You are currently viewing our boards as a guest which gives you limited access to view most discussions and access our other features. By joining our free community you will have access to post topics, communicate privately with other members (PM), respond to polls, upload content and access many other special features. Registration is fast, simple and absolutely free so please, join our community today!
If you have any problems with the registration process or your account login, please contact contact us.
Great explanation, POK. There can be an infinite number of point charges from the infinite number of points in time between one and zero. It seems you have unlocked the secrets of zpe and/or universal functioning.
Yet wouldn't a literal division of 1 create a literal rip in space itself? Or are you referring to energy already there, but presently untapped?
Sorry for the confusion about the C in the final theory, as I said I'm not good at these things. The A B and C of the tri-interconnectivity is just to describe the 3 things. The equation means that A is the whole and the B's represent the things that are the same. Just substitute the letters to make it easier -
w = (x + (x + x)). The x's are the three things and w is the whole. Haven't dropped the C, the three b's or x's represent the A B and C.
If you're not confused after that, well done
Intellectuals solve problems, geniuses prevent them - Albert Einstein We can't solve problems by using the same kind of thinking we used when we created them - Albert Einstein
Well I wouldn't say I've unlocked the secrets yet; I'm still paying for electricity generated from burning fossil fuels. And I am no genious Profpat, just somebody who thinks about things with a degree of intuition.
Think about 1/0 as the definition of the unified field. Think of it as defining it's value. Think about it because if one substance is divided by no other substance than that substance must be the unified field. Hence 1/0=unified field
Referring to time, 1/0 means the absolute greatest extent of time. In this regard it is the point called the big rip which is where time reverses, or as Scott may put it, where the blackhole that is pulling us to the future and causes the universe to expand suddenly changes to a white hole and causes everything to be pulled back to the past again, thus completing the cycle of creation and destruction. COmpleting the torus so to speak.
Referring to energy, 1/0 means purely dense energy. That is the density of energy inside of a photon.
Referring to acceleration, 1/0 is equivalent to the amount of acceleration it would take you to exceed the speed of light. THis is defined as how much acceleration it would take for you to go from your current speed to the speed of light in one planck second or less. THat is all it takes to beat the speed of light. Particle accelerators can't beat TSOL because they accelerate objects too slowly to ever make it. If they made the path of the accelerator a spiral instead of a circle, they could do it, because a spiral is a path that constantly increases in acceleration (remember, acceleration can be a change in direction as well as a change in speed).
Referring to speed, 1/0 is instantaneous motion. So if you were to bend space and travel instantly from one point to another, you would be travelling at a rate of 1/0.
So you see, 1/0 is something that is absolute. It is the greatest absolute value that can be applied to anything. It is the only number that is both positive and negative.
Ok, sorry for that lecture but I have to share my knowledge with all don't I?
Now I will help you with your equation. SOrry but it's in terms of math.
Imagine 0/1 as being no energy, 1/0 as being pure energy, and 0/0 as being some mixture of the two.
0 in math is called nothing and that is what I call it. 0/0 in math is called indeterminate but I have renamed it "anything" because it can be equal to any value. And 1/0 is undefined in math but I have discovered that it really means unified field or in other words, "everything" taken as a whole i.e. the greatest absolute value that can be ascribed to anything.
So here is the equation I would suggest.
0/1 does not equal (0/0)*(1/1) which does equal 1/0
Do you see the symmetry and irony in the equation? What the equation means is that everything is equal to anything but is never equal to nothing
Anything and everything are the two that are similar, and nothing is the one that is different.
I agree with you POK, I rely on a lot of intuit and logic myself.
I also think the #'s 0 and 1 are magical like the # 3. Especially, necessary for the computer, to have a binary numbering system, that can literally represent anything.
Also in probability theory your odds always fall between 0 and 1. 0% to 100% of an event happening. ( Also implied in that is 0 is nothing: it can't happen; and 1 is everything: it will happen )
When it comes to 1/0, I'll leave it as undefined, though I guess, you are free to define it however you wish.
A formulation I was thinking of was similar to your's Scott. W=X1+X2+X3. That would be the whole W is equal to the sum of its 3 parts X1+X2+X3, Or maybe its a function of or summation of the 3 X's. I still don't have a mental image Scott.
I agree with you to some extent. However I feel the dice is loaded heavily in the favour of big bank rather than a creator. But I am prepared for surprises..
Quote:
Originally Posted by Profpat
I don't think anybody really knows Dipayankar, it's just a matter of opinion. I think it was created by a Creator, others don't. Some don't believe in a created or big bang universe. There opinions are just as valid.
What do you think Dipayankar?
Scott,
Did anybody help you with your formula? In your formula what happened to C? When you mentioned the golden mean, I assume you referring to phi. Is the third, the line itself, which seperates the inner from the outer? I still a little confused as to the image.
That's what I wrote 1st Pat, but I couldn't put the small numbers after it! Also, after I wrote it, I realised that it needs to be clear that there are two the same and one different and your equation implies that they are all equal but, in numbers, if W was equal to 1, then each x would be 0.33, but one is 0.34. Each x can be any other x at different times, if you get me.
POK, thanks for the help with the 1/0 and how it fits with the 2:1. You made it easier to understand with the anything, everything and nothing.
Intellectuals solve problems, geniuses prevent them - Albert Einstein We can't solve problems by using the same kind of thinking we used when we created them - Albert Einstein
Here's a document attached of my theory because the website I gave in the 1st post doesn't seem to be working
Intellectuals solve problems, geniuses prevent them - Albert Einstein We can't solve problems by using the same kind of thinking we used when we created them - Albert Einstein
Last edited by ScottAnfield : 09-18-2007 at 03:04 PM.
Nice to see you here on Toequest. I am interested in the subject matter of three; I have been writing about it myself also. I have some information on three from a mathematical perspective.
As we all know, Aristotle created the very familiar standard structure based on duality, that there is no third way. Rotterdam-born mathematician L.E.J. Brouwer showed, however, in the twenties of the last century that Aristotle wasn't completely right with his vision of the absence of the third way: a highly remarkable feat. This intuitionistic mathematician was able to calculate that a third way was possible on the condition that the third way had nothing in common with the set-up of the investigation. So, in ordinary words, that would mean Aristotle made the right comment, but that his third absent position actually is a real third position as well. If you have read any of my other contributions, you'd know I use the term "phenomenon of nothing" to describe the importance of this position.
According to me, a simple example of the absence of a third position is found in an investigation of opposites of male and female. If we would investigate the gender of a gender-neutral bacteria, for instance, we would end up empty handed. The contradictory first step of this investigation, expressed in binary numbers, must conclude that this gender neutral bacteria delivers two sets of opposition. (0,1) stands for the facts that it is not male, but it is alive, while (1,0) stands for the fact that it is alive, but it is not female. The structure delivers both sets of 1s and 0s, and therefore becomes unfit to use, because the required match of (1,1) is not available. As shown, a third way does exist, but only on the condition that it has nothing in common with the first two ways. It points to the limitations of the set-up of the used structure.
Again, concepts are at the heart of the matter, because the used structure determines the perceived reality, but is itself limited. If you divide the world into male and female you may come a long way — and explain a lot — but you'd come shy to explaining everything. The conclusion that everything can be seen in pairs is still valid, but not as the structural absolute truth. The ultimate structure must contain duality, but should not be limited by it.
However, Scott, I claim that the ultimate structure is not based on three either, rather that it is a pyramid with either four positions (the grounded positions) or five positions (with the abstract overall position in top included as well). My mathematical evidence — and I leave it available on this site for you to read in the next two weeks: http://www.pentapublishing.com/Math.html — actually has a basis of six, though one of the six positions in this matrix must be given to the phenomenon of nothing (in numbers: zero). Three only has its place under very special circumstances, and mainly based on the incompleteness of duality to explain the whole (2 X 3 = 6).
What is very interesting according to me is that — when we say that the fundaments are four-fold — that the level up is then still not 4 X 4 = 16. Rather, we find twelve as a standard. I believe this 4 X 3 = 12 format is explained by one of the four positions being the phenomenon of nothing. Allow me to use the holy trinity here to explain these words.
Where the holy trinity is father - son - holy spirit, it is a gender limited answer. Next to this holy trinity we must (sorry, but I consider this indeed a must) place the other holy trinity of mother - daughter - holy spirit. As you can see when combining both holy trinities, we can find four grounded positions of father, mother, son, daughter, and either state there are two holy spirits (six positions) or just one and the same holy spirit in both trinities (five positions). If one wishes, we can even fold the holy spirit of one set into being the unspoken expression of the members in the other trinity, and vice versa; we would then have just four positions, all included. I hope this explains the six-position as found in the matrix, and the five-position of the pyramid.
The four-position (and with it the twelve-position) are positions that all contain a fundamental duality: the self and the other. On the one hand, there is the experience of oneself (which is subjective), and on the other hand there is the experiencing of the three others (which are objective experiences). It is impossible to experience oneself from the position of the other (though we are all smart and try to use our imagination to circumvent this obstacle somewhat). Hence, there are only 4 X 3 objective positions available. The subjective self is locked in with the four positions, of course, and should be regarded as the internal unity. Yet as an external objective experience it comes up as nothing — it ain't there.
The difference between a structure based on unification and a structure without unification hinges on the question if nothing is just plain nothing or if nothing is mighty fundamental. Read In Search of a Cyclops with titillating mathematical evidence (see homepage) to find out if separation belongs to the fundamental basics of our universe - or not.
Hi Fredrick,
Brouwer's work is a good illustration of the three theory, as is your acknowledgement of 'nothing' in a trio which was originally perceived as a duo by Aristotle. The three theory would explain the two extremes as the two things that are opposites, (high-low), and the other, unseen force that regulates them (middle), also known as the golden mean in many disciplines.
The gender neutral bacteria you mentioned in the binary number system helps to add credence to the theory that there are three, but one may only be theoretical , even possible. In another post, I explained how when structures are broken down into their smallest components, they become an atom with a proton, neutron and an electron. This represents the + charge and the - charge as opposites, and with the neutron being the golden mean, in the smallest structure that everything is made from. The magnetism vs gravity part of my theory states that everything is magnetic, because the atom has electrical charge ,(+, neutral, -), and it is therefore is connected to electricity and magnetism as we know how well they are intertwined.
I had a thought about the binary system with the numbers 1 and 0, it could be with any number such as 4 and 7. Does this make the 1 and 0 less credible because it can be replaced with any other numbers or does it strengthen it, as it encompassed all the numbers and not just two? Someone said that they have a theory of 1/0 but you can't divide or divide by 0. Could it be that another number could divide by another number and the result shows every number from 1-9, like when you type all the numbers from 1-9 and add the same numbers together you get all the numbers back in the answer, but just jumbled up.
I also think that the the ultimate structure must contain duality, but should not be limited by it. This ties in with the theory because if you look at a tripod standing, it has more strength than something with two stands, it needs the other stand to support it, but it may not be obvious or seen.
I enjoyed reading 'In Search of A Cyclops'. I see that you also don't share the belief in singularities, I reason that if they did exist, then it would suck in everything in the universe into it, according to Einstein's theory of gravity. My theory states that singularities cannot exist, but it includes black holes and its counterpart, the white hole. It says that black and white holes are linked in space-time by heavy distortion, not by a total singularity. Even Professor Hawking has in recent years come to the conclusion that singularities don't exist. You have said that if a singularity cannot exist, then people would stop looking for a unified field. Why would they not try to find a unified field that doesn't include singularities, like mine? A unified field is something that unites everything, a theory of everything, that encompasses the whole universe and everything within it and evens its own structure.
In paragraph 8, you mention the prime numbers in table 1. Can you see that 1, 2 and 3 are the only trio of numbers next to one another for the whole numerical system? The three theory describes this as being that you can see the three items, but they are all seperate and with these 3 numbers you can work out the rest of the primes from them. If you can see one of the three, one extreme, then you must be able to see another one, as it is the other extreme. It follows that if you can see two, then you have to be able to see all three, because they are all linked in the ratio 2:1, as you rightly stated 'When two out of three parts of a sum are known, the remainder can be found also'.
You also mention that religion doesn't fit on the modern scientific framework, but they theory of everything must include religion as well, as it is apparent and acknowledged in the universe. The TOE should prove the existence of God, but what if, as religion claims, God made the universe and as the Bible says that he exists outside of time? It is discussed on this link- http://www.beliefnet.com/story/148/story_14839_1.html.
Just as the reasoning that singularities cannot exist because they would break the rules of numerous theories, as the three theory states, 'extremely dense places do exist, but just not to the point where all the Laws of Nature collapse. This is because they are controlled by the Laws, not a controller of them'.
Your theory states that it is either 4 or 5 with a pyramid shape. What kind of things in nature and mathematics have structures like that? How does 4 or 5 explain phenomena in the universe and things like consciousness?
I have also found information that may allow double and even triple universes into a singular torus shape universe with the 'n-fold torus'.
Intellectuals solve problems, geniuses prevent them - Albert Einstein We can't solve problems by using the same kind of thinking we used when we created them - Albert Einstein
Re: The Three Theory -
09-10-2007, 07:00 PM
Linear Mode
