An Idea

[G_burnett]

Hey Lloyd ... This idea has the same conditions applied with all rights reserved as the other i posted and this more simple ... kind regards graham oh yea and dont be mad at me cause i want so much money ... i will use it a lot better then they would lol

[SteveA]

I'm not picturing it in a physical sense, I'm picturing it in a mathematical sense.

If you subtract an infinitely long string of 0's which ends in a 1 (an infinitesimally small value, 0.000...1) from 1, you get 0.999...9, any irrational value you try to fit in between besides 0.000...1 won't cross over into "oneness" smoothly.

Your personal dislike of infinite quantities doesn't hold for everyone.

It's not really a personal choice. It's just how limits work. The limit of a function is not necessarily equal to any value the function can generate and I posted a link to this property of limits. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Limit_%28mathematics%29

f(x) can be made to be as close to L as desired by making x sufficiently close to c. In that case, we say that "the limit of f of x, as x approaches c, is L". Note that this statement can be true even if f(c) ≠ L. Indeed, the function f(x) need not even be defined at c.

You can get the value as "close" as you want, but you can't guarantee it ever equals the limit and, in fact, the function may not even be valid in the limit.

For example, if we declare that x is less than 3:

x<3

And we compute the upper limit of this. The upper limit is equal to 3

3=Lim(x) as x->3(-)

Does not mean x=3

But in this case it doesn't mean that x=3 and we specifically defined it to be less than 3.

In the same sense, .999... is actually less than 1, but the limit is the value it can't equal.

Also, we can show that not all the digits need to be equal to 9 and it will still have a limit of 1 (at least if we select the limit to be rational)

f(n)=10^n/(10^n+1)

f(0)=1/(1+1)=.5
f(1)=10/(10+1)=.909090(90)
f(2)=100/101=.99009900(9900)
f(3)=1000/1001=.9990099900(99900)
...
f(n)=.999...000...999...000...(999...000...)= .999... ?

How about this one:

f(n)=(1-10^-n)^(n^2)!

f(1)=.9^1!=.9
f(2)=.99^4!~=..7856
f(3)=.999^9!~=0
...

And it converges toward 0, where if we used 1 instead of .999..., we get this:

1^1!=1
1^4!=1
1^9!=1
1^16!=1
...

And it stays at 1.

If 1 and .999... were truly identical, then it shouldn't matter which one we use.

Yes, if we extended .999... much further than the power it was raised to, then yes, we could still get the result to approach one, but notice that this requires that we specify a relationship between these two potentially infinite quantities and assure one is significantly smaller than the other.

This is why the limit of some sequence can't be considered identical a value that sequence can actually construct.

[G_burnett]

I never realised how far reaching the disaster in the Gulf is till doing some research today.

I retract any copyright to my ideas in this thread regards the oil problems there and give the solution ideas to the world free of charge. ... graham.

[austintorn@aol.com]

The Riddle of Existence has been solved.

The TOE has been found.

Coming soon.

It's so simple that Prof
and his grandmother could understand it.

It will be illustrated
so that Prof can read it.

[austintorn@aol.com]

Hmmm… nobody here.

I slept 15 hours and forgot the TOE.

Ah, now I remember it
Since it was written down.

These will be the sections:

THE CLARITY OF REALITY
(Space, existence, etc.)

Headings
(Directions of inquiry and some results)

Noether’s First Theorem

Unbounded Space:
The Large and the Small

Our Finite Existence

Our Self-Referencing Existence
And its “Vanishing”

The Perfect Symmetry

Surface Boundaries

The Hypercube

Time

Polarity and Electric Fields

Recycling the Universe

T h e R i d d l e o f E x i s t e n c e
(Solved)

[labelwench]

Must be Friday at the Forum, Biology 101 the course of study.

This should fit right in.

Consider it a mercy post, lol....

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Z6nyg...eature=channel

[labelwench]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ee7DS...eature=related

[austintorn@aol.com]

Maybe I should wait until
After Memorial Day,
When Prof is back.
(Hope he’s OK.)

But meanwhile…

We will be describing/explaining
“All That Is”
Which is existence, reality, the TOE,
Or whatever you want to call it—
The elementary fundamental(s)
Explained to complete satisfaction.

The question of
“Why existence”
Has been thought since
The dawn of proto-humankind,
But never before answered
To any completion,
Such that even
Prof and his grandmother
Could understand it
(It was first asked
When the first caveman
Or woman said
“What the heck am I doing here?).


What It Is Not

I can, for now,
Say what it is not.

It’s not God,
For that only
Answers a “little” question
With a huge, gigantic, humongous question,

And it’s not
A Bindu dot doing something,

Nor is it quantum fluctuations
Jitterbugging between
Existence and non
And then inflating
Into a Universe,

Nor any quantum hocus-pocus
Of observers making reality,

Nor is it infinite regresses,

Nor is it the Big Bang
In any way, shape, or form,
Or any kind of explosion or jolt,

Nor is it that this “All That Is”
I s bounded in size or duration
(For there can’t be more or less
Of “All That Is”,
LIke a boundary,
Or have it start and then stop later on),

Nor is it infinite substance or energy
(Since there would be no room left anywhere),

Nor is it
Something from Nothing,

Nor any invisible soul
Transmitting to a brain filter,

Nor because
There had to be something
Because nothing could not be,

(Some of these,
Although I’m not saying which,
Are close, kind of,
But cannot cut it
In the end,
And some could even take over,
But only after the ultimate fundamentals,
As most of what is around is secondary.)

Nor will it be Brahman
(Same problem as God),

Nor even any
FInite amount of substance
Forever and always fully intact
(You cannot have something made
That was never made,
Especially all the more
In a certain specific amount and nature
With no possible prior account),

Nor is it fundamental substance
(Although the “fundamental” part is good
And the aspect of substance could be
Perhaps be defined to match
What I have in mind),

Nor is it that some stuff
Went inward until there
Was no more inward,
And so then went outward
(But my arrangement
Is a cyclical recycling),

Nor is it a cosmic egg,
Krishna, strings or branes,

Or Bi-Verses
Of opposite universes sprouting
In which time runs backwards in one,
Or anything of that nature,

Nor of a Deity,
Or of an alien,
Or by some great scientist,

Nor a dream,

Nor is the universe a black hole.

[austintorn@aol.com]

Coming in June…

THE CLARITY OF REALITY

[austintorn@aol.com]

SB_UK better do something about this.