Page 1 of 6 123 ... LastLast
Results 1 to 30 of 170

Thread: A theory of eveything in 5 pages of program code!

  1. #1

    A theory of eveything in 5 pages of program code!

    This doesn’t try to mimic everyone's observations, like most universe simulations do.... this provides ROOT CAUSALITY on the most fundamental levels of arithmetic, geometry and other exchanges of numbers. These numbers represent a "common currency" of exchange between heat, radiation, motion, geometric shape, mass, gravity, and "orderliness".

    The systems PRE-ASSUMES that finite limitations are an implicit part of the actual implementation... that not only is the universe:

    1. Composed of a finite number of particles.
    2. Contained within a finite space.
    3. Of a non-eternal age (at least since the last big bang),

    THAT IT ALSO:

    4. Works in discrete space (a finite-size digitized grid of INTEGER numbers is the set of all locations).
    5. Works in discrete time (in a series of sequential steps I call "ticks of time").

    Note that the first 3 of these were only proven true within my own lifetime. I’m claiming that the other 2 are true as well, as is the direction the general scientific consensus is heading more and more by the day.

    In trying to create a virtual reality within these simple 2 additional constraints (both of which, by the way, are unavoidable in any computer simulation, actually in any REALISTIC implementation), I believe that I have made some important discoveries on how the speed of light might be implemented in our own Universe. I was able to seperate the relative value of these currencies from the resolution the system is run in (similar to the way chemists have been doing it with atomic numbers and mass).

    Being my first post on this forum, I will wait for a reply before I go on and on and on. I have put > 4 man-years of work into this effort, and I have a lot to show anyone interseted, all prepared for immediate review. Thanks for your time.

    Marty

  2. #2
    I don't exactly agree with the premise; I don't think any of it has been "proven." They are the strongest theories at present.

    But please go on. . .
    As above, so below

  3. #3
    Hoo boy, are you holding onto your hat?



    But, hey WAIT, you don't agree with the premise (you belive in the space time continuum)? I can prove that right here and now in a BRAND NEW new way that just came to me yesterday.

    When you look at my latest paper, I give a visual example of blocks (representing either matter or a theorietic place where matter virtualy is). If matter were real it wouild take up real space. Virtual space is just a set of imaginary points with zero beef. OK?

    Now, try to add a layer of blocks around the outside of a "real" chunk, you wind up surrounding it like this:
    SHOWN IN 1 - D:

    1 x
    3 oxo
    5 oxxxo
    7 oxxxxxo

    Now visalize this in 3-d, and you wind up with:
    1
    9
    125
    343

    do those numbers look familiar?, me niether.

    lets try it the digital way...

    lets try this experiment using the virtual locations, the CORNERS of the beef, where it there...,

    NOW there isn't a little lump to grow around, so now we can just do it staright up
    from the edges and corners.

    SHOWN IN 1 - D:

    0
    2 oo
    4 oooo
    6 oooooo


    Now visalize this in 3-d, and you wind up with:

    0
    8
    64
    256

    do those nmbers look familiar? if each represented a quantum layer of "energy"
    as those levels change, you get Schrodinger.

    You get didly in the "Real" universe... the numbers don't work when any spatial matter gets in the way.

    hey i just made this up, first time!

    proof of a digital universe is what i live for!!
    Last edited by Marty Wollner; 2011-Dec-08 at 10:05 PM. Reason: Type-o in the second 1dimensional image

  4. #4
    Are you ready for this?

    This starts out as an email to a scientist from theoryofeverything.com explaining my newest ideas.

    His web site has a "crackpot index" that I mention in the preface.

    PLEASE give this some time. If you can find ANY piece of non-scientific fact anywhere in this paper, I will mail you a free golf disc.
    http://spikersystems.com/FlashNet_Po...regMoxness.htm

    The universe will end up in the shape of a perfect cube. All matter will be queue up in the outermost layer, and all energy will have been isolated and gathered by a big black hole sitting at the center, too far away for matter to get to. When ALL particles are in position, in the next tick of time they are allowed to advance 1 grid location, which simultaneously moves every one of them back into the rollover location 0. This is the "pre-big-bang" configuration, and in the following tick, ka-boom. I have quantified the entire set of exchanges all the way, and believe everything will add up to 0 (no gain/loss in entropy) over the entire span, at the correct resolution.


    PLEASE let everyone know about this, i would like some feedback. thanks!

  5. #5
    Join Date
    Mar 2004
    Posts
    17,148
    Quote Originally Posted by Marty Wollner View Post

    The systems PRE-ASSUMES that finite limitations are an implicit part of the actual implementation... that not only is the universe:

    1. Composed of a finite number of particles.
    2. Contained within a finite space.
    3. Of a non-eternal age (at least since the last big bang),
    The visible universe has a finite number of particles, but the entirety of the universe might or might not have an infinite number of particles. The entirety of the universe might or might not be spatially infinite.

    Anyway, is your idea falsifiable? Does your idea make useful predictions?

    "The problem with quotes on the Internet is that it is hard to verify their authenticity." — Abraham Lincoln

    I say there is an invisible elf in my backyard. How do you prove that I am wrong?

    The Leif Ericson Cruiser

  6. #6

  7. #7
    Quote Originally Posted by Marty Wollner View Post
    The systems PRE-ASSUMES that finite limitations are an implicit part of the actual implementation... that not only is the universe:

    1. Composed of a finite number of particles.
    2. Contained within a finite space.
    3. Of a non-eternal age (at least since the last big bang),

    ...

    Note that the first 3 of these were only proven true within my own lifetime.
    No, they weren't. There is no sign that the universe is of finite size...it is either infinite or so large that the curvature across the visible portion is too small to measure with current instruments. There is no reason to think there's a finite number of particles in the universe...if it's infinite, this is most likely not true.

  8. #8
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Location
    Wisconsin USA
    Posts
    1,446
    Quote Originally Posted by Marty Wollner View Post
    This doesn’t try to mimic everyone's observations, like most universe simulations do.... this provides ROOT CAUSALITY on the most fundamental levels of arithmetic, geometry and other exchanges of numbers. These numbers represent a "common currency" of exchange between heat, radiation, motion, geometric shape, mass, gravity, and "orderliness".

    The systems PRE-ASSUMES that finite limitations are an implicit part of the actual implementation... that not only is the universe:

    1. Composed of a finite number of particles.
    2. Contained within a finite space.
    3. Of a non-eternal age (at least since the last big bang),

    THAT IT ALSO:

    4. Works in discrete space (a finite-size digitized grid of INTEGER numbers is the set of all locations).
    5. Works in discrete time (in a series of sequential steps I call "ticks of time").

    Note that the first 3 of these were only proven true within my own lifetime. I’m claiming that the other 2 are true as well, as is the direction the general scientific consensus is heading more and more by the day.

    In trying to create a virtual reality within these simple 2 additional constraints (both of which, by the way, are unavoidable in any computer simulation, actually in any REALISTIC implementation), I believe that I have made some important discoveries on how the speed of light might be implemented in our own Universe. I was able to seperate the relative value of these currencies from the resolution the system is run in (similar to the way chemists have been doing it with atomic numbers and mass).

    Being my first post on this forum, I will wait for a reply before I go on and on and on. I have put > 4 man-years of work into this effort, and I have a lot to show anyone interseted, all prepared for immediate review. Thanks for your time.

    Marty
    So when are you going to show some meat? Everything you are saying is in sanskrit!

  9. #9
    Join Date
    Jan 2005
    Location
    New Zealand
    Posts
    9,571
    Quote Originally Posted by Marty Wollner View Post
    Please note that the discussion needs to happen here. Links can be made to supporting text, but the meat needs to be here.
    Thank you, members of cosmoquest forum, you are a part of my life I value.

  10. #10
    Join Date
    Oct 2009
    Location
    a long way away
    Posts
    8,529
    Quote Originally Posted by Marty Wollner View Post
    http://spikersystems.com/FlashNet_Pointer/www/projects/Martys_World/LettersToOthers/GregMoxness.htm
    Your writing style is really not going to help your case. I doubt anyone is going to read more than the first couple of sentences of that before it goes in the round filing system.

    The universe will end up in the shape of a perfect cube.
    This wouldn't be because you have chosen a cube as your simulation grid, would it? Have you included boundary conditions? What if you don't, does it still end up as a cube within the boundaries (unlikely). Are the dimensions of your cube limited by the resolution of your calculations? (I do hope you are not using floating point!)

    It isn't clear if you have come up with this simulation technique yourself (in which case, well done - but you might want to read up some optimization techniques and how to ensure your simulation will converge, etc).

    The idea that the universe is just a cellular automaton has been discussed before: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cellula...ysical_reality
    I don't find it particularly convincing (or useful) though.

  11. #11
    Thanks for the comments.

    I'm not sure if you read the link or not, but the moderator wants me to try presenting everything right here.

    I appologize for my writing style, the concepts I'm presenting are more logical than analytical so I feel anyone CAN understand this and so its written for the general public.

    THE ENTIRE POINT of the paper is to show exactly what your asking about... confining C into its own system.

    And the result I came up with points to a totally different approach to undestanding reality.

    STUFF CAN SIT STILL WHILE OTHER STUFF GETS MOVED. The overlaps in timing ARE NOT accounted for in any of the contiuum-based equations we have for physics.

    I can walk you through this right here on this formum without any links or "scanscrcit". I would love to do it.

    Say Go.
    Last edited by Marty Wollner; 2011-Dec-08 at 10:08 PM. Reason: correct spelling of moderator

  12. #12
    Join Date
    Jun 2006
    Posts
    2,703
    Quote Originally Posted by Marty Wollner View Post
    This doesn’t try to mimic everyone's observations, like most universe simulations do.... this provides ROOT CAUSALITY on the most fundamental levels of arithmetic, geometry and other exchanges of numbers. These numbers represent a "common currency" of exchange between heat, radiation, motion, geometric shape, mass, gravity, and "orderliness".

    The system PRE-ASSUMES that finite limitations are an implicit part of the actual implementation... that not only is the universe:

    1. Composed of a finite number of particles.
    2. Contained within a finite space.
    3. Of a non-eternal age (at least since the last big bang),

    THAT IT ALSO:

    4. Works in discrete space (a finite-size digitized grid of INTEGER numbers is the set of all locations).
    5. Works in discrete time (in a series of sequential steps I call "ticks of time").

    Note that the first 3 of these were only proven true within my own lifetime. I’m claiming that the other 2 are true as well, as is the direction the general scientific consensus is heading more and more by the day.

    In trying to create a virtual reality within these simple 2 additional constraints (both of which, by the way, are unavoidable in any computer simulation, actually in any REALISTIC implementation), I believe that I have made some important discoveries on how the speed of light might be implemented in our own Universe. I was able to seperate the relative value of these currencies from the resolution the system is run in (similar to the way chemists have been doing it with atomic numbers and mass).

    Being my first post on this forum, I will wait for a reply before I go on and on and on. I have put > 4 man-years of work into this effort, and I have a lot to show anyone interseted, all prepared for immediate review. Thanks for your time.

    Marty
    Oh my. Four years of work? Oh my.

    First, see the tag line below. We make observations, then develop a theory based on those observations, then use the theory to make predictions, then evaluate the results. Then back to the start. You have deliberately ignored the observation part. You have a theory in search of supporting observations. The cart is before the horse. It will quickly run off the road.

    Secondly, as others have pointed out, none of your first three assumptions is true. Number four is meaningless, since points are by definition dimensionless and therefore cannot fill space. Between any two points, INTEGER or otherwise, there are an infinite number of other points. As for number five, IIRC, time appears to flow continuously even below the Planck interval.

    So, aside from all the underlying assumptions being incorrect, you have an interesting idea, treating the universe as a sort of 3-D version of John Conway’s game of Life. On a very small scale, ignoring random quantum events, it might work. Your thoughts on this?

    Regards. John M.
    I'm not a hardnosed mainstreamer; I just like the observations, theories, predictions, and results to match.

    "Mainstream isn’t a faith system. It is a verified body of work that must be taken into account if you wish to add to that body of work, or if you want to change the conclusions of that body of work." - korjik

  13. #13
    Join Date
    Jun 2004
    Posts
    6,011
    I have always liked, and will argue for the theroum; The Universe is Finite, but Unbound.

    That would seem to be in conflict with your conclusions..

    Your points 1, 2, 3. are not accepted by me as true. Those are Not facts concluded as true.

    BUT... do not be discouraged from continuing to talk of your thoughts and conclusions..

    Like any true advocate of science.. I will look at it.

  14. #14
    Thanks for your interest, John.

    I dont think I will have to prove the premise of digitized space, that will have to be assumed by my being able to digitally replicate the double slit experiment and explain quantum entanglement stright up in a digital simulation. It happens IMPLICITLY from this program's activities!!! NO KIDDING!

    I expect to see the doubtful tones I'm picking up here. I don't want to revert back to "sandscrit" but I'm demonstrating ROOT CAUSALITY. For example,

    If someone asks me how I can prove that the Universes my simple formula create demonstrate characteristics of parabolic motion, I CAN NOW DO IT. The thing is, the only way to "PROVE" it is to run the program and look at the motions of the componets. The "laws of parabolic motion" are NOT programmed in, they result from EMERGENCE from these basic causal actvites.

    In the time it takes you to read this, you could read about 1/10 of the TOTAL explanation of this simple theory. That's my point. Its really simple. The obsevations observed from it aren't and that's what everyone on most science forums are all hung up on.

    OK, so now OBVIOUSLY its up to me to show this to the world, RIGHT? Hey I just came up with this new speed of light breakthrough within the past few weeks, and my goal now is to do just that.

    Right now I do have a program (posted on the web, free to download

    http://spikersystems.com/FlashNet_Po..._Octopus_2.zip

    ) that demostates my first few "rules of motion") I'm in the procss of making the new "complete" version as an educational tool, allowing the user to select any number of possible ways to execute the program...

    http://spikersystems.com/FlashNet_Po...rototype_1.bmp

    I will now go ahead and provide everyone with lsson number 1, the obvious mechanism of virtual reality:

    http://spikersystems.com/FlashNet_Po...rs/Lesson1.htm

    Moderator: I am seperating this into small topics of discussion. I appologize for this "external link", but I dont want to waste my time re-formatting these chapters into this BB text styles. If this is unacceptable, please inform me, but really, there isn't all that much more to it! thanks.!
    Last edited by Marty Wollner; 2011-Dec-12 at 08:17 PM. Reason: repair links

  15. #15
    Quote Originally Posted by Marty Wollner View Post
    STUFF CAN SIT STILL WHILE OTHER STUFF GETS MOVED. The overlaps in timing ARE NOT accounted for in any of the contiuum-based equations we have for physics.
    No attempts to measure an absolute rest frame have succeeded, and current theory is that there isn't one, that every object in an inertial frame has an equal right to consider its frame to be "the rest frame". And what "overlaps in timing" aren't accounted for?

  16. #16
    Join Date
    Oct 2009
    Location
    a long way away
    Posts
    8,529
    Quote Originally Posted by Marty Wollner View Post
    I appologize for my writing style
    It is the bold, caps, colours and shouting that will put people off. I like your enthusiasm, but you need to present a calm, well ordered thesis...

    Say Go.
    Go!

  17. #17
    Nothing can move anywhere between 1/2 C and C. I prove this in my paper. Its REALLY SIMPLE!

    That means that slower motion is accomplished by waiting a certain number of TICKS and then moving ONE GRID LOCATION.
    The stuff moving at C can be attenuated at a "frequency" by WAITING (freq) number # of ticks, then jumping (freq) number # grid positions in all directions, thus appearing to grow outward as a virtual cube shape each freq. ticks jumping out freq size. When the first one hits anything all of them terminate. All are appearing at the same instant. If the photon intercepts multiple substrate concurrently, it will programatically select only one to act upon (otherwise, it would be violting the laws of conservation of energy). This, however, explains why observing the experiment affects it, it's the same photon at the same instant, and the photo detection cell on one side of the room is absorbing the one they can't observe.

    While waiting, things overlap and this is why we THINK we need to explain our observtions using relativity. WE DONT, its simply the fact that nothing travels faster than 1 GL / TICK PERIOD.When somebody shines a light from a train traveling at a slow speed of ONE GL PER 1000 ticks, and shines a light forward, the photon will begin traversing the grid at 1 GC / tick, and thats the observed speed from anywhere in the U. without bending any time or making it any more complex than what it is.... SIMPLE!!!!

    Its mind-boggling.
    Last edited by Marty Wollner; 2011-Dec-09 at 09:25 AM. Reason: (freq) number # grid positions for radiation, that's why it jumps from spot to spot, explainig the double-slit exp.

  18. #18
    I'm either to excited not to shout or I'm nuts. If you can find any flaws in my implementation, go ahead and call me a screaming idiot. But please give it a fair shake. Thanks!

  19. #19
    Join Date
    Jan 2008
    Posts
    465
    Quote Originally Posted by Marty Wollner View Post
    Nothing can move anywhere between 1/2 C and C. I prove this in my paper. Its REALLY SIMPLE!
    It's also very wrong. Particle accelerators disprove this almost any time they are turned on. Try again.

    Edit: Spilling.
    Last edited by glappkaeft; 2011-Dec-09 at 06:14 AM.

  20. #20
    Quote Originally Posted by Marty Wollner View Post
    Nothing can move anywhere between 1/2 C and C. I prove this in my paper. Its REALLY SIMPLE!
    In reality, it is not all that difficult to accelerate particles to velocities in this range. How do you reconcile this with your "proof"?


    Quote Originally Posted by Marty Wollner View Post
    That means that slower motion is accomplished by waiting a certain number of TICKS and then moving ONE GRID LOCATION.
    The stuff moving at C can be attenuated at a "frequency" by WAITING (freq) number # of ticks, then moving ONE grid position.

    While waiting, things overlap and this is why we THINK we need to explain our observtions using relativity. WE DONT, its simply the fact that nothing travels faster than 1 GL / TICK PERIOD.

    When somebody shines a light from a train traveling at a slow speed of ONE GL PER 1000 ticks, and shines a light forward, the photon will begin traversing the grid at 1 GC / tick, and thats the observed speed from anywhere in the U. without bending any time or making it any more complex than what it is.... SIMPLE!!!!
    Your example would seem to indicate that the train would see the light travel 999 GC ahead of it after 1000 ticks. How do you reconcile this with the result seen in real world measurements, that the train sees the light travel the same distance regardless of its motion?

    Also, you give the train in your example a speed in "grid positions per tick". This seems to imply that there is an absolute coordinate system and absolute time. How do you explain the differences in time experienced by clocks traveling different paths and our consistent failure to detect any sign of absolute motion?

    Perhaps the real world isn't as simple as you think.

  21. #21
    Join Date
    Nov 2002
    Posts
    6,238
    Quote Originally Posted by glappkaeft View Post
    It's also very wrong. Particle accelerators disprove this almost any time they are turned on. Try again.

    Edit: Spilling.
    Heheheheheh, Spilling? Sorry glappkaeft, I couldn't resist.

    Btw, I agree with your comment on the particle accelerators.

  22. #22
    The 1/2 C to C thing... I can make my program do it, but it introduces the theory of relativity into the fold... actually, I think its really another way to answer the question of digital vs. analog U.

    Here is my explanation:


    The observations we are making in the close proximity of an accelerator is done within the same time frame it and everything else runs in. In order to make observations between 1/2 C and C I'm guessing there might be some overlapping of timing caused by a unique situation introduced. As a matter of fact I just wrote an small explanation as to why the speed of light "observed to travel faster than C" in my last paper, and its the same thing, really. Its small enough to include right here:

    Light traveling faster than C


    Very recent discoveries have been made indicating that the speed of light appears to have been slightly exceeded. I think I have an answer for this:



    The observance time frame must be synchronized with the real activities occurring. I suggest that these new observations occur in very peculiar scenarios that cause the prioritization of processing activities to occur in atypical orderings.



    For example, if such a situation occurs, it might cause a photon that is being created to be delivered before it would typically be delivered… the result is that the size of the wavelength itself might appear to be added onto the observed overall wave delivery.



    Because of my new approach to defining how light traverses the grid by pausing (frequency number of ticks) and then jumping (frequency count of grid locations), it becomes even more obvious that this indeed might be the case.





    34.1.1 Proof:


    All they need to do is try to correlate the newly observed “faster than C” speed with a physical distance and ask, “Is this extra distance equal to the wavelength size itself”? How about it being proportional to the wavelength size? I bet it is!!!



    34.1.2 Implications:


    And hey, you know what, perhaps that can help shed some light on figuring out our universal parameters as well. Dang, over the past 5 years I really have gained a handle on figuring this stuff out.





    35 The New Irony:


    35.1 (At least 3) parameters are replaced by 1


    The irony is, I’m just discovering there are no parameters in many cases…. There is no speed of light, there is no grid size, and there is no tick duration…. It all just happens implicitly because of these very simple new ways of implementing the speed of light into the sequential processing.



    All 3 of those suddenly got eliminated when we made the switch to these new speed methods… ALL 3 GET REPLACED by our new single “scaling factor”: WordSize.

    If you look at some of the suppositions of modern theoryofeverything the concept of digitization of time and running the U. in a sequnce of steps is an accpted basis for the science.

    I'm not going to try to answer this question any more. Perhaps I'm on the wrong thread here. I'm only trying to provide a reason for causality!!

    Not only that, there are many that feel it is possible that there is anend to numbers, and I'm proposing that this happes exactly at the last prime number possible. I'm basin this on my interpretation of the theory of arithmatic which kind of allows for it in discontinous space which s what I'm taliking about here.

    Not only that, (hey at least I'M NOT SHOUTING) the entire program itself must be written the way it is in order to run the complete universe life cycle that i'm proposing:

    Orderliness – Mass and spatial displacement (one time during the big bang)


    Mass – Gravity


    Gravity – Kinetic energy


    Kinetic energy – collisions (pv-nrt)


    Colllisions – HEAT


    Heat - Changes in Geomerty


    Changes in geometry – quantum heat exchanges and radiation


    Radiation –> mass (one way only in the black hole)


    Mass – organization


    ... i'm claiming that I didnt write it, it just is.

    My statements on how this might apply to OUR universe are strictly supposition based upon my efforts to actually get the thing to run, which I actually did.

    The material I keep harping on has the psedo code for the entire program right there in it.


    thanks for your interest.

  23. #23
    Quote Originally Posted by cjameshuff View Post
    In reality, it is not all that difficult to accelerate particles to velocities in this range. How do you reconcile this with your "proof"?
    Sorry, that was a strong statement, but I do try proving it. I have this explained in another post I'm waiting to appear. In the accelerators, the efffect I'm explaining in this other post gets incrementally added upon itself perhaps each loop though, appearing to stretch the observation timeframe.
    Quote Originally Posted by cjameshuff View Post
    Your example would seem to indicate that the train would see the light travel 999 GC ahead of it after 1000 ticks. How do you reconcile this with the result seen in real world measurements, that the train sees the light travel the same distance regardless of its motion?
    That's just it... the train is pretty much standing still while the light takes off at ONLY 1 GC / tick (overall, it actally jumps freq GC / freq ticks). If the train's velocity was 1 gc /1000 ticks, and we flash just as we pass the guy on the side, it doesnt "thrust this momentum onto the light" because it travels at 1 GC/tick in any case, everywhere. After 100 ticks, the light's range is 100 GC away and the train is still here. After 800 ticks, same thing. Upon the 1000th tick, the train moves ONE GC, so now its position is 1 GC closer. The guy on the side of the road, he was traveling at 0 gc per tick. After 100 ticks, he's still there, SAME AS THE TRAIN (there's yer overlap). after 1000 ticks, SAME THING, both he and the train observe it to be 1000 GC away!!!! !!! In the very next tick, the train moves 1 GC. Do I have to keep going? Do you GET IT, its not GRID LOCATIONS PER TICK, EVER. The grid itself is the speed of light, there is no definition of a speed of light in this system at all!! I made the exact same mistake. My book explains THIS EXACT THING !! That's what its about!

    Quote Originally Posted by cjameshuff View Post
    Also, you give the train in your example a speed in "grid positions per tick". This seems to imply that there is an absolute coordinate system and absolute time. How do you explain the differences in time experienced by clocks traveling different paths and our consistent failure to detect any sign of absolute motion?
    Not sure about those clocks yet, but the detection of motion is ALSO explaed in this other post.

    Quote Originally Posted by cjameshuff View Post
    Perhaps the real world isn't as simple as you think.
    No. Its a lot simpler. Its just what your seeing doesnt make sense. I guess.


    Thanks for you interest, CJ !

  24. #24
    Join Date
    May 2005
    Posts
    5,451
    Quote Originally Posted by Marty Wollner View Post
    Now visalize this in 3-d, and you wind up with:
    1
    9
    125
    343

    do those numbers look familiar?, me niether.
    Of course they look familiar. I had no idea what you were doing, until I recognized 125 as 5 cubed, and 343 as 7 cubed. 1 is also 1 cubed, so I'm pretty sure you made a mistake there and should have 27 instead of 9.
    Now visalize this in 3-d, and you wind up with:

    0
    8
    64
    256

    do those nmbers look familiar? if each represented a quantum layer of "energy"
    as those levels change, you get Schrodinger.
    Well, you have 0 cubed, 2 cubed, 4 cubed--the next should be 6 cubed, the way you're stacking things, which is 216 not 256.
    You get didly in the "Real" universe... the numbers don't work when any spatial matter gets in the way.

    hey i just made this up, first time!
    You get the same relationship both ways, if you don't make mistakes.

  25. #25
    Join Date
    Oct 2009
    Location
    a long way away
    Posts
    8,529
    Quote Originally Posted by Marty Wollner View Post
    The "laws of parabolic motion" are NOT programmed in, they result from EMERGENCE from these basic causal actvites.
    Parabolic motion won't emerge from the 5 assumptions you have provided so far. At each time step, you are updating the positions of each cell. That requires more rules specifying how one cell is affected by the contents of other cells - adjacent and perhaps further away. You have implicitly programmed the resulting motion into those rules. How about summarizing them here?

    All of the links in your post were borken...

  26. #26
    Sory about this fast explanation to confusion.

    We actually need to count the number of blocks in the outer layer of the cube being created. Plaese see my paper on this. Thanks for your reply.

  27. #27
    LOVE TO!!


    This is the pseudocode for the actual program, no kiddding;





    For each dimension d, 1 to dimension_count:



    For each record in VP list:



    Read it into X.Location(d), X.heat(d), X.mass(d)



    For each record other than X:



    Read it into Y.Location(d), Y.heat(d), Y.mass(d)



    Are they co-occupying? -> Nuclear Force Rule



    Are they close? -> Are they plasma? -> Fusion


    (Not plasma) -> ATOMIC force rule



    Otherwise, Newtonian force rule



    Next Y:



    Next X:



    Next d:



    That was the theory of everything RIGHT THERE.

    The subroutines are SIMPLE too, for example here is the ENTIRE function for newtonia motion:

    For each dimension d REM: NOT NEEDED IF CALLED FROM LOOP

    For each record X:



    Read it into X.Location(d), X.heat(d), X.mass(d)



    DragSum = 0

    UsedCounter = 0



    For each other record Y:



    Read it into Y.Location(d), Y.heat(d), Y.mass(d)



    If (abs (X.Location – Y.Location) < _

    2** WordSize)) then



    Rem: Count this one and accumulate drag for it



    UsedCounter = UsedCounter + 1



    DragSum = DragSum + _

    ((X.mass + Y.mass) /(X.Location – Y.Location))



    Else

    Rem: It’s too far away, forget it



    Endif



    Next Y



    If (UsedCounter > 0) then

    Rem: move the VP by gravity



    X.Location(d) = X.Location(d) + _

    (DragSum / UsedCounter)

    End if

    Next X

    Next d REM: NOT NEEDED when called from process loop

  28. #28
    Join Date
    May 2005
    Posts
    5,451
    Quote Originally Posted by Marty Wollner View Post
    Sory about this fast explanation to confusion.

    We actually need to count the number of blocks in the outer layer of the cube being created. Plaese see my paper on this. Thanks for your reply.
    What numbers do you get both ways, then?

  29. #29
    Quote Originally Posted by grapes View Post
    Of course they look familiar. I had no idea what you were doing, until I recognized 125 as 5 cubed, and 343 as 7 cubed. 1 is also 1 cubed, so I'm pretty sure you made a mistake there and should have 27 instead of 9.Well, you have 0 cubed, 2 cubed, 4 cubed--the next should be 6 cubed, the way you're stacking things, which is 216 not 256.
    He's probably cubing powers of 2, not multiples of 2. 0, 1, 2, 4, 8, 16...it'd fit with his computer theme. As long as you ignore non-binary digital computers, anyway.

  30. #30
    Quote Originally Posted by Marty Wollner View Post
    That's just it... the train is pretty much standing still while the light takes off at ONLY 1 GC / tick (overall, it actally jumps freq GC / freq ticks). If the train's velocity was 1 gc /1000 ticks, and we flash just as we pass the guy on the side, it doesnt "thrust this momentum onto the light" because it travels at 1 GC/tick in any case, everywhere. After 100 ticks, the light's range is 100 GC away and the train is still here. After 800 ticks, same thing. Upon the 1000th tick, the train moves ONE GC, so now its position is 1 GC closer. The guy on the side of the road, he was traveling at 0 gc per tick. After 100 ticks, he's still there, SAME AS THE TRAIN (there's yer overlap). after 1000 ticks, SAME THING, both he and the train observe it to be 1000 GC away!!!! !!! In the very next tick, the train moves 1 GC. Do I have to keep going? Do you GET IT, its not GRID LOCATIONS PER TICK, EVER. The grid itself is the speed of light, there is no definition of a speed of light in this system at all!! I made the exact same mistake. My book explains THIS EXACT THING !! That's what its about!
    I don't care about your book, you need to explain your theory here.

    In relativity and in reality, two clocks can go on different paths through spacetime and be brought back together after experiencing different amounts of time. There is no universal time. There is no universal rest frame and no absolute motion, an object in inertial motion will always measure the same internal physics, and can always consider itself to be at rest. You can't even define simultaneity universally...events one observer sees as taking place at the same time will happen at different times according to another observer. Time does not progress in global ticks, and distances are not measured in global intervals. To have any chance of success, your model must reproduce these effects...does it?


    Quote Originally Posted by Marty Wollner View Post
    Not sure about those clocks yet, but the detection of motion is ALSO explaed in this other post.
    Where? So far I haven't seen a real attempt at explaining anything. As far as I'm concerned, you have not answered any of my questions.


    Quote Originally Posted by Marty Wollner View Post
    No. Its a lot simpler. Its just what your seeing doesnt make sense. I guess.
    Are you serious? When observations disagree with your theory, your response is that the observations don't make sense? You don't get to pick and choose which parts of reality you like.

Similar Threads

  1. Some Strange News... [computer code, string theory]
    By Aethelwulf in forum Science and Technology
    Replies: 55
    Last Post: 2012-May-20, 11:08 AM
  2. Looking For Grapics Tool For Wiki Pages
    By TheHalcyonYear in forum Off-Topic Babbling
    Replies: 6
    Last Post: 2008-Oct-17, 01:21 PM
  3. Tables on Web pages
    By kylenano in forum Off-Topic Babbling
    Replies: 7
    Last Post: 2006-Jan-31, 06:33 PM
  4. 2004 MN4 in the funny pages
    By musasa in forum Astronomy
    Replies: 6
    Last Post: 2006-Jan-09, 03:55 PM
  5. web pages for kids
    By Rob C in forum Astronomy
    Replies: 3
    Last Post: 2002-Jul-02, 10:12 PM

Tags for this Thread

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •  
here
The forum is sponsored in-part by: