MATHEMATIC/NUMBER-THEORY INSIGHTS from TOE project, Discuss TOE implications for maths/geom.

Hello and Welcome EVERYONE, to this new thread.

As the title implies, THIS thread will run parallel with our TOE thread.

Here we will carry out any GENERAL/RELATED DISCUSSIONS of 'MATHEMATICAL' MATTERS for eventual 'plugging in' to our TOE PROJECT at the appropriate stages.

I won't give any more 'guidance' than that at this point, but expect to insert an observation or two as our TOE project's progress indicates...so let's see what develops, heh?...who knows what 'emergent' behaviour THIS thread will exhibit! hehehe.

Later guys and gals: RealityCheck.

P-N-G I can think,
Think mass, that is charge,(what you give mass number same is charge num
Equal repulsion, opposite attraction.
G attracts both p-core and n-over.
P-G and N-G span is atomic breathing (deviation between nucleons)...E-G MOTION.-like comet –sun. Skin of heat capacity PUSSES HEAT.

Charge p (g)-n (g) is puzzle. (Equilibrium forces appear when angular shift of nucleons possible, line of forces out from vicinity) resultant effective balance force may be E-G.

Conical- cavity conical shapes.

MERCURY BRAKE ROUL (G), atomic number permits that.


Rest may be link to biospheres.
I can not able to think more than (P-N-G).

It’s my view.

We are preceding no reference stage.

can able to put real hydrogen ?

migre,


Is the set {0,1,2,3,4,5,6,7,8,9} used in our common system of math the same system that nature uses? ("the common set")

To derive this set, a "plus one" operation is used. This is the most thorough system (covering all numbers), but sacrifices speed and Harmony. If the the function of an entity (wave, particle, energy, or mass) has the operating "code" built in, would "plus one" be used by the fastest thing in the Universe? It is my belief that it would not.

Simplified, the set could be {0,1..} N = n+1

The concepts of vibration, duality, conservation, multiplication, division, to name a few, are invalid with a quantity of zero.

So, while I'm not suggesting that we toss out the common set, I am wondering if there are other naturally produced (or self replicating) sets of quantities that could be used to describe "the way things work." (physics)

There is at least one that is well known...

Any takers?


T.Roc

TRoc

Yes,
So many diversified replied is necessary.
We all need separate thoughts.
Way may be one of that or combination of.

paresh dave,


Can we have Zero thoughts?

No, the best that we can do is detach from the flow, and watch them go by.

I do agree that we need a set that will produce ALL numbers though, for diversity among other reasons.



T.Roc

Hi Troc,

Isn't that set {0,1,2,3,4,5,6,7,8,9...} the set of naturals?
Don't we also need all reals, including irrationals (Pi, Phi, sqrt(2), etc)?
I am reading about some of the "physics magic" behind complex numbers (based on sqrt(-1) or "i")?

Did I miss the point?

I found it very interresting to learn that complex numbers (i + ib) while "discovered" almost 500 years ago have only recently "shown up" in nature.

Can anyone out there explain to me in simple terms, very simple terms, how dimensions are "represented" in the mathematics of cosmology and/or string theory?

Thanks

Layman_Steve,


Yes, common set = natural set, and yes, we do need irrationals. That is my point in questioning the natural set as the basis for formulating systems of Quantity. The natural set uses "plus one" to derive itself. You cant get to Pi, phi, e, etc. from there.

This thread is a "sideline" for another thread (THEORY OF EVERYTHING BEGUN FROM ABSOLUTE CONCEPT., 'Complete' T.O.E. construction project.. We are talking about a beginning concept, from which all others can evolve. (read the first post above)

As for your question "Can anyone out there explain to me in simple terms, very simple terms, how dimensions are "represented" in the mathematics of cosmology and/or string theory?", please go here String Theory to ask that. (thanks!)


T.Roc

TRoc,

may be set p+,p-(n),g+,g- like that.

paresh dave,

Very nice. How will you relate the p and g dualities to n?

Can n have its' own partner too?



T.Roc

TRoc

Outer Conical Charge n (g) - Charge p (g) cavity conical shapes. (at Centre locketed, thermal skin here)

G equilibrium not attracts not repulsing within vicinity.

e-g:g core e is n
n-g:g outer n is e
p-g:g core

I think.

To back up Troc in terms of 'natural' and 'common sets', I believe that the 'common set' [ 0, 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9 ] are based on a decimal system. That decimal system is man-made. A natural system could be derieved by observing nature itself without a biased number set perspective. For example the Fibonacci sequence could defined as a 'natural set'.
Instead of seeing nature in the 'common set' it could be more clearly defined and harmonious in this 'number set' [ 1, 1, 2, 3, 5, 8, 13, 21, 34, 55, 89... ] and it would explain alot of natural structures that pass us everyday.
Pi is as important as it defines the geometry of a circle or sphere. Maybe someone else can explain to me how Pi is an important factor in organising the structure of nature.
Phi is, i believe, the 'natural set' that governs the harmony of the nature from small to big. It also defines beuty in objects if structured, according to Phi.

Cheers Zapper

The whole concept of Phi requires a concept in which it is derieved from. That is, mathematics.
So, in order to explain something to someone who has no idea about mathematics, i would have to start from scratch and explain the concept of 'one', 'two', 'three'.
In reality we all communicate through concepts - thats how we relate to each other. Concepts give us a 'base' to work from.

All,


A quote from Zapper:

"Another relationship found with nature that links it to the 'Golden Section' is the Fibonacci sequence. Its sequence is:
1, 1, 2, 3, 5, 8, 13, 21, 34, 55, 89, 144, 233, 377, 610....
This sequence is unique as it starts off with 1, adds 1 to itself to make 2.
2 adds the previous number which is one to itself to make 3.
3 adds 2, which is the previous number to make 5 and so on.
This number pattern gradually moves towards the 'Golden section' through the ratio between one number and the on either side to it. For example 144/89 = 1.6179775280898876404494382022472..., which is close to 1.6180339887498948482045868343656... "

This is the "well known" answer for a different "natural" set.

It self replicates, and doesn't include zero.
It it based on an irrational number.
It "grows" faster than "plus one".

BUT...

It doesn't cover all Quantities (even in approximation).
It doesn't include resonances.
It doesn't produce fundamental constants.

Actually, it can produce one that I know of. In a circle, the phi proportion of the circumference, in degrees, is 222.5; leaving an approximation of the fine structure constant remaining (1/137.5).


more later...


T.Roc

T.roc

Can you explain how 222.5 is an approximation of the fine structure constant?

Zapper,

??

360 x .618033_.. = 222.49_..

360 - 222.5 = 137.5

1 / 137 is the "approximation" of .00729_..


better?


T.Roc