Notices
Results 1 to 23 of 23

Thread: lindemann may be wrong

  1. #1 lindemann may be wrong 
    Forum Ph.D. streamSystems's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2007
    Location
    a reality you have all yet to properly explain
    Posts
    911
    If I can quote encarta:

    "Consequently, Lindemann was able to demonstrate that it is impossible to square the circle algebraically or by use of a ruler and compass".
    Microsoft ® Encarta ® Encyclopedia 2005 © 1993-2004 Microsoft Corporation. All rights reserved.

    I have a theory that proves it IS possible to square the circle.

    Anyone interested, as it is a LENGTHY theory, too lengthy for this blog, click onto my www button below and follow your cursor to "DOWNLOAD NOW". It should make for an interesting discussion here. Let me repeat, it should make for an interesting discussion here. This is not spam, repeat, this is NOT SPAM. This is an actual NEW THEORY that proves a legend of mathematics incorrect.

    I haven't said HOW the theory achieves squaring the circle, it's in the download. If no one is interested, this is where this this topic offering ends.


    Does a theory of everything therefore need to be purely theoretical and only account for the known laws and forces in handling the improbability of fortune telling?

    the www feature below can explain it better.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  2.  
     

  3. #2  
    Forum Freshman Keith's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2007
    Location
    NY
    Posts
    88
    I wont lie, 330 pages is a bit lengthy for me, I need to be doing my chem project.


    http://img216.imageshack.us/img216/6164/thinghl2.jpg
    "We make our world significant by the courage of our questions and by the depth of our answers." -Carl Sagan
    Reply With Quote  
     

  4. #3  
    Forum Ph.D. streamSystems's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2007
    Location
    a reality you have all yet to properly explain
    Posts
    911
    I won't lie to you when I say "I understand". The theory is basically for people disillusioned with where science and mathematics is headed.
    Does a theory of everything therefore need to be purely theoretical and only account for the known laws and forces in handling the improbability of fortune telling?

    the www feature below can explain it better.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  5. #4  
    M
    M is offline
    Forum Junior
    Join Date
    Sep 2006
    Posts
    282
    I have a theory that proves it IS possible to square the circle.
    What now... "theory" or "proof"?
    Reply With Quote  
     

  6. #5  
    Forum Ph.D. streamSystems's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2007
    Location
    a reality you have all yet to properly explain
    Posts
    911
    Theory or proof?

    Cash or Tango?

    Tango or Cash.

    Pure theory is PROOF.

    Proof, reality, asks to be explained.

    A theory that explains what you see, "that's proof".

    My preference is "theory"........why wait for reality to ask to be explained.
    Does a theory of everything therefore need to be purely theoretical and only account for the known laws and forces in handling the improbability of fortune telling?

    the www feature below can explain it better.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  7. #6  
    Universal Mind John Galt's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Posts
    14,169
    In mathematics we have proofs. In science we have theories. A proof is absolute (subject to the predefined axioms). A theory is always provisional.

    So, is yours a theory or a proof?
    Reply With Quote  
     

  8. #7  
    Forum Ph.D. streamSystems's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2007
    Location
    a reality you have all yet to properly explain
    Posts
    911
    Science, it seems to you, is "provisional" to mathematics, and, believe it or not, I AGREE. Science is nothing without the licence of mathematics.

    Science though DOES employ mathematics............like a driver employing a license to drive.

    The driver ALWAYS thinks he is bigger-wiser-smarter than the license.

    What am I?

    I am a slave to what works, and for me "what works best" is the BEST agreement between the driver and the license.
    Does a theory of everything therefore need to be purely theoretical and only account for the known laws and forces in handling the improbability of fortune telling?

    the www feature below can explain it better.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  9. #8  
    M
    M is offline
    Forum Junior
    Join Date
    Sep 2006
    Posts
    282
    The only way to "prove" the quadrature of the circle is to actually "do" it.

    That's clearly beyond "theory". Why so modest?
    Reply With Quote  
     

  10. #9  
    Forum Ph.D. streamSystems's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2007
    Location
    a reality you have all yet to properly explain
    Posts
    911
    modesty is a sign of compassion for the innocent who will never know.

    are you such a person?

    would you ask such a question without seeing the theory?
    Does a theory of everything therefore need to be purely theoretical and only account for the known laws and forces in handling the improbability of fortune telling?

    the www feature below can explain it better.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  11. #10  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    Pennsylvania
    Posts
    8,822
    I think what M is saying is, we don't want to read your theory. We want to see you square the circle.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  12. #11  
    M
    M is offline
    Forum Junior
    Join Date
    Sep 2006
    Posts
    282
    I think what M is saying is, we don't want to read your theory. We want to see you square the circle.
    Amen.

    Let's not theorize about it, just let us know on which of the 330 pages we will find the procedure and solution for the circle's quadrature.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  13. #12  
    Forum Ph.D. streamSystems's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2007
    Location
    a reality you have all yet to properly explain
    Posts
    911
    Sorry, now i know what you mean.

    Basically, the theory represents the use of "1" in a particular fashion, two points joined by a line. The aim of the "1" is for the two points to become as "1", and thus join (quite the paradox of words), to become a "0". The "way the "1" becomes a zero takes me about 160 or so pages to explain. Then around page 189 or something the explanation of the circle being squared is presented. The explanation of "1" becomming zero is the explanation of a new type of "function", a new type of mathematical multiplication, a new type of space-time "folding". I never actually aimed to "square the circle" so to speak. I aimed to see how an infinity of "1" becomming "0" strings would associate with one another. Subsequently, a definition of a circle and sphere was presented, as a science of the transcendental.

    It's actually an interesting read.

    The actual quadrature of the circle sphere is the actual construction of the right angle axes of the points that define the circle/sphere, which represents the body of text from pages 130 to 189. To understand what happens at 130, you really need to read the body of text before that.

    I painfully must have you know though that it is a NEW use of the number system, using a new way number relate to one another that takes me over 100 pages to explain. You can't just go to page 189 and understand. You have to be first taught what the terms there mean.

    Appendix 1 on page 277 will give you an idea of the new use of numbers. It's only a couple of pages.

    Basically, the theory IS the explanation of the process of squaring the circle. The theory is that equation, a new type of equation though, that I have explained thoroughly owing to it's "new" status.
    Does a theory of everything therefore need to be purely theoretical and only account for the known laws and forces in handling the improbability of fortune telling?

    the www feature below can explain it better.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  14. #13  
    Forum Ph.D. streamSystems's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2007
    Location
    a reality you have all yet to properly explain
    Posts
    911
    To summarize, I constructed what I think is the most basic mathematical algorithm of all (appendix 1, 277). I then APPLIED that algorithm to the way we are conscious. I basically said, "what does our perception perceive, mathematically speaking". Theoretically, I should have arrived at a mathematical description of all that we are aware of. I think that is what the theory has achieved, a mathematical description of the atom, of the gross structure of reality/space-time, including mathematical descriptions of big spheres, small spheres, and so on. YET, the theory, the mathematical derscription of space-time, is only applicable to the envelope of space-time, the "0" (atom) and the "infinity" (planets, and so on.....the really big structures compared to the atom, well, OK, the biggest structures).

    I didn't try to construct reality. I actually didn't have a clue about relativity until I generated this theory. I didn't have a clue about quantum mechanics until this theory demonstrated it. My aim is to have a physicist or mathematician look at the theory and see the listing of similarities between physics and the theory, and then ask, "how is that possible, a mathematical algorithm theorizing space-time......mmmm, interesting"...." I wonder if he has a theotry for gravity and how that links with electromagnetism".
    Does a theory of everything therefore need to be purely theoretical and only account for the known laws and forces in handling the improbability of fortune telling?

    the www feature below can explain it better.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  15. #14  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    Pennsylvania
    Posts
    8,822
    Quote Originally Posted by streamSystems
    I never actually aimed to "square the circle" so to speak.
    This will save me a lot of time.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  16. #15  
    Forum Ph.D. streamSystems's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2007
    Location
    a reality you have all yet to properly explain
    Posts
    911
    My aim was to find out how human percpetion can theoretically perceive in a mathematical fashion. Squaring the circle was/is aprocess of understanding the mechanics of the atom. It wasn't an aim, just a minor process.

    I was schooled in Medicine, not Mathematics: models of perception was and still is my forte. BUT, I thought it would be useful for a Mathematical base to know that a mathematical algorithm "can" be applied to perception for such a thing as a sphere to be explained mathematically.......but not just that, an "atom" as well.

    If you are above reading of a new mathematics, stick with what you know. Technically, it's no good for someone to read the theory if they aren't properly versed in their own field of interest.

    My current inquiry is at what point does one realize a new mathematics that can explain the equations for a circle and sphere, that can also present a theory of the atom and it's associated field force features, at what point does one say, "why don't we research some of the aspects the theory is proposing". E = mc2 was a proposal that lead to research. It wasn't set in stone then before the research, although it was pretty darn good, which is why the equation lead to research. The theory i have calculated basically proposes it is possible to generate a type of artifical gravity field effect, but the research costs are a little out of my league.

    My greatest problem is finding someone qualified, versed, in theories of space-time and new number theory to give the theory a decent read. Understandably, people are not paid to read a work such as this, however I do note that there would be a list of potential patents (tech applications) on offer for that lucky person who does read the theory and presumably understand what I am presenting.
    Does a theory of everything therefore need to be purely theoretical and only account for the known laws and forces in handling the improbability of fortune telling?

    the www feature below can explain it better.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  17. #16  
    Moderator Moderator
    Join Date
    Jun 2005
    Posts
    1,607
    Quote Originally Posted by streamSystems
    I basically said, "what does our perception perceive,
    Surely you mean " what do we perceive our perception to perceive"? Tell us us then, what do you perceive we perceive our perception to perceive?
    I was schooled in Medicine, not Mathematics:
    This much is obvious.

    Do you really expect anyone with half a brain to look at your site? Why should they? This is a discussion forum, after all; if you have something to discuss, do it, rather than endlessly advertising yourself and your own site.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  18. #17  
    Forum Ph.D. streamSystems's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2007
    Location
    a reality you have all yet to properly explain
    Posts
    911
    Sorry, my use of english is not that good.

    What i meant to say in this mathematical forum was "what does our perception perceive mathematically".

    As for the blatant promotion of my own material, maybe you could help direct me to someone who might be interested, or should i say, is interested in the logic of annhilation, the logic of "two points, joined as a line, equating each other out".....the process of that.

    if I can ask you, and forget my own work, but do you know of any algorithms in mathematics, or braches of mathematics, or people involved in that work, that explores the logic of two-point annhilation?

    I apologize for seeming to be heckling your space.
    Does a theory of everything therefore need to be purely theoretical and only account for the known laws and forces in handling the improbability of fortune telling?

    the www feature below can explain it better.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  19. #18  
    Moderator Moderator
    Join Date
    Jun 2005
    Posts
    1,607
    No, SS, it's me who should apologize. Even though I think your ideas are potty, that doesn't excuse my rudeness. So, I'm sorry.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  20. #19  
    Forum Ph.D. streamSystems's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2007
    Location
    a reality you have all yet to properly explain
    Posts
    911
    You are right though, my ideas are potty. Any science that tries to explain the "transcendental" will automatically seem potty. What I am trying to find is any scientist who has tried giving it a go, namely a science of transcendental numbers. I mean, even to me, the whole theory comes across as one major hit from the bong, but there is a consistency to it. Still, for me, any feedback is good feedback, it;s better than nothing.
    Does a theory of everything therefore need to be purely theoretical and only account for the known laws and forces in handling the improbability of fortune telling?

    the www feature below can explain it better.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  21. #20  
    Forum Ph.D.
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    "Jamerica"...When in America, Florida; when in Jamaica, St. Mary
    Posts
    969
    Quote Originally Posted by streamSystems
    Sorry, my use of english is not that good.
    No offense, but I hope that's not how your book is written, otherwise no one is going to want to read it. You used spell check, I hope?

    Edit: I've come up with some "theories" of my own, but never was really brave enough to advertise them; eventually I just kind of forget them ('cause they really aren't that major). So I must applaud you on reaching a stage I never reached (I can't even complete a novel, even though I've started many), and wish you all the best of luck.
    I really suck at maths, so I probably wouldn't understand your book...so...yea...
    Whence comes this logic: no evidence = false?

    http://www.atheistthinktank.net/thinktank/index.php

    Theists welcome.
    ___________
    Reply With Quote  
     

  22. #21  
    Forum Ph.D. streamSystems's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2007
    Location
    a reality you have all yet to properly explain
    Posts
    911
    believe me, it's a luxury one can easily get lost in.

    if you ever get the chance, wait until you retire from a life well spent, or at least write a book about a new theory with a degree under your belt.

    don't make my mistake.
    Does a theory of everything therefore need to be purely theoretical and only account for the known laws and forces in handling the improbability of fortune telling?

    the www feature below can explain it better.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  23. #22  
    Forum Freshman Faldo_Elrith's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2008
    Posts
    76
    Quote Originally Posted by streamSystems
    Basically, the theory represents the use of "1" in a particular fashion, two points joined by a line. The aim of the "1" is for the two points to become as "1", and thus join (quite the paradox of words), to become a "0". The "way the "1" becomes a zero takes me about 160 or so pages to explain.
    Hi. I actually took the trouble to download your file and read your "proof". This is what in a nutshell I think you're trying to establish:

    "Prove that 1 = 0. Proof. Take a straight line segment. It looks like 1. Thus we call it 1. Now bend it and join the two ends. Now it looks like 0, so we call it 0. Therefore 1 = 0."

    Well, that satisfied my curiosity. I didn't have to read the rest of your argument to figure out how you arrived at your conclusion. It's well known that if you start with BS as a premise, you can derive any conclusion whatsoever.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  24. #23  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Apr 2008
    Posts
    2,178
    Quote Originally Posted by Ophiolite
    In mathematics we have proofs. In science we have theories. A proof is absolute (subject to the predefined axioms). A theory is always provisional.

    So, is yours a theory or a proof?
    Science holds the truth, that can be demonstrated using science and double checked with math. And math can be used to record ratios of the event that can be used to make alterations to the next demonstration.

    Math is theoretical until it is actually done in science many times.


    Not to be anal. However the old, "one apple and one apple equals two apples" kind of is a give me. And for all practical purposes is useful for young students to understand the concept of adding or concatenating things together.

    However when you make the order of math, multiplication, division addition and subtraction. You actually hurt even that basic belief.

    But in science, we take those two apples and put them together. And see if there are two apples. Often mathematicians just do the math, and never ever see what happens when you put the two apples together. Heck they might be cryogenically frozen and when you place them together they fracture into twenty pieces.

    So the scientist has no theories, that are scientific. He may have theories however they are not science. Mathematicians are almost pure theory today. And they are not supposed to be.
    They are supposed to be scientists, electricians, carpenters, masons, metal workers, electronics and pneumatics experts, and mathematicians.

    Years ago all great mathematicians were scientists. So when someone saw a mathematician do some amazing things. They did not see the years of dedication in many fields that the mathematician was accomplished in. Like Archimedes.

    There is no set of plans that I know of that is ever done by mathematicians, architects or engineers. That can just be picked up and used. In most cases the plans to do even match the reality. So all the high polluting math, is just to make the pretty picture, that ends up being an ugly disgrace.

    Most of the time the reason is that they copy the plans for smaller parts in the project, rather then actually measure the object. When they go to measure the object they often fail.
    Descriptions are often vague on today's plans, and leave other variables possible.

    Let me give you an example. Many lazy habits are now standard understandings. However when there is an error in the standard lazy habit. The fault lies with those that read the plans and did not question the omission of needed information.

    So the necessary assumption is an error.
    If you complain and it is just a lazy habit you are a trouble maker. If you complain and you are right, the architect hates you.

    This is current math to me.


    Sincerely,


    William McCormick
    Reply With Quote  
     

Bookmarks
Bookmarks
Posting Permissions
  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •