Binary

Please describe your entire mathematical system from first principles. The whole thing.

Adam, are you on crack? I mean seriously. You want him to come in here and just start to talk about how 0 is 1 and 1 is 0? Because 0 is to long so its gotta be 1... It was something like that. God, now Ive got a headache.

/CounslerCoffee

I'm so happy someone is willingly to take me seriosly. :eek:

I think I'm going to start on a ruff draft for explaining its mechanics tonight!!!! :D

Oh, and while I'm doing I'll probably post peices of it here for proof reading so that I can know what parts aren't clear enough.

:)

The Inverse principle of Binary

Introductory
Although relatively simple it is perhaps the most difficult physics model to explain. In this model unlike other models it does not make use of more than three dimensions to define both space, and time, but rather implements a structure based on the smallest "whole object" the particle which in this article I may refer to as the "one dimensional unit". Also this theory does not attempt to give a explaintion of why things came to be but rather focuses on that it obviously is (the universe). It is important to note that in this article I do not plan on addressing the errors in leading physics models eliminated by this theory, but assume the reader has a general knowledge of current leading theories. When considering the dimensional concepts, I suggest that you do not attempt to compare traditional mathematical formulas and eqautions to them, due to the mismatch of rules of calculation.

Part 1: concept of one
dimensional relations
In order to understand the the perceptions of the second and third dimensions you must first understand the underling principles of the first dimension. The first dimesion consist of only itself. In order to visualize this you must first think of it as no more than a line. A line being a object or existance lacking all complexities, meaning it has no width, no height, no depth, no beginning or end, it is infinitely even, therefore void of the possibility of any variations or errors, therefore lacking the constraint of time. Okay, so how do you visualize a object with out any defination? Easy, you don't, through its existance another object is realized to which it can be compared. In this case it is an opposite, infinite finity, or zero, what you might consider one of the most base forms of interior. How does that help? Well, it's the first representation of a definition! Hmm... I still don't see it. Well, if infinite "something" realizes" an "interior" then an "interior" must also realize an "exterior" . Now we have a basic "one dimensional unit", but not quite the spherical "particle" we're familiar with in reality. So what's the point? You see, by the realization of an "exterior", the base for the existance of the concept of "space" is realized. With the whole of the "particle" now being defined, it is no longer absolute, allowing for the realization of additional like particles by the same law (what ever law dictated the realization of the first "particle"). Ok, so now that's out of the way, but where does it get it's shape? I will be explaining the metamorphis of its shape, and other two dimesional concepts in the next section.

Just something to chew till I finish the next section. Any positive critisism would be welcome.:)

*Cries*

Originally posted by Binary
The Inverse principle of Binary
It is important to note, for those folks who do not read the Free Thoughts forum, that Binary here believes that, for a triangle with legs 8 and 10 units in length, the hypotenuse is actually 13 units in length. He asserts this is so because he first divides the sum of 8 and 10 by 3, then adds 7. He denies that a triangle drawn on paper will actually show the hypotenuse to be roughly 12.8 (sqrt(164)) units in length. He asserts that his math goes "beyond" the thereom of poor Pythagoras, who "did the best he could."
It is important to note that in this article I do not plan on addressing the errors in leading physics models eliminated by this theory
He also doesn't plan on addressing the errors in his own logic.
I suggest that you do not attempt to compare traditional mathematical formulas and eqautions to them, due to the mismatch of rules of calculation.
He feels that disagreeing entirely with existing math is somehow an "extension" of math.
The first dimesion consist of only itself.
A dimension does not consist of anything -- it is a degree of freedom of some arbitrary system.
A line... lacking the constraint of time.
A line certainly doesn't provoke the notion of time, but the presence of any system that has one degree of freedom immediately implies time. For example, a bead on a wire implies the presence of time -- where is the bead now? Where will the bead be later?
infinite finity
This one doesn't really need a comment....
You see, by the realization of an "exterior"
The concept of an "exterior" of a line requires the introduction of an additional dimension, just as the "exterior" of a plane requires one to introduce the dimension of height.
With the whole of the "particle" now being defined, it is no longer absolute, allowing for the realization of additional like particles by the same law (what ever law dictated the realization of the first "particle").
I don't think this makes any sense to anyone.
Just something to chew till I finish the next section.
Get ready folks -- for his next act, he will assert that the sum of 18 and 12 is really 32, and that thinking of the sum of 18 and 12 as 32 is "going beyond" traditional math.

- Warren

1 dimension = a line, as you say.
2 dimensions = a plane.
3 dimensions = a solid.

Does a "line" have the value "0". No, it has one dimension, that being length. Having a dimension, it can be measured to have some valiue other than zero. To have the value zero length, it must be only a point.

Regarding "the spherical particle"... A particle is not really a sphere. It is more like certain components and values existing within a certain region, which we can imagine as a spherical region if we wish.

Binary,

I've actually read your last post 4 times just to try and grasp the essense of what you wrote. Honestly, I'd like to understand what you are saying, but your writing style is so incoherent. As I venture further into the paragragh each couple sentences seem to disorient me from the last, until suddenly even the simplist of words lose all meaning. So then I start back at the beginning..."The inverse principle of binary....." and I realize that I can't even get past the title without wondering what it means. So I have no choice but to overlook it for now.... and ten minutes later, after reading through the entire post, I realize that I have no choice but to overlook the whole thing.

I'll keep trying though. I want to understand what it is that you understand. I really do. I think it will be a challenge.

"ruff draft"

bow wow!!...you are a hoot!!!! :D

Mantnay you are impressive. Out of all the supposed scientific minds on this forum you so far seem to be the only one that has a logical approach to learning. Now to chroot if you are so smart why can't you tell me what my theory is? If I'm so much of an "idiot" you should be able to not only grasp my simple train of thought, but also tell me where I went wrong. Oh, I get it, you never read my whole post that's why your negitive comments are always based on the exemption of detail? Right? Or did you actually find a way to divide a particle into fractions, if so I would really love to hear it.

Adam

Thanks for your input. I will try to clarify this and any other misunderstandings in the next section, where I will show the eqaulity of a line, and a circle.

I apologize for in errors any spelling or sentence structure. I didn't write much before I came on this forum. But you can see that it has been progressively changing, it just took awhile for it to come back to me.

I don't mean to step on anyones feelings chroot, but please stop trying to step on mine. I mentioned the existance of my theory in the hopes that I might point others in the right direction. It toook me a long time to see the existance of this system, and I only asked that you consider it.

Originally posted by Binary
Mantnay you are impressive. Out of all the supposed scientific minds on this forum you so far seem to be the only one that has a logical approach to learning.
Mantnay is being sarcastic, Binary...
tell me where I went wrong.
Approximately when you declared that the hypotenuse of a right triangle is the sum of the lengths divided by 3, plus 7.

- Warren

Originally posted by matnay
.....I realize that I have no choice but to overlook the whole thing.

i must add it is a very nicely done piece of sarcasm

Originally posted by spookz
i must add it is a very nicely done piece of sarcasm
:D

- Warren

1 dimension = a line, as you say.
2 dimensions = a plane.
3 dimensions = a solid.




1 dimension = a line
2 dimensions = a plane.
3 dimensions = a solid.
4 dimensions = a moving solid
5 dimensions = a mind/being

Just musing...

Originally posted by ProCop
1 dimension = a line
2 dimensions = a plane.
3 dimensions = a solid.
4 dimensions = a moving solid
5 dimensions = a mind/being

Just musing...
I think you and Binary could team up and make the most incomprehensible, lunatic theory ever.

- Warren

Yes, yes that's it exactly!! How did you know? I wasn't even going to attempt to introduce the 5th one. But the fact that you told me about it must mean you have generally the same concept of "dimensions" as I do. Please I would really like to know what you think of the completeness of my explination. Are there anything extra details I'm missing?

Originally posted by Binary
Yes, yes that's it exactly!! How did you know? I wasn't even going to attempt to introduce the 5th one. But the fact that you told me about it must mean you have generally the same concept of "dimensions" as I do. Please I would really like to know what you think of the completeness of my explination. Are there anything extra details I'm missing?
I would love to write a monologue about how science progesses, with a discussion of prediction and falsifiability and so on... but I somehow think it would be wasted on you.

- Warren

That last post wasn't for you chroot, it for someone who obivously not only understands me, but hopefully can help with the progression and proving of the theory.

Uh... huh.

:bugeye:

Yes, yes that's it exactly!! How did you know? I wasn't even going to attempt to introduce the 5th one. But the fact that you told me about it must mean you have generally the same concept of "dimensions" as I do. Please I would really like to know what you think of the completeness of my explination. Are there anything extra details I'm missing?


I think that a complete model of the universe should include the 5th dimension (if all its elements should be accommodated).

Please, can you explain how (in which aspects) the first dimension differs from "nothing"? Can you invert the exterior en interior (of the 1st dimension) - what consequences it would have on the model?

Stick to your guns B

RE: ProCop

Uh... I'm not sure how to answer your first question. I guess the answer would be, that it is because, we are capable of perceieving it.

As for your second question. I've tried hard to think of a logical way in which it could work backward, but I don't see how this could ever become the "particle" we deal with.


Part 2:The two dimensional perception

Please note that in the first section, I refered to the first dimension as a line, not a string. A string is a finite linear cylindrical complex, of the fourth dimension. Now, lets begin. In the first section, the last event to take place, was the introduction of multiple "particles". Here I would like to examine a possible impact mulitple "particles" may have on the percieved original "particle".
The second dimension, or first dimensional perception, is a linear one. Here is were the line becomes a circle. Do to the introduction of mulitple lines the original line is forced to take on more definitive properties, because it can no longer extend infinitly in all directions (remeber? its no longer absolute). It has now lost its characterists as a point, but still retains its infinity. Now how is it a circle, if it's still undefined? In order to answer that question, we must first look at what a circle is. A circle is not a ring, because a ring is also a 4D complex, with a finite reolution (meaning it can be broken in to "particles" or fractured). A circle only exist in two dimensions, I would like to include a picture, if possible. A circle, is merely a line confined to the restrictions of a plane on which it must coexist with multiple instances of itself (no longer being absolute). But on a linear plain, wouldn't it's shape be square like on a grid? No, actually the spaces on a grid are only square due to the presumed X, and Y axis and there increments. The reason that at the begining of this section I titled it, "The two dimensional perception", is because 2D dosen't truley exist as an independent state. Due to its lack of true laws, the visualization of two dimensional space, is governed by the application of individuals. (Here, the application is the visualization of the metamorphis of a "one dimensional unit", in to a three dimensional "particle".) Now back to the plane. The still infinite line, is forced to yeild due to the occurrence of other lines in its reality. When a line encounters the existance of another line it can not continue to extend infinitly, but is instead forced to create "curvature", due to realization of a boundry. This is were 3D comes in. Due to the lack of true points in one dimensional space, there is a infinite number of possible angles at which an object can be veiwed. Therefore any "curvatures" occuring in one dimensional space would also be infinite. So it's a sphere now but what about charge and time? I will be showing you where their realization occurred, and how this allowed for the assembling of multiple "particles" in to atoms in the next section.

Interesting but highly abstract construction. It took me some time to consider and I am not sure if I got the picture. Let me simplify it a bit: second dimension creates a plane in which a line has to curve because there is not any place for an another line (to exist in the space of the two dimensions the lines cannot cross) This process leads to circling.

This is were 3D comes in. Due to the lack of true points in one dimensional space, there is a infinite number of possible angles at which an object can be veiwed. Therefore any "curvatures" occuring in one dimensional space would also be infinite. So it's a sphere now but what about charge and time? I will be showing you where their realization occurred, and how this allowed for the assembling of multiple "particles" in to atoms in the next section.

Please can you translate this into the simplified form which I need to grasp it?

ROFLMAO!!!!:o

ROFLMAO!!!!

I never did know that meant, mind explaining?:bugeye:

Originally posted by Binary
I never did know that meant, mind explaining?:bugeye:

Roll Over The Floor Laughing My Ass Off.

Binary-

I've been reading through the archives and found the thread in the Free thoughts section about the Pythagorean theorem, and although I agree that the answer is 13, I am slightly confused by your methods of arriving at that conclusion.

To help clear this up, could you please explain:


1. Which base you are working in? (I used base 10)
2. Why you directly added them?
3. Why you then divided the sum by 3?
4. a. How a 1D representation of 1/2 is 7?
4. b. For that matter what does 1/2 mean to you. I use 0.5 but then I'm working in base 10 again
4. c. Does this mean that mean that a 1D representation of 1 is 14?
5. Why you added this 1D represention to the sum of the sides that was divided by 3.

I would also like to work with simpler formulas, such as the distance formula (in 2D, not in 3D), or the area of a square. Perhaps even a 1D formula, although besides measuring the distance between two points, (which should just be a minus b) I can't think of any. (in all of these references, I do not include time as a dimension, so 2D would be length and width)

Also, the answer to your question from before... you said that the answer was a line, a circle, and a sphere. So does this mean that the relatively spherical Earth, is a line?

I am quite intregued by your theories and wish to pursue this topic further. I am eagerly awaiting your response, on these issues.

-a very

I've been reading through the archives and found the thread in the Free thoughts section about the Pythagorean theorem, and although I agree that the answer is 13,

i'm going to go out on a limb and say that my trusty ruler is the arbiter of hypotenuse lengths.

Length^2 * Base^2 = Hypotonuse^2
sqrt(8*8+10*10)=12.80624847....

So... I'm going to guess that since this theory has been used for hundreds of years, someone would have noticed if it didn't work with a sides of length 8 and 10.

Originally posted by Persol
... I'm going to guess ... someone would have noticed if it didn't work ....

Funny that... people already did notice that it doesn't work... when you quantize everything and are working on the scale that was declared at the beginning... because ya just can't have 12.8 atoms... doesn't work so well. That's like having an electron in the 2.8 p shell... it just doesn't work... Hence the 2.8 p shell doesn't exist.

Originally posted by a very
Funny that... people already did notice that it doesn't work... when you quantize everything and are working on the scale that was declared at the beginning... because ya just can't have 12.8 atoms... doesn't work so well. That's like having an electron in the 2.8 p shell... it just doesn't work.
The answer to this argument is this: there is no such thing as a right triangle of sides 8 and 10 units if lengths are discretized to whole numbers -- NOT the hypotenuse is 13 units.

Okay, so you can't build an exact right triangle out of individual atoms. What does this have to do with anything physical? It's like the statement: 12 divided by 5 is not a whole number. It has no deeper meaning.

- Warren

Been busy moving, still am infact, but I'll try to get back with a decent response soon. All for now, bye!!!:)

looks like he needs some time to cook up something good

Do to the introduction of mulitple lines the original line is forced to take on more definitive properties

*snicker*

I liked that

:bugeye:

Why is everyone trying to convince other people that one way is true, and that everything else is false. I admit even I was a little short in my last post, but everyone's replies, sort of got to me. It shouldn't matter that people have a different answer than what you "know" to be true.

Yes, I think that we should move on from these assumptions which everyone "knew to be true":

1. The Earth is the center of the Universe.
2. The world is flat.
3. The moon is made of cheese.

But, by saying that we should move on, I'm not saying that people should try to convince other people who still think that the moon is made of cheese out of their answer. We should ask them how they came to the conclusion that they hold.

What should matter, is how they got to that answer. If we're never accepting of other people's ideas, how will we ever move on?

-a very

If we're never accepting of other people's ideas, how will we ever move on?


sounds like a personal problem.

Originally posted by a very
What should matter, is how they got to that answer. If we're never accepting of other people's ideas, how will we ever move on?
The Truth doesn't seem to care about who believes in it. In the end, there is only one Truth. It is the final arbiter.

- Warren

but then again, who is to say the "crazies" dont actually live in their own "truth" reality?

I'm not on my computer right now, still some techenical problems, um... err, like need to get new router first.

A very, I see you didn't veiw my private message, so I just want know if you prefer I used your e-mail? I'm not quite satisfied with the proof of most of my formulas yet. If you could give me some higher order caculatory formulas where inacurary is an accepted consequence, I could possibly simplify their derivation (I have already done this for pi if you want it).

I think as not to invite unwarranted flaming from objectional intellectuals I'll (if possible) PM or e-mail you a more complete and up to date version of the written theory as well as a mathimatical represention of some basic numerical relations.

Oh, and the base I'm using is 1.lol:D Hmm... it might be easier to explain if it had a base, but the closes approximate to a base I could think of, is base 2. 0 being 1 and 1 being 3, and it gets easier from their, uh... as long as you don't mind being untraditional atleast. Accually the theory is contained in the understanding of the title itself, and that extending beyond the domain of numbers.

chroot,

The Truth doesn't seem to care about who believes in it. In the end, there is only one Truth. It is the final arbiter.

I thought that Truth was relative, and that it doesn't exist until you measure (or observe) it. :)

Tom

*scratches head*

either you're a bumbling idiot binary or an extraordinary genius. i dont know which. i suspect it's the later, given your incomprehensible writing style and near impeccable devotion to describing concepts in the most abstract and vague - yet technical - terms possible. these characteristics tell me youve been educated and are most likely very intelligent.

the problem is you just dont know how to teach. you have some very bad habits:

a) you casually make broad assumptions and seemingly weak connections and dont bother proving them to the reader.

b) you dont define any of these terms that you're using. i.e. "absolute" and "particle" can have many different meanings given different contexts. it would only take one more sentence to define what you mean when you reappropriate an everyday english word in a new context.

c) you love to write atrociously. i.e. stringing a group of abstract and unwieldy nouns together with only scraps of conjunctions and weak linking verbs to act as the glue between them really gets me nowhere.

the application is the visualization of the metamorphis of a "one dimensional unit", in to a three dimensional "particle"

*throws hands up in frustration*

d) you have this penchant for quotation marks which really dont mean anything. it almost seems as if you do it only to give your work an air of authority. putting quotations around "particles" doesnt make me suddenly stand up and say, "oh, well, now i understand what particular definition of the word 'particles' he's referring to."

e) your logical conclusions really dont seem all that logical.

Okay, so how do you visualize a object with out any defination? Easy, you don't, through its existance another object is realized to which it can be compared. In this case it is an opposite, infinite finity, or zero, what you might consider one of the most base forms of interior. ??? if you cant visualize an object lacking in a concrete definition, then how can you affirm the existence of something that it creates? if you cant understand the essence of object A, then how is the essence of object B, its natural conclusion, to be understood? moreover, even if you could do that, what justifies using the opposite of the object which is brought into being as a model to be compared with object A? and why is the opposite necessarily zero? and what does "most base forms of the interior" mean anyway?

you have this habit of "A leads to B and therefore, B leads to C" when, to the reader, C is either an abstract term (which you never even take a second to think of defining) or one that, in terms of conventional english outside of what seems to be a certain lingo youre using, means something that relates in no way to what the original A and B were referring to.

i realize you cant define every term or theory. but do you really expect to get serious responses when you bash the reader twenty times over the head with blase abstractions and seemingly insufficient derivations? i can deal with it once, maybe twice in a paragraph, but to be dealt savage, unrelenting blows sentence after sentence, line after line, word after word even, drags me to the ground, makes me want to close my eyes and scream then hit you over the head with a big jargon bat of my own.

i know much less of physics than do you. its not my forte. in fact, i took a class in it last year and we really only covered newtonian physics and dabbled in a few of einstein's theories: child's play compared to these abstruse and high-strung theories you're throwing out here.

but if you're on a forum, it seems to me that you're primary goal should be to educate, at the very least, to communicate your ideas effectively. why else are you here? if you really care about your ideas being sufficiently reviewed, edited, corrected, and improved upon, go talk to someone more knowledgeable than you, not a forum of physics dabblers (apologies to everyone here who does know a lot about phsyics). even if someone on here did have a phd in physics, you wouldnt know it. you would hear their suggestions and fix whatever was wrong or beam accordingly, but you wouldnt be able to tell whether or not the source was qualified. go to a university and talk to a prof, or, if you are one, why dont you publish in a journal and get peer-reviewed. otherwise, it seems only as if youre engaging in intellectual masturbation.

I don't see what's so confusing? I tried, I really did, to use precise words and puncutation structered in such a manner as to hopefully compel the reader to understanding. Through my use of seemingly obscure conceptualism, I hoped to constrain the reader to consideration; in the peradventure that they might (if they where ignorant) engage in the neccesary studies as dictated by logically deduced rationale, needed to comprehend the raw simplicity of my statements and/or assertions.

Since my early post here at sciforums, I've been bating and prodding through the use of seemingly overlooked statements, along with the oftenly meticulous writtings as a whole. This was in an attempt to draw out what I hoped would be the true rational potential of the general users. Rarely was there even a an implaction that someone had recognized the patterns, or even understood the reasonings. It would lead me to believe that they where oftenly not considered, or as stated previously, simply overlooked.