Dubstepforum.com

http://vortexmath.webs.com/






Thoughts??? pretty interesting stuff, never really thought about things like this before. tbf math was always pretty boring for me, but this seems kinda interesting

if you have even a slight knowledge of mathematics, you would realise this is 100% bullshit.

Trainrek wrote:if you have even a slight knowledge of mathematics, you would realise this is 100% bullshit.

this, plus it's been beaten to death around these parts (and the rest of the internet since 2010) and is still not revolutionary.

i swear people just look at those wall of text "infographics" and resign themselves to never understanding it... but sharing it because nonetheless because it looks cool and has technical mumbo jumbo in it

fucking lol
never would've pegged you as the parson replacement

"crystal breathing"

knell hit the nail on the head

"this shape can do every function of math or model any concept in physics or genetics or biology"
you really buy into that?!?

edit:
here's something REAL that you might like from the sound of it considering the fucking bait title: 'the "jewel" at the heart of particle physics'.

https://www.simonsfoundation.org/quanta ... m-physics/

despite the title, it's legitimate. basically a new clever way to calculate the results of particle interactions using a geometric "jewel" shape that can be modified in different ways depending on the given interaction (like how you can change the period of a sine by multiplying x by 2, or changing the amplitude by multiplying the whole thing, etc but more complicated). if you add up certain sides of this shape, then they happen to give you the probabilities of certain events in different interactions. for the last 60 years, we've only had really complicated methods that at certain complexities couldn't even be solved by computers.

now the really cool thing is that unlike previous methods, this method gives the right answer without requiring any sort of space or time related information as inputs. normally, we think of space and time as the most fundamental aspects of the universe (we think of everything existing on the background of space in relation to certain points in time). one of the biggest issues in physics is that while we have a good understanding of gravity at large scales, but we can't make it work properly at the smallest scales (like 10^-33 m). and this has a lot to do with our total lack of understanding of the structure of space and time, which are very closely related to gravity.

because this theory works in calculating the interactions without space or time as basic assumptions, it means that they might not be fundamental, and instead emerge out of the way that particles interacting. so instead of particles interacting within space and in time, space and time result from the interactions of the particles.

now the catch is that this all only applies to a simplified version of the particle physics model. but the thought is that if it works in the simplified version, then it can be modified to work in the more complex standard model.

what is it exactly that you find interesting about this

its written in comic sans, so it looks sketch from the start.

It was just a ploy to get us to look at this image;

lol wtf is this shit

seems legit

m8son wrote:lol wtf is this shit

Vortex based mathematics. It's mathematics based on vortexes.

I blame myself fof this thread, sorry guys

Vortices

What happened to that big thread where parson went on about this stuff?

Shum wrote:What happened to that big thread where parson went on about this stuff?

It never existed?

Shum wrote:What happened to that big thread where parson went on about this stuff?

Which one?

vortex based mathmatics - http://www.dubstepforum.com/viewtopic.php?f=7&t=240126
it's coming! - http://www.dubstepforum.com/viewtopic.php?f=7&t=201682
Vortex based mathematics - http://www.dubstepforum.com/viewtopic.php?f=7&t=194210

Yes citizen...never existed...

the first link was the one I had in mind. cheers wub.

southstar wrote:

Shum wrote:What happened to that big thread where parson went on about this stuff?

9