This short video will help with deriving the formula
This video will explain how you find the mass of earth
Will find one that has lab work in it.
Lets Talk Science
- Thread starter DR OSMAN
- Start date
- Status
This short video will help with deriving the formula
This video will explain how you find the mass of earth
Will find one that has lab work in it.
Very interesting thank you. I personally don't like the algebra they are using. Why cant you just create your language. U need to first do it in a way that makes sense to you cause then you can just 'copy' the algebra statements cause that's what people will understand. I respect algebra is a language that is used to convey a problem and it's answer and people do need a 'standard' language so things don't get lost in translation. I appreciate this. But seriously once you do the hard work yourself, it surely can't be hard to find out which statements in algebra to use to convey your problem and answer.
Most of this stuff requires good idea thinking. Now the force of gravity is already worked out for you, so it's something you need to just copy and put into your equation as a 'variable' or 'factor' that will effect the end result. How gravity is measured itself will need to be translated into 'kilograms'. Because that's what your looking for at the end is the 'kilo' of the earth that is the 'unknown'. The rest are the factors and variables you need to consider. I don't really consider that maths at all. The guy who invented the 'method' yes that is genius but the rest who get tested on it are just not innovative but books worms.
I want proof the mass of the earth going towards the center will be a guarantee that is the 'weight'. I can understand it logically when you have different directions in a sphere you need to find the the things that unites those different direction and the only thing that unites them is a center. That is why you can find out the area of a circle or sphere once you know the uniter is the center and then it's a case of breaking it up into 'pieces' from the center thru horizontal, vertical measurements going from the center and connecting to different points in the circle.
For example a hectagon has 8 points so you will need to find the center and then connect to those 8 points, from there you can measure each slice of the hectagon by simply multiplying the two points(the two vertical lines against each other) to find the area within that specific hectagon and then it's simple addition process across the 8 points to find the whole space. Is this applicable to weight though as it is to shapes? I suspect it is because all that mass is going in every direction in that circle or sphere. But a simple test like a cake would be sufficient if you can find something like that on youtube. Can we determine the weight of the cake just by weighing the center?
I honestly think u need the center but also the total 'area' in 'mass' of the cake. Once u have the area plus the center is there some arimethic that can be done to say hey the center weighs this much and here is the area of the whole cake and just multiply across and 'voila' you got the whole weight of the cake. But without the area, I seriously don't know what sort of use the center will have.
What type of algebra are you reading about? Abstract algebra?
That's true. Between any two real numbers, however small/close there are infinitely many real numbers between them. You can see this by taking a and b such that a < b then consider (a+b)/2 etc. You can consider maths as the philosophy of numbers. In philosophy, you take a concept or an idea, and you analyse the shit out of it, if could pardon my French. For example, I said 'two numbers however close'. What does this mean? How can define the concept of 'closeness' with respect to numbers? What about 'however small'? How would you define smallness? You get my idea.
Early you were learning how slicing up a space into smaller parts gives you the area. This is called a Riemann sum, and it's the product of this type of questions. If you see the formula for a Riemann sum, you will notice it has something like 1/n in front it, which is taken to taken to infinity. Taking it to infinity ensures that the you have covered every last bit of space, and hence you have a correct answer.
That's precisely why people created maths if you will, as devices aren't always going to be practical. Instead of actually measuring it, connect the vertices of the star, and you have a pentagon and/or inscribe a circle that around the star, then it breaks down to knowing your geometry of triangles.
That's because when applied to reality, mathematics gives approximations. You cannot have a perfect circle or a sphere in reality. A point is dimensionless, a line has no width. So your measurement of concrete object is going to be an approximation. But that's not a problem because it doesn't really matter, as long as the approximation is correct to a desired degree. Earlier you were talking about the universe. A remarkable fact is that to calculate the circumference of the observable universe within an error margin about the size of a hydrogen atom, you would only need 38 digits of π.
Last edited:
What type of algebra are you reading about? Abstract algebra?
That's true. Between any two real numbers, however small/close there are infinitely many real numbers between them. You can see this by taking a and b such that a < b then consider (a+b)/2 etc. You can consider maths as the philosophy of numbers. In philosophy, you take a concept or an idea, and you analyse the shit out of it, if could pardon my French. For example, I said 'two numbers however close'. What does this mean? How can define the concept of 'closeness' with respect to numbers? What about 'however small'? How would you define smallness? You get my idea.
Early you were learning how slicing up a space into smaller parts gives you the area. This is called a Riemann sum, and it's the product of this type of questions. If you see the formula for a Riemann sum, you will notice it has something like 1/n in front it, which is taken to taken to infinity. Taking it to infinity ensures that the you have covered every last bit of space, and hence you have a correct answer.
That's precisely why people created maths if you will, as devices aren't always going to be practical. Instead of actually measuring it, connect the vertices of the star, and you have a pentagon and/or inscribe a circle that around the star, then it breaks down to knowing your geometry of triangles.
That's because when applied to reality, mathematics gives approximations. You cannot have a perfect circle or a sphere in reality. A point is dimensionless, a line has no width. So your measurement of concrete object is going to be an approximation. But that's not a problem because it doesn't really matter, as long as the approximation is correct to a desired degree. Earlier you were talking about the universe. A remarkable fact is that to calculate the circumference of the observable universe within an error margin about the size of a hydrogen atom, you would only need 38 digits of π.
Yeah there is a problem of width missing as width is the connector and contains the space. Two vertical lines by itself are useless. The only way is to fill up the space with little measurable points such as dots or boxes or triangles. Probably dots are far more accurate cause shapes can not get into
the tight areas of the space. The question is u will need to know how to measure the dot and ensure it's accuracy or it's fruitless, if you know what the dot measurements are it's just multiplication of the amount of dots against the size of each dot. Not sure but maybe something like that.
I am still going to need to get a cake and tape measure. Measure each slice verticle lines, then multiply it against each other and see if I get an accurate return on the space within the slice. I am
still learning so who knows. But I do wonder the two vertical lines on the end of each slice is two
points and as long as u have two points you can measure it and then multiply it against each other.
I mean do you really need a length n width cause that's just two points one is horizontal the other
is verticle, but 2 verticle lines create the same scenario as horizontal n vertical do in terms of space.
I mean look at the slices here, the space is surely contained by the 2 verticle lines so why can't we
just multiply both verticle lines and find the space?
Last edited:
Simple rule to remember. Addition, Substraction, Multiplication, and Division are key rules and that's pretty much all your going to use. The rest is looking at your problem and creating solutions. For example shapes like boxes, triangle, circles, sphere, hectagons, octagons or different elements like angles, curves, downhill, uphill(dips), it seems to take the problem we have and then come up with solutions to it but your always using the addition, multiplication, division and subtraction regardless and no wonder this is taught early on. It's basically the engine of maths without it, everything else and the problems you face can't be solved at all. That's the 'creative' part where u got a problem and working out an answer. But there is another side of maths which is just pure 'measurements' like measuring how much water in glass, how much chemicals in a hair follicle, your just measuring here nothing else no creative solution but just just measurement untill of course you got a problem and then it's back to the basics of multiplication, division, substraction, addition.
Forget algebra it seems like it's just a way to translate your problem into a language people can understand. That's pure translation of your problem but your always reverting back to the simple arimethic stuff at all times. It appears that is main king in maths the arithmetic.
Now back to the circle problem, I don't know if a dot is great but u could place one dot and if it's to small to measure take 100 dots and then put into a space like a box now what u could do is length x width to find area of the box and once u have the area of the box or the space it contains you could take the area and divide it by 100 dotts to find what 1 dot measurement is. Once u have the 1 dots measurement u could easily work out how many dots filled the slice or cicle by taking the one and multiplying it by the amount of dots. For example if your dot measurement is 0.1 mm...u could then fill it with 100 dots and then it's a case of multiplying one dots measurement say it's 0.1mm x 100 dotts cause that's how much u filled into the space, to get an accurate estimation of the space.
What u think boys do you think that way is more accurate or could we take the two vertical points of the slice and multiply it against each other to get the space within the slice and after that multiply it against how many slices in the cake to get an overall space diameter for the circle?
Forget algebra it seems like it's just a way to translate your problem into a language people can understand. That's pure translation of your problem but your always reverting back to the simple arimethic stuff at all times. It appears that is main king in maths the arithmetic.
Now back to the circle problem, I don't know if a dot is great but u could place one dot and if it's to small to measure take 100 dots and then put into a space like a box now what u could do is length x width to find area of the box and once u have the area of the box or the space it contains you could take the area and divide it by 100 dotts to find what 1 dot measurement is. Once u have the 1 dots measurement u could easily work out how many dots filled the slice or cicle by taking the one and multiplying it by the amount of dots. For example if your dot measurement is 0.1 mm...u could then fill it with 100 dots and then it's a case of multiplying one dots measurement say it's 0.1mm x 100 dotts cause that's how much u filled into the space, to get an accurate estimation of the space.
What u think boys do you think that way is more accurate or could we take the two vertical points of the slice and multiply it against each other to get the space within the slice and after that multiply it against how many slices in the cake to get an overall space diameter for the circle?
If you look closely at that circle. U do see width right at the top in a horizontal way. So you can measure that against the vertical lines and come up with an accurate space. Or if you want an even more accurate space reading fill up the one slice with small dots. For example a slice of cake, u can measure the space with small little peebles all over it and then add up those peebles and divide it by 1 pebble size. For example 100 pebbles fit into the slice, now divide 100 pebbles by the 1 pebble. This will give you an accurate reading how much space each pebble is taking. Once you know how much space each pebble takes for example 1.1 mm you can multiply that by 100 to find out how much space it all takes up and u will get mm or whatever measure u use as a reading back.
Does that make sense guys, am I right?
Does that make sense guys, am I right?
Lets go back to the leaf example as this far more complex due to the irregular shape and how it gets small at some points and larger at other points.
Lets use Algebra in this instance and notice I won't use the rubbish letters. I will only use it once I want to formerly present it. But lets break down
this problem into unknowns that we want to find.
We want to find the unknown of the 'curve' on the outer side of the leaf. That is an unknown and a variable we will need.
We want to find the unknown of the space within the leaf we must take into consideration the smaller points at both ends. That is another variable Space Variable will be called.
We need to know if there is different dips and by how much, we can see it curves up and down, so
the vectors or points will be different in different parts of that curve.
We want to find the unknown of how to apply this shape to a real life problem like we want to see a leaf style building or leaf shaped garden. Considerations are many here. But an accurate
measurement of the leaf is needed or when it's applied it won't be perfect. The dips how it goes
up and down will need to measured cause it will go n up down in our real life problem like garden
skyscraper, etc.
That's all algebra is listing the problems u have and what you find out. The letters are just basically crap and confusion and puts people off.
1st question how do we measure a curve? we will need two points like this | | | | | | | | | across the curve and then measure those two points distances. Once we have covered that completely across the curve. We can calculate how much distance is between two points like this | | and then multiply it by how many points >>> || we have. So if two points measurements are | | is 0.1 inch or mm we can multiply that by how many we have covered the curve with |||| to get an over-all figure of what the curve is. Now obviously it is better to write down each two points separately down >>> || somewhere on a piece of paper cause to determine if there is a fluctatation depending on what part of the curve those two points are. But at the end of the day you got the measurements as a whole plus u got the measurements for every stage of the curve just in-case the numbers aren't perfectly matched.
2nd Question the space within the leave. As you can see we will need to fill it up with little dots and once we fill it up we can divide those dots to find how much space 1 dot takes and once we know how much one dot takes we can multiply it by how many dots we have to find an overall space. The dots are needed in my view cause a square, triangle, or any shape will not fill those small ends at the beginning and end.
3rd Question once we find out that let's start applying to a real problem, we got our figures and need to adjust those figures to the problem and it's size. It could be one bedroom, one garden, or a skyscraper. The size won't matter as long as we have the coordinates correctly measured as the space can fluctate it can be bigger or smaller inside but the coordinates must be accurate to have the shape. The coordinates basically guide the space inside it as perimeters and those perimeters can be as a large as a skyscraper if you want.
Now the question comes down to adjusting those leaf coordinates to a larger space. We know the mathematical rules will apply it's either a division/multiplication/addition/substraction. No other rule will apply so we know it's going to be one of those four things we use to adjust it to the building or garden. I am going to think about this further and get back to you.
Wow we need NALLE back, first somali girl i've seen that can hold it down with the men. Maybe can test it with something small like a cake and change it to leaf in shape from it's circle. We need accurate measurements within the cake to get an exact 'duplicate' of the leaf. Let experiment NALLE and figure out what we need in terms of the cake measurements against the leaf measurement and what sort arimethic function we need to apply to adjust it.
I am not sure on Nalle evolutionary views, it will be interesting to see what she says. Me and @BestCaseScenario have respectfully disagreed. We have come to an agreement yes there is similarities between and us and everything around us. We have come to agreement we are in 1 universe so obviously we are going to have commonalities but he goes into the conclusion those differences among us and other animals and everything around us is thru divine godly reasons. This god he refers to obviously isn't physical and cannot be tested as he would agree.
Where-as I have said those similarities must point to a common ancestor at one time in our evolutionary past and we were all one and diverged from that one point and developed into what we are thru environmental pressures like food shortages, weather changes, etc and possibly other environmental factors and those differences in us and the animal world were naturally selected as it provided the most benefit and answer in response to the environment. For example my reasoning is, if we move to the hottest country on earth and stay there for thousands of years, I feel the sun will ultimately make us darker and our genes will respond to pass this onto future generations as it's better being dark rather then light in such an environment. Notice the environment is triggering us to change. I think these changes will occur if we even switch diets and all food runs out on the land and we start fishing. Eating so much fish, our genes will respond naturally on how to best handle this new diet while being alive and this will be naturally selected.
Now I do agree with @BestCaseScenario that all of this and the question of ultimate why, I also revert back to god the only difference is, I believe in a god that was a mathamatical genius and didn't need to stick around to watch over his creation just like he don't need to stick around when we make decisions today as human being. For example the sun can do it's job on it's own without a god guiding it. But why the first sun came to be, I do resort to god!!! So my god is really at the beginning, everything after I feel can operate fine with it's own law. For example once we figure out how to apply the leaf to a garden or building, me and u can step away and allow a calculator to do this for everyone else. We created the answer but passed on and everyone else now uses it but we STEPPED away and don't need to monitor it anymore.
Please @Nalle your evolutionary views will be interesting if u agree or disagree or half way there. I agree 99% up until the big bang. But before that how did nothing come from nothing is relevant. Plus if there was something u can't keep going into vicious loop cause something will always mean there was something before it and before it and it never ends. Cause an effect is awesome up untill a point where it never ends.
Lets use Algebra in this instance and notice I won't use the rubbish letters. I will only use it once I want to formerly present it. But lets break down
this problem into unknowns that we want to find.
We want to find the unknown of the 'curve' on the outer side of the leaf. That is an unknown and a variable we will need.
We want to find the unknown of the space within the leaf we must take into consideration the smaller points at both ends. That is another variable Space Variable will be called.
We need to know if there is different dips and by how much, we can see it curves up and down, so
the vectors or points will be different in different parts of that curve.
We want to find the unknown of how to apply this shape to a real life problem like we want to see a leaf style building or leaf shaped garden. Considerations are many here. But an accurate
measurement of the leaf is needed or when it's applied it won't be perfect. The dips how it goes
up and down will need to measured cause it will go n up down in our real life problem like garden
skyscraper, etc.
That's all algebra is listing the problems u have and what you find out. The letters are just basically crap and confusion and puts people off.
1st question how do we measure a curve? we will need two points like this | | | | | | | | | across the curve and then measure those two points distances. Once we have covered that completely across the curve. We can calculate how much distance is between two points like this | | and then multiply it by how many points >>> || we have. So if two points measurements are | | is 0.1 inch or mm we can multiply that by how many we have covered the curve with |||| to get an over-all figure of what the curve is. Now obviously it is better to write down each two points separately down >>> || somewhere on a piece of paper cause to determine if there is a fluctatation depending on what part of the curve those two points are. But at the end of the day you got the measurements as a whole plus u got the measurements for every stage of the curve just in-case the numbers aren't perfectly matched.
2nd Question the space within the leave. As you can see we will need to fill it up with little dots and once we fill it up we can divide those dots to find how much space 1 dot takes and once we know how much one dot takes we can multiply it by how many dots we have to find an overall space. The dots are needed in my view cause a square, triangle, or any shape will not fill those small ends at the beginning and end.
3rd Question once we find out that let's start applying to a real problem, we got our figures and need to adjust those figures to the problem and it's size. It could be one bedroom, one garden, or a skyscraper. The size won't matter as long as we have the coordinates correctly measured as the space can fluctate it can be bigger or smaller inside but the coordinates must be accurate to have the shape. The coordinates basically guide the space inside it as perimeters and those perimeters can be as a large as a skyscraper if you want.
Now the question comes down to adjusting those leaf coordinates to a larger space. We know the mathematical rules will apply it's either a division/multiplication/addition/substraction. No other rule will apply so we know it's going to be one of those four things we use to adjust it to the building or garden. I am going to think about this further and get back to you.
Wow we need NALLE back, first somali girl i've seen that can hold it down with the men. Maybe can test it with something small like a cake and change it to leaf in shape from it's circle. We need accurate measurements within the cake to get an exact 'duplicate' of the leaf. Let experiment NALLE and figure out what we need in terms of the cake measurements against the leaf measurement and what sort arimethic function we need to apply to adjust it.
I am not sure on Nalle evolutionary views, it will be interesting to see what she says. Me and @BestCaseScenario have respectfully disagreed. We have come to an agreement yes there is similarities between and us and everything around us. We have come to agreement we are in 1 universe so obviously we are going to have commonalities but he goes into the conclusion those differences among us and other animals and everything around us is thru divine godly reasons. This god he refers to obviously isn't physical and cannot be tested as he would agree.
Where-as I have said those similarities must point to a common ancestor at one time in our evolutionary past and we were all one and diverged from that one point and developed into what we are thru environmental pressures like food shortages, weather changes, etc and possibly other environmental factors and those differences in us and the animal world were naturally selected as it provided the most benefit and answer in response to the environment. For example my reasoning is, if we move to the hottest country on earth and stay there for thousands of years, I feel the sun will ultimately make us darker and our genes will respond to pass this onto future generations as it's better being dark rather then light in such an environment. Notice the environment is triggering us to change. I think these changes will occur if we even switch diets and all food runs out on the land and we start fishing. Eating so much fish, our genes will respond naturally on how to best handle this new diet while being alive and this will be naturally selected.
Now I do agree with @BestCaseScenario that all of this and the question of ultimate why, I also revert back to god the only difference is, I believe in a god that was a mathamatical genius and didn't need to stick around to watch over his creation just like he don't need to stick around when we make decisions today as human being. For example the sun can do it's job on it's own without a god guiding it. But why the first sun came to be, I do resort to god!!! So my god is really at the beginning, everything after I feel can operate fine with it's own law. For example once we figure out how to apply the leaf to a garden or building, me and u can step away and allow a calculator to do this for everyone else. We created the answer but passed on and everyone else now uses it but we STEPPED away and don't need to monitor it anymore.
Please @Nalle your evolutionary views will be interesting if u agree or disagree or half way there. I agree 99% up until the big bang. But before that how did nothing come from nothing is relevant. Plus if there was something u can't keep going into vicious loop cause something will always mean there was something before it and before it and it never ends. Cause an effect is awesome up untill a point where it never ends.
Last edited:
@Nalle and @BestCaseScenario are one of the best on this thread. There coming and dissecting the problem. I think @Nalle is maths buff and @BestCaseScenario a very science orientated person regardless what the problem is.
Only issue I have with @BestCaseScenario is his lack of respect for mother nature and her power. For example, lets experiment how powerful mother nature is. Let's leave a house unattended for 50 years. Lets come back and see how mother nature dealt with. We are taming mother nature don't be fooled by
that, we are subject to her and she will rip your heart out the second u ignore her.
This is me not on tukaraq but mother nature respecting her power and place in the universe
Only issue I have with @BestCaseScenario is his lack of respect for mother nature and her power. For example, lets experiment how powerful mother nature is. Let's leave a house unattended for 50 years. Lets come back and see how mother nature dealt with. We are taming mother nature don't be fooled by
that, we are subject to her and she will rip your heart out the second u ignore her.
This is me not on tukaraq but mother nature respecting her power and place in the universe
Last edited:
No aversion but I need to work it out myself using my own logical processes, Now I understand that may be confusing in presentation to someone else but I would clean up the logic and apply the standard your use to....x = unknown y = unknown add a few arithmetic functions to reach a conclusion on the answer. I know it's messy but i hope u understand what I am doing.
Mind u this isn't just geometry, I am applying it to geometry situations but it can applied to anything. Cause everything in the world has curves like the street has curves, a hill goes up and down and has shape. It can be applied to anything your working on in the universe except probably chemistry as that would require a different measurement tool or maybe not who knows u could put two || at each chemical compound and measure it that way and work out the volume of it and move on to the next compound.
Nothing works without Math. Rules are set in numbers.
DR OSMAN
I have allergy problems and can't even see the screen without wiping tears from my eyes. Will rejoin here when I get better.
I am waiting for you and Nalle and Naissur are great contributors in this thread. We should do this stuff, it's sorely lacking in the Somali community and make it look easy so they can pursue this path. I have no interest pursuing other then just a side thing I do in my own time and learn about nature.
Next problem I am trying to figure out is acceleration and decceleration cause this is a clear fact in life. How do we ensure the right amount of acceleration is applied when going up a slope or a hill or going down hill? notice you need to deccelerate as you go down hill and when u go up-hill you need more acceleration. I assume it's not much different for space ships as they go 'up' they need more acceleration due to the force of going up, while decelerating as they come down, I doubt they can use that sort of force going up while coming down.
I am just working out the maths, ON MY OWN. Cause someone had to do this shit on his own before it was written down for us to study now. So if I can get these things accurate now, the next things I think of which aren't available will be accurate also? that's why I don't really wanna refer to the book if I can avoid it. The thing that drives me is someone actually done this without any book, so why can't I?
Well what I do know so far just thinking about it. If you place an object like a car into neutral the force of the uphill will make it roll back down and vice versa if the car is downhill, it will roll forward. Neutral is when there is no acceleration but it's not parked either. So we know if the car can be pushed down and up without it doing anything in terms of acceleration depending on where it is. The only place I see it not move is if the car is in neutral where somewhere is 'horizontal' like a high-way.
So the maths would need to include a measure of the 'force' for downhill and uphill across different points of the distance. Time isn't really relevant cause u can accelerate at 1 km or 100 km it just means u will get there quicker but even at 1 km you still moving and the force of the uphill slope won't roll back down. It's only when it's at 0 km u roll back as there is no force. Interesting isn't just a little bit of acceleration at 1 km can change the force of the up-hill in a mountainous area.
The question is how do we measure the force of the up-hill and down-hill aspects. Can we apply the same maths like from the leaf where the curve on the leaf outer sides dips across different areas? basically two points and measure those points across the distance and watch the numbers fluctate depending on where we are in the slope? I mean points like this across the whole up hill and down hill slope >>>> | |
What are we going to measure it in? a ruler surely is not relevant here.
Last edited:
Here is something to get started on this mind boggling problem!!! This is just a small hill and it's not even directly straight like a rocket has to
go 'straight up' in a total 'vertical position' and it obviously comes 'straight' down also. This more a curve then anything. We know if u apply a little bit pressure not even much on a bike or car u have cancelled out the force. Now it would be interesting how much pressure u need applied but it won't be much, I would it's just above 0 at a small scale but that's just a best guess and not proven untill maths is applied.
I am not going to cover distance/speed/time not just yet. Distance is 'fixed' usually you got one variable that ain't changing. U know u will cover a certain distance but speed and time will change. So working out how quick someone gets somewhere is is a matter of distance/speed=time. But this can change if for example speed fluctates along the distance, you going 100 km for 1-2 km then back down to 50 km for another 3 or 4 km. U probably need to work out an average between the highest and lowest points the car is travelling to get an average speed across the whole distance. Or u can work out for example u can say for this certain distance (5 km) you need to arrive here in 3 minutes after working out how many km is required to arrive in 3 minutes. if your travelling at 80 and then 50 and then 30 km an hr, it won't matter cause if u arrive before 3 minutes we worked out it takes 3 minutes to get here at 80 km, if u came at 1 minute we can work out how fast u must of been going by working how much speed u need to cover 5 kilometers in 1 minute. Weird but hey it's confusing as f*ck but fun. I guess once u have two fixed points u can apply the simple divide/multiply/addition/substraction cause that is the REAL MATHS.
go 'straight up' in a total 'vertical position' and it obviously comes 'straight' down also. This more a curve then anything. We know if u apply a little bit pressure not even much on a bike or car u have cancelled out the force. Now it would be interesting how much pressure u need applied but it won't be much, I would it's just above 0 at a small scale but that's just a best guess and not proven untill maths is applied.
I am not going to cover distance/speed/time not just yet. Distance is 'fixed' usually you got one variable that ain't changing. U know u will cover a certain distance but speed and time will change. So working out how quick someone gets somewhere is is a matter of distance/speed=time. But this can change if for example speed fluctates along the distance, you going 100 km for 1-2 km then back down to 50 km for another 3 or 4 km. U probably need to work out an average between the highest and lowest points the car is travelling to get an average speed across the whole distance. Or u can work out for example u can say for this certain distance (5 km) you need to arrive here in 3 minutes after working out how many km is required to arrive in 3 minutes. if your travelling at 80 and then 50 and then 30 km an hr, it won't matter cause if u arrive before 3 minutes we worked out it takes 3 minutes to get here at 80 km, if u came at 1 minute we can work out how fast u must of been going by working how much speed u need to cover 5 kilometers in 1 minute. Weird but hey it's confusing as f*ck but fun. I guess once u have two fixed points u can apply the simple divide/multiply/addition/substraction cause that is the REAL MATHS.
Here is something to get started on this mind boggling problem!!! This is just a small hill and it's not even directly straight like a rocket has to go 'straight up' in a total 'vertical position' and it obviously comes 'straight' down also. This more a curve then anything. We know if u apply a little bit pressure not even much on a bike or car u have cancelled out the force. Now it would be interesting how much pressure u need applied but it won't be much, I would it's just above 0 at a small scale but that's just a best guess and not proven untill maths is applied.
I am not going to cover distance/speed/time not just yet. Distance is 'fixed' usually you got one variable that ain't changing. U know u will cover a certain distance but speed and time will change. So working out how quick someone gets somewhere is is a matter of distance/speed=time. But this can change if for example speed fluctates along the distance, you going 100 km for 1-2 km then back down to 50 km for another 3 or 4 km. U probably need to work out an average between the highest and lowest points the car is travelling to get an average speed across the whole distance. Or u can work out for example u can say for this certain distance (5 km) you need to arrive here in 3 minutes after working out how many km is required to arrive in 3 minutes. if your travelling at 80 and then 50 and then 30 km an hr, it won't matter cause if u arrive before 3 minutes we worked out it takes 3 minutes to get here at 80 km, if u came at 1 minute we can work out how fast u must of been going by working how much speed u need to cover 5 kilometers in 1 minute. Weird but hey it's confusing as f*ck but fun. I guess once u have two fixed points u can apply the simple divide/multiply/addition/substraction cause that is the REAL MATHS.
But a simple short hand would distance/speed= time. but if u wanna know speed something was travelling the two fixed points are time/distance=speed u must have been travelling regardless of dips in ur speed you reached the destination at specific time and we have a specific distance. Now what's the short hand for distance? is it speed/time=distance seems like the pattern but I gotta think about it logically. If I know the speed is 80 km and the time he took was 5 minutes. Can I divide 5/80. Yep it's 600 meters!!! voila. Now imagine measuring how long it takes to get to the moon. U know the distance then u need to know what speed your travelling in and basic division. 384,400 km travelling at 500 km. It will take u 768 days to get to the moon in our time. If we apply light speed, we need to know what the speed of light is. I am still confused about speed of light. If I turn on my car light I know it covers a lot of distance in a short period of time or when the light hits earth it covers it quickly. But how do we know what it's true speed is? what are we measuring a car light due to the power in the light will a-lot slower to the power of the sun but their still both very quick.
So once we know what we are measuring in light then we can accurately describe it's speed. But it's fast as hell there is no question about that!!! Plus when u know the distance ur travelling and the speed u got the light years and then u need to break it back down into what that means in our time!!! Cuz if usain bolt is doing 100 meters in 10 seconds and light is doing under a second u do see
how things will need to be translated back down in our time.
I am not going to cover distance/speed/time not just yet. Distance is 'fixed' usually you got one variable that ain't changing. U know u will cover a certain distance but speed and time will change. So working out how quick someone gets somewhere is is a matter of distance/speed=time. But this can change if for example speed fluctates along the distance, you going 100 km for 1-2 km then back down to 50 km for another 3 or 4 km. U probably need to work out an average between the highest and lowest points the car is travelling to get an average speed across the whole distance. Or u can work out for example u can say for this certain distance (5 km) you need to arrive here in 3 minutes after working out how many km is required to arrive in 3 minutes. if your travelling at 80 and then 50 and then 30 km an hr, it won't matter cause if u arrive before 3 minutes we worked out it takes 3 minutes to get here at 80 km, if u came at 1 minute we can work out how fast u must of been going by working how much speed u need to cover 5 kilometers in 1 minute. Weird but hey it's confusing as f*ck but fun. I guess once u have two fixed points u can apply the simple divide/multiply/addition/substraction cause that is the REAL MATHS.
But a simple short hand would distance/speed= time. but if u wanna know speed something was travelling the two fixed points are time/distance=speed u must have been travelling regardless of dips in ur speed you reached the destination at specific time and we have a specific distance. Now what's the short hand for distance? is it speed/time=distance seems like the pattern but I gotta think about it logically. If I know the speed is 80 km and the time he took was 5 minutes. Can I divide 5/80. Yep it's 600 meters!!! voila. Now imagine measuring how long it takes to get to the moon. U know the distance then u need to know what speed your travelling in and basic division. 384,400 km travelling at 500 km. It will take u 768 days to get to the moon in our time. If we apply light speed, we need to know what the speed of light is. I am still confused about speed of light. If I turn on my car light I know it covers a lot of distance in a short period of time or when the light hits earth it covers it quickly. But how do we know what it's true speed is? what are we measuring a car light due to the power in the light will a-lot slower to the power of the sun but their still both very quick.
So once we know what we are measuring in light then we can accurately describe it's speed. But it's fast as hell there is no question about that!!! Plus when u know the distance ur travelling and the speed u got the light years and then u need to break it back down into what that means in our time!!! Cuz if usain bolt is doing 100 meters in 10 seconds and light is doing under a second u do see
how things will need to be translated back down in our time.
Last edited:
What you're trying to do is somewhat misguided. You can't come up with any meaningful result working this way. You're trying to rediscover the property of curves and shapes by yourself. There was 100 years between Newton and Leibniz discovering calculus and people like Cauchy and Weiertrass coming up with rigorous justification of it, and Newton was well-versed in Euclidean geometry (as well as being a certified genius, of course). You're trying to rediscover this type of mathematics right from the ground without any background! It's true that trying discovering things by yourself is an excellent way of becoming accomplished at the subject, but that's usually through structured learning. Usually via books that give you the proper definitions, then give you a set of hard problems that truly test your understanding. Trying to rediscover things from the ground up is doomed to fail! I can't think of a single mathematician that tried to do what you're doing!
We are lucky to have access to the work of others and use that to our advantage. We shouldn't waste time figuring out solutions when they are available.
If you don't know how to figure out what has been figured out already, then don't expect u will figure out new problems. I just can't see it happening. That's knowledge and all it can lead to is you doing what you 'know' but when it fails you with a new problem, you won't have the ability to strip it down and start from scratch and solve it since u couldn't even do the ones which were solved on your own. That's my two bobs!!!
Isaac Newton, arguably a genius discoverer, said we stand on the shoulders of giants.You spend time learning the basics and understanding them , however afterwards you apply it to find new areas.Think of it like a puzzle, you just need to understand how we go to a part of the puzzle not how we discovered it.
So your telling me, if you can't figure out the first problem on your own, you will figure other problems? everything starts small. U need to work your creativity and not knowledge. Knowledge = Knowing only thru reading or testing but it's all about knowing. Being creative is a total different kettle of fish, since there is no 'knowing' here and all u have is a 'problem' and 'result' you seek that's what I call creative. If you can't figure out the first problem on your own which has been 'figured' out, PLEASE stop there brother because you won't get some MIRACLE for any other problem as you collapsed the first one which is 'evidence' you will have a huge struggle with other problems.
I prefer to teach people how to do it themselves. Say 4 example, we have solved one problem. We let the student then re-do it himself without giving him the answer as this will require he uses 'creative' approaches, cause if we give him the answer all he will ever have is 'knowledge' not how to solve another problem since it's always will be different problem and which will need different answers. Knowledge will not give the answer to different problems at all, it's only suitable to one problem that u learned, it won't apply to different problems, cuz u will have different factors and variables to consider in different problems.
Last edited:
This is how it worked all the time throughout the ages. Copernicus who the west considers the man behind decentralizing earth read and used the work of Muslim scientists who wrote the idea of sun being at the center centuries before him.. The history of science paper by Harvard is somewhere online. Will post it if I find it.
No one came up with a new idea without using prior knowledge left behind by someone. It is smart to start from what is known then move forward and not waste time on what is already known.
Last edited:
- Status
Trending
-
-
BREAKING NEWS US and China reach deal to transfer TikTok ownership, trade- Started by Sigmundd
- Replies: 34
-
