Time Elements' Usage, Exchange, Storage, and Retrieval.

 

Proportional and Quantitative Versus Splitting Division.

A refresher might be necessary to understand the basis for this section. (A), (B), and (C) show differences between these methods for calculating. In essence, all these symbols represent instructions. If they are incomplete or faulty, end results will be unrealized or potentially harmful when matched against reality's logic and methods of execution.  

Proportional and Quantitative Versus Splitting Division.

Simple mathematical symbols can be interpreted differently based on what's referenced and methodologies embedded inside them. Quantities, values, qualities and division problems were covered in detail in other sections of this blog. One problem with quantitative and splitting division methods is their default averaging for values. They're similar to temperature. Normally, I want the total, but values should fluctuate instead of perfectly evening out. It should be like the magnetic state and harmonized states. You should read those sections in order to comprehend what's being referenced and the following. I want to prioritize the splitting method over the proportional, erasure, division method which is a NO! NO!. As of this writing, it erases or substitutes values, quantities, and qualities for a percentile conclusion. Proportional Division's resistive or reductive result on the numerator can be useful, but there are other ways that I've shown in the splitting example like ( 4 {1*N}) with exchanging behaviors. 

Time Elements' Usage, Exchange, Storage, and Retrieval.

Examples from (D) are why I want to develop effective, efficient, clear, consistent, and logical directives for exchanging, storing, retrieving, and using Time's principles to invent, convert, and test physical phenomena. (D1) has 3 entities at similar starting positions. At (D2), consecutive time elapses before each entity progresses. Each entity's progression through time is 4 ticks. They travel at the same rate, and their initial time delays create their distance gaps. Each distance(Delay and Directional Time) is the same remaining time of 4 ticks. (D1) and (D2) represent a linear frame. I introduce (D3), with the same three entities in a circular frame, that you thought was a straight line. How can (D3) remain in harmony with (D2)? Their cascading positions demand differing rates to complete their circumferences in harmony. The way I choose to harmonize them is by imagining their Directional Time (4 ticks) conflicting and exchanging with their Clock Time. As Directional Time increases, Clock Time accelerates. This acceleration retrieves time elements from  Directional Time reducing its progress. This is why (8, 6, and 4 ticks) frames agrees with (4,4,and 4 ticks) frames due to their Directional Time's reduction from 8 and 6 to 4 and 4. This seems like electromagnetic induction ,experimentally, but not mathematically. It's closer to time dilation. It's based on putting a linear path marble on a flat rotating surface. That marble basis is not enough either because any increase in rate should always result in 4 ticks distance or remaining time gaps which require greater rotational resistance. Plus, legacy mathematical rules used to calculate induction in coils violate what I've said above and elsewhere.  

Time Elements' Usage, Exchange, Storage, and Retrieval.

Ultimately, I want to get to (D4)'s level of storage, exchange, usage, and retrieval. How much would Directional Time need to increase for Clock Time to reach some threshold for enabling this type of mastery? (E)'s pattern is non-commutative, so it matters which order, direction, and magnitude contact occurs. This matters because these factors will control how and when I can develop pure and contaminated harmonizing magnetic states. Lever examples illustrate how I want to use distance to harmonize each exchange from their properties. Somewhere in these balancing acts, I should be able to determine the strength for harmonization and how much is required to reduce their gaps or introduce more noise(distance) in their harmonizing factors. 

Methods fully utilizing distance will come when I've utterly understand and remove major nonsense from them.  I will be working on developing a post classifying which formations will allow purely harmonizing magnetic states and which won't. For all I know, these mental frameworks might be related to observable gravity.

General Contents