Discussion in 'Pseudoscience Archive' started by John J. Bannan, Jul 13, 2008.
Unfortunately, I have no idea what you're saying. You are going to have to explain it step by step.
Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.
Well, when the universe began, there was no direction, unless everything had collapsed, and by this, i mean the wave function of all probabilities.
Why is Brent no????
Enmos, I now refute my own proof that 0+0=0. The reason is that your questions have lead me to realize that it is wrong to call numbers "points". Calling something a "point" gives it size. Numbers don't have size. Numbers are just a series of symbols we create with these symbols---> 1, 2, 3, +, -, . Numbers tell us nothing about the nature of dimensional size in real objects. Numbers can tell us nothing about why anything in the real world has size. The question as to why the universe exists has to do with the existence of real matter - not numbers. Numbers be damned. Numbers suck and are completely useless in understanding why there is anything at all. I need to think without the use of numbers - if I want to understand the existence of the universe.
It's not a problem, really. It just means you have to forget about numbers. The fact is, matter in the universe is not a number system, but a number system can help keep track of it. Whatever it is that defines size in the real world, that mysterious contrast that separates one thing from another, does not exist in numbers. It is something else - not a number. I still believe empty space is the source of this mysterious contrast we call matter, but I don't know why. I also think real world nothingness, not to be confused with that insidious number zero, may also have something to do with it.
No, numbres are varified. It's what is what happens in-between which expresses my Communism of what is real and what is not. For instance, the big bang never really happened, unless there is some observer there to define it....
Have you considered reading an introductory text on cosmology >
I've got a theory. Space is made of multi-dimensional units of a very very small size. Matter is just an energy wave flowing through these units, and these energy waves sometime disappear from us, because they are being carried into other dimensions of these units. This explains the wave-particle duality of light. The visible universe was created by another dimensional force. This is not very different than Brane theory. The interjection of this other dimensional force is proven by the fact that the expansion of the known universe is accelerating and not decreasing. Think of a droplet of rain hitting the pavement. As the droplet hits the pavement, shock waves are sent throughout the water. The shock waves would be what we call matter. However, as the rest of the droplet comes to rest on the pavement, the initial pond of water resting on the pavement begins to expand in size due to the continuous inflow of water. This explains the expansion of the known universe. The known universe is continuing to expand because it is continuing to get a supply of new empty space units from the collision with the other Brane.
However, the empty space units are multi-dimensional, simply because they have to be to interact with our empty space units. Consequently, this suggests that empty space units are the same everywhere. The empty space units also have size, albeit small to us. You need size in order to explain movement. Movement is simply the interaction of different dimensions, and implied by the interaction of dimensions. The real question is why do dimensions interact and why are there dimensions?
Dimensions exist and interact because a property of nothingness is that multiple nothingnesses exist. Dimensions are just proof of the existence of multiple nothingnesses. A dimension is the interaction of multiple nothingnesses. Without multiple nothingnesses interacting, you would not know a dimension was even there. Thus, the existence of everything can be explained as the nature of nothingness. Why should nothingness be limited to only a single nothingness? If there's going to be nothing, do it right, and be all possible nothingnesses. And, of course, nothingness does not require an explanation for it's existence.
Mathematicians call the set of points between 0 and 2 an interval, rather than a number.
What do you mean "reach"? None of those points move. And there are an infinite number of them. And they have no "size".
A number line is an idealisation, not a physical object.
Yes. A point is a mathematical abstraction.
Because the points occupy different positions on the line.
Oh, I took the statement in a completely different way.
However, your statement that "7 is not infinite" leads to an interesting concept... That perhaps every number is in fact infinite in it's own way. This is especially true when you refer to 7 as an interval in-between 6 and 8. In between those two numbers, there are infinite possibilities.
You are confusing the intervals between numbers with a specic number, which has a discrete value. 7 is not infinite, as you have been told and to say that every number is infinite in its own way is nonsense.
Are you saying that an interval of numbers actually has dimension? Isn't an interval of numbers just an abstract concept that does not exist in reality? And I still don't get how an interval of non-dimensional points can added to a one dimensional interval. That seems impossible.
An interval of numbers is akin to the nature of the dimension we call time.
From an abstract sense, of course.
Time is movement, an interaction between units of space of finite size, or an energy wave. An interval of numbers cannot have time, as distinct numbers of finite size do not exist. It is impossible for numbers to exhibit Time.
Yes, you are right. 7 is 7 and will be nothing more and nothing less.
I have mistaken intervals with numbers, so yes you are right.
Time, in this sense i was talking about, is linear from a subliminal viewpoint. Relativity describes time as totally different, when there is no Special Coordinates, such as special relativity.
Can you explain that ?
You appear to have understand John Bannan's post, which I regard as nonsense.
What does it mean when you talk of linearity from a subliminal viewpoint. There are no subliminal viewpoints.
Separate names with a comma.