Smash and Grasp at your Disposal

A Story by muldoonclare

Physics, Logic and Maths.

Smash and Grasp at your Disposal

The end as we know it will be an Armageddon on the scale of a cataclysmic nuclear Fallout between the Milky Way and Andromeda. The night sky, if we are the ones who feel lucky enough to be asleep, will feel the tide and pull of a universal nuclear warhead. Yet, it is not something we can comprehend with manmade weaponry for this will be with the force of titanic gravitation.

The existing stars and planets will ignite and implode, and there shall be an emergence of a new universe which is referred to as “Milkomedra.” It will be a calamitous future, where there shall never be the need to reflect upon the universe’s constellation with past woes. This is the vision of our future, as has been foretold by the universe. Are you fearful?
The natural alignment of galaxies, clusters and stars heading for our galaxy are hostile. The outlook on cosmic science needs a Major adjustment. This will be a calling to Chief physicists to recreate the theory for this is a “matter” of exigence.

The “dark matter” of our galaxy is a vast polar structure. This is how “dwarf galaxies” encircle us at 90 degrees in the hub of our galaxy’s constellation, which focuses upon our sun.

The rotation of galaxies relies on velocity and gravitational “matter”. Particles that interact with light are what this author believes to be like that of “a bullet through water”. The interaction of this light and these particles reflect, morph and rebound, like that of “a bullet through water”, but the temperature must drop. For that is a certainty in the detection of “dark matter”.

Cosmology is a balanced scale, because this is a proven theory. However, does it balance like weights? Another intriguing question that has been proven?

“Hot spots” are thought of as natural gas and “cold spots” are like “H20C03”, by the author. An equilibrium in our galaxy and the fizz of the universe.

Not a “microwave” for that is manmade, but rather like natural radiation of heat and cold sources. This author believes that the “hot spots” and “cold spots” are an indication of light vibrating.

Galaxies are surrounded by “haloes of dark matter.” Are the “haloes of dark matter” the generation of gravity within the universe’s galaxies? Another intriguing question that has been proven?

“Dwarf satellites” of the Milky Way are by no means scattered in the author’s opinion. They are fixed and sutured together, like the operation on Frankenstein. There shall be no returning.

This author’s view on the standard theory of physics is as follows:

“Blind eyes have been turned from the few, but the world is coming out blind in their denial.”

Khoury: “Striking mismatch with their theory.”

A mismatch, Khoury? That is a captivating point of reference for this author. Is the standard theory: the match and flame for nuclear war that will undoubtedly occur in the universe? A fallout of nucleoid atoms?

For these globular clusters, trails of stars and “dwarf galaxies” are marshalled for war and are in regimented order, like an army of brutal force between the Milky Way and Andromeda. This author reiterates the metaphor of a nuclear bomb as stars and gas collide in the heart of space, which is our home in the rotating structure of our circular universe. This is foretelling of the future.

At the moment, it is an impasse between the Milky Way and Andromeda. However, never forget that we are not friends and we are not playing a game of chess, such as referring to it as a “checkmate”! The Milky Way and Andromeda are in the midst of a Cold War, which shall rain down on Earth from the taunting sky above.

Why are all of the standard theorists so focussed upon the past? The reason for our existence is “dark matter”, or as this author prefers “dust.” So, why treat it as an enigma?

Natural gas and “a bullet through water” in the cosmic radiation is not hard to explain in the world, so why can “dark matter” not be reasoned to similarly.

“You need the component that modifies gravity on galaxy scales to go quiet on cosmological scales,” so reasons Khoury.

“Super-fluids,” Khoury convinces the author.
“Bose-Einstein condensate…” Khoury sends the world a word of warning, as the “Bose-Einstein” theory is pertinent.

Viscosity is one of the most relevant components in physics. Does “dark matter” flow without impediment, then return to a normal and viscous fluidity? Is that similar to natural gas and “a bullet through water?”

If “dark matter” were to move slowly as is also being referred, then it would have to be at a very cold temperature. This would be a much better way to explain the temperature drop, rather than “low effective temperature.” Our sun is the largest presiding source of natural gas, is it a coincidence that this is our greatest gravitational pull? Do we call that “high effective temperature”?

Why not “low radiating temperature and high radiating temperature”?

There is no such thing as “empty space.” Why do the standard physicists refer to what they cannot understand yet, as “empty space”? That is as insulting as this author referring to her mind likewise, as it is to cosmology.

Khoury’s calculations suggest that the dark matter itself is a billion times lighter than current models indicate with the use of computer models. This author thinks this a tautology for other physicists to join the war and use the logic of computer science to devise new weaponry against the universe’s calling.

Perhaps it is real logic that we can use atom gases to simulate galaxies, but there is no need to merge. That is what the universe has been scheming, let us not answer its prayers.
Superfluid “dark matter” and the concept of modifying gravity is a very necessary and welcome complication to this author.

Einstein’s Alleged Riddle

Albert Einstein allegedly made this riddle for his scholars.

A fellow encountered a bear in a wasteland. There was nobody else there. Both were frightened and ran away. Fellow to the north, bear to the west. Suddenly the fellow stopped, aimed his gun to the south and shot the bear. What color was the bear?

Fellow - Man?
Wasteland - A bear in a wasteland, Not a natural habitat?
Frightened and ran away - which one was frightened and which one ran?
Fellow "to the north."
Bear "to the west."
- as in compass? It is not capitalised in direction of the hemisphere.
Suddenly, the fellow "stopped", aimed his gun to the "south" and "shot" the bear. - meaningful sentence.
What "colour" was the bear? Declarative question?

Past Tense:

Fellow (AND) a bear in a wasteland, NOT a natural habitat. There was nobody ELSE there, BOTH frightened and ran away, BUT which one was frightened and which one ran. Fellow (TO the north, bear TO the west,) AS in compass. Suddenly, the fellow stopped AND aimed his gun TO the south AND shot the bear.

What (colour) was the bear equal to
What was the fellow equal to

AND = encountered
NOT = a natural habitat
ELSE = there
BOTH - frightened and ran away
BUT = which one was frightened and which one ran.
TO = the north
To = the west.
AS = in compass (because the hemisphere would be capitalised.)
AND = aimed his gun
TO = the south
AND = shot the bear.

(They) encountered a natural habitat, they are frightened and ran away, which one was frightened and which one ran to the north to the west. Encompass, aimed his gun to the south AND shot the bear.

Encompass = an act designed to encompass the death of a king!
Fellow = Explorers i.e. John Franklin?
Bear = true King and Queens. Inuit and First Nations.
north to west = the history of northwest territories.
aimed his gun to the south = Hudson Bay? Great Bear Lake.
Sahtu Dene = "grizzly bear people"

Uranium mining in Great Bear Lake. Interesting.

Did they kill Sir Henry Hudson and ultimately kill the First Nations, so they could slave trade in fur and mining at that time, which was to be used to mine uranium in future?

Explorers encountered a natural habitat, they were frightened and ran away. The explorers ran to the north west, but they aimed their gun at Hudson Bay and at Sir Henry Hudson, and ultimately shot the Sahtu Dene, so they could slave trade fur and begin mining at Great Bear Lake, which would become uranium in the future?

This one is tricky, I shall return to it.

Point of References

What colour is the “bear”?
Where was the first testing of a weapon of mass destruction?
What act was designed to kill the King?
Who is the King?
When we stop ??? , what will be shot and does it die?

A fellow encountered a bear in a wasteland. There was nobody else there. Both were frightened and ran away. Fellow to the north, bear to the west. Suddenly the fellow stopped, aimed his gun to the south and shot the bear. What color was the bear?

FELLOW (AND) BEAR (NOT) A NATURAL HABITAT, (ELSE) THEY ARE BOTH FRIGHTENED AND RUN AWAY, (BUT) WHICH ONE IS FRIGHTENED AND WHICH ONE RAN (TO THE NORTH TO THE WEST), (AS) ENCOMPASS (AND) AIMED HIS GUN (TO) THE SOUTH (AND) SHOT THE BEAR.

Man and weapons of mass destruction are not a natural habitat, but a wasteland. They are both frightening to intimidate, which one is frightening to intimidate and which is an act designed to kill “the king”, and who will aim his gun south to shoot “the bear?”

Well, Einstein. south? Not east and west, but south?

Cuba again, bingo!

Was this the cold war prophesised...? Or a warning to the world of its end.

I shall return to this puzzler.

A fellow encountered a bear in a wasteland. There was nobody else there. Both were frightened and ran away. Fellow to the north, bear to the west. Suddenly the fellow stopped, aimed his gun to the south and shot the bear. What color was the bear?

A fellow AND a bear in (a wasteland) constellation? There is nobody ELSE there. Both ARE frightening and running. Fellow to the north? bear to the west? Suddenly, the fellow (stops), aims his (gun) to the south and shoots the bear. What colour is the bear?

A wasteland: constellation
Fellow: Orion
Bear: Pleiades? (Teddy Bear...?Theodora? Aquarius.)

Well, this is physics and mythology, so I do apologise from hereon in.

Orion AND the Pleiades in the constellation. There will be nobody? Orion is scared of the dark and the Pleiades
are scared of imminent attack, both are running on the tide of gravity’s pull. (Hunter to the north, Pleiades to the west.) Suddenly, Orion stops, aims his bow of Artemis or the sting of Scorpio to the (south) and shoots the Pleiades. What colour is the Universe?

Milkomedra!

IF = Orion encountered the Pleiades
IN = the constellation
AND = there is no “body” (dark matter).
ELSE = there.
THEN = Orion is scared of the dark
AND = the Pleiades are scared of imminent attack
IF = both are running on the tide of gravity’s pull.
To/to = cancel out.
Suddenly Orion stops, aims his bow of Artemis
OR = the sting of Scorpio
TO = the south (Aquarius.)
And = shoots the Pleaides.
END IF = (What colour is the uinverse?)
EQUAL TO = Milkomedra?

IF (Orion encountered the Pleiades) IN (the constellation), AND there is no “body” (an identifiable collection of matter/do you mean dark matter, Einstein?) ELSE (there)

THEN (Orion is scared of the dark) AND (the Pleiades are scared of imminent attack), IF(both are running on the tide of gravity’s pull) TO (cancel out)...

Suddenly Orion stops (being scared of the dark), aims his bow of Artemis OR (the sting of Scorpio) TO(the south, Aquarius) AND (shoots the Pleaides). (Meaningful and Declarative.)

END IF (What colour is the bear?) EQUAL TO Milkomedra?

Well, I like that logical reasoning of mine. I will return to this.

If Orion encountered the Pleiades in the constellation, and there is no identifiable collection of matter else there. Then Orion is scared of the dark and the Pleiades are scared imminent attack, and both are running on the tide of gravity’s pull...

Suddenly Orion stops being scared of the dark, aims his bow of Artemis or the sting of Scorpio to Aquarius and shoots the Pleaides.

What colour is the universe equal to?

No, I am not satisfied with it completely, but must I admit defeat to the gravitational being?

No, I believe that Orion stops being scared of the dark when the hunter can manipulate and exploit dark matter, which I reason that the Seven Sisters know only too well is imminent.

The colour, I believe, is Nuclear Fallout in the Universe.

Well, I am not satisfied with this.

Riddles of the "Riddler"

Chalkboard:

“Saying it has been ten years, but if three times will not be forever then it has not been ten years, implies that three times is not forever.”

Ms. Snowe: Do I think that argument is valid? Let me attempt to convert it!

Chalkboard:

Ten years BUT three times will? NOT be forever THEN ten years IMPLIES three times is NOT forever (neq?) = ?????????

Ms. Snowe: True or False? Maths!

Chalkboard:

A, X, C, B = True/False

(Not)                    X = be forever
(But)                    A = 10 years
(Then)                B = be forever
(Implies)           C = IF A then B.

It will not be forever, but in ten years, then it will be forever as it implies = IF A then B.

C = IF 10 years, then be forever.

Ms. Snowe: IF 10 years is true, then be forever. I need to determine the value of infinity.

Chalkboard:

Excel

=IF (A+B ()>0, “TRUE”, “FALSE”

Constraint logic programming

A (But), X (Not), Y (Not), B (Then), C (Implies)

(But) A= 10 years (Not) X= 3 times (Not) Y= IEEE 754

Greater than zero = IEEE 754 �" it can be either.

    Lim
As x approaches infinity, then x (cubed) approaches 0.

Greater than 0, the limit is infinity (or �"infinity).

Less than 0, the limit is 0.

(Then)                B= IEEE 754
(Not)                    X= 3 (times)
(Implies)           C= 3 (times)
(Not)                    Y= IEEE 754

A(X, Y): greater than zero, then B(X) and C(Y) are true.

True statement

BUT Ten Years is (NOT Three Times, is NOT Infinity), then INFINITY (NOT Three Times) and IMPLIES (Three Times) ARE TRUE

Tautology

Ms. Snowe: then INFINITY (not three times) and IMPLIES (three times not infinity) are true.

Chalkboard:

Wikipedia: Logical truth because they are true due to their incoherent structure and not because of any facts of the world. A logical truth is considered to be a statement which is true under all possible interpretations.

Chalkboard:

VX = Astral Plane. Vx=Dx/t, t=dx/vx

Logic

(VX) Astral Plane = (DX) Time Travel/t

T = (DX) time travel/(VX) astral plane

Chalkboard:

(v)Velocity = (d) Distance Travel/(t)Time

Chalkboard:

Semantics

VX = Assumption

Computer Science

DX = Variable

Assumption Astral Plane = Variable Time Travel/t

T = Variable Time Travel/Assumption Astral Plane

Chalkboard:

My Reasoning:

VX (Assumption Astral Plane) = DX (Variable Time Travel)/Time
V (Velocity), D (Distance Travel), T(Time)
Velocity = Distance Travel/Time

VX=DX/T
V=D/T

Division of Logic

It is usual to divide logic into two branches: formal and real logic.

Ms. Snowe: I prefer Aristotelian and mathematical logic, but I am intrigued by these four causes: Efficient, Material, Formal and Final

Fallacy of Division interpreted to my reasoning:

(Formal) Reasons logically that something true for the whole must be true of all or some of its parts. (Two Formal Causes?!)

(Material) Emergence �" theories of integrative levels and of complex systems.

(Efficient) Particle physics �" that at such a higher mass, via substantial conglomeration, exhibit motion as modelled in gravitational physics. (Is gravitational physics my final cause? No. It is a separate cause. Two Efficient causes?!)

(Final) Aetiology �" is the study of causation, or origination. Bingo!

VX=DX/T, V=D/T

Formal and the Variable �" Aristotle

Causality is the agency or efficacy that connects one process (the formal) with another (efficient), where the first is understood to be fully responsible for the second.

- So, this is assumption astral plane (the formal) and variable time travel (the formal)?

My Reasoning on Aetiology

Formal = VX (Assumption Astral Plane)
Formal = DX (Variable Time Travel)
Efficient = V(Velocity considered particle and gravitational.)
Efficient = D (Distance considered particle and gravitational.)
Temporal Logic = T (Time)

Fibonacci
   “The puzzle that Fibonacci posed (that I altered)…”

1.    At the end of the first month, Assumption and Variable mate, but there is only one pair (Formal).
2.    At the end of the second month, Formal (Assumption and Variable) produces a new pair Efficient (Velocity), so now there are 2 pairs of Logic in the “Field.”
3.    At the end of the third month, the Formal produces another second pair Efficient (Distance), making 3 pairs of Logic in all of the “Field.”
4.    At the end of the fourth month, the original Formal has produced Temporal (Time), the Efficient born two months ago produces her first pair also, making 5 pairs?     I am missing a pair - (Material Emergence.)

Ms. Snowe: Let me reword:

Wikipedia: In Formal logic, rules of inference are usually given in the following standard: Premises 1, 2, 3, 4 = conclusion.

My Reasoning:

1.    (Formal Assumption AND Variable) mate, BUT there is only one pair of Logic in the Universe, which is the female of Assumption Astral Plane and Variable Time Travel.
2.    (Formal Assumption AND Variable) produces a new pair which is Efficient Velocity, so now there are 2 pairs of Logic in the Universe.
3.    (Formal Assumption AND Variable) produces a second pair which is Efficient Distance, making 3 pairs of Logic in all the Universe.
4.    (Formal Assumption AND Variable) has produced Temporal Time, and the (Efficient Velocity) produces her first pair which is Material Emergence, making 5 pairs of Logic.   Final Logic Conclusion �" Aetiology, THE STUDY OF CAUSATION OR ORIGINATION

Reiteration

1, 2, 3 = 4 (Formal Assumption AND Variable) has produced Temporal Time, then Efficient (Velocity) produces her first pair which is Material Emergence, making 5 pairs of Logic in the Universe.

Conclusion: STUDY OF CAUSATION OR ORIGINATION

Greek

There is no universal agreement as to the exact scope and subject matter of Logic, but it has traditionally included the classification of arguments, the systematic exposition of the 'logical form' common to all valid arguments, and the study of fallacies and paradoxes. Since the mid-1800s logic has been commonly studied in mathematics, and, even more recently, in computer science.

Wikipedia on the subject of Logic

Reminder to self: Formal and Real Logic.

Riddles of the “Riddler” Continued…

Chalkboard:

Formal and Real Logic

Formal �" (First-Order), which I believe to be thought.

Real �" (Second-order), which I believe to be reason.

Wikipedia: Specific relation of logical support between the assumptions of the argument and its conclusion.

Ms. Snowe: Sentences 1, 2, 3 = 4 = support my conclusion.

Support of Conclusion

‘…therefore, hence, ergo…”

Wikipedia: The form of an argument is a schematic way of representing what is common to all arguments.

Aristotle

First order logic �" quantified variables over (non-logical*) objects.

My reasoning:

X = quantified variables, over, X = non-logical. Bingo!

Wikipedia: Deductive for first-order logic which are both sound and complete (all statements which are true in all modes are provable.)

Principle of Bivalence

Second order logic: P (or set) (variable), x (man), either X is in P or it is not �" principle of bivalence.

Both first-order and second-order logic used the idea of a domain of discourse, (often called simply the “causality” of the “universe”)

�" altered a little to suit my reasoning.

Gödel’s incompleteness theorem

There is no deductive system (no notion of provability) for second-order formulas that simultaneously satisfy these three desired attributes:

Soundness �" every provable second-order sentence is universally valid, i.e. true in all domains under standard semantics.

Completeness �" every universally second-order formula, under standard semantics, is provable.

Effectiveness �" There is a proof-checking algorithm that can correctly decide whether a given sequence of symbols (words? �" my reasoning) is proof or not.

Henkin semantics

Thus once the domain of the first-order variables is established, the meaning of the remaining quantifiers is fixed. It is these semantics that give second-order logic its expressive power.

Vaananen

As with second-order logic, we cannot really choose whether we aximoatize mathematics using V or ZFC. The result is the same in both cases, as ZFC is the best attempt so far to use V as an axiomatization of mathematics.

My Reasoning:

ZFC �" Bingo!

Second-order Arithmetic

Axiomatic systems that formalise the natural numbers and their subsets. It is an alternative to axiomatic set theory, as a foundation for much, but not all, of mathematics.

Quantification over sets of numbers as well as number themselves. Real numbers can be represented…

My Reasoning

…as infinite, bingo!

Second-order Arithmetic

Sets of natural numbers in well-known ways, and because second order arithmetic allows quantification over such sets, it is possible to formalise the real numbers in second-order arithmetic. For this reason, second-order arithmetic is sometimes called “analysis.”

Peano Arithmetic:

A set of axioms for the natural numbers, these axioms have been used nearly unchanged in a number of mathematical investigations, including research into fundamental questions of whether number theory is consistent and complete.

Ms. Snowe: Bingo, again!

1.    The first axiom asserts the existence of at least one member of the set of natural numbers.

2.    The next four axioms are general statements about equality, “axioms of the underlying logic.”

3.    The next three axioms are first-order statements about natural numbers expressing the fundamental properties of the successor operation.

4.    The ninth and final axiom is a second order statement of the principle of mathematical induction over natural numbers.

Ms. Snowe: A weaker Peano arithmetic system? Has it just been disregarded?

Peano Arithmetic System

Obtained by explicitly adding the addition and multiplication operation symbols and replacing the second-order induction axiom with a first-order axiom schema.

Ms. Snowe: Bingo!

Schematic (Property or Relation)

Free number variable (n) and possible other free number or set variables (written m. and x.)

Induction axiom (Property or Relation)

Z= {nsquiggle (n)} of natural numbers satisfying squiggle (n)/

My Reasoning:

Squiggle          = IEEE 754
M and X            = {mIEEE 754 (x)}
T/N                       = Free number set variables (Infinity and Eternity.)

Wikipedia: It may not contain the variable Z. However, all theorems of ZFC are, quite surprisingly, finitely axiomatised.

Ms. Snowe: Atomised, bingo!

Higher-order Logic

Schematic variables in first-order logic are usually trivially eliminable in second-order logic, because a schematic variable is often a placeholder for any property or relation over the individual’s theory. This is the case with the schemata of induction and replacement. Higher-order logic allows quantified variables to range over all possible properties or relations.

Ms. Snowe: Let me attempt to convert!

My Reasoning:

Sentences 1, 2, 3 = 4 = Conclusion.

   Underlying Logic of Axioms

M and X                       = (Time Travel* Assumption Astral Plane*) Formal
(M and X) Set          = (Assumption Astral Plane and Time Travel) Formal

V                                       = (Velocity) Higher-order
D                                       = (Distance) Second-order

Final Axiom

D                           = (Distance) Second-order
IEEE 754 (N)       = (Eternity IEEE 754) Second(O)Arithmetic

V                       = (Velocity) Higher-order

IEEE 754 (T)    = (Infinity IEEE 754) Second-order Induction

First-order Axiom Schema

ZFC                                = Material Emergence.

1.    Formal Logic M and X asserts the existence of one member as a set (M and X).

2.    Formal Logic (M AND X) produces Higher-order Velocity (V), which are all underlying logic of axioms.

3.    Formal Logic (M AND X) produces Second-order Distance (D) and an axiom of natural numbers express the fundamental properties of the successor (M AND X).

4.    The final axiom is Second-order (D) as the principle of mathematical induction over natural numbers. Formal (M AND X) has to produce Second-order Eternity (N). Higher-order Velocity has to produce Second-order Infinity for them all to set Material Emergence (ZFC) into motion.


Assumption Astral Plane: ZFC = {mIEEE 754(x)} of natural numbers (D) satisfying IEEE 754(N)
Variable Time Travel: ZFC = {mIEEE 754(x)} of natural numbers (V) satisfying IEEE 754(T)

ZFC = {mIEEE 7 (x)} of (D) satisfying IEEE 754(N)

ZFC = {mIEEE 754 (x)} of (V) satisfying IEEE 754(T)

(Ms. Snowe wonders if this formula is suggesting a logical statement that if she wants and wishes to reach the assumption astral plane, then she will need variable time travel and believe in infinite death.)

Ms. Snowe: Now there, I shall admit defeat for the time being.

Riddles of the “Riddler” Dismissed.

Hint: Do not confuse the astral planes with heaven and hell.