[aΔx + (2ax + b)] = a0 + (2ax + b),. Δx 0. → which simplifies to 2ax + b. Therefore the derivative. I can only assume this is what you are attempting to convey as the formula you have presented is not a linear function nor continuous. Perhaps this is easier to see if it is written aΔx + (2ax + b) but as you have stated it the inaccuracy seems obvious to me.
It is not my formula, it is a quote from a moderator on the naked science forum , Cambridge University. It states to me, that any change of X is directly proportional to the fractional 0 degree of movement. No negligible length.
Perhaps this helps explain a few things. It is exceedingly important when discussing or formulating mathematics that the author of any equation or formula understand the fundamentals of the concepts before attempting to delve into complexity. A simple copy/paste of someone elses work without knowing what it means will always lead down a fools road of ineptitude. Likely (judging by the context) you have used the Church-Rosser theorem out of context to discuss time and relativity and the two are not just incompatible but unrelated.
@Equality As it seems you enjoy science forums I recommend you review this one. http://scienceblogs.com/startswithabang/2009/08/14/the-math-of-the-expanding-univ/ You might enjoy the interaction and possibly learn a few things.
Well I prefer my own maths language that says the function ΔX==0.00000000∞L which is infinitesimally small.
I simply do not comprehend "Your Maths" as they do not make any measure of sense to me....is this some form of Geodynamics or something?
added- would just put X is a vector position, and it states a change in vector position is equal to from (A) to (B) a length which is equal to an infinitesimally amount of displacement. I tried to explain before 0 + 0 = 1x A really small displacement of a 0 point. In word terms, you cant pass go without leaving an immediate past.
It is much easy if we use tP , that is a bit easier to understand . ΔX=tP ΔX≠1.s That would be a quantum leap .
Did somebody say something about a Δt and the t was not the same as t' ? Did somebody say there was a length contraction ? Did somebody not listen when I said twin 1's time was directly proportional to twin 2's time? (t=t')=ΔX var(X)=1tP per tick
No...it is not. In this case it seems to be validation of disinterest in your "Theories" and incomprehensible mathematics.
Well in certain situation I know my maths is correct because its outright simplicity. If we determine our vector position is X then you know very well what var(X) means. That would mean a variation in position a change, change which we represent with the triangle. You also know that tP (time planck) is the smallest conceivable measurement to work with other than the smaller measurements I created. ΔX=tP is not difficult to understand and states the function which takes premise over time dilation. we can also say Δt=tP
I Love it when people fail to answer my question, it just proves they can't prove the questions incorrect.
Okay little man....game on. You are quite clearly an unstable individual mentally, have a completely inadequate education and understanding of both Physics and mathematics, seem to have warped ego issues and have no idea when to accept your betters have stomped you into a pulp. Likely you are an overweight teenager who dreams of popularity and female attention while sitting in your room performing whatever pleasure on yourself that your unfortunate life can provide. The Formulas and hypothesis you put forward are impossible to separate from pathetic drool stained drivel which makes them such, and I can only assume your knowledge has been gained from YouTube University of Basement Stench in backwoods Alabama. In short sir....you SUCK at this and should quit while you can still see the distant horizon of waning respect.
Ahahaha great trolling but a complete fail. If I suck so bad you would have to prove it wouldn't you? Ok, tell me the what the gravity mechanism is? Oh I forgot, you are ignorant and don't know!
So here it is little science man, science has billions of pounds in funding and can't even tell me what the gravity mechanism is. You want to talk about delusional, that is you and science who think they are better and smarter than the average individual. Narcissistic preachers who think they are gods. You are no more than a man and quite simply I am smarter than you will ever be . Your not impressive elsewhere either, and you know what I mean by that.
It would be unwise for one of such mental disability to decide to begin a spar with me but, wisdom does not seem your strong suit. I will freely admit I do not "Know" what creates the force of Gravity and thus I do not make up pointless and pathetic calculations of confusion to pretend I do. As far as being "Smart", I prefer displaying my competency through interaction over expounding it through childish ego games...I believe I have done so here. I am quite obviously "No More Than A Man", nor do I claim to be. I am however a man vs. a child, intelligent rather than ignorant, happily married to a woman you would masterbate to, and am quite done bothering with you. Have A Nice Day
haha , quite clearly you are not able to challenge my work where on the contrary I can destroy your really silly notions about time changing. You don't know what gravity is because you are a lazy thinker and do not have the ability to think beyond your education. That is why you will remain a fool for all of your time left. I know what gravity is and it is neutral is attracted to neutral, end of debate you lost before you even engaged me.
Well! technically I cannot be dismissed if I was never hired. Bye, we almost got a conversation going.
Anyone left who wants to discuss the near future Universal contraction? Claustrophobia sufferers will be in trouble.
