throng

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.

To me it depends on conceptual properties. Nothing is purely conceptual and can't be imagined as a state. It is also absolute by definition and so is existance. We have two purely conceptual constructs absolute existance/absolute nothing. Of course, absolute nothing has no relative influence on existance, so it's irrelevent. We merely use the concept to define existance as a singular, but the universe is relative and not singularily existant.

If a cavity existed at the centre of earth which way would be up? If you dropped a ball within that cavity which direction would it go?

I do have a very basic expression that isn't previously considered I don't think. Using math points, we have a primary feild and an inert location, this represents origin, if we draw another point the 'primary feild' becomes the distance consisting of infinite possible locations that preexisted. Consider that two points, a singular distance dimension, doesn't define a relative location, It is fair to consider them two possible locations, and treat the 'primary feild' as non existant. It defines 1D as two locations and nothing else, it disregards the 'nothing'.

I think all the theories are constructs with workable functions and my idea is actually completely functionless. So I don't refute of disclaim any construct most of which I don't understand. I just have ideas and try to find a conveyance. I still don't conceive how a singular origin can be expressed without relative properties by which to do so. I think primary space must exist before location is defined. When we have two points the 'primary space' becomes the distance between. I think in more formless terms like a probability in a feild of infinite possibility, infinite sets etc, but still require a fundamental empty space of some sort as primary with which the origin is interactive.

I actually consider everything either or, even a possibility among many. I try to create a singular construct but I always think if it has no relative how can it be described?

Yes we did invent geometry as a model. I think the problem is, to establish an origin we can only make a dual comparison, because all definition is relative. We say there are two possibilities, is or isn't. One is absolute but there is no comparitive difference, so we express both simultaneously to express singularity (like a blank page is 'nothing' and the point is 'something'.) Singularity (origin) is 'nothing and something' simultaneously expressed.

Hello, I have realised that the idea I have has not been thought of before, which doesn't matter, all that matters is if it adds up. I start by saying establishing an origin requires two factors of comparison simply because the singular has no relative definition. In simple terms we create 'empty space' and a 'dot' to define the dot as a singularity. 0d is actually created using an 'is/isn't' comparison. We say the origin 'is' as opposed to 'isn't', and a singularity is really comparitive opposites. We can go into complex feilds but the fact is, no concept of origin can be definitive wthout an 'isnt' for comparison, simply because singularity has no real relative definition.

I have been defining the primary origin in relation the founding structure of perception, as we witness an observer effect. We represent a singular origin with a blank page and the point thereon, and primary origin is merely a comparison between that which has no relative and that which is irrelevent. It could be either, there are no differentiating qualities, so by contrasting the possible undefinable states we represent singularity as a demonstration of opposites, is and isn't perhaps. I find accurate notions of an origin pertain to having 1 discernable element, we say location because two things can't occupy the same space. So the primary origin consists of dual possibilitys that have no discernible difference.

Thanks everyone. I have a bit of a problem - it's a lifelong study. I do other things and have a lifelong work already which I am passionate about because it is a wholesome endeavour. What I really want to express is fundamental so learning everything else will not help me explain why geometry works, besides it is so simple and complex formulations will just drown the beauty in the expression. Im surprised no-one has thought about why geometry works. It just does. Why the universe is 3D. Why space exists. Why time exists. That is what I have made a representation of, but it sounds incredible, so I am not heeded. Mathematitions demand extraordinary complexity and I certainly have zero credibility in the feild, spiritual folk hate logic and philosophers only like debunking. Field unity is required. It is destined to be an unsaid thing I'm afraid. Very sorry.

I appreciate your encouragement, I spent a bit of effort learning to write properly. Now I dabble in fiction, creative writing. It is fun now. I want to learn geometry. I think I might be at a senior high school level stage, I thought I'd buy a geometry book and work through it. Would you please suggest a good text book for that level?

Where does one start geometric study? I think I'll buy a book and work through it for a start. Can you suggest anything for say yr 12 high school level to start?

Thank you kindly, I find what you say very reassuring. This must have been done before, my idea I mean. I'm very basic at math, I'm largely uneducated in general, so I doubt I'd get through the 'couple of pages'. I don't want to deal with reality, though I guess geometric concepts are bound by relationships that are proportionate, so it is true in terms of substance. Even an uneducated person has ideas but they can't express them. In hindsight I wish I studied more.

Crikey! Nothing allows me to touch two points together Mooeypoo, there are very complicated ways. 1) Two geometric balls touch leaving a distance of 0 being the thickness of a plane, I've been told, but I don't want the rest of the ball therefore it is no longer a ball and kaput goes the points touching. 2) Lorentz: Just such a difficult explanation, everyone shoots me down. But I just say there are two points without a distance of seperation, it is a line two points long. So what if people don't agree, their imagined theorizing is only imaginary as mine. Why should I stick to the rules? I want to express this silly thing. It means nothing but it is eloquent, I only need two points that touch or have no distance between them and I can explain the very fundamentals of 3D, and the fractal nature of 3D geometric principles. But I'm not allowed to have 0 distance, because math God decreed it so. Why can't I just assert a 0 distance for this particular purpose, it is just a bit of fun, and it's fresh and original. I just make up the rules myself then substantiate them by geometric logic. Why problem? I can just do that don't you think? I have logic! Thanks.

Oh, now I understand more clearly. The outermost points on a ball can touch with a distance of 0 being the thickness of a plane, but points cannot touch, being nothing. I say two points can touch and distance is zero. If the outermost 2 points of a ball can, two points can, just ignore the rest of the ball or perhaps make r=0. Do you realise that distance is nothing? It is just invented to seperate points or to give substance to points, because a point is not a location unless relatively distant from other points.

Thanks for that, I am pretty interested in that kind of thing. It's probably adequate to say we're speaking of two circles of curves. touching since only the circumference touches, and then we end up with two 0D points touching, so actually, all this is only about two 0D points touching, the rest of the sphere is irrelevent. So if the spheres touch and the area is 0 points of contact, there must be a distance so they don't actually touch.

You can put a protracter on the end of the line and measure 0deg, then at any other point you measure 180deg. So angle is requisite for length. Points + Angle = Length

Does the distance consist of infinite points? What does distance consist of? If distance is infinite points there can logically only be either one or infinite points. I mean, what is distance?

I think it's exactly right what you're saying. It is just as easy to say 3D is a great big pile of 0D points, so infine point line, infinite point plane or volume. But since each point is 0D it still is not reasonable, so there is 'nothing' between points but we call it distance, and presto! I think a line consists of two elements, because what is the 'distance' between each point?

In the stuff I read by Barbera Knowles, who as far as I know is quite credible, the study of junk DNA in rats was shown to transpose (Junk is a transposable element) during the emryonic stages then serve no genetic function after birth, and she basically says that it seem junk DNA is actually a necessary transposable element for embryonic developement and is in fact not junk. Still, it is also apparent that parts of our DNA is not human in origin, which is the case for respective species of animal too. And viruses do attach their DNA strands to ours and we can pass them on, so viruses might be a vital factor in evolution of species, I wildly speculate.

Hello, I see your point. I find there is some parady in that. Under that premise there cannot exist a conceptualisation of two points. If they touch they are one and if they dont there are infinite points of distance, so two points are completely mathematically impossible, or haven't been worked out yet.

In a mathematical way, if 2 spheres touched you'd actually have 2 points that touch together, and not a single point. ..

That is what becomes remarkable, because 3D is easily observable from with a volume, and also the number of points is relevent because the universe is a 'relative' thing, and in reality space need only exist if distance is relative, and distance is requisite of locations (in this case 0D points). So if there are three 0D locations equalaterally spaced all the distance/angles are Identical, not relative, however, if a fourth point is added to the plane it is inevitable that a relative distance would occur and a 2D space would be required. Just geometrically musing, so don't shoot me.

A virus is basically a tiny bundle of genetic material—either DNA or RNA—carried in a shell called the viral coat, or capsid, which is made up of bits of protein called capsomeres. Some viruses have an additional layer around this coat called an envelope. That's basically all there is to viruses. Some viruses insert their genetic material into the host cell’s DNA, where they begin directing the copying of their genes or simply lie dormant for years or a lifetime. Either way, the host cell does all the actual work: the viruses simply provide the instructions. Viruses can also influence host genes by where they insert themselves into their host’s DNA. Recent decoding of the human genome shows that viral DNA sequences have been reproducing jointly with our genes for ages. The viral genes are then copied many, many times, using the machinery the host cell would normally use to reproduce its own DNA. http://www.microbeworld.org/microbes/virus/ "DNA, the molecule that contains the script of life, encodes its data in a four-letter alphabet. This would be an ideal medium for storing a cosmic calling card. In many organisms, humans included, genes make up only a tiny fraction of their DNA. Much of the rest seems to be biological gobbledygook, often called "junk DNA". There is plenty of room there for ET to etch a molecular message without damaging any vital genetic functions. See: much of human DNA consisted of what has been called "junk" DNA. Junk DNA is DNA that does not make up genes - and so does not serve any functional purpose.over time humans had incorporated DNA into the genome which was not human in origin, The junk DNA resembles transposable elements - pieces of DNA that move around and insert themselves into other stretches of DNA - in the way that viruses do. So it has been thought by some that in the past humans contracted certain viruses and the virus sequences became a part of human DNA, being passed on from generation to generation in an inactive state." Paul Davies phd

Hello again, thanks for all the info you provided, I'm not really proficient with computers so I think I'll just leave it alone for now. I actually need to express two zero dimensional points that are 'touching', so that there is no distance between them, and I have scoured all kinds of geometry, but it seems futile. Say there are 2 points x and y. Or x and y are sets containing one element (R^0) x=y d(x,y) = 0 Is that anything? I can't be sure because my math is not advanced enough. If I could express this, I could express three points in 2D without creating an area because the three points would 'touch' with equalateral triangle representation. Then the same with regular tetrahedron, no volume. If there were no point between points, this would be the case. If five points were used then a relative distance is inevitable and a space is required. Anyway, I will read into Lorentz because the distance between two locations is 0 at c, I think. Are you aware of anything that relates to 0 distance between two points?