R.I.P Pythagoras

Pythagoras Theorem and Topology
Pythagoras Theorem and Topology

As the title suggests, I plan to lay Pythagoras Theorem and all that it supports to ruin. I place it carefully in my mind's museum to reflect on the cult nature of computability and awe at scientifically biased humans' greed for more precision, logic, and accuracy.  All of (A) are equivalent according to topological transformation in forms or shapes. (B)'s problems accrue when you want to use a real measuring tool like a ruler in centimeters , inches, etc. As r(radius) increases, your hypotenuse will disagree with your radius' static size. As you adjust your radius around your circumference ,as it increases in length, gaps will occur between measured real lengths contrasted with your mathematically calculated measurements. This is because things fluctuate in the real world. Static ,proportional ,destructive calculations require information be destroyed to maintain inertia. When r is small, one can get away with this reality, but celestial problems require a better tool like trigonometry. Any linear process has fluctuations if you examine it deeply enough. If it doesn't, you have cheating with anti this, and negative that, plus nothing this, minus destruction that are occurring through mathematical slight of hand.

Dimensions, Areas, and Frequencies.
Dimensions, Areas, and Frequencies

On top of all those errors, radiuses were assumed to be 1 dimensional during calculations. Thus , radius in higher dimensional objects doesn't account for height and depth. The real area of a circumference and its greater circle drastically disagree with common notions of Pi * R^2 ,and its equivalents, as shown in C.  
Dimensional Arguments.

This extra example should follow (C). (Ca)'s argument for Pythagoras should be that all circumferences laid out are triangles. This will allow Pi * R^2 and its equivalents to prevail against my arguments. BUT! If each circumference's triangles are collections from 1 dimensional paradigms(widths or heights), I should be correct. As a consequence for Pythagoras' triumph, it demands that each additional dimension should have a specific layout and ordering for its combined widths, heights to depths. While my approach suggests, all structures deduce into a common structure which is able to design all consequent shapes or forms. Pythagoras has limits within 2D areas. It cannot reduce to prior dimensions and evolve into volumes for spheres or pyramids without disagreeable redesigns. If Sphere = (4/3)*Pi*R^3 while  Cone= Pi*R^2*(h/3) while Pyramid= L*W*H/3, they will no longer agree like their 2D areas. If there is a lesson from these arguments, it's that dimensions should really be reconsidered as either specific, common, layouts unique to each dimension, or a dimensional commonality throughout which Pythagoras violates. I should say, higher dimensional formulas violate harmony because Pythagoras' square root(1^2 +1^2) harmonize well with my 2D topological examples. These fixed triangles resemble the constant speed of light. That's interesting because the speed of light is suppose to be extremely linear or one dimensional. Photons without mass(no quantity). 

This begs the question even regarding my works. Is frequency only 1 dimensional? What is its nature if I expand its dimensions? Would all frequencies' area consisting of directional width , height, and depth synchronized as harmonized tune, or would they be chaotic varying in degrees as in harmonized noise?  In either cases, they both must maintain their magnetic to electromagnetic states. This multi-dimensional aspect of frequency, and its ability to repeat a frequency in another path, are applicable not only to magnets, electromagnets, batteries, gravity, and watch making. It also applies to radio and signal  transmissions. A basic telephone structure with a cord or a coil of wire plus a magnet. All those examples involve direct actions of time. Their mirage aspects like median distance(the cord ) and mirage directions are indirect, instantaneous products of time. I want to explore those features a bit more. You can read more here: Distance(Remaining Time)

General Contents

Comments

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

Isaac Newton Defeated

Image
  Isaac Newton's Gravitational Formula.  First thing to acknowledge is that Isaac Newton does not use a quantitative measure even though mass(quantity of matter) is label as a variable in his equations. His methods are proportional, and I'll link to some statements that I made clarifying differences between quantitative and proportional operations. Once you've understood these instructions, you can easily manipulate symbolic mathematical fabrications to conform to prior results through proportional manipulation. These methods alone don't completely  reproduce reality's outcomes or difficulties managing quantitative operations. Quantitative instructions have limitations and do not easily induce disordered confusion through subtracting, or ill-mannered addition of variables through proportional manipulation. I further that limitation by abandoning use for negative numbers, which removes information. 0.98 acceleration ,for the greater mass, flies into Dialect's fac...
Read more

Almighty Darkness

Image
Darker Daimon's Logic. Darkness is a concept of the mind. It is pure abstraction in mental frameworks . In constructs of Darkness,  Logic  is materialize by consistent and predictable  instructions . Inconsistencies and randomness possess no bodies in the darkest of realms because they're attributes for those whom seek blinding light.   With careful curtail sensibility to reason, all entities deriving from dark abstractions should convert to physical or external  reality. These  interpretations  can only be found here and another place. All other names have no association with me or my developments.  Darker Daimon's Logic. General Contents
Read more

Compatibility: 0.5 Plus 1 Dimension

Image
  Magnetic Cycles and Artificial Gravity Modulus Function First things come first, you'll have to understand prior dimensional instructions to understand what lead me here. You can catch up here if you hadn't:  Compatibility: 0.5 Dimension  . Artificial Gravity's inception and methods were introduced here:  Distance(Remaining Time)  .Alright, I'll try to make it shorter than prior posts, but you can't take my word for it at this injunction. The major difference here is with the notion of 2D. Second dimension, according to me, does not possess an inherent directional structure that emerges from entities settling or balancing into a 2d environment. What's unique to 2D is spin or rotation. Because 1D requires ranges of dense threshold levels across traveled distances, the entirety of 1D objects, and dependencies on density, it lacks the potential to reorient itself , as a unified whole, even though it can traverse directionally. More conflicting constituencies decr...
Read more