CuriosOne

planets locate themselves in space right? Is that the way to think about it?

Maybe this can clarify what I mean.. Random numbers, Fluid Motion, Air Molecules, all within a limit of possible outcomes, IE ""volume"" or---> space.. Do You Now Understand The OP??

I will try then get back to you. May take a while, thnXxxx About the root question I was referring to 1/2 power of the root I should have mentioned that. From. Wikipedia.. The square root of 2, or the one-half power of 2.

I heard Solidworks may be a good program as it offers digital simulations. What im interested in is: Vibrational Analysis, decoding waves "cryptography" and being able to separate waves that are all bunched up or entangled. Before I invest a lot of money, I wanted to ask first... ThnX in advance..

Really??? Why do planets have axil tilts?? Why do galaxies have angles? "I REALY WANT TO KNOW PLEASE" It would perhaps answer all my questions..Glad I posted this!

-1 "does answer my question" I "really" needed to know that, thnXxxx.. I can now understand why linear equations are so important now, afterall signal processing uses the same ideas. "The 360 degrees popping up all the time is a "very important concept" and I truly think its the framework of much confusion..""Unless I'm confusing this wave function with dirivitives used in calculus"" becuase "again" if the function has wave length of 1 the function would look like:" f(x)= sin(2*Pi*x) which looks very similar to the circumference of a circle to its diameter, or radian or radius or 1 cycle completed... In this framework, do we know the initial start of the electron like a parked car on the road ready to drive off??

But isn't the universe still accellerating randomly since the Big Bang? Or the measurement problem..🙂 Then those VR glasses wouldn't serve as much insight if our light photons decide to act as particles then... Is this correct thinking??

Does -f"(x) imply -1 ? Does linear differential reffer to a "radius"? I get this idea becuase sin and cos and pi have relationships to frequencies and "cycles" to the radian or radius which ever it uses. In a sense using pi makes QM waves look "perfect" predictable, neat and organized, truly its not like that..Or is it??? When you say normalization is ignored, is that for ""All QM waves?"" ...I hope so! After all the electron isn't that easy to figure out, plus the nature of its movement is not yet confirmed... Is this information correct?

10^1/10^1=1 Oh I get it now thanXx 🙂 Understood, but question... d = 1/2 * a * t^2 What is 1/2 ? Is that an empty square root?? The whole thing looks similar The Pythagorean Thoerem, no one can say it does not. z^2 = [a^2+b^2]^1/2 In this set up does 1 = 100% ?? Afterall you need a base to start time from or atleast some form of default reference "point." In your last example of 24.73 seconds, that is close the root of 5^2 , I see this all the time maybe x^2*5^2, means seconds per seconds squared and our 1 is "base 10" Is this the correct way to think about it?

"Understood" both examples make better sense than most explanations, thnXxxx!

I should have asked can anything be relative to it's own """volume"""...lololoo Great point..And yes that's exactly how it works, but in a jagged way "not smooth motion" ie latency issues, but hardly even noticeable.. But a mouse's motion is "jagged" like particles in a field with their own magnetic properties, pulling and tugging on each other with weak forces... I get this idea from electron configuration, and a computer screen "must have one." The Ideal Gas Law, is a vague example of this jagged motion behavior as pointing random vectors "fluid behavior" it gets the point across..

Can you show me with numbers in them?? I don't want to ask this but our velocity acts like a distance then? Why not? It's the only thing deriving quantities of change, while the changes are all conserved....This is pretty deep..... Does this means Einstein's Special Relativity was based on this very concept? Velocity is linear then??? But bends time as Space Time??? Is this the correct way to think about velocity as a ""straight line???""

Why Does QM Wave Functions Use Pi? Does this mean waves travel in perfect partial circles of pi? Or fractions of pi?

I read that a particle can spontaneously change from particle to wave "when it felt like it." The other realities or "universes" I speak of are the ones mentioned in QM.. And the Zeroth Theorem makes some mention about this.... Of which all relate to my OP, but I dont usually like to make things sound seductively technical, practical or common....Its just my nature..

It was a polite way of asking "when a particle acts as a wave" does it exist in our phyiscal reality or another reality? After all when it acts as a particle it acts as part of our physically observed reality.....There is a barrier in between. I was refering to the mesurments problem...But I believe there are simpler ways to asking questions than the more technical standards, that seem to get no where, or is just fancy talk.. For example, Special and General Relativity was created for the Macro Universe....."chukkles"

Usually determined by boundary conditions. What are these boundaries?? And who sets them? where the function goes to zero and diverges to infinity... 0.1111111111111111111111-> Infinity???? X^infinity???? Does infinity have a number? I'd place it myself but at this point I'd like to see a real physical calculus problem "real world example" from someone whom knows what they are doing becuase obviously im not getting my point across the "standard" way..

Can Anything Be Relative to Empty Space? Such as in Special Relativity, "example here." But, in this question space would be "nothingness" the void or barrier beyond this universe, or maybe a black hole, "whom knows." I get this idea from particle entanglement. And if we could do this, how would this change our technology?

You say ""acceleration is not relative"" if this is true, this answers all my questions, and "Now" physics makes sense... What is accelleration? Is it when an object starts its "speed or velocity" from 0 to higher and higher speeds 1,2,3...on a "straight upward path?" I need to make sure I know before I move onto other "bigger topics here."

Sounds he was more an astrophysicist through mystic knowledge..

Calculus uses things that move, just replace the thing that moves with something that vibrates.. Is it really that hard? something bob's up and down, where is the force greater?? In the up location or down location?? I found this book that explains thnXxx Vibration Analysis with SOLIDWORKS Simulation 2016 Great Point!!!!!

You speak for the whole of science?? Plain and simple if x = 1, 2, 3 or "whatever" and it's time "dependant" ie varies, and you use changes in time how do you multiply by "nothing" if x-> 0 or if x=0 and get a phyiscal quanity?? Besides if energy is conserved then whats the point of any of this?? I'm asking questions but "science and math are inconsistent." I agree with its nonsense no doubt about it..

This takes on the same ideas as changes from a body accellerating, accept this time the body is held still while vibrating in a medium that is being disturbed by some external forces..Perhaps a stationary boat bobbing up and down as another boat passes by it.. Or think about a point in space vibrating left and right and you want to take the instantaneous vibration of the right area location.. What's the point? Several things pertaining to un-balances and correcting them... I get this idea from "Statistics" using Bell's Theorem..

So what's the ""time unit""??? And can a see a simple real world example? My point exactly, adding squares then taking the root confuses me greatly..

What I don't get is how, accelleration, velocity and speed are related with one of them being positive, the other being a vector and the other staring at "zero." Math language in base 10 uses.. 0 9 8 7 6 5 4 3 2 1 With 0 =1 second ???? And how about the square root usage of 1/2? Z^2 = [A^2+B^2]^1/2<------------- does that mean second per second squared?? I'm tempted to think everything is constant^2...But not sure..

Assuming something squared assumes a cycle of completion obviously for our second per second squared..Is that how it works?? Example of squaring the second would be the accelleration of earth's gravity at its surface 9.8 m/s-1... The moon "falling around" earth in a cycle from point a to point b, month to month..."example" Or even earth's seasons mark reference points "example" Summer to Winter.. Now I don't want to mention atomic orbitals becuase we are not sure how the electron orbits the nucleus, but caclulations of such does use pi ratio in QM so I guess that's another topic.. Anyway, when i thnk of a second squared "regardless" of the units involved" I see 1 complete cycle "almost independant of time itself" ie magnetic attraction versus the speed of light, IE Gravitational Energy" good example or maybe even KE whom knows at this point. Or the refractional index, or how light travels slower in a medium etc etc... These are just my thoughts.. But really how can you square a second?? Or is it the "unit" that's squared as "time" and energy conservation???