I once said to my brother (both studying for University examinations at the time) "Is this work as much of a pain to you as it is to me?"
He said it was.
"So how come you do it and I tend not to?" (or similar).
Well, thanks to you Luis; I think I figured out how the whole thing can now become a piece of cake (something I think Alexander already knows).
A theory; if studying something is a 'pain'; if I feel I'm having to do dodgy or painfuly complicated stuff in my brain to follow it: then something really is amiss! (I wasn't listening to the lecturer!) No, seriously; even if I was listening, and it seems too much effort: my theory is it's because it's being made harder than it needs to be!
I reckon maths and physics are only hard because of all the gaps; trust one's gut-feeling that it can be much simpler!
I figure the easy way to learn math is like learning a foreign language by absorption from living in a foreign country. Skim over the heavy-bits; try a variety of books; gradually absorb all the patterns by familiarity with minimal strain on the brain. If it's too hard its probably wrong or needlessly complicated! Trust one's instincts that the 'real math' is childs play.
This isn't exactly an equation but:
the concept "acceleration":
Speed is distance per reference-distance (time). Acceleration is a 'process' or pattern relationship linking one speed relationship to another.
Acceleration is a rate of change of a rate of change.
Acceleration is a kind of self-reference, like consciousness or awareness. Two different speeds are differentiated (made aware of) each other by acceleration, one might say.
The option pair:
(speed 1): "distance, reference distance" (it is optional as to which is which)
and the option pair:
(speed 2): "distance, reference distance"
can be distinguished by
the option pair:
(3): "then, now" effectively another pair of "distance, reference distance".
Thus acceleration is represented by three pairs; each of which may optionally be regarded as the acceleration (perception) of the other two option-pairs.
Thus one might say we have six dimensions; the whole phenomenon being a seventh dimension to this. (Thus "Existence" rests in the seventh dimension)
The pattern above can be applied far beyond just acceleration; to any 'change' (creation).
CHANGE (creation) is relation of
and perhaps the little 'option pair s could optionally be the (sq. rt. -1) big option pair.
use big letters for "join the dots" pair; and see the variations:
c d e f a b
A B (OR) C D (OR) E F
e f a b c d
gives AB options c e, c f, d e, d f
and C D options e a, e b, f a, f b
and E F options a c, a d, b c, b d
= 12 options. (I rotated the diagram. Maybe I should rotate the other way?)
11-D string theory must be wrong.
From what I know of Hamiltonian mechanics and the Laplace partial differential equation; they fall straight out of this. So does n-dimensional math; all math and all number. However, this could be 'half-baked'; my main method is to draw pattern-match diagrams in multiple dimensions- works like a dream- must explain that next post.
One might suppose that all math and physics can now be derived. One may say that Wheeler thought that it would be binary; John Cramer thought it would be understandable as transactional; Niels Bohr thought it involved quantum jumps; Heisenberg thought it would be uncertain to predict but certain when observed/ perceived; Richard Stafford thought it looked circular; Einstein tought it was relativistic; maybe these ideas now flow from the above?
The pattern of options can occur in any creation far beyond our ideas of space and time.
Probably made mistakes.