@@LuminalMind Thank you, I appreciate the encouragement. Slowly but surely I am zeroing in on something very interesting regarding how you can mathematically model Tetryonics and its applications. Hopefully I'll have enough progress to post another video regarding this mathematical modelling in a few weeks.
@@ruthlessoptimism1106 I have learned a lot from your general discussion over the years. I have many questions, but for now, might there be a little secret key hidden away in the special case of the cosine law? 30, 60, and 90 ratios, with your 'half triangles' assigning force vectors to each side... I know my mind oversimplifies these things, but I have nothing but encouragement to give you. We have Keplar orbital mechanics with elliptical paths, you've got probabilities distributed among deterministic fields, and you have 1000 times the mathematical know-how than I do. Yet, I find myself philosophizing all the time about what connections we still need to apply to make some real progress with this work at large. It's really nice to see you working on this, and I'll be watching.
Beat everybody to it. Good work sir! Edit: this is the singular most important video on the internet. Kyle Hill will be etched in history with the likes of Kelvin Abraham and Richard Blankenship, the pioneers of this discovery in universal truth. The way the behavior of the tetractys is described in this video perfectly clarifies the nature of quantum spin, among other things, and is a historic landmark greater than that of man on the moon. This is truly historic on a grand scale, congratulations Kyle Hill for your excellent presentation on tetryonic theory, which is in my opinion, the most conceivable model of reality to date. You should be very, very proud.
@@metaontology Do you mean Berkley the university? Or is that a person? I am not tracking what you are talking about, do you have any related buzzwords i can google?
Bravo! love the continuations... keep it up!
@@LuminalMind Thank you, I appreciate the encouragement. Slowly but surely I am zeroing in on something very interesting regarding how you can mathematically model Tetryonics and its applications. Hopefully I'll have enough progress to post another video regarding this mathematical modelling in a few weeks.
@@ruthlessoptimism1106 I have learned a lot from your general discussion over the years. I have many questions, but for now, might there be a little secret key hidden away in the special case of the cosine law? 30, 60, and 90 ratios, with your 'half triangles' assigning force vectors to each side... I know my mind oversimplifies these things, but I have nothing but encouragement to give you. We have Keplar orbital mechanics with elliptical paths, you've got probabilities distributed among deterministic fields, and you have 1000 times the mathematical know-how than I do. Yet, I find myself philosophizing all the time about what connections we still need to apply to make some real progress with this work at large. It's really nice to see you working on this, and I'll be watching.
Beat everybody to it. Good work sir!
Edit: this is the singular most important video on the internet. Kyle Hill will be etched in history with the likes of Kelvin Abraham and Richard Blankenship, the pioneers of this discovery in universal truth. The way the behavior of the tetractys is described in this video perfectly clarifies the nature of quantum spin, among other things, and is a historic landmark greater than that of man on the moon. This is truly historic on a grand scale, congratulations Kyle Hill for your excellent presentation on tetryonic theory, which is in my opinion, the most conceivable model of reality to date. You should be very, very proud.
It's the same geometry of the Tetractys. The triangular form of the number ten.
Kyle, did you see what Berkeley found!? We’re on fire!
@@metaontology Do you mean Berkley the university? Or is that a person? I am not tracking what you are talking about, do you have any related buzzwords i can google?
Its not an alternative theory. Its a standalone.
@@SuperSquark I dont understand what this difference in nomenclature means or why it matters.
It is the grand unified theory of everything as described by einstien. It is not an alternative theory, nor is it standalone.