NationStates Jolt Archive


The Tangent Theory

Jenrak
12-11-2006, 04:47
A little bit of thinking caused me to come up with this theory about static and unstatic properties of the universe. Assume the changing universe we have right now is called the percievable universe. If the percievable universe is constantly changing, then mathematically a tangent could exist to 'record' the moments of the percievable universe. But if a force is applied strong enough to break the barriers between a percievable universe and a tangent universe, causing a tangent universe's properties to flood into a property within the percievable universe, then could that be relevant to the constant movements of the tangents universe?

For example, assume I threw a baseball within the percievable universe. Within that universe, I have simply thrown a baseball, though constant tangent universes are made that constantly loop every moment within the percievable universe of throwing the baseball. What if the baseball is thrown so forcefully that it somehow breaks the barrier within the percievable universe, allow the tangent properties to apply to the object within the percievable universe? That means that the baseball is thrown, breaks the barrier down, and then is going constantly at the speed of which it broke the barrier within the percievable universe?

To simply negate the effects of the broke universe, a reversing force of equal speed and power (since the impulse is always constant, the force is proportionate to time, meaning that the less time required to exert the same amount of impulse, the greater the force) - Impulse = (Force) (Time). This means that the impulse although is constant, can be stopped with minimal force, though the time would be so immense that the effect would be barely noticable within a lifetime.

But what if a force is applied to the tangent so powerfull that it is greater than the force that broke the barrier within the percievable universe? Then that means by the theory that the force from the percievable universe would change constantly within the period of the impulse required, though loop indefinitely due to the repeating properties of the tangent universe. This means that the impulse required to reverse the effect naturally would be propotional to the time required and the force supplied. If little force is supplied to negate the effect and the impulse is generaly large, then the time is naturally large, meaning the events within the percievable universe will be recorded in one big 'batch', then replayed over due to its tangent prerequisites.

However, the tangent properties within that universe also become a nuisance as if they are also repeating, then what happens when the force is negated? Do they return to the original properties or cease to exist? It's likely that they cease to logically exist, though the energy exerted returns to the original source, thus increasing the possibility for another break within the tangent line.

Then again, this is all theory.
Jenrak
12-11-2006, 16:07
...hello?
Lunatic Goofballs
12-11-2006, 16:27
http://www.xtremesystems.org/forums/images/smilies/wth.gif
Jenrak
12-11-2006, 16:46
http://www.xtremesystems.org/forums/images/smilies/wth.gif

What don't you understand?
Zagat
12-11-2006, 20:05
What don't you understand?
Why a mathmatical possibility ought to be taken as theoretically physically possible outside mathmatics, given the absence of any reason to assume so, other that its mathmatical possibleness.
Jenrak
12-11-2006, 20:54
Mathematics is a representation of our logical thinking. Similiar to how to calculate the acceleration of a falling object. That requires the use of mathematical equations, does it not?
New New Lofeta
12-11-2006, 21:57
POLITICS FORUM.

Near opposite of a Mathmatics Forum.

Just a reminder...
Andaluciae
12-11-2006, 22:00
POLITICS FORUM.

Near opposite of a Mathmatics Forum.

Just a reminder...

Actually, it's a General forum, not a politics forum. We talk a lot of politics, but it is not restrained to that realm alone.
Zagat
12-11-2006, 22:02
Mathematics is a representation of our logical thinking. Similiar to how to calculate the acceleration of a falling object. That requires the use of mathematical equations, does it not?
None of which indicates that because something is indicated mathmatically it is necessarily probable in any realm other than the mathmatical one. It is possible to use maths to indicate that .9999999 and 1 are the same thing, yet maths also indicates that they are not the same thing. If maths can indicate two contrary things are both at any one time true, yet we know that two contrary things cannot both at any one time be true, clearly not everything indicated by maths as being true is true.
Jenrak
13-11-2006, 03:39
None of which indicates that because something is indicated mathmatically it is necessarily probable in any realm other than the mathmatical one. It is possible to use maths to indicate that .9999999 and 1 are the same thing, yet maths also indicates that they are not the same thing. If maths can indicate two contrary things are both at any one time true, yet we know that two contrary things cannot both at any one time be true, clearly not everything indicated by maths as being true is true.

There is the key - we percieve things to be plausible due to our senses, hence why I have labelled the universe to be th percievable universe.