AbstractDreamer

If i understood you. If A_x is an area, its the area of the base of a right cone. [math] A_x= \pi(x tan(\nu_x))^2 [/math] If its a coordinate the its just the radius of the circle of the base of right cone. [math] A_x = x(tan\nu_x) [/math] pi is the relationship between the circumference and diameter of a circle on a plane. your function is a relationship between what and what? Between alpha and lamda? I can't get my head around these planes.

next time you get on a train or a car... take a look out the window. If you think like a geocentric, then your train is the frame of reference and the train is in the middle. When a tree goes past your window, it is because the Almighty Jedi is pulling the entire universe past your window. This IS the most obvious thing ofcourse. You are not moving (on the train). Therefore the tree must be moving. Its really hard to explain how Jedi is doing this, but all you need is faith. If you think like a scientist, then you realise that there is an alternative! What if the tree is stuck to the Earth, just like it is when I'm not in a train? What if i take the Earth as the frame of reference? Then....erm.... the Earth and the tree is the side that is not moving, and... and... and... I must be on a train moving relative to the Earth! Both frames are equally valid. Cherry pick which ever one you want. The only thing that makes sense of geocentrism is a Creator. This goes back to the thing you haven't given any thought to As why the almighty Jedi unbounded in power, is yet bounded in desire? So I ask you for a third time. Tell me of your Creator.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wyRJZbNmC7U That's part 1. There's 9 parts I'm sure you can find them. That's not my voice, I'm not that condescending. Usually.

No. I made no mention of SR. I only mentioned frames of reference. When Earth is the frame of reference, then by definition it is in the "middle". So by that, I have already proved that earth CAN be in the middle. But when it IS in the middle, its hard to describe the other planets moving relative to it, other than some Jedi moving the planets and stars around in a game of eternal deception. So my choice is to believe in the Jedi, or to try another frame of reference. And when i move my frame of reference to the big firey fireball thing that's really really hot, and really really bright, and really really really hard to miss, then what was hard to describe before becomes a lot simpler - that is, it looks like the planets are orbitting the big firebally thing.

Using the earth as a frame of reference, its hard to describe the motion of the planets. They move in strange patterns and cycles. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Geocentric_model Using the sun as a frame of reference, the planets appear to move in not-so-strange orbits. Can you prove Jedi's don't exist? No? Well then, at least I have given it some thought. You don't need a reply, you prefer ignorance it seems.

So you believe in something you never really thought about. That's just blind faith, and religious talk; don't-eat-this-or-else Jediism. That is as loony as egocentrism.

The Creator slipped? That is funny If you are loony, take solace knowing at least you're not alone! I think you're mistaking morality with knowledge. Long ago, we had simpler morals, and there was greater clarity between good and evil. More likely due to rather than in spite of our lack of knowledge. The universe of eternal deception that was Created just for us has but one law: Ask one question, and the answer will make you ask at least one more. Extrapolating this law back in time then, long ago there were less questions to ask. Therefore knowledge and morality was less complex. However because there were less questions, our relative level of understanding (as a ratio of things we thought we understood to things we knew we didn't understand) was higher. So in that sense you could say we were closer to the Creator. You could argue we were happier then, or blissfully ignorant. So now all you have to do is describe the Creator... specifically why he wants to eternally deceive us.

Well not really, if there is a Creator, we have NONE of the story. Because the story then would be all about the Creator, of which we know nothing. Which leads me back to my question #57 What can you tell me of your Creator, other than in his unlimited omnipotence, he is still bound by desires?

Why is the creator seemingly endlessly flexing his omnipotent will only to deceive us?

Unless there's a Creator moving all the things around making it look like were orbiting the sun....just for us.

You read it right. The exclamation makes all the difference.

No. WE are not the center of the universe. "I am the center". "There is only ME".

egocentrism>geocentrism. In my opinion, which ironically, is all that matters exists for egocentrics.

heart? You can google the answers, though I'm not sure precisely what biology means by "paired". Tongue, diaphragm and the transverse arytenoid Apparently sphincters too maybe.

Does it matter what kind of vibrations you're referring to? You could have: linear vibration of a fixed volume sphere. - simply put a metal ball moving side to side, along a line through its origin. 1 linear frequency. planar vibration of a fixed volume sphere - a metal ball moving side to side and up and down (or plane-rotational vibration). 1 radial frequency dimension. tri-planar vibration - hard to imagine, but this might need 3 linear frequency values to fully describe, or 1 radial and 1 linear. volumetric vibration - like a balloon expanding and contracting at some frequency. 1 linear volumetric tri-planar vibration - 1 radial, 2 linear. rotational vibration - Assuming there is some frictional value between the surface of the sphere and water to enable rotational vibrations. 1 radial, 1 linear Then the sphere could moving (not just vibrating around the origin point of the sphere) around a fixed point in the water medium. Lets say for simplicity its movement is circular on a plane. Then if the angular speed is significant relative to the vibration frequency and amplitude, that would be interesting. 1 radial, 1 linear A 3-plane frictional rotational oscillations about origin, 3-plane linear oscillations about origin, 3-plane movement about fixed point, volumetric vibration system would need 3 radial and 4 linear dimensions to describe! Also all oscillation frequencies could themselves be oscillating! I think you could make lots of patterns, in a standing unbounded water medium, where spaces might occur, especially at high frequencies

I have no problem whatsoever with inconsistencies. Conceptual ideas are great if only to expand the mind. Unfortunately I cant help you with the mathematical modelling. Mordred's post #12 is revealing though. Gravity is the key.

Could you say direction of entropy is relative to the direction of time, always forwards and in the same direction? If you define anti-time as backwards to time (a relative statement, relative to time) , then anti-entropy is perhaps a better description of entropy in an anti-universe (as a relative statement, relative to normal entropy and normal time). Does antimatter exclude the possibility of anti-time? Does it need to be one or the other? Is charge not ultimately defined by chirality? Is chirality not ultimately modelled by spatial direction (spin with reference to direction in a dimensional volume)? Is anti-direction just another form of symmetry? Is anti-matter just a manifestation of anti-direction?

Ah yes i recall seeing that thread before, but i need to do some background work to fill in gaps in my comprehension that i feel i can only obtain if i "follow" my own ignorance. Jumping in at the deep end before I can swim, just leads to drowning. I need to find my paddling pool. Thanks for those mathematical terms, I will begin from there and see where that goes.

Take a simple function f(x)=x^2, or the equation y=x^2 This clearly lies on a plane with two dimensions. There is one variable x that determines the solution y. In terms of ?vector space? this function needs +x, -x, and +y However if you zoom out far enough when x is in the order of magnitude 1x10^5, the plane begins to disappear. Eventually, but a lot before x=infinity, this function loses the positive x axis, the negative x axis, and the positive y-axis. Simply it becomes a line x=0. Let me call this a declining function, as dimensions decline with increase in scale. Conversely, if you start with something that measureably resembles a line, if you zoom in far enough, its possible other dimensions can emerge. A declining function at an arbitrary scale can also be described as an emergent function at a different (smaller) scale. Obviously this example is very simplistic, and there are functions that are non-declining with scale like y=x. Other functions such as y=x^2 + 3, will need to retain its +y, but will lose +x and -x. Other functions such as y=x^3, will need -y axis Questions: Can all functions be generalised into either declining and non-declining functions? Can declining functions be subdivided into different degrees of freedom lost? (combinations of +x,-x, +y,-y) What is the analysis of such behaviour called in mathematics? Is there a theorem behind which functions will be declining and the degree of decline? Out of the solution space, can we prove what is the ratio of functions that fall into such categories of degrees of decline? We can observe declining behaviour when we zoom in, such as in differentiation we lose the curve to get a gradient. But can we observe emergent behaviour from "zooming out", without transformation rules? Not quite the same as integration? graphs from https://www.desmos.com/calculator

Everything I say is gibberish, with no mathematical or evidential basis. But i have conceptions based upon my best interpretations of what the text books are trying to explain, and a lot of stuff in my head is contradictory. The Helix model is a nice conceptual model. Its how my ignorant mind visualises the way ripples propagate in the electric and magnetic perpendicular fields (or a unified EM field). Not sure how this spiralling helix (or double helix with anti-particle) fits with the Maxwells equations. On my journey of knowledge and discovery, I came across the Crestroyer theory. While I don't quite comprehend some of the conclusions, like hiding antimatter in parallel universes or tangential dimensions, and it doesn't describe any "helix" nature of waves; I do like the idea of vibrations and ripples in the EM field, with matter being standing waves, and photons being waves in motion. Your description reminds me a little of that. It does refer to space-time units being of this creation/destruction mechanism, and might loosely describe the photon as its own double-helical matter/anti matter ripple with a net energy of zero over 1 wavelength. I've come across other references to the space-time helix where the double helix becomes a single helix when the wave approaches speed of light, describing time dilation. Not sure how this single helix applies to the photon. I've also come across ideas of a sea of electric charge (Dirac sea?), and other references to this being a sea of both electrons and positrons. And that it is this Aethereal sea that enables these ripples to propagate. This idea sort of corresponds to zero-point energy fields, where fluctuations are spontaneous within a region of zero average energy. Told I've also been told that space itself is not a medium. So confusion here. Not sure which ones are legitimate models though and how any of these ideas might be tied together. Looking forward to your next parts.

The "gravity" you are referring to is an acceleration not a force. The gravitational force I'm talking about is not the same as the "gravity" you are talking about. THIS is when you sum the masses: Adding every mass of the Earth gives you the Earths total mass [math] m_{earth} [/math]. From that you can work out the gravitational field strength of the Earth [math] g_{earth} = \frac {Gm_{earth}}{r^2} [/math]. This is 9.8 N/kg. Because the mass of most objects on Earth is negligible compared to the entire Earth, this is also the acceleration experienced by objects on Earth due to gravitational forces (gravity) in an inertial frame (from Earth as a point of rest). This is an acceleration-due-to-gravity and it is NOT a force. THIS is when you multiply the masses: The gravitational force between TWO objects is proportional to the product of their masses. [math] F=\frac{Gm_1m_2}{r^2}[/math] Gravitational force is what makes an elephant WEIGH more than a mouse. [math] F=ma=mg=m_1g_{earth}=\frac{m_1Gm_{earth}}{r^2}=\frac{Gm_1m_2}{r^2}[/math] [math] m_{elephant} * g_{earth} > m_{mouse} * g_{earth} [/math]. Therefore, directly, an elephant weighs more than a mouse. This gravitational force is a product of mass times acceleration-due-to-gravity. Acceleration-due-to-gravity is calculated from the Earths total mass (adding all the masses as you put it). [math] m_{elephant} * (m_{earth}-m_{elephant}) > m_{mouse } * (m_{earth}-m_{mouse}) [/math]. The product of masses is larger for the elephant than for the mouse. This indirectly results in the elephant weighing more than a mouse (after calculating the proportional gravitational force by multiplying by G and dividing by [math] r^2 [/math])

Yeah i should have put: Its not impossible that you can control blood flow, metabolic rate, and even maybe electric charge in the body using conscious thought, or unconsciously through meditation or motion.

This is imprecise. Here is where your problem is. Since the gravitational force is directly proportional to the <PRODUCT OF NOT THE SUM OF> mass of both interacting objects (assuming constant r and constant G) IS proportional to m1 MULTIPLIED by m2 IS NOT proportional to m1 PLUS m2

Yep i realised that later when looking at the formulae. Please correct me if im wrong. The equivalent point is NOT what OP needs to use or calculate though hopefully. The equivalent point of equal moles of acid and base in solution would probably end up much more acidic. OP probably wont be able to derive back to Kb, but shouldnt need to. Would the carbonate not just react with the acid and give off CO2 and salt residue and water? It might be a 2-stage reaction, but it should reach equilibrium eventually. As neither the base analyte (ph8.0) or the acid (0.1M HCL) is strong , there should be smaller fluctuations, but might take a bit longer to complete. eg Sodium carbonate Na2CO3+ HCl→ NaHCO3 + NaCl NaHCO3+ HCl → NaCl+ CO2(g) + H2O The volume can be measured physically. Just have to hit pH7.0 pretty much the same as when they did it by hand, except measure the analyte volume and measure the titrate volume, and use just one type of titrate. Another reason why multiple batches of different volumes should be used, to derive any proportionality constant based on volume of reaction, such as gases released. I was only trying to help. Sorry if Im wrong and misled anyone. Though cant be much worse than their previous methods.

After mixed solution is in equilibrium, and pH=7.0, and temperature for all solutions are unchanged: [math] Mol_{acid}*Volume_{acid} = Mol_{base}*Volume_{feedwater} [/math] If you overshoot the pH and make the solution acidic, you will need an base agent to neutralise, and recalculate the volume and check temperature. Like sodium hydroxide. Don't overshoot, just redo with new batch. Do several batches of different feedwater volumes, for assurance and confidence in results. "The pH of the final solution of titration changes as a result of the concentration of the standard solution (your acid). Ideally, if the titration has been done precisely and accurately, the final solution of the titration process should be neutralized and have a pH of 7.0. However, this is not always the case. The pH of the final solution often fluctuates depending upon the concentration of the unknown solution and the standard solution that is being added" So the fluctuation will be based on the concentration of base in your feedwater, which thankfully is low, and the concentration of your acid (so use the low concentration HCL). So then you have the Mol of your feedwater. http://chem.libretexts.org/Core/Analytical_Chemistry/Lab_Techniques/Titration/Titration_Fundamentals I might have missed something this looks too easy.