Complete math form might replace superposition vs binary

In this hypothesis. I will attempt to show how a complete form of math might replace superposition vs binary form. Which i consider to be an incomplete form.

I will be using the quaternion form, with the argument that binary only uses two points/positions. Requiring superposition to work and complete the task. Where 1 has a position. 0 has a position and a superposition.. From these two real points. it is trying to fit a third point without acknowledging a third position.

My interpretation of quaternions differs from the original slightly in that. Where ijk represents three propagating, rotating dimensions. I will change the terms to LHW. Length, height and width.



I will explain the math as simply as possible. L2,H2,W2 are three dimensions with two opposite and equal aspects. LHW squared is the value of the squared aspect of the dimension. The square of 3 are the positive aspects. The square of 2 squared is the opposite and equal asprct of the dimension.

The argument continues that (1, 0, -1) is a complete form as opposed to an incomplete binary form. Where 1 is a complex number. It can be plugged not only with a known or imaginary number. But together with its squared opposite. Are aspects of what 0 represents. And, doesn't have to be a number plugged for 1. E.g (1, 0, -1) where 1 = right, 0 = width, -1 = left. Same process to solve for the other two dimensions.

Binary on the other hand would have it as 1 = right, 0 = width and/or left leaving superposition to solve and find an answer.

This complete form very basic aspects to describe/represent something simple. 1 and -1 are opposite partner pairs of... represented at 0, which can also be a half. I prefer to use 0.

Jumping back to the equations. The square of 3 is a triality. The square of 2 squared is a duality and 0 is the singularity.

0 is an entanglement of 1 and-1 and is the centre point of a length = to a half.

From the math and my interpretations/observations. You can see how small bits of information can be added together to create something bigger. In this case a 3d space/object. A hyper-sphere.

en.wikipedia.org...

en.wikipedia.org...

I have to go to work. So any replies from me to any comments will have to wait a few hours.

Numbers are stoopid.
There's too many.

(2(x/0))+((x/0)+1) to quote Buzz Lightyear.

Spot on

Seems that maxwell's four equations, famously used in every text book on physics and serving as the mathematical underpinning of all electromagnetic/static applications, are not the original Maxwell equations. They are, instead, simplifications by Oliver Heaviside. Simplifications he made after cropping out the quadternions which removed the scaler potential component because "It was too mystical" 

fixall.org...

I wish I was smart enough for this conversation. I at least know what a quaternion is, more or less.

There are also octonions so how do they fit in your system?

What about surreal numbers?

What you have is a balanced ternary.

originally posted by: primalfractal
Spot on

Seems that maxwell's four equations, famously used in every text book on physics and serving as the mathematical underpinning of all electromagnetic/static applications, are not the original Maxwell equations. They are, instead, simplifications by Oliver Heaviside. Simplifications he made after cropping out the quadternions which removed the scaler potential component because "It was too mystical"

fixall.org...

Bearden is not "spot on", he is a crackpot who is completely debunked here, including his attempt to distort the history of Maxwell's equations and to use incompatible forms of math together to support his bogus claim of creating "free energy":

The Jackpot of Crankery

what Bearden is arguing, ultimately, is that the viewpoint change represented by a shift of a reference-frame has real physical implications: by simply switching reference frames to one in which there is more energy, we can get energy. After all, if you do the relativistic reference-frame translation using quaternions, you get a non-symmetric translation where there is more energy than before the translation. So it's surplus energy, generated from nowhere.

The problem is that he's thoroughly botching the math. He's insisting on using the non-symmetric quaternion form of Maxwell's equations; but he's also insisting on using the symmetric translation of relativity - even though the two are completely incompatible... It's a basic math error - roughly like applying a theorem derived for an abelian group to an algebra on a non-abelian group...

Bearden is, quite possibly, the looniest crackpot I've found so far.

So, contrary to showing the source for his free energy, what he is really showing us is his failure to apply math correctly, not too surprising for a guy who purchased his degree from a diploma mill.

originally posted by: More1ThanAny1
What you have is a balanced ternary.

Possibly. I see the similarity in the values −1, 0, and 1, but I don't see anything in your source confirming the statement in the OP that "0 is an entanglement of 1 and-1" so I can't confirm that's a property of the balanced ternary, and there may be other discrepancies.

a reply to: Homefree

Too many?

To infinity+-. They're never ending. Large or small.

a reply to: beyondknowledge

Nice.

Beyond infinity is also infinity.

a reply to: primalfractal

As Arbitrageur has already replied to you.

I did not know about the content of that reply.

I won't be claiming free energy. There is no free energy. Work is needed to obtain it. Work is a cost.

a reply to: Never Despise

I think you will be smart enough.

Surreal numbers?

As they are commutative. It seems not. As quaternions are not commutative.

a reply to: More1ThanAny1

I'm not sure if it is.

But it is interesting.

I remain open minded.

a reply to: Arbitrageur

Thanks for the reply to primalfractal. I was not aware of it.

As for 0 being an entanglement point. I will stand by that statement. 0 is also not nothing. It is simply the source at the centre of a length/s. Where two opposite partner pairs = of 0.

To take it further. I also state that -1 and 1 are a neutrino/anti-neutrino pair. They hold and carry information in a waveform together with the 0. 0 being the gluon. Which when the wave is annihilated. The 0 manifests as the real representation of the information contained in the wave.

Also. When considering any number. This interpretation of a complete form has to include both positive and negative aspects, 0 is included as a natural consequence. And is true from (- infinity, 0, infinity). And is a singularity . Not to be confused with everything from nothing. But, everything from zero which is something e.g energy.

The experiment i would choose to confirm my hypothesis is the double slit exp. Where (-1, 0, 1) is a wave of a photon/light. Upon annihilation at the centre of the wall with slits. The neutrino/anti-neutrino pair become independent and make their way through the slits. They re-entangle on the other side of the wall to form the wave as the results show.

a reply to: Never Despise

Left too late to edit my original reply.

Octonions. Is a transform from a 3d space/object to a 4d space/object. Rotation of the dimensions entangle to create a set of eight new points . They are the opposite aspects of four more dimensions/axis'.

The 4d space now define the vector space, scalars and tensors.

Diagram shows octonion 4d space with V = vector, S =scalar and T= tensor.

Please take into account. This is a 2d pic of a 4d space. You are not seeing a dimension/axis running from near top corner to bottom far corner which you are also not seeing. Like optical illusion. There are 6 vectors. The scalars and tensors both share the centre and the missing corners. Making nine points for each.

a reply to: blackcrowe

Q: isn't it suppose to be square-root of -2 squared, you forgot the negative sign? You made a typo error?

Just checking....otherwise, I'm really lost.

ff

a reply to: fastfred

Not an error.

The 2 represents the two aspects/halves of a dimension/axis. 1 aspect + 1 aspect. 1 squared is -1.

I hope that is clearer.

originally posted by: blackcrowe
The experiment i would choose to confirm my hypothesis is the double slit exp. Where (-1, 0, 1) is a wave of a photon/light. Upon annihilation at the centre of the wall with slits. The neutrino/anti-neutrino pair become independent and make their way through the slits. They re-entangle on the other side of the wall to form the wave as the results show.

I'm afraid your understanding of the double slit experiments and of neutrinos is lacking. The double slit experiment has been performed with a variety of different particles, such as, photons, electrons, atoms and even some molecules, up to the size of a "buckyball" C(60) or 60 carbon atoms is a ball-shaped molecule.

But neutrinos hardly ever interact with regular matter, so you are mistaken if you think some slits would affect them, or that they would show a wave pattern on the wall, since the wall won't stop them, they will go right through the wall.

Neutrinos

About 3 million billion solar neutrinos enter every square meter of the Earth’s surface facing the Sun every second, and pass out through the opposite surface unimpeded. Each second there are about 100 billion ghostly solar neutrinos passing through the tip of your finger, and every other square centimeter of your body, whether you are indoors or outdoors, or whether it is day or night, and without your body noticing them, or them noticing your body. At night they go through the entire Earth before reaching you.

a reply to: Arbitrageur

Sure, Bearden is a crank, didn't mean to link his stuff.

That quote I pulled up was related to Maxwell's original equations, was Maxwell a crank also?

Maxwell's original equations are based on the idea that light travels through a sea of molecular vortices known as the "luminiferous aether", and that the speed of light has to be respective to the reference frame of this aether.

en.wikipedia.org...

How about Kozyrev and his torsion fields, who had similar ideas, and whose work invalidated the completely bunk aether drift experiments?

Kozyrev was a bold thinker and was respected by prominent scientists of his time

en.wikipedia.org...

Any comment on the preliminary experimental findings of Extended Heim Theory?

gravitymodification.com...

originally posted by: primalfractal
a reply to: Arbitrageur

Sure, Bearden is a crank, didn't mean to link his stuff.

That quote I pulled up was related to Maxwell's original equations, was Maxwell a crank also?

No.

How about Kozyrev and his torsion fields, who had similar ideas, and whose work invalidated the completely bunk aether drift experiments?

Kozyrev was imprisoned for so long that he lost touch with what was going on in physics so maybe it's not all his fault, but let's look at that statement in your source again with the passages before and after that highlighted to give a more balanced view:

en.wikipedia.org...

But in his isolation, he was unaware of the discovery of atomic energy. After his release, Kozyrev refused to believe the theory that stars are powered by atomic fusion.

Kozyrev was a bold thinker and was respected by prominent scientists of his time (Arkady Kuzmin, Vasily Moroz, and Iosef Shklovsky all speak highly of him), even though his work was often of a very doubtful nature.

I would say refusing to believe that fusion powers stars puts him pretty far "out there". Some details of stellar fusion may be debated by experts, but that fusion powers stars is not a subject of any debate in the mainstream science community.

Any comment on the preliminary experimental findings of Extended Heim Theory?

I don't know if anybody but Heim understood it. Dr John Reid went back and forth from claiming the masses Heim theory predicted weren't impressive because they were somehow input into the predictions, to later changing his stance and saying he re-did an analysis where he doesn't think the masses are input. But it's hard to put much confidence in "It's very complicated and different from anything I'm familiar with. I have a Ph.D. in physics so I know something about physics."

The Rise and Fall of Heim Theory

"I'm more convinced now that there is really something to his theory. I don't understand much of the math yet. It's very complicated and different from anything I'm familiar with. I have a Ph.D. in physics so I know something about physics."

So he tried to figure it out, even translated Heim's books, and finally came to this conclusion years later, in 2011 (5 years after the 2006 EHT experiment you asked about):

Heim Theory Falsified

I think I have some idea of what Heim did now. There is much talk in his book about “empirical data”. He took the particle mass data and cooked up his equations to make them correct. It certainly was a lot of work for him, but I don’t think it has much to do with physics. I’m sorry to say I wasted a lot of time on this but I hope I can save someone else some work.

Back in 1992 there were some experiments done which seemed to show that certain particles predicted by Heim's theory didn't exist, so that may be why the physics community didn't take Heim seriously:

Heim's theory also made other predictions as well, such as predicting other particles which have not been observed, and predicting excited states of elementary particles. These predictions do not fully correspond to measured values. (Even Heim's defenders admit "So far Heim has not succeeded in finding a criterion which would limit the number of exited states to those actually observed."[Auerbach and von Ludwiger, 1992]). Finally, the theory does not predict any substructure to the elementary baryons-- i.e., the theory does not include quarks, and this prediction is at odds with measurements in experimental high energy physics, in which the behavior of protons and neutrons at high energy can best be described by quantum chromodynamics. This theory has been extraordinarily successful in predicting the behavior of particles at high energy, a viable alternative theory would, most preferably, need to be at least as successful if it is to replace the standard model of high energy physics.

I think some might say that 1992 experiment could be said to at least be a huge problem for the Heim model, maybe even showed it wasn't true. Heim's model certainly couldn't make the same successful predictions as QCD (quantum chromodynamics) due to his failure to acknowledge quarks.

I'm not sure what any of this has to do with this thread, except maybe the 1992 experiment with neutrinos that seemed to falsify the Heim theory prediction of hypothetical neutrinos, and blackcrowe is talking about neutrinos, so I suppose it has the word "neutrinos" in common with the thread.

a reply to: Arbitrageur

It is a little bit off topic.

Except for my comment about Maxwell and your response.

I do see OP has mentioned 4d.

Apologies for linking anything to do with Bearden disinfo, didn't read past the Maxwell quote, slopy. My "spot on" statement was to blackcrowe, and in relation to Maxwell, not Bearden, seems fairly obvious that.

Thanks for the reply about Heim Theory. Doesn't seem quite right to me either except for the inclusion of the 4th spatial dimension. The observed gravitation effect is interesting though.

Experiments show a fourth spatial dimension