Playing around with stringtheory today I was in need of a more convenient method of
describing an ellipse. Instead of the two focal points and the major
and minor axis. I need a method to tie in directly to that of square and rectangle.
That the circle is to the ellipse what a square is to a rectangle and dispense with
the notion of focal points and axes.

I want this because in a Coulomb Unification the perfectness of a Coulomb force in
that it is so perfect it comes as a solo force whereas the StrongNuclear pairs with
the WeakNuclear to restore the nuclear region as a NuclearCoulomb and for the space
of electrons where the Gravity pairs with Antigravity restores a Coulomb force there.
Thus all the forces are Unifyed by being Coulomb forces of a particular region. And
it is stringtheory that can give math data as to the StrongNuclear force from Euler's
Gamma Function.

So I need a better way of going from circle to ellipse without foci and axes.
We can consider an ellipse as a squashed circle. We can consider a rectangle as
a squashed evenly square.

Proposal: If I start with a given rectangle and its 4 corners, I cannot construct a
circle by using those 4 corners. However, I can construct a ellipse using those
4 corners, but can I get a unique ellipse from a given rectangle? I think not. But I
want a unique ellipse given a particular rectangle. So, if I determine the diagonal
of that given rectangle and use it as the diameter of a circle, I wonder if I can
thus
use that circle to determine a unique ellipse that inscribes the rectangle.

What I want when finished is an easier way of describing ellipses by saying there is
a unique rectangle and a unique circle given a particular ellipse. So to speak the
circle that is squashed to get the ellipse.

The old pedantics was to fiddle around with major axis and minor axis and F1
and F2. Remember the old pedantic of string attached to F1 and F2 and that
a pencil in the string will draw the ellipse.

Well, instead of that what I want in this new pedantic is that given a rectangle,
then what is the unique ellipse associated to that rectangle? And it is got from
the diagonals of the rectangle converted to the diameter of a circle and this circle
is then made to fit the 4 corners of the rectangle forming an ellipse. I get rid of
focal points and string.

The reason I want this for stringtheory is that the photon is perfect since the
Coulomb force is perfect and thus the photon would be a circle as a string. But the
Neutrino would be almost a circle since its restmass is tiny but not zero. So the
neutrino string would be almost a circle and almost a square instead of a
rectangle. But in the Strongnuclear force these string-ellipses would be very much
elongated especially when you get to heavy atomic nuclei such as uranium where the
nuclei are the most elongated.

I suspect that in Euler's Gamma Function that a string of stringtheory would rarely
become square or rectangle. That the photon would be the only circular
string and that most every other case of a string would be elliptical.

Can someone in mathematics tell me if my above method of getting ellipses
is a new method or whether some other mathematician has gone down that
path of describing ellipses? I would be awfully surprized if this is a new
method since so much of mathematics is trampled over and picked clean.

Archimedes Plutonium,
whole entire Universe is just one big atom where dots
of the electron-dot-cloud are galaxies

You see in terms of stringtheory, strings are energy entities. Like the equation
in physics of E = mc^2 in that the c^2 is either a circlestring or a squarestring.
If the string were a rectanglestring or a ellipsestring of energy it is no longer
as simple as cc but have something like xy.

Archimedes Plutonium,
whole entire Universe is just one big atom where dots
of the electron-dot-cloud are galaxies

Archimedes Plutonium wrote in message ...

SNIP

So I need a better way of going from circle to ellipse without foci and axes.
We can consider an ellipse as a squashed circle. We can consider a rectangle as
a squashed evenly square.

Consider rotating the circle about a diameter, (which becomes the
major axis of your ellipse), while a perpendicular diameter becomes
the minor axis as the circle is projected on a stationary,
(non-rotating), plane paralel to the major axis.

Proposal: If I start with a given rectangle and its 4 corners, I cannot construct a
circle by using those 4 corners.?...Snip - Insert - Why not? - Draw the diagonals. the intersection is the center, the corners lie on the circle.

... However, I can construct a ellipse using those
4 corners, but can I get a unique ellipse from a given rectangle? I think not. But I want a unique ellipse given a particular rectangle. So, if I determine the diagonal... snip

The corners will not give you a unique elipse, but if you connect the
midpoints of the oposite sides and use them as major and minor axes,
you've got one.

someone wrote:

Consider rotating the circle about a diameter, (which becomes the
major axis of your ellipse), while a perpendicular diameter becomes
the minor axis as the circle is projected on a stationary,
(non-rotating), plane paralel to the major axis.



Still cannot picture your above. Regardless it is too complicated. I need an
immediate and simple method.


The corners will not give you a unique elipse, but if you connect the
midpoints of the oposite sides and use them as major and minor axes,
you've got one.

Sounds like the ellipse is then inscribed inside the rectangle. I want the
rectangle inscribed inside the circle and ellipse.

I want to get away from axes. I want to connect a unique circle to a unique
ellipse using a unique rectangle. Every circle has a unique square inscribed.

By throwing in a circle into the construction, that circle ought to allow me to
get away without needing any axes or foci.

If the expression that a ellipse is a squashed circle has any truth to it then
some such construction ought to exist.

Archimedes Plutonium,
whole entire Universe is just one big atom where dots
of the electron-dot-cloud are galaxies

Unlike the Stringtheories that make no predictions, the Coulomb Unification makes a
ocean full of predictions. One of them is that the neutrino and antineutrino are the
carrier particles for the antigravity and gravity forces respectively. Not the
mythical graviton but the neutrino is the carrier particle.

And since the Antigravity force is localized to regions of the cosmos where
Gravity is local to our group of galaxies. That would predict that we see a
huge number of antineutrinos but rarely neutrinos. And that where astronomers in the
1990s saw Antigravity force, that such places would have a huge number
of neutrinos and that antineutrinos would be rare in that part of the cosmic
skys.

So I wonder if astronomers have observed this sort of imbalance that near
Earth there is a huge number of antineutrinos and few neutrinos and where
Antigravity was observed the reverse is true?

Another prediction of the Coulomb Unification is that the forces of StrongNuclear is
paired to WeakNuclear. And so these two dual forces
should have a carrier particle in common to both. I believe it is the neutron.
But since the neutrino and antineutrino are the antigravity and gravity force
particles, it would seem as though there should be two different types of
neutrons to keep the symmetry. Question: can we separate neutrons into
two classes just as neutrinos and antineutrinos are two classes? Perhaps when a
radioactive atom is on the threshold of decaying, that the neutron becomes
different? Not sure... but the Coulomb Unification demands symmetry.

Archimedes Plutonium,
whole entire Universe is just one big atom where dots
of the electron-dot-cloud are galaxies

Archimedes Plutonium wrote:

someone wrote:

Consider rotating the circle about a diameter, (which becomes the
major axis of your ellipse), while a perpendicular diameter becomes
the minor axis as the circle is projected on a stationary,
(non-rotating), plane paralel to the major axis.



Still cannot picture your above. Regardless it is too complicated. I need an
immediate and simple method.


The corners will not give you a unique elipse, but if you connect the
midpoints of the oposite sides and use them as major and minor axes,
you've got one.

Sounds like the ellipse is then inscribed inside the rectangle. I want the
rectangle inscribed inside the circle and ellipse.

I want to get away from axes. I want to connect a unique circle to a unique
ellipse using a unique rectangle. Every circle has a unique square inscribed.

By throwing in a circle into the construction, that circle ought to allow me to
get away without needing any axes or foci.

Sorry, I'm no help with the ellipse. But since, you've progressed
passed it; perhaps you could describe the construction of a circle,
without using an axis, for me. I could use that in some graphics I
work with.

Thanks.

Jim

Archimedes Plutonium wrote in message ...


Sounds like the ellipse is then inscribed inside the rectangle. I want the
rectangle inscribed inside the circle and ellipse.

I want to get away from axes. I want to connect a unique circle to a unique
ellipse using a unique rectangle. Every circle has a unique square inscribed.

By throwing in a circle into the construction, that circle ought to allow me to
get away without needing any axes or foci.

If the expression that a ellipse is a squashed circle has any truth to it then
some such construction ought to exist.

Archimedes Plutonium,
whole entire Universe is just one big atom where dots
of the electron-dot-cloud are galaxies

If you are looking for a unique elipse defined only by an inscribed
rectangle, you are out of luck. Four points arranged as the corners of
a rectangle define a whole family of elipses including one circle.
An elipse is not a 'squashed` circle, it is a rotated one.
("Conic Sections" - remember?)
Whether you like it or not, I believe that the relationship you are
looking for
does involve the rotation posted earlier.
Consider the circle with its inscribed square. (You didn't say you
had trouble with that.) If you rotate this figure about one side of
the square, and project it, you get a rectangle, (the square with one
set of opposite sides forshortened), and a unique circumscribed
elipse, (the circle rotated).
Hint: if you wanted to graph this elipse, you could multiply one set
of ordinates from the graph of the circle with its center at the
projected intersection of the diagonals of the square by the cosine of
the angle of rotation.

This is High School stuff. If you have trouble with these concepts,
you are wasting your time in attempting to understand, much less
modify, string theory.

Archimedes Plutonium wrote in message ...
Unlike the Stringtheories that make no predictions, the Coulomb Unification makes a
ocean full of predictions. One of them is that the neutrino and antineutrino are the
carrier particles for the antigravity and gravity forces respectively. Not the
mythical graviton but the neutrino is the carrier particle.

And since the Antigravity force is localized to regions of the cosmos where
Gravity is local to our group of galaxies. That would predict that we see a
huge number of antineutrinos but rarely neutrinos. And that where astronomers in the
1990s saw Antigravity force, that such places would have a huge number
of neutrinos and that antineutrinos would be rare in that part of the cosmic
skys.

So I wonder if astronomers have observed this sort of imbalance that near
Earth there is a huge number of antineutrinos and few neutrinos and where
Antigravity was observed the reverse is true?

Another prediction of the Coulomb Unification is that the forces of StrongNuclear is
paired to WeakNuclear. And so these two dual forces
should have a carrier particle in common to both. I believe it is the neutron.
But since the neutrino and antineutrino are the antigravity and gravity force
particles, it would seem as though there should be two different types of
neutrons to keep the symmetry. Question: can we separate neutrons into
two classes just as neutrinos and antineutrinos are two classes? Perhaps when a
radioactive atom is on the threshold of decaying, that the neutron becomes
different? Not sure... but the Coulomb Unification demands symmetry.

Archimedes Plutonium,
whole entire Universe is just one big atom where dots
of the electron-dot-cloud are galaxies

Does it present a problem for your theory, then, that there are
approximately 10^10 neutrinos/cm^2/s bombarding the Earth at any given
time? Or are there just a LOT more antineutrinos doing the same?

Archimedes Plutonium wrote in message ...
someone wrote:

Consider rotating the circle about a diameter, (which becomes the
major axis of your ellipse), while a perpendicular diameter becomes
the minor axis as the circle is projected on a stationary,
(non-rotating), plane paralel to the major axis.



Still cannot picture your above. Regardless it is too complicated. I need an
immediate and simple method.


The corners will not give you a unique elipse, but if you connect the
midpoints of the oposite sides and use them as major and minor axes,
you've got one.

Sounds like the ellipse is then inscribed inside the rectangle. I want the
rectangle inscribed inside the circle and ellipse.

I want to get away from axes. I want to connect a unique circle to a unique
ellipse using a unique rectangle. Every circle has a unique square inscribed.

By throwing in a circle into the construction, that circle ought to allow me to
get away without needing any axes or foci.

If the expression that a ellipse is a squashed circle has any truth to it then
some such construction ought to exist.

Archimedes Plutonium,
whole entire Universe is just one big atom where dots
of the electron-dot-cloud are galaxies

If you use two rectangles, I believe you can generate a both a unique
ellipse or circle by connecting their verticies, so long as the
rectangles do not have any identical verticies. I suppose if you were
to take a limit case, you might be able to generate some equation that
would give the result you're looking for.

Eg:
/================/
|-/----------------/-|
| / / |
|-/----------------/-|
/================/

Connect the eight outer verticies, and you get an ellipse. As the
verticies converge on each other, you maintain the ellipse. If you
took the limit as V1 - V1', V2 - V2' etc, you might be able to
generate a single equation for the ellipse in terms of the verticies
of the rectangle(s).

(AaronB) wrote in message . com...
Archimedes Plutonium wrote in message ...
someone wrote:

Consider rotating the circle about a diameter, (which becomes the
major axis of your ellipse), while a perpendicular diameter becomes
the minor axis as the circle is projected on a stationary,
(non-rotating), plane paralel to the major axis.



Still cannot picture your above. Regardless it is too complicated. I need an
immediate and simple method.


The corners will not give you a unique elipse, but if you connect the
midpoints of the oposite sides and use them as major and minor axes,
you've got one.

Sounds like the ellipse is then inscribed inside the rectangle. I want the
rectangle inscribed inside the circle and ellipse.

I want to get away from axes. I want to connect a unique circle to a unique
ellipse using a unique rectangle. Every circle has a unique square inscribed.

By throwing in a circle into the construction, that circle ought to allow me to
get away without needing any axes or foci.

If the expression that a ellipse is a squashed circle has any truth to it then
some such construction ought to exist.

Archimedes Plutonium,
whole entire Universe is just one big atom where dots
of the electron-dot-cloud are galaxies

If you use two rectangles, I believe you can generate a both a unique
ellipse or circle by connecting their verticies, so long as the
rectangles do not have any identical verticies. I suppose if you were
to take a limit case, you might be able to generate some equation that
would give the result you're looking for.

Eg:
/================/
|-/----------------/-|
| / / |
|-/----------------/-|
/================/

Connect the eight outer verticies, and you get an ellipse. As the
verticies converge on each other, you maintain the ellipse. If you
took the limit as V1 - V1', V2 - V2' etc, you might be able to
generate a single equation for the ellipse in terms of the verticies
of the rectangle(s).

Yes indeed. Very good avenue of thought. And I guess in the case of the
circle is the only curve that allows one square instead of two rectangles.

So one could say a Lemma exists that says a ellipse is a structure that
prohibits a square to be inscribed or circumscribed by a square.

But I am trying to fit your suggestion with the idea that a ellipse is a
squashed circle. Such that given a particular ellipse we generate the circle
for which we then squash to become that original ellipse. Question: can your
method of double rectangles connect with squashed circle???

Pretty solution!

Archimedes Plutonium
whole entire Universe is just one big atom where dots
of the electron-dot-cloud are galaxies