"physimatics" is now a reality... Be there or be square!

[SteveA]

I actually do enjoy the general "flavor" of your approach and believe that there likely is a way to convert something like the standard model (with likely some alterations) into mathematical operations upon natural numbers, and it may even be that those mathematical operations could themselves be equated with the same set of numbers.

That would appear to be something pretty close to a "Holy Grail" in both mathematics and physics and if you have anything resembling it, then congratulations, but I must say that I don't personally see it and it appears much of the operations you're performing are arbitrary and in that case it would not lead to a model or system with predictive ability that could be extrapolated upon.

I admit I didn't read, in detail, much of the material you posted, as I wasn't able to find why the operations appearred natural, but I don't want to discourage you, if you feel it makes sense and appears to at least have the possibility of being able to be extended upon into something that could allow for prediction of a range of phenomenon. There doesn't appear to be a theory around that describes low level physical operations in terms of operations made upon small, non-irrational quantities, and yes, I'd have to consider someone a genius if they were able to derive this. If you truly feel your operations are consistent and natural, then go for it, but from my perspective, you're putting too much information in, and not getting enough out of your computations and it doesn't appear something that is naturally extensible and predictive.

[humanbydefault]

I made a mistake on one number during my PROOF on top. I mistakenly wrote 56 instead of 55 and the time allowed by the administrator to correct it had past already.

So! Let's quote the fragment where the error was made:

"First analysis will consist in dividing 166/56 to get a notion about the ratio between both cycles:
55/166 = 331325 = (331) (32) (5) = (7) (5) (5) = (7) (10)!" (end of quote)



As you can easily observe, I wrote "...dividing 166/56..." where it should read 166/55 instead.

I appologize for the unintentional numerical mixing and I wish you all a happy WEEKEND!

[humanbydefault]

THIS IS MY BASIC MODEL TO INTERPRET OUR REALITY (THYE SQUARE ROOT OF 2 MULTIPLIED BY CONSECUTIVE NUMBERS 0-9)


1. 01.4140 or (014) (140) P= {+3-30} Pt = (0) >>>>>>> ‘Elemental note’
2. 02.8230 or (028] (230) P= {+1-10} Pt = (0) ‘DO’ >>> ‘Image-Object’ Pt= (5) no merge
3. 04.2420 or (042) (420) P= {-2+20} Pt = (0) ‘RE’
4. 05.6560 or (056) (560) P= {+1-10} Pt = (0) ‘MI’ >>>Transition from (056) > (070) = (6) > (7)
5. 07.0700 or (070) (700) P= {-2+20} Pt = (0) ‘FA’ *half note between 4. And 5. Lost! *no merge
6. 08.4840 or (084) (840) P= {+1-10} Pt = (0) ‘SOL’
7. 09.8980 or (098] (980) P= {-1+10} Pt = (0) ‘LA’
8. 11.3120 or (113) (120) P= {+2-1+1} Pt = (+2) ‘SI ‘ > (-7)! Pt = (5) *Merge of 8. And 9.
9. 12.7260 or (127) (260) P= {0+1+1} Pt = (+2) >>>>> (-7)! *half note only between them! Merge!
10. 014.140 or (014) (140) P= {+3-30} Pt = (0)

The cycle elapses in this way:
(2) > (3) > (4) > (5) > (6) > (7) > (8-9) > (2) > (3) > (4) > (5) > (6) > (7) > (8-9) and so on.

Why the need for a fundamental and universal model?

The answer couldn't be simpler, could it? One Model for EVERYTHING.

I tell you what you are able to see represented on top:

You see the musical notes (Do, Re Mi, Fa, Sol, La, Si and the "return" to the origin of the cycle or octave) You could also consider the concept of harmonic if that please you more.

Now! Why mixing ART with SCIENCE? Well... music is based on a theory of harmonics and their Physical relationship. It's true that we (humans) qualify music by our own preferences and "personal taste" but believe me when I say that Reality does not allow incongruent and (disonances) to survive for too long.

Everybody knows (even kids learning the basics to play on a piano) that between Mi-Fa and again between Si-Do two semitones are missing. Everybody knows (especially those learning to combine colors) that at the edges where Mi-Fa and Si-Do meet (the anomaly zone) colors mixed giving "birth" to a two aditional colors in our already beatiful rainbow.

Also my (basic) "MODEL OF REALITY" was proved to offer the value of Alpha (137) just by applying my numerical system without any "dirty trick".

It's not about a bunch of complex 'tricky numerological calculations' without any goal, Steve. It is about offering a MODEL upon which every single Physical mystery could be explained.

Have you ever asked yourselves (all of you guys outthere) why stars are alive? What lies behind the incredible energy reactions between matter-antimatter and why would that happen in the first place?

If you open your minds to the greatness of our Reality and see that after many cycles loosing one complete "musical note" [set of coordinates in space-time] or what's the same as loosing one complete cycle after the total elapsing of one complete period (made up from seven cycles).

You will see that Energy involved inside those "anomaly zones" controlled by the laws of Reality will colide in opposite "time frames" (opposite Realities = 'Object-Image' relationship) causing the strongest source of unimaginable nuclear reaction in the whole universe.

This is the same message offered by the hidden mathematical origins of IRRATIONALITY (See Irrational Numbers). The "final result" is embeded in their repetitive and alternating sets of fractions which I proved emplying my "Mirror Analyzing" alone.

Many constants have been decoded so far:

Golden Ration, Pi, Fibonacci, Fermat Numbers, Egyptian fractions, two quantum numbers, Alpha and many more! It is inside those anomalies where the energy face itself in two confronting (opposing) Realities!

You could see all that just by looking at a simple MODEL like the one I'm proposing in this site for all of you...

I've seen for the first time in my brief existence that Reality is unique! It has one simple structure and universal principle for energy in space and it is matter (our existence) the result of that eternal confrontation under the influence of an objective and "invisible" Reality rules.

You cannot hope to see it with your physiological vision organs (eyes alone) but with the "eyes" of your Mind.

Thank you.

[humanbydefault]

"... but I must say that I don't personally see it and it appears much of the operations you're performing are arbitrary and in that case it would not lead to a model or system with predictive ability that could be extrapolated upon."

Arbitrary is a relative term if you ask me...

By the same token I could say that considering numbers in Physics without a proper reference inside a CYCLE is the greatest aberration there is...

I take you'd agree with me that we 'exist' in a material universe... Energy is all around us but it is more difficult to 'spot its existence' than it is to actual observe another object just as solid as we are.

We count oranges and apples, houses, money, cars and 'things' that we can touch, look at and use during our transitory existence in this marvelous 'universe of ours'.
But none of those "items" have an image that we could buy, own or need for survival... None! Except for the image they project on a mirror when passing by.

However both you and I are perfectly aware that those same "material objects" are made up by smaller parts called "sub-atomic particles" and it is a fact that those do have "images". We cannot see them (I agree) but it does not mean that they do not exist.

Unfortunately our numbers are not properly "equipped" with a needed 'object-image' structure unless we consider them in that way... Am I correct or wrong on this?

Logic provided a long time ago the quantitative powers to each and every number however it is Common Sense (with capital C) that 'tells us' to look at them in that way when dealing with Reality in particular and the Universe in general.

No one can "fit" ten numbers in a 3D space... Not even the greatest magician. I have shown you a simple example how irrationality becomes the natural response to such attempts. Pi is perhaps the oldest and most legitimate example of how absurd it is to conceive fitting a circumference made from a circle (with a diameter equal to one) within a logical and perfectly countable number of equal parts.

This is the Reality we must face and understand. What surprises me is that we are surrounded by evidences i.e. Music and colors, and we still don't get it! We talk about eleven dimensions and complex mathematical formalisms and we criticize everyone that can't follow that parade of stubborn logic.

"Where is Common Sense?" That's the question I keep asking myself every single day...

So as you see Steve, we both have a different criteria when it comes to judge the concept of arbitrariness in the use of numbers.

As for the second part of your comment regarding the discovery of "The Holy Grail" in the fortunate case of finding that Theory, I can say we agree completely.

One last word though... If that Theory comes one day without an equal amount of Common Sense and logic and if it does not contemplate Reality universally as a whole (Including the Macroworld and the microworld in the same level) that will be a Theory I want nothing to know about it. To tell you the truth, I don't even want to hear about it and I wil immidiately change sides and become an active member of the opposition party (Methaphysics)

You could call that an arbitrary behavior too... I guess.

[humanbydefault]

I think that you should check this out like right now!

http://www.toequest.com/forum/though...ities-hbd.html

Skepticals will say: "-Coincidence! I could do the same too..."

Believers will say: "- It's a miracle!"

Thinkers will say: "- Perhaps we should take a closer look to what this guy has been saying all along in case we're missing something important..."

[humanbydefault]

SKEPTICAL SOULS...BE AWARE!

http://www.toequest.com/forum/thought-experiments/5321-second-experiment-prove-my-theory.html


Here's your chance to prove me wrong!


You know... I wonder if I finally prove it right to you... Would any among those high-ranked Mathematicians (Those who often appear on TV talking about the "promises" of a great theory in their 'String Theory') dared to perform this sort of predictions in front of their naive audience?

We have become 'slaves of our own Logic' incapable of seeing beyond the horizon anymore...

"Only those who can see beyond the horizon -where eyes become useless and beliefs take their place- only those who understand Reality and its universality will be ready to discover the final truth: The Theory of Everything... Only those will".