tylers100

What if: We measure time with constant notion and get some errors due to not factoring into density of time..?

Analogy Think of a Rubik's cube that seems to irreversibly morphs to other shapes and colours but cannot go back to its original perfect condition (e.g. perfect colours matching and uniform).

Question What if origin dissolved and evolution rolls since then?

In probably and imaginable Hulk's words (from comics): Best: "Science smash" Worst: "Smash science"

I have identified '1 V^3' as an error so here is corrected version: volume: 6 m / 6 p = 1^3 V The 'Example 1 (Object 'A' with baseline for tesseraction)' refers to a situation when 3 scenarios are considered; 1. If mass amount is absent, then given density and volume if available: p x V = m 2. If volume is absent, then given mass and density if available: m / p = V 3. If density is absent, then given mass and volume if available: m / V = p

@swansont Geometrical Base Volume and Geometrical Density Multiplier I combined geometrical notion with some physical things in order to better approximate these, but I'm not sure if that is a right approach to do so because in the science of physics or an aspect of Nature itself (i.e. physics) might doesn't in fact have an actual geometry as being part of within but can be approximated and defined, I think. After all, the geometry is a fundamental concept constructed by humans to better approximate some of physics in Nature. Reference link: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Geometry I made an error with the original post, see: Error I made an error in counting amount of density on the original post (was "geometrical base volume") in each of cubic objects; a, b, and c - was 4 when it should be 6 as baseline density number. The actual number is 6 density which counts 6 divided parts within cubic object A, 12 for B, and 18 for C. While A is baseline for tesseraction, B and C are tesseracted subdivision - with centre of geometry considered. Tesseracting Construction with Geometry Notion I think I have chosen the tesseraction model from which could theoretically tesseracting subdivision and mathematically construct objects to better understand the nature of gravity with geometry considered; these gravitational interactions and behaviours. Newton's Law of Universal Gravitation I'm still trying to learn and understand the Newton's Law of Universal Gravitation equation as stated on the following website: Reference link: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Newton%27s_law_of_universal_gravitation But my cognition and comprehension level is not there yet, so hence self-teach with basics of mathematics and physics for me for time being. Formulas and Definitions mass: m = p x V^3 = amount of matter cubic volume: V^3 or if given m and p without V^3 then V^3 = m / p = amount of space that matter takes up density: p = m / V^3 = amount of space that matter packed in If formulas and definitions stated above are right, then: Example 1 (Object 'A' with baseline for tesseraction) mass: 6 p x 1^3 V = 6 m cubic volume: 6 m / 6 p = 1 V^3 density: 6 m / 1^3 V = 6 p Example 2 (increments with the density only while volume remain unchanged - Check the attached picture in the original post for reference - titled, "3D Conceptual Representation of Geometrical Objects and Density Multiplier") a) 6 p x 1^3 V = 6 m b) 12 p x 1^3 V = 12 m c) 18 p x 1^3 V = 18 m Example 3 (increments with the density and volume in a gradual way - different and hypothetical objects not referred in the picture or prior example but use similar mathematical approach) d) 6 p x 1^3 V = 6 m e) 12 p x 2^3 V = 96 m f) 18 p x 3^3 V = 486 m After learning a bit and if formulas and definitions are right as stated above, I'm a bit surprised and amazed to see results in the just above Example 3 section - how small adjustments to density and volume in a theoretical and gradual tesseracting construction of object(s) could yield such mass number because greater mass could logically means greater gravitational attraction or a possible change in gravitational interaction(s) or behaviour(s) between objects. Point @Sensei Checking and ensure I get some of basic mathematics right in order to apply it to my physics self-teaching to make a progression with better understanding the gravity physics. I'll look into pre-algebra, algebra, and conversion of units at a later time. Another Question If cubic volume (V^3) is not known but still have a given of mass (m) and density (p), then m / p to obtain volumetric number. But what about a situation when a volume is not cubic one and volumetric un-measureable at that? To elaborate my question's point: Imagine two cubic objects being together forming a rectangle unit but its volumetric measurable is not yet known but for the sake of point let's assume and say; 2x, 1y, and 1z then would that make V^3 not usable for measurement because V^3 refers to a cubic in an uniform way meaning one of dimensional axes such as x has extra length (e.g. 2x) whereas y and z doesn't. Could that mean I have to use this mathematical approach: 2x x 1y x 1z = 2 V?

Question Does geometrical base volume multiplied by geometrical density multiplier (or v multiplied by d) make sense? Why I'm trying to learn a bit of basic mathematics with a goal of applying it to my physics self-teach learning, with hope of better understanding the nature of geometry and gravity. Formula Cube object's base geometrical volume number (v) multiplied by geometrical density multiplier (d) so formula: v multiply by d Picture See my attached screenshot picture I took of 3-D objects I made - titled, "3D Conceptual Representation of Geometrical Objects and Density Multiplier". It was made with a 3-D software by myself, for conceptual illustration. A) 4 * 1 = 4 (A simple cube with centre.) B) 4 * 2 = 8 (A “tesseracted” cube with centre.) C) 4 * 3 = 12 (A more denser object, also with centre as well.) Similar to object's surface subdivision but different, only inside with a centre.

My apologies for a slight rudeness on my last post, I should of had re-phrase it differently. I will refrain from using algebra and equations for time being as I obviously lack an understanding and proper education on using these.

Fine. Perhaps not to you, but to me in a way.

To mass's force (although generally so, I think), came to my mind immediately.

Also to clarify something: I'm not making it up. My mind put these equation formulation together but not sure about which arrangement is correct (e.g. g = fdmt, or g = dmtf, or etc ..) the arrangement is issue I'm working on it atm. Edit: The gravity equation is the focus I meant to convey, just not sure which arrangement is correct. Granted, I should re-learn algebra again and re-work on the g equation.

I'm not giving up. I thought I was, but. I learned algebra via this before: https://edu.gcfglobal.org/en/algebra-topics/ But its like my brain somehow deleted or cleared my studies on it like as if it is Internet browser cookies lol. Anyway, yeah I'm gonna re-learn it again.

Thanks for replying. I tried my best to cognitize these equations but apparently to no avail, perhaps science is no longer for me to purse my interest in as it seemingly is not a right fit for me to fit myself into. I will take my leave or depart from this science and I wish you ladies and gentlemen good luck with it. Mimicking Spock's voice with right hand up in air while uttering: "Live long and prosper."

Introduction I think most of you are familiar with Newton Issac and Albert Einstein's gravity theory which seem to involving gravitational relationship between objects, whereas this I approach is singular (focus on an object or object's gravitational individuality as possibly fundamental which relation / relativity (e.g. general relativity theory) happen possibly because of it. Diagram A diagram of the gravity equation formulation developed by myself as part of self-learning with the gravity within both classical physics and quantum physics although is singular for time being, supposedly applies to an individual object - but not yet approach relation / relativity (e.g. general relativity). I'm still not fully certain and also, it could be wrong and may need a refinement or discard if all of it found to be wrong. Mental Picture and Question Q1: I can mentally picture that gravity equation formulation on the diagram (i.e. visualization) I developed but not mathematics yet though and sometime I can still get a bit confused by these equations even if I developed these myself. I wonder if there is any mathematician or physicist here that is an expert in reading and understanding it, and see if any of it make sense or not? Diagram Elaboration It depicts a square with four dots connecting each other with their respective and affixed possible equations constituting a possible gravity equation. Q2: Is it possible to add an exponentiation ^2 or similar to it to the gravity equation, for its density somehow? Additional Comment I think the gravity equation formulation (five of these on the diagram) I developed is 'placeholder' for any possible mathematical operation yet to be perform on these.

Try click on attached picture then once it becomes overlay infront or displayed, then click on it (the picture) again to zoom in. It still seem to work for me when I went back to the basics of gravity last post of mine with attached picture in order to test.

I wonder how difficult can to make co2 'filter' sponge(s) for both air and ocean / seawater and then feed it to plants?

Good morning. I had two medium-sized pizza pitas for breakfast, not bad. I had a bit of thought about the part of my thinking or cognition nature in regards to the science subject. I realized a majority of time I do visualization of physics when I try to tackle science subject or some topics part of it, but is rational thinking a part of that (e.g. my visualization))? Maybe but I don't seem to articulate specifically that rational or logic thinking. A bit of introspection with myself going on, I think. I'm thinking a possible field that might or may best suit for me in science if there is any; conceptual visualization of (insert topics or subjects). Is there such one that is formal in science? To elaborate a bit further, I know there can be or have some visualizations but are physically based with input feedback of mathematics or something like that to make it more accurate or correct. But what I'm talking about is prior or a starting point; a beginning of inspiration to invoke an idea arising possibility (or later found to be impossible etc) - akin to conjecture or speculation or even innovation.

If suck in more co2 storage, could that mean we need more green stuff (i.e. trees etc) planted in order for the extra co2 storage to be converted into healthy air for us to breathe? I made that question because of proportional ratio, which I think possibly exist in some way, within the Goldilocks zone of habitable on mostly surface of this planet. Whereas zones or areas outside of that Goldilocks zone, are possibly not (e.g. uneven etc)? That visual or diagram picture of the sucking in co2 process seemingly make sense but that co2 storage got my attention.

Chimp might perform better... experienced with typing on typewriters. lol

I noticed the following, on screenshots I took: nothing then minus sign then disappear from time to time... what is it?

Take it a bit easy if its okay for me to say that, @MSC I don't think anyone here meant ill intention or something like that, its probably the category ethics this thread is under... is difficult to discuss and is close to political but not, still... If the Dire Wolves does exist, then I'm already thinking for their wellbeings.. probably should be relocated to Greenlands or something like that under observation by top animal conservation professionals or something like that.

Temporal phase variance, pops into my mind after some of this thread. Taken from one of Star Trek Voyager episodes (I forgot name).

Also think of Jurassic Park scenario... While I think Dire Wolves seemingly are cool but bringing these back and re-introduce these into this period of time where when etc ecology / environment etc could be different to those Dire Wolves, not sure whether if adaption will occur fully? There are probably countless questions about that. I don't fully know much about bio engineering etc but just my 2 cents.

Weight Gain from Static Charging, paper: link: https://www.scirp.org/journal/paperinformation?paperid=122650 ^ Check out the link, I read it but do not fully understand it as I'm still learning.. but do know that it pertains to this thread minus the artificial gravity notion though.

I wonder if we could re-create a form of static electricity but stronger version (and hopefully safe too) of it for use onboard spacecraft and space station. I can picture mentally of an electricity that could flow through object(s) with mass then when that occur so, the object mass gain energy temporarily at a given time as long electricity flows through then surely sub-sequentially yield a stronger gravitational attraction. I imagine would have to make objects whose density have to accompany dense geometry in order to accommodate extra energy. But I'm not sure about objects' (e.g. which ore material etc) sustainability or endurance could / would be (e.g. lead to decay as natural things would do).