View Full Version : Regulus Space: The true function of reality.
XtomJames
2008-07-29, 07:02
I wish to start this thread here, though unfortunately it has become so large on a different forum that to completely restart the whole would be ludicrous.
If you wish to skip to the ===Really Interesting stuff=== feel free too.
So I am going to post in succession the posts that are most important. ***These copied posts will have references to people not on this forum.*** The original thread can be found here for reference http://www.philosophychatforum.com/bulletin/viewtopic.php?t=2051&start=0
(Posted by Pesla) Eyes_Only (EyesOnly = me)
Here is a positional code like the Orgami. Riddle: How many letters are possible using this code?
Can you read this? What is it" perhaps it is as clear as your last post on Analogies and Metaphore Threads. Well, question is does doing puzzles in patterns like the new game 3 x 3 where the numbers add to 9 in each row anc column... what does it do for people? Does it exercise our mind? My search for symbols to contain some private language meaning, a shorthand, rapidly exhausts our given symbols. what is T? it is a unit of measure, a Tesla?
At what point does a symbol become too complex that it represents only itself in meaning and obscures what it was intended to define? When you said two and three for me they are so generally applied they are mostly information with little meaning. I will plan our symbol projects better next time I see you.
http://www.postimage.org/gx7eRD7i.jpg
^these are known as Orthiograms.
These were my answer:
http://i17.photobucket.com/albums/b95/GaaraAkiharu/th_sokode.gif
http://i17.photobucket.com/albums/b95/GaaraAkiharu/th_sokode2.gif
*Martin Space was the original name of Regulus Space and was named that by Pesla, I later renamed it Regulus Space*
Introduction: Martin Space is a new way of view our natural inherently warped space.
The following is an explanation of and directions to, understanding and constructing Martin Space and Martin Space Objects.
Construction and Understanding the Systems of Martin Space.
Martin space is a unique means of viewing multidimensional objects and is constructed on basic special principles but in a very specific spatial grouping.
Spatial groupings are linear grids in which the objects projected in. Normally when one draws a projection it remains two dimensional such as a basic cube on a basic flat plane grid Http://i17.photobucket.com/albums/b95/GaaraAkiharu/grid2.jpg. However by defining the space the object is drawn in its dimensional structure can be changed.
The most common special grouping system is a structure that incorporates a basic grid, either seen in a sphere or a cubic shape. Where symmetrical points are viewable but separate in "space", this structure can maintain volume, and general dimensions forward, backward, up down, left right etc. Objects projected in this space rarely are warped and hard to define if warped. This is because this normal grid system is defined by stationary points that are variable distances apart.
However Martin Space consists of a different special grouping, in which all mapped or plotted points are the same distance from each other and further certain points are shared. Shared points are points in space that exist in more than one place at one time,
Http://i17.photobucket.com/albums/b95/GaaraAkiharu/MartinSpaceBasic.jpg
The larger red points are points in space that technically can be defined as the same point.
Http://i17.photobucket.com/albums/b95/GaaraAkiharu/martinspaceA.jpg
The second diagram is the same space as defined in the diagram before but with a line defined, these lines show a basic plane, however that plane is warped, as you'll see that the bottom line is actually a top line and vice versa.
Plotting in Martin Space:
In standard spacial groups basic projections (objects) can be drawn.
Http://i17.photobucket.com/albums/b95/GaaraAkiharu/plane1.jpg
In Martin Space, that same plane takes on a new dimensional definition.
Http://i17.photobucket.com/albums/b95/GaaraAkiharu/plane2.jpg
The Martin Space side diagram of the plane shows its curvature or warpage.
Martin Space is in inherently warped, forcing warping and alternate forms of basic projections.
To construct an object in any special grouping one must first have an origin point. In Martin Space one must choose carefully what their origin point will be, otherwise projections may not work out properly, when creating a projection first build your grid, with Martin Space you just use the general grid provided earlier.
Then you must determine what kind of object you are projecting, Centralized or Decentralized (Other things to consider is symmetry, and if it's rigid or not. This just makes life easier as when constructing an object.
The origin point is very crucial here, as choosing an unwise origin point could cause unexpected though not necessarily bad results in the Martin Space. The basic idea is that a centralized projection will start with a central origin point, where as a non-centralized object will start with an extraneous or non-central point (though this isn't always the case or need be always the case, it just makes it easier to see.)
Any object can be centralized or de-centralized, but your point of origin is often your perspective point, and when you move the object around that perspective point is when you see the object's warpage. Http://i17.photobucket.com/albums/b95/GaaraAkiharu/MartinSpace2.jpg, Http://i17.photobucket.com/albums/b95/GaaraAkiharu/sokode.gif In each of these diagrams the origin point is darkened. Further projections need not use all the points in a grid; you'll note the Flynot doesn't utilize six points, where the Orthiogram doesn't use four.
Advanced Martin Space objects:
One very unique thing about Martin Space is how its dimensional structures work. The bases being all points are the same distance from each other, and hence each dimension taken on is still the same distance from all other dimensions. Essentially for every new plotted dot a new dimension is formed. Something that is very difficult to follow so I'll attempt to illustrate. (Diagram Xs) Further by adding layers to the grid system, you can add hundreds of new dimensions to a projection. By layering such systems you can even create hyperspace objects. http://i17.photobucket.com/albums/b95/GaaraAkiharu/sokode2.gif
One of the most difficult things to follow is a Fractal, http://i17.photobucket.com/albums/b95/GaaraAkiharu/Martinspacefractal2.jpg
http://i17.photobucket.com/albums/b95/GaaraAkiharu/fractal-04.jpg
Martin Space, as I devised allows any projection to be made, even doughnuts and hyperdimensional objects not normally able to be illustrated. I hope that it can become of a greater use in the future.
Par request, an equangular spiral in Martin Space (Note the spiral is the red, the purple is the guideline.)
http://i17.photobucket.com/albums/b95/GaaraAkiharu/th_MartinSpaceEquaAngularSpiral.jpg
http://i17.photobucket.com/albums/b95/GaaraAkiharu/flatmartinspace.jpg
http://i17.photobucket.com/albums/b95/GaaraAkiharu/Martinspacemath.jpg
Ok first bits: So in trying to figure out some of the math behind Regulus Space and started with some basic information, one that the red points (as described in previous images and in the one above) are the same point in space, and two the points in between (the blue points) are of a different value than the red points. Then I defined those using 0 and 1. I designated the red points 0, as they are the primary points in the diagram, and the blue points became one. With these values I can now point out some interesting aspects of Regulus Space. As I said in previous explanations, the red points are the same point in space and are actually not seperate. Therefore there is no distance between them. With this in mind I can then use the set values to prove this. 0/0 equals 0. However to show that there is actual space in the system I had to use the second value (1). Allways divide by zero, is the case here. 1/0 is undefined, this equals the distance between the blue points and the 0 points. Further we then have measurable distances in Regulus Space. The only measurable distance however is from blue point to blue point, and are actually multiples of undefined space. If you look at the Real Space diagram you see the same affect as I'm describing in Regulus Space.
Now thinking along the lines of another hypothesis of mine that I posted on this forum, (the magnetic gravity comparison topic) I believe that Regulus Space has Negative, Neutral, and Positive values that are found through out the space. In the upper left hand corner of the diagram I've marked out all the neutral, positive, and negative points. You'll note that most of the space is neutral, however two points are purely negative, and one is purely positive. These points have nearly unchanging positions when compared to the other points in the Regulus Space. The central point (the only positive point) is positive because of the points around it (four major points that are neutral, and four minor that are neutral). The two negative points are open on one side. These three points create an axis, this axis is what the Regulus Space rotates around. (Note that in Flattened Regulus Space has no negative points.)
This then brings up a new idea, what if there is no Antimatter, but negative, positive, and neutral matter. And what we call "Antimatter" is negative matter, that annihilate and create more negative matter and a large chain reaction, and then also multiplicit matter that generates positive matter in a chain reaction. All of which exist in our own dimension and universe with out the need of multiverse.
Martin Space Quanta:
Now as I explained above we have Zero Points and Hyperspace Points defined by X. Now we can have an infinite number of Zero Points, with infinite numbers of Hyperspace Points inside. Each X point is the same distance from each other and each have the same distance from the Zero Points. However the distance from X point to X point isn't undefined unlike the distance from X point to Zero Point. Each X point has a distance of one Hyperspace Quanta, allowing Hyperspace to be measureable. This Hyperspace Quanta is different than the distance between Zero point and X point, which is still undefined.
I think my brain just shit itself
XtomJames
2008-07-30, 21:25
There is more, alot more.
Martin Space Constant:
Now that I've defined Martin Space I wanted to attempt to find a constant variable that exists in this measurable space, centered on the Hyperspace Qunta. Now in hyperspace each point has a given charge, as explained above (nuetral, negative or positive). Starting with this info and the base set of Martin Space as described above, we see that the total number of points in the Basic Martin Space example is 25 points 2 Radicals (the negative and positive points, three radicals total in actuality) and 23 nuetral points. Now to take into account that each nuetral point has both a negative and positive points we double the value of nuetral points to count radical points. So we have 46 points. Now we need to find the radical average, the average of both negative and positive radicals. So we take 46/3. However this value doesn't represent all of Martin Space because the nuetral points are still nuetral, they only have the potential to be radicals. So we take the Radical Average divided by the total number of points. (46/3)/25 this equals 0.61334. This is the Base Martin Space Constant, but to negate the fact that Martin Space exists in hyperspace, we must multiply this by a given value that takes into account all dimensions that Martin Space exists in. of we take 0.6133*10^-10, -10 for the -5 and +5 dimensions in which the space exists. That gives us 6.133*10^-11. This is very close to the Gravitational Constant 6.667*10^-11 power.
Now in an attempt to see if this was truely constant I started applying this to larger and larger Martin Spaces.
First I had to define the equation to find the Hyperspace Constant. This means defining variables.
n= Nuetral points
r= radical points
t= total actual points.
Notes: If repeating decimal it will be rounded up, so if I get 0.3333333 repeating, I'll round up to 0.334.
There will always be 3 base radicals, so this number will not change in the equation, r will always equal 3 when it comes to Base Martin Space. This number may change depending on if Spherical Martin Space is used, as well as Pseudo-Spherical Martin Space.
Remember this is the Base Martin Space Constant, not the Adjusted Constant, I'll leave all the results in BMSC as all of them will be multiplied by 10^-10 to adjust it for real space.
((2n)/r)/t
Now following the pattern of Martin Space, say 4MS (Martin Space basic times 4) we get 100 total points. 97 nuetral points, 3 radical points.
(194/3)/100=.64667
8MS.
200 points, 197 nuetral, 3 radical. 197*2=394
(394/3)/200=0.6566
16MS...600 points
600 total points, 597 nuetral, 3 radical.
((597*2)/3)/600=0.663334
32MS 1200 points
1200 t, 1197 n, 3 r. ((1197*2)/3)/1200=0.665
64MS 2400 points
2400 t, 2397 n, 3 r ((2397*2)/3)/2400=0.6658334
My conclusion on this is that the larger Martin Space is the closer it gets to the Gravitational Constant in Real Space, and that the Radical Average exponential. The larger the number of the magnetic interaction the closer the constant is to the Gravitational Constant
In my attempt to further understand bothyHyperspace and Dark Energy I've looked to Gravity and Magnatism once again. A new idea has popped into my head about the rotation of Hyperspace and it's connection to Gravity, Dark Energy/Matter and Magnatism.
The Oort Cloud surrounds the solar system as a theorized sphere. When comparing this to Regulus Space several things occured to me, one the orbital plane of our Solar system is like the Grey axis in Regulus space, and the Sun is acting like the Pink Axis in Regulus Space. The Oort Cloud acts like the Neutral Points in Regulus Space which rotate around these two axi. However there is a third intermittant axis the green one in regulus space, which acts much like the axis that Pluto is rotating around. (Note the diagram below)
http://i17.photobucket.com/albums/b95/GaaraAkiharu/martinspaceaxis.jpg
I came to the conclusion that Regulus Space must have more than one axi, and therefore more than one degree of rotation.
I have already discussed my idea that Gravity is related to Intermittant Magnetic Fields. Rethinking on this, I believe both are directly related to Dark Energy/Matter and Hyperspace, which are, in fact, one in the same. If Hyperspace is where all of the so called Dark Energy exists then we can use Hyperspace to explain gravity and magnatism.
In the diagram above, I show that Regulus Space (which can be used to illustrate hyperspace) has three Axi, and these Axi show the degrees of rotational movement in space. This is also descibed in Quantum Mechanics where an electron has some 36 degrees of rotation. Here Regulus Space has nine degrees of rotation. Now if all of hyperspace is interconnected then we have multiple areas rotating around these axi, which as in the second part of the diagram, are overlapping in their spin.
Some of these axi are very well connected, overlapping almost perfectly, creating a strong, stable spin around those axi. While others are either completely disconnected or not completely aligned, generating a weaker rotation around those axi. Now The stronger more dense force Magnatism can be attributed to the more uniform, better connected axi that over lap in hyperspace, where as the weaker force of gravity that is more spread out can be contributed to the weaker misaligned axi that the hyperspace is rotating about. The third axis the "pink" axis in the diagram illustrates the strong and weak nuclear forces. Where some of the "pink" axi are connected well while others are disconnected generating a weaker and stonger form of the same force.
XtomJames
2008-07-30, 21:26
**Skipping ahead a bit***
These aren't centered in atoms or any particle, Regulus Space is a model for hyperspace, and is centered in any possible infintismal point that exists in real space. So, potentially it could be in a particle of some sort, or any sort, but also isn't.
First off, each Zero point as described in earlier posts, is representative of the infintismal real space point in which the Regulus Space exists. Each of the Hyperspace Quanta represent the space inbetween or inside the zero point;ie: hyperspace.
Now, in this case I have two sets of axeses, these axeses are drawn in the way shown as a means to illustrate the motion, and there in, latent energy of the space. The hyperspace has to have energy to remain in it's compressed state. Much like when you compress air, it becomes more energetic, but also becomes hotter (or cooler depending on the level and rate of compression).
In one of my speculations I've pointed out that hyperspace is interacting with real space, directly, even though we don't see it. The two sets of axeses alow me to illustrate this interaction.
The thinner axeses (one of which is difficult to see in the new picture) show how the energy moves and rotates in hyperspace, when it's seperate of real space. Which the majority of it is. However, the thicker axeses represent the interaction with real space.
My new speculation is that Real space is only a counterpart or smaller part of Hyperspace, which encompasses all of real space. What we see as real space is the continuous stable axeses of the hyperspace, whilist the other axeses and hyperspace rotate freely.
Each of the Hyper-axeses (the thinner ones) have free ranges of motion, as does the space its self. So while part of the space is rotating one way, the axes that parallels that space's direction could move in the same direction or a completely different direction.
Where as the wider "real axeses" only rotate in one direction and isn't free of the hyperspace.
This latent energy of the realspace-hyperspace continuum and the layering and proper alignment of the non-real space axeses make a continuous connection through out the universe. If this is the case, the basic forces, such as gravity, would be the result of such alignments.
Regulus Space model compensates for and unifies Gravity, the advent of Anti-Gravity, magnetic fields and forces, and the strong/weak nuclear forces.
Now of course the means in which we measure these forces will still work in real space, as real space is what we percieve and is what we can measure. However the implications of how the forces, and in many cases energy, reacts out side of "real space" change how we can view such factors in the universe.
For example: Looking at a beam of light (a series of compacted spectral particles of photonic energy) traveling through real space, we see a limit to how fast this energy can go. We call it the speed of light, and the relativistic limit inspace. I speculated (though not on here but with Pesla down at the coffee shop) that a beam of light, or any light for that matter, when traveling through real space, is also traveling through hypespace at the same time. This creates the limit we see as the speed of light, and is why light isn't instantaneous. It gets, for lack of a better word, trapped in hypespace, traveling an infinite amount of distance to go one trillionth of a decron in real space.
General Relativity exudes the planar geometry of a space time gravity continuum. Where space and time are the same and gravity in the macro world is a result of the bending or displacement of said space time continuital plain. Unfortunately this doesn't really help explain the reason for gravity at the micro level (and neither does Newtonian physics, which only describes the action of gravity). The need of a graviton could then be applied to micro gravity and campared then to macro gravity as we do macro light versus micro light; ie photon versus light wave.
The conclusion is that hyperspace is actually a macro-space in which what we call "real space" exists. Further that "real-space" is only a small portion of hyperspace and what we experience and see is only a fraction of the actual space that exists. Hyperspace permeates "real" space and doesn't necessarily follow the same rules as "real" space, and in fact dictates the rules that real space must follow.
***Now for the really interesting stuff****
After reading an article out of Cambridge speaking on WIMPs (Weakly Interacting Massive Particles) it has dawned on me that several things can help define both forces in our universe as we see them and oddities that we can't explain, such as WIMPs.
Gravity, a culmination of forces?
As I have explained in an earlier post, I described forces in our universe and in what I called "real" space through the movement and interaction of axes and their points. I used Regulus Space model to illustrate string theory, quarks, and the forces that interconnect quarks and strings. I also point that the whole space, not just the axes were rotating and revolving. However, one point I made, that being Gravity was one of these axes, was incorrect.
After reviewing what we already know about our forces, gravity is seperated from all the other forces because it has its own constant. The two known constants that apply to all forces is the gravitational constant, and planck's constant.
To be continued.
Now when I attempted to establish what G (gravitational constant) and P (Planck's constant) were in the Regulus Space model a very interesting thing happened. G remained a value of 0, where P defined the degrees of motion that established the other forces. The closer the motion apporaches the "fulcrum" point if you will, that the axes revolve about, the closer the two constants become. G, which remained constant, was the value the fulcrum took, where the further you got from G, the closer one got to P.
I call this the P and G Constant Regression.
So then, to connect the two forces, one must look at a smaller value still. A constant of the universe. We define energy by mass, not accounting for energy that doesn't have mass. In essance all energy we can define is based on movement or existance of matter. Because of this we also, then, in our mathematics, assume that "irrationality" can not be applied. However, if we remove this assumption, remove the boundary that we have in place stating all that energy is, is a form of matter, then we can use math that already exists right in front of us to explain what we see.
h/G (Plank's constant over the Gravitational constant) accuates a value that is larger than h, and yet combines the two constants of the two forces.
Planck's constant / Gravitational constant = 9.92966881 E-24 kg^2 s / m
(Planck's constant = 6.626068 E-34 m^2 kg / s; G, gravitational constant = 6.67300 E-11 m^3 kg^-1 s^-2)
I would suggest noting the significance of the inverse of time divided by distance, instead of distance divided by time. This implies an increase of volume or size of space, with a decreased time.
Regulus Space model brings up the potential logic that surrounds the idea of a Discontiguous space. Where the deviation of two space resembles not a seperation but a permeation of two sets.
I use the Ocean as my metaforical model. Let us set some standard relations.
Sodium = Real Space
Water = Hyperspace (as described by RM)
When Sodium and Water initially mix we get an explosion. This explosion I equate to the big bang. As the explosive energy subsides the sodium dissolves into the water. This dissolving of sodium into water represents the permeation of the two spaces (Real space and Hyperspace).
In viewing the Ocean as the model, we can point out that not all of the water has sodium and not all of the sodium is dissolved into water, but much of the two compounds exist in a solution.
This solution represents the permeation that we see between Regulus Space and Real Space. This then also creates a discontiguous variance of what is solution, what is strictly water and what is strictly sodium. Where does sodium end and water begin and there in where does said permeation exist.
In otherwords can Hyperspace and Real Space be considered two seperate spaces or one equal and stable space. Or are they both acting with in each other and yet observably seperate.
Imagine that a galaxy could fit in a pendant, like say that of Rion's Bell from Men in Black. Now imagine that even smaller, sub-string even, sub-numeric value, even sub-null. There in is where I am exploring the notion of hyperspace with RM. This of course sounds similar to your brane theory. With a cosocosom of infinite universe spiraling in an undefined fractalization of the universe. However, where your universes extend infinitely in both directions, mine rely on the mathematic principles at hand to define just how far they extend.
XtomJames
2008-07-30, 21:27
So there in I'll attempt to explain through a mathematic principle my theory, and in a way in which you will hopefully follow.
Let us begin with a numeric value. We will call this n. n is the representation of what we call the natural numbers.
n>0 and n={1, 2, 3, 4, .....}
0 is not a natural state number.
So what is zero?
In your cosocosom of fractalized universes there is no zero. There is a continuous state of ever smaller or larger relative universes.
Zero is a matter of said cosocosom.
Let's construct zero to understand this.
We will start with what we call entropic space or [] (null) A state at which nothing is or isn't.
Now we will apply a state of being this state is, in comparison to null, inifinite, so we will call it I
[]+I=0
Now 0 is then a product of an undefinable (relative) infinite when paired with entropic space.
0 then has a value of []+I.
All natural numbers or n is then a product of pairings of said 0.
[]+I+i=1 (where i is representative of yet another inifinite that is infinite relative to I and a greater but yet infinite to null). And so on. ([]+I+i)^n= n. Follow?
So now we can compare dimensions.
First dimension is [], second 0, third 1, fourth 2, (<real space, hyperspace>) fifth 3, sixth 4......
However this is basic dimensional structure. If we compare a cluster of dimensions like RS.
RS=[]+0+1+2 and compare it to the HS (hyperspace)= 3+4+5+6
RS= Null +3 and HS=17
One is obviously larger than the other. This is where I derived the principle of hyperspace (with using RM) to be larger than real space. In essence in a simple mathematic model, -[]<RS<RM
Looking to string theory we can conclude a limit to RS which happens to be Planck's constant. HS goes beyond RS.
However, RM incorporates RS and HS into one Verse. RM=RS+HS-[].
[] Null, isn't representing "empty space" It is representing entropic space. Two very different things.
Euclidean measure has it's place, I used it merely in a mathematic strain which actually exibits quite accurately a value of non-euclidean geometry as it takes on universal infintes that cannot be categorized via Euclidean mathematics and geometry.
[]+[]=[]-[].
0/[]=[]/0
1/[]=[]/1
1-[]=2I
1+[]={0,1; 1,0}
[]-1=I
[]/1 doesn't equal []/0, but 0/[]=1/[]
New Beginnings: A new idea I had came out of a question: does a photon have a quark? Or more realisticly why doesn't it?
Before I suggested that light or photons avoid time through a series of subspace or hyperspace structures in which time becomes a tangible scalar dimension that is parallel to that of the normal dimensions. Then these questions protruded into my thinking.
If a photon does have a quark, which I surmise that it does, then the quark could not be integrated into the main energetic body of the photon, and would have to be dragged along. This is because the photon's energy wants to move at a relatively infinite speed, and the quark can't. If we use Regulus Space to calculate the variance in light travel, where C is jump from 0 point to 0 point that does not touch any RSQuanta then we can see how a quark could trail a photon.
The photon's energy can move freely from time, maintaining a near absolute speed, so long as it doesn't interact with any object that has time. The quark on the other hand which can't travel at the speed of light, thus it runs into time and slows the photon. We see this in a variance of frequency versus energy and a base in general relativity.
E=mc^2
E=hf
hf=mc^2
frequence=velocity/wave length
velocity=v=m*a
wave length=w
mc^2=h((ma)/w)
c^2=h(a/w)
c=(h(a/w))^(1/2)
Red light has a frequency around 430 terahertz =430 000 000 000 000 hertz, Red light wave length 700 nanometers
v=301 000 000 m / s (the speed of light if it didn't have a quark)
c=299 792 458 m / s (speed of light at fastest currently)
Thats a difference of 1207542 m/s
Light must have mass, and since an energy packet has no calculable mass, it must have a trailing quark.
http://i255.photobucket.com/albums/hh150/XtomJames/RSIncidentmatrix.png
After talking to Pesla, I came up with this. It shows a series of sub patterns which could be used to program this into a computer.
Before I begin to explore deeper into the mathematics and geometry of Regulusspace and the incidence matrix I supplied, I wish to give a stronger summation of the previous posts and discussion about Regulusspace.
The following is a series of laws that apply to this space and its variables. I will break them up in order of discovery and sequence of purpose.
Regulusspace (RS) axiom one: Zero is not the smallest form of space nor is it nothing. Nothing is defined as null, where there is truly nothing and is absolute in emptiness.
RS axiom two: Infinity is a product of the null and zero, and any cardinal factor of zero. Any definable infinite in our current math is a product of null and zero.
RS axiom 2.5: There is only one physically definable infinite in our Universe, this is time.
RS axiom three: between null and zero there is an infinite that is too small to be actualized in the macro physical dimension. Any infinitismal measurable point in space (not a particle or articulate) can be broken apart and this infinite can be seen. Since there is only one true measurable infinite in the universe (axiom 2.5) that measurable infinite must be time.
RS axiom four: The distance between any relative zero point and another relative zero point (that is any physical point visible from the macro universe) is zero, the distance between any relative zero point and the measurable infinite between zero and null is either, undefinable, zero, or one.
RS axiom five: The distance between a zero point and the infinite between null and zero (a regulusspace quanta; rsq) can be no larger than one and no smaller than zero. This variable distance is called an rsq measure. The distance between any two rsq is no less than one and no greater than n.
RS axiom six: Regulusspace is both infinite and finite.
RS axiom seven: Regulusspace is four dimensional, but scalar.
RS axiom eight: rsq is time.
RS axiom nine: Regulusspace is relative to a scalar form of time.
XtomJames
2008-07-30, 21:27
Well this is certainly off topic from my regulusspace, but I think I will try to answer. (please don't seperate into a new thread, thanks.) In standard physics there is no centrifugal force, or a force that pushes away from the center of movement. This is because we accept that there is a force and there is inertia. Were force is an energy that acts upon an object and inertia is the latent energy that the object has gained and retains unless another force acts on it. This of course applies to Newtons first second and third laws. An object at rest will stay at rest unless acted upon by an outside force. An object in motion will stay in motion unless acted upon by an outside force, and for every force there is an equal and opposite force.
In otherwords, centrifugal force, which as defined by its origin, a force that push out from the center, does and doesn't exist, mainly due to its literal meaning. More accurately, centripetal force is an objective force, and centrifugal force is a relative force.
Take the the swinging a bucket over your head example. As illustrated below.
http://www.postimage.org/gxM5FK9.jpg (http://www.postimage.org/image.php?v=gxM5FK9)
The black arrow respresents direction of swing of the arm, the red arrow represents direction of inertia due to initial force on the water, the blue arrows represent the direction of the acting force (tension) and the green smaller arrows represent the relative direction of force.
Here in lies the point, from the objective point of view, that sees the whole of the action, we know that it is centripetal force that holds the water in place. The water has an initial inertia to move in one direction, and is accelerated in a new direction by the tension force that acting towards the center, while the swing continues. Only from the relative point of view of the water, would the force appear to be moving away from the center.
** Gravity***
Now the standard view (ironically which is relative) is that gravity moves at the speed of light, and that if our sun were to be instantaniously replaced by a black hole of equal size, we wouldn't see the sun go out until 8 mins after the swap occured. This is essentially the same thing as tensional drift in the swinging bucket experiment. Where the weight of the bucket causes slack in the tension or a slowing of the cord, thus causing the cord to bend. The force exerted by the cord is ahead of the action of the bucket by a second, and though the bucket appears to be having the same force exerted on it from with in the bucket, it is apparant that it doesn't.
However I think there is a better explanation, and I think that gravity moves faster than light.
Let us take my postulate that Regulusspace described the scalar (one dimensional structure) of time, where time is a physical form existing as an alternate state dimension for the three dimensional structures of general space. Now, if we have mass one and mass two (m1 and m2) they have a given temporal distance based on the innumerate 0 points. Gravity must travel through these points much like an electron through an electric line. One temporal quanta being attracted to another essentially bumping into one another. More so, the connection is like lightning, the negative and positive charges meeting together, not going in one direction. If say we remove the black hole from the picture and just blinked out the sun, the gravity from the sun would disperse upon the current photons that had already been sent out, and since gravity travels faster than the speed of light (nearly two times I'd gather) the photons would speed up and we would see a reduction in time on how long it would take us to know the sun went out. Say (as a random guess meant to be easier to see in comparison) 20 seconds versus 8 mins.
Now lets put the black hole in to the equation, were equal amounts of gravity existed the photons would still move faster. This is because the black hole spins at a greater revolution than the sun, much faster, and gravity is lost when things are spun (much like magnetic fields) The affect of the blackhole would increase the speed of the light that had been emitted, not as much as no gravity being there, but enough for it to be noticeable.
On closer examination, we can see why the light would speed up, as the gravity of the black hole warps, due to the intensity of the gravity near the center of the black hole, and because of the spin, the time would be pulled further apart and gravity would be dispersed differently than with time that is standardized and in sequence. As time particles or Regulusspace quanta are stretched out of place, taking position where zero points should be, the scalar dimension is warped.
Now for the centrifugal part. Because time is essentially attached, like to ends of a rubber band (we could say string here) as the gravity warps the scalar dimension of time temporal points are pulled in two directions, towards the localized gravity and distortion, and towards the rest of the universe. Thus spreading out the time particles and slowing down the time along with the gravity. So what I suspect is what is called the event horizon is in fact the maximum gravitational affect on time, where time is stretched out the most. Before and after the event horizon, gravity and time normalize and balance each other out. This is because the temporal points are brought together after the event horizan and equalize their distance between points.
It would look something like this.
http://www.postimage.org/aVGBB5i.jpg (http://www.postimage.org/image.php?v=aVGBB5i)
the pink line represents the event horizon of a black hole. The pink line represents a two dimensional side cut of what happens to the temporal scalar, the black is a top view (if you could see it) and the center shows the spreading of Regulusspace quanta as it nears an event horizon.
In otherwords, centrifugal force is in fact any force that acts against the rotation of the tension, and thus can be used as an overall term for the combination of things like tension drift, gravity, and friction, if we utilized the bucket over the head example. Or in the case of the black hole, the distoration that time creates to balance the gravity of a black hole.Interestingly enough, this idea I put forth explains virtual photons. They aren't virtual, they're real photons that escape, it just so happens they are moving too fast for our equipment to pickup because of the gravitational distortion. (Further one could argue from this that gravity and time are one in the same, which would explain our "forward" movement through it.)
light is an odd thing. I can point out that light doesn't travel in a straight line, because it can't with in a moving universe, nor can it touch time unless it either has an object that can't move faster than it still attached to it, or it runs into something with time.
Say we take the spinning universe without a circumfrence and a relative center and spin it and try to walk across it. We would find our self going in hundreds of directions at any one moment while heading for the center, and then again when moving away from the center. If we move at the speed of light, we would meet every point on the surface of this universe as we move across it, unless of course, the light remains attached some how to the universe. The only way for it to do so, is if it's tethered to something that can't move fast enough to be everywhere. To something that is tangent to time.
And say for a moment that this universe has a driving force, it would be stronger than gravity, but less perceptive, gravity would be an illusionary force derived from this driving force, as would the percieved direction in time. In which case the effect is of a temporal structure that gravitates and warps with in gravity. But that driving force would be unchanged. Unless of course that force isn't a force at all, but an intertia.
hydroponichronic
2008-07-31, 07:36
This is the single largest first post I have ever seen. At some point, I'm going to delegate 5 or 6 hours to read and comprehend this, but until then, Xtom, you think you could type up a synopsis? Ideally somewhere in the 5-10 sentence range. I mean, it looked interesting, but Jesus, thats a lot of text
XtomJames
2008-07-31, 20:01
Well if you want a synopsis just read from ==Now the interesting stuff=== in the third from the last post.
TheParkinator
2008-08-02, 02:09
I think my brain just shit itself
Lol
Nice rant XtomJames.
But if I were you I would not reccomend replacing a 0/0 equation with a 1.
A zero would probably work, but for the sake of expirimentation go for it.
XtomJames
2008-08-02, 14:05
Ah, but you see you assume that 0/0 has to be 0. Standard math convetion would state so, but the special laws of 0 go out the window when it comes to null math which is what I'm using.
0=[]+I
So 0/0 is ([]+I)/([]+I)
Nulls cancel out leaving I/I which is one.
CaptainCanada
2008-08-02, 18:57
So... You're using "special" math to develop metaphysics?
XtomJames
2008-08-02, 20:09
Actually, no, its a standard mathematics used to define infinite series. It was taught here at my university in a class called Infinities and the Construction of Numbers. However I am using a specialized mapping system centered on this math system which has shown to be very interesting in the exploration of the idea of dimensional structures and how they function.
xXPhoenixFireXx
2008-08-02, 21:35
A pox be on you and all your decendants for seven generations.
Even if your math is correct, you've made several assumptions about the physical world, slapped them on a mathematical model and then proceeded to draw arbitrary conclusions that are in clear violation of the physical universe as we know it, simply because the solutions sound cool.
I hereby request that you learn at least a tiny bit of physics on the level you're trying to develop these theories for.
Take for example the concept of antimatter. I doubt you even know the mathematical basis for antimatter. Or quarks for that matter. Or any other subatomic particle.
And even if you don't stop taking from other theories to develop a completely new way of looking at thins, I at least insist that you look at real life. I.e. experiments that have been done so that you realize just how many blatant and egregious errors you've made.
I mean jesus man, you can't don't even know how wavelength and frequency of light are correlated!
c = lambda*nu. This isn't even complicated! It's basic. Beyond basic. Superbly beyond basic!
=====
Which really only leads to one conclusion. Excellent troll. Like damn. Jackass.
CaptainCanada
2008-08-03, 02:25
I don't think he's trolling. He's just dumb.
xXPhoenixFireXx
2008-08-03, 03:00
I refuse to believe that anyone could possibly be that ignorant and stupid. Sorry, but If I did I would have to murder the entire human race. I really would.
XtomJames
2008-08-03, 05:56
Actually Phoenix, I hate to break it to you, but I have taken such courses. I was the top of my AP physics class in high school which went into the basics of quantum mechanics and string theory. In my freshman and sophomore years at my university, I attended several physics classes as I originally planned to major in astrological physics. However, don't let that stop you from making a complete ass of yourself. Especially since you are attacking me even though you do not know, yourself, the full extent of what I've presented, nor what I do in fact know.
CaptainCanada
2008-08-03, 06:30
Lol, I also was the top of my AP physics class in high school. It's not really all that impressive, and it doesn't do anything to improve your credibility, especially when you post such idiocy. Neither does taking introductory courses or "planning to major in astrological physics".
And since you've decided to start bragging about what physics courses you've taken in order to convince people on the internet that you're smart, I might as well mention that I am majoring math and physics at MIT. I win, because my unverifiable claim is better than your's.
XtomJames
2008-08-03, 06:35
Um again, you assume. They weren't intro courses, the four classes I took that were physics based were in the 400 levels which are senior classes and graduate classes. I bypassed the majority of the "intro" classes with my perfect AP score. Secondly its not idiocy, its a two year project that I have summerized here.
If you're going to call something its not, then maybe you should actually read it instead of going "no its dumb" and ignoring what is actually there.
Actually, on second thought, no. Do what you wish. I'm wasting my time here it would seem with people who have an obviously low concept of physics.
Illuvatar
2008-08-03, 13:12
*burbs*
its gonna take a long time to digest this
xXPhoenixFireXx
2008-08-04, 01:51
Actually Phoenix, I hate to break it to you, but I have taken such courses. I was the top of my AP physics class in high school which went into the basics of quantum mechanics and string theory. In my freshman and sophomore years at my university, I attended several physics classes as I originally planned to major in astrological physics. However, don't let that stop you from making a complete ass of yourself. Especially since you are attacking me even though you do not know, yourself, the full extent of what I've presented, nor what I do in fact know.
I doubt a degree in the mystic arts of divination would have got you very far. Astrology is more of a trade school thing anyway. Good job on the change of major. Unless you did something silly like switch to symbology. In that case, a pox be on 8 generations.
CaptainCanada
2008-08-04, 03:47
a pox be on 8 generations.
My pessimism about humanity would be greatly alleviated if people said that more.
Random_Looney
2008-08-04, 04:06
AHAHAHA! Nothing more.
Shadout Mapes
2008-08-04, 05:03
As a freshman physics major who is extremely well-aware of what AP tests are capable of getting one out of in college, I'd like to contribute that perfect scores on physics APs will only get you out of at most 6 hours of college physics - not even into upper division courses. Also, getting a perfect score on an AP test only means being in the top-10% of test takers - I've had friends make perfect scores on AP tests even though they skipped several questions.
In any case, I am still rather impressed that you got a perfect score after seeing you write down the equation "v = m*a".
CaptainCanada
2008-08-04, 05:03
So, I decided to read this more carefully, and I have a few comments.
First, I don't think you've done a very good job of explaining some of the most important concepts. Most of your definitions seem rather vague and imprecise. My guess is that this is because you don't know the math needed to give proper definitions. I will elaborate on this point later if you wish, but now it is late and I am tired.
Second, and this is were the real problem lies, even if you can sort out all the logical details, there is no reason that I can see to try to turn this into a physical theory. I really don't see how you made the transition from talking about regulus space as an abstract topological construction (which is what it is if I am understanding it right) to talking about it as a model for the universe.
Finally, even if you can justify this transition, it is useless as a physical theory unless it can make falsifiable predictions which can be used to discredit or support it. Note that this is also the problem that some people, including myself, have with string theory.
EDIT: what the guy above me said is also true. Actually, at MIT, they usually don't let people skip anything on the basis of AP tests anymore, because of how much of a joke they are. But anyway, how did you get into graduate physics classes, if you're telling the truth about that? And if you were lying, why do you feel the need to lie to people on the internet? To prove to us that you're smart?
What the FUCK?
Every point in this "regulus space" is the same distance apart? Wouldn't that mean that every dimension of an object in regulus space would have to be the same length, given that every point is equidistant from every other point? If that's a yes, then every shape in regulus space is equivalent to a point/line/triangle/tetrahedral/higher dimensional tetrahedral-thingy, because as far as I know those are the only shapes entirely comprised of equidistant points.
BTW, here's what I found on regulus space:
http://www.inheritanceforums.com/index.php?showtopic=25711
http://www.sciencechatforum.com/bulletin/viewtopic.php?t=9230&sid=397c448643669d22283d76d65d0858c7
http://www.sciencechatforum.com/bulletin/viewtopic.php?t=8037&sid=477ba3b4539b195c7f1f40b4bd6d184d
http://www.philosophychatforum.com/bulletin/viewtopic.php?t=2051&start=30&sid=9d76f346494eee6afbaad8064db32fd0
I'm guessing this here is your original thread:
http://philosophychatforum.com/bulletin/viewtopic.php?t=2051
PS: is your name really spelled "Kristoffer"?
Also, you use a lot of rather vague terms. You also seem to use terms that have a certain accepted meaning in an entirely different context, without defining them. Examples: dimensional structure, dimensional definition, center angle, orthiogram, bases, projection.
You also mention the "distance between dimensions". Please define.
wtf is this time cube shit? gtfo schizo and go get some meds.
Chainhit
2008-08-05, 18:51
you want math? ill give you math
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mDu351QNoZE
oh man, if someone renamed the thread title to Regulus Space : Tweakers on LSD i would be forever greatful.
Nietzche
2008-08-05, 18:56
so this proves...?
im oddly reminded of the Simpsons when Homer proves there is no God via mathematical equation and starts putting it on everyones car.
besides, my heads just getting wrapped around the 10 dimensions idea.
has anyone seen the light experiments?
l33t-haX0r
2008-08-05, 19:31
astrological physics.
/thread
absolutecaliber
2008-08-25, 12:01
astrology lol