\cot}^{-1 }(\cos\upsilon\tan{\sin}^{-1}(\frac{\sin\frac{\lambda}{ 2}}{ \sin\upsilon}))$

on edit >>> Should read: There are absolutely no features that exist in any plane, other than the small circle and the sphere center.

Last edited by steveupson; April 9th, 2018 at 11:17 AM.

April 9th, 2018, 11:59 AM   #19
Senior Member

Joined: Jun 2015
From: England

Posts: 848
Thanks: 255

Quote:
 Originally Posted by steveupson Of course, your welcome. Vectors have length. Even the direction vector has length. We are not using length at all. The diagram that you present is not 3D. There’s nothing that I can add to what you already know about 2D. The function in the mathematical proof of the tridentity won’t fit into a plane. You are still barking up the wrong tree when you try to reconcile the function in that manner. The only way (that we know of) to reconcile this new tridentity with existing geometry is through the mathematical model that is provided in the proof. There are planes in that proof, sure, but the planes only illustrate the dihedral angles between them. There are absolutely no features that exist in any plane, other than the small circle. It’s only the intersections of planes that we use, so the way you are going about this is not going to work. I understand that this criticism isn’t helping to explain anything. I think that you may better get the idea of what we’re talking about by looking at the Banach-Tarski paradox. They break the sphere into an infinite number of directions in 3D, then they use a reference that is not part of the surface (sphere center) in order to re-position these directions in space, and then they reassemble the surface using this infinite number of directions, only in another orientation. There is a reason why everything holds together when they do this. Each of the infinite number of directions is a certain magnitude of direction from all of the other directions. This magnitude has nothing at all to do with any length. The magnitude is based on all of the other directions. In other words, we are using the relationship that exists between directions in 3D to specify a quantity of direction. This relationship fits the function $\displaystyle \alpha = f(\lambda)$, or: $\displaystyle \alpha={\cot}^{-1 }(\cos\upsilon\tan{\sin}^{-1}(\frac{\sin\frac{\lambda}{ 2}}{ \sin\upsilon}))$ on edit >>> Should read: There are absolutely no features that exist in any plane, other than the small circle and the sphere center.
None of this has anything to do with what I said.

One small correction.

Most vectors have a length, the zero vector has zero length, but I thought you were not using vectors?

April 9th, 2018, 12:07 PM   #20
Senior Member

Joined: Aug 2012

Posts: 1,973
Thanks: 551

Quote:
 Originally Posted by steveupson I think that you may better get the idea of what we’re talking about by looking at the Banach-Tarski paradox. They break the sphere into an infinite number of directions in 3D, then they use a reference that is not part of the surface (sphere center) in order to re-position these directions in space, and then they reassemble the surface using this infinite number of directions, only in another orientation.
See, now if I called you an idiot, that would be a personal attack and an ad hominem argument. So I won't do that.

But what you wrote is idiotic. You clearly haven't the slightest notion of why the Banach-Tarski theorem works. All you've done is embarrass yourself.

Last edited by Maschke; April 9th, 2018 at 12:19 PM.

 Tags analog, quantum, spacetime, timespace

 Thread Tools Display Modes Linear Mode

 Similar Threads Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post Loren Topology 5 June 17th, 2017 06:06 PM MMath Physics 1 June 30th, 2016 04:02 AM MMath Physics 6 June 15th, 2016 06:06 AM AndrewEth Physics 1 July 31st, 2015 03:14 AM tuple.maths Calculus 0 September 29th, 2010 01:14 PM

 Contact - Home - Forums - Cryptocurrency Forum - Top