Some Added Understandings Regarding Lagrange/Orbital Calculations

A New Formula For Calculating Lagrange And Large Body Orbital Points

Note: This doesn’t change what zero is. This is where the issue is, and why nobody understands what I mean. This is completely new to everyone besides me. I am literally the only person who gets it at this point, because I am the only person who has ever done it. This calculation (again, look at the numbers, they prove it) shows that the real zero is far below anything we can actually measure. The only base zero in this universe is the point in which nothing exists. This only defines the scale of the system, where you don’t actually use zero at all. There is no reason we should ever be using that real zero when we are making quantifiable measurements.

To fully grasp how this works, I would suggest watching the videos I’ve made showing sine-sine, and other wave-shape relationships. This is a ratio system, which does not use zero at all. It is entirely new to mathematics in this format; but something which is already understood through Fourier transforms, and it does not make any numbers meaningless. It is built to mimic real atomic and spacial functions taking place in our universe through the use of sub-dividers – as both the ratio of the input, and a chosen ratio; in this case, 1/2, which is the ratio defining the switch from negative to positive poles, or plot points.

There are so many questions coming up in science right now, because nobody is willing to just do away with old ideas. Everyone is too attached to old systems. It’s ok to change the system when that system is math, because there are no definitive laws besides what the numbers are capable of, and when the system you create is more efficient, and it works – it should be paid attention to instead of erroneously insulted with no real grounded understanding of what it is doing. It is also necessary to become concerned with the system when that system is science and something like this comes along. Ultimately, this just provides a better explanation of what is actually going on atomically, and with spacial structures. We took it too far when we started teaching theories as fact.

It is on the path to using (sine) wave ratios to plot points in systems. What I discovered was that when we start stretching numbers over to 1 to make up for the singularity (infinite zero) point in a true zero system we begin to show overcomplications, and large groups of entropy (why the Birch and Swinnerton conjecture is so hard to figure out).

By turning 0 into 1/2, it allows for linear movement through all xyz plots, as there is no longer an infinite zero to work with. It’s just like how we recently changed the way we measure the kilogram. It’s defined atomically now instead of based on what all of the atoms weigh as a group.

This is actually closer to solving the Birch and Swinnerton conjecture now, because it is calculating orbits using only the ratios of the system, point A and B are entered, and it determines the radius, or diameter (ellipses), and it works because you can combine sine waves in such a way as seen in these videos I made: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5S3rRI6eaB0&list=PLcfuEHD26MBS3llzRK9VFTWqVTpG1w5-4&index=3 Make sure you watch both generating ellispes videos to see what I mean.

This is also very close to completing Navier stokes, as it won’t need velocities to enact the compressing function that is required to show viscosities/stress or pressure, but instead just needs to know how the (sine) waves are acting.

Really, Riemann answers itself once you know that zero is equal to 1/2. This is a surprise when you think about it, we spent so many years not trying it that way, it just sits between -1, and 1 on the graph. So 1/2, but it can become more complex than that when you really start to think about it.

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.

I tried to explain this to mathematicians before, but it didn’t have as much definition as it does now, so it just got ignored.

My aim is to turn this into something you can enter plot points for to begin to plot out solar systems. It should prove you can also calculate body masses using the ratios of the system. Neither is much more important over the other, as doing so should eventually prove all 3, and consequentially potentially knock the other questions off the board in the process.

Oh, and the statement in there, I realized that the ratio was compressing itself, you can see that when the numbers drop to 0.125, 0.25, 4.0, 1.0. That’s the over-all ratio of what is used to bring things down and back up. It does that using the inputs, and the ratio of 1/2, so I just need to work out a way to plot it, and refine it a bit. I came close, but lost interest for a while.

Here’s the code for the limiter without the Lagrange stuff. It’s fun to put numbers into it, and watch the output always come out to the input.

https://www.dropbox.com/home/NP%20Information?preview=Forwardlimiter.txt

Some people seem to think that tuning the numbers down to 1 like that is “cheating”, but in the sense of completing the Navier-Stokes question it’s probably going to be necessary to use such a function. It’s done in a way that I perceive to be how atomics work, as you essentially should have a dual input system (open circuit) which acts like a closed circuit until something is introduced. This is meant to act out a limit on a larger formula for a feedback system, something I haven’t written yet. These are all modular components. I’m not even using that limitconverto1 portion in this Lagrange formula for those who are questioning all of this, and it really is probably needed to act out the Navier-Stokes question anyways, it doesn’t need to stay at a ratio of 1/1 though. Mostly it is something I want to use one day for electrical feedback systems.