i've been reading alot of the discussions here and one thing is perfectly clear. english does not have the capability to accurately describe alot of the ideas and concepts that we discuss. Has the idea ever crossed any one's mind to develop a language specifically for this topic. If we are to achieve anything, we must be able to communicate the idea's and results in a manner that is effective. Any comments, idea's, volunteers more than welcome.
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
A new language
- Thread starter 3beat
- Start date
trott.
that was really useful, thanx. i can see where your coming from.but I think, perhaps, you have seen my point of view. mathematics is not a language for expressing idea's, only results and formulas. this is a subject where facts are few and far between. it is rather a subject of theory and ideas. for that, mathematics will never suffice. Nor will english in its present form. But thanx for replying.
that was really useful, thanx. i can see where your coming from.but I think, perhaps, you have seen my point of view. mathematics is not a language for expressing idea's, only results and formulas. this is a subject where facts are few and far between. it is rather a subject of theory and ideas. for that, mathematics will never suffice. Nor will english in its present form. But thanx for replying.
Why reinvent the wheel? Wouldn't it be easier to just update the language? Or, treat it like any other technical term or nomenclature and put it in a technical manual or science textbook rather than in the dictionary. Name it, define it, determine proper usage, and put it in the proper lexicon.
That is quite interesting that you brought this up. For just today I was considering the nature of physics and started to consider what a truelly accurate name for any given subject might mean.
I came to the conclusion that if any true name can be given to a conscept that the name itself will describe the conscept in it's entirety such that by knowing the very name of a conscept is to answer both what that conscept is and why it works.
As of now physics and the entire english language is full of names and conscepts that are not accurate in the names and discription(that is their measure).
I have found that there is an absolute name to everything but that the absolute name of every conscept is not the representation of the subject that is seen but that the name and underlying phenomenon has a location--the centermass of the subject and beyond the centermass of the subject.
I have asked myself if there is a conscept such as a particle and it's definition which is what the particle does or causes then the cause of the particle -which is the conscept- merges to become indistinguishable from the particle-which is the name or particle, not the affect of the particle--and the affect.
Every conscept is broken into three categories in linear time. The first is cause which is the action meadiated by the existance of the particle. The second is the affect which is a reaction to the action--the cause. The third is the definition of the particle which is the finite particle in it's infinite form which is aquired by compressing the particle to infinitel small point.
At this point the particle's name and it's affect become indistinguishable.
Also, the particle in it's infinite form touches an infinite number of additional sides of space.
In other words, a quantity of finite value touches a finite number of points in space making the mass finite. For a mass of infinite quantity touches an infinite number of points in space which makes the object infinitely big.
A finite quantity that is compressed to a singularity touches and innfinite number of points in space which means that the particle occupies every point in space-hence the particle is omni-present.
When a particle is omni-present in three dimensional space the particle is also omni-present in the fourth dimension of time. Now I have strayed from the origonal subject of the relation of physics and the human language and math.
I have concluded that the obove mentioned phenomonon is all a product of the uncertainty principle and that the difference between the particle, the particles human given name, or definition, and the true name of the particle which gives the what and why and affect is the amount of uncertainty between a given particle and it's true definition.
Thus uncertainty has dimension and expance to itself, in a since. Uncertainty might even be considered a physical quantity in the universe.
The modern quantum theory states that everything is quantified even the seamingly unphysical things like love and hate or, chance and uncertainty.
So as you see matter whether in partical or energy form is made of of the quantity chance and is takes up the dimension space.
Now sound is the quantity of compression which is the movement of air molecules and propagates through the medium air which is part of the energy form of the universe, not space form of the universe which is occupied by energy.
Now language is the quantity of definition which propagates through the medium of uncertainty which when compressed to a singularity changes the human definition to the infinitey accurate definition.
Thus a new form of math is born. This math is not the math of numbers but the math of subject-which might also be considered a kind of quantum physics.
The possibility that subject and language might be a form of energy which accupies a form of space that is uncertianty enables the development of a theoretical form of geometry that pin points the absolute definition of all quantities at the center of those quantities which is the average of those quantities compressed to a singularity.
Does anyone follow or is everyone else as lost as I am after reading my own post. I qoute "we must all learn to laugh at ourselves".
What does everyone think? Does any of this make since. Please forgive me if a lot of this is unclear for most of this I just thought of today accept for some of the theory that is not my own which is intermingled with the above theory I posted.
Inquisitively,
Edwin G. Schasteen
I came to the conclusion that if any true name can be given to a conscept that the name itself will describe the conscept in it's entirety such that by knowing the very name of a conscept is to answer both what that conscept is and why it works.
As of now physics and the entire english language is full of names and conscepts that are not accurate in the names and discription(that is their measure).
I have found that there is an absolute name to everything but that the absolute name of every conscept is not the representation of the subject that is seen but that the name and underlying phenomenon has a location--the centermass of the subject and beyond the centermass of the subject.
I have asked myself if there is a conscept such as a particle and it's definition which is what the particle does or causes then the cause of the particle -which is the conscept- merges to become indistinguishable from the particle-which is the name or particle, not the affect of the particle--and the affect.
Every conscept is broken into three categories in linear time. The first is cause which is the action meadiated by the existance of the particle. The second is the affect which is a reaction to the action--the cause. The third is the definition of the particle which is the finite particle in it's infinite form which is aquired by compressing the particle to infinitel small point.
At this point the particle's name and it's affect become indistinguishable.
Also, the particle in it's infinite form touches an infinite number of additional sides of space.
In other words, a quantity of finite value touches a finite number of points in space making the mass finite. For a mass of infinite quantity touches an infinite number of points in space which makes the object infinitely big.
A finite quantity that is compressed to a singularity touches and innfinite number of points in space which means that the particle occupies every point in space-hence the particle is omni-present.
When a particle is omni-present in three dimensional space the particle is also omni-present in the fourth dimension of time. Now I have strayed from the origonal subject of the relation of physics and the human language and math.
I have concluded that the obove mentioned phenomonon is all a product of the uncertainty principle and that the difference between the particle, the particles human given name, or definition, and the true name of the particle which gives the what and why and affect is the amount of uncertainty between a given particle and it's true definition.
Thus uncertainty has dimension and expance to itself, in a since. Uncertainty might even be considered a physical quantity in the universe.
The modern quantum theory states that everything is quantified even the seamingly unphysical things like love and hate or, chance and uncertainty.
So as you see matter whether in partical or energy form is made of of the quantity chance and is takes up the dimension space.
Now sound is the quantity of compression which is the movement of air molecules and propagates through the medium air which is part of the energy form of the universe, not space form of the universe which is occupied by energy.
Now language is the quantity of definition which propagates through the medium of uncertainty which when compressed to a singularity changes the human definition to the infinitey accurate definition.
Thus a new form of math is born. This math is not the math of numbers but the math of subject-which might also be considered a kind of quantum physics.
The possibility that subject and language might be a form of energy which accupies a form of space that is uncertianty enables the development of a theoretical form of geometry that pin points the absolute definition of all quantities at the center of those quantities which is the average of those quantities compressed to a singularity.
Does anyone follow or is everyone else as lost as I am after reading my own post. I qoute "we must all learn to laugh at ourselves".
What does everyone think? Does any of this make since. Please forgive me if a lot of this is unclear for most of this I just thought of today accept for some of the theory that is not my own which is intermingled with the above theory I posted.
Inquisitively,
Edwin G. Schasteen
No time.
updateing the current language is not a bad idea. it would be easier than starting from scratch and people could adopt it quicker. The prblem with this is the inherited disadvantages of the language would also be present in the updated version. as I see it, a major problem with english is it vagness (spelling??). A programming language such as C or VB does not suffer from this. Nor mathematics.
So, we way up the pro's and cons, and heres the thing. We can choose the easy out and simply update english to include technical terms. Or, we can start from scratch, this is not to say that we can use english words and concepts, but rather we can pick an choose to the n'th degree that which will be of absolute advantage to our cause. Just like programming languages. Computing, 30 years ago was an absolute science. Today it's old hat. Language is the media between idea and result, and it should be given the highest priority.
rGrunt
You are a zen master. The point you raised, while complicated, is excactly the type stuff that is needed here. I haven't fully digested your idea yet but, my gut reaction is that you are really on to something. I would love to here more from you about your theories.
that aside, your difficulty in expessing this idea is excactly the reason that new language is needed. we should not have to rewrite war and peace to express an idea such as yours.
updateing the current language is not a bad idea. it would be easier than starting from scratch and people could adopt it quicker. The prblem with this is the inherited disadvantages of the language would also be present in the updated version. as I see it, a major problem with english is it vagness (spelling??). A programming language such as C or VB does not suffer from this. Nor mathematics.
So, we way up the pro's and cons, and heres the thing. We can choose the easy out and simply update english to include technical terms. Or, we can start from scratch, this is not to say that we can use english words and concepts, but rather we can pick an choose to the n'th degree that which will be of absolute advantage to our cause. Just like programming languages. Computing, 30 years ago was an absolute science. Today it's old hat. Language is the media between idea and result, and it should be given the highest priority.
rGrunt
You are a zen master. The point you raised, while complicated, is excactly the type stuff that is needed here. I haven't fully digested your idea yet but, my gut reaction is that you are really on to something. I would love to here more from you about your theories.
that aside, your difficulty in expessing this idea is excactly the reason that new language is needed. we should not have to rewrite war and peace to express an idea such as yours.
WanderingSoul
Chrono Cadet
...as on another thread here... there exists a need to clarify the common language otherwise it creates confusion...
Math is traditionally seen as a common language, yet the complexity of math needed to define and explain necessitates leaving behind a large portion of humanity.
Language, as a concept, creates its own boundaries that bind thinking...
A zen koan that illustrates this is: "What happens to your fist when you open your hand?"
Until our Common Language is flexible enough to encompass and embrace an ever broadening scope, we shall encounter the same issue over and over.
...and keep thinking out loud rgrunt...tis a marvel to behold. Thank you.
Be safe and dream sweetly.
WS
Math is traditionally seen as a common language, yet the complexity of math needed to define and explain necessitates leaving behind a large portion of humanity.
Language, as a concept, creates its own boundaries that bind thinking...
A zen koan that illustrates this is: "What happens to your fist when you open your hand?"
Until our Common Language is flexible enough to encompass and embrace an ever broadening scope, we shall encounter the same issue over and over.
...and keep thinking out loud rgrunt...tis a marvel to behold. Thank you.
Be safe and dream sweetly.
WS
3beat, as you brought up at the beginning, that we need to consider creating a new language to describe the new laws of physics, which currently we have no language to describe as to what is going on, in certain cases such as the one of an inventor who conducted a University Symposium to demonstrate a free energy/overunity device that used a different approach of extracting electricity direct from a rotating electromagnet.
The inventors device (I have on video) clearly demonstrates the plausability that gives an appearence of violating the common perceptions of main stream physics, however perhaps it may not violate them at all, more than likeley it is the "Lack of Language" within the mainstrem physicists, and scientists (Learned) vocabulary, and knowledge that was gleaned from the educational processes whereas may also have derived from supression of certain techniques to suit special interests of those who are indeed the most criticly appointed in the higher echelons of our political & economical/educational interests for whatever reasons to keep us in the dark while we are forced to consider no alternatives that would result in the discovery of "Proven" alternative soulutions of "Power" & "Propulsion"
Although a "Lack of Language" pertaining, may exist even now, it would appear that the reasons for that may not have been so, due to our earlier inabilities to have creted one in the first place.
As the veil of supression, at the Academic levels are "Forced" to explain those things in nature that are on the rise in our current society to Demand the answers for these new perceptions of our Universe, A new Language indeed "Will" become inevitable to provide those answers.
The inventors device (I have on video) clearly demonstrates the plausability that gives an appearence of violating the common perceptions of main stream physics, however perhaps it may not violate them at all, more than likeley it is the "Lack of Language" within the mainstrem physicists, and scientists (Learned) vocabulary, and knowledge that was gleaned from the educational processes whereas may also have derived from supression of certain techniques to suit special interests of those who are indeed the most criticly appointed in the higher echelons of our political & economical/educational interests for whatever reasons to keep us in the dark while we are forced to consider no alternatives that would result in the discovery of "Proven" alternative soulutions of "Power" & "Propulsion"
Although a "Lack of Language" pertaining, may exist even now, it would appear that the reasons for that may not have been so, due to our earlier inabilities to have creted one in the first place.
As the veil of supression, at the Academic levels are "Forced" to explain those things in nature that are on the rise in our current society to Demand the answers for these new perceptions of our Universe, A new Language indeed "Will" become inevitable to provide those answers.
I seems that uncertainty and chaos also apply to language. English is a dynamic language and we don't have language police trying to keep it static as is the case with some other languages. How would you describe, using one word, the concept that the lenght of time that any object exists might be affected by the intensity of feeling and emotion that went into creating it -- the combination of space, time, matter, and emotion? Mathemetics and scientific notation seem to leave out the human factor. Any unified theory or theory of everything will have to include the human factor. I think quantum physics is attemptimg to addressing that.
rgrunt: (Mr. Schasteen)
You continue to give me a great deal of pleasure in the manner of your most sincere openness.
You are a true thinker, contemplator, and speculator in a most honest and unpretentious manner.
I suspect English is not your first language, but you do very well with it indeed in conveying your thoughts and conceptual leanings.
If the human race is to ever rise above the long ingrained and even self induced predjudice it has towards it's own collective self, it will be through the ability of individuals to express themselves as honestly as you do.
You have my most humble respect in the manner in which you conduct yourself as an individual, and my continuing intertest in the ideas and concepts you put forth.
You draw a very visible picture.
You continue to give me a great deal of pleasure in the manner of your most sincere openness.
You are a true thinker, contemplator, and speculator in a most honest and unpretentious manner.
I suspect English is not your first language, but you do very well with it indeed in conveying your thoughts and conceptual leanings.
If the human race is to ever rise above the long ingrained and even self induced predjudice it has towards it's own collective self, it will be through the ability of individuals to express themselves as honestly as you do.
You have my most humble respect in the manner in which you conduct yourself as an individual, and my continuing intertest in the ideas and concepts you put forth.
You draw a very visible picture.
Dear Everyone,
Thankyou for the input and compliments. I am truelly honored to participate in these discussions with you because I imagine that out of such discussions amongst humble people like ourselves throughout history was born the knowlege, theory, and technology that makes our world go round.
I imagine that in the future that these discussions will have affected the future technology to some extent. But be it a big or small affect I am honored to have had the chance to participate in this group effort amongst persons of many different backgrounds and from all over the world collaborating on such important issues.
I look forward to the knowlege that will continue to be gained on this forum by myself and others.
I was in a class not to long ago and a Gunnery Sgt made the following statement: "Contrary to popular oppinion knowlege is not power, but potential. However, applied knowlege is power." What does everyone think about this statement? Does it sound plausible?
Regards,
Edwin G. Schasteen
Thankyou for the input and compliments. I am truelly honored to participate in these discussions with you because I imagine that out of such discussions amongst humble people like ourselves throughout history was born the knowlege, theory, and technology that makes our world go round.
I imagine that in the future that these discussions will have affected the future technology to some extent. But be it a big or small affect I am honored to have had the chance to participate in this group effort amongst persons of many different backgrounds and from all over the world collaborating on such important issues.
I look forward to the knowlege that will continue to be gained on this forum by myself and others.
I was in a class not to long ago and a Gunnery Sgt made the following statement: "Contrary to popular oppinion knowlege is not power, but potential. However, applied knowlege is power." What does everyone think about this statement? Does it sound plausible?
Regards,
Edwin G. Schasteen
Mathematics is the language in which physics is formulated. There is no need to come up with some other language to describe physics or the developing areas of physics. In fact, It is the language of mathematics that often leads to new physical ideas which are later tested. For example, Dirac postulated the existence of anti-matter based on mathematical reasons alone, of course it was not long before experimental evidence was discovered.
Again, I see this as a mute point, there is no need for a new language. Mathematics is more than a sufficent structure to describe physics and all new areas of physics including time travel. It may be true that new areas of mathematics must be developed in order to fully explore the possibility of time travel, such work is being done with string theory which is at the cutting edge of both physics and mathematics(it is appearing more and more like the focal point between the two branches). So, I will concede that new mathematics may be needed such as quantum geometry in order to describe the quantum structure of space time and hence the real feasibility time travel but as far as developing an entire new language there is no need for it.
Again, I see this as a mute point, there is no need for a new language. Mathematics is more than a sufficent structure to describe physics and all new areas of physics including time travel. It may be true that new areas of mathematics must be developed in order to fully explore the possibility of time travel, such work is being done with string theory which is at the cutting edge of both physics and mathematics(it is appearing more and more like the focal point between the two branches). So, I will concede that new mathematics may be needed such as quantum geometry in order to describe the quantum structure of space time and hence the real feasibility time travel but as far as developing an entire new language there is no need for it.
La matematica es la lengua con la cual el hombre puede lograr razones inrazonables, y crear ideas sin ser pensadas.
Desde el mismo pitagoras hasta las teorias de cuerdas con sus mas de 10 dimensiones, colocan a la matematica como la lengua madre de lo incompresible.
Tanto es asi que la matematica misma propone ideas que contradicen sus mismos principios, es una herramienta con la cual el hombre trabaja sin miedo a que no sea entendido ya que toda la matematica es comun al humano sea o letrado.
Ahora entender modelos fisicos a traves de la matematica es mas complicado por que muchas veces hay que generar nuevas ramas de la matematica para darle forma al universo, esto es desde la misma invencion del calculo, pasando por los tensores de Marcel Grossman hasta las misma teoria de grupos.
Muchas veces las ideas van muy por delante de los descubrimientos del hombre es asi que hoy un matematico puede estar generando esa new language que estan discutiendo aca, tanto asi como lo pudo haber hecho Fourier, u otros que no llegaron a ver los frutos de sus esfuerzos y que ni consideraban sus logros como una posible aplicasion en el futuro.
Es asi que si yo les dijese:
E=mc^2
Yours Know Energy, matter and velocity.
And no is need to be English.
bye.
Desde el mismo pitagoras hasta las teorias de cuerdas con sus mas de 10 dimensiones, colocan a la matematica como la lengua madre de lo incompresible.
Tanto es asi que la matematica misma propone ideas que contradicen sus mismos principios, es una herramienta con la cual el hombre trabaja sin miedo a que no sea entendido ya que toda la matematica es comun al humano sea o letrado.
Ahora entender modelos fisicos a traves de la matematica es mas complicado por que muchas veces hay que generar nuevas ramas de la matematica para darle forma al universo, esto es desde la misma invencion del calculo, pasando por los tensores de Marcel Grossman hasta las misma teoria de grupos.
Muchas veces las ideas van muy por delante de los descubrimientos del hombre es asi que hoy un matematico puede estar generando esa new language que estan discutiendo aca, tanto asi como lo pudo haber hecho Fourier, u otros que no llegaron a ver los frutos de sus esfuerzos y que ni consideraban sus logros como una posible aplicasion en el futuro.
Es asi que si yo les dijese:
E=mc^2
Yours Know Energy, matter and velocity.
And no is need to be English.
bye.
Carlo:
Yo penso su no esta un aprenticio, pero un maestro, (pardonome my lingau), y hablar es muy trabajo para me. No lembro mucho.
Pero, caro hablar mas que es possible que caro tambien.
(With my most humble apologies but I would like to continue. The more you speak, the more I remember)
Gracias.
Yo penso su no esta un aprenticio, pero un maestro, (pardonome my lingau), y hablar es muy trabajo para me. No lembro mucho.
Pero, caro hablar mas que es possible que caro tambien.
(With my most humble apologies but I would like to continue. The more you speak, the more I remember)
Gracias.
Excellent Carlos, I did not understand anything you said. Does that mean your language is ineffective? Does that mean you should change your language since I was not able to comprehend it. Absolutely not, it means that if I want to understand you, I must learn your language. Someone stated earlier that most of humanity does not get mathematics and that this is reason enough to develop a new language, I say it is not. People who are truly interested in understanding and mastering physics will learn the language of mathematics because it is the best tool for the job. It may take more time for others, but they will learn. Consider this, Algebra was in the past a subject which was taught at the high school level, but more and more it is being taught at the junior highschool or middle school level, it is only a matter of time before younger and younger students begin their study of more advanced areas of mathematics like calculus, topology, combinatorics, etc... Maybe at that point in the future, the majority will not fear mathematics because they got use to it at a younger age.
Trott and Everyone,
I must confer with what you stated. I think that the point that I was truelly trying to imply is that we can develop a form of mathematics for language that will bridge a gap between the definition given to a phenomenon and the mathematical expression that both defines the phenomenon and it's affect on other phenomenon in it's surroundings.
Be it an electron interacting with a photon, or an airplane wing interacting with the flow of air over the wing. I believe that one can develop a mathematical language that describes the actions of a event with equal accuracy as mathematics with the capabilities of locating where the absolute definition of that proscess is by redrawing the entire conscept in geometric form.
Instead of using number to describe the relation of one entity to another one can calculate exactly how the proscess works and calculate what the limit of the uncertainty is by graghing the conscepts absolute definition of the phenomenon(which is defined as the stage where there is no difference between name of the phenomenon and the phenomenon itself) and measurement of the phenomenon which includes the amount of certainty for that measurement.
There is already an equation to calculate the amount of uncertainty in a particular calculation but this is not the same as describing the volume density and/or size of that volume of that uncertainty in terms of mass or 4-dimensional measurement.
By using the mathematical equation to calculate the uncertainty then using the new math to calculate the location of the true definition of the phenomenon being measured then dividing the uncertainty into the difference between the actual measurement and the location of the true measure(when being graphed) one will obtain the volume of mass that makes up the uncertainty in terms of the units of measure being used to define the volume or amount of mass that makes up the phenomenon. One might argue that what I am just measuring the uncertainty but I am not.
The difference between uncertainty and the difference between a measurement value and the true value of the measurement is that uncertainty is a form of energy while the difference between a measurement value and the true value is the space that the uncertainty occupies within that measurement.
In other words uncertianty comes in the form of energy and energy occupies space. Now the amount of space that energy occupies determines the volume of energy, the density of that energy, and the potential of that energy. Since uncertainty is a form of energy and since that energy is quantified then that energy must occupy a quantity of space.
The quantity of space this energy occupies is defined as the difference between the measurement and the "location" of the actual true value of the measurement. The above written theory is an attempt to provide describe the kind of mathematical method that needs to be developed to measure the quantity of space that a particular amount of uncertainty occupies for a given measurement.
I believe that in some cases the amount of uncertainty might be atleast close to equal to the amount of space that it occupies. But I believe that in natural cirmumstances the quantity of space will differ from the amount of uncertainty in any case that the uncertainty has enough significance to through off a measurement by a given amount.
I believe that in any case where the uncertainty of a measurement is absolutely zero( which is yet to be seen) that in such a case the amount of uncertainty is absolutely equal to the amount of space that the uncertainty occupies thus disenabling the uncertainties ability to affect it's surrounding enviroment by bringing the uncertainty of that measurement into complete balance with it's environment which decreases the amount of friction generated by the unicertainty interacting with it's surrounding environment to throw off the measurement.
What does everyone think? Does any of this make since? If so how much?
Inquisitively,
Edwin G. Schasteen
P.s. Please forgive me for the extremely long sentences. I ask that you bear with me I had very little time to write this last post. Thankyou.
I must confer with what you stated. I think that the point that I was truelly trying to imply is that we can develop a form of mathematics for language that will bridge a gap between the definition given to a phenomenon and the mathematical expression that both defines the phenomenon and it's affect on other phenomenon in it's surroundings.
Be it an electron interacting with a photon, or an airplane wing interacting with the flow of air over the wing. I believe that one can develop a mathematical language that describes the actions of a event with equal accuracy as mathematics with the capabilities of locating where the absolute definition of that proscess is by redrawing the entire conscept in geometric form.
Instead of using number to describe the relation of one entity to another one can calculate exactly how the proscess works and calculate what the limit of the uncertainty is by graghing the conscepts absolute definition of the phenomenon(which is defined as the stage where there is no difference between name of the phenomenon and the phenomenon itself) and measurement of the phenomenon which includes the amount of certainty for that measurement.
There is already an equation to calculate the amount of uncertainty in a particular calculation but this is not the same as describing the volume density and/or size of that volume of that uncertainty in terms of mass or 4-dimensional measurement.
By using the mathematical equation to calculate the uncertainty then using the new math to calculate the location of the true definition of the phenomenon being measured then dividing the uncertainty into the difference between the actual measurement and the location of the true measure(when being graphed) one will obtain the volume of mass that makes up the uncertainty in terms of the units of measure being used to define the volume or amount of mass that makes up the phenomenon. One might argue that what I am just measuring the uncertainty but I am not.
The difference between uncertainty and the difference between a measurement value and the true value of the measurement is that uncertainty is a form of energy while the difference between a measurement value and the true value is the space that the uncertainty occupies within that measurement.
In other words uncertianty comes in the form of energy and energy occupies space. Now the amount of space that energy occupies determines the volume of energy, the density of that energy, and the potential of that energy. Since uncertainty is a form of energy and since that energy is quantified then that energy must occupy a quantity of space.
The quantity of space this energy occupies is defined as the difference between the measurement and the "location" of the actual true value of the measurement. The above written theory is an attempt to provide describe the kind of mathematical method that needs to be developed to measure the quantity of space that a particular amount of uncertainty occupies for a given measurement.
I believe that in some cases the amount of uncertainty might be atleast close to equal to the amount of space that it occupies. But I believe that in natural cirmumstances the quantity of space will differ from the amount of uncertainty in any case that the uncertainty has enough significance to through off a measurement by a given amount.
I believe that in any case where the uncertainty of a measurement is absolutely zero( which is yet to be seen) that in such a case the amount of uncertainty is absolutely equal to the amount of space that the uncertainty occupies thus disenabling the uncertainties ability to affect it's surrounding enviroment by bringing the uncertainty of that measurement into complete balance with it's environment which decreases the amount of friction generated by the unicertainty interacting with it's surrounding environment to throw off the measurement.
What does everyone think? Does any of this make since? If so how much?
Inquisitively,
Edwin G. Schasteen
P.s. Please forgive me for the extremely long sentences. I ask that you bear with me I had very little time to write this last post. Thankyou.
In this sense of the languages preccupation of new passages in the man can give him to a knowledge immediate of events to traves of your fast knowledge of the bottom of the languages already established as it is it the mathematch, for that reason is summit well to know it to give use him, is like reading in other languages.
Star_Shadow
Temporal Novice
When you deal with time travel you are dealing nothing, not the nothing you are thinking about...nothing, no air, no light, no energy, no time, no math, no physics and no God!!! But as you can see I will have to tell you what I mean every time I'm dealing with this nothing, but if It was called something like True-Nothing then I wouldn't have to go into such detail every time I wanted to explain something.