Toe

[Lloyd Gillespie]

Yeah, you have to have the picture up on screen, then drag the mouse corner to corner, and hit ctrl c, or click mouse, or mouse pad..., then ctrl v to post...

You probably know how anyway, but that's how I do it...

[G_burnett]

http://098xog.blu.livefilestore.com/...ownload&psid=1

ok this is a test of a link

[G_burnett]

third testing

http://cid-4724e40c7c38f6c8.photos.l...tester%202.doc

[G_burnett]

hmmm this is interresting ... have i just gave you all access to my word program an ability to change it/ lol
I am having a difficult time here ... Office is still hard to do the art in for me ... bare with me

[G_burnett]

ahh the h with the pictures right now

I start at position A and move through space to position B at a constant rate of motion but at position B a force is exerted upon me of a constant nature as i was moving to position C.

the same time has passed to my relativity in motion but now i have traveled further then Vector AB.

this motion between BC was gradient effect or i moved in a curve but i am still the same distance between B and Point C as Point A and point B.

thus there is a vector BC equal to AB but it is in a different direction then AB.

The vector BC can be said to be the vector under a curved arc of radian measure that to any given force amount that had been used, the force is the radii and equal.

the force would not be equal perhaps in a vortex arc or i in motion may have loss mass if mass was a concern ... thus there is the possible axiom variation that the radii are not the same... (and for other reasons not said.)(MORE THE REALITY THEN NOT)

but in the given the radii are the same as the force originated from the singular source effecting me in motion the same throughout the BC trip. ... ... the point z for the radii in varied position will have infinite possible variation of degrees but not zero...

It would seem to be a ratio problem to convert the distance in one dimension to the dimension of radian degrees based on the force effecting event parameters to the given original motion parameters.

Correct me if i am wrong?

Ok then in the toronic structure we have that little dot in the yin and the yang turning in space and time with orbital transfer to a z point energy ... what then is the math other then as above to dimension the parameters as needed with `F=ma ... hmmm more then one step for sure to explain the motion and effect to other? ... WOW

kind regards graham

[G_burnett]

OH YEA ... the other fellow failed to take in account that A position is not the same as B relation to C having a radii equivilent ... Position A is not on the circle that will be discribed by the arc BC.

[G_burnett]

lost a good posting

hmmm

came to the conclude that E=mc2 indeed and the vector change of direction is only one half the degrees of change from 90.

the vector BC represents the same distance from point AB vector but achieved in the same time by a varied route of accelerated mass, thus the constant c was varied in E=mc2 to ... c2, the real value of c .. in the given geometric reality not to say the determinate from point A was not at the constant just constant minus ...

hah ... this is interesting indeed..

Kind regards graham

[G_burnett]

The next link in a brief review, of tensors give ponder to the postulation done on the three variables of the given electron structure in the observation of the electron to have a charge state forward in motion by causal in two of those states. the third state of static non aligned transitional state is one of three event observations. The first is the causal of motion by charge forward in either two states of charge forward in the wave effecting and the third is transition to symmetry.

Taken in context i see no problem in tensor presentation.

QM uses the tensor define not so much in the clarity of state but for function of state. I can not commit to the validity of this as i am more into reality ... Does it make it more clear?

i have a hard time in logical progression from observation other then to experiment using the varied describe of my observation possible. Thus in the experimental stage it is very important to have all the tensor clarity. Not design of state to fit the results wanted but to give the needed clarity of state in a reality of it nature observed varied from (oh get this) .... varied from the state of "one" ... even if it is a static transient state changing other if not in a change by other ..

back later take care,

graham

[Lloyd Gillespie]

Graham, are you familiar with these three papers by Grisha Perelman...?

The Three Body Problem...
http://aps.arxiv.org/find/grp_math/1/au:+Perelman_Grisha/0/1/0/all/0/1

Especially this one:

The entropy formula for the Ricci flow and its geometric applications,

Grisha Perelman
http://aps.arxiv.org/PS_cache/math/pdf/0211/0211159v1.pdf

Here's another interesting one__Ignore the string theory, and check out the tensor maths, and possible integrations...
http://arxiv.org/PS_cache/arxiv/pdf/0804/0804.3080v2.pdf
Nicolaidis is using Peircean logical relational algebras...

Here's links to his other ideas:
http://arxiv.org/find/all/1/all:+Nicolaidis/0/1/0/all/0/1

He's a physicist/mathematician I've corresponded with, from Greece...

[G_burnett]

it will take me another 15 years to read to full understanding his 15 years of postulations lol , ... i was following on the brief read on the second link so will look deeper at his papers. most interesting as he is alive in the postulations that would at one time taken generations to find even the most simple of note. Some interesting material, thank you and will get back to you on some of the subject matter i can see being most informative especially to the limit determinate. I should say though that in the Toronic structure the field value is established by vanity to a measure knowing on the platform that it is indeed the vary by causal both in it own motion and other effect. This platform of understanding is very important prior to the snapshot view one might have in the structure pictorial .. after all is said it is the factor of clarity we look for. ... is there any that have the y-axis postulation or was i the first? I can not find the math in any reality that hints at it other then by it absence of consideration or passing for subjectivity.... the combination needed to the manifold may be the work back view taken and i am still hesitant to do that as coming under the manifold should be the progression .. without the could be should be might be failure at that lack of clarity. ...
If i use progressive then each `f1,2,3... must be defined thus under the manifold of relativity.... key word under IMHO

graham .. i need a place to study ... found a white board in a UBC little finger extended college library up my way ... by the time i was finished i had a crowd of eight then twelve when i answered a few questions ... back to the coda on my guitar .. later .. they said the college was open to seminar sugestions and listing if interrest was given by signons and payment ... hmmm interesting ..

Ok .. i will read them all affter number four link above touched on and the next given after. ...