1x0 Posted March 4, 2015 Author Share Posted March 4, 2015 What does 'your' common sense tell you about the expansion ? That it started in relation with the first metaphysical information in the system and a low energy presented with this information. Space expands in relation with this information. So space is expanding in a low energy and matter free circumstances. The original low energy limits its expansion. I suggest c2. Or is your common sense un-common ? That is an possibility. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Strange Posted March 4, 2015 Share Posted March 4, 2015 0*1=1 I assume this related my understanding of the proportions of zero. As it does not contain any information any operation with this state does not make sense. It is a reference point for the physically presented values. I do not see any evidence that it would be on any different way. None of the existing phyisical values will be infinite or zero in proportion to zero. They will indicate the same value as before the operation. Are you unwilling or unable to explain what this means? Let's make it very simple: what does the symbol "*" represent in your "equation"? (for want of a better word). take a 1 cm long ruler. expand the spacing between each graduation from 0cm to 1 cm. Repeat it further. The ruler will have an exact center does not matter how many times you expand it. But the universe is not 1cm long. There are good indications it has no boundaries, and therefore no centre. That it started in relation with the first metaphysical information in the system and a low energy presented with this information. Space expands in relation with this information. So space is expanding in a low energy and matter free circumstances. The original low energy limits its expansion. I suggest c2. Complete and utter gibberish. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
1x0 Posted March 4, 2015 Author Share Posted March 4, 2015 The key point science isn't religion or philosophy, it's what we can quantify and measurements. We describe those observations. When we encounter an observation that counters our previous understanding we develop a new understanding. This is not based on faith. This is based on observation, evidence, and math predictions. We try to quantify metaphysical values. It´s called economy. As intelligent and productive you are as much you are supported (generally) in the system. Your salary is not the same as the factory worker in Bangladesh. It is not faith. It is the understanding of intelligence and its presence through our physical tools. It is in the system. To deny it is just to close our eyes to keep up a present system because it would be too difficult to refine it. You are not able to describe a system if you do not work with all of its components. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Strange Posted March 4, 2015 Share Posted March 4, 2015 One of my problems with the current approaches, that they do not include intelligence and its evolution in the current theories. Please define what you mean by "intelligence"? Are you claiming that, for example, atoms and subatomic particles have "intelligence"? If so, what objective evidence do you have for this? (A random collection of words referencing metaphysics does not count as evidence.) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
1x0 Posted March 4, 2015 Author Share Posted March 4, 2015 If your looking for the meaning of existence, it's to live, learn and experience. We agree on this. That is why I am here. Ever reaction is experience and information. You are describing mathematic tools with no correlations. In all honesty its meaningless. I am starting a mathematical tool with correlation of a common reference point with physics. The only conception which is the same in math, physics and philosophy. Let's make it very simple: what does the symbol "*" represent in your "equation"? (for want of a better word). Multiplication. But the universe is not 1cm long. There are good indications it has no boundaries, and therefore no centre. It is the limited information what we work with. 600 years ago the earth was the center of the universe as a flat object. Complete and utter gibberish. Might be. But there is a reason for energy to exist and this is my best assumption why it is there. What could cause the continuous accelerating expansion of space under the force of gravity and the constant production of energy. Cause and causality. I do not see any other option how it could happen. And how the universal accelerator could work. Space is a different dimension as energy and matter. In other worlds space will expand even singularity is present. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Strange Posted March 4, 2015 Share Posted March 4, 2015 Multiplication. Then your equation is trivially wrong. What could cause the continuous accelerating expansion of space under the force of gravity and the constant production of energy. The expansion hasn't been constantly accelerating. It was constant, or possibly slowing, initially and then started accelerating. When you can't even do primary school arithmetic and don't know much about the big bang model, why should anyone take you seriously? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
swansont Posted March 4, 2015 Share Posted March 4, 2015 My understanding is … ! Moderator Note Your understanding is wrong. That can be fixed — there are plenty of resources out there for you to use to upgrade your understanding. (I gave you two) This conjecture is ill-founded, and you have presented no evidence or model to support any of your claims. Just a lot of hand-waving. It does not meet the threshold of discussion here as science. Therefore, closed. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts