Re: The Modulus Project

I am starting Modulus on the assumption that a passage for time is
invisible.


1. The passage for time is Invisible.
2. The units of time are a modularity based on something invisible.
The units are visible.
3. Time is an expression of distance / distance. Time is always
observed and expressed by distances.
4. Distance is based on the smallest VISIBLE points of reference.

i.e. In any given position there are an (x) number of nanometers to
the center of the sun.

5. Time is a three dimensional object that rotates.
6. Time is a model.
7. ALL models must observe the LAWS of Nature.
8. Time is a representation therefore there is no passage of time.
9. Moving faster than the speed of light will cause one to disappear
then reappear when they slowed down to another observer.
10. The eye can only see light, therefore if one moved towards a clock
at the speed of light they would SEE

NOTHING !.Because the photons (which your eyes can see and see only)
would compress and form a boundary against the retina.


11. If the clock and the eye moved at the speed of light together, you
still couldn't read the time because any light in that system would be
traveling in the same direction.


The only way to travel at the speed of light is to produce a surface
of infinite density. But this will not be time travel. It will just be
very very fast.


-y


On May 6, 1:40 pm, "Ahmed Ouahi, Architect" <ahmed.ou...@xxxxxxxxx>
wrote:
First of all, Yan, everything is a strictly and absolutely a possible, you
do have only to turn away, from anything which is a conventional as to run
from any conventional details.

Therefore, for instance, along the geometry of the space, you would be
having an absolute possibility to divide the 0, something none would be
able, along any Euclidian geometry, and this is the great escape along the
space, in the real meaning of the terms, a definitely as a matter a fact.

--
Ahmed Ouahi, Architect
Best Regards!

"Y" <yanar...@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote in message

news:1178419619.503836.116550@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx

I think I am close to a new system of mathematical expression. But I
would like to discuss this openly in another forum. It might be used
for physics, but not sure at this point.

I am going to call this Modulus, which is a logical opponent to
Calculus. It is my intention to not let this 'modulus' become the
problem that calculus became. I think the first most important
decision to make is regarding the transcendental numbers.

I think we can (squeeze) nature into expression if we agree that there
are an infinitely divisible number of points or distances between any
0 and 1.

One problem with calculus is Leibniz's monad. Essentially the monad is
allot like Hawking's singularity, except that is was conscious
oriented. i.e. an infinitely small point of consciousness. So clearly
he and Newton thought allot about the Gods. Leibniz was a Kabbahlist.

Drawing inference from points, one always assumes the precise measure
of a man over the actual distances between things in Nature. If we
accept the fact of our humanity we would know that our brains, are not
infinitely small or large. We exist somewhere in between. It is a
gruesome example that I am about to give, so please be prepared to
read this, ------ the brain is not infinitely dense otherwise water
and other atoms wouldn't replace themselves within the substrate.

So relating this back to the ACTUALITY means (Da) Distance (actual) as
I discussed previously, we can determine a rate of measure that does
not assume the infinitely inaccurate measure of 'distance' and 'time'
and arrive at paradox. We can however assume that one measure is
imperfect, and the other is too perfect to claim for ourselves.

I think we can place this down to what we determine to be the
difference as visible and invisible. And we will also need to install
disaster disclaimers as with the creation with any new tool.

So I would really like to discuss this with allot of people first.
These are just some ideas they may be flawed and I would like to hear
the reasons and comments.

For those interested in starting a new forum for the discussion of
Modulus please email me direct.

yanar...@xxxxxxxxxxx


.

Relevant Pages

  • Re: what length contraction in only one direction?
    ... no see that the distance gets infinite length when v=c. ... of 1m gets infinite mass it must get and an infinite lenght, ... He takes as a base the relation of the Lorentz transformation: ... Making an analogy between the segments AB and BC, ...
    (sci.physics.relativity)
  • Re: what length contraction in only one direction?
    ... no see that the distance gets infinite length when v=c. ... of 1m gets infinite mass it must get and an infinite lenght, ... He takes as a base the relation of the Lorentz transformation: ... Making an analogy between the segments AB and BC, ...
    (sci.physics.relativity)
  • Re: what length contraction in only one direction?
    ... no see that the distance gets infinite length when v=c. ... of 1m gets infinite mass it must get and an infinite lenght, ... He takes as a base the relation of the Lorentz transformation: ... Making an analogy between the segments AB and BC, ...
    (sci.physics.relativity)
  • Re: Einsteins Doppler equation wrong?
    ... > If it is an infinite distance then the angle between them when it was ... Assume the emitter is following a path that is, ...
    (sci.physics.relativity)
  • Re: quick everybody burn your helmets...
    ... from the edge of the lane for any significant distance to avoid ... try and ride along the thermoplastic used for them. ... U-Turn's argument easily extends to infinite distributions. ... In this context I am prepared to accept any probability, ...
    (rec.sport.unicycling)