Mathematics/Philosophies ( Q & A ): 101???

[jatslo]

To whom it may concern - I am writing and publishing philosophically and mathematically about various things related to “Unification Theory”, and rather than create my own variables, I thought it might be easier to utilize existing variables, so that I am communicating properly. For instance, -(v) is velocity, -(c) is Speed of Light, etc.<br /><br />First Question:<br /><br />Is time defined as -(t) ? What is -[ t _E = ( t ₁ + t ₂ ) / 2 ] ? <br /><br />t _E = Time Elapsed ?<br />t ₁ = Subject 1 ?<br />t ₂ = Subject 2 ?<br /><br />... And of course we add the two and divide by two to find for the Time Elapsed -(t _E).<br />

 

[jatslo]

What is the significance of case sensitivity?<br /><br />-( E = mc ² )<br /><br />E = Energy<br />m = Mass<br />c = Speed of Light<br /><br />-( E = MC ² )<br /><br />E = Energy<br />M = Mass<br />C = Speed of Light <br /><br />-[ E = MC ² (2) ] = -[ -( E = mc ² ) ₁ + -( E = mc ² ) ₂ / 2 ]

 

[jatslo]

What is the significance of case sensitivity?<br /><br />For instance: <br /><br />C = Carbon<br />c = Speed of Light<br /><br />And I would imagine different types of carbon are defined as C ₁ C ₂ C ₃ C ₄, whereas velocities -(v)'s of speed of lights -(c)'s look something like c ₁ c ₂ c ₃ c ₄, right? However, I fould -(v) in frequency equations, where -(v) was something other than velocity, and case was not a factor.

 

[jatslo]

<font face="verdana">I can't find my math book(s); however, I did find the following: http://mathworld.wolfram.com/. A circle is the set of points in a plane that are equidistant from a given point -(0). The distance -(r) from the center is called the radius, and the point -(0) is called the center. Twice the radius is known as the diameter -(d), as in -(d = 2r). Yada, Yada, Yada: Anyway, as it turns out -(c) is circumference and -(c) is the speed of light, so WTF am I supposed to do? Did I mention that -(C) is the carbon element? I want to utilize proper mathematical etiquette, but this is getting ridicules.</font>

 

[jatslo]

T (x, y) = (1.4x – y, 0.8x), and the homotopy from the identity transformation to -(T), which is supposed to be animated below:

 

[igorsboss]

Given the expression <font color="yellow">t E = ( t 1 + t 2 ) / 2 </font> the variable tE gives the average time. That is, the instant of time which is centered between t1 and t2. This is not a duration or an elapsed time.<br /><br />To find a duration or an elapsed time, use tE = t2 - t1, where t2 is sampled temporally after t1.<br /><br />Caveat: t1 and t2 must be measured by the same clock, and tE is a duration on that same clock.<br /><br />Fortune cookie say: A man with one watch knows what time it is; a man with two never does.

 

[igorsboss]

What is the significance of case sensitivity?<br /><br />Case is significant!<br /><br />For physics variables, upper case denotes a "State Variable". State variables are path independent. That is, the change in the state variable's value will be the same no matter what method was used to change that state.<br /><br />Examples of state variables: Temperature, Pressure, Volume, Entropy, and others which you can find yourself.<br /><br />BTW, I don't understand your notation regarding a minus sign and brackets. They appeared to be expression delimiters, until that last statement.<br /><br />Am I doing your homework for you?

 

[jatslo]

I know, I was just trying to make a point with respect to variables, whereas -(_e) is elapsed and -(t) is time, but the sub-strings are just matrixes. I am trying to utilize the proper etiquette, rather than reinvent my own, I purposefully tweaked these formulas as bait, so thank you for responding. Um… I guess the subject with the watch traversing points a and b wouldn’t know what time it is either, since he or she was subjected to time dilation.<blockquote><font class="small">In reply to:</font><hr /><p>Given the expression t E = ( t 1 + t 2 ) / 2 , the variable tE gives the average time. That is, the instant of time which is centered between t1 and t2. This is not a duration or an elapsed time. To find a duration or an elapsed time, use tE = t2 - t1, where t2 is sampled temporally after t1. Caveat: t1 and t2 must be measured by the same clock, and tE is a duration on that same clock. Fortune cookie say: A man with one watch knows what time it is; a man with two never does.<p><hr /></p></p></blockquote>

 

[igorsboss]

<font color="yellow">proper mathematical etiquette</font><br /><br />Math is not an etiquite! Math is not an attitude!<br /><br />Math is a language. It has nouns and verbs and expressions and statements and sentances and paragraphs.<br /><br />It is possible to write gobblygook in any language, including Math. To suppose that C means Carbon in the expression d=C/pi would be absurd! If you want to talk about Carbon, go use the language of chemistry.<br /><br />Our goal is Mathematical poetry! How can you communicate your mathematical ideas most clearly, and most concicely, saying no more or no less than what is needed? Use this language to its fullest potential!<br /><br />Mathemeticians are poets. To this end, they know how important it is to define their terms. When there is no doubt as to what "C" means in a mathematical sentance, we can say that it makes sense in context.<br /><br />"C" is a lettter, a variable, a circumference, a Circle, a diamond, or a computer programming language. There is no room for puns in Math.<br />

 

[igorsboss]

<font color="yellow">T (x, y) = (1.4x – y, 0.8x), and the homotopy from the identity transformation to -(T), which is supposed to be animated below</font><br /><br />This is mathematical gobblygook.<br /><br />Sure, there's a transformation, and there are some vectors, but there's no indication as to what to do with them, or what they mean. It is a fragment. <br /><br />It is a broken shard of a beautiful clay pot which is too small to hold water.

 

[jatslo]

-(c) is anything I want it to be, because I am in control, but why would I talk about the speed of light in any other way other than -(c). For instance, I could call the speed of light -(f), and then start talking about -(f) when everyone else is referring to the speed of light as -(c). With respect to -(t _k), it could be anything I want it to be. For instance, -(t _k) = -(E = mc ²)<blockquote><font class="small">In reply to:</font><hr /><p><font color="black">Math is not an etiquite! Math is not an attitude! Math is a language. It has nouns and verbs and expressions and statements and sentances and paragraphs. It is possible to write gobblygook in any language, including Math. To suppose that C means Carbon in the expression d=C/pi would be absurd! If you want to talk about Carbon, go use the language of chemistry. Our goal is Mathematical poetry! How can you communicate your mathematical ideas most clearly, and most concicely, saying no more or no less than what is needed? Use this language to its fullest potential! Mathemeticians are poets. To this end, they know how important it is to define their terms. When there is no doubt as to what "C" means in a mathematical sentance, we can say that it makes sense in context. "C" is a lettter, a variable, a circumference, a Circle, a diamond, or a computer programming language. There is no room for puns in Math.</font><p><hr /></p></p></blockquote>

 

[igorsboss]

<font color="yellow">why would I talk about the speed of light in any other way other than -(c)</font><br /><br />Perhaps you have something new to say about the speed of light. Maybe you found some special condition where the speed of light behaves contrary to the way it is traditionally understood to behave.<br /><br />In this case, using the old symbol would actually be confusing.<br /><br /><font color="yellow">For instance, -(t k) = -(E = mc^2)</font><br /><br />What you said was this: Whereever I see tk, I can freely substitute E=mc^2.<br /><br />Hence, I would consider tk as a logical truth value. The value is TRUE where E=mc^2 is true, or FALSE where E=mc^2 is false. This might be gobblygook, or it might not, depending on what else you have to say.<br /><br />Again, these are fragments: they don't hold water yet. Please, let me see your poetry.

 

[jatslo]

<font face="verdana" size="2">I just want to show that -(c = c _v + c _i) is the true speed of light, in which -(c _v) is the visible speed of light, and -(c _i) is the invisible speed of light, like in E = m(c _v + c _i) ², and then I want to prove it with length contraction of light pulses, in which I think that I can effect the length with varying degrees of temperatures. Length is relative to velocity.</font><blockquote><font class="small">In reply to:</font><hr /><p><font color="black">Hence, I would consider tk as a logical truth value. The value is TRUE where E=mc^2 is true, or FALSE where E=mc^2 is false. This might be gobblygook, or it might not, depending on what else you have to say.</font><p><hr /></p></p></blockquote><br /><br />Oh, this is relative to Earth BTW.

 

[jatslo]

Okay, I figured out how curve light without the use of mirrors, which is a plus. I also think I might be able to get those particles to 186,000 miles per second too.<br /><br />Why would I want to do that?

 

[igorsboss]

I don't understand the semantics between true speed, visible speed, and invisible speed. How do you measure c, cv, and ci?<br /><br />If cv=c, then ci=0, which is correct, but trivial. For your theory to be interesting, please show your theory to be true for cases where ci is not zero.

 

[igorsboss]

<font color="yellow">I want to prove it with length contraction of light pulses, in which I think that I can effect the length with varying degrees of temperatures. Length is relative to velocity.</font><br /><br />Once you finish, be sure to compare your formula to the relativistic doppler shift equation. You might derive something similar. Good luck with your poetic license.

 

[jatslo]

Nope: might be similar though; the following is a better version, I think. My other one got beat up pretty bad when I posted it elsewhere.<br /><br /><font size="2" face="verdana">Velocity -(v) is a change in displacement with respect to time -(t), or a quickness of motion. Speed is a time rate of linear motion in a given direction, and this rate of occurrence or action is rapidity, in which rapidity is the quality or state of being rapid. Rapid is marked by a fast rate of motion, activity, succession, or occurrence. For instance, a part of a river where the current is fast and broken is referred to as rapid(s), as in whitewater rapids. <br /><br />[1] -( c ) is 186,000 miles per second, which is approximately the max speed that visible light can travel regardless of what color shade the wave is projecting, e.g., (blue shifted, red shifted, etc.): Speed of Light.<br /><br />[2] -( c _i ) is something new I created to help explain my logic, so that you all know that I have math to back up my words. As I stated above, -( c ) is 186,000 miles per second; however, I attached -( _i ) so that I can talk about light as if it can be invisible, whereas -( c _i ) is invisible light, as in -( c _i ) > 186,000 miles per second. Please do not confuse my logic with "Tachyon", because I think a tachyon is something different.<br /><br />[3] -( c _v ) is another new variable that I created, and -( c ) is 186,000 miles per second like I stated twice already; however, I attached -( _v ) so that I can differentiate between visible and invisible light, whereas -( c _v ) is visible light, as in -( c _v ) less than or equal to 186,000 miles per second. Please do not confuse my logic with "Anti-Light", because I think Anti-Light is something different.<br /><br />[4] -( c _L ) is yet another new variable that I created, and -( c ) is 186,000 miles per second like I stated three times already; however, I attached</font>

 

[jatslo]

<b>Motion:</b><br /><br />[1] Uniform Motion: The distance -(s) covered by a body moving with velocity -(v) during a time -(t) is given by -( s = vt ).<br /><br />[2] Accelerated Motion: If -(a) is the acceleration, -( v _o ) is the original velocity, and -( v _f ) is the final velocity, then the final velocity is given by --( v _f ) = -( v _o + at ). Please note that time is -(t) in the model as well. Anyway, the distance covered during this time is -(s) = -( v _o t + .5at ² ). <--- Did I do that right?<br /><br />[3] Circular Motion: -(a) = ( v2 / r ), but here speed if -(v) and, of course, -(r) is the radius of the circular motion. Speed and velocity are both vector quantities, but velocity has direction. I think I might change -(v) to ( speed -( v _m and velocity v _dm ), so now it looks like -(a) = (v _m 2 / r )<br /><br /><b>Laws of Motion:</b><br /><br />[1] Rest is Rest and Motion is Motion unless internal or external force is applied.<br /><br />[2] The acceleration -(a) of a mass -(m) by an unbalanced force -(F) is directly proportional to the force and inversely proportional to the mass, as in -(a) = -( F / m ). <br /><br />[3] For every action there is a reaction.<br /><br />When these laws are applied to extremely high speeds or extremely small objects they will break down (Encyclopedia). I now know why these laws are breaking down, and I can break them another way too. Therefore I am going to break force -(F) into ( Strong Force -( F _sf and Weak Force -( F _wf ), as in -(a) = -( F _sf + F _wf / m ).

 

[igorsboss]

<font color="yellow">For example, -( c L ) = -( c v + c i ), so if -(c v ) = { 186,000 miles per second }, and -( c i ) = { 0 miles per second } then the total length of -( c L ) is visible light.</font><br /><br />In this case, you've added zero to an existing expression, then called it your own new theory. This is trivial and plagaristic. As I stated before, you must prove your new theory for some nonzero value of ci.<br /><br /><font color="yellow">On the flip side, if -( c v ) = { 186,000 miles per second }, and -( c i ) = { infinite miles per second } then we have a total length of -( c L ) that is invisible, which may or may not be detectable as a consequence, because of length contraction.</font><br /><br />If ci=infinity, then cv+ci =cl=infinity also. Infinity is not a defined value for a speed. If you have an expression (such as this) which does not converge, then you need to treat it as a logical contradiction.<br /><br />Congratuations! You have just proved yourself wrong!<br /><br />You have executed a reductio ad absurdum logical proof:<br />A) Assume "p" is true.<br />B) "p" implies "q".<br />C) "q" is a contradiction (a nonsense statement)<br />D) THEREFORE: "p" must be false.<br /><br />http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reductio_ad_absurdum<br /><br />For your theory to be acceptable, you must demonstrate it to be true for some nonzero and finite value of ci.

 

[igorsboss]

<font color="yellow">Motion: <br /><br />[1] Uniform Motion: The distance -(s) covered by a body moving with velocity -(v) during a time -(t) is given by -( s = vt ). </font><br />Sloppy!<br /><br />1) Time interval, not time.<br />2) Most motion is not uniform.<br />3) The distance covered is the definite integral of the velocity over time.<br /><br /><font color="yellow"><br />[2] Accelerated Motion: If -(a) is the acceleration, -( v o ) is the original velocity, and -( v f ) is the final velocity, then the final velocity is given by --( v f ) = -( v o + at ). Please note that time is -(t) in the model as well. Anyway, the distance covered during this time is -(s) = -( v o t + .5at 2 ). <--- Did I do that right? </font><br />Nope. You're just as sloppy as before.<br /><br />1) Time interval, not time.<br />2) Most acceleration is not uniform.<br />3) You are working with averages.<br />4) Why do you insist on adding minus signs and parenthesis everywhere?<br />5) The velocity function is the definite integral of the acceleration over time.<br /><br />Question) What if the fourtheeth derivative of the motion function is nonzero somwhere over the specified time interval? How does that affect your calculations?<br /><br /><font color="yellow"><br />[3] Circular Motion: -(a) = ( v2 / r ), but here speed if -(v) and, of course, -(r) is the radius of the circular motion. Speed and velocity are both vector quantities, but velocity has direction. I think I might change -(v) to ( speed -( v m and velocity v dm ), so now it looks like -(a) = (v m 2 / r ) <br /></font><br />You are demonstrating that you can write gibberish in any language.<br /><br /><font color="yellow"><br />Laws of Motion: <br /><br />[1] Rest is Rest and Motion is Motion unless internal or external force is applied. <br /><br />[2] The acceleration -(a) of a mass -(m) by an unbalanced force -(F) is directly proportional to the force and inversely proportional to the mass, as in -(a) = -( F / m ).</font>

 

[jatslo]

Fragment = gibberish; I am working on it. I am only one person you know. I have to do some geometry, but I have not gotten to it yet, so I am well aware it is fragment. Please be patient. I would like to change Einstein E = mc ² to Einstein-Jatslo E = m( c _v + c _i ) ² for reasons that I have not revealed as of yet. Please be patient. I am well aware of plagiarism and I can sure you that all parties will receive credit where credit is do. Please be patient.<br /><br />I am placing parenthesis around the math because it is easier for me to sort through the chemistry, mathematics, and philosophies. Here is another fragment: -(EM = SF + WF) = -(G = SF + WF), whereas, gravity (G), electromagnetism (EM); Strong Force (SF); Weak Force (WF). Please be patient. This is not easy even though I am making sound easy.

 

[jatslo]

Yeah, I am trying to clean up this gibberish mess you all made. I can't believe nobody has picked u p on this yet. <br />E = mc <sup />2</sup> is fragment gibberish; Don't worry, I am going to fix it pretty gosh darn soon.

 

[igorsboss]

jatslo,<br /><br />Before you go challenge Einstein, just as a rite of passage, please answer the following question:<br /><br />Force is directly proportional to acceleration. What is the constant of proportionality?

 

[jatslo]

Sorry, Gravity is a fairy-tale like fire breathing dragons, and I am busy at the moment.

 

[igorsboss]

Take your time, but don't go too far until you answer the constant of proportionality question... BTW, Gravity is NOT the answer.