# Religious people aren't built for logical debate.

The two 3D quantities of 4D hypervolume are distance^3 (space) and time*distance^2 (energy). Energy moves through space.

Time is the dimension that bounds, not extends, three-dimensional space. Unit hypervolume is the internal product of time and space, but it is also the product of energy and distance.

The speed of light is the one and only dimensional equivalent between space and time. Energy density is the 4th-dimensional slope of space.

Just as Planck’s constant is the four-dimensional quantization of photons, elementary charge is the four-dimensional quantization of particles.

Photons are the encapsulation of time by space; particle fields are the encapsulation of space by time.

Einstein’s 4D ‘block universe’ (or 4D space-time), a hypercube externally, is internally as an infinite number of infinite 3D spaces stacked upon one another, which can be called the 4D hypercube. It’s hard to visualize 4D, but one can generalize it from imagining a stacking of infinite 3D ‘pancakes’. So, in seeing this 4D hypercube of 3D spaces, one can visualize that time is the difference of space(s), an index, it also serving as both motion and charge.

The converse is that space is the difference of time, this being distance. Energy/mass is basically curved space. Space is physical, but not material. 3D space is infinite and is therefore the bounding “surface” of the contained and finite 4D hypercube.

The speed of light, 'c', is really more than than the distance/time dimensional units, but is a reduction to that, via…

the external 4D hypercube, distance^4, divided by internal 3D space-time, time*distance^3, which results in 'c', as reduced, to distance/time, in dimensional units.

I am not a great one for maths but this is essentially similar to something I read in a Frank Herebert book. If one could locally or universally return atoms to their previous positions on a large scale then a duplicate of a previous pancake could be produced and therefore cheat at time travel?

The two 3D quantities of 4D hypervolume are distance^3 (space) and time*distance^2 (energy). Energy moves through space.

Time is the dimension that bounds, not extends, three-dimensional space. Unit hypervolume is the internal product of time and space, but it is also the product of energy and distance.

The speed of light is the one and only dimensional equivalent between space and time. Energy density is the 4th-dimensional slope of space.

Just as Planck’s constant is the four-dimensional quantization of photons, elementary charge is the four-dimensional quantization of particles.

Photons are the encapsulation of time by space; particle fields are the encapsulation of space by time.

This has a certain beauty in its unification.

But is it possible to tie ALL together within mathematics?

For me mathematics are difficult because it is out of my area of expertise. I am foremost a fiction writer, philosopher and explorer of infinity. I suppose I explore infinity because my maths isn't good enough for a more down to earth exploration. I leave the math to the trained. Leave wild conjecture to me. If they like it they'll do the math?

How far have you delved into the numbers side of it?

I don't do math either, aside from 1 + (-1) = 0.

There are only two stable matter particles, the electron(+) and the proton (+), because, I suppose, there are only two ways to make them. (A photon is neutral since its has both a positive and a negative aspect).

All is as would be expected, from we we observe, the simpler and simpler less, and less stable, giving way to the simplest state, unstable nothing, that cannot be at all.

So, all in all, the real is still as real as real can be, of the comings and goings, ex nihilo, the only source, a continuing process everywhere and always, where the buck stops, the first causeless cause.

Now, it would be interesting to go even further, to see if existence is the only way it could be, as ever made possible by the only two possible stable matter basics.

Why only two, the electron and the proton, and their antiparticles? And why antiparticles, for that [anti] matter? And why opposite polarity of charge?

All ever points to the balance of opposites from the distributed zero balance of nothing.

Attempting to disprove the presence of God through logic is a misuse of logic.

Attempting to disprove the presence of God through logic is a misuse of logic.

Then how? Quantum physics or metaphysics!

Metaphysics doesn't exist, so it's rather impossible to use it. As such, it is a total misuse of the useless.

Wormwood.

Wormwood.

I had a bottle of Absinthe over christmas, though its consumption in no way (that I am aware of) sculpted my mindset presented heretofore, present forewith or whichever prescienced derivation :runaway:

The Creation of the Universe

The new WMAP satellite detected gravitational waves,
revealing this image​

The Creation of the Universe

The new WMAP satellite detected gravitational waves,
revealing this image​

Oh my GOD now I believe. I promise Goddess to put £20 in the dish every sunday.

I had a bottle of Absinthe over christmas, though its consumption in no way (that I am aware of) sculpted my mindset presented heretofore, present forewith or whichever prescienced derivation :runaway:

I do believe they found to actually halucanate with that shit you have to drink 2 complete bottles in a rather short period of time.. in which case you would die from alcohol poisoning long before that

Attempting to disprove the presence of God through logic is a misuse of logic.

Finding god might be a goer. Losing god is impossible.

More 'trouble'…

The exterior of infinite largeness bounds the infinitely small interior of infinitesimal smallness, an inescapable consequence of closure—closure being the level of existence where the large becomes indistinguishable from the small, both merging into the singularity of Totality: zero.

Doughnut infinity. This seems plausible, though of course one has to conceptually overcome the issues of scale. I am still playing with the idea of a doughnut. It is either that or just an extension of infinity forever larger larger larger, or smaller smaller smaller. Each model presents different conceptual cons to overcome. Especially if one tries to form a coherent model of interacting levels, that could possible merge back into themself of a differing scale.

Imagine an enormous sphere in space, growing progressively more immense. As long as its volume remains finite, it is a three-dimensional object with a two-dimensional surface. When its volume reaches infinity, its three-dimensional interior is now the surface by which it is bounded. The sphere becomes inverted, just as infinite smallness and largeness can be inverted. The largest, via dispersal, and the smallest, via compaction, are the same vacant ends of Totality’s spectrum: zippo.

But there is a finite amount of space on the internal unless this model is added to? Is there a singularity in the middle possibly? Or is the reduction in size/scale the singularity which is never able to reach its midpoint (or connects to the large)? I suppose this is possible, and indistinguishable from an scaled opened doughnut? It is a way of making infinity containable, conceptually.

The two halves of Totality, delineated by polarity (charge), of, I will say, positive ‘yang’ and negative ‘yin’, just for fun, nullifies all of existence in the overview. This is because the only possible prime mover that is infinite and eternal is nothing, it requiring nothing prior to itself but itself. Yet, it is so unstable that it cannot absolutely exist, even for an instant. And so it is that we reside here, in this balance of opposites, necessarily at the mid-point of the largest and smallest infinities.

I like the idea and it is a much more conventionally pleasing possibility than mine.

It is now, for that’s all there can be, yet every ‘now’ is out there, somewhere, the universe containing its own history and future, it even possibly being able to use the future in the present, for no-origin systems are their own precursors.

Duplication. I do see the logic in this, and there is a lot of weight behind this at the moment in the physics community. I have seen Tegmark offering up the last point stuff on 'Horizon' I think.

Einstein’s 4D ‘block universe’ (or 4D space-time), a hypercube externally, is internally as an infinite number of infinite 3D spaces stacked upon one another, which can be called the 4D hypercube. It’s hard to visualize 4D, but one can generalize it from imagining a stacking of infinite 3D ‘pancakes’. So, in seeing this 4D hypercube of 3D spaces, one can visualize that time is the difference of space(s), an index, it also serving as both motion and charge.

The converse is that space is the difference of time, this being distance. Energy/mass is basically curved space. Space is physical, but not material. 3D space is infinite and is therefore the bounding “surface” of the contained and finite 4D hypercube.

The speed of light, 'c', is really more than than the distance/time dimensional units, but is a reduction to that, via…

the external 4D hypercube, distance^4, divided by internal 3D space-time, time*distance^3, which results in 'c', as reduced, to distance/time, in dimensional units.

Pancakes model. Some suggest a similar model (in structure) for a multiverse where parallel universe are stacked up but are either inhabiting the same space of slightly phased to an above or below position conceptually.

The only reservations I have in any of these models is their refusal to really tackle the issue of infinity. Instead it is always shepherded into a finite conceptual space so people can visualise it better. I prefer to visualise infinity as it is, and not try to wrap it up in a bow.

Each one of the pancake spaces would actually be infinite. 'Pancake' was just to help the visualization.

Saying something is infinite is fine but what is the true nature of that infinity is what I meant. I suppose there are lots of theories that do attempt to tackle this. Not that I have been exposed to very many whilst dipping in the mainstream. Conceptualizing infinity as doughnut or funnel or other is fine I suppose but does it stop a lot of theorists taking the step into actually tackling infinity thoroughly. Is it even worthwhile to tackle it anyway as it is something that may never have relevance?