Jump to content


  • Content Count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

Community Reputation

0 Neutral

About Notexceling

  • Rank

Profile Information

  • Favorite Area of Science
  1. Do I really need to explain it? Cantor showed infinity with fractions, decimal points or parts of 1. Again I ask how can the true absolute infinity be within mathematics that is restricted by 1 and governing laws?
  2. Any infinity that can be calculated is subject to the number 1 in one way or another. Name me 1 infinity amongst the many sizes of Infinity (besides absolute infinity) that is not a Part of 1?
  3. 1 does not come in different sizes. The infinite possibilities with the use of or within the number 1 comes in different sizes.
  4. I believe I have answered your question numerous times. I am not dismissing any of Cantors phenomenal work. The infinity your quoting is still within the confounds of the number 1. Again, 1 explains it has an Infinite amount of possibilities within itself (decimals, fractions etc) even though it has a bound and an end, a 100% complete value. It also explains the infinite possiblities by reproducing itself. It is illogical to think Absolute Infinity is within the restrictions of mathematics. Wouldn't it be beyond our numerical values (1), our universal laws(+|-), our time a
  5. Please do so. My post topic however is the equation. It seems we have been side tracked from my religious background. Refer back to the original post Thank you
  6. I have already given you two examples of Qurans previous knowledge of modern science, Oxygen and expanding universe. Please allow me to give you more: (IF IM WRONG ABOUT ANY PLEASE LET ME KNOW) Quran 21.31-33 *Do not the unbelievers see that the heavens and the earth were a closed-up mass (ratqan), then We clove them asunder (fataqna)? **And We made from water every living thing. Will they not then believe? ***And We have made great mountains like pegs in the earth lest it might be convulsed with them, ****and We have made in it wide ways that they may follow a right direction. *
  7. To claim a doctrine false, one would supply the evidence. If your claim the Quran is plagiarized due to the same accounts being mentioned in other doctrines, this is due to it being a final chapter, rather than a new religion. The Quran is a book about life, not someone's life. This is why it explains the universe rather than a human character that we think the universe of. Here's another example Expanding Universe 51.48 And the heaven We built with Our own powers (aydin) and indeed We go on expanding it (musi'un) The differences in the doctrines are extensive, even thou
  8. The reason is quite simple. We Muslims do not know what we have until Academia acknowledges a discovery. Very rarely do we have the ability of understanding our doctrine in a scientific manner before the scientist who has dedicated his life to the subject. Let me give you a quick example 36.80 The One who made for you from green trees, fire And Behold! With it it you kindle (your fire) Without Joseph Priestley's discovery of Oxygen in 1774 this passage from the Quran would have meant something totally different, especially for those with lack of educational facilities in the desert
  9. I thank you for your response. I could potentially respond to all your comments but that would be a post longer than the Bible, so I will just justify my reasoning based on your main points. Firstly I do not agree with Quote "mathematical ability is a left hemisphere function for the most part, in most brains" Mathematics ability is within all creatures. Once any creature is born, it must mathematically calculate a way of staying alive. The survival instinct or emotions must come from the newborn itself and that requires calculations. A perfectly healthy new born baby doesn't n
  10. Zero being considered an additive identity is so humorous when zero can't even identify itself. Without 1 we have no identity or mathematics and vice versa. It is the absolute and complete identity of mathematics. 1 is the only unique number? 1 can explain 16 and 2/3 and even infinity, can any other number do that? Cantor found there could be many ∞, but all his explanations are restricted to existence of the number 1 and mathematics. Absolute Infinity must be greater than any/all restrictions. I'm just giving you an equation, that explains something Absolutely unrest
  11. I'm trying desperately to fix itIt keeps reverting back tithe same, when I leave paragraph spaces Sorry about the bullet points, it's the only fix
  12. Hi all,I think I finally got the answer. Please read and respond if I'm wrong.I will start by proving our current understanding of Mathematics is wrong. Did Georg Cantor get it wrong? What I believe Cantor found was the infinite possibilities within the number "1". One explains itself and every other number including the infinite possibilities within itself. ALL different types of numerical expressions like fractions, decimal points, percentages, whole numbers, irrational number, etc, are different ways of expressing this one number within our finite system. One is the identity of mathemat
  13. Hi all I understand the solar system orbits around the galactic center and the Moon orbits around the Earth, I also understand the central bodies are not "dragging" the orbiting bodies in any sense and they simply maintain the orbit through the gravitational force, according to our current knowledge. As th example I was given previously by astronomers of a merry-go-round in a playground: as you go around it there is a outward "centrifugal" force which is trying to throw you off; the only reason you don't go flying off is because you are holding onto it. Similarly, with the Earth and
  14. Mind my stupidity If the number "1" explains itself and every other number, but, it's restricted to 100%, ( 1 = 100%) then Wouldn't that mean that the decimal value greater than 1 is part of another "(1)"? e.g 1.1 "(1)+(.1)" Even though it is developed with the original number, it has exceeded the boudaries of 100% I thought that " .1" must be part of another one that only has "(0.9)" remaining, only because of "(1)" being restricted to (100%). Another example 3.1415926535... (1)+(1)+(1) We have "3" individual 100% complete numbers, but I always th
  • Create New...

Important Information

We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue.