Recent content by onethatyawns

Ok, orbits can only have two new components. One of the three components that the orbit would have is a spin along the axis between the satellite and the point it's orbiting around. That spin is going to be one of the original three components of spin that that satellite itself already...

My next question is if the same rule holds true for objects in orbit. Formally: how many components are necessarily to describe all possible orbital motions for an object around another object? I have two initial thoughts. 1. Maybe the spin of the satellite itself has the same components as...

Ok, I figured it out. If you have two moments, they will divide into two component spins. If one component is much stronger, you get a wobble. If you have more than two moments of torque, they will divide into 3 component spins (to easily see, imagine an x,y,z plane with each pole capable of...

Oh, I think you are right. I'm guessing that was a rhetorical question because you are a "mentor", anyway. I think my fixation on the unification of the spins is based upon using a model that requires friction to spin the object. (Friction would stop the original spin, then begin the new spin...

I think the wobble of a planet, for instance, would be the result of two separate spin directions that have yet to combine. These would be spins within a few degrees of each other, so they'd definitely fit the zero to 90 degree interval concept.

I'm not talking about particles with defined spins. Imagine something visible to the human eye. It can spin in one direction (obviously), it can spin in a perpendicular dimension (momentarily before these two spins begin to combine), and I'm wondering if more spins can be added on this system...

Are there integrals or derivatives that would not be transforms? Or are all integrals and derivatives a type of transforms? Because, on a basic level, transforms are things like shrinking/expanding an area, displacing a set of points, and rotating a set of points. It would then make sense to...

I've looked around and am having a hard time finding common terms in definitions to know how they relate. Are all transforms based upon integrals/derivatives? Are integrals/derivatives a type of transform? Are integrals/derivatives measurements of transforms? I believe that is correct, but I...

I agree. I'm learning integral calculus (in Calc 2) right now, and there are a ton of new things. It could be argued that this is only because derivative calculus is not taught properly, in such a way that makes integrals obvious, or maybe integrals are just so abstract (or more accurate, a...

Antiderivative, meaning to iterate more orders. I realized after saying that, there are orders of magnitude and there are orders of direction (dimension, like x, y, z), which are not necessarily the same thing. However, perhaps by following my previous explanation of dimensions, orders of...

The only philosophical point is that all math must exist in the real world. I can't prove that, but I haven't been disproven either. Just an intuition. I think I'm using solid definitions of what a dimension is. I've been told that time is a dimension because a point can exist at the exact same...

If that object itself is motion (which correlates to my point-->line-->2D-->3D model) (which, thanks to modern physics, we now know is true: most of materials are empty space with occasional moving chemicals, which are full of empty space but occasionally moving particles), then it's...

I don't agree; that's my fundamental disagreement. Something in math has to exist in the world (or it could exist if we created it). See my point about going from the electron to the universe. To model that motion, you would need a dang ton of dimensions. If you want to say "but they're still...

Why isn't an electron 5 dimensional? Yes, it moves linearly in 4D space, having x, y, z in displacement over t time, but does it not also have an angular velocity accounted for as its charge? That means 5 pieces of information or 5 dimensions. Awesome. Do you have any suggestions on reading...

Yes, I think this is semantics, like I said either. My quabble, which is seemingly insignificant to you but is the entire point I am making, is that "lower dimensional-analogues" are all that exist. That is all it could be. To say that there exists a world which has 4 orthogonal spatial...