The Unavoidability of Belief within Reason

[nothing]

Q.E.D You can only...

...You! You! You!...

I use mathematics. That doesn't make me a mathematician.

...except it does.

Numbers don't exist!

The relationships they describe most certainly do, such as multiplicative reciprocity.

Follow closely.
Space s and time t are multiplicative reciprocal aspects of motion. Let v be velocity, thus v=s/t.
The nature of the relationship between space and time is that of the mathematical construct:
s/t x t/s = 1 thus
s³/t x t³/s = (st)²

"Western science" barrier:
π ≠ 3.14159... this is a human "approximation" error due to human ignorance.
π is taken from the "rib" of Φ (as with Eve from Adam) by way of 4/√Φ.
This is also expressed as √(-8+8√5) which is an "octave" passing through √5.
Therefor, π² is simply (-8+8√5). Consider as the C² in Einstein's e=MC².

e=M(-8+8√5) and set 'e' to 16
16=M(-8+8√5)
M=Φ
16=Φπ²
1=Φπ²/16

Φ = Spatial Constant
π² = Temporal Constant

s³/t x t³/s = (st)² <-see this?

(st)² can be occupied by either (4)²=16=Φπ² and/or (Φπ²)²=256.
So the number '4' precedes all practical utility of space and time.

Numbers don't exist!

Wrong. They embody the nature(s) of relation(s), including the transcendent.
The only thing "approximated" π transcends is the grasp of disproportionate humans:
from Φ's own rib is derived π, so honor thy mother and father as such.

Your rejection of quantum physics doesn't stop the quantum effects from occurring.

I don't reject the "quantum effects", I reject the Cult of Quantum.
They call it "quantum" because it
i. It deals with sub-atomic energy
ii. They don't understand it

For example Western physics is confused about basic relationships,
as velocity v and energy e are "two sides of the same coin". The universe
obeys a multiplicative reciprocal relationship between the two:

v = s³/t x t³/s = e

thus every '1' unit of motion has an energy constituency of '16'.

The goal is unification of the two - not sticking your head in the sand.

The universe is already unified, it is the Cult of Quantum that is severed from reality.
Relativity is as well, but that is because it is a theory of measurement, not a theory
of how the physical universe actually exists/works independent of measurement.

My solving for Einstein's e=MC² as 1=Φπ²/16 reveals the "coupling"
not only of space and time, but of matter and energy in terms of
measurably discrete units. Matter can be taken to be v, velocity,
which takes an integer value of '1' whereas its corresponding energy e
takes an integer value of '16' such that the axes the coupling produces
is two real, two imaginary roots, the root of the real/imaginary line
in complex analysis. Thus they were/are and always will be unified as such.

Humanity needs to stop "inventing" epicircle upon epicircle
and inductively derive the relationships as they are, not as they
wish for them to be.

[Eodnhoj7]

Q.E.D You can only...

...You! You! You!...

I use mathematics. That doesn't make me a mathematician.

...except it does.

Numbers don't exist!

The relationships they describe most certainly do, such as multiplicative reciprocity.

Follow closely.
Space s and time t are multiplicative reciprocal aspects of motion. Let v be velocity, thus v=s/t.
The nature of the relationship between space and time is that of the mathematical construct:
s/t x t/s = 1 thus
s³/t x t³/s = (st)²

"Western science" barrier:
π ≠ 3.14159... this is a human "approximation" error due to human ignorance.
π is taken from the "rib" of Φ (as with Eve from Adam) by way of 4/√Φ.
This is also expressed as √(-8+8√5) which is an "octave" passing through √5.
Therefor, π² is simply (-8+8√5). Consider as the C² in Einstein's e=MC².

e=M(-8+8√5) and set 'e' to 16
16=M(-8+8√5)
M=Φ
16=Φπ²
1=Φπ²/16

Φ = Spatial Constant
π² = Temporal Constant

s³/t x t³/s = (st)² <-see this?

(st)² can be occupied by either (4)²=16=Φπ² and/or (Φπ²)²=256.
So the number '4' precedes all practical utility of space and time.

Numbers don't exist!

Wrong. They embody the nature(s) of relation(s), including the transcendent.
The only thing "approximated" π transcends is the grasp of disproportionate humans:
from Φ's own rib is derived π, so honor thy mother and father as such.

Your rejection of quantum physics doesn't stop the quantum effects from occurring.

I don't reject the "quantum effects", I reject the Cult of Quantum.
They call it "quantum" because it
i. It deals with sub-atomic energy
ii. They don't understand it

For example Western physics is confused about basic relationships,
as velocity v and energy e are "two sides of the same coin". The universe
obeys a multiplicative reciprocal relationship between the two:

v = s³/t x t³/s = e

thus every '1' unit of motion has an energy constituency of '16'.

The goal is unification of the two - not sticking your head in the sand.

The universe is already unified, it is the Cult of Quantum that is severed from reality.
Relativity is as well, but that is because it is a theory of measurement, not a theory
of how the physical universe actually exists/works independent of measurement.

My solving for Einstein's e=MC² as 1=Φπ²/16 reveals the "coupling"
not only of space and time, but of matter and energy in terms of
measurably discrete units. Matter can be taken to be v, velocity,
which takes an integer value of '1' whereas its corresponding energy e
takes an integer value of '16' such that the axes the coupling produces
is two real, two imaginary roots, the root of the real/imaginary line
in complex analysis. Thus they were/are and always will be unified as such.

Humanity needs to stop "inventing" epicircle upon epicircle
and inductively derive the relationships as they are, not as they
wish for them to be.

Your whole theory is grounded in Pi. The ratio of 355/113 is an expression of Pi that is several places more accurate than your stance. You are going to have to clarify why and how your ratio of Pi is more accurate than the one presented considering this ratio is still off. No fraction of Pi can be its exact value: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pi#Irra ... _normality

[nothing]

Your whole theory is grounded in Pi. The ratio of 355/113 is an expression of Pi that is several places more accurate than your stance. You are going to have to clarify why and how your ratio of Pi is more accurate than the one presented considering this ratio is still off. No fraction of Pi can be its exact value: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pi#Irra ... _normality

Eod I stopped replying to you because you have loopis - you see everything as a "loop" because you are yourself loopy.

It's not my "whole theory" that is grounded in π, that is the universe.
I don't know/care where you are getting 355/113 from - it's not π,
only an approximation of the quantitative aspect of π.

I already linked you to papers that show why/how π = 4 in kinematics (ie. motion).
Here they are again:
http://milesmathis.com/pi2.html
http://milesmathis.com/pi3.html (short version)

I also found this video, and he has others up relating to the same:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=d-EjoQp9ug8&t=4s
which gives the same geometric proof as I later did:



π has Φ as a constituency of itself in as a ratio: 4/√Φ.
π² = 16/Φ and/or (-8+8√5).

Pay attention: '4' is rational as 'r'. √Φ is irrational as 'i'. We have r/i. Say hello to real/imaginary
(ie. complex) number system wherein i is √-1. In reality, i is just an irrational number that
may eventually "resolve" on the real axis given a complex function, like an electromagnetic wave.

The benefit of solving for e=MC² as 1=Φπ²/16 is knowing the cosmological constants:
Φ is spatial constant (yang)
π² is temporal constant (yin)
Φπ² is constant spacetime (yang∞yin)
and what kind of "math" the universe uses.
(-8+8√5) as C² or π² should give a clue:
'8' is an octave. The universe is harmonic.
√5 is the key, hence why I made a thread here.

Oh, and:

1 = All Unity
Φ¹ = All Progression (non-terminating)
Φ² = All Discretion (local terminus)
Φ³ = All Gravitation (non-terminating)
______________________________________
Φ² ± Φ¹ = 1, Φ³
All Discretion with and/or without All Progression
is proportional to All Unity and/or All Gravitation.

It's not about the numbers themselves, it is about
how they are all related to one another.
Quantity = 1D yang (image)
Quality = 2D yin (likeness)

[Eodnhoj7]

Your whole theory is grounded in Pi. The ratio of 355/113 is an expression of Pi that is several places more accurate than your stance. You are going to have to clarify why and how your ratio of Pi is more accurate than the one presented considering this ratio is still off. No fraction of Pi can be its exact value: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pi#Irra ... _normality

Eod I stopped replying to you because you have loopis - you see everything as a "loop" because you are yourself loopy.

False and a projection on your part., everything is subject to infinite regress and assumed angle of perception as well...I already stated that. All circles manifest as straight lines when viewed from the side. A simple clock on its side shows the movement of the hand as a point alternation between two positions. This inversion from a circle to a line is grounded in the angle of the observer. Loops are universal.

It's not my "whole theory" that is grounded in π, that is the universe.
I don't know/care where you are getting 355/113 from - it's not π,
only an approximation of the quantitative aspect of π.


I already linked you to papers that show why/how π = 4 in kinematics (ie. motion).
Here they are again:
http://milesmathis.com/pi2.html
http://milesmathis.com/pi3.html (short version)

I asked for the forum in which these ideas are being discussed.

The mathematics work only from kinematic situations, according to you, not static situations. Under a unified version of the universe, where all exists as one, movement becomes static and is observed as only an approximation of the one.

For example a car going about in circles shows a series of movements. From a seperate time zone, where all movements exist as one, the cars movements appear as a static circle. These movements cannot occur excepting through a looping pattern through which they result. All potential movement, given a car driving in circles in actual time, is derived from a form which transcends all the movements...ie the loop in this case.

Movement exists through form, where form acts as the glue which holds reality together. Thus static forms are instrumental in determining the movements of the phenomenon. The car moves only because the loop exists, the car does not create the loop, the loop creates the movements of the car. Each movement of the car is an approximation, a part of, the loop through which it manifests.

I also found this video, and he has others up relating to the same:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=d-EjoQp9ug8&t=4s
which gave the same geometric proof as I later did:



π has Φ as a constituency of itself in as a ratio: 4/√Φ.
π² = 16/Φ and/or (-8+8√5).

Pay attention: '4' is rational as 'r'. √Φ is irrational as 'i'. We have r/i. Say hello to real/imaginary
(ie. complex) number system wherein i is √-1. In reality, i is just an irrational number that
may eventually "resolve" on the real axis given a complex function, like an electromagnetic wave.

The benefit of solving for e=MC² as 1=Φπ²/16 is knowing the cosmological constants:
Φ is spatial constant (yang)
π² is temporal constant (yin)
Φπ² is constant spacetime (yang∞yin)
and what kind of "math" the universe uses.
(-8+8√5) as C² or π² should give a clue:
'8' is an octave. The universe is harmonic.
√5 is the key, hence why I made a thread here.

Oh, and:

1 = All Unity
Φ¹ = All Progression (non-terminating)
Φ² = All Discretion (local terminus)
Φ³ = All Gravitation (non-terminating)
______________________________________
Φ² ± Φ¹ = 1, Φ³
All Discretion with and/or without All Progression
is proportional to All Unity and/or All Gravitation.

It's not about the numbers themselves, it is about
how they are all related to one another.
Quantity = 1D yang (image)
Quality = 2D yin (likeness)

"Image" is synonymous to "likeness", you are literally stating the exact same thing twice.

As above, so below.

"As above so below" shows a reciprocal loop where one phenomenon mirrors itself through another. Between the spiral of phi, and the circular nature necessary for pi, you are arguing for circles....the accuser is accused.

[Skepdick]

I use mathematics. That doesn't make me a mathematician.

...except it does.

It really doesn't though.

Mathematics is just a language.

Speaking/using Mathematics doesn't make you a mathematician any more than speaking/using English makes you an Englishman.

The relationships they describe most certainly do, such as multiplicative reciprocity

Except, multiplication is not described by numbers. It's an operation performed ON numbers.
It's just repeated addition.

Follow closely.
Space s and time t are multiplicative reciprocal aspects of motion.

Not in linear logic they aren't. They are just the resources required by classical computation. Entropy being the 3rd one (if you are non-determinist).

I don't reject the "quantum effects", I reject the Cult of Quantum.
They call it "quantum" because it
i. It deals with sub-atomic energy
ii. They don't understand it

If you don't reject the quantum phenomena, but you reject Quantum Physics, then in the absence of an alternative theory you understand it even less.

The universe is already unified

Your knowledge of the universe isn't

it is the Cult of Quantum that is severed from reality.

It really isn't though. You can use Quantum Physics to calculate the consequences of classical chemical reactions. It's called Quantum Chemistry.
If it's "severed from reality" then why does it work?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quantum_chemistry

Relativity is as well, but that is because it is a theory of measurement, not a theory
of how the physical universe actually exists/works independent of measurement.

Quantum is a theory of measurement too. All scientific models are about measurement - that's what variables are! Masurements/readings.
That's literally why they have the Measurement problem.

Is because whatever "measurement" means and however it works, your theory needs to explain how and why your measurement apparatus works. Because your measurement apparatus is made of the same stuff you are trying to study.

[nothing]

It really doesn't though.

Mathematics is just a language.

Speaking/using Mathematics doesn't make you a mathematician any more than speaking/using English makes you an Englishman.

Understanding how to rationalize is not bound to mathematics alone, it is cross-disciplinary.

Except, multiplication is not described by numbers. It's an operation performed ON numbers.
It's just repeated addition.

i. Hence: "multiplication" precedes number.

Space and time are multiplicative reciprocal aspects of motion.
v=s/t as motion
e=t/s as energy
s/t x t/s = 1 as light
s³/t x t³/s = (st)² as terminal
e=MC²
16=Φπ²
1=16/Φπ²
1∞=16/Φπ² x Φπ²/16∞=1

ii. Multiplication is not "explained" by numbers/variables. It can be "described" by them.

Not in linear logic they aren't. They are just the resources required by classical computation. Entropy being the 3rd one (if you are non-determinist).

I don't care what they are regarded as in "linear logic" (whatever that is) I care what they actually are.

If you don't reject the quantum phenomena, but you reject Quantum Physics, then in the absence of an alternative theory you understand it even less.

I reject calling it "quantum" anything, and I don't have an absence of an alternative theory.
I know "quantum" phenomena is due to the relationship between the real/imaginary number systems.

Real/Rational = Integer, terminating
Imaginary/Irrational = Non-integer, non-terminating

The universe is composed of only one component: motion. That is all. Nothing else.
Each atom/particle/matter is a particular arrangement of motion expressed in/as terms of space and time.

Every 1 unit of motion has an energy constituency of 16.
This can be seen/inferred from the roots of f(x)=x⁴+16x²-256:
±√9.888...
±i√25.888...
________
"16"

wherein both '4' and '4i' return ±256, which reveals the "junction" of real-and-imaginary.
There is a reason for this: there is a transcendental universal axes whose constituency
is both "real" physically yet is transcendent metaphysically. This "4" is the same as in 4/√Φ
and contains the binaries for {alpha/omega} and {beg/end} as a 2x2. In other words:
the constituency of the photon is a 2x2 axes, or a cross: (bi-rotational) spin, and (dis)placement.
Photons carry this information in/as their symmetrical axes, hence energy is 4² or simply '4'
before going through the (st)² terminal from above.

1 = v = s³/t ∞(st)²∞ t³/s = e = "16"

And all of your "quantum" nonsense is in the "16" whereas the '1' is what we can see.
e=MC² and 16=Φπ² are two sides of the same coin: one from s³/t (physical) and
the other from t³/s (metaphysical) but both are pointing to the same motion.

In other words: only because 16=Φπ² e=MC² as the former precedes the latter.
Be glad I am telling you this: it is going to get wiped soon, if not by me, someone else.

Note: C² is actually (-8+8√5) thus C is √(-8+8√5) or 4/√Φ.
This is why I stated light doesn't have a "speed", it has
a rate of induction which is related directly to Φ.

Your knowledge of the universe isn't

The accuser is the accused.

It really isn't though. You can use Quantum Physics to calculate the consequences of classical chemical reactions. It's called Quantum Chemistry.
If it's "severed from reality" then why does it work?

For the reasons I outlined above: modern-day science needlessly complicates it.

Quantum is a theory of measurement too. All scientific models are about measurement - that's what variables are! Masurements/readings.
That's literally why they have the Measurement problem.

Not all scientific models are "about" measurement. Some postulate magnitudes are absolute.
The measurement problem is a consequence on human beings not understand what light is.

Is because whatever "measurement" means and however it works, your theory needs to explain how and why your measurement apparatus works. Because your measurement apparatus is made of the same stuff you are trying to study.

The first problem that needs to be accounted for is what light actually IS. Not how it appears, or how it behaves, or attributes it seems to have. What IS light? An electromagnetic "wave"? WAVE is what a thing does, not is. There is no such thing as a "wave". Neither is light a "wave", nor even a "particle" not a bloody "wavicle" or wave-particle duality. Light is a rate of induction, and that "rate" is as fixed as the golden ratio is, because they are the same.

±1 = concerns unity (or not)
Φ = yang (spatial constant)
π² = yin (temporal constant)
________________________
Φπ²=16
1=Φπ²/16

±Φ = Universal Progression (Cosmological Constant)............= (1+√5)/2 <-same magnitude for expansion/contraction
Φ² = Universal Discretion (terminus of absolute magnitudes).= (Φ + 1) <-each to their own discretion, according to each their own choice(s)
Φ³ = Universal Gravitation (Gravitational Constant)............= (√5 + 2) <-adding duality, gravitation
____________________________________________________
Φ² ± Φ = 1, Φ³
Discretion with/without Progression
is in proportion to Unity and/or Gravitation.

Like a "triunity": one goes up, the other down, the only variable is the "direction".
There are only two: inwards, outwards. There are those who serve a kingdom within,
and there are those who serve a kingdom without. Those who serve without, live without.
Those who serve within, live within the progression, because they progress without the gravity
of belief-based ignorance(s) weighing down on them. That's how the universe works in general, indiscriminate.

[Eodnhoj7]

It really doesn't though.

Mathematics is just a language.

Speaking/using Mathematics doesn't make you a mathematician any more than speaking/using English makes you an Englishman.

Understanding how to rationalize is not bound to mathematics alone, it is cross-disciplinary.

Except, multiplication is not described by numbers. It's an operation performed ON numbers.
It's just repeated addition.

i. Hence: "multiplication" precedes number.

Space and time are multiplicative reciprocal aspects of motion.
v=s/t as motion
e=t/s as energy
s/t x t/s = 1 as light
s³/t x t³/s = (st)² as terminal
e=MC²
16=Φπ²
1=16/Φπ²
1∞=16/Φπ² x Φπ²/16∞=1

ii. Multiplication is not "explained" by numbers/variables. It can be "described" by them.

Not in linear logic they aren't. They are just the resources required by classical computation. Entropy being the 3rd one (if you are non-determinist).

I don't care what they are regarded as in "linear logic" (whatever that is) I care what they actually are.

If you don't reject the quantum phenomena, but you reject Quantum Physics, then in the absence of an alternative theory you understand it even less.

I reject calling it "quantum" anything, and I don't have an absence of an alternative theory.
I know "quantum" phenomena is due to the relationship between the real/imaginary number systems.

Real/Rational = Integer, terminating
Imaginary/Irrational = Non-integer, non-terminating

The universe is composed of only one component: motion. That is all. Nothing else.
Each atom/particle/matter is a particular arrangement of motion expressed in/as terms of space and time.

Every 1 unit of motion has an energy constituency of 16.
This can be seen/inferred from the roots of f(x)=x⁴+16x²-256:
±√9.888...
±i√25.888...
________
"16"

wherein both '4' and '4i' return ±256, which reveals the "junction" of real-and-imaginary.
There is a reason for this: there is a transcendental universal axes whose constituency
is both "real" physically yet is transcendent metaphysically. This "4" is the same as in 4/√Φ
and contains the binaries for {alpha/omega} and {beg/end} as a 2x2. In other words:
the constituency of the photon is a 2x2 axes, or a cross: (bi-rotational) spin, and (dis)placement.
Photons carry this information in/as their symmetrical axes, hence energy is 4² or simply '4'
before going through the (st)² terminal from above.

1 = v = s³/t ∞(st)²∞ t³/s = e = "16"

And all of your "quantum" nonsense is in the "16" whereas the '1' is what we can see.
e=MC² and 16=Φπ² are two sides of the same coin: one from s³/t (physical) and
the other from t³/s (metaphysical) but both are pointing to the same motion.

In other words: only because 16=Φπ² e=MC² as the former precedes the latter.
Be glad I am telling you this: it is going to get wiped soon, if not by me, someone else.

Note: C² is actually (-8+8√5) thus C is √(-8+8√5) or 4/√Φ.
This is why I stated light doesn't have a "speed", it has
a rate of induction which is related directly to Φ.

Your knowledge of the universe isn't

The accuser is the accused.

It really isn't though. You can use Quantum Physics to calculate the consequences of classical chemical reactions. It's called Quantum Chemistry.
If it's "severed from reality" then why does it work?

For the reasons I outlined above: modern-day science needlessly complicates it.

Quantum is a theory of measurement too. All scientific models are about measurement - that's what variables are! Masurements/readings.
That's literally why they have the Measurement problem.

Not all scientific models are "about" measurement. Some postulate magnitudes are absolute.
The measurement problem is a consequence on human beings not understand what light is.

Is because whatever "measurement" means and however it works, your theory needs to explain how and why your measurement apparatus works. Because your measurement apparatus is made of the same stuff you are trying to study.

The first problem that needs to be accounted for is what light actually IS. Not how it appears, or how it behaves, or attributes it seems to have. What IS light? An electromagnetic "wave"? WAVE is what a thing does, not is. There is no such thing as a "wave". Neither is light a "wave", nor even a "particle" not a bloody "wavicle" or wave-particle duality. Light is a rate of induction, and that "rate" is as fixed as the golden ratio is, because they are the same.

±1 = concerns unity (or not)
Φ = yang (spatial constant)
π² = yin (temporal constant)
________________________
Φπ²=16
1=Φπ²/16

±Φ = Universal Progression (Cosmological Constant)............= (1+√5)/2 <-same magnitude for expansion/contraction
Φ² = Universal Discretion (terminus of absolute magnitudes).= (Φ + 1) <-each to their own discretion, according to each their own choice(s)
Φ³ = Universal Gravitation (Gravitational Constant)............= (√5 + 2) <-adding duality, gravitation
____________________________________________________
Φ² ± Φ = 1, Φ³
Discretion with/without Progression
is in proportion to Unity and/or Gravitation.

Like a "triunity": one goes up, the other down, the only variable is the "direction".
There are only two: inwards, outwards. There are those who serve a kingdom within,
and there are those who serve a kingdom without. Those who serve without, live without.
Those who serve within, live within the progression, because they progress without the gravity
of belief-based ignorance(s) weighing down on them. That's how the universe works in general, indiscriminate.

The mathematics work only from kinematic situations, according to you, not static situations. Under a unified version of the universe, where all exists as one, movement becomes static and is observed as only an approximation of the one.

For example a car going about in circles shows a series of movements. From a seperate time zone, where all movements exist as one, the car's movements appear as a static circle. These movements cannot occur except through a looping pattern through which they result. All potential movement, given a car driving in circles in actual time, is derived from a form which transcends all the movements...ie the loop in this case.

Movement exists through form, where form acts as the glue which holds reality together. Thus static forms are instrumental in determining the movements of the phenomenon. The car moves only because the loop exists, the car does not create the loop, the loop creates the movements of the car. Each movement of the car is an approximation, a part of, the loop through which it manifests.

[Eodnhoj7]

"Nothing" is a man by the name of Miles Mathis, he has been around for years apparently:

https://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Miles_Mathis

[Skepdick]

Understanding how to rationalize is not bound to mathematics alone, it is cross-disciplinary.

Of course, but you are the one insisting that using mathematics makes you a mathematician.
But it's much of the same, really - knowing how to rationalise doesn't make you rational either.

i. Hence: "multiplication" precedes number.

Space and time are multiplicative reciprocal aspects of motion.
v=s/t as motion

So Space (s) and Time (t) precede motion? That's what I said! Computation.

I don't care what they are regarded as in "linear logic" (whatever that is) I care what they actually are.

All of your attempts to describe things as they "actually are" end up being nothing more than symbol-manipulation exercises. You are "solving" ontological problems with symbols.

Formulas. Computations. Logic are conceptually prior to Mathematics. If you don't understand what Logic "actually is" - you can't understand why "=", "/" and "*" don't mean anything other than the meaning you ascribe to them.

I reject calling it "quantum" anything, and I don't have an absence of an alternative theory.
I know "quantum" phenomena is due to the relationship between the real/imaginary number systems.

Call it whatever you want - your "knowledge" is worth shit without a formal and useful model.

Real/Rational = Integer, terminating
Imaginary/Irrational = Non-integer, non-terminating

1. To speak of "termination" is to speak of computation. Halting problem.
2. Infinite-precision real numbers are non-terminating. Pi for example. You can calculate Pi to n-th digit. You can't get ALL digits.

The universe is composed of only one component: motion. That is all. Nothing else.
Each atom/particle/matter is a particular arrangement of motion expressed in/as terms of space and time.

The way you are describing it - space and time are just coordinate systems. Space and time alone will give you a position.
For "motion" you need a delta - change over space/time.

Not all scientific models are "about" measurement. Some postulate magnitudes are absolute.
The measurement problem is a consequence on human beings not understand what light is.

All postulates are axiomatic. You don't understand what light is either - it's a postulate/constant.

It's just something everybody has to accept for your theory to work.

The first problem that needs to be accounted for is what light actually IS.

No. That's the 2nd problem. The first problem to be solved when you ask. "What is X?" - is the problem of ontology. What is ontology?

Not how it appears, or how it behaves, or attributes it seems to have. What IS light? An electromagnetic "wave"? WAVE is what a thing does, not is. There is no such thing as a "wave". Neither is light a "wave", nor even a "particle" not a bloody "wavicle" or wave-particle duality. Light is a rate of induction

Light is the speed of causality.

, and that "rate" is as fixed as the golden ratio is, because they are the same.

They are approximately the same - not precisely the same. You misunderstood Keppler's triangle.

Once you equated them and brushed the error margin under the carpet, you worked your way to a hexadecimal number system (base 16). But you could've worked your way to a system grounded in base 2. It doesn't matter really. 2, 4, 8, 16, 32... is all 2^N.

Welcome to classical computation/complexity theory.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Time_complexity
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Space_complexity

[nothing]

The mathematics work only from kinematic situations, according to you, not static situations.

We live in a universe of motion: π is by default kinematic.

Under a unified version of the universe, where all exists as one, movement becomes static and is observed as only an approximation of the one.

For example a car going about in circles... movements cannot occur except through a looping pattern... a car driving in circles...ie the loop in this case.

loopis

...car moves only because the loop exists, the car does not create the loop, the loop creates the movements of the car. Each movement of the car is an approximation, a part of, the loop through which it manifests...

loopis

"Nothing" is a man by the name of Miles Mathis, he has been around for years apparently:

https://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Miles_Mathis

No I'm not actually, but I do read his work. I even annotated one of his papers.

Of course, but you are the one insisting that using mathematics makes you a mathematician.
But it's much of the same, really - knowing how to rationalise doesn't make you rational either.

Not "insisting" anything - "mathematicians" was rhetorical for people who can count but can't go figure.
Knowing what not to believe makes you knowledgeable.

So Space (s) and Time (t) precede motion? That's what I said! Computation.

Nooo, space and time are multiplicative reciprocal aspects of motion.
→ v = s³/t ↔ (st)² ↔ t³/s = e ←
v = velocity
e = energy

All of your attempts to describe things as they "actually are" end up being nothing more than symbol-manipulation exercises. You are "solving" ontological problems with symbols.

A relationship is not a symbol - we use symbols to denote relationships.

Formulas. Computations. Logic are conceptually prior to Mathematics. If you don't understand what Logic "actually is" - you can't understand why "=", "/" and "*" don't mean anything other than the meaning you ascribe to them.

Is it a god? Is that why you capitalized it? Do you worship this "Logic"?
Do you have to perform rituals or make sacrifices to please Logic?

Call it whatever you want - your "knowledge" is worth shit without a formal and useful model.

Without, it is not.

1. To speak of "termination" is to speak of computation. Halting problem.
2. Infinite-precision real numbers are non-terminating. Pi for example. You can calculate Pi to n-th digit. You can't get ALL digits.

1. "Termination" if taken as "cessation" precedes computation: it is fixed as one of a null-boundary binary on the photon's {BEG}{END} axes.
2. Mainstream π is approximated, not calculated. A proper calculation of π is 4/√Φ or √(-8+8√5) thus the square is (-8+8√5).

Try it in e=MC².

The way you are describing it - space and time are just coordinate systems. Space and time alone will give you a position.
For "motion" you need a delta - change over space/time.

Yes they are coordinate systems, however have two domains.
Not all motion is "change".
There are three dimensions of scalar motion - they do not change, hence "scalar".
For example Φ is "scalar" because its magnitude is a fixed 1.618...

All postulates are axiomatic. You don't understand what light is either - it's a postulate/constant.

It's just something everybody has to accept for your theory to work.

I understand what light is very well.

No. That's the 2nd problem. The first problem to be solved when you ask. "What is X?" - is the problem of ontology. What is ontology?

A problem you yourself introduced and would not exist otherwise.

Light is the speed of causality.

lol

They are approximately the same - not precisely the same. You misunderstood Keppler's triangle.

What? Are you talking about?
The rate of induction or "speed of causality" is fixed to the golden ratio.
You even spelled his name wrong... how can you know what the triangle is even used for?

Once you equated them and brushed the error margin under the carpet, you worked your way to a hexadecimal number system (base 16). But you could've worked your way to a system grounded in base 2. It doesn't matter really. 2, 4, 8, 16, 32... is all 2^N.

There is no error margin - the universe only requires a square/root function,
hence space and time are multiplicative reciprocal aspects of motion.

[Eodnhoj7]

The mathematics work only from kinematic situations, according to you, not static situations.

We live in a universe of motion: π is by default kinematic.

From a perspective of all is one, the universe is static and still. Any movement is an approximation of one phenomena by seeing it in a series of parts.

Under a unified version of the universe, where all exists as one, movement becomes static and is observed as only an approximation of the one.

For example a car going about in circles... movements cannot occur except through a looping pattern... a car driving in circles...ie the loop in this case.

loopis

Then take it for a straight line. A phenemenon's movements summate into a form of the line when moving from point a to point B. The subsequent form is the glue which binds all movements together. The car only exists as moving because of the static form of the line which are the summations of its movement's.

...car moves only because the loop exists, the car does not create the loop, the loop creates the movements of the car. Each movement of the car is an approximation, a part of, the loop through which it manifests...

loopis

"Nothing" is a man by the name of Miles Mathis, he has been around for years apparently:

https://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Miles_Mathis

No I'm not actually, but I do read his work. I even annotated one of his papers.

You are what you study and all the work you push is his.

Of course, but you are the one insisting that using mathematics makes you a mathematician.
But it's much of the same, really - knowing how to rationalise doesn't make you rational either.

Not "insisting" anything - "mathematicians" was rhetorical for people who can count but can't go figure.
Knowing what not to believe makes you knowledgeable.

So Space (s) and Time (t) precede motion? That's what I said! Computation.

Nooo, space and time are multiplicative reciprocal aspects of motion.
→ v = s³/t ↔ (st)² ↔ t³/s = e ←
v = velocity
e = energy

All of your attempts to describe things as they "actually are" end up being nothing more than symbol-manipulation exercises. You are "solving" ontological problems with symbols.

A relationship is not a symbol - we use symbols to denote relationships.

Formulas. Computations. Logic are conceptually prior to Mathematics. If you don't understand what Logic "actually is" - you can't understand why "=", "/" and "*" don't mean anything other than the meaning you ascribe to them.

Is it a god? Is that why you capitalized it? Do you worship this "Logic"?
Do you have to perform rituals or make sacrifices to please Logic?

Call it whatever you want - your "knowledge" is worth shit without a formal and useful model.

Without, it is not.

1. To speak of "termination" is to speak of computation. Halting problem.
2. Infinite-precision real numbers are non-terminating. Pi for example. You can calculate Pi to n-th digit. You can't get ALL digits.

1. "Termination" if taken as "cessation" precedes computation: it is fixed as one of a null-boundary binary on the photon's {BEG}{END} axes.
2. Mainstream π is approximated, not calculated. A proper calculation of π is 4/√Φ or √(-8+8√5) thus the square is (-8+8√5).

Try it in e=MC².

The way you are describing it - space and time are just coordinate systems. Space and time alone will give you a position.
For "motion" you need a delta - change over space/time.

Yes they are coordinate systems, however have two domains.
Not all motion is "change".
There are three dimensions of scalar motion - they do not change, hence "scalar".
For example Φ is "scalar" because its magnitude is a fixed 1.618...

All postulates are axiomatic. You don't understand what light is either - it's a postulate/constant.

It's just something everybody has to accept for your theory to work.

I understand what light is very well.

No. That's the 2nd problem. The first problem to be solved when you ask. "What is X?" - is the problem of ontology. What is ontology?

A problem you yourself introduced and would not exist otherwise.

Light is the speed of causality.

lol

They are approximately the same - not precisely the same. You misunderstood Keppler's triangle.

What? Are you talking about?
The rate of induction or "speed of causality" is fixed to the golden ratio.
You even spelled his name wrong... how can you know what the triangle is even used for?

Once you equated them and brushed the error margin under the carpet, you worked your way to a hexadecimal number system (base 16). But you could've worked your way to a system grounded in base 2. It doesn't matter really. 2, 4, 8, 16, 32... is all 2^N.

There is no error margin - the universe only requires a square/root function,
hence space and time are multiplicative reciprocal aspects of motion.

[nothing]

From a perspective of all is one, the universe is static and still. Any movement is an approximation of one phenomena by seeing it in a series of parts.

Just the opposite: from a perspective of one or '1' the universe is in motion. '1' is static and still (light).
Light is fixed because the axes composing the photon is static: alpha/omega (operators) and beg/end (roots)
which correlate to the orientation/location of a body as it concerns light.

Then take it for a straight line. A phenemenon's movements summate into a form of the line when moving from point a to point B. The subsequent form is the glue which binds all movements together. The car only exists as moving because of the static form of the line which are the summations of its movement's.

I anticipate you will not understand/acknowledge this,
but lines and curves are not in/of the same dimension.
A line is a product of a rational and discrete integer, such as '1'.
A curve is a product of an irrational in relation to a rational.
Take π: a relationship (ie. ratio) of a diameter (line) to circumference (curve).
Saying π is "3.14159..." betrays what π is to-begin: a relationship.
π is 4/√Φ and couples the rational and irrational numbers (ie. line and curve).

You are what you study and all the work you push is his.

I push anything/everything that is true/correct, regardless of where it comes from.
Miles correctly deduced that a π of 4 concerns any/all kinematic situations. However,
Miles failed to permanently assign this 4 to our space on time universe s/t; fortunately
another person has already found the fixed relation 4/√Φ:
https://jain108academy.com/2020/03/23/true-value-of-pi/
which has implications for the unification of space and time
under/as multiplicative reciprocal aspects of motion, given
motion(s) can be either/both rational and irrational.

[Eodnhoj7]

From a perspective of all is one, the universe is static and still. Any movement is an approximation of one phenomena by seeing it in a series of parts.

Just the opposite: from a perspective of one or '1' the universe is in motion. '1' is static and still (light).
Light is fixed because the axes composing the photon is static: alpha/omega (operators) and beg/end (roots)
which correlate to the orientation/location of a body as it concerns light.

Motion necessitates a place in which to move, thus a static state is necessary.
Moving from point A to point B the movements from on position to another necessitates a relative fixed state. For example a car moving from one house to another necessitates the house as relatively still. Now the house is moving at a slower rate due to the movement of the earth. What composed the earth is moving at a slower rate etc. Each movement gets progressively slower and infinitum around a still point. This still point is the center point of all movement from which movement is derived. All phenomenon move to a position which is relatively still compared to prior movements.

The summation of movements necessitate all movement as potentially going no where except through itself as itself. Infinite movement occurs at such a high rate that movement ceases to occur. An example would be a wheel moving at such a high rate it appears relatively still.

Then take it for a straight line. A phenemenon's movements summate into a form of the line when moving from point a to point B. The subsequent form is the glue which binds all movements together. The car only exists as moving because of the static form of the line which are the summations of its movement's.

I anticipate you will not understand/acknowledge this,
but lines and curves are not in/of the same dimension.
False, a line is a form as a distance between two phenomenon.


A line is a product of a rational and discrete integer, such as '1'.
A curve is a product of an irrational in relation to a rational.
Take π: a relationship (ie. ratio) of a diameter (line) to circumference (curve).
Saying π is "3.14159..." betrays what π is to-begin: a relationship.
π is 4/√Φ and couples the rational and irrational numbers (ie. line and curve).

You are what you study and all the work you push is his.

I push anything/everything that is true/correct, regardless of where it comes from.
Miles correctly deduced that a π of 4 concerns any/all kinematic situations. However,
Miles failed to permanently assign this 4 to our space on time universe s/t; fortunately
another person has already found the fixed relation 4/√Φ:
https://jain108academy.com/2020/03/23/true-value-of-pi/
which has implications for the unification of space and time
under/as multiplicative reciprocal aspects of motion, given
motion(s) can be either/both rational and irrational.

The article stated Pi is valued at 3.144, not 4.

[nothing]

Motion necessitates a place in which to move, thus a static state is necessary.

The 'static' state is 16 = Φπ² and/or 1 = Φπ²/16, as 1/1 (ie. light) is "electromagnetic"
as captured by Φ 'el' and π² 'ma' viz. yang and yin.

Moving from point A to point B the movements from on position to another necessitates a relative fixed state.

Static/fixed does not necessarily imply motionlessness, as there is such a natural phenomena as scalar motion:
motion that has a 'static' magnitude and never changes. For example, 1 is a scalar magnitude. It never changes.

Infinite movement occurs at such a high rate that movement ceases to occur. An example would be a wheel moving at such a high rate it appears relatively still.

...or it is irrational.

Irrational numbers are that: infinite movement given an integer magnitude.
1 is rational.
√5 is not rational.
2 is divisive thus
(1 + √5) as 3.23606... is part rational, part irrational.
/2 divides as 1.618... still part rational, part irrational.

2 begets √5 by measuring the diagonal of a 2x1 rectangle (or '2' unit squares side-by-side).
Therefor '2' can never be reconciled/rationalized in/as '1' as you so emphatically "believe".

False, a line is a form as a distance between two phenomenon.

If it is a distance, it has time as a constituency
thus requires a ratio: s/t and thus not 1-dimensional.

This is how/why "lines" are not also "circles" as
the former is 1D whereas the latter is 2D. If/when
expressing the diameter of a circle as a line,
this is exactly what we do to find π = 4/√Φ:
we take the diagonal of two unit squares as √5,
we take a circle of diameter √5 and we relate them.

The article stated Pi is valued at 3.144, not 4.

It is both:
3.144... is the physical/geometric (static)
4 is the metaphysical (kinematic).
Image, and
Likeness

It is all implied by 16 = Φπ²
Φ = image (line) electro-
π² = likeness (curve) magnetism
1 = Φπ²/16 is the (e)quality of "light".

[Eodnhoj7]

Motion necessitates a place in which to move, thus a static state is necessary.

The 'static' state is 16 = Φπ² and/or 1 = Φπ²/16, as 1/1 (ie. light) is "electromagnetic"
as captured by Φ 'el' and π² 'ma' viz. yang and yin.

Moving from point A to point B the movements from on position to another necessitates a relative fixed state.

Static/fixed does not necessarily imply motionlessness, as there is such a natural phenomena as scalar motion:
motion that has a 'static' magnitude and never changes. For example, 1 is a scalar magnitude. It never changes.

Infinite movement occurs at such a high rate that movement ceases to occur. An example would be a wheel moving at such a high rate it appears relatively still.

...or it is irrational.

Irrational numbers are that: infinite movement given an integer magnitude.
1 is rational.
√5 is not rational.
2 is divisive thus
(1 + √5) as 3.23606... is part rational, part irrational.
/2 divides as 1.618... still part rational, part irrational.

2 begets √5 by measuring the diagonal of a 2x1 rectangle (or '2' unit squares side-by-side).
Therefor '2' can never be reconciled/rationalized in/as '1' as you so emphatically "believe".

False, a line is a form as a distance between two phenomenon.

If it is a distance, it has time as a constituency
thus requires a ratio: s/t and thus not 1-dimensional.

This is how/why "lines" are not also "circles" as
the former is 1D whereas the latter is 2D. If/when
expressing the diameter of a circle as a line,
this is exactly what we do to find π = 4/√Φ:
we take the diagonal of two unit squares as √5,
we take a circle of diameter √5 and we relate them.

The article stated Pi is valued at 3.144, not 4.

It is both:
3.144... is the physical/geometric (static)
4 is the metaphysical (kinematic).
Image, and
Likeness

It is all implied by 16 = Φπ²
Φ = image (line) electro-
π² = likeness (curve) magnetism
1 = Φπ²/16 is the (e)quality of "light".

Static state is devoid of movement thus is grounded in 0 as an absence of movement. The projection of a point, 0d dimensionality, is 1 as a line or circle (0 progresses to 0 as a line or circle). This projection of 0 is the beginning of movement as infinite movement considering the line and circle is composed of infinite lines and circles. Movements begins and ends with 1.