Bruce,
Your explanation is nice and dandy until I consider the empirical "3 body problem" shown below.
Search found 252 matches
- Sat Sep 16, 2006 9:13 am
- Forum: General Discussion
- Topic: Why do they gravitate?
- Replies: 36
- Views: 51065
- Thu Sep 14, 2006 3:47 pm
- Forum: General Discussion
- Topic: Why do they gravitate?
- Replies: 36
- Views: 51065
Why do they gravitate?
<t>Bruce,<br/> <br/> Do you have an intuitive understanding why two atoms gravitate in space?<br/> <br/> I know that according to DBL their mandatory motion in space is arrested by an oscillatating or rotating motion, while their mandatory motion in time is unimpeded by such directional loops.<br/> ...
- Sun Apr 30, 2006 4:03 pm
- Forum: Other Theories
- Topic: Projective geometry
- Replies: 10
- Views: 17561
Projective geometry
Bruce wrote:
.
Yeah, I always thought there was something wrong with the world...That is the essence of projective geometry... you add an assumption, and create an illusion. Ever wonder why Ra and the Confederation gang call our "reality" an "illusion"? This is exactly why.
.
- Tue Apr 25, 2006 5:56 am
- Forum: General Discussion
- Topic: Different Interpretations
- Replies: 14
- Views: 23317
Different Interpretations
<t>Good question.<br/> <br/> One school of thought defines the degrees of freedom as the dimensions that are "free" to vary. For example 2D motion in a 3D system has 1 degree of freedom. In other words - the difference between two numbers of dimensions, a.k.a. dimensions of freedom.<br/> <br/> Anoth...
- Mon Apr 24, 2006 5:25 pm
- Forum: General Discussion
- Topic: Different Interpretations
- Replies: 14
- Views: 23317
Different Interpretations
Bruce, The stratification of 3D geometry is clear to me. Thanks. I understand that the cross-ratio is invariant under the transformations of Projective Geometry and all the geometries that are a subset of it. However, I am still unclear how you get from a cross-ratio to the 3 dimensions of scalar sp...
- Mon Apr 24, 2006 8:40 am
- Forum: General Discussion
- Topic: Different Interpretations
- Replies: 14
- Views: 23317
Different Interpretations
Bruce wrote: RS2 conceptualizes RS Theory as a RATIO of RATIOS Fine, but the last ratio in this statement is a quotient of: what divisor and dividend ? In Projective Geometry the cross-ratio is a set of four distinct points on a plane. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cross-ratio What is the relation o...
- Mon Apr 24, 2006 4:22 am
- Forum: General Discussion
- Topic: Different Interpretations
- Replies: 14
- Views: 23317
Different Interpretations
Bruce wrote: A "scalar" does not have the properties of "dimension", "direction", nor "pole"... that's what makes it a SCALAR -- magnitude ONLY! OK, no geometric direction but what about the sign of the magnitude which is often called a "direction"....
- Sun Apr 23, 2006 3:24 pm
- Forum: General Discussion
- Topic: Why start with "Unity"?
- Replies: 12
- Views: 20218
Why start with "Unity"?
Bruce wrote:
http://math.ucr.edu/home/baez/week105.html
.
Actually, the link refering to Bott Periodicity is a different one, namely:They are taken from the reference Horace gave: http://math.ucr.edu/home/baez/week106.html by John Baez, regarding Bott peridocity
http://math.ucr.edu/home/baez/week105.html
.
- Tue Apr 18, 2006 5:55 pm
- Forum: General Discussion
- Topic: Different Interpretations
- Replies: 14
- Views: 23317
Different Interpretations
This is just the type of the feedback I was hoping for. Your correction of the GA definition for RS2 is exactly what I was trying to provoke with my quick&dirty definition. Please help me distill this down to a succint statement. " RS2 conceptualizes RS Theory as a RATIO of ... " Bruce...
- Tue Apr 18, 2006 9:10 am
- Forum: General Discussion
- Topic: Different Interpretations
- Replies: 14
- Views: 23317
Different Interpretations
I'd like you to note that there are different interpretations of RS Theory circulating about. I have come up with a classification system according to Geometric Algebra, which can systematically and succintly compare them. ( If you are unfamiliar with the Geometric Algerba jargon, please see the att...