## A Better Explanation Regarding Riemann/Navier Q (Page 21)

5/3/2019
This is a legacy notebook. All pages are considerably outdated now, and have been left to allow those with questions of their own to see how I was able to develop into my final conclusions. All theory has been closed/verified and I have moved onto the foundational Binary values found in more recent works.

10/24/18 Sorry for the long read. I’ll explain it a little better here:

Think of it all like how light is a combination of sine waves.

That equation is part of a formula. It’s a modular system. Open up the proof tables and check the proof for Riemann to see what I mean. It’s all right there. Basically, I need to also finish the proof to the Navier-Stokes to make this more plausible to people who don’t get it, but I don’t really have the time at the moment or feel like working it out. I will at some point.

Everything is a matter of wave interactions. We equate all measurements as if we know what 0 is, but there is no actual 0 for measurement of atomic structures, unless nothing were to exist at all. The fact that we even know what 1 is, is a measurement in itself of atomic structures.

That is why an input (in) is required to define 0. Something created what we perceive; regardless of whether we perceive it as not there or there, and that something is a combination of waves (at the micro scale). The true zero for any tangible system in our universe would be placed on the farthest left point of the graph, with no negative numbers being used at all. Zero can be redefined as a ratio (1/2) because of this. That is done to allow us to use negative numbers without stretching and resampling things. It replaces square functions with divisors, and instead allows you to create larger wholes by subdividing; or making room to allow you to fit more into the system just like atomic processes.

It’s very similar to equating the 0 velocity point for something like a rock before it is pushed down a hill. That 0 means something. It’s just not a true 0.

Think of it like this:

Fahrenheit has a 0, which is measure-able only in Fahrenheit. 0°F is equal to -17.78° Celsius. 0° Celsius is equal to 273.15 Kelvin.

That means that we turn the zero point for each measurement scale into an actual number or ratio by there existing another scale outside of it. All objects in this universe are on a scale outside of the exact point in which our universe went from nothing to the big bang. No zero is a zero, but can be defined using ratios.

This means that by creating a scale using the ratio input, you can now measure things like 0 mph over 0 distance, or 0 miles over 0 seconds. It closes the system, by putting it into a fully defined state and allows for measurement of all things.

As soon as we begin to apply this to all formulas (rewrite them), you will find that accuracies will be where we need them to be. This is because, at this stage in our understanding; both universally and atomically, there is no such thing as an at rest state; in its truest form – as a matter of definition, without a definition of what that state is.

Riemann theorized this, but he didn’t seem to understand it fully, or at least he didn’t think to just do away with his perception of what zero was. It’s not his fault that was a long time ago. He thought (and everyone else still does) that we needed to keep zero in the middle. We still sort of do in order to measure things in a way that makes sense for now, but we need to do so with the understanding that all measurements unless the true source (wave) are not ever going to equate to zero, but that there is the possibility that zero itself can be defined for that group function. Ultimately, we might wind up doing away with zero entirely for all but the most extreme scenarios.

Look if you don’t understand it now it might take you a while to get it. It took me a few months to even begin to draw these conclusions, and you have to understand that we got a lot wrong in order to even do so.