Re: The Modulus Project


better just to say x = distance y = distance z = 'time'

If you place the model at the center of mass of the sun, draw a line
that is the orbit of the earth around the sun around the d/d axis,
'should be something close to a circle'

you should get a rate of change for 'time' which is relative between
the center of the sun and the center of the earth. To children; This
is still no reason to be late for school. Perhaps we should start by
asking the children why ? Let them think about it first. We should
also not forget Calculus. Calculus is directly relational to Modulus.

I shall not post the answer to this question; because children should
never cheat on their exams ! They should know that time DOES exist,
but a passage is so far unobservable, and so they should know the
difference. Perhaps the more distance we travel together we will
develop the ability to see a passage for time in the same way DNA
found a way to see ? The potential for people is unlimited in the same
way that our equations are. There is still much much more to find out.
For instance, what is the distance between a moving person on the face
of the planet from the center of the sun at any given time ?? I
suspect this will be a high school question (Maybe university level at
this stage).

For instance, the axis of the earth is at an angle to the orbit a
rotation around the sun. What is this angle relative to the sun how
does it change with time ? What is North and South, East and West and
how does it relate to our planet ?

hmmm, I think we may need to revise plans on the space elevator for a
little bit. At first I was very optimistic, but its like throwing an
old car away if you know what I mean. Something about upsetting the
inertia of the planet seems as though it may have a terrible long term
consequence.

Does anyone here think that the time will change at the center of the
earth, as it does from the surface of the earth ? Something tells me
that if a force is driving the clock then no, but maybe if the clock
is an inertia meter it will have a different rate.

Anyway, ,happy public holidays.

Sorry. I did make a mistake in my last post.

Point 7. All models must obey the laws of nature. Not observe. We do
not observe a passage for time, but that doesn't make it unimportant.
I apologise for the mistake but this is taking shape rather than
simply just 'being'. In the human world things are always taking
shape. :) Make lovely shapes with Modulus !


-y



On May 6, 4:24 pm, Y <yanar...@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
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: space time
    ... The definition "A light-year is the distance light travels in 1 year" ... a world used to using the sun for so many other events in their lives. ... a light would travel in one earth orbit. ...
    (talk.origins)
  • Re: space time
    ... The definition "A light-year is the distance light travels in 1 year" ... a world used to using the sun for so many other events in their lives. ... a light would travel in one earth orbit. ...
    (talk.origins)
  • Re: space time
    ... The definition "A light-year is the distance light travels in 1 year" ... a world used to using the sun for so many other events in their lives. ... a light would travel in one earth orbit. ...
    (talk.origins)
  • The Privileged Planet - Author Interviewed
    ... Earth has to be as just the right distance from the Sun. ... Earth which would result in climatic changes too great for life. ... not have learned many things about the Sun and the rest of the universe. ...
    (talk.origins)
  • Re: THE RELATIVITY OF THE LENGTH
    ... For two systems of coordinates K attached to the earth an K' attached ... to a train then for a distance of 1m in the train we should have: ... The corresponding distance at the earth should be: ... doesn't exist and has a mass of infinite!!! ...
    (sci.physics.relativity)