Gozonji

Well, the only thing I saw drawn was a list of basic techniques of integration, a topic at the beginning of Calculus II. If he's still working on that, then that's not very far at all, it's not even into real math. But if he is able to actually make sense of the Schrödinger Equation (rather than just obsessing about it), then that's definitely a smart cookie there. It's way above what most people are capable of doing.

INFINITY IS NOT A NUMBER, IT IS A CONCEPT YOU CANNOT PERFORM BINARY OPERATIONS ON CONCEPTS ......sorry, just had to get that out.......

Probability of you=1 Probability od me=1 I see nothing as being unlikely. Everything that has happened has a 100% of happening.

Decisions come from the brain, which is made up of cells, which are made up of molecules. These molecules follow the laws of physics. This the cells, our brain and our "decisions" are all based on a set of immutable laws. Because of entropy. Overall, order tends towards chaos. Everything has to die as the universe cools down and spreads out. The problem isn't evidence against it, the problem is that there is zero evidence for it. Why make up fairy tales not based in reality and pretend they're true? 1. False. Probability of you existing=12. Probability of you being alive=1 And yes, if you aren;t alive, then you wouldn't be alive.....that is tautologically correct. 3. Entropy. 4. If it were "re-created", then it would be a new consciousness. therefore not yours. It is not a "theory", it's a "notion".

By that logic, one could also purport that a square is an "infinite number of smaller squares stacked together" as well.

LOL Okay, natural units are sensible....I give in.

YOU don't. But people do. Again, one metric cup=250ml Exactly. Which makes it an "exact value". 2 cups=500ml 0.23 cups=57.5ml

False Probability of me being born=1 Incorrect. In fact....not only is your premise bizarre and illogical, your conclusion does not follow from it. In short, the universe is not a mega-series of probabilistic events. Matter follows certain laws (ie the Laws of Physics) and is not a game of chance. For example, just because one does not know the computational processes of a particular algorithm, it doesn't mean that the outputs of the algorithm are random.

Yes, in metric. Is there any other rational system of measurement around?

False. 1 cup=250ml

Yes, well, that's a load of religious crap that has nothing to do with mathematics. Or the universe.

It's also important in mathematics. Our physical understanding of reality is the vector space R3. The vector space R4 is then the "fourth spatial dimension". This helps us in calculating systems of equations, digital encryption, even calculations in probability. MAthematically it's absolute necessary. Oh, also, the model of the tesseract you've seen, the cube-inside-a-cube thing, that's not what they REALLY look like. It's a 3-D representation of a 4-D object, much like a picture of a cube is a 2-D representation of a 3-D object. The line representing the third dimension is diagonal because we don't have that third spatial dimension on a sheet of paper. Similarly, the diagonal lines of the tesseract are supposed to be 90o to each of the other lines.

It's taken from Japanese. It is not random even though it would appear so from an ignorant outside observer, I believe that is the point you're trying to make with that question. "Dark Energy" is a man-made concept to describe something we don't know about, but its existence appears to "fix" our faulty equations: It's hypothetical. The number of continents on Earth is arbitrary, it could have been split into 3 or 12, the number of oceans is arbitrary, our classifications of celestial bodies is more or less random and arbitrary, AUC as a concept of time is just reaching for something to try to prove yourself right, the boundary between "tropical storm" and "hurricane" is man-made, the names of said storms are man-made, the very language on which you base the alphanumeric code is man-made and arbitrary, the unit "horsepower" is man-made and arbitrary, names and timing of music is man-made and arbitrary, "miles per hour" is an arbitrary unit of measurement based on other arbitrary units, random quotes from random speeches are man-made and arbitrary, coordinate systems and proper nouns are also arbitrary and man-made. All you have left is that about 3/4 of the gas in the universe is Hydrogen. Not that amazing. This does not relate to string theory in any way that I have seen. We don't, our universe is not anthropomorphic. It is not biocentric. Most of it is random masses, were it biocentric there would be more life than non-life. Do you have any evidence that "the 7-day week is connected to nature"? Or are you randomly assuming? There are thousands of heavenly bodies that can be seen with the naked eye. 1. Prove it before claiming it to be true. 2. Theories must be falsifiable. If you have the luxury of always being able to say "we just haven't found it yet, it may still be in another universe", then it can't be a theory. You're right. Everything is connected.....by physics. If you want to revolutionize science, then use science. Do you have any evidence of this? Or is it another random assumption? We have 8 fingers. Unless you want to count total digits in which case we have 20. You are correct that I mis-typed. I meant "7154", oops. You are not. It's a pseudoscience much in the vein of numerology and astrology. Yes, you did state that. You have stated a lot of things. You have provided circumstantial evidence at best and shown solid evidence for nothing. Conspiracy theories? Really? If they were really as knowledgeable as you claim then I'd imagine that they'd have had a much better code than A=1, B=2, C=3, etc. Dang, I was trying to hide the condescending tone. ;-) But seriously, the scientific method has worked so far for all of the real sciences. Forms of numerology (such as Gematria) are, primarily, unfounded ideas.

The numbers presented are based on a variety of arbitrary units (sometimes kilometers, sometimes miles per hour, sometimes miles per second, etc.). Anything can be transformed into an arbitrary unit with any desired coefficient. Science is based on experimentation, not arbitrary coincidences. And, yes, I assert that they are mere coincidences. The Law of Large Numbers more than suggests the existence of clusters of similar numbers in any large, random distribution. Out of (literally) billions of possible measurements and groupings of numbers throughout our history, it's not even a tiny bit surprising that a few of them are either 4, 6, or 7. Especially considering that they comprise 30% of our base-10 system digits. This is not a theory, it's a notion. And not a particularly well-thought out one at that. Among many of the lapses in logic is the following: GOD=7_4. According to the parameters you set yourself for alphanumeric equivalencies, GOD=7164. (Not to mention that transient languages are not a basis for empirical evidence.) You'd do better to analyze implications derived form the Drake Equation to find life-sustaining planets. Even that is merely a soft conjecture as opposed to aspects of hard sciences, but still is more promising than, yes, numerology.

The smallest instrument ever that produced tones in audible frequencies has been created. The sound must be amplified to hear it, but it looks and sounds amazing. The Article is Here You can also hear it on the Youtube video here: