|
Post by Administrator on Dec 22, 2019 11:38:48 GMT
If you have a lump of dough....
And pick it up and pull it into separate pieces..
By physical law you made distinction of what we name "two" or 2.
It was an action made to matter.
Two, 2 are names only.
Notice the name "two" or the number "2" is one single word.
One name.
But physically you made 2 things.
1 + 1
This is convergence of physical properties and names or meanings
It is why there is an issue in the charting out of maths on paper.
Particularly dealing with zero
|
|
|
Post by Administrator on Dec 22, 2019 12:14:31 GMT
I know the Newgrange inscriptions actually are there to indicate the concept of meaning evolving from matter.
For example in visions and hallucinations in shape and form of rock or even nature.
|
|
|
Post by Administrator on Dec 22, 2019 14:49:34 GMT
There has to be a similar principle in law..
If law = Maths... Applicable to form.
If it is an offence to put a person at a loss and make a person gain
Theft..
What is a gift?
A gift is the exact same execution of action..
Someone being placed in possession of a thing. While someone else looses possession of it.
The only difference is the meaning.. Was it consented or not? That is pure human meaning.
The physical matter transfer is the same in gift v theft.
If nobody talks or gives signal in the physical transaction..
Is it gift or theft?
With a neutral permission?
With neither objection or consent to the item leaving?
It's pure will.
|
|
|
Post by Administrator on Dec 22, 2019 14:50:48 GMT
What about a stone falling?
Windsors stone. Let's call it.
By nature forces.
No human will.
|
|
|
Post by Administrator on Dec 22, 2019 23:30:04 GMT
You might find this video interesting I just watched..
I am just uploading a talk I did earlier today.... I will add that as well..
Also.. I remember in my early, mid 20s I was very interested in Ayahuasca and I guess you could say Anthropology but not as any University Baroness would claim.. with graduate hat and scroll manner.. Just of my own natural interest as anyone..
And we did a lot of discussions in various groups and one think that I deeply contemplated a lot was objects and trees and things possibly storing memories or waves in their structures..
We memorize by sight,touch smell.. And have imagination..
Trees or boulders don't have names. Trees grow boulders are static..
But they absorb light and sound and over time anything passing through it.. could be contained within it..
I've seen evidence of trees holding what can be understood as a memory of its surroundings within it.
Also.. if that's possible.. peoples bones might even hold this vibration pattern. Not just soft tissue..
So its interesting that they dug up Oliver Cromwell's bones and actually felt so strongly to dig him up and actually destroy them...
I'm pretty certain that the Newgrange inscriptions and any others (most likely removed or worn away) if legitimate..
Is a gesture to remind us that matter could take on image within it or on its surface..
I think that will be something that we will be able to study and prove in the future.
|
|
|
Post by Administrator on Dec 22, 2019 23:41:07 GMT
That really would be a mind bomb for the Riemann Hypothesis mathematicians..
As you are then contemplating modeling into solid rock or a living tree. But not just on the surface..
Not water channeling a stream over hundreds of years..
Or wind smoothing a rock..
Nature can make maths.. make two rocks from 1 rock.. by forming it.. this impression is physically embodied..
There could be other forms stored... Yes.. similar to reflections storing images in water.. but the water is moving evaporates, is moving flowing..
If more than light can go into a rock... sound, heat .. magnetic forces of the earth.. then an image or images could be stored.. even a playable movie..
Very similar to how we store magnetic video on a strip of tape.
Unfortunately.. people can take on impressions as well... And there are impressions we get from people.. class and character from details in their faces... not clothing.. But time can run off on people as they say..
People grow a certain way.. As do trees..
Culture is impression-able also..
Courts...
Mathematics actually is a very simple and basic form of understanding matter and form. In its simplest.. counting it.
Not even in details as a painter or sculptor works with matter and form.
|
|
|
Post by Administrator on Dec 23, 2019 10:52:31 GMT
Hmmmmm..
Actually..
Radius Minus Circumference squared
Haha. I think I put radius squared as well by mistake.
I want to look as using words as examples for maths...
Because creating division and meanings is important in this.. regarding matter..
So for example..
"Seperated" = 2 (or more) but = 1 word
2 = one word = . . = two
Where 0 =
Like that....
This is the convergence of name and form.
Also how all of the minus numbers can be 0. But are "something" written.
Just as zero can be a measurable temperature but it's only a named marker.
|
|
|
Post by Administrator on Dec 23, 2019 11:15:56 GMT
Ok... I knew what I meant. But as I am not a maths expert.. I didn't have the stupid maths language (Maths language is extremely ridiculous and annoying) But I had the thought and understanding.. So it's not written using circumference Only the radius. It actually IS pie... but minus.. Which is what I was thinking.. So... I just had to check my terms were correct So the video is wrong in language but I was correct in the thought.. Area = π r2 So - π r2 of any area. But you will need an area to start with. Or else there is nothing 0 = Another way you have to see it is... When you write a -1 you are adding a marker to the paper So When you go into minus, with that Reimann Hypothesis video... -1 = +1 -2 = +2 -3 = +3 On paper it is addition of markers. So I don't actually know who has made the biggest mistake.. Him or me.. haha... I just hadn't done maths for a long time so had remembered by terms circumference, radius, diameter , area.. as I know to measure them.. I just had forgotten pie and the formula. This is the problem because people mix up the language with the thought of what they are doing with the form.. It's like when you think... I will go to the bus station. But your mouth says "train station" And you realise you said the wrong word. And you apologise and correct yourself
|
|
|
Post by Administrator on Dec 23, 2019 11:32:44 GMT
I actually fucking hate this.... www.varsitytutors.com/basic_geometry-help/how-to-find-circumferenceBut as soon as you bring words and meanings into it.. I like it.. Such as the meaning of words like "separate" meaning more than one thing. I don't like having to remember formula and directions in maths.. But with form and meaning of actions and life stuff.. I enjoy it... Which is why I don't like courts because often I think they don't understand cases at all. They like law and justice but actually I think like Reimann Hypothesis They have errors in their understanding... There are lots of different types of intelligence around..
|
|
|
Post by Administrator on Dec 23, 2019 14:50:35 GMT
Mathematics alone cannot solve the problem.
You need another degree of subject.
Also... I'm quite certain that he knows its not possible to solve the problem therefore is why he offers the prize money..
But.... If the problem cannot be possible to solve with maths.. his offer is fraudulent.
Or if he refuses to accept the real solution.. he is breaking the offer of his video agreement..
So the degree of law is brought in.. because his offer itself is invalid or fraudulent..
So you can win the money with law.
James Harris Simon's offer is fraudulent Therefore I claim the money or will sue for it.
|
|
|
Post by Administrator on Dec 23, 2019 14:57:57 GMT
-1 Subject = no subject
Or removal of subjective = 0 subjective
That is why maths is itself +1 Subject
|
|
|
Post by Administrator on Dec 24, 2019 9:28:54 GMT
Another thing, is that in calibration of and moving scale... particularly 3d but 2d also...
Any movement of a "point" will be +1 in the direction of travel and -1 away from the start point.
So...
Points A, B, C on a railway line
You leave destination B. And travel to destination C.
A+1=B when A-1=B
This way a navigation point can move along.
It's a bit like GPS.
The issue with the Reimann Hypothesis chart is that the whole chart exists
If you have nothing... no chart. Your first point is 0. And if there is no physical memory..
Point zero moves to point 1. And the 0 vanishes. As it's not memorized. You only have the 1 then. That was moved to and no zero.
This explains a universe with no space time or distance. Except when you create it yourself from nothing in 3d and time space.
|
|
|
Post by Administrator on Dec 24, 2019 9:57:22 GMT
I think you will find that formula will account for a creation model for the universe.. Down to motion of atoms and quarks,, because you are literally "drawing" space, time and distance... with the orbits and when you have created the space you can have more things inside it... Though they are talking about "dark matter" And forces unseen effecting gravitation that they cannot account for... We don't know the effects of "nothing" on gravitational fields.. Instead of concentrating on the gravitational field... why not consider a reversal theory? That instead, the "nothing" that exists "in between" identifiable matter... is always trying to pull "something" back into nothing.. Which is in fact the nothing between something... Unweave so to say... Which is why it's dark.. I don't think the concept is that complicated at all really. I might send the idea to Professor Brian Cox and see if he likes it.. and split my Reimann Hypothesis prize money with him.
|
|
|
Post by Administrator on Dec 24, 2019 10:08:55 GMT
Basically...
Instead of observing "saturn" and saying..
Ok.... Saturn has this gravitational effect on surround bodies in space...
And measure the pull from Saturn..
And saying.. ok well.. we know there is dark matter but we don't understand it..
Why not forget the planets and bodies..
And say... ok.... we have absolute "nothing" in between objects... in between atoms and in between quarks.. or whatever..
And THAT is the force that is moving everything else.
So it's not dark matter.. actually its "nothing" and the "somethings" are being moved around by the nothing.
And as we know there is a lot of nothing.. we can work out the effects of nothing on the other things.
Basically.. it's as simple as solving the Reimann Hypothesis
But you will always have the contradiction of never being able to measure absolutely nothing when an instrument exists to measure with. As it's a contradiction.
|
|
|
Post by Administrator on Dec 24, 2019 10:20:15 GMT
It actually accounts for time being created and accounts for literally wider orbits BEING more TIME obviously because you have created a longer distance in a wider orbit and actually created a new time itself. So I don't think I have heard them confirm the orbit creates the time yet.. They just say time is distorted by higher speed.. But really it's the distance. We are all existing within time already been created.. I think its pretty cool
|
|