throng

I don't know about pseudo, I am just not sure what you mean.. I'm completely lost. If a constant is a constant (not a variable), then obviously the relationship to anything else constant is the same..

 

Pi is like that.

 

The speed of light is like that too.

 

 

So... I don't quite get your point.

A constant is a singular value.

A constant is only measurable as itself. If it varies it is still itself.

I think c is easiest, There is only one c. It is not a relative speed.

Well, I appreciate your comments and I think it's good that you're committed to furthering your understanding in possibly new ways. Toward that, you surely must intent to further study the mathematics and science involved, which would assuredly expand a sense of wonder by opening profound new theories and understanding to you. At the very least, it would aid your exploratory thinking by allowing you to extend your hypotheses and determine their consequences.

 

I'm sure you can see that this would at least allow you continue the discussion by responding to many of the points raised in this thread, such as in my earlier posts, and not those that were off-topic as in my previous post, which I had asked that you did not address exclusively.

I can't study the math or science I think about. I already have preoccupation, and it simply is not taught.

I will attempt a mathematical formulation. Nothing and singularity can't be expressed as there is no relative by which description can be made, so we start with two exact same objects.

O1 = O2.

By so saying there is no determination which is which, yet there must be a factor seperating these which I will call D.

D is singular and not fractal as it can't be defined by O1 or O2. So D=D is all that can be said.

Now there are O1 and O2 which are defined by relationship with D.

O1 <D> O2. We could call D=1 but there is no validation - it is constant or self measuring.

Please do not dismiss me for my lack of education. Simply imagine a motive relationship between two geometric points. There is only 'toward' or 'away' and without a third point by which fractal degrees can be ascertained this 'speed' is only measurable as itself.

There is therefore only one 'speed' and no relative. This is another way of expressing a space constant as there is but one seperation factor for the two existant objects of relativity.

Oh, yes, that. Okay the problem here is that speed can only really be defined in terms of what we can really observe. So yeah, if light sped up and everything else sped up along with it then we wouldn't notice. If you could think up a reason why say, light, planetary motion and radioactive decay might all vary their speed in unison then I'm sure we'd be interested to hear it.

In referance to c:

All motive matter is consistant to this value.

c itself is not a speed but a singular relative to all motion.

As distance is contracted to nil at c, all massless things are everywhere in terms of probability and simultaneously existant at an object of mass.

The electron for example is located uncertainly in quite similar fashion, and as probability would dictate a photon simply can not miss its inevitable point of arrival, as from the perspective of the photon all existance is a point, because as distance is contracted to nil so too must the photon be in all places at once.

In this way, as a primary fundamental, all things are everywhere and also at some place.

Thus c is constant with respect to massive motion.

Merged post follows:

throng, mostly constants are defined to make our lives easier.

 

Instead of writing 3.14159265 repeatedly, we write "pi".

Instead of writing 299,792,458 m/s repeatedly, we write "c".

Instead of writing 8.854 x 10^(-12) repeatedly, we write "epsilon naught".

 

Only later do we analyze when, where, why and how these constants are constants. Your question is, therefore, ill defined. If you're talking about constants in general, what "makes them" is our own definition, to save ourselves repeated numerical typing. If your question is why, or why not, the speed of light is relative, or, alternatively, whether the speed of light should be considered constant - then you need to rephrase your question.

Hello again. Always a great pleasure.

I understand that constants are measured relative to apparent form thus pi is consistant to any circle.

Hypothetically speaking, say pi was variant and not constant, then circles would not be consistant either, but still cohere to pi's shifting value. As a ratio pi dictates a constant relationship defining circular form.

So, the relationship between circles and pi is constant. If pi changed circles would retain the exact same ratio, though the values need not be constant.

In short, the relationship is constant, so there is no apparent change, where in fact pi could be varient and only relatively constant.

It is pretty pseudo, I have to admit, and in terms of speculation, wild.

As I have said before, you can have "spaces" without points.

This is quite interesting, I can't quite grasp the concept.

In fact I can not even begin to grapple with any form (even complete emptiness) without some comparitive relative.

Now as for the rest of your post, can you formulate your ideas using maths. It is the only way we are going to understand you.

I'll have to try, as I see it. Though I really have no knowledge, and no idea why I obsess on the thing.

I guess it is exploring the philosophy of duality without the guru light element.

If I express singularity I can just say S, however there is no relative to make equasion with.

If S has no relative it is as useful as 'nothing', useless actually.

Therefore an empty set of any kind (S) uses nothing as an imaginary comparitive.

How can any space exist without at least a dual relationship?

I think I must've missed something you said.

Merged post follows:

throng, it should be clear that to convey an abstract, mathematical idea as you describe, you need to use mathematics. Your statements about a "finite space constant" are explicit and have derivable consequences, which are what I explored in my last post. However, you ignored my post and commented on the ones astride it, which frankly given the simplicity of the argument in it (and the ease with which you could destroy it if it makes false assumptions) doesn't speak well of your understanding of the mathematics.

 

Please address the points made in it—not just this post—and provide a mathematical description of what you're trying to say so we can understand you.

Hello again,

There might be some who feel that the vast volumes of mathematical learning have great relevance, but I see each small part is consistant of the whole in a way similar to an ocean is consistant of trillions of water droplets.

I appreciate your sincerity in previous postings, for the stale one's mock and query the very value of exploratory thinking, where I might know very little of science and math my mind is alive with wondering.

As stupid as I might seem to be to the learned, I can plainly see that physics has reached the place where protons are crashed together near enough to light speed in mere hope that something might reveal itself.

In this way the nature of dimension itself requires completely new definition as a value of perception, for rigid precepts previously made give no direction to the field of experimentation.

As well as that, just see the forms of architecture and the chaotic network of roads etc etc etc, which have no asthetic value, being slaphazardly placed according to the whims of corporate attainment, as the world falls into warfare, religious extremity and ecological collapse.

What good has come from stale learnings that propel the Earth to these ends?

That is the point, the addition and the constructive purpose I persue, though I feel helpless.

Thus I appreciate your contributions and not those of whom ridicule, and hope we might continue discussion with all purity of intention.

If you have a dual relationship they are either complete opposites (off/on) or exactly the same on/on.

I think on/on is realistic because then relationship could be on/off (opposites), both on (the same) , both off (nothing) or off/on. Hence probability.

If it was off or on then it is just saying is/isn't. These bear no relation to eachother and describe no possibility.

I just think c is constant in relation to movement and if c varies motion varies in proportion, so we don't notice possible variation because it is measured as constantly relative to motion.

Now pi is constant to circles, if pi varies circles may not be circles, but because pi is constantly relative we observe the same value perceptively.

OK, what you have done here is taken the word "value" as I have used it, and changed the meaning to something else.

 

So I will rephrase:

 

What useful new explanatory and/or predictive power does this add to the sum of human knowledge?

It is new therefore it is 'added'.

If indeed there is a value of definition constant to any space, we need no inert location and geometric relationship starts prior to assertion of inertia.

Relevent? I think so. Some say observation is intergral to quantum behaviour so new geometric models entailing an observer's perception could well be relevent. I think so.

Not everything has been thought of and there is always a new idea.

Merged post follows:

A topological space is a set (collection of points) and a topology. So ok, points and spaces are in "relationship" with each other.

---

Merged post follows:

Consecutive posts merged

 

 

So, subspaces are subsets with the subspace topology. I.e. they consist of points.

 

---

Merged post follows:

Consecutive posts merged

 

Like your other posts on points and spaces I really miss what you are trying to say.

Lets just say a space requires a point and a point requires a space.

I really want to include the observer, and speculate his 'experience' of change and time etc.

First I will try to explain why two points do not discern a distance.

If the observer was on a point A and was to travel to point B this would be his apparency:

While on point A he would observe one point B. The moment he left point A both points would be observed but there's no perceivable change until arrival at point B, which is identical to his origional observation.

Thus, No time expires (no change) then it's the same again.

So no velocity, distance or time are perceivable to the 'intergrated' observer.

In this model, we have an overall awareness of the relative observer's experience within a geometric system.

Distance is relative and not singular.

What value does this add to the sum of human knowledge?

It is a value derived from the relationship required for existant empty space.

It is a way of defining two spacial properties by removing change.

A value free from change - It's just ... new.

Merged post follows:

Hi throng. As you've restated yourself a number of times I hope you don't mind if I use a contracted version of one (post #5) to frame my question:

 

Possibly I'm being very stupid but it sounds to me like you're asserting that there exists a "finite constant" [math]n[/math] such that

 

[math]\infty \cdot n = 1,[/math]

 

where [math]n[/math] is definite, i.e. not undefined, but not quantifiable, i.e. undefined.

 

[i have assumed for this that relative to the Universe in any dimension the size of a point may be normalised to unity, as I assume you did not mean to suggest that

 

[math]\infty \cdot n = 0[/math]

 

for definite values of [math]n[/math]. This is, of course, an assumption which should be justified.]

 

Unless I've interpreted your use of these words incorrectly, I'm afraid this does not appear to be a significant contribution to science.

Ok, we have the point. It has no location so can be condidered to be 'anywhere'. (point A)

We have a space which is 'everywhere'. (point E)

These are reduced to two possibilities, inevitibilities rather.

Ok - A and E are the simultaneous states, the only two, for no change is apparent.

The value (V) is the seperation of A and E. And that seperation is the same for any empty space.

So A and E are reliant, or simultaneuosly required.

It's the same for any space: constant.

Only two possibilities: finite.

It is like Heads and Tails, a coin is required. We don't regard the monetary value, because any coin has this quality.

We could say coin = 1 or V = 1.

If there is no point of reference then space is not apparent.

Hence point and space are dependant relatives.

Any portion of a space still requires a point of reference.

Point and space are entirely co-dependant.

Any space has (and must have) this dual relationship.

Point is one state and space is the other.

A value seperates the states. There are two states. The value is singular and defines 'two'. It is finite.

The value is only discernable as itself so is constant (effectively).

So what? I derive a space constant from emptiness... has that ever been done before?

If emptiness is given a finite value... well that's quite relevent isn't it?

Merged post follows:

I should think it would take at least 4 points to define a 3D volume. .

I hope the above clarifies some questions, I think there is substantial reasoning there and if a defined value can be got from empty space then - hey, something new.

Ever considered c as prior to motion? A fundamental primary?

You wouldn't believe the trouble I have had explaining that four locations are required for 3D spacial volume. So simple!

In this case space is four points infinitely spaced (but infinity makes no discernable shape so I didn't need that.)

However if you prefer, the point I refer to is a point related to four infinitely spaced points, but it is more complex that way, though still, it would justify my position above.

I still don't understand the bulk of what you're trying to say, but this I understand and must disagree with. There is no proportion between a mathematical point and a finite volume. Nor between a line and a finite volume, nor an area.

A space can't exist without a point for comparison.

The relationship is point to space.

The value of seperation defines 'Two' states, exactly two. It is definite.

The value is only discernable as itself. It is constant.

Empty space provides a constant definite value.

I see this as reasonable and can't find a flaw.

This is the type of statement that either requires evidence - or should be made as a supposition.

Yes it is supposition, yet any space is infinite in relative proportion to a point.

It's really not.

First a space is proportionately infinite to the point required as spacial justification.

Space can't exist without a reference point for comparison and the proportional relationship is identical in any space.

So there is no space without an infinitismal relative.

The relationship is requisite.

There are only two states. A unit seperates and defines 'TWO' as the exact quantity. (like distance is a unit defining exactly two points.)

The value is definite.

No other relative is possible so the value is constant.

The value is not quantifiable - but it is definite and constant.

I hope you see the point, it is undefiable and space itself defines a definite constant.

I'm afraid I don't. Let's see:

 

 

 

Alright. In other words, there is no ratio between the finite and the infinite. True enough. Thus, if space is infinite, then any finite portion (like the visible universe) is no fraction of the total.

Yes - an infinite proportion necessitates a fractal measure be an infinitismal ratio.

Is that a supposition or an assertion?

Assertion, yes apparently based.

I guess. The analogy you're making, if I understand you correctly, is finite is to infinite as infinitessimal is to finite. That makes sense in that neither composes any fraction of its counterpart, but it's not exactly the same thing. No ratio is no ratio.

 

And after that, I think you lost me...

The assertion of space is entirely reliant on the comparison, so the relative portions can only be simultaneous, and can only be one ratio. Infinitismal.

All or nothing as it were.

We can say by this fundamental that two states of space are possible, two 'places'.

Therefore a definite constant value is fundamental to space, because the only possibilities are reliant.

Merged post follows:

We have infinite space and any part is proportionately infinitismal, therefore two possible states exist as relatives.

The states define eachother and are co-dependent.

In this way space is two simultaneous places.

'Two' is the only possibile, by relative proportion, hence a constant value.

They are completely inter-reliant, hence the value is finite.

Hope that's understandable.

Nothing by itself is nothing.

 

Nothing at one moment and nothing at the next moment in time are still nothing but now nothing is relative to something existing elsewhere.

 

When there is time there is space, and where there is a next moment in time there is next space.

 

This would mean every point in the universe is the same point , they act independantly because every frame of reference that we consider a point is HERE/NOW relative to that point. (i.e. the only fundamental point is nothingness)

 

So is it possible that time makes space, that space makes energy, that energy makes matter and matter makes you and me?

 

 

Every point is HERE/NOW, there is no past and future apart from a memory or a wish.

Every space is the same space (here)

Every moment is the same moment (now)

 

 

To exist in space/time, you must be relative to one of the here/now points that make it up. (a place/moment we call here/now in space/time, space being all the places and time being all the moments)

 

You are here/now (nothingness), all other points are existing independantly eleswhere even though they also are you.

 

Looking at the universe this way will give you greater insights to science I am sure.

In terms of perspective there past in the distance, but in terms of perception events are simultaneous, as light is the information perceived.

If a star exploded and one observer was one million light years and the other two million light years away, by perspective they'd observe one million years apart, but by perception, simultaneouslt. There's like a relation between perspective and perception that stretches time, because that measured in this moment is infinitely relative, and justified by infinite comparison.

The ends are the same, so the middle has to fit.

Not sure what you mean by "time dilation of the Earth".

The space twin accelerates out of Earth's frame and because of that his clock will run slower.

I was trying to flick your avatar.

Oh the relevence of relativity.

If we have an infinite space any portion would be infinitesmal by proportion.

We have an infinite space and a proportionate point.

If there were no point no space could 'arise' and without space there is no point, so these are simultaneous.

The space is everywhere and the point is anywhere, but it does exist as fundamentally relative.

Only anywhere and everywhere are possible for no relative portion exists, and this can be seen as two 'places' without a possible variant.

So, there is a constant finite because the 'places' are reliant.

Thus the assertion of space derives a finite value.

Thank you, I hope you 'see the point.' Hehehehehe.

What came before the Big Bang ?. Are we alone ? Only one Universe ?.

 

Do universes collapse and recycle over again ?.

I think if we think of inevitability as 'it could be' we have possibility as a root cause, but before possibility is where it's really at, impossibility.

If we prior possibility... there is no potential.

And then, in terms of absolutes, if only the truth existed as a singular fundamental of reality, it would have no definition, having no comparitive.

In all, If there is an infinite field of possibility, impossible is inevitable too, thus an infinite possibility is impossible, unless they are the same, which they are, being absolutes.

I think it pertains to how when perspective sees past in the distance, perception is simultaneous regardless of proximity to an event, as light is constant as energy conveyance.

Now it could be nothing, it could be a single thing, there's no relative difference. It could be two things the same, there's no difference between them. They are like one, which is uncomparitive like nothing.

So there's like this primal value where perception can't distinguish, because no comparitive seperation is possible and there's a big 'could be this that or the other two'.

This/that are absolute opposites and the other two are the same, which is no different to this or that.

Just a conceptual observation.

It still isn't.

You see the simultanety of collapse/observation negates the meaning of consequence, hence observation is not removed from the wave function, but merely a collapse of it, so there is not a seperate entity.

I don't see how that makes 'causal' a reasonable precept.

Given the current definition of the meter, the speed of light (in m/s) is a constant (in vacuo) whether anyone like it or not.

Which I think pertains to a fundamental finite value. Whether we call it m/s or another thing.

How pertinant is a finite constant as a primary fundamental?

It seem geometric relationship is reliant on a primary finite measure.

No it isn't.

I think it is.

I guess the wave function is considered the primary presence. If a collapse occurs an obsevation ensues.

Did the collapse cause observation or did observation cause collapse?

It depends, neither the collapse or observation exist as primary, and as consequence are simultaneous, so one could be the other by eachother's names.

Wouldn't we just say observation is the definition of collapse and not a seperate thing?

Well pi is a great constant, because it is true of any circle. Even as all other parameters change pi retains its value.

Is that what validates a constant, a single finite value?

In the case of c or pi, in relation to motion or circles, there is a single finite value.

Merged post follows:

Yes.

To say it 'approaches' all objects at the same speed would usually entail departing another at the negative proportion so it might be assigned a speed, but actually it is singularily relative to motion.

We speculate that observation causes the collapse of the wavefunction, but there are two primarys, wave function and observer, and one effect, collapse.

One might say there are three functional elements, wave, observation and collapse, but actually only the collapse itself lends any apparancy at all.

Observation causes collapse?

Collapse is observation?

Collapse validates both wave function and observation?

I think it is hard to discern the causal principle in this relationship.

Of all constants c is most famous. We call it speed and measure it that, but always the same speed? It's a different kind of speed for only one quantity exists, with no relative for comparison.

As I see it, a constant is defined as a value which has no relative by which discernment can be made, so it is finite and has a 'value', but it's nature bears no definition (it's not really a speed), for there is no other value, only d=d, Hence now we say E=m so m=E, what disparity is there? m=E=m and who cares which or both it's the same thing dang it!

And it is pertinant to c, for by contraction one location is much the same as another, so if it takes zero time to traverce one distance, too must it be in all places.

So, it really is quite fundamental as to what a constant really entails, what do you think?

Who is doing this?

No one does it I hope, really I'm just being inflamatory - sorry.

Merged post follows:

Are you thinking of "demoting" the role of points in (classical)

geometry? To an extent this is the view of topology were we think of "regions" (open neighbourhoods) as being more important than the points themselves.

 

Passing to more advanced geometry such as sheaves, schemes and other things in algebraic geometry this becomes even more important.

I am inventing a model using 0D points as representation, all modern geometry can only verify my model because it is mathematically cohesive.

I am not sure what you mean here. A point can be considered as a topological space (even a manifold).

I wan't to keep it very simple and since we last spoke I explored all nature of things to find an expression and dicussed alot seeking communicative medium.

By origin I take it you are referring to a choice of local coordinates. You should think of the space as being independent of the coordinates chosen.

Exactly my intention. In fact the space is consequential to locations and not prior to them.

Great. Care to share more details?

 

 

 

 

In relativity space-time "consists" of events. That is all possible locations for something happening are the points of space-time. This is independent of any coordinates chosen.

In my expression space is entirely dependant on the points given, not prior, not seperate, but relative.

I relish the opportunity to share details.

The main problem with expressing origin is we use a blank page to represent space in which the origin point can exist. We end up having two values, 'space' and 'origin' (or nothing/something or is/isn't).

When the second point is drawn a distance is only apparent because space or 'blank page' was preordained.

I draw the second point but ignore the prior space or blank page, because the relationship between two points does not define a location and the distance is really just a singular value with no relative, because distance can't measure a point and a point can't measure distance. Surely two points only express a single value. The possibility is either point (which are the same) or both points (the same).

I liken it to a two headed coin either side is heads and both sides are heads and the only possibility is heads.

"Heads" is the singular value using that metaphor.

In the classic system, 'space' or 'origin' represent two distinct possibilities, so is not expressive of singularity, duality in fact. My model uses two points but expresses a singular value.

Hopefully this is conceptually coherant to modern geometry.

Thanks, I'll answer or discuss, and hope interest is enough for continuation.

I think if location is non-existant then space is non existant. In fact I think space is consequential to location and not prior to it.

If we use 0D points space is not required because 0D does not occupy space.

Usually, one takes a blank page which represents space and draws the origin thereon, so an origin representing existance is contrasted against a space representing 'nothing'.

I don't know which scientist rose to godliness and asserted there must be a pre-existing space to expand into, but there is no reason to accept that, I think fresh approaches are just as valid, and moreso in particular applications.

I invented a model which is geometrically congruent to relativity but it goes against what is taught in geometry, and the more set one becomes in academia the more resistant he might be to models that defy current definitions, but if it is cohesive I see no reason to debunk it, try if you like but I worked it out and I'd prefer open enquiry, and I can clarify any query or accept different perspectives.

I hope someone would like to discuss space being consequential to, and not prior to 'existance' or origin.

here is something else I just found. Its not exactly what I'm talking about but it seems to be related if only in the most general way.

Off/on - is/isn't - possibility/impossible - infinite space/0D point - It seems to me that completely opposite concepts are needed to define existance as singular, because existance is relative not singular.

The problem is singularity existance has no relative.