Unity+

Apparently the prime was already tested before(supposedly the error Prime95 gave me indirectly states this). Well, at least things were learned.

And what is this so called Archimedes particles?

Besides the fact that grand father clocks don't work properly in moving areas, the relative increase or decrease in time-dilation is the same.

But he is correct. If time dilation is based on the amount of gravity and the grandfather clock is a gravity-based clock, then the time dilation and the grand-father clock would coincide.

This is a bit vague. Please explain what the meaning of this diagram is.

A continuation on with this work.... If [math]-\chi_{3}(\Upsilon _{\mathbb{C}}\left \langle \partial _{\mathbb{W}}|\partial _{\Im } \right \rangle)\circ -\chi_{3}(\Upsilon _{\mathbb{C}}\left \langle \partial _{\mathbb{W}}|\partial _{\Im } \right \rangle)\rightarrow \psi _{3}(\Upsilon _{\mathbb{C}}\left \langle \partial _{\mathbb{W}}|\partial _{\Im } \right \rangle)[/math], then [math]\psi _{3}(\Upsilon _{\mathbb{C}}\left \langle \partial _{\mathbb{W}}|\partial _{\Im } \right \rangle)=\chi _{2}(\Upsilon _{\mathbb{W}}\left \langle \partial _{\mathbb{W}}|\partial _{\mathbb{W}} \right \rangle)[/math]. If this is the case, then [math]-\psi _{3}(\Upsilon _{\mathbb{C}}\left \langle \partial _{\mathbb{W}}|\partial _{\Im } \right \rangle)\circ -\psi _{3}(\Upsilon _{\mathbb{C}}\left \langle \partial _{\mathbb{W}}|\partial _{\Im } \right \rangle)\rightarrow \chi _{2}(\Upsilon _{\mathbb{W}}\left \langle \partial _{\mathbb{W}}|\partial _{\mathbb{W}} \right \rangle)[/math]. Then, these statements must also be true. [math]\chi _{2}(\Upsilon _{\mathbb{W}}\left \langle \partial _{\mathbb{W}}|\partial _{\mathbb{W}} \right \rangle)\setminus -\psi _{3}(\Upsilon _{\mathbb{C}}\left \langle \partial _{\mathbb{W}}|\partial _{\Im } \right \rangle) \rightarrow -\psi _{3}(\Upsilon _{\mathbb{C}}\left \langle \partial _{\mathbb{W}}|\partial _{\Im } \right \rangle)[/math] [math]\psi _{3}(\Upsilon _{\mathbb{C}}\left \langle \partial _{\mathbb{W}}|\partial _{\Im } \right \rangle)\setminus -\psi _{3}(\Upsilon _{\mathbb{C}}\left \langle \partial _{\mathbb{W}}|\partial _{\Im } \right \rangle) \rightarrow -\psi _{3}(\Upsilon _{\mathbb{C}}\left \langle \partial _{\mathbb{W}}|\partial _{\Im } \right \rangle)[/math] The paper linked gives more description of the relevance of this work to Collatz-Matrix equations.

No, I never went off topic. I simply asked for specifics within your explanations. You brought up those pieces of information regarding religion and I decided to go along with it. If I recall, you brought up the Vedas as an argument.

So, it is religion. This belongs in the religion section.

True, but I do not see any speculations that seem to predict more than mainstream theories that exist.

Then who/what are the Vedas?

Aren't all scientists supposed to argue with themselves?

Let us please keep the topics dealing with religion kept in the religion section.

There are also what are known as super-dimensions, which are the dimensions that exist outside of the geometric dimensions. In this case, [math]\psi[/math] represents the next super-dimension. With this super-dimension, squaring will result in the following. There an infinite amount of super-dimensions. The way to convert a Quadratic Formation to a Quadratic Formation is to use the following sets. If this is true, then the following must also be true. For simplicity, since there are an infinite amount of super-dimensions, a super-dimension can be referred to as [math]\Psi_{i}[/math], where [math]i[/math] represents the index of the super-dimension.

But a photon is both a wave and particle. This is what is known as wave-particle duality.

I don't think the beauty of it is the problem. The problem lies in its vagueness. In my opinion, the definition needs more specific explanations. The fact that it only includes numbers, shapes, structure and change just shows that it lacks an understanding of predictable additions to mathematics. The problem with this assertion is we assume that everything will have humanly concepts or thoughts. For example, in our culture of how things will look on a different planet, we always seem to give a structure to the anatomy of the organisms going to be found on other planets. The problem is we can only make accurate predictions on what we have observed, and then build onto those predictions. Aliens may even have a better way of handling the measurements of systems than mathematics. However, this could lead to a possibility that mathematics is simply a branch of a higher unknown study.

I think the question was pertaining to whether it is a human construct or a Universal language. Many mathematicians hold the platonic view of Mathematics, where nature actually has it embedded within itself and uses it as a way of developing itself to form structures such as we observe within science. The other view is that though mathematics has a build up that is similar to nature, it is only a prediction to what it is observed(I hold the platonic view). Popular culture within science mostly holds the platonic view because it just seems more philosophically fit that there is an underlying language behind the structure of the Universe. For one, it shows there is an underlying unity between everything whether observably connected or not. The other factor is if everything can be represented with mathematics then we know we can explain everything of the Universe in a mathematical point of view(though, this would only apply to the observable).

I was simply "correcting" ACG52(and failed) to make sure all counter arguments remain valid.

I must have forgotten somethings when I learned about these things then. Forgive me for my lack of information on this one. EDIT: What I was trying to say is that when an electron falls to the lower state, there is no probability that a photon will be emitted or not. A photon will be emitted, but the electron falling to a lower state relies on the probability.

Remember to keep an open mind. This does not mean he is right, but in order to keep this a scientific analysis you have to read everything and then criticize the speculation. This is just advice. At least you could give an analysis of the speculation. In order to quickly analyze the information, please keep it short and present the information as quickly as you can. Just saying "Oh its coming, its coming!" doesn't help.

That wasn't my point. I clearly stated that, as you stated: The event causing the photon to be emitted is probabilistic, but a photon being emitted randomly doesn't tell the whole story because that event causes the emission of the photon.

Science wouldn't give a big bang about who discovered what.

Well I think one of the problems is I copied some text from a Google Doc and that is when it started to happen more frequently. I don't know if this has any effect on the post, but it could.

Not really. Many mathematicians(like me) set up the keyboards on the computer to change certain keys to certain symbols within mathematics. Also, if you download the right software then you will have an easier time doing it.

That would depend on what you mean by randomly. For example, photons are emitted when a higher energy electron moves back to its lower state, which then emits the photon(if my memory does not fail me). Could the excitation be random? yes. Is it random that a photon is emitted? Not really. No, actually that is the effect of Relativity and the speed of light. I don't see how this has anything to do with Free-Will.

Just curious, what is the Satya and Kali Yuga? You keep bringing it up within the information your provide.