April 9th, 2018, 12:21 PM  #21 
Senior Member Joined: Jul 2015 From: Florida Posts: 134 Thanks: 2 Math Focus: noneuclidean geometry  I'm not following what you are getting at then. If we're not using vectors then why would you want to talk about the additive identity of the additive group of vectors? I can't imagine what you are trying to say, or why you might think that this would be useful.

April 9th, 2018, 12:23 PM  #22  
Senior Member Joined: Jul 2015 From: Florida Posts: 134 Thanks: 2 Math Focus: noneuclidean geometry  Quote:
You don't seem to understand what you just said, at all.  
April 9th, 2018, 12:26 PM  #23  
Senior Member Joined: Oct 2009 Posts: 350 Thanks: 112  Quote:
 
April 9th, 2018, 12:40 PM  #24 
Senior Member Joined: Oct 2009 Posts: 350 Thanks: 112 
Waaaait, so you just solved a basic spherical trigonometry question, right? The type of things you'd find in spherical trig textbooks. That's all you did, no? So where is the amazing breakthrough you claimed? Am I missing something???

April 9th, 2018, 12:58 PM  #25  
Senior Member Joined: Jun 2015 From: England Posts: 795 Thanks: 233  Quote:
The rest has the difficulties I outlined in my sketch, which by the way is 2 dimensional (as are all planes) not 3 dimensional as you seem to think.  
April 9th, 2018, 02:29 PM  #26  
Senior Member Joined: Jul 2015 From: Florida Posts: 134 Thanks: 2 Math Focus: noneuclidean geometry  Quote:
In the block diagram in the OP it shows that position is a derived quantity, or in other words, that it is the composition made up of two of our base quantities. Without both, we cannot express position. In this system, we cannot know position, which is in keeping with observational data. Instead, we can know something completely different, based solely on quantities derived from the two base quantities, direction and time. Conceptually, we now have a coordinate system where we can express the difference in orientation between two intersecting lines in space, without position or distance. The two intersecting lines are the cardinal and ordinal axes, and either line can be the cardinal or ordinal, it doesn’t matter at all. What we are expressing is the quantity that defines the difference between their orientations. This quantity has a magnitude. One of the features of this coordinate system (in addition to not having positions) is that we know the difference between the two directions for the cardinal and ordinal axis, but we don’t the orientation of both at the same time. In other words, if we are referencing from the cardinal axis, the ordinal axis will lie somewhere upon the surface of a cone having the proper aperture. (I understand how to create a turns ratio using vectors. If we use dimensional analysis on a formula that has this in it, how does this pan out dimensionally? Can you point me to any info on that? It would be a great help.)  
April 9th, 2018, 02:43 PM  #27  
Senior Member Joined: Jul 2015 From: Florida Posts: 134 Thanks: 2 Math Focus: noneuclidean geometry  Quote:
The reason that this particular geometric identity is important is because it should have been discovered a century ago, when science naturally needed it. Instead, as is also outlined in the introduction to the proof, they developed vector analysis, derived all the equations for spherical trigonometry, and then used that alternate method to solve this type of problem. And sure, all that there was to it was to solve the isosceles spherical triangle, once another member, at another forum, during another collaboration, noticed that the intersection and the pole contained the same angle. Then there's also the timespace model that was developed during another online collaboration with some other generous folks. Hopefully, we'll be able to continue in this spirit. So, yes, of course, you missed the whole point of the thread.  
April 9th, 2018, 02:47 PM  #28  
Senior Member Joined: Jul 2015 From: Florida Posts: 134 Thanks: 2 Math Focus: noneuclidean geometry  Quote:
And once again, my understanding has nothing at all to do with whether or not this is correct. If there is an error, then please, contribute something.  
April 11th, 2018, 05:10 PM  #29 
Senior Member Joined: Jul 2015 From: Florida Posts: 134 Thanks: 2 Math Focus: noneuclidean geometry 
We've revised the timespace block diagram following more discussion at another forum. The project still needs to find someone who can make a graph of $\displaystyle \upsilon$. The changes to the diagram are based on comments by danshawen, "Funny. I just noticed, we really have reversed the numerical order of Newton’s calculus in order to describe timespace." I'm pretty sure that this new version is correct. What we are really talking about is Newton without the clock in that lower block. I'm still trying to rearrange things into a more coherent form. Force is an instantaneous change in direction acting over some distance. Without the distance there is no acceleration. Without the instantaneous change in direction there is no mass (or inertia?) 

Tags 
analog, quantum, spacetime, timespace 
Thread Tools  
Display Modes  

Similar Threads  
Thread  Thread Starter  Forum  Replies  Last Post 
Connecting spacetime curvatures  Loren  Topology  5  June 17th, 2017 06:06 PM 
PID analog application  MMath  Physics  1  June 30th, 2016 04:02 AM 
addition in analog  MMath  Physics  6  June 15th, 2016 06:06 AM 
Tailoring elements demonstrating spacetime transformation?  AndrewEth  Physics  1  July 31st, 2015 03:14 AM 
analog signal processing (Integration)  tuple.maths  Calculus  0  September 29th, 2010 01:14 PM 