A New Mathematical Formula That Is Changing The World

[DataCable]

I know I'm jumping in late on these, but...

Do each of you agree that there is at least one cubic centimeter of space within the universe?
Do each of you agree that there is at least one atom that exists within the universe?

Yes to both of these.

Do each of you agree that speed, (at least in today’s terms) is determined by distance/time?

Yes, but without the "(at least in today’s terms)" qualifier. Speed is, by definition, distance travelled per unit time.

Do each of you agree that if you are suspended in mid-air, the directions you could choose to go in are endless or spherical?

Even if not suspended in mid-air, the directions I could choose to go in are endless (not spherical, that is a meaningless description for "direction")... but actually going in most of them would involve tunnelling or fighting gravity.

Do each of you agree in every mile or in every 1.609344 kilometers, exists 63,360 inches, 5,280 feet, 160,934.4 centimeters and 1,609,344 millimeters?

I disagree. Miles, feet, inches, km, cm and mm are different units describing the same concept, linear distance. The distance described by a mile can also be described as a certain number of inches, but inches do not "exist within" a mile, any more than volts or ohms "exist within" an electrical conductor.

Do you agree that everything in the universe can be described within a mathematical equation?

Barring further clarification, I disagree. "Everything", being all-inclusive, is meaningless.

[Nereid]

Yes, you are. If you don't think so, you have seriously misunderstood the purpose of this forum. I suggest you read the rules and procedures of the ATM forum, they are a sticky at the top of the forum for your convenience



No, actually, you will answer each and every single question posed to you, or you will likely find yourself with mod warnings, and unfortunately an eventual ban. You do not want this. Answer every single question posed to you or concede on your "theory".

I stuck up when I thought it was getting a little ad-homy, but you must live up to your end of the bargain also, or I'll regret having stuck up for you

Serenitude is correct; here are the BAUT rules, and this is the one that makes it explicit what this ATM section is 'about':

13. Alternative Concepts

If you have some idea which goes against commonly-held astronomical theory, then you are welcome to argue it here. Before you do, though READ THIS THREAD FIRST. This is very important. Then, if you still want to post your idea, you will do so politely, you will not call people names, and you will defend your arguments. Direct questions must be answered in a timely manner.

People will attack your arguments with glee and fervor here; that's what science and scientists do. If you cannot handle that sort of attack, then maybe you need to rethink your theory, too. Remember: you came here. It's our job to attack new theories. Those that are strong will survive, and may become part of mainstream science.

Additionally, keep promotion of your theories and ideas to only those Against the Mainstream threads which discuss them. Hijacking other discussions to draw attention to your ideas will not be allowed.

If it appears that you are using circular reasoning, depending on long-debunked arguments, or breaking any of these other rules, you will receive one warning, and if that warning goes unheeded, you will be banned.

[DataCable]

This sounds like arbitrary Space Partitioning.

You should now have a total of five boxes. Number each of those new boxes 2 thru 5.

In what order? Clockwise from the top? Counterclockwise from the right? Raster order?

Then continue on this way until you fill the whole paper with boxes and number each box as you go.

In what order? Continuing in the compass directions starting with Box #2, and labeling those 6 thru 8?

So, in this case, break each box down individually until you have created boxes inside your first box that are smaller then your dot. And then number each of those boxes.

In what order? Starting from the "center" sub-box and following the same pattern used by the first group of boxes?

After you have done that, then draw a line from Dot A to Dot B, and then on another piece of paper write down all the boxes Dot A would have to travel through to reach Dot B. (example 1./56,64,99,140,187 - 2./943,711,544, etc etc)

But I could have done that without subdividing the first group of boxes. From a dot in box 1 to a dot in box 2, the line would pass through boxes 1 and 2. I fail to see the point of the infinitecimal subdivisions.

You will discover that not only is it absolutely possible, you will discover that it was done without using one frame of reference between Dot A and Dot B.

False, the boxes are the frame of reference.

The only important part is, could Dot A and Dot B eventually find each other without using any other frame of reference besides this formula?

What formula? All you've described is a convoluted space partitioning scheme in place of very simple 2-dimensional vectors:

Location vector of Dot A: ( 3, 5 )
Location vector of Dot B: ( 10, -2 )

Direction vector from A to B: ( 7, -7 )
Direction vector from B to A: ( -7, 7 )

Directional unit vector from A to B: ( 0.7071, -0.7071 )
Directional unit vector from B to A: ( -0.7071, 0.7071 )

Distance between A and B: 9.8995

Now, using your "formula", if dot A is in 1./16384 and dot B is in 34./3704, how far apart are they?

[Fortis]

I am not here trying to defend myself or this formula. I am here to help you understand it better. That is why I came here. I truly don’t need to defend this formula…I already know it works…

If you post in the ATM threads then you will be expected to defend your theory. You may want to read the rules for the board.

You have yet to show anything predictive using your formula. Until you do, I'm off.

[Frog march]

litlbunny, can you think of or name any problems in the world, specifically, that could be solved by your idea?

and if you can, can you outline the process and show how your idea can be applied?

[litlbunny]

I did read the ATM guidelines and I felt I was following the rules. But I will not be dictated to like some dog.

Moderator: if your going to enforce any rules then why are you not enforcing all the rules? Look at what you posted here and then do a quick run through within this thread. Not one warning that I can see. Am I to think you only enforce rules on those who are not trying to belittle others? I find your post within here a joke!

I will respond to questions that actually have not be asked and answered. I will not respond to the same questions that are asked over and over again. I will not respond to questions that do not make sense or those that are off topic.

If that is to hard for everyone here to grasp, then ban me... It truly is that simple!

I don't see one question here I haven't already answered. If you disagree fine, but I choose the direction I will take, not you or some obscured rule that, from, what I am reading within this thread and others are not being enforced.

I don't need defending Serenitude.. And I don't have time to sit here and answer every stupid question that comes my way. My time is measure in minutes on this forum not hours. IF you want answers read the first post and continue on until you reach the last. Read and understand each statement that is made by me and others before you post. Where the hell are the rules for all the complainers and *****ers? Just askin!

I can’t be rude or impolite but they can… Not in my world… But I have allowed it without resorting to the same. Should I stop so we are all equal here? Or are the moderators going to do their job and not just show up and say something whenever the hell it is they want to seem important?

This is ridiculous that I have to respond to crap like this… I was directing this forum the way I know works. I was being polite and answering questions that are new and move this discussion along. If that was and is unacceptable, then ban me! If not, then shut up and leave me alone…

I shall await the moderators decision. If I am not banned I will continue... (I would hope they would delete every post that falls along this line, so as not to junk up this thread.) If I am banned I will still continue on elsewhere.

Until then... Take care everyone!

[DataCable]

I don't see one question here I haven't already answered.

See my questions above.

[antoniseb]

litlbunny, if you feel you have answered the questions about objects so small that the uncertainty principle applies, would you please restate your answer more clearly. Your claim that somehow tomorrow we will have equipment that violates this principle comes with no evidence to back it up.

I am also interested in your answer to DataCable's question toward the end of post #93.

[Infinity Watcher]

Normally I don't post in the ATM forum since most of the stuff in here is somewhat over my head (not that this isn't) but I thought I'd weigh in. Firstly litlbunny, if you feel you have been insulted use the report button (the red triangle at the top right of each post, just in case you aren't familliar with this board software). I have always found the moderators here very helpful if I have had questions over rules and its worth flagging things to their attention to say that you consider x post to be an issue. Secondly I've tried to read your posts and I'm a little bit tired at the moment so I may be missing something obvious, and I may well have misunderstood you completely, but having read your posts I am going to say what I understand your idea to mean and then (if you are willing, I don't wish to press this issue since like I say most stuff in this forum is over my head) could you tell me why I am wrong? I don't wish to comment further on your idea untill I am certain that what I understand by your idea is what you understand by your idea.

I read your posts as saying:

1) you can draw an nxn box which contains x atoms.
2) You can then subdivide this box until you get a box containing one
one atom.
3)you can then divide up the universe into boxes of the size in step 2.
4) by specifying which box anything is in you can thus specify where anything is.
5)If so desired you can specify a distance by the number of boxes of size given in step 2 separate the two points between which you wish to determine the distance

Is this correct or am I completely off the mark? (I suspect the latter to be honest)

[Nereid]

I did read the ATM guidelines and I felt I was following the rules. But I will not be dictated to like some dog.

Moderator: if your going to enforce any rules then why are you not enforcing all the rules? Look at what you posted here and then do a quick run through within this thread. Not one warning that I can see. Am I to think you only enforce rules on those who are not trying to belittle others? I find your post within here a joke!

I will respond to questions that actually have not be asked and answered. I will not respond to the same questions that are asked over and over again. I will not respond to questions that do not make sense or those that are off topic.

If that is to hard for everyone here to grasp, then ban me... It truly is that simple!

I don't see one question here I haven't already answered. If you disagree fine, but I choose the direction I will take, not you or some obscured rule that, from, what I am reading within this thread and others are not being enforced.

I don't need defending Serenitude.. And I don't have time to sit here and answer every stupid question that comes my way. My time is measure in minutes on this forum not hours. IF you want answers read the first post and continue on until you reach the last. Read and understand each statement that is made by me and others before you post. Where the hell are the rules for all the complainers and *****ers? Just askin!

I can’t be rude or impolite but they can… Not in my world… But I have allowed it without resorting to the same. Should I stop so we are all equal here? Or are the moderators going to do their job and not just show up and say something whenever the hell it is they want to seem important?

This is ridiculous that I have to respond to crap like this… I was directing this forum the way I know works. I was being polite and answering questions that are new and move this discussion along. If that was and is unacceptable, then ban me! If not, then shut up and leave me alone…

I shall await the moderators decision. If I am not banned I will continue... (I would hope they would delete every post that falls along this line, so as not to junk up this thread.) If I am banned I will still continue on elsewhere.

Until then... Take care everyone!

If you feel a BAUT rule has been broken, in any particular post, then use the Report Post facility (it's the red triangle with black exclamation mark in it, at the top right of each post). Moderators read each and every such Report Post. Where warnings are called for, we issue them privately, via PM (or, sometimes, email) if we can ... so to ordinary BAUT members, there is usually no indication of when and where warnings have been issued.

It might be a good time to ask all other BAUT members who have posted to this thread: please check whether your questions to litlbunny have been answered or not. If not, please re-post them (and you might consider numbering them; e.g. if I posted two questions, I could number them Nereid01 and Nereid02). Please make sure they are direct questions, and pertinent to the ATM idea as presented in this thread.

litlbunny: if any question is unclear, you can always ask for clarification. If a question has already been answered, you can say so (providing a post number where it was so answered would be very helpful). If you need more time to answer a question, say so (and give an estimate of when you will be providing an answer). If you don't know the answer to a question, say so. If you feel a question is irrelevant to the ATM idea, as you have presented it here in this thread, say so (but be prepared to address clarifications that may follow).

These are some suggestions for being more efficient and effective in both presenting your ATM idea, and in answering direct, pertinent questions on it, in a timely fashion.

[litlbunny]

Nierd: Thank you for your reply.

Perhaps I have made a mistake. I did not take into consideration all the time I would need to invest in order to defend this formula within this website. The Internet for me is where time actually stops. Sometimes it could take me hours, weeks, even months before I respond. I will answer the new questions, and then I will concede this thread.

DataCable:

If I was going to continue this thread I would ask you to be more specific before I could answer your questions. From that post you are responding too, I allowed the reader to create any measurements they saw fit, and then scale down using any measurement they saw fit as well. I could have created set parameter but I did not feel the need. I wanted the reader to play with this formula anyway they wanted too.

I would like to thank you though for your initial link, the octtree. That was the closest three-dimensional formula, that’s is in line with my own formula. It resembles M-Formula but is the same.

Also I do not agree with your limited definitions you have placed on some of the words I have chosen. You are entitled to your opinion, yet just as you feel the same towards my opinions, the same holds true regarding your opinions and how I view them.

Oh and this statement,

I disagree. Miles, feet, inches, km, cm and mm are different units describing the same concept, linear distance. The distance described by a mile can also be described as a certain number of inches, but inches do not "exist within" a mile, any more than volts or ohms "exist within" an electrical conductor.

I find this an incredibly simple and inaccurate way to view distance, or anything in the universe for that matter. But you are entitled to your opinion.

Frog march: litlbunny, can you think of or name any problems in the world, specifically, that could be solved by your idea?

Yes I can, they are being worked on as we speak. I realize I am going against the mainstream that is why I chose to post this here. But I have also learned a great deal already regarding what to expect here. Let me just say this… I don’t believe the universe is as mysterious as we like to believe it is. I believe that taking one unit of space (add your measurements here) and expanding outward or dividing it downward within three-dimensional mathematics is a new concept that should be explored. That is what I am some others are doing. For me, and those around me, this truly is revolutionary because we are taking it to a whole other level, that we believe, has never done before. Our experiments are conflicting with today’s current limitations science has placed on the universe, like DataCable’s statement about no inches being needed to make up a mile. That is simply not true… That is like saying you can have a glass of water without the first drop.

Perhaps in two more years when we finish all the experiments and have written our thesis, I will restart this thread and post all the results here.

Infinity Watcher… You are dead on accurate actually.

Because I cannot spend the time it would require me to answer every single question, and answer those questions to everyone’s satisfaction or in a timely fashion, I concede!

I will look over some of the statements made within this forum and respond to some of them from time to time.

It was nice meeting each of you, and I thank all of you for all your questions and comments.

[Donnie B.]

I wonder whether litlbunny is acquainted with Ann Elk.

[DataCable]

DataCable:
If I was going to continue this thread I would ask you to be more specific before I could answer your questions.

What requires clarification? If your system is to be in any way useful to determine where one point in space is located relative to another, then there must be some consistent method to determine where, for example, square/cube/unit 34 is located relative to square/cube/unit 1, which you have not specified. Vector math already does this quite easily.

I could have created set parameter but I did not feel the need.

That set parameter is precisely what is necessary... among other things. Your notation only contsists only of a "root" unit index number and the succeeding sub-unit index number, but does not specify how many total sub-units in a root unit.

Our experiments are conflicting with today’s current limitations science has placed on the universe,

It sounds like you're placing limits on the universe by requiring locations to be expressed as single-dimensional integral indexes. Vector math doesn't have these constraints.

Given two 3-dimensional vectors representing fixed points in space, one can easily calculate the distance between them and the direction of travel from one to the other. Your system seems to require a massive index of every possible point in between them... in fact, every point in the conceivable region containing them... in order to arrive at this same result. I fail to see the advantage.

[paulie jay]

I will respond to questions that actually have not be asked and answered.

Ok, here's my question. How does your theory enable me to fill up a circular room with rectangular/square boxes? Or spherical boxes, for that matter?

[paulie jay]

And another thing: there is an infinite number of possible inches "in a mile". No one said that they have to line up end to end.

I believe that taking one unit of space (add your measurements here) and expanding outward or dividing it downward within three-dimensional mathematics is a new concept that should be explored.

But WHY?
Why am I bothering to expand or divide? What is the point?

[shatdow]

But WHY?
Why am I bothering to expand or divide? What is the point?

I'm wondering the same thing. And another: what kind of experiments are you conducting? You've mentioned filling a shoebox with sugar cubes and discovering that yes, a volume can be filled by a finite number of smaller volumes. Are your other experiments along the same lines?

[Maksutov]

One wonders about the composition of those sugar cubes...

And so, yet another ATMer presents a position, fails to defend it, and departs in a pseudo-haughty manner.

I guess for such people the old hat is at least comfortable.

One day we may get an ATMer who presents testable, objective evidence in support of their proposition....

But I'm not holding my breath.

[paulie jay]

I'll tell you what I am holding though. I'm holding one heck of a big expanded box that I know not what to do with.

[Maksutov]

I'll tell you what I am holding though. I'm holding one heck of a big expanded box that I know not what to do with.

Well, you need to delineate it with customary units. That's obviously what happens throughout the universe.

And to heck with the speed of light!

[Jeff Root]

In high school art class I glued a mess of sugar cubes together
as a small-scale model of a larger structure I wanted to build.
It would essentially be a bunch of shadowboxes containing who
knows what. I was inspired by the exhibit on the second floor
of the coliseum at the 1962 World's Fair in Seattle. I heard,
just a year or two ago, that the script for the exhibit was
written by Ray Bradbury.

I got as far as ordering $30 worth of masonite to construct
the shadowboxes, but the shop teacher who received it didn't
know who I was or why I had ordered it, so he sent it back
and I didn't try again. End of project.

I believe I kept the glued-together mess of sugar cubes in a
shoebox, and only threw them away when I finally moved
out for good.

-- Jeff, in Minneapolis

[Senor Molinero]

LOL Donnie B. "I have a second theory".

I think that I can see what litlbunny is trying to get at but it's neuther revolutionary or new.

Every box is its own frame of reference and fits within a larger box which is itself its own frame of reference.

The entire gamut of movement for any object over its entire lifetime (or the lifetime of the universe, disregaarding relativity even) can be contained within a single box.

The mapping part is that an object can be defined as being within a particular box (named arbitrarily by whatever heirarchical system you choose).

The movement of the object isn't tied to a Cartesian coordinate system that moves over time, therefore no exact formula for its position needs to be defined.

Therefore, my place in the universe is thus:
My box is a cube 13000km to a side. (I doubt I'll ever leave the Earth).
My box sits within the earth's box, which is 300,000,000km to a side.
The Earth's box sits within the Sun's box, which is 60,000 lightyears to a side.
The sun's box sits within the Milky Way's box which is XXmillion lightyears to a side.
The MW's box sits within the Local Groups box, etc, ad infinitum.

Is this what you are trying to get at litlbunny, what we used to write on our school books as our ultimate address.
Senor Molinero
742 Evergreen Terrace
Springfield
North Tacoma
USA
Earth
Solar System
Milky Way
Local Group
Universe

[PhantomWolf]

The best I can see this as useful for is a co-ordinate system, but there are less complex systems availible for that, namely vectors. I can't see anyway that any box co-ordinate system can tell you anything about what is inside that box.

[spacemanspiff]

Do each of you agree in every mile or in every 1.609344 kilometers, exists 63,360 inches, 5,280 feet, 160,934.4 centimeters and 1,609,344 millimeters?

I disagree. Miles, feet, inches, km, cm and mm are different units describing the same concept, linear distance. The distance described by a mile can also be described as a certain number of inches, but inches do not "exist within" a mile, any more than volts or ohms "exist within" an electrical conductor.

And another thing: there is an infinite number of possible inches "in a mile". No one said that they have to line up end to end.

I think you guys are being a little too literal with this point. Yes there are an infinite number of possible inches in a mile or a foot or any length of measurement over an inch. But most people don't measure things that way. For practicle purposes things have a finite number of inches, feet etc. They don't overlap, they are measured linearly placing one after another. For instance if you met someone not familiar with this system of measurement(I know that's a stretch but just for the sake of argument) You would not tell them that a foot long stick was an infinite number of inches long. In that context litlbunnys' statement about the number of inches, millimeters, feet and centemeters in a mile is completely accurate.

I know I'm stating the obvious and I'm sure you all know that litlbunny meant his measurements were linear so I really didn't understand why this particular point was made. As I said it is also accurate but in regards to what litlbunny was saying at doesn't really apply.

Now I'm not defending his theory, shoot I stink at math and even I can tell that this theory is not revolutionary.

[paulie jay]

Yes, but...

That is my point. I was being deliberately ridiculous in order to illustrate that when a person postulates a "new" mathematical theory they need to be very careful with their language.

litlbunny said

Do each of you agree in every mile or in every 1.609344 kilometers, exists 63,360 inches, 5,280 feet, 160,934.4 centimeters and 1,609,344 millimeters?

It was my intention to discourage litlbunny from such silly statements. As DataCable pointed out, to talk of an inch "existing" in a mile does nothing to garner confidence in his mathematical prowess. We cannot make assumptions about what we "think" he means - it only leaves room for uncertainty and potential misrepresentation. If you leave them no room to wriggle then there's no "wriggling out of."

[spacemanspiff]

Oooooooh. Well I guess I'm a little thick tonight.
I completly missed the subtlety. Sorry.
I should of known there was something going on there.

[NEOWatcher]

...I am not here trying to defend myself or this formula. I am here to help you understand it better. That is why I came here. I truly don’t need to defend this formula…I already know it works…

Then...

...Perhaps I have made a mistake. I did not take into consideration all the time I would need to invest in order to defend this formula within this website...

Before I point out the obvious issue between these two statements, I would like to explain a few things here...

1. If you explained it better, there would be no need for a defense.
2. Defense and explanation are not mutually exclusive. One way to defend yourself is to help us understand what it is you are thinking.
3. The only way to explain what we don't understand, is to "zero in" on a common understanding. This involves clarifications, and questions about those clarifications (and this goes both ways)

So;
All of this banter about wanting examples, or in the statements that don't seem like questions, IS a way of getting a common understanding.
In other words;
What everyone (mostly) is saying: We are interpreting what you say in this way, please try to clarify what you mean.

And explaining something does not mean repeating yourself. You need to understand your target audience, and put it in terms that they understand.
I also see a lot of people getting the impression that there are pieces of math and coordinate systems that you don't understand, and are trying to explain them in order to show you how similar they are.

What I get from you, is a great way for yourself to visualize things. If it works for you, great.

I think from post #1, there was an issue with your example.

How many of you have watched Star Wars or StarTrek? Have any of you asked yourself, how in the heck do they know how to fly from point A to point B, yet those points are separated by light years? Well the creators of StarTrek and Star Wars didn’t know it, because M-Formula did not exist before I created it, but M-Formula is the only system they could have used in order to reach their destination flawlessly every time.

In Star Trek, they used multiple ways of stating locations. Very similar to your "formula", they had sectors.
They also used a spherical coordinate system . It is very easy to use it to find where something is in relation to where you are.

So; let's start over completely with a point blank specific question from your first post.
What condition will cause the spherical coordinate system to break down when the Enterprise is traveling to another location in the? galaxy.

[PhantomWolf]

In Star Trek, they used multiple ways of stating locations. Very similar to your "formula", they had sectors.
They also used a spherical coordinate system.

Well in Star Wars they used a NaviComputer which stored the major hyperspace lanes and could determine the relative planetary positions based on their orbits and their sun's orbit. If you wanted to deviate from those path you either need an Astromech droid to calulate the co-ordinates or be really, really, really good at astrogation. Beyond that they used a simple 3D co-ordinate system based, one assumes, on the galactic centre.

Obi-Wan: How long before you can make the jump to light speed?
Han Solo: It'll take a few moments to get the coordinates from the navi-computer.

[Bignose]

Since the title of this thread is "A New Mathematical Formula...", litbunny, can you please write out the formula? With every variable/term completely and clearly described?

For example. I write F=m*a, as the formula of Newton's Second Law. In this case, F is the force, m is the mass, and a is the acceleration. This is what I mean when I ask for the complete formula with every term/variable described. Can you please post the exact same thing for your theory?

[Bogie]

Since the title of this thread is "A New Mathematical Formula...", litbunny, can you please write out the formula? With every variable/term completely and clearly described?

For example. I write F=m*a, as the formula of Newton's Second Law. In this case, F is the force, m is the mass, and a is the acceleration. This is what I mean when I ask for the complete formula with every term/variable described. Can you please post the exact same thing for your theory?

I started trying M-Formula just like Litlbunny described. Then I expanded it from the size of the atoms in my desk top to see how big I could go. And WOW. I now have an M-cubic map of the entire greater universe. My avatar shows just a little sample that has dimensions of about 20 trillion light years cubed. You can see our big bang in yellow and several big crunches forming nearby. This M-Formula is going to change the universe, not just the world.

Litlbunny, you think too small. If you would like to see how I have worked out the location of the nearby curnches just follow this simple formula. Map out everything on your dest top. Then expand it to 20 trillion light years and BAM, there they are.

[Nereid]

And I'd just finished reading this thread .... WOW.