It’s like Pellucidar in reverse.
In a recent book Absolute Relativity Theory of Everything: makes a very simple expression, far less complicated than the Standard Model: ( Ut, x, y, z. ) Where Ut is the Primary dimension which has a time constant of 0 or 1 and is symmetrical throughout the universe. It is also responsible for the creation of NEW SPACE. In creating this new space second for second in linear temporal time it is also creating Matter and hence the other 3D. If matter exists this is the causation for x, y, z. In short the Primary dimension ( actually a framework ) is causing the creation of matter to exist in the first place. Likewise it can remove it just as easily should the velocity at which New Space is being changed.
It limits the velocity of light. Nothing can move at all in the absence of a dimension to move into. Light can only move as fast as New Space is being created where matter exists. This is just the introduction to this interesting New Theory.
Hmmm surely you must have to fudge some numbers for that, otherwise we could work out the mass of the universe from the orbital properties of one satellite.
Hasn’t eleven suffered enough since the lose of its brother, eleventeen?
To be fair, this is a good point. Don’t make this about Earth specifically. It honestly doesn’t matter WHERE you pick in the universe, the conditions anywhere that ISN’T space will be drastically different than the conditions in space itself. It is absolutely the far opposite negative end of EVERYTHING we can conceive of.
And when you put that into context, you realize that only 1-4% of space even HAS any variation. I don’t know why people are so casually dismissive of context just because you can MAKE the numbers fit.
This is very important: I never said the opposite of space is Earth…I said the opposite of Earth is SPACE. The fact that you all aren’t grasping the monumental difference between the two statements is proof of the inherent dangers of treating substituting math for logic. I very specifically said that an environment more dissimilar to EARTH than space cannot be imagined. In no way does that imply that the opposite of that statement is true. In fact, my entire point is that MATH can’t tell the difference between the two, but YOU can. Thus relying STRICTLY on math to define all of reality is a terrible, terrible idea.
Earth itself is a merely an example of the gradient of the positive end, which ranges from 0 to 1. Space is -1 all around the board, everywhere and always.
Earth doesn’t have a single condition throughout it, it has a RANGE of conditions. It’s an actual environment. Space has no range of conditions whatsoever. It’s simply the absolute opposite of everything else.
This is really the point I’m trying to make. CONTEXT is what matters and mere numbers do not provide context. In math, context is provided by symbols, primarily ±/=, but even with absolute proper usage of ±/=, Math is still little more than circular logic. It almost has to be in order to remain consistent. You may not realize the dangers of basing your conception of reality on such a concept, but it’s there all the same.
**1+1 is not the same thing as 1-(-1), despite producing the same answer. The reason is because they arrived at this answer via WILDLY different routes. One is visible and measurable, the other absolutely IS NOT. 1+1 is a direct route through all the infinite possibilities strictly between 1 and 2, such as 1.1, 1.2837, etc. 1-(-1) is a different route entirely, which starts at 1 then takes the indirect route through .974, .46735, then passes 0 and heads into the negatives: -1784, -8371876.496, then wraps all the way around infinity and heads back in via the positive again: 7247612.37864, 629, 6, 2.75, 2.000571, and finally halts at 2…which -1 away from where it began at 1.
Needless to say, the 1-(-1) end is in an entirely different category of SIZE than the 1+1 end.
You all can disagree with this interpretation all you want, but you’ll only exposing what I’ve suspected all along…that you don’t have a very good fundamental understanding of math. The NOTATION of 1-(-1) directly states what I just described using WORDS. That is a direct, literal translation. If you follow the actual NOTATION, rather than just shortcutting straight to the answer of 2 in both scenarios, skipping all the details in the process, you realize that those mathematical functions are not remotely describing the same things. In other words, if you DON’T ignore the context, you realize that the solutions are not only different, they cover *completely *different ranges. Both ranges are infinite, but one of those infinities is infinitely larger than the other because it is surrounding it. In fact, they only have two points of intersection… the integers 1 and 2…the starting point, and the ending point. THAT’S IT. Every other number in existence is covered in either the 1+1 set *or *the 1-(-1) set. But if all you’re looking at is the “=2” at the end, then you completely missed everything of interest.
And this is all very evident if you stop to THINK for just a moment. And if you can contextualize this difference, then you can, for the first time in your life, actually understand the difference between the force of gravity which is external to US and the other forces which are internal to US. You can understand that if the range covered between 1-(-1) (this would be outer space) exists OUTSIDE from us, then we also exist INSIDE of it. And the range covered between 1+1 exists INSIDE of us.
By NOT deliberately ignoring context, reality becomes intelligible. And the mathematical equations don’t even change, they simply become meaningful.**
Along those same lines, if you add 1 and 1, you’ll get 2. But in NO WAY should that imply that if you HAVE 2, then you must have added 1 and 1. 1+1 indeed equals 2 (please don’t go look up mathematical proofs disproving this simple point just to extend the argument…you’ll only be proving my point for me), but 2 does not necessarily equal 1+1.
By using WORDS and LOGIC, it’s evident that these aren’t equivalent statements. Math on the other hand simply doesn’t work like that. Math is almost always circular, especially in the lazy shorthand that we use in equations.
Truthfully, these aren’t terribly complex concepts, but it’s frightening and honestly a bit embarrassing that the very people who stand to gain the most from NOT avoiding this concept are the very ones who fight so hard against accepting this basic truth. Math doesn’t need to be redone, only contextualized. We already have all the information we need to decode reality if we’d only quit ignoring the difference beween + and - and pretending they are just different ends of the same thing. The fact that math works the same with both should be telling you that YOU aren’t understanding some very fundamental concept, not that all of reality is reducible to a single equation.
When you allow math to interpret reality for you instead of using your own brains and common sense, you end up in the place where science is now; being able to mathematically DEFINE almost everything, but being completely impotent in actually DESCRIBING much of anything at all. Arbitrarily declaring that all reality MUST fit into a singular mathematical construct is only a sensible declaration if you have a very good understanding of what math IS and WHY it works to begin with. If you skip that step, then the math will run you in circles while you demand more and more of it to describe the same phenomenon from ten different perspectives.
If you don’t understand the above bolded part, you are no position to lecture me about math or demand to see math supporting my point - particularly when ALL of math supports my point. I’ve already added all the math necessary to decode reality: our “three-dimensional reality” is a composite of 2+1 dimensional physical reality (things we SEE via light) and 2-(-1) dimensional metaphysical reality. This “4-1” end are the things we FEEL, such as sound, gravity, etc…pretty much everything in existence that isn’t light, hence the vast infinite deadzone of outer space. These things can ONLY be described by the effect they have on particulate matter…period!! They have NO particle representations of their own and that blindingly obvious bit of context tells you ALL you need to known about which end of the spectrum they fall on. They intersect at three dimensions, but one end of this dimensionality is literally INFINITELY “larger” than the other. Our existence is perpetually RELATIVE to two-dimensionality (the small end) and four-dimensionality (outer space, specifically solar space). This is easily demonstrable not only using math, but also by using a dash of common sense.
I am losing patience with this obnoxiousness, Anthem (0). Make your points without sneering at people.
It’s like Dr. Bronner filtered through Prof. Irwin Cory.
Now I’m trying to wrap my head around all these places that are in space but not in space, and opposites that aren’t opposites of each other.
Truly, you have a dizzying intellect.
MORE BOLD!! THAT MAKES EVERYTHING CLEARER!!!
I’m having a hard time accepting this. Isn’t “opposite” a commutative concept, both in arithmetic and in language and logic? I can’t grasp how oppositeness is not a two-way street. I’m sure that makes me some sort of dummy.
And if you can’t be bothered to explain the opposite concept, could you perhaps explain, in a sentence or two in plain English, why anything you have posted here should be important to anyone but you?
Thanks.
No.
Analogously
If you start at x=1 and go +1 positively (1+1), you’re facing the positive side moving in the forward direction 1 unit. If you start at x=1 and go -1 negatively (1-(-1)) you’re facing the negative and moving backwards 1 unit.
Further analogously, you’re saying if you walk down the block, you’re moving positively. However if you want to move there negatively, you’d have to go around the world in the opposite direction until you arrive back at the block from the opposite direction when in reality it just means you moonwalked your way to 2.
This is just plain wrong. Space has dimension, contains matter, is bathed with radiation. Earth is just a bit of space that has more matter than other bits. They’re not opposites. They’re not even at opposite ends of a scale.
Thanks for this. I felt instinctively that there was something ludicrously wrong with his 1-(-1) blather, but this makes it perfectly clear to me. Which makes us both idiots, I suspect, in the eyes of Anthem(0).
Why do you keep making this statement when people in this very thread have demonstrated it is false? Are you reading the other posts?
This is your masterstroke in the Mona Lisa of absurd non sequiturs that is your “theory.” Simply marvelous. X is the opposite of Y but Y is not the opposite of X.
And you were shown to be wrong. Several times! And you backpedaled and muttered about how the examples provided didn’t count.
It’s really not. Just ignoring your sadistic abuse of the word “opposite” for a moment, you keep making this assertion w/o even trying to express what constitutes a “range of conditions.” Is a higher concentration of dust over there in that part of space a different “condition” than that other spot over there with no dust at all? If not, why not?
The danger appears to be that… you’ll be right a lot of the time and will find yourself perched atop all sorts of useful data that can be used to reach new and better conclusions.
Ok, Mr. “X is the opposite of Y but Y is not the opposite of X.”
You understand nothing. I and others have asked you to explain gravity or derive some physical constant like G or the the value of the CMBR. You refuse to do so because you cannot.
It has been pointed out to you but I’ll mention it again: You’re talking about metaphysics. You’re adding no new or meaningful information. If the math works whether or not you’re right and your theory has no explanatory power, it is worthless.
Where we are now? The pinnacle of human understanding and technological ability? I kind of like being here…
…says the guy with no demonstrated ability to express any of his bullshit mathematically or in logically coherent terms. He’s got all the answers folks, but you’re not smart enough to understand them so he’ll just keep 'em under his hat for now!
Note how he dodged the metaphysics point. Twice.
Something tells me he knows what he’s doing with his style of argument.
Or at least, sweet lord I hope so.
The most relevant thought that comes to mind is the following:
"No! No, no, not 6! I said 7. Nobody’s comin’ up with 6. Who works out in 6 minutes? You won’t even get your heart goin, not even a mouse on a wheel.
7’s the key number here. Think about it. 7-Elevens. 7 dwarves. 7, man, that’s the number. 7 chipmunks twirlin’ on a branch, eatin’ lots of sunflowers on my uncle’s ranch. You know that old children’s tale from the sea. It’s like you’re dreamin’ about Gorgonzola cheese when it’s clearly Brie time, baby. Step into my office."
Clearly, the suggestion that anyone could exercise their abs fully in only 6 minutes is so preposterous as to beggar belief. Also, the 7-minute workout will not be explained to anyone who refuses to knowledge the obvious universal truth that 6 is the opposite of 7.
Mind you, 7 is not the opposite of 6. Don’t even think it! You’re thinking it! Stop that!!
I am literally crying right now
Yes, yes, of course. I was only objecting…oh, because I’m a pedant probably, but what you posted is the sort of misconception that if it ever takes hold will have a life of it’s own…flowing glass window panes, poisonous daddy-long-legs, etc.
I’m just checking in to see if all of science has been revolutionized.
I decided that if it depends on the “opposite” relation not being commutative, then I don’t want to bother thinking about it.
It has been revolutionized, and it’s all due to mirrors. Mirrors and dog treats.