By updating my understanding of variables, I recognized size is distinct from quantity and value. Each variable is another frame of reference for the other. Currencies ,illustrated above, captured the uniqueness of their variables. I asserted that all variables were different reference frames of the same thing called vibration. Value was a parent for all proceeding variables after vibration. A different frame hid and revealed attributes of a state or object.
In section 2a, I used a simplified versions of the Fizeau Experiment (1848-51) to determine an unknown velocity of a moving target, and the nature of time. Time and velocity didn't have real sizes, they were oriented activities in size. Time was merely a counting iteration, and velocity was quantitative percentile segments of fixed lengths. A timer captured the duration for when a ball started and finished its trajectory. A rotated disc , of area 1, rotated 5 times from start to finish. From start to finish, the timer recorded 1 second. 2b's formula estimated displacement, time, and velocity . The ball moved at 1000 velocity. The purpose for 2c was to establish the argument that velocity and time were equivalent to distance. Distance was only used to unravel its minimum and maximum. Division was used to find how many minimums were within a maximum distance which gave 1000 amounts of 0.2 minimum distance. That 1000 quantity could be interpreted as 100,000 percentages. The idea of orientation is similar. There were many ways to describe arguments for a function or method. In my case, I inputted empty variables to later assign their returned values. A similar concept of original sources started from vibration. In another another frame, vibration became orientation. Vibration was interpreted , or reoriented, as value, quantity, non-traveled direction, size(non-traveled length) ,or etc. The experiment's flaws were its use of counting logic for time and percentile for velocity because they're rooted in minimum to maximum captured distance as fixed lengths. They were reminders that these were merely symbolic numbers , and it was their references and calculative logics that mattered. For example, if I changed the timer from 1 second to 7.62 centimeters, it would affect the output value for velocity. The same affects would occur if Fizeau measured the area of his rotated wheel instead of its quantitative teeth. Therefore, velocity and time could not be captured directly as how size was readily observed. Distinctive names were given in attempt to reference real and indirect attributes like motion and time.
3a was an exemplified overview for 0.5 dimension. This was a vibrational state's origin. It was all that existed, so it's omniscient, omnipresent, and contains all potentials there was with sheer omnipotence. It sounded like religious doctrine, but that would be a mistake. This state cannot travel, so it reoriented itself into other manifestations of change. Vibration can become quantity, size, etc. Read_Write and Write_Read were oriented functions that determined what attributes existed within a state of reference. Other variables were hidden depending on the reference frame environment. In a state of singularity, one cannot determine hot, cold, or temperature. Only orientation existed as different reference frames of an original inertial state. 3b summarized principles uncover when 1D was analyzed. A vibrational state would split into two objects x1 and x2. A vibrational state would be neutrally polarized as read_write or write_read. This meant both ,x1 and x2, read and wrote variables like directional potentials to themselves, or each other through an inverse function. Some examples which used linear and simultaneous directions were shown for each rectangle. Simultaneous paths occurred during collisions and decay in 1 dimension. The reason for concurrency during decay was that an object had an initial direction, which it may pass on a reoriented copy that generated. There was also a concept of inversed direction from Mirage states for indirect behaviors. Inherent directional potential, in 1D, had either horizontal or vertical orientation. The rest were formulas for calculating the size in each dimension. 0.5 dimension equaled size, 1D equaled median distance plus half lengths for each object. 2D was an area that encapsulated all hypotenuse from minimum to maximum. Orientation is not direction.
At 4, I constructed the basic principle for a 2D paradigm. Width * length were only percentile manipulations. They didn't represented quantitative real areas. I built a 2D size by adding some squares of 1D lengths with differing orientations. I call then X^2 and Y^2. When combined , they were near equivalent to added up all hypotenuse. The maximum hypotenuse was found at the half section of a square or rectangle. Since it was at a 50% zone, I split that 50% into 50 quantities and recorded their values as minimum hypotenuse. I reinterpreted these values as non-traveling sizes. I calculated all hypotenuse from minimum to maximum. From there, I devised a short hand for finding quantities associated with each hypotenuse. I used that formula to identify ranges from which to deduce an individual hypotenuse's quantities. For number (5), the 50% mark would become the relative basis for all other subsequent calculations. From these operations, I recognized that every line, curve, arc, or shape had rates of change associated with them. The final integral formula was derived. It could be said that sizes (Xy+Yx) were mass multiplied by changes in 1.4142% , which were accelerations. The only problem was Isaac Newton never treated mass as quantities. All were percentiles like width * length , thus F = ma. It was essential to point out that there were no widths or lengths in this 2D framework. All were combined into hypotenuse at every segmented area. Therefore, I said, " width_length(Xy) and length_width(Yx)". Another way to view this was to assume X^2,Y^2, and H were all sets of each other. A 2D environment was balanced at all locations without exceptions, or it wouldn't be 2D; see my other page on incomplete separation and merger. I would have to make a 2D environment imbalanced in order to advance into 3D with a z-axis, or decay by reverting into separate orientations of 1D axes. All dimensions were uniquely balanced in their own ways, so they stuck with the second law of motion that an equivalent or imbalanced force must occur for successful motion. Therefore, all things move even in inertial frames as vibration to orientation, and calculative entropy was never violated. They represented notions of change such as speed, velocity, acceleration, frequency, decay, heat, vibration, entropy ,etc.
All I required from (6a) were its radius, changes in maximum to minimum hypotenuse, and what remained as minimum differences between its radius and changes in maximum to minimum hypotenuse. (6b) and (6c) simplified (6a) in tabular form. They illustrated the power of rate of change. While the inner rectangles enlarged convexly into a larger square, their percentile values decelerated. While the inner square concavely became smaller rectangles , their percentile values accelerates. I recognized these motions as rate of change and asserted that all curves, arcs, and lines embodied inherent rates of chance. There were a number of references to ascribe these behaviors to beyond optics and motion. Red and Blue-Shifts, size or mass increased and decreased when approaching light's speed, electromagnetism and what I called artificial gravity, Pascal's Law, and the rate of reaction when a larger object cornered a smaller one were some up for consideration beyond geometric interpretations as real 2D area. Calculations, with rate of change, were within 100, or 100%, divisions for any length. Within these zones, I solved for a hypotenuse within any percentile range differences between any two , and possibly more, width_lengths and vice-versa. There were under and overestimations, but the model could be fine tuned for more accuracy by expanding the quantity of integrals if required. The d rise/d run was exactly equivalent, at the start, to 4.762 size reduction as Mirage Xy. At the smallest mirage rectangle( r20 to r21), the hypotenuse for d rise/d run would be near equivalent to 4.762 arc in size. It was 3.0568 arc between r1 to r2.
Next up:
7a contains instructions for how to transform cycles into quantities. Within one area of a circle, 2 quantities can result from having two arrows of time as gauges for directional potentials. The formula says that as arrows of time increase, their portion of rotation ,in order to determine a quantity, decreases. While having less arrows require fuller cycles to produce quantities, larger amount of arrows require only fractions of a cycle to combine into a single quantity.
7b and 7c track changes in magnitudes for directional potentials. Each arrow possesses opposing directions that allows each to generate matching puzzles. Revolutions are broken down into half cycles, four phases, and four major fluctuations for Dynamic Directional Potentials. Partially Dynamic Directional Potentials may possess repeated phases and 2 major fluctuations. Its focused change means minimal changes are allowed for its otherwise static like directional potential. One can metaphorize them as Alternating versus Direct Cycles. Xy and Yx incur polarizing fluctuations in order to match each other. Since Yx possesses half of the pieces at half its cycle , they can both use half cycles to produce 1 quantity. If a piece of the puzzle doesn't match the other, their cycles weren't completed within a single area. I could use attractive or repulsive analogies, but they're not accurately descriptive because there is no attraction without initial or faint repulsion. It must always be attraction_repulsion or vice-verse in 2D. Because Xy and Yx's matrices can oscillate wildly, they can always produce unique strings of puzzled patterns unique to a particular Xy or Yx. As in, Xy1 might not be able to match Xy2.
7D illustrates some examples for the repultion_attraction analogy. I think that it's very straightforward. Directional potentials' matrices can be categorized under three branches. They are either external or internal directions. Some may mix. The idea is simple, external directions changes as a person rotates clockwise or counter-clockwise. This adaptability represents the efficiency at which Dynamic Directional Potentials fluctuate in magnitudes from minimum , balance, to maximum. Internal directions mean no matter how you maneuver , your right hand will remain pointing to your subjective right. Therefore, some objects are inherently right or left handed. Since sized objects can't cancel , erase, or delete directional potentials, they must take simultaneous paths. It also means that they can inherit many directional arrows and potentials on top of what was inherent to them.
For 8a , it was already shown how to calculate d-rise/ d-run and Arcs as directional potentials in sections 6a to 6c.It was already shown how to calculate the value of a radius with rate change for any percentile range between two lengths in section 6c. 8a constructs the mirage radius for directional time by applying the 50% basis rule. Surprisingly, this 50% basis can apply to any dimensional shape of any size thus retaining similar formulas relative to their dimensions. D1 forms will be always be (Q * d-X) while 2D will be Q( Xy^2 + Yx^2)etc.The mirage is an illusionary effect that allows me to manipulate imaginary areas in order to gauge certain effects or harmonize chaotic cycles.
9a's result is a change in area and circumference range due to a counter-clockwise change in Yx's rotation attempting to match Xy's clockwise rotation. The resulting Xx length_width seems as linear as 2D can get. My interpretation is the illusion of time dilation in the Mirage environment, or a decay of Y in some form for the sized and quantity environment. A decrease in radius from surrounding activities can increase precession if arc potential remains and not overridden. By reducing the number of directional time arrows, Xx doubles its half cycle to gain 1 quantity, so a portion of time dilation is met. This exampled used linear dominant directional magnitudes, but simultaneous ones can be applied for more common 2D effects. 9B is a reminder of the effects of acceleration on a changing radius, circumference, or area for rotating bodies of any shape. I plan to explore and develop 9a , 9b, and 7D ,in unison, further because I don't think that I uncovered enough principles. 9b nested loops will be useful in order to develop trapping mechanisms for absorbing other objects.
Comments
Post a Comment