Reply #45: Definitely not one of them...

[originalpckelly]

but if they can prove that 1*1*1 doesn't equal one, then they can do it if they'd like to.

I'm glad I'm not one of them, because this is math, not science. Or maybe it's the union of both. With math, once you say it, as long as it's mathematically true, then it's true. m^3.

It's OK if I have absolute loads of scrutiny, it won't make me any less right, now I have proved it to myself, and while it may not seem like it from my posts, I am my own biggest skeptic.

It's like Peter Lynds:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Peter_Lynds

Sometimes you need an outside perspective to say, "Hey, um, yeah, look at this."

This is the solution to Zeno's Paradox. It's a mathematical truth.

It's a simple thing, really. Just a take a piece of graph paper.

In second one, you went 3 meters.
In second two, you went 5 meters.
The velocity is the area under the "curve". The acceleration is the area above the "curve", within the confines of 2*5. It's still m^2. Only don't do it with curves. You can't have smooth curves with discrete measurements.

It is the "complimentary area." Which is why it's all m^2 when you talk about acceleration.

Mass is the variance between two object's acceleration:
Object one accelerated off object two in the opposite direction.
Object one accelerated at 30 meters per second.
Object one has a mass of 15 kilograms.
Object two has a mass of 5 kilograms.
Graph it out, the difference in acceleration will be the complementary area. Multiply that by 30. Object two accelerated at 300 meters per second. If you know the seconds in which this happen, you can find out object two's velocity. I'm beginning to think c is just a conversion factor.

The problem I've discovered is that out graphing calculators always graph 2d information on a 1d number line. In that context x^2 is non-linear, but if you solve it by area, then you can have it easy. It makes sense to me now that we thought it was so difficult. It looks different on a number line. On a piece of graph paper, it is linear. We accept m^2 to be true everywhere else. The three dimensions we think of m^3 representing, are the only three practical dimensions, they have equal and opposite sides. That's the key here, big time.

If you graph out the difference in mass, you will find that object 1 has a 2:1 advantage in accelerating against object 2, simply by looking at the complementary area (which is a rectangle 2 "meters" wide and 15 "meters" high. Fill in the difference between the smaller rectangle (1*5), and bing bam boom, you have the acceleration difference) The difference can then be used to find out the difference in acceleration, because, guess what? That's all it is, and has ever been.

The deal here is, however, that when you get closer to light, you rescale the graph. :P If anyone who's a mathematician reads this and does it, they'll see what I mean. It's a mathematical truth. Hell, even if you go buy some graphing paper and do this, you'll see what I'm saying here. It's so simple that no one thought of it, except the idiot who knew just enough to put it together, and can draw straight lines, and shade in rectangles.

The problem is that if you cut out that shape (a rectangle), and put it together, you'll be missing a point in order to create cube. :P

What no one thought of is a tetrahedron. With only four points, you can have a 3 dimensional thing. A square is just two squished tetrahedrons. :P That's how it all works out. I'm thinking c is somehow tied to pi.

I did this, wondering what the 3d equivalent of a dichotomic search tree would be:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dichotomic_search

It's Zeno's Paradox in 3d, you could say.

I had been playing around with the idea that it is actually possible to lose information. I wondered why I someone can write $100 and one hundred dollars, and know what they mean both times. There's just one difference, you don't know how to spell “one hundred dollars” by looking at $100. Why is that?
0123456789
abcdefghijklmnopqrstuvwxyz and a space

See the difference? There are more letters and places in one. :P

So I converted both to ASCII binary, and I realized how long one hundred dollars is, it's way to effing long to graph on normal paper. That was one clue. That was the place information.

Well, anyway, I went and graphed it out, using ups to symbolize 1s and downs to symbolize 0s. I finished it. Then I started thinking how how I could lose information from that graph. It turns out, if the scale of the graph is enlarged to include multiple squares of the old scale, you will lose information. If the scale difference is large enough, then you will lose all information.

That's where I started. I already have 9 pages of a paper talking about that part. I even have a law based upon x*x or x*x*x and how base x is the most efficient method of storing information in an x-dimensional space. You can see how sophisticated this part is, but yet at the same time, it is simple. Anyone who deals with computers knows that when you limit the base to two, and you limit the places, you lose precision in the way you can described a number. What I did was a geometrical method of describing precision. The scale of the graph being changed is like changing precision, and it you have fewer squares to represent 1 unit on the graph, then you lose information. You you really do lose information in a black hole. That's not supposed to happen, in fact Stephen Hawking lost a bet a little while back based on that. He was right in the first place. When you smoosh things together, then you lose information.

That's gravity, and entropy is the capability of the universe to describe more information over time, because it must have more subdivisions, space is expanding. This is why as you look further away, light gets redder. My conclusions here show why Hubble's observations were true. This is also why the same reddening of light occurs around a planet. It's going “back” in time a little, when there were fewer divisions. Hence fusion in a star, hence the loss of information in a Black Hole. Fusion is really the loss of relational information. When you change the scale on the graph, you're fusing more information into one thing.

Now, my problem was thinking what a real 3d graph would look like. That's a tetrahedron, and it just so happens that if you think of quarks and electrons, then it forms a tetrahedron with distorted lines, aka scalene triangles instead of equilateral triangles. What's going on here, is that the tetrahedrons are the divisions of the universe. Just like equilateral triangles, they flow right into one another.

If you make a tetrahedron out of paper, and label the lines that form a tetrahedron by calling them mass, meters, and time that you end up having to put two “different” things on the same side.

That's why the gravitational constant is m^3 kg^-1 s^-2. M = kg = s. Joules are just meters^3.

That's what e=mc^2 really means. You're putting something in common terms, like the squares of a piece of graph paper are in common terms when compared to one another, that's why you could find the complimentary area. How many “c”s do you have? You have m “c”^2. The result on the other side is usually called Joules, but it's really just m^3.

It's an apples to apples comparison, and the distortion of time, is really just movement along the axis of time to the negative. Like you would move from the positive x-axis to the negative x-axis. The problem with the universe is that it's got three axes. Time distance and “mass”.

Think of m/s. If there is some fundamental difference between meters and seconds, why would you be able to have 1 meter for every 1 second? Acceleration is m^2/s^2. Why 1 meter ^2/ 1 meter ^2? Joules aren't defined as either of those usually, but they can be. M^3.

Light doesn't have a 3rd massive dimension, or if it is equal to something, it's equal to one, and it's practically 0. Think of dividing by zero, why does that really mean? No division, or 1/1.

This is why you have to use a balance comparing two things and another to find mass. You're really just comparing their lengths in the third dimension inertial dimension. A tetrahedron is the simplest 3d shape with points, the sphere is the indivisible one. Work from there. That's what I realized, and that's why I posted it.