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.

Help ATS via PayPal:
learn more

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

page: 3
10
share:

posted on Nov, 21 2015 @ 04:52 PM
a reply to: Revolution9

What did I ignore?

I didn't point it out in your first post when you claimed 1/3 is 3.3333..., but to make that error again is just silly. 1/3 would be 0.3333.... I didn't bother to check your other calculations after that.

The problem you have is that you are only pointing out a restriction in one number system, base 10, also known as the decimal system. There are other systems of numbers.

I never claimed infinity doesn't exist. The concept of infinity is quite useful in many fields of mathematics in fact. I simply stated that infinity is not a number.

posted on Nov, 21 2015 @ 05:11 PM

originally posted by: bottleslingguy
it's like a Hegelian dialectic fractal

a reply to: LightSource

Yes. Or any Fractal for that matter.
edit on 21-11-2015 by LightSource because: (no reason given)

posted on Nov, 21 2015 @ 05:17 PM
a reply to: TycoonBarnaby

No, you said that 1/3 could be accurately measured by the decimal system 3.3333....blah..blah...blah...add another 3...ad infinitum, still not quite a third never will be.

That is what I meant about a third. Was it not I who said about the degree measurement that a third works on that, being 120 degrees, yet in the decimal system it can not be accurately represented? That is what I am saying.

You are not even bothering to read my posts properly.

To conclude what I am saying:

1/3 cannot be accurately represented in the decimal number system. There is a paradox because the human designed system that humans invented from their own imagination cannot make the universe fit its system of numbers. 3.3 is not a third. 3.33 is not a third. All the decimal places in infinity and beyond cannot rectify this to a perfect representation according to the decimal number system.

The degree system of 360 degrees can accurately represent a third, that being 120 degrees. It fits one system, but not another. In fact the degree system can measure many portions better than the decimal.

"Many ancient cultures calculated with numerals based on ten: Egyptian hieroglyphs, in evidence since around 3000 BC, used a purely decimal system,"

So what did the infinitely old universe and even 1, 000, 000 plus year old monkey man do before the Egyptians came up with the decimal system just a brief blink of an eye 5, 000 years ago? Did the Egyptians discover the divine secret decimal mathematic language of the universe or did they just invent a very useful decimal number system yet one that has fallibilities? I believe it was very much the latter. Humans can't even adequately represent the solar cycle without having to make adjustments continually. Systems have short falls. The decimal number system cannot with complete accuracy state what a third or two thirds is. Fallible, compromised, imperfect, just like all of our invented systems.

Your honour, I am finished. Let the jury deliver their verdict.

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

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

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

posted on Nov, 21 2015 @ 05:27 PM
a reply to: Revolution9

Again with this 1/3 being 3.333.... jeez. Three time making that mistake, and you want me to trust you when it comes to mathematics?

Here: en.wikipedia.org...
They even use 1/3 as an example there.

For the solar cycle. Quoting from your post: "... 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."

They have accurately measured it. For the calculations after that they are using a rounded version to point out why we add in leap days, etc. The reason we can correct our calendars is not because we don't know how to measure a year accurately, it is precisely BECAUSE we can measure a year accurately.

posted on Nov, 21 2015 @ 05:48 PM

originally posted by: TycoonBarnaby
a reply to: Revolution9

Again with this 1/3 being 3.333.... jeez. Three time making that mistake, and you want me to trust you when it comes to mathematics?

Here: en.wikipedia.org...
They even use 1/3 as an example there.

For the solar cycle. Quoting from your post: "... 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."

They have accurately measured it. For the calculations after that they are using a rounded version to point out why we add in leap days, etc. The reason we can correct our calendars is not because we don't know how to measure a year accurately, it is precisely BECAUSE we can measure a year accurately.

I know where we are at cross wires here. I am meaning in the decimal system derivatives of 10, 100, 1000. Can't have a true third of those numbers. Can have a third derivative of 360 degrees though. The decimal system falls short in certain cases fundamentally to represent a third in its system of 10s (tens). Unitarily on a fundamental basis the very blocks of the decimal system cannot be divided into 3. That is what I meant. You can have a third of 21 obviously, that is 7. However, the decimal system does its thing in 10s and those 10s will not split into 3 with any true accuracy.

"Let's look at it another way - in base 10 which you're likely to be comfortable with, you can't express 1/3 exactly. It's 0.3333333... (recurring). "

My own quote for the maths in an earlier post demonstrated accurate measurement of a year. I mean that the system of our Gregorian calendar cannot contain the actual solar year without constant adjustment. It even requires centennial adjustments it gets that out of sync. I am trying to demonstrate how our systems are fallible. The universe does not fit. We come close, but there are always issues of compensation and inaccuracy.

"To have squeezed the universe into a ball
To roll it toward some overwhelming question," (TS Eliot).
edit on 21-11-2015 by Revolution9 because: (no reason given)

posted on Nov, 21 2015 @ 05:58 PM

originally posted by: Revolution9

originally posted by: TycoonBarnaby
a reply to: Revolution9

Again with this 1/3 being 3.333.... jeez. Three time making that mistake, and you want me to trust you when it comes to mathematics?

Here: en.wikipedia.org...
They even use 1/3 as an example there.

For the solar cycle. Quoting from your post: "... 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."

They have accurately measured it. For the calculations after that they are using a rounded version to point out why we add in leap days, etc. The reason we can correct our calendars is not because we don't know how to measure a year accurately, it is precisely BECAUSE we can measure a year accurately.

I know where we are at cross wires here. I am meaning in the decimal system derivatives of 10, 100, 1000. Can't have a true third of those numbers. Can have a third derivative of 360 degrees though. The decimal system falls short in certain cases fundamentally to represent a third in its system of 10s (tens). Unitarily on a fundamental basis the very blocks of the decimal system cannot be divided into 3. That is what I meant. You can have a third of 21 obviously, that is 7. However, the decimal system does its things in 10s and those 10s will not split into 3 with any true accuracy.

If you can never get to 1 or 0 then you cannot get to any number. So with that in mind you can never get to 120 or any whole number. I feel 3.3333, 1/3 and 120 out of 360 end up as the same which is why "something" or 1 can never reach 0 and 0 can never reach 1. So even though you say 120 its really 120.00001 or 119.999999. That in turn creates the 2 "something's" out of "nothing". The Two numbers that can never be reached.

With that being said there was "nothing" (or 0) and then "something" (or 1). That same split second "nothing" created a second 1 when it changed to 0.0001 and "something" became .99999 because you can never reach 0 or 1. That is the first "infinite" occurrence. That in turn created the third "something" (or .0000099999) and in that same split second an infinite amount of "something's.
edit on 21-11-2015 by LightSource because: (no reason given)

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

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

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

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 @ 07:37 PM

originally posted by: TycoonBarnaby
a reply to: Revolution9

What did I ignore?

I didn't point it out in your first post when you claimed 1/3 is 3.3333..., but to make that error again is just silly. 1/3 would be 0.3333.... I didn't bother to check your other calculations after that.

The problem you have is that you are only pointing out a restriction in one number system, base 10, also known as the decimal system. There are other systems of numbers.

I never claimed infinity doesn't exist. The concept of infinity is quite useful in many fields of mathematics in fact. I simply stated that infinity is not a number.

Infinity is a number it is 1 or 0. These numbers can never be reached therefore they are "infinite". Also the numbers between 1 and 0 are "infinite" as well.

posted on Nov, 21 2015 @ 07:47 PM
I see the Universe and and in-breath and an out-breath.

posted on Nov, 21 2015 @ 09:03 PM

originally posted by: eisegesis
a reply to: LightSource

Cool.

I tried to follow along.

1 = Matter

0 = Antimatter

They annihilate each other into the "infinite". This annihilation generates an energy that is left behind to "exist". Energy that grows out of these interactions develop bonds, procedurally generating a larger and more complex "existence".

The energy left behind accumulates, thus increasing the ability to attract more energy. As energy levels fluctuate, so do the properties of the 1's they generate. As the energy collects, it begins to swell and the 1's become so heavy, that they collapse on themselves.

The black hole created during this process and it's energy, becomes so great that it begins to interact with the very "infinite" from which it originally came. This allows more interactions to take place between the "infinite" and the accumulation of 1's (matter), already in "existence".

Black holes are like network hubs throughout the Universe that generate a continual interaction between 1's and 0's adding a random chaotic spin to our "existence". While not a "creator", they do develop the ability to give and take "existence" acting as a doorway to the "infinite". Or not.

borrowing from shakespeare... "all of time is a stage, and every particle a player." classic literature and scientific relevance. mmm.

posted on Nov, 22 2015 @ 08:06 AM
I don't want to argue about anything. Shane was the one talking about slicing pies in half wasn't he? if the shoe doesn't fit don't wear it but my point still applies to materialist reductionism.

a reply to: Peeple

edit on 22-11-2015 by bottleslingguy because: (no reason given)

posted on Nov, 22 2015 @ 09:38 AM
a reply to: LightSource

Doesn't really make much sense if I am being honest. What are you defining as nothing? Zero? Zero is not nothing. It is a concept used to describe something. Numbers require minds to actually exist. If you have nothing, the absence of all things, you have no mind which means you don't have a zero you just have no thing. Logically, no thing cannot beget something

If you have a 0, but no mathematical operations . There are no integers that can be used no math tricks all that exist is that 0. 0 with these limitations on it cannot be moved. It stays 0. Only thru intervention of that rule can you move from 0. If nothing was ever in existence then something could never be.

posted on Nov, 22 2015 @ 06:09 PM
a reply to: ServantOfTheLamb

"nothing" has never been an actual thing in recorded history, nor have observations suggested that its possible for "nothing" to occur, wherein a given space is completely unoccupied by matter or energy. so yes, it seems that the universe leans more toward some flavor of immortality as opposed to some flavor of having been "born". of course, we havent even seen the edge of the universe yet, so theres lots of data to be collected and processed and analyzed. lots of questions and barely a few of them close to being answered - by the people who are both qualified and paid to answer them, i mean. but thats the nature of the beast, and rushing it just means better chances of screwing up a serious field of study. nobody wants that, right?
edit on 22-11-2015 by TzarChasm because: (no reason given)

posted on Nov, 23 2015 @ 12:24 AM
The 0 is the amazing thing, not the values added. A perfect neutrality. The Null is the stage for goods creation. If perfect neutrality is not existend nothing could created, nothing would have value, no vibrations, no heat, no matter, no light.

On top of that it also means that if everything what exists is balanced around 0. Then every energy will balance out in balance of everything.

This means that your thoughts flow around the whole universe. Otherwise they couldn't be created.

I find it interesting that bashar explains that it's not perfectly around 0 but slightly positive (love)

posted on Nov, 23 2015 @ 09:13 AM
a reply to: TzarChasm

I never said anything about nothing existing? sure you replied to the right person?

posted on Nov, 23 2015 @ 09:17 AM
a reply to: swarm303

Neutrality is entirely different from nothing, and its also not true that everything is neutral at 0. Everything is neutral at whatever measurement we decide to give it. For example, a 7 on the Ph scale is neutral. If we wanted to make neutral 0 and count up seven and negative seven we could. Numbers are just descriptions of reality they don't cause the reality. Also if perfect neutrality didn't exist then why would that mean no vibrations, no heat, and no light? Seems to me all those things could exist at extremes never needing any type of neutrality.

posted on Nov, 23 2015 @ 11:07 AM

originally posted by: ServantOfTheLamb
a reply to: TzarChasm

I never said anything about nothing existing? sure you replied to the right person?

i was just providing a counter point to your post.

posted on Nov, 23 2015 @ 12:11 PM
a reply to: TzarChasm

Ok, don't necessarily think it was really a counter point. Maybe just a different opinion.

posted on Nov, 23 2015 @ 12:19 PM
a reply to: LightSource

In philosophy one of the big questions is: "Why is there something rather than nothing?"

This question has stumped philosophers for thousands of years and the reason, I think, is simple, there is a problem with the question itself. The question assumes that there can be a state of NOTHING, that such a thing is a possibility. I personally don't see how NOTHING, in the absolute sense, is even a coherent concept that could ever describe a state that reality was in.

There was always something, because nothing is nonsensical.

posted on Nov, 23 2015 @ 12:23 PM
a reply to: Titen-Sxull

If you take pretty much any model of the origin of the universe, they all fall back to a point where time, space, and matter did not exist. Everything in this world around us requires spacetime to be within its current state. If there is no spacetime, and all things that we know of rely on spacetime, then its quite easy to conceive of how a state of nothing could exist. If you are still having trouble. Nothing is what rocks dream about.

posted on Nov, 23 2015 @ 12:40 PM
a reply to: ServantOfTheLamb

BS!
universetoday

The first idea is that it all began as a kind of quantum fluctuation that inflated to our present universe...

...The alternative idea is that our universe began within a black hole of an older universe...

new topics

10