Comments | kindred_spiritz: When you were mine.......synonmously

kindred_spiritz

When you were mine.......synonmously

Aug 10, 2004 22:04

Many times I've not been afraid to admit that space moves or even that time, also, moves....it does occur to me at times that I can somewhat define space as a metaphysical motion that, of course, must be greater than anything moving it. I would think you can catch up to this movement shrinking space but you can't attain light velocity where there ( Read more... )

Comments 10

HAHAHAHA!!!! HA!! minor_access August 10 2004, 22:30:37 UTC

AMY!! ARE YOU RELLY IN THAT NEED OF MORE ONLINE ATTENTION FROM ME?!?!?!? does this by any chance translate into anything operational - are there any specific measurements and predications that go with this - MATH GODDESS - if not this is pure BULLSHIT - is it not you that always says that if something is not operational then it is 'nonsense' and that if it ain't empirical it is 'nonsense' HAHAHA!!!!
*GIVES YOU THREE HUGS* REAL PROBLEM IS ON THE WAY!!!

Re: HAHAHAHA!!!! HA!! kindred_spiritz August 10 2004, 22:36:47 UTC

Well, isn't it the cause of the relativity theories, also, if time is to be a motion and if you're able to catch up to the motion and able to slow it down then you, by all means, you would have a basis for Special Relativity....lol. Ok ok ok....I'm bored, but I do mean some of what I've stated.

Re: HAHAHAHA!!!! HA!! kindred_spiritz August 10 2004, 22:42:22 UTC

And btw I also said there is more to science than just the "facts". Yes? No? Maybe?

Re: HAHAHAHA!!!! HA!! minor_access August 10 2004, 23:03:21 UTC

I FORGOT HAHAHA!!! there is the matter of correct quantitative predictionsssssssssssssss

Notice! This user has turned on the option that logs IP addresses of anonymous posters. anonymous August 10 2004, 22:56:18 UTC

You: Many times I've not been afraid to admit that space moves or even that time, also, moves ( ... )

Re: Notice! This user has turned on the option that logs IP addresses of anonymous posters. kindred_spiritz August 11 2004, 00:01:26 UTC

Lol isn't space defined in terms of the three dimensions and if they are moving metaphysically then one would thing that they are moving but that they are not? Maybe you don't need to think about time with this type of thing it would seem purely up to the mind or the imagination of the individual who is thinking of it.

Things or objects move in dimenstions, dimenstions are in a far greater movement....

I'm nervous...I'm scared...I miss you, I really really really do Rob.

minor_access August 10 2004, 23:18:56 UTC

I KNOW ALREADY this is definitly an unbelieably simple question to ask - let us say that I have two unit vectors u and v - I want to transform or rotate or translate v so that instead of referring to the z-axis as the orgin vector={0,0,1} it now uses u as the new origin - what would be the fastest computational way to perform this????

kindred_spiritz August 10 2004, 23:33:22 UTC

I'm not exactly sure what is you're trying to ask here because an orgin (at least as far as I know) is a point and not an axis (lol, you must really want to keep me busy, ok) Ok, well, then I'll take the time to fill in some useful information for you. To translate simply means to move the the origin fron one point to another while leaving the axis pointing in the same direction. To rotate means to leave the orgin fixed and change then to change the direction of the axis point, as you shoul know already rotation and translation are transformations on the on coordinate systems, that is to say, a rotatin takes one coordinate system S and transforms that into a different coordinate system S'. So a (rectilinear) coordinate system is effectively an ordered basis of R^3 ...I would imgagine you went through this process in linear algebra Laynette, lol, but since I've some extra time, lol, I'll use it to reexplain it to you. Let S be a list consisting of the 3 vectors i, j, and k corresponding to unit vecotrs in the direction of the x,y, and ( ... )

FUCK I KNEW THAT!!! minor_access August 11 2004, 00:10:42 UTC

thanks for clairfying this is my problem describing the direction of a photon exiting the surface of a leaf - there are two algorithms that describe this behavior

A. determinism of the leaf surface normal(a unit vector{p,q,r}
B. determinism of the scattering direction with respect to a standard coordinate system - with respect to the leaf normal being {x,y,z}={0,0,1} which we will say is {a,b,c} what I want you to show me is how to rotate the scattering direction {a,b,c} into leaf normal space {p,q,r} is it {a,b,c}-{p,q,r}??? for the simple case of the scattering direction being {0,0,1} the new scattering direction in leaf normal space would {p,q,r} FUCK IT ALL TO HELL I remember linear algebra now - explain it in that context PLEASE!!!!

Re: Ok kindred_spiritz August 11 2004, 00:30:25 UTC

ok, well, I would think the simplest way to go about this (that is numerically and conceptually) is in terms of the basic vectors, you want to express v in terms of orthonormal bais {u1, u2, u3} such that u3 is the leaf normal and u1 and u2 define the plane of the leaf...there are two of choices u3 (up and down) but presumably you have an "unambiguous" way of defining which one it is you want..there are infinitly many choices of u1 and u2 consisting of any two orthogonal vectors within the plane, I would suggest picking any that would be convenient for you ( ... )