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.......

How can life be just a once off thing because if there is time before & after my life then the odds of now being the time I am conscious would be unlikely, and in the billions which I refuse to accept as feasible to believe. Although now is always going to be now I am basing on the concept of all time and amount of times one could exist.

 

Probability of you=1

Probability od me=1

I see nothing as being unlikely. Everything that has happened has a 100% of happening.

It sounds like your suggesting that pre-determination exists, because you act like every event must follow the laws of physics exactly, but people don't have to follow what space & time does to them completely, we can decide if we want to go left or right,

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.

 

the odds of one being born just once is highly unlikely, it doesn't make it impossible, but you should just realize that what we see is not all that there is, like just one life is kind of hard to believe for me because, why one? why not two, three, four, five,

Because of entropy. Overall, order tends towards chaos. Everything has to die as the universe cools down and spreads out.

and the only evidence against some form of life after death is we haven't seen observational evidence of it, but of course scientists don't believe in it one bit, so they just ignore performing these experiments then argue no one has observational evidence of it simply because they don't themselves.

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. It is unlikely for me to exist at all

2. It is unlikely that the time I would exist would be now or/and it is unlikely that I would be alive now and if I wasn't alive now then I wouldn't be alive

3. It is unlikely for just one life among all the countless numbers on the number-line why just 1?

4. If one's consciousness can be created, then destroyed why not re-created?

1. False. Probability of you existing=1

2. 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.

 

Do you understand my theory?

It is not a "theory", it's a "notion".

I've often thought if dimensions this way. A line is one dimension a square is two dimensions but how many lines does the square contain? An infinite number of 1D lines side by side compose the 2D square. A cube is an infinite number of 2D squares all packed on top of each other, so this would mean a 4D cube equivalent would contain an infinite number of 3D cubes.

 

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

Foot pound second

or

http://en.wikipedia....i/Natural_units

 

Anyway, I'd like to know what alpha2cen thinks this thread has added to human understanding.

LOL

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

But 1 cup does not have exact value.

For example other units

1m=100cm

1kg=1000g

and measured value is like this.

1.005m

1.00006kg

But we generally do not use 0.23cup.

 

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

If you went back to the birth of the Universe what is the odds you would exist? well you would have to factorize in countless events and at the start of the universe you need billions of atomic events to go your way, if you moved an atom slightly in another direction at the birth of the Universe, that would be so dramatic and changing to the present, the milky way may not event exist. And the odds of you existing from the start of the Universe is huge, well more beyond the odds of winning the lotto

False

Probability of me being born=1

 

 

And if you go before the birth of universe and realize there is no beginning to the multiverse, you can go back to Infinity B.C. in the multiverse, then the odds of you being born with one life is Infinity/1 and that makes the odds of you being born well nearly impossible, although there is still one chance, I don't think anyone could honestly defy Infinity/1! So the only way to explain this realization is life lasting infinity years aka eternal life, although I cannot see too much scientific evidence of the after life, I cannot see anyway around this mathematical probability evidence.

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.

 

 

In metric.

Yes, in metric.

Is there any other rational system of measurement around?

The unit , cup is not a measured value(cm, sec, ...).

So the number of significant figure is not no problem.

 

 

False.

1 cup=250ml

http://www.suite101....niverse-a189473 Pythagoras saw numbers as representing more than quantity, and as I understood Schwartz's public radio interview, he also presents numbers as something that stands for my then quantity. There is an element of quality.

 

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 90^o to each of the other lines.

Hey, thanks for taking the time to read the op. What does 'Gozonji' mean? Did you 'randomly' choose that screen name or is there some meaning or underlying reason that I don't know about?

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.

Ok, "my 'numbers' are not arbitrary". Look again at the first paragraph presented. With the exception of the months in parenthesis, nothing is 'man-made', nothing is arbitrary. I see that you conveniently passed over referring to any example of 7_4 that comes from nature.

"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.

Unified string theory is the title of the op and is the most important point₇₄,

This does not relate to string theory in any way that I have seen.

yet you didn't recognize how that can now be recognized as a fundamental constant/initial74 condition. You also don't seem to recognize that we live in an anthropomorphic/biocentric universe, correct?

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.

When you say, "Anything can be transformed into an arbitrary unit with any desired coefficient", well, that is both correct and incorrect. For example, you as an individual may starting following an 8-day week, but can you convince anyone else to? Probably not. Why? Because the 7-day week is connect74ed to nature

Do you have any evidence that "the 7-day week is connected to nature"? Or are you randomly assuming?

the four 7.4 day lunar phases and the 7 moving ancient heavenly bodies that can be seen with the naked eye (Sun, Moon, 5 'wandering stars' [planets]).

There are thousands of heavenly bodies that can be seen with the naked eye.

 

Gononji - "Science is based on experimentation."

No s#*t! I don't appreciate the 'talking down to'. Scientific theories must show documented evidence and make predictions, right? That has been the rebuttal so far by many to string theory, "Where's the evidence of its existence and where are the predictions from it?" Well, now we have both. There couldn't be a stronger prediction than all new worlds are built on 7_4 (like Earth) or 6_4 (like Planet Nestor). Given some time₄₇, we will be easily able to directly prove this prediction true or false.

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.

 

And your assertion is quite wrong! There are no coincidences - there is synchronism. Everything evolves by natural laws and is mathematically interwoven. All things are related, some more closely than others. Everything that happens affects everything else. Chaos theory tells us this and states that there is only an appearance of randomness in chaotic systems. Science is all about recognizing the existence of patterns in nature, i.e. algorithms, fractals, 'programs', etc.

You're right. Everything is connected.....by physics. If you want to revolutionize science, then use science.

 

Our subconscious mind is reacting to patterns and laws of nature even when those theories haven't been discovered yet.

Do you have any evidence of this? Or is it another random assumption?

 

Your argument of "The Law of Large Numbers more than suggests the existence of clusters of similar numbers in any large, random distribution" is not particularly well-thought out. And you are oblivious to "our base-10 system digits" is directly tied to nature - our 10 fingers.

We have 8 fingers. Unless you want to count total digits in which case we have 20.

 

Gononji - "Among many of the lapses in logic is the following: GOD=7_4. According to the parameters you set yourself between alphanumeric equivalencies, GOD=7164. (Not to mention that transient languages are not a basis for empirical evidence.)"

Wow! You tried to insult me and you exposed your own logic - your own 1st grade math - as being quite wrong!

You are correct that I mis-typed. I meant "7154", oops.

 

I'm assuming you have never heard of the 2,500+ year old practice of gematria, am I correct?

You are not. It's a pseudoscience much in the vein of numerology and astrology.

 

I stated very clearly that "English⁷₇₄ is alphanumeric - the key₇₄: A=1...O=15 or zerO...Z=26" and "GOD=7_4", yet you incorrectly came up with GOD=7164. According₇₄ to 'Step 2' of Simple₇₄ English₇₄ Gematria₇₄, G is the 7th letter, O is 15 or zerO, and D is 4, hence: GOD=7154 or 704 or 7-circle-4. This relationship is best represented as GOD=7_4.

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.

 

Furthermore, I did not create Simple English Gematria. This Masonic⁷₇₄ Code⁴ as been around since the formal Society of Freemasonry began around 1500 AD. Many of the US Founding Fathers (Franklin, Washington, Hancock, etc.) were each a Mason₄₇ and intentionally chose July 4th for signing the Declaration of Independence ('Dunlap Broadsides'). Have you done any research on Freemasonry? I bet $74 you haven't! I am not a Mason and, therefore, I haven't sworn any oath to keep anything secret. I cracked their codes and the scientific/mathematical linguistic analysis is quite telling!

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.

 

Gononji - "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."

 

Again, for someone who is as limited as you've proven to be, you're very condescending. I believe I first heard of the Drake Equation when I was in high school ('77) and have been following the topic closely ever since. I sent Paul Drake and others at SETI an early copy of this theory and had an email exchange with Seth Shostak. Given some time, the "hard science" will prove this theory correct to skeptics like yourself.

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:

Bonjour mes amis, je suis du Texas. I'm Jason the Amazing. I'm high in bravado, but low in calories.

I'm a physics major in Texas and enjoy reading through the forum a lot.