# Another take on: Something from nothing? (split thread)

## Recommended Posts

10 minutes ago, hoola said:

Equations are there to be discovered, not invented.

What evidence do you have for that?

##### Share on other sites

the relationship between the radius and circumference of a circle and how it  relates to the early proto universe, would seem to indicate  base 2 calculations. Base 26 calculations of PI is an interesting question perhaps someone else might have some insights, but Occam's Razor would seem to limit the processing base to "least action" to accomplish the task, whatever base that calculation was made in.

##### Share on other sites
9 minutes ago, hoola said:

the relationship between the radius and circumference of a circle and how it  relates to the early proto universe, would seem to indicate  base 2 calculations.

Why? How is the base relevant to the ratio? The ratio is the same in any base.

9 minutes ago, hoola said:

Base 26 calculations of PI is an interesting question perhaps someone else might have some insights, but Occam's Razor would seem to limit the processing base to "least action" to accomplish the task, whatever base that calculation was made in.

34 minutes ago, hoola said:

Equations are there to be discovered, not invented.

What evidence do you have for that?

2 hours ago, hoola said:

You can't hold a 6 in your hand, but a 6 does have some overall effect when combined with a near infinite number of associated digits

What "effect" does a combination of digits have?

##### Share on other sites

I have no evidence that equations are only discovered, not invented, only intuition.

##### Share on other sites
1 minute ago, hoola said:

I have no evidence that equations are only discovered, not invented, only intuition.

So this is just metaphysical guesswork.

There is no science at all in this thread.

##### Share on other sites

not really, many qualified mathematicans have stated as much.(the discovered, not invented part)..hence my leaning towards my intuition as viable possibility. I agree with your dismissive attitude however. I am attempting to ascertain fundamentals, the pre-math of the maths, and realize the futility of the attempt.

Edited by hoola

##### Share on other sites

Still nothing to do with science.

##### Share on other sites

correct, as "science" deals with direct evidence and I deal without, unless gravitational waves or neutrinos can peer before the big bang  and some evidence may be forthcoming. Hopefully someday that will happen and I will be quite happy to have my idea falsified if that be the case.

Edited by hoola

##### Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, hoola said:

correct, as "science" deals with direct evidence and I deal without, unless gravitational waves or neutrinos can peer before the big bang  and some evidence may be forthcoming.

OK. I will request this thread is closed then. I assume you read the rules for the Speculation forum? It is for scientific ideas, not for Wild-Ass Guesswork (I don't think your ramblings even reach that level of nonsense).

##### Share on other sites

possibly a premature action to close this thread..only a few years ago the Tegmark team had a hint of G waves embedded in the CMB which might have offered the first glimpse before the bang. Unfortunately, intergalactic dust foiled the test. There is also the primal neutrino relic which may offer some results. Since there is another possible test, and a possible retesting of the CMB with improved measures, please leave this thread open. Thanks

##### Share on other sites

You evidently have a different time period for the BB. Seems your defining it by the CMB surface of last scattering than by the $10^{-43}$ time. GW waves only occur after the latter time and the relic GW wave signature is theorized to exist in the BAO oscillations on the CMB surface. I believe your referring to the inconclusive BICEP2 findings when they first thought they detected GW waved.

The neutrino background is also after 10^-43 sec.

##### Share on other sites
7 hours ago, hoola said:

only a few years ago the Tegmark team had a hint of G waves embedded in the CMB which might have offered the first glimpse before the bang. Unfortunately, intergalactic dust foiled the test.

This is very garbled.

Measurements were made by the BICPE2 team (nothing to do with Max Tegmark) which were thought to show the polarisation of the CMB. This could be evidence for primordial gravitational waves from the inflationary period; i.e. after the big bang. It was later determined that the measurements were caused by dust, not polarisation.

7 hours ago, hoola said:

possibly a premature action to close this thread

Why? You have no evidence, just some incoherent metaphysical rambling about equations. This is a science forum.

Quote

There is also the primal neutrino relic which may offer some results. Since there is another possible test, and a possible retesting of the CMB with improved measures, please leave this thread open.

That has no connection with anything you have said here.

##### Share on other sites
13 hours ago, hoola said:

possibly a premature action to close this thread..only a few years ago the Tegmark team had a hint of G waves embedded in the CMB which might have offered the first glimpse before the bang. Unfortunately, intergalactic dust foiled the test. There is also the primal neutrino relic which may offer some results. Since there is another possible test, and a possible retesting of the CMB with improved measures, please leave this thread open. Thanks

!

Moderator Note

When your possible test results are ready, or you have ANY evidence to support your assertions, please PM a staff member and we'll re-open the thread. Otherwise, there's too much hand-waving and not enough science for it to stay open. You need to step up the rigor.

##### Share on other sites
This topic is now closed to further replies.

×