Відео

16:58 WTF do you mean? How is adding fractions together by commutativity going to help you prove the existence of a physical phenomenon such as electromagnetism?

16:00 you can simply say: "three four times" 3+3+3+3=12

9:45 You didn’t need to test this. All fractions are identical to whole numbers in multiplication. You were multiplying them already because of this principle. They act as numbers, like 100 is 100/1; 50 can be 50/1 or 100/2, etc. The premise that multiplication is addition, this is covered by addition. Its just adding. Its taking you a year to finishing adding units together, and I don't believe you are aware that this is just adding...

7:07 Up to this point so far, you have repeated, essentially, "feels". I think you stopped doing math in episode 1, and its been feelings and single-serving examples since then. I watch people comment "How intuitive" and you respond that its not supposed to be. I think you think an example, being concrete, means inductive, but inductive requires all of human knowledge to defend it, you have single examples that fail half of the simplest tests for generalizablity

5:00 Excuse me... wtf 100/600 is too hard, let's simplify divides 100 anyways This is a prank right. Why is this still going. Can I give you advice yet or are we still angrypants

It literally never ends

This example is particularly interesting, again from the inductive perspective: it illustrates how trivially simple an idea can get when looked at from an inductive perspective, versus how obscure and mystical it looks when taught mechanically. Relatively speaking, I expect fraction multiplication and division to be less simple inductively.

I was blocked on arithmetic for fractions for quite a while in school. I was in a Montessori-like public school. Once I managed to unblock myself, I was able to do pretty well in math. I really could have used this approach, then.

I recall learning everything backwards in school. First they taught the mechanical process, then they wanted the student to do "word" problems about reality. The teacher focused on given formulas and following the mechanical technique while ignoring the importance of the reality based word problems as if those were not important.

you gotta realize, the elimination of the Aether was political its a question of why is there something rather nothing, what creates reality, well you already know that answer when you 'draw' a 3d objection in the medium of 3d software program to create the reality of a video game what was necessary to generate both that medium space and object on which you drew upon? Processing

complementary: vector product definition by levi chivita simbols

Hi! I appreciate your work a lot. Can you please give your thoughts on this interview? ua-cam.com/video/7oWip00iXbo/v-deo.html It seems revolutionary.

You might like the Three Body Problem science fiction series or what I like to call "science horror" for physicists.

You need a rational limit to length contraction otherwise you get ladder paradoxes and Chuck Norris paradoxes. Aether is absolutely necessary for mental sanity although I haven't found a practical use for it.

This is all interesting but I won't take either modern physics or the ethereal mechanics people seriously until they start inventing stuff.

Completely right. Never gave fractions this much thought. Working my way through Bacon still, but can’t wait to review your book that describes your inductive method in detail.

Around 11:58..."12 times 8 is 92". How about 96?

I'm picturing the idea of teaching these things by having children play along as a Babylonian market with coins and so on, in order to motivate them to care about doing these.

I love this video its really good

At this point I'm seriously considering exposing teenage students to your content, and maybe you should consider it as a target audience as well. Here's why: I try to teach them some advance concept, e.g. limits. They struggle with the idea, but they can see the point. Then, when actually solving a limit, they freeze. I realise it's because they're not confident with algebraic manipulations. So maybe it's using symbols for variables and unknowns what they don't get. I go back to this idea and see they're comfortable enough with it. And what I always end up finding is that they're not sure what algebraic manipulations they're "allowed" to do. In other words, they don't have a solid grasp of arithmetic operations, their meaning, their properties, or the fact that this whole stuff isn't about what they're "allowed to do", but what they WANT to figure out and what it TAKES to do it. So then, when they're dealing with the sophisticated version of arithmetic (aka powers, radicals, brackets and so on), all of those deficiencies fall through. Even though this content is aimed at teaching the inductive method inductively, the yields of applying the inductive method to basic arithmetic can be invaluable to students. Cheers

Energy is All. Energy waves. Waves generate bio-electro-magnetic fields of influence. Peripheral attention = wave like Focused attention = particle like Peripheral attention (Intuition) recognizes possibilities with potential for actualization. Focused attention collapses the probabilistic wave function of infinite possibilities into one actuality. The one all-encompassing principle of Nature is 'pressure mediation'. 0. Hermaphroditic di-electric null point/plane of conversion (Psyche, Energy). 1. Masculine electric centripetal convergence (Mind, Potential). 2. Feminine magnetic centrifugal divergence (Heart, Actual). 3. Androgynous electromagnetic current (Will, Power, Parsing). Gravity = Di-electric inductive acceleration toward mutual null point of conversion. When the Mind inspires, the Heart aspires and the Will conspires (combines). Go to sleep with a compelling quest-i-on (Adam), wake up with a compelling answer (Eve). Genesis 42:18 - "Do this and live (an inspired Life)."

Zero was invented by Brahmagupta (India 7c), there wasnt any mathematician named "Algamesh", therefore this video is scam

He loves numbers so much that he named his six children 1,2,3... lol

Seeing if I have this: Contact-to-acceleration time would be efficiently/passively conditioned by the nature of the materials and formal construction of the entities in collision. Some (possibly very little, or quite a lot) of the energy of the collision will be diverted to deformation/heat and possibly consequently chemical reactions or fusion/fission.

Is necessitation distinct from conditioning? If not, is that a word Dr. Pierson would prefer for this concept?

Regarding the proposition that the ether carries the force of gravity in wavefront shells emanating from the Sun: In reacting to gravity, does the Earth consume something (e.g. momentum) from the ether shell (or the succession of them that intersect the Earth during traversal) such that successive ether shells (manifesting the wave peak moving away from the Sun) have less of it? Or perhaps does it impart momentum in the opposite direction to its pull toward the Sun? Would this be testable, say during a planetary alignment?

Wrestling with some of points of the conversation: Unless I'm misunderstanding, Ron seems to be wondering if a static equilibrium is distinct from a formal conditioning relationship. The conditioning connections between the sides of a right triangle are formal (as it's a non-material abstraction). The "static" relationships between physical entities exerting opposing forces on each other (resulting in a net-null action) are distinct from the formal conditioning connections between the properties of the right triangle. Are there actual formal conditioning connections among physical entities? The right triangle example is illuminating, but has the disadvantage (for the resolution of this particular confusion) of not actually being physical (no actuality or potentiality of force). Hmm. I suppose the wicker fence demonstrates this. But the key is that no actual force is at play for the formal conditioning, only potential. Is material conditioning actually material causation at the scale of the constituent entities (e.g. molecules/atoms/baryons/quarks)? Does conditioning only pertain to potentiality of force, and causation to actual force?

I’ve done some subset of this before. But this is so well worked out. What a great set of tools you’re building! Thank you, James.

Frakmar was so disappointed after the audition. Baar just had the character down.

In year MCMLXXXIV they put me in a forced labour camp with advanced Maths (and the college Physics prize) my bad I mean 1984

awesome explanation

To the person who invented zero....thanks for nothing!

Ai picture 😮‍💨

Very cool

Arabic numerals

I will binge-watch the series after its completed. Good luck

Numbers seem so intuitive and universal to us that it’s hard to believe there was a time when they had to convert numerals

great visual and instinctive explanation. Thanks a lot for your effort.

When I took Astronomy and Physics in college, it was one of my favorite classes. I was a litte appalled when my Prof asked me if he should bother to go over quantum theory, which was what I did my research paper on versus the Bohr model etc. If it’s outdated I don’t really see much point. I guess it helps to understand our past but could limit us.

I had no idea how the carrying was explained in division. It's always amazing how clearly you can grasp things inductively and how often it is almost avoided to be explained so in school.

Excellent!

Love this video. 29:54… Maybe could’ve saved time and paper to use your proof that anything can go backward any number of spaces to help prove that anything can go forward any number of spaces by first using your first rule to swap any number to the front and from there to anywhere else. E.g. step 1: (a b c…) p q… x y z = p (a b c…) q …. x y Step 2: use your move backward anywhere proof to move p anywhere from there.

What a divisive topic.

The purpose cum criterion of proof of all knowledge SHOULD be: PRACTICAL SUSTENANCE OF EVIL FREE LIFE ON THIS EARTH. EVIL, thereby, is defined exhaustively as DISASTERS (earthquakes, volcanos, floods, droughts, storms, accidents), PREDATION (human and animal), DISEASES (including all birth defects, all weapons manufacture, all violence) and DEATH. This implies there MUST EXIST a correspondence between the events inside the earth that cause the development of PLANTS from soil and subsequent delivery and sustenance of living beings (animals and humans) on its own surface through them. This means all 4 fundamental arithmetic operations (+ × ÷ -) correspond to unique type of particle interactions inside the earth. Hence, in order to be able to achieve the above goal of all knowledge, we MUST first find out the particle types each DIGIT we use when we make calculations in our minds (NOT the supposed electrons in the BITS of the chips we manufacture ourselves) correspond to and the unique interactions among them that we separate as the 4 basic arithmetic operations. Otherwise we are following some rules because they work, without any idea as to where they would lead us to. Unless we discover what particles DIGITS correspond to, and what interactions among them the 4 basic operations we all accept as absolute truth represent, we are sailing in uncharted waters with no destination in mind.

When multiplying 0 to 1 ratio, you are really explicitly stating end quotient of a fraction without the actual fraction, as 1 is the whole (.5)(1*n) = half the n value, every time. It's kind of like division without needing the other proportions, it loses ordering information with the other half, because times is a statement about what's being operated on rather than what will be the result of fractional measure of both proportions (you are instead explicitly stating what one proportion is, without having to reference the second proportion in the fraction, you are just saying "this proportion occurs half the length of n", where the second proportion is not needed in this derivation). It loses ordering information of the whole fraction (n over undefined set of dimensions), you lose the ability to get the values and relationships within the denominator, which doesn't allow you to climb back down that ladder do to the loss of temporal sequential data, the ability to point in 2 directions (fraction direction (n/? or ?/n = directional pivot for proportion of focus)).

Good stuff dude

This video was pretty epic. By doing this longer inductive proof, I got a more direct view on what an inductive proof is looking to achieve (too short a proof seems to lead you nowhere as the step is too short to put your knowledge gain into perspective, I think). I'm sure others will see it too. Something that's struck me as surprising is that the distributive rule hasn't shown up while proving modern multiplication. I guess it's just a different inductive path to the same conclusion, which is an important point to make too!

Normally Multiplication is defined as Repeated Addition. But this is untrue for values less than 1.00. So what should its definition be? And try to order these from first to last (Really think if what is commonly taught is correct or not) Addition, Subtraction, Multiplication and Division.

This is a worse self immolation than Whitlam. They began with less than a third of the electoral, they needed to win voters to survive. But, _unfathomably,_ they piss off everyone, except Landlords, the bourgeois sisterhood, and uni students (who today are increasingly middle class). You won’t believe this because your’e pretty much a Friendly Jordie in his 50s, but this govt is hated _more_ than ScoMo, so much so they’ll put a ghoul line Voldemort in The Lodge. I still find it a political facial, I still can’t swallow.

There is so much to unpack. You are right about the ether. It is involved from gravity to leptons. You are right about the ignoring underlying causes today. Especially when it can lead to new science. But there are other causes of stagnation or lack of innovation. To get ideas, theories, accepted you need letters behind your name or connection to an institution. This is understandable. But when straight-up science is presented to provide an explanation of an observation and rejected -- it is wrong. An adjunct theory to space-time, D-space, provides needed answers with simple connections. Luminescent ether had no properties. The one presented in this new theory does, only a couple. Einstein in a dissertation at University of Leiden in 1920 mentioned 'gravitational ether'. I believe his works are based on ether. But seeing what happened with the Michelson-Morley experiment (MMX), including it in his works would have made him a peria. He was able to use time as a crossover between his new GR and ether -- time dialetion. The ether caused this effect and also length contraction. The latter Lorentz provided calculations for in defense of MMX that showed there could be an ether. Einstein saw the values in these concepts and they became part of the basses for GR. Yes, ignoring simple principles developed before and verified many times has become a huge problem for physicist while they slip into indefensible positions. Physicist are not interested in underlying causes even if new science and explanations can be found.