It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Our universe which is “something” has always existed, with the explanation for it using math.

page: 2
10
<< 1    3  4  5 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Nov, 21 2015 @ 02:37 PM
link   

originally posted by: 3NL1GHT3N3D1
A bit confusing but I think I get what you're saying. If there is something then there must be nothing as well. Just like with big and small, what is one without the other to compare it to?

The nothing is within the something and vice versa. Everything we see is virtually empty space, yet within that virtually empty space is everything. If nothing and everything exist together simultaneously, then so do the beginning and end. If the beginning and end exist simultaneously then there can only be eternity.


Yes even that "empty space" is filled with something.

Added- Yes as well as everything existing together simultaneously like pages of a book each change creating a new page that never ends. like a flip book except an "infinite" number have been created.
edit on 21-11-2015 by LightSource because: (no reason given)

edit on 21-11-2015 by LightSource because: (no reason given)




posted on Nov, 21 2015 @ 02:47 PM
link   
a reply to: LightSource

Infinity is not a number. You cannot have an infinite number of anything.



posted on Nov, 21 2015 @ 02:56 PM
link   
a reply to: TycoonBarnaby

Anything that has a "size" has a "number" associated with it. If the universe is "something" and we consider it "infinite" then it is a number below 1. Since it is below 1 then outside our universe it is not "infinite" and is actually finite in relation to the next "infinite" surrounding it.


edit on 21-11-2015 by LightSource because: (no reason given)



posted on Nov, 21 2015 @ 03:01 PM
link   
a reply to: LightSource

That doesn't explain anything. All you say is everything was always there and then it started creating infinity?
If you would have said 0 is antimatter and 1 is matter and were they collide they create time it would have made more sense.
Time only exists where motion is, without a spinning, or in general moving object there is no time. As proven by the time dilation phenomena.
How is it math to say "an infinite loop of time expires"? That's in theory alone impossible.
There is matter, anti matter and super dense matter btw and time, like gravity is a force created by interaction of matter...

I believe tough that our universe is experiencing loops, we expand, we collapse, spend energy, store energy and all over again, not in infinity but in sthg crazy big like 10*999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999 years



posted on Nov, 21 2015 @ 03:03 PM
link   
originally posted by: LightSource
a reply to: TycoonBarnaby

Anything that has a "size" has a "number" associated with it. If the universe is "something" and we consider it "infinite" then it is a number below 1. Since it is below 1 then outside our universe it is not "infinite" and is actually finite in relation to the next "infinite" surrounding it. We are expanding inside our universe but we actually are shrinking outside our universe. We are both the 1 and 0 existing in the same place and time but only able to see either the 1 or the 0 depending on which "side" we are on never able to see both at the same time.


edit on 21-11-2015 by LightSource because: (no reason given)

edit on 21-11-2015 by LightSource because: (no reason given)



posted on Nov, 21 2015 @ 03:14 PM
link   

originally posted by: Peeple
a reply to: LightSource

That doesn't explain anything. All you say is everything was always there and then it started creating infinity?
If you would have said 0 is antimatter and 1 is matter and were they collide they create time it would have made more sense.
Time only exists where motion is, without a spinning, or in general moving object there is no time. As proven by the time dilation phenomena.
How is it math to say "an infinite loop of time expires"? That's in theory alone impossible.
There is matter, anti matter and super dense matter btw and time, like gravity is a force created by interaction of matter...

I believe tough that our universe is experiencing loops, we expand, we collapse, spend energy, store energy and all over again, not in infinity but in sthg crazy big like 10*999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999 years


Again it is our problem with how we have been taught what 1 and 0 are. Lets say the universe never existed ever. The only thing that has ever existed is nothing or 0. For an "infinite" time nothing existed and then poof, something popped into existence (the universe). This is possible because you can never reach 0 just like you can never reach 1 everything is in-between. Doesn't matter how many years our universe has been around it will never reach 0 and it will never reach 1 in terms of "something" or "nothing". They both exist at the same time in the same place. They are both an "infinite" that can never be reached and a second "infinite" by everything in the middle.

The second "infinite" is what created everything we see (matter) and gives us variety
edit on 21-11-2015 by LightSource because: (no reason given)

edit on 21-11-2015 by LightSource because: (no reason given)



posted on Nov, 21 2015 @ 03:20 PM
link   
a reply to: LightSource

Okay so approximately infinity. That would make it even harder for it to expire!
How can an infinite loop of time expire when you only approach it but never reach it?



posted on Nov, 21 2015 @ 03:23 PM
link   
Infinite regress problem.

en.m.wikipedia.org...

www.informationphilosopher.com...
edit on 21-11-2015 by luthier because: (no reason given)



posted on Nov, 21 2015 @ 03:36 PM
link   

originally posted by: Peeple
a reply to: LightSource

Okay so approximately infinity. That would make it even harder for it to expire!
How can an infinite loop of time expire when you only approach it but never reach it?


By viewing it from the outside and not the inside. Here is another way to view it. If there were only 3 things a human, the sun, and the universe. The human dies after 100 years. The sun dies after 1000 years and the universe dies at 10000 years. To the human the sun and universe were everlasting. To the sun the human was finite and the universe is everlasting. To the universe whatever is holding it is everlasting but the human and sun are both finite. Just as Einstein proved that time is relative so is "size". With that being said "infinite" eventually ends by a observation or sudden change. Even though in our eyes it was XXXXX years it actually happens in a blink of an eye. So we have an infinite number of infinite loops that all happen at once in a blink of an eye (or basically all at the same time).

everythingforever.com...



posted on Nov, 21 2015 @ 03:43 PM
link   
a reply to: LightSource

Congratulations now you only have to figure out what is outside our universe and how that came to be. Which means you opened more question than you "answered".

Good luck with that!



posted on Nov, 21 2015 @ 03:56 PM
link   
it's like a Hegelian dialectic fractal

a reply to: LightSource



posted on Nov, 21 2015 @ 04:02 PM
link   
you need to abandon the materialist's conundrum and look at post materialism. could be that consciousness is the ground state of being which leads to the manifestation of matter?

a reply to: ShayneJUK



posted on Nov, 21 2015 @ 04:04 PM
link   

originally posted by: TycoonBarnaby
a reply to: LightSource

Infinity is not a number. You cannot have an infinite number of anything.


Why not? Because you say we can't. Yet we can.

Recurring numbers:

One third of anything can not be resolved by maths. It is infinite: 3.3333333333333333333333333333333333333333333333333333333333333333333333333333333333333333333333333333333333333333333333333333333333333333333333333333 333333333333333333333333333333333333333333333333333333333333333333333333333333333333333333333333333333333333333333333333333333333333333333333333333333 333333333333333

It still is not resolved. We could try for infinity to resolve it. No chance.

In actual FACT 1/3 is an illusion. It is impossible for a third to exist in maths.

In maths 1/3 can never be resolved according to the decimal system. It is a fallable system that has holes in it.

YET...

We can split a circle into 3 equal segments, 120 degrees each (except when we get down to the fine print of quarks, etc, then we may never be able to actually locate a true third).

So maths cannot quantitatively and definitely express a third in decimal terms. Yet degrees can. The decimal numeric system is thus limited and unable to represent 1/3. It cannot resolve it. This shows us that humans make systems that cannot accommodate the universe. Like a solar cycle will not fit our numerical definition of a year.

Are physicists using a language that is not actually up to the job of adequately explaining the universe in equations? I think yes they are ultimately trying to make the universe fit the maths that is their own invention and the universe will not fit our made up fairy tale limited system of mathematics.
edit on 21-11-2015 by Revolution9 because: (no reason given)



posted on Nov, 21 2015 @ 04:05 PM
link   

originally posted by: Peeple
a reply to: LightSource

Congratulations now you only have to figure out what is outside our universe and how that came to be. Which means you opened more question than you "answered".

Good luck with that!


I know it is "something" or another 1. Thinking about it in order for our universe to exist there must be something around it or the second "something" or 1, which is also repeatable in our own universe. "Nothing" (empty space), "Something" (Matter), Second "something" (the energy created with 2 pieces of matter colliding). "Nothing (antimatter), Something (matter), Second "something" (antimatter and matter coming in contact and the energy created). "Nothing" (no universe), Something (universe), second "something" (energy created from 2 universes colliding).



posted on Nov, 21 2015 @ 04:09 PM
link   
a reply to: LightSource

No. Think of the universe as fabric, let's say a tissue. It doesn't need the table, or a floor or sthg to lay on to exist. It still is a tissue, even when floating through a vacuum.



posted on Nov, 21 2015 @ 04:17 PM
link   

originally posted by: Revolution9

originally posted by: TycoonBarnaby
a reply to: LightSource

Infinity is not a number. You cannot have an infinite number of anything.


Why not? Because you say we can't. Yet we can.

Recurring numbers:

One third of anything can not be resolved by maths. It is infinite: 3.3333333333333333333333333333333333333333333333333333333333333333333333333333333333333333333333333333333333333333333333333333333333333333333333333333 333333333333333333333333333333333333333333333333333333333333333333333333333333333333333333333333333333333333333333333333333333333333333333333333333333 333333333333333

It still is not resolved. We could try for infinity to resolve it. No chance.

In actual FACT 1/3 is an illusion. It is impossible for a third to exist in maths.

In maths 1/3 can never be resolved according to the decimal system. It is a fallable system that has holes in it.

YET...

We can split a circle into 3 equal segments, 120 degrees each (except when we get down to the fine print of quarks, etc, then we may never be able to actually locate a true third).

So maths cannot quantitatively and definitely express a third in decimal terms. Yet degrees can. The decimal numeric system is thus limited and unable to represent 1/3. It cannot resolve it. This shows us that humans make systems that cannot accommodate the universe. Like a solar cycle will not fit our numerical definition of a year.

Are physicists using a language that is not actually up to the job of adequately explaining the universe in equations? I think yes they are ultimately trying to make the universe fit the maths that is their own invention and the universe will not fit our made up fairy tale limited system of mathematics.


1/3 is a rational number with an infinite decimal expansion. Totally OK.

Infinity, by itself, is not a number.



posted on Nov, 21 2015 @ 04:22 PM
link   

originally posted by: Peeple
a reply to: LightSource

Congratulations now you only have to figure out what is outside our universe and how that came to be. Which means you opened more question than you "answered".

Good luck with that!


consciousness is outside the materialist's box



posted on Nov, 21 2015 @ 04:27 PM
link   
a reply to: bottleslingguy

Who says i am a materialist?
But consciousness needs at least energy to exist. Probably matter also. Or energy flowing through matter.
Do you really want to argue about what consciousness is?



posted on Nov, 21 2015 @ 04:37 PM
link   
-(t^0.5)(M-1/Mt^2) where M is the mass of the universe. Plot as polar coordinates with several values for M between 0 and 1. 0



posted on Nov, 21 2015 @ 04:38 PM
link   

originally posted by: TycoonBarnaby

originally posted by: Revolution9

originally posted by: TycoonBarnaby
a reply to: LightSource

Infinity is not a number. You cannot have an infinite number of anything.


Why not? Because you say we can't. Yet we can.

Recurring numbers:

One third of anything can not be resolved by maths. It is infinite: 3.3333333333333333333333333333333333333333333333333333333333333333333333333333333333333333333333333333333333333333333333333333333333333333333333333333 333333333333333333333333333333333333333333333333333333333333333333333333333333333333333333333333333333333333333333333333333333333333333333333333333333 333333333333333

It still is not resolved. We could try for infinity to resolve it. No chance.

In actual FACT 1/3 is an illusion. It is impossible for a third to exist in maths.

In maths 1/3 can never be resolved according to the decimal system. It is a fallable system that has holes in it.

YET...

We can split a circle into 3 equal segments, 120 degrees each (except when we get down to the fine print of quarks, etc, then we may never be able to actually locate a true third).

So maths cannot quantitatively and definitely express a third in decimal terms. Yet degrees can. The decimal numeric system is thus limited and unable to represent 1/3. It cannot resolve it. This shows us that humans make systems that cannot accommodate the universe. Like a solar cycle will not fit our numerical definition of a year.

Are physicists using a language that is not actually up to the job of adequately explaining the universe in equations? I think yes they are ultimately trying to make the universe fit the maths that is their own invention and the universe will not fit our made up fairy tale limited system of mathematics.


1/3 is a rational number with an infinite decimal expansion. Totally OK.

Infinity, by itself, is not a number.


You are just ignoring me and repeating something I proved was not actually achievable. Don't be an ass.

You only have to look up at the night sky to see eternity and infinity. It is easy for me to comprehend that and that it never actually started and will never actually end.

It shows in our posts. You are writing unimaginative, narrowly perceived, restricting one liners while I am opening up the infinite nature of the universe. You go enjoy your snail shell and fallible decimal system that you think is somehow the divine language of the universe. I'll continue to widen my perception of the cosmos.

If you repeat yourself again without any kind of argument I am going to denounce you as a



It is possible to repeat your one line into infinity. There, infinity right before your eyes. An eternity of saying 3.3 recurring is a perfect description of a third and that a third can TRULY be represented in a decimal system. That cannot be done. It would keep happening FOREVER and ETERNALLY. Guess what, there is another problem Houston. 2/3 is just as much impossible for the decimal system to truly represent. Yet 3/3 is possible. How come it can do some things and not others? Because it is not perfect just like our measuring of a year. Just so happens we have to add a day every four years:

"The year is not exactly 365.25 days long. Our official day is 86,400 seconds long. I won’t go into details on the length of the year itself (you can read a wee bit about it here), but the year we now use is called a Tropical Year and it is 365.242190419 days long. With malice aforethought — my calculator won’t hold that many digits — let’s round it to 365.2421904.

So it’s a bit short of 365.25. That hardly matters, right?

Actually, it does, over time. Even that little bit adds up. After four years, we don’t have 1461 physical days, we have

4 years at 365.2421904 (real) days/year = 1460.968762 days.

That means that when we add a whole day in every four years, we’re adding too much! We should really only add 0.968762 days. But that’s a bit of a pain, so we add in a whole day.

So even though we add a Leap Day in to balance the calendar, it’s still a bit off. It’s a lot better, for sure, but it’s still just a hair out of whack. This time, it’s ahead (since we added a whole day which is too much) by

1 – .968762 days = 0.031238 days, or about 45 minutes.

That’s not a big deal, but you can see that eventually we’ll run into trouble again. The calendar gains 45 minutes every 4 four years. After we’ve had 32 leap years (128 years of calendar time) we’ll be off by a day again!

So we need to adjust our calendar again. But 128 years is hard to remember, so it was decided to round that down to 100 years. After a century, we’ll have added that extra 45 minutes in 25 times (every four years for 100 years = 25 leap years). To be precise, after 100 years the calendar will be off by

25 x 0.031238 days = 0.780950 days.

That’s close enough to a whole day.

Confused yet? Here’s another way to think about. After 100 years, we’ll have had 25 leap years, and 75 non leap years. That’s a total of

(25 leap years x 366 days/leap year) + (75 years x 365 days/year) = 36,525 calendar days.

But in reality we’ve had 100 years of 365.2421904 days, or 36524.2421904 days. So now we’re off by

36,525 – 36524.21904 = .78096

which, within roundoff error, is the number I got above. Woohoo.

So after 100 years, the calendar has gained almost a whole day on the physical number of days in a year. That means we have to stop the calendar and let the spin of the Earth catch up. To do this, every 100 years we don’t add in a leap day! To make it simpler, we only do this in years divisible by 100. So 1700, 1800, and 1900 were not leap years, we didn’t add an extra day, and the calendar edged that much closer to matching reality."



whole section necessary for inclusion because of maths sum from [urlblogs.discovermagazine.com...[/url]

edit on 21-11-2015 by Revolution9 because: (no reason given)




top topics



 
10
<< 1    3  4  5 >>

log in

join