Page 1 of 3 123 LastLast
Results 1 to 30 of 85

Thread: Unifying Theory

  1. #1

    Unifying Theory

    1 of 2

    I never started this with the intent of defining some ridiculously complex formula which only an Albert Einstein or Max Plank could understand, I went into it with the notion the answer was already there. I figured it should be a fairly simple problem ultimately, because absolute nothing was the lowest common denominator. It doesn't get any simpler than that, so it should be understandable in plain English, and definable in plain English, with one simple formula requiring nothing but a logical understanding of nature. That's exactly what I went looking for in physics.

    From that simple point absolute chaos ensues and the problem grows exponentially, but the answer in my mind would come from a logical understanding of the process, not by wrangling the chaos one quanta at a time. Maybe I'm wrong, but I don't think so.

    Ultimately the solution should exceed hard mathematical proof, because the answer lies in the infinite. It's our brains job to devise a logical solution when infinity is involved. The hard math simply represents a tool for understanding, but math is not understanding itself. I think that's probably what Einstein meant when he said, “Imagination is more important than knowledge.” The math can help lead you to the wobbly edge of knowledge, but eventually that math becomes useless in defining our sense of reality. Imagination combined with logic are the only tools that can succeed when the math fails us, and applied correctly, will gain us the knowledge to move beyond to the next level of understanding.

    So, without any further ado, the magic formula is;

    -i / +i = -1 (i=infinity)

    I know it doesn't look to difficult to grasp, but give this to anyone in physics and they'll most likely blow a gasket. They tend to hate the use of infinity in any mathematical formula. They don't want it in the universe, and they don't want it in a formula, and they generally don't even want to discuss it. We are finite. We are not expanding into any part of infinity. There is absolutely nothing beyond the universe, etc, etc, etc. Personally, I think it's the only way to solve the problem logically, so I really don't care about opinions on the matter, because an opinion is all it truly is when it comes right down to it. It is a logical opinion, or perspective on an infinite state, and what that state represents to us physically. No one knows what it means with any sense of certainty, period. Just because someone has schooling in physics, doesn't make them anymore of an authority on the subject then anyone else. It's an open subject begging for a definition as far as I'm concerned. Infinity is an intrinsic part of who we are, because we are immersed in an infinite vastness. It's undeniable.

    What does infinity represent?

    When I imagine the infinite vastness around us, I see motion. It's like reaching out to grab something that keeps moving a little further out of reach. As hard as you try to grab that something, it just keeps inching a little further away. It is a perpetual process which expands outward forever, never reaching a conclusion, because there is no final destination. That something just keeps on going and going forever, infinitely moving away, infinitely growing in size and magnitude, but never reaching that unobtainable end point within the infinite vastness. There is no edge, no sides, no middle. There is no top or bottom, left or right. There's no up or down. There is nothing but a dark empty vastness waiting to be defined as you reach further and further outward to grab that something. This state of expansiveness represents the positive side of infinity.

    On the reciprocal side, things are exactly opposite, but still equal. It's like trying to place that same something in the palm of your hand, only to have it disappear. You thought it was there a second ago, but now you're not sure. You squint your eyes, move a little closer, and you think it's there again, and then it's gone. It keeps slipping through your grasp forever. You never could really see it, but you thought it was something, and then it was nothing. It represents a constant motion inward, perpetually moving that perceived something to an ever smaller state. There is no bottom limit, only an implied perception of something. This contracting state represents the negative side of infinity.

    Both the positive and negative side of infinity represents a perpetual vastness inward and outward, which tugs against a virtual middle. It is an unresolvable mathematical problem stuck in the resolution process. Every quanta of somethingness that we perceive is a product of this infinite calculation forever trying to reach a point of equilibrium between two conflicting forces of nature. It is the positive side of infinity against the negative side of infinity, and the proof lies in +i / -i = -1.

    Science has pondered the question of why matter dominated over antimatter in the early universe. It's a fairly simple answer in my mind really, because our universe has a preference of -1, not +1. Although I recognize the probability of multiverses, their relevance in defining our universe is extraneous information at this point, so I'll just touch on the subject for a moment.

    Sure, there probably is another universe where +i / -i = +1, but that universe would work reciprocal to ours, and would lie outside our finite limits. There's probably trillions upon trillions of universes being born every fraction of a second, and they could be stacked one on top of another. We could be an atom within a larger universal structure, and that larger universal structure could be an atom in another. The possibilities are endless, but virtually meaningless in understanding ours.

    One thing is fairly certain in my mind; all the physics in each possible universe would be perceived exactly the same as ours, because each one would either be represented as a -1, or +1. For us, that answer was -1. The proof? We're here asking the questions. If a point of equilibrium was ever possible nothing would happen. Infinity would reach a perfect balance, so +i / -i would always equal a neutral i, and we wouldn't be here. There would be a lot of potential, but the energy within that potential would forever build. I tend to think the underlying geometry of pi is ultimately the reason we're here, because pi never resolves.

    (continued on next post)

  2. #2
    2 of 2

    The shape of our universe is somewhat tricky to define. Infinity is similar to a 2-dimensional line forever stretching out in opposite directions. An infinite line though, runs in and out. Our universe is a break, or a division of that line, which can best be described as a line segment. The only way that break in infinity can form is spherically, which opens dimension between the vastness outward and vastness inwards. Our universe is similar in shape to a ping pong ball, and all that we experience occurs within that fragile wall. It's a pretty thick wall though from our relative perspective, because it stretches out about 13.7 billion light years.

    By all observations though, this shape is more a virtual shape than anything else. Yes, we have an interior and exterior wall that wraps around to form a hollow spherical shape, but you can't claim the interior wall is the center of our universe. It's a line segment that happens to be spherical in nature, and neither end of a line segment can represent a center. The exterior and interior walls are simply end points that represent a finite limit to us. We can imagine it as a center, but the center is not a real destination, like the exterior is not a real destination. They are virtual limitations that make our universe finite in nature. For the sake of simplicity though, we can call it the center of the universe, because there is a definite orientation to the universe from our relative perspective.

    Every piece of observable something within our universe can be represented as points within that universal line segment. Those points can also be considered the approximate middle, or virtual centers of our universe. Each one is unique in its own way, and its view of the universe is always relative to its scale. The reason matter always appears relative to the center of the universe, is because matter is a division of the universal line segment, so it also takes on the exact same properties as the universal line segment at -i/+i=-1. Although the -1 is a completely conceptual or logical concept, it represents a relative constant to that matter. This is roughly why the constancy of C always appears the same no matter how fast you are perceived to be traveling, because that perspective is always from a state of -1.

    Like the universe, matter doesn't have a center, because matter is also a line segment separating the infinite vastness outward from an infinite vastness inward. The exterior and interior walls are simply finite limits defined by that line segment, and those limits are defined by the universal line segment at -1. This doesn't change any of the physics that have already been defined at the quantum level, but it says our perspective on the quantum level is a relative perspective. The smallest Plank plank length could be the size of an entire galaxy, because the base from which we measure is not static, its malleable and ever changing.

    I made what was considered a fairly irrelevant prediction about 2 years ago based on this concept, and stated the Higgs particle would not be found. Although I still feel it's possible we may find something mathematically that looks and acts similar to a Higgs, because that's what the math appears to tell us. I saw it as an improbable cause of anything though, and unnecessary. There is nothing in the center of mass except a potential for infinite vastness, and the limit of that vastness is defined by the finite universal line segment at -1. That -1 is simply an unobtainable point of reference though, because it represents a constant of perspective. Simply put, there is no source of energy within mass, because that energy source lies outside of mass in both directions of infinity, and also lies outside the universe in both directions of infinity. Nothing within our universe constitutes a cause of energy within mass. We are an effect of an infinite source of energy which acts upon us in a finite manner. So no, energy cannot be created or destroyed within our universe, because we are an effect or a definition of that infinite energy source, not energy itself. All of the energy we experience is derived kinetically from the source.

    From what I saw at the time I made the prediction, science would simply keep accelerating particles at higher and higher energies and just keep finding more pieces to the puzzle. Ultimately, nothing lies in the middle except an infinite potential of scale which is not viewable in finite terms. It is that something which will forever slip out of our grasp no matter how hard we try to observe it. You thought it was there, and then you're not sure. We then accelerate the particle a little more to magnify it, and maybe we find a few more pieces inside, but then nothing. Mass is kind of like one of those Russian eggs, where you open one, and find another, and open that one, and find another. Once you get to the last egg though, you realize nothing is there except the same space you're looking at in the vastness that surrounds you. Then we're left scratching our heads wondering what e=mc^2 actually means.

    An odd thing happened in this discovery process. I could no longer determine which way the universe was heading, inward or outward. I think if we follow the laws of physics though, an answer becomes apparent. It is known physics that energy attenuates from the source. I've suggested that all the energy in the universe is a result of an infinite condition, which pits the expansive potential of infinity outward, versus the contractive potential inward. It is the positive against the negative, and the result is a -1 perceptual perspective. Size becomes a totally irrelevant concept, and virtually meaningless in describing nature.

    In the very beginning of the universe, the positive and negative end points of the universal line segment were touching more or less. Dimension opens up between those two points, so the source of energy that caused the universe is separating. Our mass represents middle points along that universal line segment, so we are attenuating from the initial source of the energy exactly as we understand normally in physics, because both sources are moving away from all the middles. Our mass is depleting at a constant rate of -1 as the universe is perceived to expand outward. Overall, the positive and negative source of the infinite energy is also moving away from the overall universe, so the entire universe is depleting in energy at a rate of -1 as well. One of these can be considered expansion, and the other acceleration, exactly as we observe. Expansion itself though, is a mere perspective, or virtual state, not a physical reality. Our entire universe is simply attenuating from the source of energy, so overall we are are shrinking in scale at a rate of X, not expanding outward as we observe.

    The Red Shift never defined a direction, we did based on our Earthly perspective of solid ground and fixed points of reference. Yes, you could look at it that way, and mathematically everything would seem to check, but the problem is reciprocal in nature, so either view would result in the same apparent answer. The reason is fairly simple, because our entire perspective on the universe stems from a relative perspective of -1, which is a malleable and depleting state, not static.

    At some point in time, our atoms could have been as large as basketballs or entire galaxies, but we would never have notice because scale is a relative perspective. The entire universe is scaling inward, most likely at a rate of C as near as I can imagine. Size means nothing to the universe, only to us and our relative perspective.

    Within the contracting process there are a lot of bumps and density changes, which always maintains a relative perspective of -1. That -1 represents a constant of energy flow, which enters through one end and exits out the other. There isn't any property in the universe that is not impacted by this negative flow. Space is contracting, mass is contracting, mass-less particles are contracting, waves are contracting, and anything else that can be observed or experienced. The entire universe, and all contents within the universe contracts inward. Expansion itself is a virtual perspective, not a physical reality like a balloon inflating. It's more like a balloon deflating, and all the little balloons (particles) inside the bigger balloon are deflating at a slightly higher rate, and all the little balloons inside those are once again deflating at a slightly higher rate. It's a slightly imperfect deflation process working against all matter in the universe.

    I could go on explaining gravity in general terms, or explaining motion and time in general terms, but it becomes difficult without the core mathematics to back it up, which I am incapable of performing. I don't have those tools at my disposal. In general though, this theory is the unifying theory between GR and QP. It doesn't come in the form of a nice clean definable answer though, like e=mc^2, it comes to us in the form of logic at -i/+i=-1. We know in no uncertain terms that the answer is correct, but what we've had trouble grasping is the infinite. All we need to do is trust the logic which has served us well for 100's of years. What we gain is not a new brand of physics, rather a deeper understanding of the processes which animate our sense of reality. Both GR and QP are relative to -1.

    It is that simple understanding that helps make this universe comprehensible. The illusion of substance for instance, is easily understood as 2 points contracting away from each other. It's about the only way to get something out of nothing, so it's not very hard for the average person to grasp. The details of the process are enormously complex though, but I think we already have a fairly good grasp on those intrinsic details as defined by quantum physics. I never set out to redefine what we already knew, I set out to to understand what made the whole thing work. Yes, some ideas will change dramatically, like the BB, and motion, but in the end they are simply inverted perspectives we've been chasing. They were right to a degree, but the actual solution was their reciprocal state.

    The vast majority in physics will reject this theory, not because it's wrong, because they reject the use of infinity. Infinity is the universal engine driving all that we are. It is perfect, and perpetual in nature. We are a temporary finite resolve to an infinitely large logic problem that's still working on a final answer that will never be reached. We are the entanglement between two virtual particles interacting at the very spooky distance of the entire length of the universe.

    (end)

  3. #3
    Join Date
    Aug 2003
    Location
    The Wild West
    Posts
    7,600
    it comes to us in the form of logic at -i/+i=-1
    There is precious little logic in your composition. Way too many words. Too much "poetry." You are presenting a highly dubious "answer," but you have not identified the question. By the way, the letter "i" in math and physics is already taken.

    The vast majority in physics will reject this theory
    I question whether you have presented a "theory," but other than that, this is one statement you are right about.
    Everyone is entitled to his own opinion, but not his own facts.

  4. #4
    Quote Originally Posted by Cougar View Post
    There is precious little logic in your composition. Way too many words. Too much "poetry." You are presenting a highly dubious "answer," but you have not identified the question. By the way, the letter "i" in math and physics is already taken.



    I question whether you have presented a "theory," but other than that, this is one statement you are right about.
    Are you suggesting (-a / +a) doesn't equal -1?

    The logic is irrefutable if you ask me.

    I know the letter I was taken. In programming however, a variable can be anything I want to make it, so it's an irrelevant comment.

    The rest of your comments are simply opinions.

  5. #5
    Join Date
    Mar 2007
    Location
    Falls Church, VA (near Washington, DC)
    Posts
    4,755
    Quote Originally Posted by andreasjva View Post
    Are you suggesting (-a / +a) doesn't equal -1?

    The logic is irrefutable if you ask me.

    I know the letter I was taken. In programming however, a variable can be anything I want to make.

    The rest of your comments are simply opinions.
    Infinity is not a specific number, so -infinity/infinity is indeterminate. Infinity is a concept that has had mathematicians scratching their heads throughout history. On top of that there are hierarchies of infinity. For example there are infinitely many integers. Between any two of them there are infinitely many rational fractions. It goes on and on.

    Perhaps there is a profound line of thought in your head, but I am unable to ascertain it from your voluminous strings of words.

  6. #6
    Join Date
    Oct 2009
    Location
    a long way away
    Posts
    8,521
    Quote Originally Posted by andreasjva View Post
    Are you suggesting (-a / +a) doesn't equal -1?
    Not when a = infinity.

    The rest of your comments are simply opinions.
    As are your posts... And I struggle to see any meaning in them.

    They don't want it [infinity] in the universe, and they don't want it in a formula, and they generally don't even want to discuss it.
    What do you base this on? It isn't known if the universe is finite or infinite, but it has certainly been discussed.

    It's a fairly simple answer in my mind really, because our universe has a preference of -1, not +1.
    How do you know that the "universe has a preference of -1"? (If that even means anything.)

    Infinity is similar to a 2-dimensional line forever stretching out in opposite directions.
    Wouldn't a "2 dimensional line" be a surface?

    And an infinite line doesn't have to stretch out in both directions. Take the number line of positive integers; it starts at 1 and stretches out to infinity in one direction.

    An infinite line though, runs in and out.
    Ian and out of what?

    Our universe is a break, or a division of that line, which can best be described as a line segment. The only way that break in infinity can form is spherically...
    Why? And how can a line segment be spherical? You have made your line (which should be 1 dimensional) go from 2 to 3 dimensions. This is mathematically meaningless.

    ... which opens dimension between the vastness outward and vastness inwards.
    What does that mean?

    matter doesn't have a center
    What about the centre of the earth?

    matter is also a line segment separating the infinite vastness outward from an infinite vastness inward
    What?

    I gave up trying to extract any meaning at that point ...

  7. #7
    Quote Originally Posted by Hornblower View Post
    Infinity is not a specific number, so -infinity/infinity is indeterminate. Infinity is a concept that has had mathematicians scratching their heads throughout history. On top of that there are hierarchies of infinity. For example there are infinitely many integers. Between any two of them there are infinitely many rational fractions. It goes on and on.

    Perhaps there is a profound line of thought in your head, but I am unable to ascertain it from your voluminous strings of words.
    No, infinity is not a specific number, we are. I don't care about numbers, I care about answers. We're here, so infinity can eek out a finite result, even if there are an infinite number of potential finite results. Infinity is a process with no resolve, which lies outside our finite universe. We are a result, not a cause of ourselves.

  8. #8
    Join Date
    Oct 2009
    Location
    a long way away
    Posts
    8,521
    Quote Originally Posted by andreasjva View Post
    1 of 2
    Did you have a question?

  9. #9
    Quote Originally Posted by Strange View Post
    Not when a = infinity.
    Who made that claim?

  10. #10
    Join Date
    Oct 2009
    Location
    a long way away
    Posts
    8,521
    Quote Originally Posted by andreasjva View Post
    Who made that claim?
    Er, you did:
    -i / +i = -1 (i=infinity)
    Which is just wrong.

  11. #11
    Quote Originally Posted by Strange View Post
    Did you have a question?
    Sorry about that. I inadvertently posted this in the wrong spot, and asked a moderator to move it.

  12. #12
    Quote Originally Posted by Strange View Post
    Which is just wrong.
    Because, you said so?

  13. #13
    Join Date
    Oct 2009
    Location
    a long way away
    Posts
    8,521
    Quote Originally Posted by andreasjva View Post
    I made what was considered a fairly irrelevant prediction about 2 years ago based on this concept, and stated the Higgs particle would not be found.
    I'm not sure how you are able to make any predictions about quantum theory based on one (incorrect) mathematical statement.

    The vast majority in physics will reject this theory, not because it's wrong, because they reject the use of infinity.
    No they don't. What is your evidence for that?

    Infinity is the universal engine driving all that we are. It is perfect, and perpetual in nature.
    Which particular infinity are you talking about? (there are an infinite number of them, as I'm sure you know) In what way is it "perfect"?

  14. #14
    Join Date
    Oct 2009
    Location
    a long way away
    Posts
    8,521
    Quote Originally Posted by andreasjva View Post
    Because, you said so?
    No. Because mathematics says so. Maybe you should spend a little time learning some.

  15. #15
    Quote Originally Posted by Strange View Post
    No. Because mathematics says so. Maybe you should spend a little time learning some.
    Well, we're here having this conversation within the infinite, so I beg to differ. We obviously can't punch it into a calculator within our universe, but it seems to me the universe doesn't have a problem punching the results of our universe into its calculator.

    I stand by the mathematical logic that -i/+i=-1. That's seemed to work pretty well so far, even if we can't physically identify what those variables actually are.

  16. #16
    Quote Originally Posted by Strange View Post
    I'm not sure how you are able to make any predictions about quantum theory based on one (incorrect) mathematical statement.
    The obvious answer is that I'm not wrong.

  17. #17
    Join Date
    Oct 2009
    Location
    a long way away
    Posts
    8,521
    Quote Originally Posted by andreasjva View Post
    Well, we're here having this conversation within the infinite, so I beg to differ.
    Non sequitur (even if the universe is infinite, which it might not be).

    We obviously can't punch it into a calculator
    Maybe you are confusing arithmetic and mathematics.

    I stand by the mathematical logic that -i/+i=-1.
    It is certainly not mathematical logic when i = ∞. You can even use more non-mathematical logic to prove it wrong: presumably you would think that 1/0 = ∞? Therefore 1/∞ = 0, but everything multiplied by 0 is 0, so -∞/∞ => -∞ * 0 => 0, not -1.

  18. #18
    Join Date
    Jun 2006
    Posts
    161
    Quote Originally Posted by andreasjva View Post
    I know the letter I was taken. In programming however, a variable can be anything I want to make it, so it's an irrelevant comment.
    It would probably be helpful if you'd identify any other terms/operators whose meanings you're importing from another domain. I assume "=" refers to identity here?

  19. #19
    Join Date
    Apr 2010
    Posts
    858
    Greetings,

    Quote Originally Posted by andreasjva View Post
    No, infinity is not a specific number, we are. I don't care about numbers, I care about answers. We're here, so infinity can eek out a finite result, even if there are an infinite number of potential finite results. Infinity is a process with no resolve, which lies outside our finite universe. We are a result, not a cause of ourselves.
    Emphasis added. If "infinity is a process", how do you define the negative of that process? How can you apply a simple algebraic operator (division) to that process? The mystical application of a simple algebraic operator to a process--an undefined process at that--makes your "magic formula" utterly meaningless.

    Best regards,
    EigenState

  20. #20
    Join Date
    Oct 2009
    Location
    a long way away
    Posts
    8,521
    Quote Originally Posted by andreasjva View Post
    The obvious answer is that I'm not wrong.
    But even if you are right about the Higgs (and we don't know yet) it is only in the sense that a broken clock might tell the right time occasionally. It is no more a scientific prediction than tossing a coin would be.

  21. #21
    Quote Originally Posted by Hal37214 View Post
    It would probably be helpful if you'd identify any other terms/operators whose meanings you're importing from another domain. I assume "=" refers to identity here?
    respectfully...

    I identified what the i represented for the contents of this document (i=infinity).

    I never considered my use of i would be considered anything but a variable.

    I mean this respectfully... It's a petty side topic and totally irrelevant to the discussion...

  22. #22
    Join Date
    Oct 2005
    Posts
    19,021
    Quote Originally Posted by andreasjva View Post
    I stand by the mathematical logic that -i/+i=-1.
    The problem with this statement, as a mathematical claim, is that it cannot be held as generally true. Normally, the mathematical concept of infinity is addressed via taking limits-- so we don't talk about -i/+i, we talk about -x/+x, where x is a variable that can take on any value, and then ask what happens in the limit as x->infinity. In that situation, it is in fact -1. But we can also consider the ration -x/2x, and take the limit, and in that case we get -1/2. So to know what -i/+i means, we have to understand the history of the "i" that appear in numerator and denominator, because 2x also goes to infinity as x does, so -x/2x is also an example of a positive infinity divided by a negative infinity in that limit, yet it is always -1/2. So you need to know more information about your expression -i/i, you need to know where the i's come from. Specifying that will essentially specify the answer-- so the answer does not have a general meaning.

  23. #23
    Quote Originally Posted by Strange View Post
    But even if you are right about the Higgs (and we don't know yet) it is only in the sense that a broken clock might tell the right time occasionally. It is no more a scientific prediction than tossing a coin would be.
    That's subjective Strange. It really is. Mass=energy, and I say the energy lies outside our total universe, so the Higgs does not provide mass. I said there may be something that looks like a Higgs, acts like a Higgs, but will ultimately fall short of a Higgs based on this theory. The answer does not lie within the universe, it lies outside the universe. A particle does not cause itself to exist, it is caused by an external energy source, and that source of moving away from us in both direction. We are attenuating from the source of energy, so we are contracting.

  24. #24
    Quote Originally Posted by Ken G View Post
    The problem with this statement, as a mathematical claim, is that it cannot be held as generally true. Normally, the mathematical concept of infinity is addressed via taking limits-- so we don't talk about -i/+i, we talk about -x/+x, where x is a variable that can take on any value, and then ask what happens in the limit as x->infinity. In that situation, it is in fact -1. But we can also consider the ration -x/2x, and take the limit, and in that case we get -1/2. So to know what -i/+i means, we have to understand the history of the "i" that appear in numerator and denominator, because 2x also goes to infinity as x does, so -x/2x is also an example of a positive infinity divided by a negative infinity in that limit, yet it is always -1/2. So you need to know more information about your expression -i/i, you need to know where the i's come from. Specifying that will essentially specify the answer-- so the answer does not have a general meaning.
    Personally, I think you're over thinking the problem, something I've done 1000's of times over the years.

    Infinity is a singular state, which is divided by a universe, or infinitely growing number of universes. As I said in the original post though, additional universe's would be extraneous information. There is only one infinity to divide.

    If you prefer x, then -x/+x=-1. (x=infinity)

  25. #25
    Join Date
    Apr 2010
    Posts
    858
    Greetings,

    Quote Originally Posted by andreasjva View Post
    That's subjective Strange. It really is. Mass=energy, and I say the energy lies outside our total universe, so the Higgs does not provide mass. I said there may be something that looks like a Higgs, acts like a Higgs, but will ultimately fall short of a Higgs based on this theory. The answer does not lie within the universe, it lies outside the universe. A particle does not cause itself to exist, it is caused by an external energy source, and that source of moving away from us in both direction. We are attenuating from the source of energy, so we are contracting.
    Emphasis added. "Subjective" has been introduced to the discussion in a rather dismissive manner. Thus a direct question seems relevant.

    ES1. What is the objective evidence supporting the assertion that "the energy lies outside our total universe"?

    Best regards,
    EigenState

  26. #26
    Join Date
    Apr 2010
    Posts
    858
    Greetings,

    Quote Originally Posted by andreasjva View Post
    Personally, I think you're over thinking the problem, something I've done 1000's of times over the years.

    Infinity is a singular state, which is divided by a universe, or infinitely growing number of universes. As I said in the original post though, additional universe's would be extraneous information. There is only one infinity to divide.

    If you prefer x, then -x/+x=-1. (x=infinity)
    Emphasis added. This is becoming tedious. How does one "divide" a "singular state" by a "universe"?

    Best regards,
    EigenState

  27. #27
    Quote Originally Posted by Strange View Post
    Why? And how can a line segment be spherical? You have made your line (which should be 1 dimensional) go from 2 to 3 dimensions. This is mathematically meaningless.
    It's all a matter of perspective. It is spherical because we comprehend it as spherical. It is still a 2-dimensional line segment, and we represents points within the segment.

  28. #28
    Quote Originally Posted by EigenState View Post
    Greetings,

    ES1. What is the objective evidence supporting the assertion that "the energy lies outside our total universe"?

    Best regards,
    EigenState
    We a have not identified a source of the energy, so all observations can be considered an effect up to this point, and kinetic in nature.

  29. #29
    Join Date
    Sep 2003
    Location
    The beautiful north coast (Ohio)
    Posts
    38,538
    Quote Originally Posted by andreasjva View Post
    Sorry about that. I inadvertently posted this in the wrong spot, and asked a moderator to move it.
    I have moved this thread from Q&A to ATM, as I didn't see a question, nor did it seem a mainstream concept. This means all the rules of ATM apply.

    If you have questions or concerns about this move, Report this post or PM me.
    At night the stars put on a show for free (Carole King)

    All moderation in purple - The rules

  30. #30
    Join Date
    Oct 2007
    Posts
    5,398
    Quote Originally Posted by andreasjva View Post
    Personally, I think you're over thinking the problem, something I've done 1000's of times over the years.

    Infinity is a singular state, which is divided by a universe, or infinitely growing number of universes. As I said in the original post though, additional universe's would be extraneous information. There is only one infinity to divide.

    If you prefer x, then -x/+x=-1. (x=infinity)
    Actually, what you are doing is you are dividing , the "singular state", by , "the energy of the universe".

    MQ1: Prove that when and .

Similar Threads

  1. Unifying Theory
    By andreasjva in forum Space/Astronomy Questions and Answers
    Replies: 22
    Last Post: 2011-Sep-12, 02:29 PM
  2. Garrett Lisi's E8 Lattice Unifying Theory of Everything
    By Zenthor in forum Space/Astronomy Questions and Answers
    Replies: 2
    Last Post: 2007-Nov-19, 05:33 PM
  3. Unifying GR & QFT
    By RussT in forum Against the Mainstream
    Replies: 57
    Last Post: 2007-Jan-03, 06:52 PM
  4. Unifying theory solves many puzzles
    By Mr. Peabody in forum Against the Mainstream
    Replies: 10
    Last Post: 2006-Jan-16, 03:02 AM
  5. Unifying Gravity and EM ( ? )
    By ChaByu in forum Against the Mainstream
    Replies: 47
    Last Post: 2005-Dec-29, 10:30 PM

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •  
here
The forum is sponsored in-part by: