JonDWoodward Normalization

[theunify]

I was busy getting everyone the copy of my book I promised. Well it's up it's published in the articles section and Robert has been helping me or at least trying
But what really got me thinking about my next idea, my next effort to prove myself, was an argument between to forum regulars. I had suggested that using infinity was valid, however using this value leads to "unbound" results. Dleviwing and Lloyd Gillepsie are debating this right now in TQ physics alliance..in a stale mate.

My solution is pretty simple all I had to do was remember my Einstein and re-read a few of my underlined sections, I forgot that he also used infinity, but he calls this C " This expression approaches infinity as the velocity v aproaches the velocity of light c. The velocity must therefore always remain less than c, however great may be the energies used to produce the acceleration." mc^2/sqrt.1-(v^2/c^2).

Exactly!, in my theory Infinity plays the rule of unity. "When v^2/c^2 is small compared to unity, the third of these terms is always small in comparison with the second, which last is alone considered in classical mechanics."

What this means that when we regard infinity as unity in my equations, we can also regard a constant 1/c to be "normal".

Pay attention. I could soon be making some eye opening discoveries in my blog.

[labelwench]

I was busy getting everyone the copy of my book I promised. Well it's up it's published in the articles section and Robert has been helping me or at least trying
But what really got me thinking about my next idea, my next effort to prove myself, was an argument between to forum regulars. I had suggested that using infinity was valid, however using this value leads to "unbound" results. Dleviwing and Lloyd Gillepsie are debating this right now in TQ physics alliance..in a stale mate.

My solution is pretty simple all I had to do was remember my Einstein and re-read a few of my underlined sections, I forgot that he also used infinity, but he calls this C " This expression approaches infinity as the velocity v aproaches the velocity of light c. The velocity must therefore always remain less than c, however great may be the energies used to produce the acceleration." mc^2/sqrt.1-(v^2/c^2).

Exactly!, in my theory Infinity plays the rule of unity. "When v^2/c^2 is small compared to unity, the third of these terms is always small in comparison with the second, which last is alone considered in classical mechanics."

What this means that when we regard infinity as unity in my equations, we can also regard a constant 1/c to be "normal".

Pay attention. I could soon be making some eye opening discoveries in my blog.

What this means that when we regard infinity as unity in my equations, we can also regard a constant 1/c to be "normal".

I'm no good with this sort of math, yet infinity as a unifying factor could be regarded as 'normal', at least until 'infinity' itself is either proven or disproved.
Just my opinion......

[theunify]

LabelWench,

The problem stems from the fact that in order to represent an idea you need to have a working 4D model. Using infinity doesn't allow you to create a model because it is not bounded by any dimension, so it's a project that would take an infinite amount of time.

To normalize the equation you have to reset infinity to equal the speed of light, this is then coverted into standard physical units such as meters per second and further it can be seen to represent a set amount of space-time.

By doing the normalization you lose the theory of Unification in principle because it no longer matches up with all of the required prerequisites; but it then becomes possible to create a model which is bounded by the first four dimensions.

The way to think of it is take your shoe size...your shoe size is unique and doesn't equal anybody else's foot size, but if you want to normalize foot size well then you maybe will choose a standard method of units such that anybody with half of your foot size is equal to one half of LW's foot, we can call that a 1/2 LW. But by doing this "normalization" we lose the precision but we gain the ability to proceed into the bounded dimensions and hence we can achieve a 4D model.

It's a little like the difference between High Definition Tv's and Fuzzy Tv's, sometimes you have to weaken the signal so that it can been seen on more than just High Definition Tv's (the mind).

~theunify

[labelwench]

Thank you for the reply, Jon.

On a simpler scale, it's not unlike the difficulty we encounter when we cannot see the forest for the trees, to use a model that is familiar to me.

While I greatly admire those who are able to contemplate these multi-dimensional concepts and am curious as to how our species demonstrates such diversity in the manner in which we seemingly use the same biological apparatus (brain), I admit that I am perplexed that we appear to be the species for which this pursuit is such an important preoccupation.

Then again, I consider how little we truly know about the functioning of many other beings, as we are limited by our over-arching perspective of our own self-realization.

You mention a working 4-D model. No matter how many dimensions we utilize in a given model, is there not still the dimension from which one is viewing the model?

Are we able to make a model viewed from within, for surely we are viewing the universe from within same?

Until we find the limits of the universe, this may be challenging, for how precisely does one model that which has no limits, except within one's imagination?

Now you've got me so circular I doubt if I can recall my shoe size......