Alan McDougall

If you could change places with God for a while what would your first, lets say, ten acts be?

Mathematics and God Perhaps the most unusual argument for evidence of God has come from mathematics. Some have suggested that the compact formula ei*pi + 1 = 0 is surely proof of a Creator and have called this formula "God’s formula." Edward Kasner and James Newman in Mathematics and the Imagination note, "We can only reproduce the equation and not stop to inquire into its implications. It appeals equally to the mystic, the scientists, the mathematician." This formula of Leonhard Euler (1707-1783) unites the five most important symbols of mathematics: 1, 0, pi, e and i (the square root of minus one). This union was regarded as mystic union containing representatives from each branch of the mathematical tree: arithmetic is represented by 0 and 1, algebra by the symbol i, geometry by pi, and analysis by the transcendental e. Harvard mathematician Benjamin Pierce said about the formula, "That is surely true, it is absolutely paradoxical; we cannot understand it, and we don't know what it means, but we have proved it, and therefore we know it must be the truth." Mathematics certainly says more in fewer "words" than any other science. David Eugene Smith in A History of Mathematics in America Before 1900 wrote, "The formula, ei*pi + 1 = 0 expressed a world of thought, of truth, of poetry, and of the religious spirit ‘God eternally geometrizes.’" You are right! I just posted it from a creationalist point of view, while I am a theist I am not religious I just see some sort of underlying intellegence as the cause of existence

Maybe thelaws of physics might be the same if the fundamental particles interacted asthey do in our 3d reality Or if you lived on a four-dimensional Earth in afour-dimensional universe you'd might notice that your table might need tenmote strange legs, how would you hear, seer anything crisply, and would theperiodic table of the elements be seriously rearranged How would the orbit of the earth differ, would everything be closer and move faster? Sculpture of a shadow of a four dimensional objectAbove is a sculpture designed by Penn State professor of mathematics Adrian Ocneanu (http://science.psu.edu/news-and-events/2005-news/math10-2005.htm/), which measures about six feet in every direction, presents the three-dimensional "shadow" of a four-dimensional solid object. Ocneanu's sculpture similarly maps four-dimensional solid into a space perceptible to the human observer. His process, radial stereography, presents a new way of making this projection. He explained the process by analogy to mapping a globe of the Earth onto a flat surface. "Four-dimensional models are useful for thinking about and finding new relationships and phenomena," said Ocneanu. "The process is actually quite simple- think in one dimension less." To explain this concept, he points to the two-dimensional map of the three-dimensional world. The interview with the professor and the overview of the sculpture can be found here ( )

http://www.creationism.org/heinze/SciEvidGodLife.htm god exists.doc

Very iintelligent speculation!

Hi Greg, The answer A) is yes you would be weightless The answer B) is yes.

True that Being might be God?

Could we imagine what life could be like in some higher dimension or other? I know about the two-dimensional flatland man supposed dimension, we can imagine that dimension because we look at it from a three dimensional point of view. Imagining what a higher dimension is like to those who exist in one is more difficult.

What?

Gravity is the attraction between bodies of matter. Or the bending of space-time by matter, says Einstein and others. Potential energy is what matter possesses because the gravity field is pulling on it. This energy can be changed to kinetic energy if support is removed.

Moving object influence the expansion of space. First the objects resist change in their state of motion. This resistance is due to interaction of space with mass and not due to action at distance of masses out there in the universe. The energy used up to overcome this resistance is used up in t="increasing the mass of the object. This causes what we call inertia. Mass increases gravity, higher gravity slows time. Maybe one answer?

What about the BB Singularity did it have size or dimension?

WHAT CAUSES INERTIA? Does inertia effect time and if so how does it??

Length height calculated from some physical thing within or on an object?

I was not sure where to post this topic, it is more mathematical than astronomical , however, because it refered to how the "universe" would differ I put it under astronomy. Maybe it should be moved but I dont have the authority do do so!

Size is relative is it not? You can only estimate size of something, if you have something other to compare it with.

Why? I think the force of gravity would be higher because a planets mass would be compacted into a smaller area! I know it is not a physical constant and said so in my posts, but it is not a nonsensical question and has been posed by many people many times? Is there a reason in a differnt universe that Pi could not be exactly=3?

http://www.askamathematician.com/2012/07/q-how-would-the-universe-be-different-if-%cf%80-3/ In fact, in that last two, Pi plays a pivotal role in the derivation of the uncertainty principle. In a very hand-wavy way, if Pi were bigger, then the universe would be more certain. Aside from leading almost immediately to a whole mess of mathematical contradictions and paradoxes, if π were different it would change the results of a tremendous number of (one could argue: all) calculations, and the fundamental forces and constants of the universe would increase or decrease by varying amounts. π shows up in way too many places to make a meaningful statement about the impact on the universe, one way or another.

Hi Captain, Thanks for giving it a bash! As an Engineer with Pi at exactly 3 would make calculating the points to drill holes on a pipe flange a peace of cake, just take the radius and mark of six places on the flange and drill immediately. It is sometimes a pain to get the exact equal distances between holes with Pi as it exists. That circular physical objects, as you make them progressively closer to perfect circles, approach a circumference to diameter ratio of something other than 3.14159… If this were the case, it might indicate something about the geometry of spacetime. If space is not flat, that can change geometric relationships. For instance, imagine drawing a circle on the surface of an orange. If we allow distances to be measured only along the orange’s surface (disallowing paths that penetrate the orange or go into the empty space around it), then the ratio of the circle’s circumference to diameter is no longer going to be π. It will, in fact, depend on the size of the orange itself. If our universe is not flat, but a curved surface, that could distort the geometric relationships that we measure on physical objects resembling circles.

Hi, I am very sorry that I overlooked your comment in another post to look at post 25# of yours! I agree we never really reach a moment in time, just when we think we have the next moment is already there. There is always a blur at both ends no matter how close one observes them. I once wrote a short paper on the subject, however, I used an arrow and how it flies toward its target always a blur like you say, I rationalized this by saying the movement of the arrow was like infinitely tiny frames on a movie reel, jumping between moments rather than a smooth flow through the air like the flow of a river. If we stand still relative to the universe, time still moves , but once a person starts to move relative to the universe, time slows, this effect of course can only be seen in a meaningful way at colossal speeds approaching the of the speed of light. Some physicists say, however, that there is no real "Arrow of Time" or that time flows smoothly like a river, but time is in reality infinity of separate infinitively tiny moments, extending back to the eternal past and into the eternal future, in both directions from the moment we exist in the present. To understand the theory of infinitely of moments making up the reality of the universe, think of a loaf of bread as the universe and each grain of wheat in the loaf (universe) as a moment or “Now” somewhere in the universe?. The Left side of the loaf the moment of creation the right into the Infinite future Loaf or universe Big Bang =Past<.................................<NOW>.............................................................> Future Someone on the other side of the universe, directly opposite, could exist in very the same “NOW” moment as you are. Like slicing the loaf directly in front of you are linking with every other “”NOW” across the time frame you exist in across the whole universe Thus a universal “NOW” exist across the in the universe at that moment! However the very next moment the "NOW’s” no longer agree and you must make another slice to see what is happening at the other end of the universe, because the “NOW’ moments jump to different “NOWS” because of the effect of gravity, mass, speed and relativity However, if you were to slant your hypothetical knife to the left across the universe, which is towards the past from your vantage moment in time” you would hypothetically be able to view what, is going on in the “NOW” moment in the past for of the object you first viewed in the same moment or “NOW” that was in sync originally with your original moment or “NOW”. You would be looking at the past of the far off object. Your “NOW’ and its “NOW” would differ in time and space. You would continue to exist in the ever-jumping subjective “NOW” but could look into the past of the object in its objective “NOW”. The same will happen if you took the hypothetical knife, sliced the loaf or universe to the right, toward the future, then you will be able to observe what is going on in the future of the objects “NOW” future. thus, every moment that has ever existed from the very beginning of its existence until its end be it heat death or infinite eternity past, to the present, to the infinite future still exists in our universe and the law’s of physics cater for that fact Regards Alan

http://www.askamathematician.com/2012/06/q-how-can-we-see-the-early-universe-and-the-big-bang-shouldnt-the-light-have-already-passed-us/ The idea of universe exploding out of one particular place, and then all of the matter flying apart into some kind of pre-existing space, is not what is actually going on. It is just that getting art directors to be accurate in a science documentary is about as difficult as getting penguins to walk with decorum. The view of the universe that physicists work with today involves space itself expanding, as opposed to things in space flying apart. Think of the universe as an infinite rubber sheet*. The early universe was very dense, and very hot, what with things being crammed together. Hot things make lots of light, and the early universe was extremely hot everywhere, so there would have been plenty of light everywhere, shooting in every direction. If you start with light everywhere, you will continue to have it everywhere. The only thing that changes with time is how old the light you see is, and how far it has traveled. The expansion of the universe is independent of that. Imagine standing in a huge (infinite) crowd of people. If everyone yelled, “woo!” all at once, you would not hear it all at once; you would hear it forever, from progressively farther and farther away. Universe works the same way. As the universe expands (as the rubber sheet is stretched) everything cools off, and the universe becomes clear, as everything is given a chance to move apart. That same light is still around, it is still everywhere and it is still shooting in every direction. Wait a few billion years (14 or so), and you have galaxies, sweaters for dogs, hip-hop music a thoroughly modern universe. That old light will still be everywhere, shooting in every direction. Certainly, there is a little less because it is constantly running into things, but the universe is, to a reasonable approximation, empty. So most of the light is still around. The expansion of the universe does have some important effects, of course. The light that we see today as the cosmic microwave background started out as gamma rays, being radiated from the omnipresent, ultra-hot gases of the young universe, but they got stretch out, along with the space they’ve been moving through. The longer the wavelength, the lower the energy. The background energy is now so low that you can be exposed to the sky without being killed instantly. In fact, the night sky today radiates energy at the same intensity as anything chilled to about -270 °C (That is why it is cold at night! Mystery solved!). Even more exciting, the expansion means that the sources of the light we see today are now farther away than they were when the light was emitted. So, while the oldest light is only about 14 billion years old (and has traveled only 14 billion light years), the location from which it was emitted can be calculated to be about 46 billion light years away right now! Isn’t that weird?

Q: How would the universe be different if π = 3? There are sometimes questions about physical constants changing, and those questions make sense because there’s no real reason for the constants to be what they are. But π is mathematically derivable; it kinda needs to be what it is. You can’t, through the power of reason alone, figure out what the gravitational constant or the speed of light are, but you can figure out what π is. But lets try think about it anyway, mathematics will be put on its head, planetary orbiting will alter etc?

Maybe at the moment of the big bang the Singularity was the largest thing in existence!

Therefore, the expanding universe brought the light with it, as if the light were imbedded into space-time. However, how does this explain Redshift?