"Of the Very Nature Of Space, Time, Energy and Matter"

[d3x0r]

First of all you cannot have a linear distance along a curve in kinematic situations, when something is moving and time is involved.  Read this for an explanation why.

So I was reading the Clarification of the equation paper so he's saying that at tangent=1, radius=1, arc=1 (but it doesn't)... and A=1 and V=1  etc ... and in that special case then I'm thinking, so by that math, you're saying PI is ; so I jumped over to that other paper to make sure that wasn't what he was saying and.....


"Abstract: I show that in kinematic situations, π is 4. For all those going ballistic over my title, I repeat and stress that this paper applies to kinematic situations, not to static situations. I am analyzing an orbit, which is caused by motion and includes the time variable. In that situation, π becomes 4. When measuring your waistline, you are not creating an orbit, and you can keep π for that. So quit writing me nasty, uninformed letters."


Well.  That's interesting... hmm is there some sort of time scalar involved?  Oh look that's the next paragraph :/

[d3x0r]

E = IR
R = E / I
R = S/T²  /  S/T
R = S / T²  *  T/S
R = 1/T.
; you claim resistance is T² S^-3
;Resistance R   Ohms   m²Kg/sec³/Amp²   T² S^-3

P = IE
P = S/T  * S/T²
P = S²/T³
; you claim power is 1/T
;

Is that comparing apples to oranges? and missing dropping some fruit components that can make them equate?  Like velocity and acceleration in circles to result in 4 or pi ?  Think I actually did that derivation once back in high school calc class... since the distance is the integral of the velocity, for a thing moving a v=1 around a radius r the sum of the position under the curve is r... so covering 4 quadrants yields 4... I dismissed it as meaning anything, figuring it was an error that yields 1=0... but it's talking about the time around a thing to yield a distance not just a distance that can be measured with strings.


It does make sense that the distance traveled for an orbiting body is actually 4 compared to its radius...because it does it more slowly...  and that the acceleration force is actually really ... sqrt( vo^2 + r^2 ) -  r ... which looks like pythagorean triangle minus r;    v=S/dT + r=S/dT?


radius is used, but assigned velocity units? can't add or subtract different units, but can multiply, so .. r is a velocity?




For simulation purposes; doesn't really matter(?)... the result will happen because the accelerations are applied continuously... well I guess it should be applied with the curve scaled by the interval...


;

[verpies]

Is that comparing apples to oranges? and missing dropping some fruit components that can make them equate?  Like velocity and acceleration in circles to result in 4 or pi ?

Are you referring to Mathis or Xavier Borg ?

BTW: I edited my previous reply to you a lot, so you'd better reread it.

[verpies]

It does make sense that the distance traveled for an orbiting body is actually 4 compared to its radius...because it does it more slowly...  and that the acceleration force is actually really ... sqrt( vo^2 + r^2 ) -  r ... which looks like pythagorean triangle minus r;  v=S/dT + r=S/dT?
For simulation purposes; doesn't really matter(?)... the result will happen because the accelerations are applied continuously... well I guess it should be applied with the curve scaled by the interval...

For simulation purposes you should go through the exercise of simulating a spaceship flying straight through deep space and then suddenly firing its thrusters in such manner as to enter and maintain a circular orbit.  You will quickly discover that maintaining centripetal or strictly tangential thrust is not enough...  so what should be the angle of the thrust to maintain a circular orbit around an imaginary point in a Euclidean reference system?

[d3x0r]

Back in high school, on my tandy 1000; partially for class project; I made a space simulation with different colors (classes) of stars that had their own gravity.  Mind you this did not have the optional math co-processor.... So hooray for scaled math, and lots of other optimizations but before that, I was interested most to see how much multiple gravity sources affected the path. 
I already understood that from what basic math I knew and could cobble together that a real orbit was impossible to simulate.  But I blamed it on the imperfection of the process; lack of precision...


Many years later, I began on this path that has brought me here apparently   But early in my discovery of incredible energy technologies of many forms that all were not pursued; based on this one little thing '2nd law of thermodynamics'  and if you demonstrate that doesn't apply to the system in question then it's just 'it won't work.  ANd if you knew anything about physics you'd know why'.  Turns out I do know a few things, and I don't understand why they can't perceive of a model that would work, without having to have a thing in front of them... but anyway...


I as reflecting on magnetic fields, and magnetic fields of earth, and realization formed that was astonishingly simple.  Given that we know the shape of the earth's field, it is distroted from the shape it would be all on its own, much like a similarly poled magnet is pressing against it.... probably with almost exactly the force as it is being pulled by gravity.  And then I realized there were different falloff rates that were expiramentally confirmed repeatedly... and that the whole problem with the simulation was a lack of opposing force against the gravity.  And that the calculation for the density of the sun is entirely wrong.  We may have some clue about earth's density, but really that's an arbitrary number on which all other relative densities must be from that as an origin...


And then they said 'only earth has a magnetic pole because of its iron core' but then it turned out all celestial bodies have a magnetic pole.  And I'm pretty sure if these poles are computed, they are all mutally north... for instance uranus rotates on it's side, but it's field is still in-line with everyone else's.... that really we're more like all ferro-magnetic masses in one big field... and our mutual norths will repel.... and in fact do repel to provide a stable trough through which we orbit with slight in/out bounce as the magnetism becomes stronger and pushes and the gravity weakens slower, so when the magnetism isn't pushing so hard, the gravity pulls.


(Here's the full writeup and thread that got me banned.... )

but one can hardly blame them.  I thought the link I had to the graph included the parameters for the graphing calculator, didn't think it wouldn't demonstrate repeatedly the trough condition.... Fortunatly other links in that post still work


Oh an by the way; they also tell me it's the slight particle breeze from the sun that deforms a magnetic field.  Have you ever seen a magnetic field get bombarded with particles and change shape?