Welcome to Fractal Forums

I solved for π on my link below.  We count into 1 to infinity as opposed to counting from 1 to infinity...Its Grade 6 math I cannot make it any simpler than that, but this species is still wrestling with it and I'm at my physical, spiritual, psychological, mental, sanity END...I got to get to to Michio Kaki cause this is String Theory and its up his alley, but he is ignoring me...can some one help me make this go viral....I solved for π and woman and children went homeless hungry and scared cause instead of waiting tables I pout my money in this, I don't care about me I care about my loved ones can people share this....IT WORKS!  

Here is the site for the Proof of π http://ashesmi.yolasite.com

Why not spell it out here instead of using this site to drive traffic to yours?

If you want to discuss something you really have to do a lot more than post a link - it is highly suspicious and I never click anything like that without knowing what to expect when I get there!

I have no clue what you even mean by "solved for n" because you failed to even mention in what equation or context you are talking about   :headbatting:

Read your post objectively.  I am not surprised Michio Kaki is ignoring you.  I would ignore anybody approaching me the way your post reads.

Your statement :


is completely meaningless to me.


Please try again.

Every tool (be it math, software, hardware, transportation or machines) falls or stands with it's usability and easy of use. You need to show that this math is applicable to specific real world problems, while keeping it easier than existing tools.

Oh... my... :)
You need some vacation my friend ;)

It is OK....this is a evolution thing, basically we use π to count with, π is wave, so we slam waves together at the quantum level and this is where we begin counting.  Which I could afford a vacation, but I've been slammiung my head against a brick wall for many years with this.  Now I am using this simple string theory to create a new Periodic Table of the Elements and I shall Physically prove this math to all my friends who were so knind in their reply.....I.....Am.....Going.....To.....Ignite.....The.....Earths.....Atmosphere :) ... With this new math I've developed, proof you need to politely discuss further, proof you shall have....

I've finished the Table of CHARGED Elements and discovered new (particles) which really are (waves), but that isn't as import and as proving it to all the kind people who were ever so objective and polite, so by Mid to Late April.... I.......Will......l......Light......The.......Air.......On......Fire :)  I hope this is enough proof for you :(  I cannot do any better than that I'm afraid 6 6 6 ;)

While lots of math freaks around here, nobody asked for proof (yet).

Since I'm an engineer, I do ask for the practical purpose. Real world applications, stuff that gets things done, you know?

By the way, 666 is nothing other than 999 turned upside down. Funny thing, try that with the other extreme limit from our digits ... 000.

Or 111, for that matter.

10.

that post...and that site...

(http://cdn.memestache.com/2011/12/13/paranoidparrot_105440_1325138405.jpg)

I vote for Trolling!

Look at this guy's previous posts.

All the same incomprehensible nonsense.

Kevin - if you are incapable of stating your argument coherently, I suggest you focus on finding somebody who is fluent in both English and whatever your native language is  (and PLEASE don't tell me your native language is English!!)  (if so, your case is hopeless and I suggest you find another hobby)  and focus on starting from the beginning and describe whatever it is you are trying to say clearly and concisely with no references to cryptic meaningless garbage like "at the quantum level" - that phrase clearly indicates you have no idea what you are saying.  I know about the quantum level, and what you are describing has absolutely nothing to do with it.

Your so-called "string fractions" do not exist anywhere outside of your mind that I could find.  Looking at the few you posted here before, many have a zero in the denominator, and as such are meaningless.  Any pattern built up from that as a starting point is also meaningless.

Please start making sense.  Focus only on communicating clearly for a start.  Nothing can possibly come of any discussion until you can do that!  We have restricted people from posting after they prove themselves incapable of clearly communicating before, and I would hate to see you become a candidate for that club.


EDIT TO ADD:  I am not trying to be harsh, and reading what I just wrote does sound harsh.  I am merely trying to point out that the manner in which you are only giving conclusions with no points of reference or proper build-up and background information makes you appear like you are not saying anything at all.

Treat us like children with no ideas about anything you are talking about and try to give us the background, then the ideas, then the conclusions.  You are obviously very passionate about this and I respect that.  But please don't get irrational and incoherent in your passion or you lose your audience  :evil1:

@quaz0r : is that sarcasm I detect?  :dink:

Kevin's facebook page says he's a writer... maybe this is part of a project or composition he's working on for a thesis on social propagation of fictional scenarios? no disrespect intended, Kevin, but coherence and clarity would help. As you can see you have some folks here who are willing to take you seriously if you can present things in a way that makes sense or perhaps, adds up.
I'm not a mathematician but I am curious...

edit: hmmm after another read the dialog is reminiscent of an AI proggie from my old Amiga called Ractor

There appears to be a misunderstanding..I will break this into simple little baby steps in hopes people might understand...

Step 1...this is how we count using waves at the quantum level...the video counts to 16 then cuts out because I have no help in finishing it....    https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=PJ61jToN7L0 (https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=PJ61jToN7L0) This is a GRADE 1 Children video....

Step 2...this berif video describes nominlization of numbers which is what Fractal Binary is... https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=1EGDCh75SpQ (https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=1EGDCh75SpQ)
These links are YouTube videos anyone serious please watch these 2 videos to get u up to speed...I will explain more in the next lesson which would be when we do Grade 6 Math and solve for π...the Mod here know I am not a troll, a troll is a hidden coward, I'm Kein Morais I Live in Toronto Canada I am not a Coward Hidden Sick Twisted Troll

There are a couple of bracket errors here and there and π is negative when filled but this is as good as it gets, I cannot make it any simplere cause I have no computer to make a children cartoon for the math experts (the ones rudly accusing me as a troll) to follow

(http://ashesmi.yolasite.com/resources/pi%20proof.png)

Those sure are some neat multilayered pictures of waves and collections of symbols.
Now where's the explanation for your notation?
What do equal-signs on fractions mean, for instance?
As is, this makes no sense. Not because it's hard to grasp but because there isn't even an explanation to begin to grasp it.

This is the Grade 6 Children book it came from, everything is there ;). Its only 9 pages long and takes only 10 minutes to read

http://ashesmi.yolasite.com/resources/Fractal%20Binary%20Grade%206.pdf (http://ashesmi.yolasite.com/resources/Fractal%20Binary%20Grade%206.pdf)

I have tried to "read" it but it looks meaningless.
Also I have seen thousands of formulas in my own life but noone looked like
(A=B->C)/(D=E->F)

:(

Explain us the meaning of that "notation"?

Ok so I tried to open the pdf you linked but it must be insanely large. I only got it to download to, like 10% within 15 minutes. Does it contain a lot of ginormous uncompressed images or something? Even 1000+ -page pdfs are normally done within maybe two minutes. This should not take that long.
If you want people to read your pdfs, make sure they can actually be downloaded.

Before I risk visiting your website  (and as of now it is still on my Highly Suspicious Website list)  (ESPECIALLY having read of the troubles downloading a simple pdf file!)  I will need you to somehow convince me that all that stuff is anything other than meaningless nonsense.

I tried to sit through this video, which you can embed here by posting the correct URL instead of the strange link you posted:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PJ61jToN7L0

Now that is absolutely meaningless!  There is nothing there at all besides The Cantor Set.  What is it trying to say besides promote some obscure music?

I have no idea if you are on to anything new here or not, and and am trying to give you the benefit of the doubt, but if you are incapable of stating the very basics of your point without posting outside links - I am not interested.

That only indicates that you don't understand it clearly enough yourself to explain it to others.

So I guess we're back to - Please try again.

Dave I'm sorry I cannot make it any simpler than that...it works, I'm sorry ur struggling with grade 6 math....I can't help you Dave, I'm sorry :(

Here is the Grade 6 Children Math Book Where We Solve For π....

Page 1....


(http://ashesmi.yolasite.com/resources/Jewelzequationsetflatt.png)


Page 2....

(http://ashesmi.yolasite.com/resources/Science%20Systems.png)

Page 3....


(http://ashesmi.yolasite.com/resources/Page2.png)

Page  4...


(http://ashesmi.yolasite.com/resources/Page5.png)


Page 5...

(http://ashesmi.yolasite.com/resources/999999jjjj.png)


Page 6....

(http://ashesmi.yolasite.com/resources/Page3.png)


Page 7...



(http://ashesmi.yolasite.com/resources/correct%20sollution.png)




Page 8....Proof for π equations can be found on page 6....


(http://ashesmi.yolasite.com/resources/pi%20proof.png)



Page 9....


(http://ashesmi.yolasite.com/resources/Jewelzequationsetflatt1.png)



Page 10...from this new math where we use "Nominalism" and π is 1 wave over wave frequency, and we count "INTO" 1 as OPPOSED To Counting FROM 1 Like Monkeys, we can now see a new Periodic Table of CHARGED Elements...not Particles but waves...here is the beginning of the Table....


(http://ashesmi.yolasite.com/resources/eeeeeeeee.jpg)



This is only an experiment of a new design of Periodic table of Charged Elements, I've rewritten all the Atoms as Wave over wave frequency, just trying to place them better...this is an old table, I have no money to upload any newer tables


(http://ashesmi.yolasite.com/resources/Yin%20Yang%20Table%201.png.opt860x211o0%2C0s860x211.png)





This is the 1+ Table, I view them as waves but to help people here out, I put numbers in place of waves....I developed this in grade 2....this is how long I have been working on fractal binary, its been 40 years in development....

(http://ashesmi.yolasite.com/resources/aaaaaaa.png)



This is the table in 2 dimensions but has symmetry

(http://ashesmi.yolasite.com/resources/bbbbbb.png)



This is how I feel....and this is my happy place and everyone is invited :) when I Prove the Math and I.....Ignite....The.....Atmosphere....On....Fire :) by Late April, and this isn't a joke, you really can lite Air on fire with this new math....so proof ye need proof ye shall get :) I've sort of kind of had it :)


(http://ashesmi.yolasite.com/resources/happy%20place.jpg)

Oh and to the Wonderful Mod...can you please remove all those comments and images about me being a Troll as their deflecting away from this thread and not relavent to this discussion.  Anyone complaining about this new math where we count using π please add 4+7 as string fractions first before you Objectively without emotion or feeling discus with me, Walter Lewin the MIT Physcis professor cannot even add simple string Fractions it seems...yes if you could be ever so kind and remove any comments not pertaining to this discussion in a friendly serious manner that would be appreciated :)

Ok, now I do want proof.  :police:

Bring me some videos of 6th graders, who can show that they fully understand the vague stuff you're trying to communicate about. Proof that this is the level of grade 6 math.

By the way, most of us here on FF have passed the 6th grade (or the local equivalent) without much problems on the math related subjects.

As an objective friend I don't think lighting the atmosphere is ... a ... good ... idea. (right now)
Taking a walk in the fresh air will be much more productive. You didn't really want to be mainstream anyways did you?
Keep the math as our little secret.

OK I won't light the atmosphere on fire yet....I'll just write the doomsday equation, the math does work...its like trying the teach a monkey how to light fire with 2 stones...but if I can get my rocks to work, I will ingnite the air as best I can, I'll come back with the Doomsday Equation K?   ;)

I think it would be better to hide the doomsday equation in an art piece! That way only those who understand it can read it. The rest will just think it is art. I look forward to it.

definitely trolling the way the silly rhetoric with the grade 6 and the nuclear holocaust stuff never changes, celebrating pi day a few days late with a prank   O0

I can now finally see what you are doing in pages 6, 7 and in the 1+ table.
You are really just encoding integers in wave-packages with frequencies of powers of 2.
The encoding is such that the time to transmit the signal would remain constant no matter how large the integer. Though to transmit higher and higher integers, you need to generate higher and higher frequencies and so to transmit infinity, you'd need an infinite amount of energy. - at some point long before that, though, you'd just reach the energy density limit.

It indeed isn't that hard but the lack of explanations makes it incredibly obscure.

Your notation is absolutely terrible although there is some twisted logic to it once it becomes clear what you even mean.

Now what I still do not get at all is the Jewelz Sets of yours. They are super weird, funky and unnecessarily complex.

So what you do is, you apply the following algorithm:

You keep halving your values, dropping the stuff past the dot:


It took four steps to do it, so s, the number of "physical wave sequences" is 4.
A different way to calculate this would be (where is the ceiling-function and means you must round up.)

The way your encoding works, integers take at most two frequencies, the higher of which being double the lower frequency. That's what you mean by "Total High" and "Low Physical frequencies" respectively. - That's how many repetitions of full cycles of the higher / lower frequency you need to represent your number, respectively.

You find these values with a couple more calculations:

First you find what you call the "low wave potential" which is the frequency of the lower of the two waves (so the "high wave potential" would automatically be twice that).



so for the above example, .

From there you find the number of repetitions of the higher frequency through the simple formula where we just calculated L' and T is the original integer, so
.

Now, from the original number and the number of high frequency repetitions needed, you calculate the number of low frequency repetitions.



So now we know that you need L=7 repetitions of a L'=8 Hz wave and H=2 repetitions of a H'=2L'=16 Hz wave (if you choose your frequency unit to be Hz)

In other words, you can write "9" as th seconds of a 16Hz wave followed by th seconds of an 8Hz wave.
You write this as

For some reason you choose to write your waves high first low last while, in the fraction notation, you use low first high last. This seems a little inconsistent but ok, if that was the only problem with your notation, it wouldn't be nearly as confusing. I'd probably write this as something like or, since the denominators are always powers of 2, one could also write or, since the lower frequency always is twice the higher frequency, one could also write and the notation would be well-defined without redundancies. The subscript simply denotes what power of two the higher frequency should be. So you need full cycles of a Hz wave, followed by cycles of a Hz wave.

Furthermore, you add an extra step. I'm not quite sure at this point whether you add it because the "low wave potential" L' doesn't always equal the necessary lower frequency, and it just so happens to do so in case of 9 or this step (step 7) is redundant.

Ok so to summarize, you found an interesting way to write down any integer in a compact form that always just needs two "digits" of varying power.

And you found a pattern of addition of integers in a table. (The "+1 table").

All fine and dandy.

But what is that supposed to do? A new, convoluted way to write down numbers. Woo.Hoo.

How do those numbers help at all with addition?
How do you do multiplication, division, powers or any other interesting operation?
How do you write down fractions or decimal numbers or...?
And other than that pi defines half the edge-length of a full circle which is linked to cycles and waves, what does all this have to do with pi?

Even after this frankly over-patient effort to understand, most of this seems overly complex or redundant and there is nothing explaining your two "Periodic Table of Charged Elements"s.

I still don't get what half of your notation even means - it appears redundant.

Note that I managed to write the equations I grasped above in straight forward, traditional notation just fine. I even shortened your apparently purely iterative approach to find L' to a single function call. It's less redundant and it's clearer.
Perhaps you, hopefully understanding yourself what you even mean, can write down the rest of the content in the posted pages in a more traditional, less redundant manner?

Edit:
Here is an example arbitrarily chosen for 1337:



I bet (though I didn't attempt to actually read that) this Jewelz Set is something like an iteration on the above:
You could convert 626 and 711 in a similar fashion:





and having those two you could also write

etc. and you could repeat that until you get minimal values everywhere. This causes a tree of sorts of notations which, in your convoluted notation, might approach something that looks like those Jewelz Sets.

Edit: Apparently the TeX plugin is confused as to how it decides to show \lceil and \rceil. I don't think I've done anything to cause it to alternate between single and double bar. Not sure what's up with that. I'm still hoping you'll eventually adopt the much better-looking math-jax. I know you don't like additional java scripts and what not but the TeX plugin this forum uses just is so finnicky. It can't even ignore multi-spaces. It just reads them as syntax error. And then it does weird formatting nonsense like the above.

Sorry, but we don't lightly delete members' posts.  They can edit the posts themselves if they choose to do so.  And honestly, at the time they were made they were entirely appropriate.  

I feel compelled to point out that I would sincerely hope you set the atmosphere on fire!  It can only help the world situation politically, so please do so promptly and with alacrity.  It would certainly put an abrupt end to all confusion about what you are trying to say here and nobody would ever see the posts you asked to have removed  O0

No.

Please reply to:


Which was posted earlier.

Or else I ask you to please get lost quick as lightning, which is actually the sky on fire.

 :banana: :hit:  :chilli:

Sorry but I really have to drop this classic article here: http://math.ucr.edu/home/baez/crackpot.html

Regarding point 8, although there is no reference to "Einstien", "Hawkins" or "Feynmann", I think I saw "Kaki" in there somewhere :D

Here is the Grade 6 equivalent that some are looking for ...

https://isotropic.org/papers/chicken.pdf (https://isotropic.org/papers/chicken.pdf)

Ryan

 :confused:


 :rotfl:

Ryan D, I have added this presentation for clarity:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yL_-1d9OSdk

wow those people go absolutely apeshit for that guy  ;D

Agreed.

I think that's enough.  At first this was allowed because no effort to explain himself coherently was forthcoming, but he made an effort  (albeit a failing one, but an effort none the less!), and that must be respected.

Please let's wait and see if anything intelligible comes of this.

If not, please don't let this thread devolve into name-calling and other insults.  I don't want to lock the thread, so let's hope it gets back to some semblance of explaining this so-called 6th grade math!  I am still curious about it, even if very highly skeptical, so let's at least give him a chance to continue trying to put this into intelligible terms.

Thanks.

interpreting due to language barrier... perhaps 6th Grade == 6th Year University :hmh:
@kevinmorais if you can post in the board for your language I'm sure the important stuff will propagate :)

guys, have you even read my post?
This math is indeed really simple. Once you get to logarithms and exponentials, you understand what's happening there.
The problem isn't the math, it's the almost logic-free notation.
The involved math is, in fact, so simple, that I don't see at all how anybody could think that it is revolutionary, let alone giving you the power to "set the atmosphere on fire" or what not.

All this is is one more in a long list of representations of positive integers.

Actually, yes.  I read your post, but was no closer to making sense of what was posted.  I didn't get the idea that even you understood how it worked with respect to the notation given. 

I followed what you said, but had great difficulty applying it to the examples given and was totally unable to make any sense of the notation he used!

I really hoped there would be some sort of clarification about just exactly what is being hinted at here, but I somehow doubt we will get that.

Shame.

I wanted to see what the atmosphere would look like on fire   O0

Well, what I got from this was this:
He tried to find a way to represent any positive integer in a wave packet.

Now, the easiest way to represent a number as a wave packet would simply be to go:
0 = 0Hz
1 = 1Hz
2 = 2Hz
...
but he apparently wanted to find a way that is more compact? - His representation allows up to two frequencies to be used. Why? No idea, but that's what he did.

So apparently he worked on an appropriate representation for a whopping 40 years.
What he came up with was, that you could use frequencies of powers of two for this purpose, using the following construction:

0 would simply be 0Hz.
1 would be 1Hz.
2 would be 2Hz.
3 and beyond would be different though:
for you'd first half the number (rounding down to a full integer each time) until you reach 1 and count how many steps that took.
This happens to be equal to , if I'm not mistaken. That's the variable he uses.

With this he finds the two frequencies he chose for his representation: and .

More conventionally you might want to name those and or something.

From here you must construct how often to repeat a wave (e.g. how often to go through ) to uniquely represent your given integer.
He uses an additional constraint here: Every integer must be exactly a second long. i.e. precisely a full 1Hz wave must  happen.

So this restricts how many repetitions of the lower- and higher-frequency wave you need. For instance, this restriction automatically means that you can only ever have an even number of repetitions of the higher frequency since else the intervals wouldn't add up to be precisely one second long.

Next, to get to the number of high frequencies necessary, you take the original number and subtract from it the low frequency and, as anticipated to be necessary, you make sure it is even by multiplying that by 2: .
From there you then find the number of repetitions for the low frequency to be your original number minus the just found high frequency repetitions: . - This gives rise to a pattern you can see in this notation, namely that the sum of repetitions of the high and low frequency (the numerators of the fractions of his weird fractional notation) is equal to the original integer.

This construction also causes all integer powers of 2 to only feature a single frequency. (i.e. the numerator of the left fraction, which denotes the repetitions of the the lower-frequency wave is 0 for those values, so the lower frequency doesn't actually happen and the corresponding representations coincide with the more straightforward representation given in the beginning.)

Here is his notation and what may be a more usual notation side by side wherever I actually get his notation:


... by this he means, that he can write the wave representation of a given number as the lower frequency wave plus/followed by the higher frequency wave.

"count how often you need to halve T to make it equal to 1. Disregard the digits after the decimal point"
So basically, this is a substitution/iteration. actually doesn't mean "", it means "" as in "replace by ".
Meanwhile, the arrow doesnt mean a limit in the usual sense. It's not "This is what this will go against" per se, nor is it "replace the previous expression with the following", both of which would be more usual interpretations for it. No, here means "stop once you reach the following".

So something like really means

What I'm not entirely sure about is what the logic behind the varying prime notation (i.e. would mean.
Since only one of the various symbols even uses I'd almost think it's a typo if it didn't consistently happen throughout the entire... err... work.

The various instances of and are just what gotta be the most confusing way to denote units as of yet. You can completely ignore them. They literally just mean "this is a wavelength" or "frequency" respectively. Mentally set them to 1.

And as for the "Jewelz-Set" I have a strong hunch that this is basically the same idea iterated upon.

My guess is that this "Jewelz-Set" for 9 would be the following:


Where now, 9 is represented solely by powers of 2. (I simply iterated the same algorithm for all values that aren't a power of 2. If you continue from here, you'll just end up with the same thing repeated over and over.)

In his own notation this would be something like:



It's basically just confusing and pointless. It does make for some neat fractal patterns of smaller and smaller numbers in more and more towering fractions though, so at least it has that going for it which some may find nice. (As said you could totally continue this ad infinum if you don't stop at powers of 2. You'd just get more of the same powers of 2 and a bunch of 0s though, which doesn't seem particularly useful (even relative to any of this) but it does maximize fractalness.)

Thanks kram1032.

Kevin clearly is communicating a very personal Insight and has continued here because he feels some here will help him. I think that has proved to be the case and your analysis is something he should take to heart and consider.

Thank you Sockratese for taking the time to moderate fairly but firmly, which again I think Kevin appreciates.

I would reiterate that we are not a bear or troll bating forum. So if you feel someone is Trolling do report it for moderation, and refrain from name calling or ad Hominem attacks. No one has to support or read a thread they disagree with. And if someone is trolling moderators can, have and will deal with it.

As a general rule : it is the responsibility of any inventor or claimant to provide demonstration of their claim. This usually means the claimant must learn the usual conventions or provide access to his or her notation starting with the usual conventions. This is a lot of hard work often for little gain!

However, if the claimant believes he has a benefit to society he will put in that labour for as long as it takes. This is a common characteristic of many men and women we only now recognise as great contributors.

But the harsh reality is that perhaps one in a million of those such " geniuses" will ever get their work recognised, and the benefit translated to society. In that light Kevin, you have to make your own judgement about priorities, and whether or not having a family might not be a better use of some of your time.

For example, Justus Grassmann had an idea, but it was his family that brought it onto the world stage!

In any case, Kevin, if you study how Kram1032 has presented your ideas you may be able to communicate in this fashion to an apprehending audience, learning to use conventions conventionally.!

The cycle of 8 and the periodic table is a natural target for your structure, but chemicals are not numbere or patterns of semicircles. You will need to develop expertise in chemistry, not math to ignite the air beyond the simplest burning match reduction! And that will require you to learn a whole other set of conventions to communicate.

A sketch of an idear, what this all may mean?





...


What happens if we only have with

instead of


How would a wave then look like?

I do not have time to peruse Kevins Work in Detail, so i am pleased that Kram1032 has taken such an interest.

However, to me it is clear that Kevin is modelling matter as waves, as opposed to atoms. This is why he works within a restricted period.

The number representation he has chosen is meant to model the periodic table of elements, as a Menedeleyev or Russellian Pattern. The bold figure is like the atomic number or atomic weight and the figures either side the supposed electron s shell numbers.

All our sciences rely on proportion which is why mathematics is wrongly given such high respect, a respect really due to Geometry or Astrology as devised by the Pythagorean school. These proportions and how he derives them are not new, it is his notation that is novel.

His notation derives from his strong belief in waves as the fundamental materiality, and for him this makes the periodic table a wave pattern diagram.

How useful his notation and method may turn out to be for chemists i do not know, but i imagine that if you replaced the atomic numbers with the element name it may reveal something.

2 things that interest me are:
Does an algorithm eist that does this already making computation of chemical formulae and chemical reactions possible? if so does Kevins notation simplify the algorithm ? or is it in fact more complex and less robust?

 Can a fractal colouring algorithm be developed using Kram1032 analysis of the pattern? That one would be more relevant to members here if it were possible and interesting.

Interestingly, due to how pi is defined as the ratio of the circumference to the diameter of a circle, and how, in general relativity, gravity distorts space-time and thus changes the diameter of massive spheres, you actually can, in reality, sort of get different, mass-dependent values s. This isn't a hard truth reality though. It's just a chosen interpretation. Still, you could probably do some weird stuff like defining the exponential function or sine and cosine or such in the context of general relativity to use a varying pi. It probably would be overly complex for accomplishing very little as far as actual useful real-world applicable math goes, but it might have some interesting patterns which could potentially be used for pretty pictures.

I can't speak to using this as a coloring algorithm, but it would fall far short of the existing models for predicting chemical reactions.  As a chemist, I can assure you that such predictions are easy but depend little on atomic mass and much more on electronegativity and, yes, geometry of molecules.

In college I wrote a program that takes the output from an Infrared Spectrophotometer and uses it to identify the stuff in the sample (at least narrow it down to just a few possibilities which would also need Nuclear Magnetic Resonance Spectrometer data to draw a firm conclusion - just like in the real world!).

If he wants to use waves to represent atomic numbers, how does this relate to ions and ionic charge, which are the basis of all chemical reactions?  What about isomers?  How could it adapt to the fractional masses used in the periodic table to show average distributions when it seems to only be an integer system?  For that matter, what about partial charges and intermediates formed in reactions?

I have been working in Qualitative Chemistry for so long that my Quantitative is admittedly quite rusty, and my specialized math skills needed to relate this idea to real world situations have not been used in so long I would need a refresher course to go into details, so I refrain from passing any judgement on this notion, but remain intrigued.

Have you heard of the Schwartzchild Proton?

Fascinating theory which posits that the mass of a proton confined in the radius they claim it has obeys the Schwartzchild conditions for it to actually be a black hole!  A very small one, but a black hole none the less.

It turns much of what we know on it's head, so it's not getting the attention I think it deserves.  But it sort of relates to your point about massive spheres distorting space-time.