| Topic: |
Science > Physics |
| User: |
"a_plutonium" |
| Date: |
04 Feb 2006 11:59:46 AM |
| Object: |
model of 4ColorMapping in Physics |
Proginoskes wrote:
a_plutonium wrote:
(snipped)
[KPP stuff snipped again]
Now when proving 4 Color Mapping and you finish making the Reductio Ad
Absurdum clause of "suppose false" then the Implication step from the
suppose-false clause would have include the dependent variables of both
Adjacency and of Coloring. So that the suppose false clause implies that
there exists at least one cell of 5 countries all of which those 5
countries are adjacent to one another and requiring 5 different colors.
No, it doesn't. I've given you 3 counterexamples to this statement.
Check the usual place, the thread "Why Archimedes Plutonium will never
proof the 4CT".
--- Christopher Heckman
Chris Heckman keeps posting irrelevancies and calls them
counterexamples. Apparently, when someone is different, Chris beleives
it is a counterexample. The 4CM is in planar 2-dimensions, yet Chris
seems to illogically think that examples out of 3rd dimension where
infinite colors are required is a counterexample.
So I am going to give a Physics argument that proves I am correct and
Chris Heckman is all wet and wasted.
Physics has particle-interactions, the 4 forces of physics of EM,
gravity, weaknuclear and strongnuclear. Physics is necessary and
sufficient with 4 forces. Forces become colors of 4CM. Adjacency becomes
the particle-interaction where 2 particles are mediated by a photon for
the EM force, and where 2 particles are mediated by the graviton for
gravity force. Where 2 particles are mediated by the weaknuclear gluon
for the weaknuclear force. And where 2 particles are mediated by the
colored-gluons for the strongnuclear force. Adjacency is the mediated
interaction of the photon to the 2 particles in question.
So, 4 forces in physics are necessary and sufficient to cover all
particles of physics. This is 3rd dimension by the way, where Chris was
unable to generalize 4 Color Mapping, here I am able to generalize 4
Color Mapping of mathematics to 3rd dimension via use of physics. So
this is the 4 Color Mapping of mathematics generalized to 3rd dimension.
Now suppose false that 4 forces of physics are not necessary and
sufficient to cover all particle interactions in 3rd dimension.
According to Chris Heckman, such a supposition leads to his implication
that there exists a 5th force, and nothing else.
According to Archimedes Plutonium, such a supposition leads to the
implication that there exists a 5th force but also, in addition, there
exists a *new interaction between two new particles*.
According to Chris Heckman, such a supposition leads only to a new 5th
force and all the particles and interactions remain the same old, same old.
The adjacency concept in 4Color Mapping of the plane is boosted from 4
to 5 in at least one cell when supposing 4CM is false along with
boosting of the colors needed from 4 to 5. Likewise in Physics of 3rd
dimension when supposing 4 forces is false that it boosts the force
number to 5 but also boosts the interactions of particles to new
interactions (new gluons) and new particles which is the adjacency concept.
As for Chris Heckman, I can only lead a stubborn dumb mule to water but
I cannot force the dumb mule to drink.
Archimedes Plutonium
www.iw.net/~a_plutonium
whole entire Universe is just one big atom
where dots of the electron-dot-cloud are galaxies
.
|
|
| User: "boso boss" |
|
| Title: Re: model of 4ColorMapping in Physics |
04 Feb 2006 02:20:01 PM |
|
|
Excellent. This is a very interesting perspective. While the first law
of conservation of energy was the "certification" that energy (in
essence of surface-visible world) has been noted adequatly, later laws
of conservation which related to issues of physical symmetry, have
approached the difficult question of differentiation of sameness of
"energy" into everything else like shapes, particles, structure of
matter and so on.
Forces. There is very little known about fundamental forces. They
appear to be ever present and holding together, and apart, in motion
and in stillness everything there is (except economy :-). EM
interraction appears through Maxwell equations to describe the shape of
one force - the most powerfull force in the universe... but which
doesn't control anything at large. Gravity appears to have a form of
the force (inverse square law) and a shape of field (Einstein), except
maybe not :-)) The thesis of 2 other forces is so elusive that there is
no known shape of the force or field associated with them.
Also, no one ever manipulated forces. The best technology is merely
moving around the matter or elements of structure, using the same old
law of conservation, pulling all the resources from char coal or dead
trees (oil).
Differentiation such as 4CM thesis, is closer to Pauli's principle
which is suposed to answer why things don't fall down through each
other (instead, we can safely stand on the ground). Pauli insinuates
existence of energetic levels and differentiation based on symmetry
(empirically spectrum and spin, mathematically whatever).
Space, vacuum, electrons, nuclei... all *appear* to be doing something
which gives birth to maps of the world, or 4CM.
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Proginoskes" |
|
| Title: Re: model of 4ColorMapping in Physics |
04 Feb 2006 11:49:45 PM |
|
|
a_plutonium wrote:
Proginoskes wrote:
a_plutonium wrote:
(snipped)
[KPP stuff snipped again]
Now when proving 4 Color Mapping and you finish making the Reductio Ad
Absurdum clause of "suppose false" then the Implication step from the
suppose-false clause would have include the dependent variables of both
Adjacency and of Coloring. So that the suppose false clause implies that
there exists at least one cell of 5 countries all of which those 5
countries are adjacent to one another and requiring 5 different colors.
No, it doesn't. I've given you 3 counterexamples to this statement.
Check the usual place, the thread "Why Archimedes Plutonium will never
proof the 4CT".
Chris Heckman keeps posting irrelevancies and calls them
counterexamples.
Irrelevant!?!? In AP's proof the 4CT, he claims that if a graph needs 5
colors, then it has 5 adjacent regions. I give three counterexamples to
this statement. How can I get any MORE relevant?
Apparently, when someone is different, Chris beleives
it is a counterexample.
Again, another false statement.
The 4CM is in planar 2-dimensions, yet Chris
seems to illogically think that examples out of 3rd dimension where
infinite colors are required is a counterexample.
Well, by that same logic, since AP talks about a map where there are 5
regions mutually adjacent to each other, which is an example from the
3rd dimension, his proof is wrong, by his own logic.
AP claims that: # colors = # adjacencies. Not true.
So I am going to give a Physics argument that proves I am correct and
Chris Heckman is all wet and wasted.
Wow. You're going to completely change the subject. Talk about being
irrelevant ...
[crank physics & crank mathematics cut, along with a few insults directed
at me]
As for Chris Heckman, I can only lead a stubborn dumb mule to water but
I cannot force the dumb mule to drink.
But it's not water. It's actually hydrochloric acid, and I have a
reason not to drink it.
--- Christopher Heckman
.
|
|
|
|
|
Related Articles |
|
|
