Drexel dragonThe Math ForumDonate to the Math Forum



Search All of the Math Forum:

Views expressed in these public forums are not endorsed by Drexel University or The Math Forum.


Math Forum » Discussions » sci.math.* » sci.math.independent

Topic: The meaning of -1?
Replies: 11   Last Post: Oct 8, 2001 6:26 PM

Advanced Search

Back to Topic List Back to Topic List Jump to Tree View Jump to Tree View   Messages: [ Previous | Next ]
dave orton

Posts: 15
Registered: 12/13/04
Re: The meaning of -1?
Posted: Oct 5, 2001 12:15 PM
  Click to see the message monospaced in plain text Plain Text   Click to reply to this topic Reply



Kenny,

you can see the rest of the story useing euler math or orton physics.

the reciprocal of the square root of -1 euler real and imaginary
parts:

PI 3.14159265358979
3.14159265358979
/ 2
= 1.5707963267949
Exp(-1.5707963267949) watch sign.
= 0.207879576350762
1/(0.207879576350762)
= 4.81047738096535
* 2
= 9.6209547619307
+ 0.207879576350762
= 9.82883433828147

orton physics:

ref.:

http://www.fh-niederrhein.de/~physik07/knobelecke/k_dorton.htm

orton postulate 14.

proof:

a).

299792458 (C) (limited by compression regulation of accelerated
expansion).

/ 2573380 (Nw) (WALES NUMBER), intellectual property of Mike Wales.

(1/alpha^3

= 116.49754719474 (lead parameter of (uncurved), compressed light for
reference).

* 3.14159265358979 (pi)

= 365.987838428225 (earth spin approximation (uncompressed) (lag ratio
of spin vector absorption)).

/ 2 = 182.993919214113 (1/2 action of earth orbit).

* 0.75 (triangulum reciprocal of 4/3)

= 137.245439410585 (1/alpha (uncompressed)

- 137.035989561 (1/alpha) (compressed) (codata)

= 0.209449849585 (triangulum regenerative orthogonal positive
curvature resultant).

b).

cosecant relation to vector.

(Csc(0.209449849585))

=4.8095003974497 (1/2 (g) approximation computed during half spin).

*2=9.6190007948994 .

+0.209449849585 (necessary lead/lag derivative).

12 degree = .20943951023932 radian
(plane angle)

9.8284506444844 (g) outward spherical regenerative acceleration
approximation.

(8) Proves positive regenerative curvature in every direction and with
mean outward approximation of regenerative acceleration resultant
related to spin component. Each particle is involved and each has its
own barycenter.

(C/Nw)*pi=is the cubic vector geometry necessary to synchronize earth
time (spin vector) which determines the relative length of a second
and the very meter of linear relative measurement (Galileo), the one
meter isochron pendulum. This reveals non relativistic compatibility
of time synchronization before relativistic compression.

(9) Now I can see actions and measure things (geometry) that are not
apparent due to continuous compression and were and are the hidden
facts of nature. This knowledge led to my revealing alpha as 1/alpha
measures and reveals the curvature of the force vector of the
continuous energy needed to continue the fifth force itself
regeneratively, plus all of the actions (all action), it causes,
including the very real reaction to it which is regenerative
accelerated proportional expansion which shows compression regulates
regeneratively the invariant time passing during all or any action and
is the only true measurement of mass-energy (Me), itself and is an
indisputable law of nature in any language.

this is intellectual property of: David Orton 049-32-3467 U.S.A.
December 4, 1998



"Kenny" <kenny.thomas@easynet.co.uk> wrote in message news:<_Q4v7.34128$uM2.5007609@monolith.news.easynet.net>...
> "Steve Leibel" <stevel@bluetuna.com> wrote in message
> news://stevel-6A463F.16582804102001@nyctyp01.rdc-nyc.rr.com...

> > In article <2y2v7.34104$uM2.4979347@monolith.news.easynet.net>,
> > "Kenny" <kenny.thomas@easynet.co.uk> wrote:
> >

> > > I posted this in the physics group and got no reply. I'd like to know
> where
> > > I'm going wrong in my thinking. Take 1 to span our dimension, and -1 to
> span
> > > all dimensions. A variant number can span all dimensions. 1 is all that
> > > exists in the past and present.
> > >
> > > 1 is invariant in our reality.

> >
> >
> > If your question is to find out where your thinking is going wrong, this
> > is a good place to start. What does "1 is invariant in our reality"
> > mean? Whose reality? Yours? Mine? Newton's? Plato's? Archimedes
> > Plutonium's?
> >
> > What do you mean by the statement, "1 is invariant?" Is 2 invariant?
> > Is 14 invariant? Sqrt(2)?
> >
> > Your statement has no meaning that I can discern. I would therefore
> > say that this is the point where your thinking is going wrong.
> >
> > -1 spans all dimensions? Ok using -1, how do I get from St. Louis to
> > Des Moines? And from Des Moines to Pluto?

>
> I know I'm not too descriptive saying what I mean, that's why I want
> questions. Much appreciated.
> 1 in our reality is the concept of 1, *you* know what 1 means. Only beings
> that have the ability to conceptualise 1 will realise that it is invariant
> through mathematical proof rather than learning that it is by rote.
> 1 is invariant means that 1 stays the same if you raise it by a power that
> is positive. Raising it by a negative power is just performing an operation
> that is not possible in the real world, only in mathematics. Real numbers
> other than 1 are not invariant, but they can only be affected by
> transformations using other variant numbers (not 1)
> -1 spans all dimensions means that it is the opposite to the number on which
> *our* mathematics is based. If we take the number 1 to mean everything that
> we can conceptualise, then -1 is everything that we can't.
> We span one dimension (space) at right angles to time. We can't
> conceptualise time without a reference frame, therefore we cannot directly
> perceive it and can't really consider it a dimension in our reality, as it
> is a result of our reality. I assume that -1 spans all dimensions, of which
> ours is just the product of i^2. There are dimensions below, which are not
> perceivable, but their effects are. Those above, we can use existing
> equations to predict with accuracy, those below, only by using probability.
>
> I do appreciate your input. I have only just recently got into math again,
> after quitting my degree course ages ago. I wish to go back, but with a
> deeper understanding of what it means. I'm not a "Kook", merely interested
> in new ideas.
>
> Kenny.








Point your RSS reader here for a feed of the latest messages in this topic.

[Privacy Policy] [Terms of Use]

© Drexel University 1994-2014. All Rights Reserved.
The Math Forum is a research and educational enterprise of the Drexel University School of Education.