On Jul 23, 10:27 pm, Huang <huangxienc...@yahoo.com> wrote: > > > > OK Huang. I will have to make my own interpretation of your
Getting back to your length construction you have selected a form of inverse by posing existent and nonexistent segments, albeit with some sense of abstracted continuum behavior. As I recall you have something along the lines of n n n e e n e e e e e e n as a plausible representation. I suggest that you consider these as actual inverses so that the n and e could be replaced with - - - + + - + + + + + + - so that now you can have a fairly real valued representation, though this is still a discrete construction and we cannot just waive away the continuous versus discrete problem since this is a crucial and fundamental thing. The sequence can be regarded as carrying a history, so that we could visualize changes to this sequence as appending onto the right hand side, just as we do with text. If we were to admit that we do not have a full history but instead were to summarize that history we would have something more like - 4 + 3 + + + + + - as one equivalant representation, where the first seven components have been summarized. This will now get you a discrete rectilinear motion, and alleviate the logical problem of a nonexistent segment.
Let's call the full representation a path representation. That representation can take on arbitrary granularity and so can be used consistently with calculus type operations, but we have to admit the the finest grade representation has infinite information. This is not such a bad thing as every perfect real value also has infinite information, when its precision is fully expressed.
So far we have only constructed a 1D path, and no doubt you can easily extend this to a cartesian multidimensional form, but there is another way. By allowing a third sign type '*' we can merely extend the behavior of - 1 + 1 = 0 so that in the three-signed system - 1 + 1 * 1 = 0 which is then a new number system, not to be confused with the two- signed system. It turns out that this three-signed (P3) system is two dimensional and its geometry or coordinate system is simplex based. Just draw three rays symmetrically arranged from an origin on a piece of paper. They will form angles of 120 degrees to each other, and when you sum these equal length rays you will land at the origin, which is exactly what the equation above states.
This behavior is general dimensional, so that we can construct a four- signed three dimensional space, which makes use of the tetrahedron to address space, though not in the spirit of the Fullerites, who have overlooked the cleanest form.
There is also an arithmetic product, and down beneath the two-signed system there is a one-signed system that matches the behaviors of time. I have built this math out and named it 'polysign' http://bandtechnology.com/PolySigned/index.html
This math actually redefines the real number in such a way that the complex numbers are yielded as P3, with no additional rules than were used to construct the real number. In hindsight we can see that the real number is not fundamental. Instead I argue that magnitude itself is more fundamental, and since we must construct more complicated things from simpler things this is already a free standing argument, even without the polysign number. So by this argument of construction and simplicity we see that sign is likewise more fundamental than the real number, which is a construction of sign and magnitude s x .
> > > > nonexistent length, but here is my next criticism: here you state that > > > > space may be bent by mixing your enlength (new word: quip of existent > > > > nonexistent length), yet the meaning of bending space via the > > > > construction is completely ignored here. To take this level of freedom > > > > there is a large gap you will have to fill in, and the level of > > > > interpretation that you surmise does not seem so straightforward as > > > > you propose. I can't buy this as a serious analysis, particularly not > > > > atop granting existence to nonexistent length. Still, I accept that > > > > you are a complex thinker and have formed a thought process that you > > > > are sticking with. To me the trouble is that the steps are too large. > > > > I encourage you keep taking the freedoms you do, but also encourage > > > > you to take a more critical view of your own work. > > > > > - Tim > > > > A fair criticism and you probably gave me more than most would dare. > > > Well, I have a consideration: that a new correct theory may not have a > > clean translation into ordinary language, so that even the person > > carrying the theory may not have a clean expression for their theory. > > So I am willing to consider that you could be that person, and am just > > helping by challenging your translation. Still, we have to admit that > > not everybodies theory can be this good, and likely most of us have > > theories much less than perfect. Anyway, by the translation problem it > > puts most of us in the same boat. > > That is what Kant would have said. Language is insufficient to > communicate or describe space. I think that Kant was almost correct, > but I would say that the lexicon of ideas is more important than > linguistic facility. And that assembling new ideas or explanations is > extremely challenging regardless of how good your language skills are. > Some of the ideas neccesary for this thing to work have never been > assembled, and so imagination is the critical hurdle if one ever hopes > to model anything using math or any other tool. > > I think that somehow I got lucky and I can see a big picture emerging > with lots of major linkages, but there are so many details I really > dont have the first idea where to begin to fill in some of those > details. I think that working on gravity makes the most sense, but Im > literally baffled at the possible number of things I could attempt. > > Yet, I still havent really digested a rigorous conceptualization of > rectilinear motion using what I call "conjectural methods". I have a > pretty clear idea how to write it down symbollically but to put that > model into plain English or even comprehend it globally has been > kicking my ass. That is the problem Ive been working on - simple > rectilinear motion expressed in terms of "conjectural methods". If I > have that one example I will consider that I have had a major success. > But I dont have it yet. > > > This also has a causative side effect on ordinary theories: they tend > > to develop in small incremental steps, or else they may be declared > > invalid. This can be regarded as a handicap of existing physics. It is > > a valid concern, and we all should attempt to work from some basis > > that is shared, otherwise you are out on your own, and attempts to > > communicate will yield poor feedback. So you can either be > > handicapped, or a complete freak. Then too, there are the monkeys in > > the tree, who live a comfortable life and still find new fruit. > > Whatever way you look at it, the subject is pretty interesting. > > The wierd thing is that even if I am right....that all of these > "conjectural methods" are valid....the strange thing is that all of > existing physics remains untouched because I'm not doing mathematics. > Much would be added to the field of physics, but existing physics > would remain unaltered.