People: come see what I figured out, and I'll cite some real math people. Headsplodation offered.

[originalpckelly]

Have you ever heard of Viviani's theorem?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Viviani%27s_theorem



If the angle at the intersection of lines m and n is 0, isn't that an equilateral triangle? What's the simplest 3d shape?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tetrahedron

Isn't that made of equilateral triangles?

Now, look at Pascal's triangle:


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pascal%27s_triangle

You can divide a hexagon up into six equilateral triangles.

Look at this shape:


And this one:


Oh and this one, it's a cloud on Saturn in the shape of a hexagon:


What if the universe is only 3d and not 4d like nutty hypercube dude thinks it is?

Go graph x^1, x^2, x^3, x^4, x^5.
After you get to x^4, then it all starts repeating the same general shape, only tighter.

In two dimensions, how many ways of rotation can you have? Only two. Clockwise and counter-clockwise. Hmmm...matter and anti-matter? Two different "spins" and now that makes sense. Just put a - sign in front of the x^some power. Then the graph is symmetrical.
Here is a graphing calculator for you to do it on, just to see for yourself:
http://www.coolmath.com/graphit/

Look at the quark configuration of a proton:


What is that? An equilateral triangle.

I've learned it's actually never really an equilateral triangle, the up quarks usually line up on either side of the down quark. Make a hexagon, divide it into six equilateral triangles. A proton has two up quarks to one down quark. Put one of the sides of the hexagon facing you, what do the triangles look like? In the top half, there are are two triangles that point away, and one that points toward you. Two up per one down, were you to put it right out in front of you. But the bottom has two downs and one up. From one perspective. Just flip the paper around, and you're going to see that it's still two up for one down.

Electron = 4th reference point needed to make something 3d, to make it a tetrahedron. :P You can describe the relationship between the electron and the protons (quarks) in terms of three things, things we don't usually take as a measure of distance: inertial mass, distance, and time. 3 dimensions.

Gravity is only negative-time, time-time is positive time. Gravity is literally going back in time a little (which is really why there's time dilation), and we the human race live right at about the sweet spot of it all. There is distance, and anti-distance. Kilograms and anti-kilograms.
1 meter = 1 kilogram = 1 second

If the three dimensions of space + time are the same thing, then there's simply no point in saying they are different.

Look at the units in G, the gravitational constant:


If meters and kilograms and seconds are all DIFFERENT things, then by all means, you must NOT simplify that.

However, if they are the same and you follow the rules of exponentiation for negative exponents:


G m^3-3 = G m^3/G m^3, and if I remember correctly, you can simplify it further:
G m^3.

Kilograms = meters = seconds.

There are not four dimensions, just three, with counter clockwise opposite to make everything equal and opposite, and everything conserved.

Have any of you ever heard of the strong anthropic principle? Well, this is kind of like that, only now we know that we can only do math that is real. Math is the source code for the universe. Pretty fucking awesome, now isn't it?

Einstein was right, but only partly so. He was still used to thinking that time and space are two separate things, and he made the jump to thinking they are all the same thing after his various thought experiments. I have lived in world where for about 60-80 years it has been common understanding that time and space are a part of the same thing, in 4d. Now, it's time to think they are the same thing in 3d. This is why we have Lagrange points.

Think of the hexagon again, and the measure of the degrees of the angles. 60 degrees. There are three Lagrange points ahead/behind the second massive body. And one in between a one massive body and the other. And weirdly, very strangely, one on the OTHER SIDE of the second massive body. Oh no, that couldn't be related, but of course it is. Think of it, equal and opposite for everything. That must mean there is something massive in the anti-universe counter acting the mass of the second large body. Now you know what it is.



OH, and by the way, for all you assholier than thou pricks who called me fucking crazy, you can suck it motherfuckers. FUCK YOU! And don't you EVER DARE treat anyone in this world like that again. EVER! Do you get me? How are we supposed to have a better world when you treat people like that? Would you want to be treated like that? No, even if you were nuts, it would be traumatic. Well, since this all works out mathematically, and you can go see it yourself if you don't think I'm sane, I'm not nuts. This what should happen with all the things we know to be true. If we are a part of the universe, should we be able to figure out anything that isn't true? Aside from irrational types...hmmm...who could THAT be? Oh, I won't say it.

I have discovered the theory of everything, or really since this is all math, the theorem of everything.

And yes, since I hang out at DU, it does mean we're better than the freepers. There, I said it. :P Progress always wins out in the long run. This IS progress, big fucking progress.

Just think of fusion in a star, how the does that happen if everything is supposed to be decaying because of entropy? 2 things into one is NOT supposed to be happening. Now we know, the star is further back in time, when the universe was more compressed, so those kinds of things can and do happen, and are a natural consequence of it all. We know that experimental evidence shows decay of short lived particles is slower near c. Now we know why, they're further back in time, and more compressed.

Just think of a black hole, if a star is further in the past, then what's a black hole? The universe is thought to have started out as a singularity. Now we know it did, that's what a black hole is, it is the beginning of the universe, at least for that area. :wow: Pretty amazing, isn't it?

Now we know why light is red shifted when it goes next to a star, it does that because it's going back in time, to a point where things were more compressed, and when it comes out on the other side, it scales down to redder light for less compressed space.

Now we know why holograms work, just like you can force 3d info down into 2d information on a piece of graph paper, you can do the same thing about 3d information everywhere else. We also know why you can't have motion on a hologram, because you're already representing 3d information in a 2d space. 3d IS the motion. You've reached the information storage capacity for the 2d light, which is always less than a 3d object. We also know why holograms don't have mass, they have the indivisible thing in mass. Time, distance, and inertia are like the sides of the equilateral triangle in Viviani's theorem. When you have the fundamental unit of everything is size, which light does have for the inertia dimension, it might as well be zero. Can you divide one by itself anymore than once? No, and that's the new definition of undefined.

Can you believe this guy who died before America was founded is the one who figured this out, he and Pascal? Isn't it awful they couldn't see how everything is based off of it? But at least we do, and we get to marvel in the simplicity of the basic stuff, and the wondrous complexity it creates. Science is the universe finding itself, it's been blazing up a reefer and gazing at its navel long enough, now it knows what it is. :P

Pretty amazing isn't it? It almost makes me want to cry, because it is all so fucking beautiful.

You may be wondering how I figured all this out. Just look at water, when you drop a droplet of water into water, why is the wave symmetrical, if you account for differences in angles of velocity? Why wouldn't it be the same way for universe, if it has to follow it's own laws? That's where all the real understanding about this started.

For every action there is an equal and opposite reaction.
Now you may add: for everything, there is an equal and opposite thing.

No one seems to have realized that a cube is simply something with equal sides that can be described as x*x*x. That's doesn't have to mean a cube with all right angles. No, it just means a cube, like a tetrahedron is. I'm lazy, but I'm pretty sure that since you can make a hexagon out of equilateral triangles, you can make a hexahedron out of tetrahedrons, I'll try that out just to be safe, but later I'm a tad worn out. :P

I'm going to have to write a paper on this one, won't I? :P Pretty fucking awesome, to see how simple it is.

[evlbstrd]

1. My head hurts.

[leftchick]

6. mine went 'zzzzittt ffffzzzittt'

after the second paragraph. No comprende. Now if the subject were Literature? I could hang.

[evlbstrd]

53. I majored in art.

Pretty colors.

[leftchick]

55. yes!

Give me art, history or literature. I stopped helping my boys with math in fourth grade. :crazy:

[originalpckelly]

7. The headsplodation thing is really just a joke.

It's totally natural to you, because you and I evolved in this universe, and we must obey these laws of physics. You can't go back/back in time though, or else all the information that is you would be destroyed (I'm pretty sure about that, I did this thing with mapping out binary ASCII on graph paper, and I changed the scale, and when I did to any non 1:1 thing, I lost all my information. However, the key here is that you can further sub-divide the scale of the squares on the paper without losing any information. I think it might be true that if you somehow beamed a hologram near a massive thing, and you encoded information in it, you would lose that information. Not 100% sure yet.)

This is like the theory of tri-relativity. Eintein's was always about two things. That was the problem. The solution here is in a scale in metric v. a scale in weight (lbs.)

In a metric scale, you're comparing the masses of three different things, and they balance out. They balance, because of this. :wow:

When you weigh yourself on a normal lbs scale, you're comparing the acceleration of you and earth, not you earth and a third thing.

Weight is force, it's m*a
Mass is just m.

Well, if you now know that meters are the same as kilograms, and they are both the same as second, then you get m^3.

[evlbstrd]

52. Uncle! I give!

[Jeanette in FL]

121. WTF

You have no idea how hard I am laughing right this minute.

I don't know why I hit this thread and read the whole thing, the whole time saying "WTF" and then the very first response is you.

You are one of the most funniest people I know, saying the least amount of words.

How ya doing over there?

:hi: :hug:

[B o d i]

106. Contact a mental health care professional asap. Right fucking now. You need help.

Call your nearest mental health center. If it's not listed that way in the phone book, look for it under "Hospitals," "Mental Health Clinics," or "Physicians" in the Yellow Pages.



Your posts recently remind me of an episode of Intervention I saw on A&E, where this girl was a chronic alcoholic and bigtime meth freak. She was "writing a book" and it was gonna be the "best book ever", and the excerpts they showed were an awful lot like your writings of late. The mania, the certainty, the "everyone else is so stupid for not seeing before just how simple it is" attitude, the incoherence and self-contradiction.

Later on in that episode she gets in a fight with her sister in her driveway, later spilling into the street, wearing only her birthday suit. Maybe some of you have seen it too?

[Quantess]

123. Wow, that was mean.

I saw that episode. Comparing her to anyone is mean.

[proud2BlibKansan]

70. So does mine

And I was a Math major.

[roguevalley]

99. I think I'm in love. Math geek, sexy... science geek sexier. Don't

have a clue but this has verve*. (*consult uncertainty principle)

[originalpckelly]

2. Long exposure photography proves that you can describe motion as an area:

We've all probably seen that before, but what does it mean? The reason the things are non-liner is that you're representing 3d information in a 2d medium. It has to be non-linear.

That's what goes on in a graphing calculator when you graphed even something x^2. It's because you're representing 2d information on a 1d number line. x^2 on a piece of graph paper would just be a straight line up and down into the (negative, negative) quadrant. Remember multiplication is just an easier way of doing addition:
5*5 = 5+5+5+5+5

It's like no one thought, hey, that's why a graph of x^2 is non-linear.

That's why x^3 is even tighter. Still representing 3d information on a 1d thing. It works on a graph, but what's weird, is that if you think about it, you're folding 3d into 2d into 1d information. x*x = the graph usually, x*x*x equals the graph's non-linearity AND the 3d things non-linearity.

[jpak]

3. This explains the *insane* geometry of the dreaded Necronomicon of the Mad Arab, Abdul al-Hazrd

and the Colour Out of Space!

Tekeli-li! Tekeli-li!

:evilgrin:

[HereSince1628]

4. What, I ask, does this have to do with base stealing statistics for the 1947 Cubs?

I'm just asking...it must be in there somewhere.

[originalpckelly]

13. Not much, and Cosmic Background Radiation thingy shows it:

[HereSince1628]

21. Sure looks like a baseball field to me.

Worn out path to first, as well as between the catcher and the pitcher's mound, worn out lead-off patch on the way to third from second as well as one leading from third to home.

It's all right there in front of you.


BTW, It's just four more days to the regular season, I'm not sure I'm gonna get there with my sanity.

[originalpckelly]

24. What it means is that you can have random things, but they are conserved...

because there is an equal and opposite thing doing an equal and opposite thing. The CMB shows that itself. If that wasn't true, then you'd have to have a uniform distribution of that, but if some of the universe is in the past, and some in the future, it all reconciles quite easily, although it's a totally fucked up idea, it also makes sense from the point of the math.

[one_true_leroy]

5. first...

if the angle between m and n is zero the triangle is degenerate, a straight line.

[originalpckelly]

9. 1 = 0 for universe.

Think undefined. You will get it, and your head will go, booooom! :nuke:

[one_true_leroy]

34. my head exploded,

but not for the reason intended.

1=0 is again gibberish. though there are interesting mathematical models for which this is true, the universe, in order for you to perform mathematical models over the complex field, REQUIRES that 1 /neq 0. Else you wouldn'e be able to solve anything with our number system.

[EOTE]

37. I wish I could have told my Database Management Prof that 1=0.

Any time my work got sent back for divide by 0 error messages, I could have just said "What's wrong with dividing by zero?" After all, if 0=1 then dividing by 0 is perfectly kosher.

[originalpckelly]

46. And light is probably 1, so it is zero.

That's why in this equation, when something with mass approaches light speed, it becomes undefined:


That's why there's a Lorentz factor.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lorentz_factor

If you think about gravity AND time as parts of the same thing, then it really begins to make complete and total sense. Anyone can get it then.

[one_true_leroy]

50. non-sequitor

"And light is probably 1, so it is zero."

this doesn't make sense. in what way is light 1? or 0? or 32? or -e^pi?

lorentz's factor, and its concomitant effect on time, length, and incidence doesn't hold that massive particle "becomes undefined" but that it CANNOT approach c without an infinite amount of force/energy. It is the mathematical result of accepting the paradox that c is invariant across frames of reference, and then scaling to comply with this fact.

[Zodiak]

57. Good observation

Perpendicular lines from the bisected sides of an equilateral triangle meet to each make a 120 degree angle.

[lumberjack_jeff]

61. That's where I stopped reading.

But I did scan down to the place where we "motherfuckers" can just suck it.

Who needs science when we have DU?

[one_true_leroy]

8. second...

graphing x^1, x^2, x^3, ... , x^n does NOT involve higher dimensions. it is only one dimension, that of x. that it is raised to higher powers only increases the degree of the polynomial and the number of solution over the complex plane.

[originalpckelly]

10. Not if you are talking about real life.

That's how this applies. It's the application of the math to the real world, and the math exists because of the real world. It's like I said, the source code for the universe.

[librechik]

16. I always thought it was a mandate of the Double Helix

winding clockwise and counterclockwise through microspace (in the case of life)

Fascinating read, pc!

[one_true_leroy]

42. no, no, and, again, no!

start with one dimension: x.

now, any thing that is a linear combination of x, ie, anything that is cleanly divisible by x, is in the dimension of x. this is a MATHEMATICAL DEFINITION.

x^n, then is all in the single dimension of x, for any n.

[EOTE]

19. Shhhh, he's on a roll.

Over? Did you say "over"? Nothing is over until we decide it is! Was it over when the Germans bombed Pearl Harbor? Hell no!

[one_true_leroy]

35. tee hee!

[one_true_leroy]

11. third...

putting a negative sign in front of x^n makes it "upside-down," not symmetrical. -x^2, for example, is a parabola, cup down.

[originalpckelly]

14. Upside down is symmetrical silly!

Hence the part about rotation only being two things in 2d.

[one_true_leroy]

36. ok...

i thought you were saying that -x^n is symmetrical, which is not true for odd orders.

the set {f(x),-f(x)} is symmetrical, but this is trivial.

[Avalux]

12. Yeah, you'll need to write this up and get it published for peer review.

Then we'll see if your theory holds water. You can write post after post about it here and it doesn't really matter whether or not us lay people agree with you.

Get it out there.

[originalpckelly]

15. I agree.

I completely agree. But I think if you guys can get it, then the scientists will, they'll see this stuff, their mouths will fall open and their heads will fucking explode.

Raise you hand, then let it fall, you just went from a little of the future to a little of the past.

[Avalux]

28. I'd like to know -

what is your formal education/background? Be prepared for a great deal of scrutiny and scoffing from the experts, which is exactly what's needed.

[originalpckelly]

45. Definitely not one of them...

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.

[one_true_leroy]

95. [takes a deep breath]

by mathematical definition, 1 is the multiplicative identity element of the field of real (or complex numbers). therefore, _by definition_, it must be true that 1*1*1=1.

velocity is NOT the area under a graph. it is the slope of the tangent line at a point, ie, it's derivative AT THAT POINT. acceleration is the second derivative.

"complementary area" is nonsense. the acceleration units of m/s^2 for the reason that it is the change in velocity over time and velocity is the change in position over time, hence meters per second per second, m/s^2. you then continue to conflate acceleration and velocity and your argument descends into incoherence.

Zeno's "paradox" was resolved unequivocally by Riemann, among others. Zeno, and the Greeks in general, had a nervousness involving infinity. The "paradox" is resolved by limiting processes and reveals more about the psychological and philosophical discomfort of the Greeks than it is an mystery of the universe.

The ASCI bit is jibberish, full stop. You graphed an ASCI binary?! Post it.

"Joules are just meters^3." As I said up thread, even if M=kg=s, as you purport, then Joules would be dimensionless, since you did the math wrong. But even proper math couldn't save this argument.

At first, I thought you were sincere, but naive, but now I am simply stunned. I'm finished with this critique. I wish you well and hope that you harbor no ill will.

<turns around and climbs on soapbox, facing the masses>

8 recommendations?!! For a post that is fragmentary facts sewn together ad hoc with faulty reasoning, terrible math, and unsubstantiated assertions?! Are we, collectively, unable to read critically? Unable to distinguish exposition from assertion?

The OPer asserts that this is both science and math. Let's start with math. Math one of the oldest threads of human thought. Sumerians, Baylonian, Egyptians, Indians, Chinese, and many others besides, developed math 4000 years ago. 2500 years ago, the field was codified by Euclid, and it is his model which we use. The model is this: begin with precisely formulated definitions. These are your object. Assert the axioms, which are properties about objects accepted to be true without proof. Keep these to a minimum. For example, there were only five axioms in Euclid's elements, and even Hilbert's reformulation of geometry in his brilliant _Grundlagen_ only had 18 axioms and still encompassed non-Euclidean geometries. Finally, using ONLY these axioms, use deductive reasoning (since A is true, then, because of REASON x, B is true) to arrive at true statements. This is math. To contradict an axiom, to not supply the deduction of a statement, to use only the vaguest and varying definitions... this is not math, but it is on display above.

Let's turn to science. Beginning with Archimedes and reaching its elucidation in the late 16th century with Galileo, et al, since is the testing of hypotheses. It is stating clearly a conjecture, testing that conjecture with controlled, objective experimentation or collecting objective data, and then interpreting those results to either support or deny the hypothesis. While math is built upon truths, science is a little slippery in that hypotheses can only be proven wrong in science. That's why gravity (evolution, quantum mechanics....) are theories.

Now I can see several of you grousing in the crowd "But leroy, isn't this OP a theory? Is it not science?" Yes, there are science facts scattered about, with names like Hawking, Einstein, Zeno thrown about as casually as a nerf ball in the ocean. But the thread, the reasoning, the deductive reasoning from axioms, the inductive reasoning from experimental data is absent. This is no more a science exposition than John's bizarre and lonely ramblings from Patmos as he wrestled a theory of cosmology from his religious experiences sewn together in a narrative dictated by his madness. Call the OP a brilliant prophet, crown him with crystals, bath him in the finest Patchouli.

But none dare can call this science.

[NeedleCast]

100. Keep in Mind That Sometimes People Recommend Things

Because they are absurd, not because they agree with them.

[Occam Bandage]

102. And often because they're impressed by things that look intelligent,

and they lack the ability or training to determine whether something is incomprehensible because it is above their level, or whether it is incomprehensible because it is actually just totally disordered.

[NeedleCast]

104. It's a good way to start a cult though

hmmmmmmmm....maybe I should start my own.


Bacon = Bacon

=

[SidDithers]

109. Good posts in this thread...

I admire your patience :)

Sid

[Marie26]

17. Are you high?

Just wondering...

[originalpckelly]

20. Well, I wish I was. Like I said...

the universe was the one blazing it up looking at its navel, wondering what the fuck it was. If we are the universe, then when we try to figure it out, we are the universe finding itself.

[Marie26]

26. Whoa.

LOL, I was just kidding. That's sometimes when these grand epiphanies about the universe will come. It's very cool that you're able to understand things on this level (unlike me!). If you've got the math to prove it, write the theory up for a scientific journal. That's how Einstein got his start, after all. :)

[Occam Bandage]

96. I cannot be clear enough about this: He does not understand what he is saying. He is unwell.

He is chaining together unrelated flashes of thought and concepts. He's mixing definitions and abusing terminology. There's neither direction nor internal logic to his writing; this is purely dissociated rambling wrapped around high-school-level concepts. The only thing that unifies any of it is his megalomaniacal belief that it is all very important.

He needs treatment, not kudos.

[Marie26]

107. I cannot be clear enough

It's dangerous & yes, hubris, to be diagnosing people over the Internet. Based on this OP, I can't tell if the poster is high (my earlier post), or mentally unwell, or joking, or actually has some real physics theory I can't begin to understand. But keep in mind - if there is some problem, perhaps berating the OP might not be the *best* way to handle it, especially given the OP's concerns from his first post? You know? IMO unless someone is a mental health professional, they shouldn't become involved in diagnosing someone or telling them what to do, w/o having the required experience or knowledge to know if that is the right way to handle a situation. Of course, if it's more about making fun or feeling superior to a "nutty" poster, go for it, but try to be conscious of potential effects on the person. That's all.

[Occam Bandage]

110. A tiny bit of background:

I have a degree in linguistics/speech-hearing-language sciences. I've done two years of directed study in physics too; that was my first interest in college. I did my grad work on clinical interaction with patients with language defects brought on by neurological defects. I'm not a professional, no, but I have enough background in physics to know when someone is confusing things I learned in high school, and I have enough background with people with disordered speech to know the signs that something is not right in someone's thought processes (and to be clear, this is not just a one-time thing with him; he has been becoming progressively more disordered over the past week). I am not qualified to offer treatments or diagnoses, but I am certainly qualified to say that something isn't right and that someone really ought to see a doctor.

I am not berating him. I am saying that he needs to recognize that his behavior is strongly indicative of mental-health issues and he needs to see a doctor--an actual mental-health professional--who can then diagnose him and offer treatment options. I am acting no differently than I would if a poster were posting pictures of a "cool-looking mole that's been growing" that was strongly reminiscent of melanoma. Part of my natural response to people saying "dude awesome mole" would be to correct that.

[Marie26]

111. OK

So you know physics. Do you know psychology/psychiatry? Are you a trained psychiatrist? No. As such, IMO it is very dangerous to be offering a psychiatric diagnosis of a total stranger (as you've done throughout this thread). Just IMO.

[Occam Bandage]

113. To be specific,

I do not know psychiatry beyond what I've learned as the son of a doctor of psych, the fiancé of a doctor, and someone who's engaged in prolonged study of the mental processes driving language. That is why I am not offering a specific DSM-IV diagnosis with treatment recommendations; while I could sit down with the DSM and give my best guess, that would be irresponsible. That is why I am saying what he is doing, which is engaging in disordered and dissociated thought, speaking word salad, and placing an inordinate degree of importance on personal discoveries of mundane facts, and why I am saying that he is most likely manic. I think he is. "Dude you're giving me a weird vibe" is not as likely to be taken seriously as specific behaviors and their implications that people can then specifically attempt to consider. Obviously I can't check his psychomotor functions, so I'm not going to tell him "you need to take valproate." I'm telling him he needs to go to a doctor.

Which, I note, you are discarding entirely. I am not saying "you need to go on a certain treatment plan because I think you are manic." I am saying, over and over again, that he needs to go to a health professional. I do not believe that when you have reason to believe someone is unwell, you ought simply pat them on the back and walk away.

[Marie26]

114. Do what you want

I'm just saying that you have absolutely no way of knowing the potential effects as you pat yourself on the back for "seeing through" the OP.

[Occam Bandage]

116. I acknowledge the law of unintended consequences

and will continue to attempt to convince a valued member of the DU community to seek the medical help he requires.

[dysfunctional press]

49. yep...he's high.

:hippie:

[Occam Bandage]

84. No, he's manic. This has been going on for a week. He needs treatment.

[originalpckelly]

86. Just look at this and tell me what you see:

Are you saying it doesn't make sense to cancel all the units out?



If it's all the same thing, then G m^3-3 = G m^3/G m^3.

[Occam Bandage]

89. Yes. It doesn't make sense. A meter is not a kilogram is not a second,

just as a mile to the north isn't an inch to the west isn't a kilometer straight up, and none of them are equal to a dollar despite the fact that you can purchase airfare.

[one_true_leroy]

18. fourth...

the _drawing_ of the quarks is an equilateral triangle. subject to heisenburg's uncertainty principle, the configuration is only a probabilistic determination. the triangle is a human representation of a quantum phenomenon.

edit: nor would the quarks be confined in the plane. symmetry would hold that they describe a probabilistic sphere.

[originalpckelly]

22. You're right.

If you get the one invisible thing by itself, do you have any further comparison? That's why it's all undefined and you can never really nail it down. Those particles are not very massive, and therefore capable of great m^2, or acceleration. I cannot say with absolute certainty that the quark is the indivisible unit of matter. I'm not a person who does experiments, just a person who reconciles the data.

[mudesi]

23. Why Do You Keep Spamming The Board With This Crap?

[originalpckelly]

25. No, not crap. Reality.

There will be a paper soon, and if other people see it too, then you will hear about it in the news. EOM.

[mudesi]

27. Your OP Is Nothing But Shit

You're not saying anything.

[originalpckelly]

29. Whatever, but if you can prove a tetrahedron doesn't fall into the definition...

of x^3 size, then hop to it. You can however, that's the definition of it. When you have a tetrahedron, you have all the necessary points for 3d relationships.

[mudesi]

64. Again

You're not saying anything. You're writing sentences with big words that mean absolutely nothing. "Tetrahedron falling into the definition of x^3 size" means nothing. "When you have a tetrahedron, you have all the necessary points for 3d relationships" means nothing. It's just babbling nonsense and people who don't know any better will fall for it, maybe, but I still don't see why you ought to be allowed to post in on this message board.

[Occam Bandage]

83. It doesn't mean exactly nothing. I can see what he's saying through all the raving.

The simplest way to define a 0-d point is with, well, a point. The simplest way to define a 1-d line is with two points. The simplest way to define a 2-d plane is by adding a third point not lying on the line defined by the previous two points. And the simplest way to define a 3-d space is by adding a fourth point not lying on the plane defined by the previous three points.

You've created a point, line, triangle, and tetrahedron in the process, and each is sufficient to define a space of increasing dimensionality. It's just basic geometric definitions, but he's acting like he's discovered some trippy shit in coming up with basic-level things everyone who's taken a geometry course knows. That's what cranks do; they come across something that their low level of understanding allows them to comprehend, but in their mania they believe that it must be a grand discovery to the entire world.

[one_true_leroy]

30. gibberish...

"You can describe the relationship between the electron and the protons (quarks) in terms of three things, things we don't usually take as a measure of distance: inertial mass, distance, and time. 3 dimensions.
Gravity is only negative-time, time-time is positive time. Gravity is literally going back in time a little (which is really why there's time dilation), and we the human race live right at about the sweet spot of it all. There is distance, and anti-distance. Kilograms and anti-kilograms.
1 meter = 1 kilogram = 1 second"

but then you proceed to state that there are three dimensions. dimensions CANNOT be linearly dependent, which excludes explicitly this equality.

"Look at the units in G, the gravitational constant:
If meters and kilograms and seconds are all DIFFERENT things, then by all means, you must NOT simplify that.
However, if they are the same and you follow the rules of exponentiation for negative exponents:
G m^3-3 = G m^3/G m^3, and if I remember correctly, you can simplify it further:
G m^3."

if you have equated m=k=s, then the proper mathematical reduction of this implies that G is a dimensionless scalar, a number with no meaning. G = ### m^0.

"Math is the source code for the universe."

So far, the most accurate statement.

"Einstein was right, but only partly so. He was still used to thinking that time and space are two separate things, and he made the jump to thinking they are all the same thing after his various thought experiments."

NO!!!! the brilliance of Einstein was that he considered time space as an inseparable entity. This is the crux of the relativities.

[EOTE]

33. I'm pretty sure your effort is being wasted here.

After all, people who believe that they've discovered the secret to the universe aren't likely to let little things like logic and consistency block out their spotlight. At least this current post seems a lot less tautological than the previous post. It seems as if the tautologies have been mostly replaced with run of the mill wackiness.

[one_true_leroy]

43. well, my effort is not so much for the OPer...

his or her refutations have been as nonsensical as the OP. it's the people who are easily dazzled by a chimera of non-sequitors, big words, and non-sense that i am worried about. it's that Voltaire quote "if you can make a man believe absurdities, you can make him commit atrocities."

I mean COBE _is_ impressive, but posting it in this thread is non-sequitor.

[one_true_leroy]

31. I don't think you're crazy.

so don't call me an asshole.

However, abuse of both math and physics, whether through sincere misunderstand or deliberate obfuscation, is dangerous. I feel from your post that you are sincere, but there are true atrocities in your presentation. I point them out not be be condescending but to strengthen your knowledge.

FWIW, I am a mathematical physicist.

[C......N......C]

32. When I figure what placed electrons in a very specific defined orbit around the nucleus of the

atom, I might then be qualified to figure out this post. But I will try both.

[NeedleCast]

38. More Word Salad, Same as Yesterday

Dude, seriously, you need help. I'm not trying to be an ass, but you are demonstrating manic behavior over serveral days now.

[hunter]

65. Everything is word salad.

Stuff happens, and people write.

Water evaporates, condenses in the sky, and rains down.

The difference between people and clouds is we proclaim our intelligence. But there is no difference between intelligence and non intelligence. The patterns in our heads are no different than the patterns in the clouds. Our cultural abhorance of zero is a pattern too. What exists in the past, what exists in the future? Nothing. It is all gone, or yet to be.

The mind can be a frightening place, and many are fearful of introspection, and perhaps rightfully so. We are social beings defined by our society much more than anything inside our heads. In a different society my genetic recipe makes an entirely different person.

Nevertheless, I'm gonna send a freindly P.M. to originalpckelly...

[NeedleCast]

67. No, it's not - words have definitions

and meanings.

Water evaporates, condenses in the sky, and rains down. This has meaning, and is true.


Evaporates tigers rubber, slap shot dice key, positronic combustion sack. This is gibberish. This is what the OP wrote.

"But there is no difference between intelligence and non intelligence"

Of course there is, and our ability to discern this is fairly strong proof of it.

[hunter]

73. Do they now?

"When I use a word," Humpty Dumpty said in a rather a scornful tone, "it means just what I choose it to mean – neither more nor less."
"The question is," said Alice, "whether you can make words mean different things."
"The question is," said Humpty Dumpty, "which is to be master – that's all."
Alice was too much puzzled to say anything, so after a minute Humpty Dumpty began again.
"They've a temper, some of them – particularly verbs, they're the proudest – adjectives you can do anything with, but not verbs – however, I can manage the whole lot! Impenetrability! That's what I say!"

-- Lewis Carol

A thing that can make you laugh is that Lewis Carroll was always exploring meaning in a way that was the absolute antithesis of law, yet the lawyers do so love to quote him.

"Of course there is, and our ability to discern this is fairly strong proof of it."

I swear, we are all anorexics of some sort. We look in the mirror and we claim with great certainty we are fat.

[NeedleCast]

76. Literary Nonsense

Carol practically developed the writing style.

It's exactly what the OP has written, - except with some pictures of hexagons and some ambiguous math. Carol at least, acknowledge some of his works were nonsense. The OP is trying to convince us he's created a proof of the universe or theory of everything or whatever it is today.

If you want to parse the meaning of words, you'll have to find another Huckleberry.

[Occam Bandage]

94. You're talking deconstruction. He's talking psychiatry.

"Word salad" has a very real meaning. Challenging the meaning of meaning is a fun game, but not one that is related to the world of mental health (joke at English majors' expense omitted.)

[hunter]

103. No worries. I like to play with sharp and pointy things.

I've tossed up some mighty fine word salads too. A few days of steroids or not sleeping and my mind is apt to go anywhere. Which is why I NEVER look at my ancient usenet posts... God damn, but medicine used to be primitive. Mostly it still is, but a little better for me fortunately.

Nevertheless I am skeptical of skepticism. There's a mean spirit haunting DU that smells a lot like Penn Fraser Jillette's fat libertarian ass.

[Norquist Nemesis]

39. Professor Epps!

:P

[one_true_leroy]

40. fifth...

"hexahedrons" don't exist. there are exactly five platonic solids, and an application of Galois' theory demonstrates this.

[EOTE]

51. Isn't a cube a hexahedron?

As in a 3D object with 6 faces? I know that's probably not what you and the OP are referring to (a 3d object with faces which are all equal hexagons), but I don't know what you'd call an object like that (because, as you say, they don't exist).

[xiamiam]

41. please go on when you catch your breath...i dont understand any of it but i support

your excitement.

[SidDithers]

44. I don't think you can extrapolate Viviani's Theorem...

to say anything about angles, at least without proof that what you're extrapolating is still mathematically valid. Without that proof, your theory of Life, the Universe and Everything is on shaky ground from the beginning.

Sid

[NeedleCast]

48. I learned all I needed from the Hitchhikers Guide

The answer to the meaning of the universe is 42.

We just don't know what the question is.

[HiFructosePronSyrup]

47. More of the Gene Ray business, eh?

The other day it was 1 - 1 = 0.

Now it's triangles.

What's next? yellow and blue make green?

[Occam Bandage]

72. I've always thought a good definition of most scientific crankery was

"coming upon the obvious and believing it is the key to all Creation."

[HiFructosePronSyrup]

79. Scientific American came up with a list of giveaways for quackery.

One of them was that.

The other that I remember was name-dropping of famous scientists.

The OP drops the most famous: Einstein.

I'll see if I can dig up the list.

[SidDithers]

112. Well, there's the Woo Woo Credo...

http://www.insolitology.com/tests/credo.htm

Which goes back to usenet days. Not sure if that's what you meant or not.

And a bit more serious is Carl Sagan's Baloney Detection Kit

http://www.carlsagan.com/index_ideascontent.htm

:hi:

Sid

[verdalaven]

117. Thank you!

for the first link, I really needed a laugh. (bad day at the office)

[ensho]

54. and fractals are a picture of what you are saying

its amazing to see fractals that look exactly like crochet stitches or exactly like the formation of a flower, or the archti. of a building.

well, it is not amazing, it is reality. a picture of math.

[HiFructosePronSyrup]

56. Just because I have nothing better to do.

"Have you ever heard of Viviani's theorem?"

Sure. What aspect of it would you like to discuss?


"If the angle at the intersection of lines m and n is 0, isn't that an equilateral triangle?"

No. If l were a constant, and you moved m and n around until the angle between them was zero, you would not get an equilateral triangle, unless you count the original triangle itself, but that's a given.

"What's the simplest 3d shape?"

A sphere.

"Now, look at Pascal's triangle"

OK. Why did you add the extraneous hexagons? They don't do anything.

"You can divide a hexagon up into six equilateral triangles."


Or you can divide it up into sixteen scalene triangles. Or a circle with a funny looking donut around it. Or a pretty broach. Or a pterodactyl.

"What if the universe is only 3d and not 4d like nutty hypercube dude thinks it is?"

I don't think you're in any position to make fun of Gene Ray.

"After you get to x^4, then it all starts repeating the same general shape, only tighter."

Even exponents repeat the same general shape after x^2, odd after x^3.

"What is that? An equilateral triangle."

Not really.

"I've learned it's actually never really an equilateral triangle"

Exactly.

"Look at the units in G, the gravitational constant:

(pic)

If meters and kilograms and seconds are all DIFFERENT things, then by all means, you must NOT simplify that."

No, you can not simplify that. You don't have to.

The freeway speed limit is 65 m/h. Miles, hours, and speeds are all different things.

"Kilograms = meters = seconds."

This is incorrect. If your conclusion is incorrect, then you've made a mistake in the process.

"There are not four dimensions, just three, with counter clockwise opposite to make everything equal and opposite, and everything conserved."

There are four-sided harmonic day/nights. Educated fools are evil stupid.

But seriously, there are three spatial dimensions, and time can be expressed as a fourth. Mathematically, you can make as many dimensions as you want to.

"Just think of fusion in a star, how the does that happen if everything is supposed to be decaying because of entropy? "

How can you have to lego pieces come together if everything is supposed to be decaying because of entropy? You get the energy from somewhere else. Stars eventually die. Why? Entropy, generally speaking.

"Have any of you ever heard of the strong anthropic principle?"

Yeah, it's a load of claptrap bullshit.

"Math is the source code for the universe."

Sure, I'll agree to that analogy. You appear to be struggling with basic arithmetic and geometry. I suggest adult courses at your nearby community college. If you're interested.

"He was still used to thinking that time and space are two separate things"

Well, they are different things.

"he made the jump to thinking they are all the same thing after his various thought experiments."

No, he didn't.

"This is why we have Lagrange points."

Lagrange points have nothing to do with space-time. They're simple newtonian physics.


"That must mean there is something massive in the anti-universe counter acting the mass of the second large body. Now you know what it is."

No, it means the combined masses of the earth and sun are roughly equal to the centrifugal force of the orbiting body at L3.

"OH, and by the way, for all you assholier than thou pricks who called me fucking crazy, you can suck it motherfuckers. FUCK YOU! And don't you EVER DARE treat anyone in this world like that again. EVER! Do you get me? How are we supposed to have a better world when you treat people like that? Would you want to be treated like that? No, even if you were nuts, it would be traumatic."

If you don't like criticism, don't post nutty shit.

"Just think of a black hole, if a star is further in the past, then what's a black hole?"

A highly collapsed star.

"Can you believe this guy who died before America was founded is the one who figured this out, he and Pascal?"

Viviani and Pascal alledged no such thing, and they'd laugh at you too if they were alive today.

"For every action there is an equal and opposite reaction."

True.

"Now you may add: for everything, there is an equal and opposite thing."

What's the opposite of a hippopotamus?

"That's doesn't have to mean a cube with all right angles."

A cube, by definition, consists of right angles.

[originalpckelly]

81. A math cube by definition, consists of three things that are the same...

x*x*x, are you denying that? You'd have to deny math.

Do you know the reason that we have incompatibility between the various meters?



I want you to think about something. Is a cube with six sides the simplest 3d shape. No, it has never been and never will be. It has a totally unnecessary point in there. Take it away.

You have something that looks quite like a tetrahedron, but squished. It would have 3 right angles (aka 90* angles) and 3 45 degree ones.

How many degrees are there in a tetrahedron's angles? 60*.

90-60 = 30
60-45 = 15
90 is twice 45, so it's error should be twice. 30 is a totally consistent result.

If the real basis of 3d geometry should be a tetrahedron, and I have proved that through common fucking sense, what happens if you squish everything 15 degrees?


That's the reduced Planck constant, to me, it looks pretty damn close to 15, only a lot smaller. I want you to remember that down at that level it's very hard to get an accurate measurement, at least for "particles." Why not light too? Remember the two squiggly equals are "approximately" equal, not equal.


That's how you find for Planck's reduced constant. Doesn't that look familiar to you? It does to me, in fact if you switch it all around, it looks like the circumference of something, a circle.

If light is just two equilateral triangles back to back, ones that get distorted when the amplitude and wavelength of something changes, then wouldn't that explain it?

This where Planck's constant comes from:


The little weird letter on the bottom represents wavelength, E is the energy. If e = mc^2, isn't that meters^3, if I'm right? Just keep that in mind.

Wasn't there this basic proof somewhere along the line? The Pythagorean theorem?

An equilateral triangle can be cut in half to make two right angle triangles.

Look at the Pythagorean theorem's proof yourself:

This is part of general relativity:

"The length contraction and time dilation can be determined by solving for the length of the horizontal side of the triangle using the Pythagorean Theorem."

Make the triangle in there whole again. Make it an equilateral triangle. What do you have? You have the basis for this shape:


What's Occam's razor? Basically, the simplest thing must be true. Why have some weird exotic geometry we can't figure out?

The whole basis of 3d geometry has been out of whack 15 fucking degrees.

Now, think of a tetrahedron. 4 points. If you take away a point, what do you have? An equilateral triangle. Cut that in half? Two right angle triangles.

Get the picture now? Now, time and gravity really are still weird, but Einstein already established that. He and everyone else was looking for some exotic geometry. I have found it. Real 3d geometry. Tetrahedral geometry.

[HiFructosePronSyrup]

87. A cube is a regular solid with six square faces.

The mathematical operation x^3 is a different thing entirely.

These are called "homonyms." Different things with the same name. This has to do with English class, not physics class.

"Do you know the reason that we have incompatibility between the various meters?"

You mean the metric system vs. the English system? They're not incompatible, they intercovert algebraically.

"I want you to think about something. Is a cube with six sides the simplest 3d shape. No, it has never been and never will be. It has a totally unnecessary point in there. Take it away."

Simple is in the eye of the beholder.

"It has a totally unnecessary point in there."

A cube consists of an infinite number of points. A tetrahedron has an infinite number of points. A sphere has an infinite number of points. A cube has eight corners. A tetrahedron has four. A sphere has zero.

"You have something that looks quite like a tetrahedron, but squished. It would have 3 right angles (aka 90* angles) and 3 45 degree ones."

You mean a bisected cube?

"How many degrees are there in a tetrahedron's angles? 60*.

90-60 = 30
60-45 = 15
90 is twice 45, so it's error should be twice. 30 is a totally consistent result."

Are you talking about tetrahedrons? Or bi-sected cubes? Make up your mind.

"If the real basis of 3d geometry should be a tetrahedron"

Why?

"and I have proved that through common fucking sense"

No, you haven't?

"what happens if you squish everything 15 degrees?"

How do you squish an interior angle of solids without increase the interior angle somewhere else?

"That's the reduced Planck constant"

That's not Planck's constant, that's Plank's length.

"to me, it looks pretty damn close to 15, only a lot smaller."

I'll agree that 1.6E-35 is much smaller than fifeteen. It's also much smaller than 42.

"I want you to remember that down at that level it's very hard to get an accurate measurement, at least for "particles." Why not light too?"

1. Light is a particle.

2. Planck's length is not a measurement, but an abstraction.

3. Measurement has nothign to do with this.

"That's how you find for Planck's reduced constant. Doesn't that look familiar to you? It does to me, in fact if you switch it all around, it looks like the circumference of something, a circle."

No, that's just Planck's constant, divided by 2 pi.

"If light is just two equilateral triangles back to back, ones that get distored when the amplitude and wavelength of something changes, then wouldn't that explain it?"

Two equilateral triangles back to back is called a rhombus. Light is something else.

"The little weird letter on the bottom represents wavelength, E is the energy. If e = mc^2, isn't that meters^3, if I'm right? Just keep that in mind."

In E = mc^2, the m refers to rest mass. Photons have no rest mass. E = mc^2 does not apply to light.

"Wasn't there this basic proof somewhere along the line? "

No, you're just making up malarkey.

[originalpckelly]

90. Do you know what the gravitational constant is?

Read just the very first part of it:
"The gravitational constant, denoted G, is an empirical physical constant involved in the calculation of the gravitational attraction between objects with mass. It appears in Newton's law of universal gravitation and in Einstein's theory of general relativity. It is also known as the universal gravitational constant, Newton's constant, and colloquially Big G.<1> It should not be confused with "little g" (g), which is the local gravitational field (equivalent to the local acceleration due to gravity), especially that at the Earth's surface; see Earth's gravity and Standard gravity.

According to the law of universal gravitation, the attractive force (F) between two bodies is proportional to the product of their masses (m1 and m2), and inversely proportional to the square of the distance (r) between them:

The constant of proportionality, G, is the gravitational constant.

The gravitational constant is perhaps the most difficult physical constant to measure."

That's what I'm talking about. You don't need that but to make the way we measure stand up against reality. Reality is the simplest 3d shape whose sides are the same. If you measure a out 3*3*3 at 60 degree angles, you're going to get a tetrahedron. If you do it at 90 degrees, you get our cube. The tetrahedron has all the points there, the 6 sided cube needs another point to be defined.

If you do this on graph paper, it's proportional. But when you try to fold up m^3 or anything on a piece of graph paper with 90 degree angles, you get half of a cube. If you fold it up at 60 degrees, you get a tetrahedron.

It has all the necessary points to form a 3d object.

Eliminate the rest, the simplest thing must be true.

[HiFructosePronSyrup]

92. Yes, I do.

You posted in in your OP, in the correct units.

"The gravitational constant is perhaps the most difficult physical constant to measure."

Well it's not that hard. Cavendish did it in the 18th century with some lead balls and string.

"If you measure a out 3*3*3 at 60 degree angles, you're going to get a tetrahedron."

If I cut a piece of wood 3" by 3" by 3" I've got a cube, with 90 degree angles.

A regular tetrahedron would be 3" by 3" by considerably less than 3".

"The tetrahedron has all the points there, the 6 sided cube needs another point to be defined."

A tetrahedron has an infinite number of points. The four corners, plus all of the surfaces.

If you're just talking about the corners, than they're zero-dimensional points in 3-space.

[Occam Bandage]

93. "Reality is the simplest 3d shape whose sides are the same."

It seems your Grand Discovery of the Day is rooted in your boundless enthusiasm for your "discovery" that the simplest way to define a 3-d space is through a fourth point not lying on the plane defined by three other points. This is known to anyone who has taken a geometry class that covers 3-d space.

Your previous Grand Discovery of the Day was that a-b=0, if a=b. That is known to anyone who understands the concept of "zero," which is admittedly a difficult concept, the discovery of which was the greatest advance in the history of mathematics (but which you are sadly a bit late to take the credit for).

I'm serious now, Kelly. You're exhibiting a classic symptom of people in mania: you're grabbing onto elementary concepts and treating them as if they have deep significance and that you have made an important discovery in finding that significance. People can spend their whole lives obsessing over their illusory greatness. It can ruin people. It's fine if you want to submit your 'discoveries' to a peer-reviewed journal, but you should go to a doctor, too. Heck, maybe he'll think you've got some fine ideas. But do see a doctor.

[hunter]

58. I lean that way a lot.

:thumbsup:

[sutz12]

59. When the angle of the dangle meets the mass of the ass...

and the beat increases...

Oops. Sorry, different equation.

:)

[EOTE]

66. Check your work.

If you had remembered to carry the one, you'd have found that the angle of the dangle is inversely proportionate to the heat of the beat. It's the simple ones that sometimes provide the most difficulty.

[tridim]

60. Are you this guy by chance?

http://deferentialgeometry.org/

[originalpckelly]

85. No, but why are these people having so much trouble?

Too much bullshit. Occam's Razor. That's what the teacher who got me interested in math taught me about. I'm so glad I know that now.

I don't know beyond all reasonable doubt how many dimensions there are. But it's extremely possible to describe everything we see with only three things. Here is an explanation:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=389&topic_id=5376224&mesg_id=5377812

There may be a 4th dimension, the thing in which all this happens, but so far we haven't really been measuring it. Just m^3.

[tridim]

97. Check out his Elementary Particle Explorer

http://www.layerdynamics.com/test/ss720x480_600wide.html

It's pretty damn cool. I'm not educated enough in particle physics to know if it's BS, but he does have some interesting and creative ideas.

[OPERATIONMINDCRIME]

62. You're Wrong.

You also appear to be slightly obsessed.

Expert peer review would likely conclude with much laughter and mockery.

It would also likely conclude with you being labeled as the things you got all huffy puffy about.

[glitch]

63. Duh.

I kid. It will take me awhile to process but I wanted to K & R now for interesting!

[Gregorian]

68. It's an interesting universe.

I try not to discount what anyone thinks. It takes wild thinking to come up with unique solutions, often.

Much of what you are posting here is elementary engineering at the freshman level. I think you'd love to take the courses that are required in order to get an engineering degree. I found it extremely enlightening. Sadly I've forgotten much of it. It's hard to put into words just how powerful our thoughts are. Archimedes's observations. Newton's concepts. Calculus.

The power is in simplification and vision. Being able to see the truth.

I don't know how old you are, but I'd say to keep doing what you're doing. Take it to the next level. Research what is already known. Because we know a lot. But we still don't know some basics. What really is gravity or electricity? So there's room for brainstorming and observing. But it has a lot of attention to it. Chances are good that whatever you're thinking, it has been thought already.

[HamdenRice]

69. In all seriousness, you need to see a doctor as soon as possible

You are indeed having some sort of manic or psychotic episode. Either that, or you are pulling our leg and wasting DU bandwidth.

This part of your post is the only interesting part:

"OH, and by the way, for all you assholier than thou pricks who called me fucking crazy, you can suck it motherfuckers. FUCK YOU! And don't you EVER DARE treat anyone in this world like that again. EVER! Do you get me? How are we supposed to have a better world when you treat people like that? Would you want to be treated like that? No, even if you were nuts, it would be traumatic."

I'm sorry if it feels traumatic to be called out has having a psychotic episode, but I for one am doing so in the hope that you don't hurt yourself or others.

[Occam Bandage]

71. Please, submit this for peer review as soon as possible. Perhaps if people you accept as experts

inform you that you're a crank, then you will accept the alternate hypothesis that you've slipped into megalomania and require professional treatment.

[C......N......C]

74. Does manic describe transgressing from humble to hostile?

[Cetacea]

75. Universe/god eyeing ( i) or playing hide and seek with it/ourself

More poetically expressed in 1969 by the Moody Blues:

Watching and waiting
For a friend to play with
Why have I been alone so long
Mole he is burrowing his way to the sunlight
He knows theres some there so strong

cos here theres lot of room for doing
The things youve always been denied
Look and gather all you want to
Theres no one here to stop you trying

Soon you will see me
cos Ill be all around you
But where I come from I cant tell
But dont be alarmed by my fields and my forests
Theyre here for only you to share

cos here theres lot of room for doing
The things youve always been denied
So look and gather all you want to
Theres no one here to stop you trying

Watching and waiting
For someone to understand me
I hope it wont be very long

[MindPilot]

77. Shit like this makes me glad I hit my math limit at intermediate algebra

I haven't felt so out-of-place since I was at that medical school Halloween party! :dunce:

[Occam Bandage]

82. Don't worry. pckelly hit his math limit about there, too.

He's pointing out half-understood advanced-high-school level stuff and acting like it's the Key to All Creation.

[tkmorris]

125. Dude, it wouldn't matter

Having a higher level understanding of mathematics, geometry, and physics would not help you understand the OP. It might make you more certain there are psychedelics involved in the formulation of this... whatever the hell it is (I CANNOT in good conscience call it a "theory") but understand it? Nah. I've heard saner ramblings from I guy I knew for 3 years only as "FUBAR" after watching him drop 3 tabs of LSD 2 hours prior.

[EOTE]

78. Oooooh! Now I get it! Andy Kaufman, is that you?

I knew you weren't dead, you sly dog! I must admit, it was all a pretty believable ruse. But lung cancer? Come on, you never even smoked. Well, it's good to have you back regardless. Thank you veddy much.

[specialed]

80. Your model doesn't allow for black holes.

Just sayin.....

[DKRC]

88. But what I really want to know

If I see the triangle rotating clockwise does that mean I'm in my right brain or left brain?

[nichomachus]

91. I like turtles! n/t

[Tuvok Obama]

98. Bookmarking so I can read this later when I'm feeling smarter

and recommending for greatest page now in case it makes sense later.

[Occam Bandage]

101. pckelly is currently in a manic state. He is mentally unwell.

Yesterday the secret to all creation was that 1-1=0, so therefore everything was 0, and that the world's mathematical establishment were all stupid for not realizing this. You'll note that anyone in this thread who has any modicum of scientific or mathematical education is blowing gaping holes in his theories (which he promptly patches up with more dissociated rambling); he admits he has absolutely no mathematical or scientific background.

You don't understand what he has written not because "you aren't feeling smart enough," but because you are a rational person with a healthy, ordered mind, and pckelly unfortunately has a disordered, unwell mind and is literally, seriously, no-kidding in need of treatment.

[Tuvok Obama]

122. 1-1=0 is an incorrect equation

That should be 1=0.

1=0 accounts for the mirror universe that does not exist.

In the mirror universe, they think we don't exist. And we don't exist, any more than those in the mirror universe do.

Therefore, 1=0.

:D

[HamdenRice]

126. Bad news. This seems to have been going on for longer than an "episode"

Just did some idle googling of originalpckelly. Over a year ago, he had "solved" America's transportation problem with a proposal that included highways that have "trap doors" such that if an overweight vehicle tries to enter, the trapdoor opens and the car falls into it.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=389x2709602

Hopefully, that was another manic episode, and this has not been persistent psychotic state.

[Iggo]

105. Of course! They do everything in threes!

It's so obvious! How could I have not seen it before?

:rofl:

[dysfunctional press]

115. and do you know WHY that is...?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=11N-BD1aBo0

[Iggo]

120. I was going for a Rendezvous With Rama thing.

But I like yours, too!

[Deja Q]

108. That's hot.

:bounce:
:rofl:

[ArbustoBuster]

118. Please, get help.

Whenever I see this kind of thing from someone on the Internet, their next step is claiming that the Davos Meeting is reading their mind with orbital microwaves.

The math and science in this are wrong. If this were just someone saying "Hey this is neat, am I right?", I wouldn't be worried. It's the declarations of persecution - right under the map of Lagrange points - that concern me. Please, get help soon.

[retread]

119. At first I wasn't a fan of your "work?", but taken as a whole, the O.P's and the responses they

engender have become pretty good theater. I salute you.

[Jim Lane]

124. There's an error in your essay

You wrote, "Why wouldn't it be the same way for universe, if it has to follow it's own laws?"

You should have written "its own laws". The apostrophe is included in the contraction for "it is", but omitted where, as here, it's a possessive pronoun.

The rest of it is, indeed, pretty fucking awesome -- so much so that it defies description.

[Pachamama]

127. I think.....

...I'm in love... :hi: