A war between Einstein and Descartes

Analytic geometry

Basically this is a good problem of technical knowledge. Problem that causes the head to start scratching, and it doesn't get out of my head.

I will leave the figure of example, it is a problem between physics, mathematics and reality, as shown in Figure 1.

They might think it's a weird drawing. But when you realize what you mean, that the rotation of an observer as in the reference transition 1 and 2, the vertices of the line (0.0) (-3.0) intersect, as shown by the dotted red line. But in reality, objects do not reverse, when we rotate the neck in just under 90 degrees, and observe the same object. It doesn't reverse, it doesn't mirror itself either. But in the drawing, it demonstrates the  coordinates of the vertices if they reverseand cross opposite sides, when we consider as a stationary reference the observer himself who rotates. In this case, as the theory of reciprocity says, within relativity, all references can claim that they are the ones  who are still, and everything is moving around them, as demonstrated by the larger drawing, after the second arrow, the line (0.0)(-3.0) convert and leaves a  bad impression, that beyond the vertices are reversed,  mirror, given the dotted line. But the reality is not so, objects do not invert, much less mirror themselves under a rotational observer.

 

Answer:

Both relativity and the Cartesian plane could not describe reality, because it needs a still reference so  that the numerical values of mathematics can be interlinked with reality, by the use of the Cartesian plane of coordinates, because  there would be no  references still in reality, everything is in motion e.g.  you may feel that it is still, but the earth is moving itself, around the sun, around the galaxy in one direction of space.  Even if  nature show andthat there is reference stop e.g. be sitting in a chair reading this, the space itself, that theoretically each point of   it can be considered the center and everything move around it, objects that are under direct effect of torque , cannot be represented as parked references, i.e. the theorem of reciprocity, and general relativity would not apply.  At the same time the references can claim that they are the references that are still.  Also, in thedrawing, so little is wrong to represent the theorem of the reciprocity of references, even demonstrating an inversion of the vertices that make up the observed object.  There's a question.  This is all a logical mistake, is it an artifact?  Or do we have to assume they're both wrong?  What do we need to understand?  Is there an inversion of the vertices of the object? No, simply, objects that are under torque cannot be considered paraded, so this representation would not be valid. At the same time, there is no other way to represent itself in graph  since the coordinates of the Cartesian plane offer  us do not agree with reality.

Even though the trajectory of the vertices in the drawing, they show that the inversion of vertices in reference 1 actually happens in the drawing when the observer suffers a torque, and then they are supposed to mirror, with the use of the Cartesian plane.  If thisis reality,  then, as close as I can reach to understanding, it has to do with a singularity of reality around the observer.  It's as if reality mirrors around it  when rotating, as  for example, if a person were watching someone and when rotating the body, this person to be observed wouldexchange the coordinates of  his body between right and left. What doesn't happen, and if it does, is just amazing.  I can't conclude the truth about the topic, but I  think it's impossible for reality to be represented in graphs ofthe shape of current mathematics, with the Cartesian plane.  We may need to review Euclid's axiomas.

However, while a person rotates, it remains still still in relation to another frame.

This answer is neither a yes nor a no, but it is very fateful, analytical geometry cannot represent the reality of rotational objects in union with reciprocity, and if it succeeds and it really is so, even if we cannot observe, it is fantastic.

I suggest a new kind of coordinate plan, still in development, but that might cover this flaw.  A toroidal plane, which departs from the premise of always existing a central stationary observer, in a curved space-time of toroidal format, as shown in the following image. This plane would be able to supply the coordinate inversion failure, because it does not use a fixed spatial coordinate, but rather a fixed central observer.  It would resolve the parallax error, caused in the first example, causing the vertices of the line in question to be inversioned. Also disregarding the theorem of reciprocity of relativity.

In this representation, there is always an observer, who finds himself in a cross-section of the toro, on the right side, looking at the 12 o'clock. From there, time coordinates are used to position and count the time itself that led to the displacement e.g. in three seconds the object moved from 12 hours to one meter to 9 hours and 2 meters at angle 0. From there, triangulation calculations are used to know the displacement in relation to the object itself, from before to after. It can vary from a braquisthchronous curve to a rectilinear trajectory, as the movements can be translational or rectilinear. As for the rotation albeits, they are independent, because it does not rotate in relation to another object outside of itself and is not up to this toroidal plane.

               Thus, the parallax errors caused in the first exercise are removed, given by the reciprocity theorem.

 

               The object to be calculated the trajectory in the toroidal plane, must er a  braquisthchronous curve, the outer curvature of the toro. That is, the size of the observable toro and the distance between the observer and the observed, is equal to the radius of the toro.  From this, the correct time coordinates are obtained and the link is made between algebra and geometry.

To calculate the angular velocity of this curve, the existing calculations are used, always considering a brachtopthochron curve between the observer and the observed one.

In the case of the trajectory is not braquisthonic, e.g. a rotation of the observed r to  a point of the wall, an observed stationary, becomes anti-baquistochron, that is, it makes  the curvature opposite the curvature of the toro.

In case the distance do observed between the observer decreases, it is treated with MRU, if it is an MRU trajectory.  The varied movements, on the other hand, are perfectly accepted because they depend on the variation of speed observed.

Also in cases of irregular trajectories, it should be treated in different stages, I will speak later.

The focus of the observer, thus, the position of the toro, will always be the starting point of the observed, centered at 12 hours at 0 degrees of altitude, thus obtaining, with the movement of the observed, the brachitosynchronous trajectory or not.  Fis triangulation between the observer and the two moments of the observed, treating the opposite catheter of the angle of the observer between the start and end point of that observed with MRU. If in this case, the observed passes  from the brachtochronic curve of the toro, it means that it is in an irregular trajectory.

To treat irregular trajectories, the focus is changed to the point of the most distant observed, and the necessary calculation is  made in stages from the farthest focus to the beginning and end of the trajectory. Bseanding with the movement type of the observed, if MRU, with MRU, if varied movement, with varied movement.

This is how you get the exact speed relative to the observer. As I said, using the double time coordinates,  latitudinal anglesand longitudinal angles.

In the event that observer is in motion, disregard the toroidal plane, only works for parked observers.  But since each point of space can be considered a center, then any point can be considered parked and the toroidal plane is applicable.

 

Answer 2:

 

There is no error between relativity and the Cartesian plane considering that there are no torções that would cause such distortion from one moment to another. It can be seen that if we divide the two moments, the transition would be more circular, not like the two red dotted ones,  even if the result is the same, they are reversed.

In fact, the movements are continuous and not brittle as the image demonstrates, and this would make this graphic drawing not condone what really happens, even if it is correct and the coordinates are reversed after a circular trajectory, in the drawing. 

Maybe that's where there can be confusion, a contradiction between mathematics and reality. In reality objects are not inverted, however, in analytical geometry yes, and it's okay to be that way.

 

Questions:

 

How do computers calculate in graphics games?  Who spins in a game, player or map, in a spin that the player produces with his hand, by using the mouse.  What represents the inversion of direction of the coordinates of the vertices of the observed?  The signal?  

This would be the same as saying that each person has his own arrow of time, because of the theorem of reciprocity, since the situation of vertex inversion occurs, why not the inversion of the arrow of time also does not?  The arrow of time stretches at  relativistic speeds, but could we also retract?  Or would she go all the way and dissipate?  What if we are objects in the dimension of time, righteous, that we shrink and stretch in the fourth dimension, each, again, in a new story?

By the fourth dimension of time:

Are we righteous, like precious stones, that stretch and shrink, always living a new story? Is time polishing us, becoming the best of ourselves?

Why does the fourth dimension have to be a continuous line of three-dimensional and inanimate objects? Do you know what the matter of time is? How is it constituted? Have you measured yourself correctly? Have you seen yourself? Why doesn't life manifest itself in physics or science when talking about the constituents of the world? How do living beings having their form integrated into a dimension that we have not yet accessed for a matter of time, and we shape ourselves and take new forms, in this or another world (given that each one may have/be his own arrow of time)? How come no one has also seen the time, to know if he is alive or not, and perhaps as you said, shaping us? And if the magic that each reference point has its own time, why isn't this the addition of a new temporal dimension? What about new worlds, new paradises? Why does time pass and have to dissipate? Isn't he somewhere like now?

 

And because we don't know where the old one ended up now, why does it dissipate? Where to? Why do we have to be pessimistic about thinking that everything leads to an end? Is there any proof of this?

I believe quite the contrary.

These issues are out of common sense, but they are valid questions.