Jump to content
Sign in to follow this  
throng

The Finite Space Constant.

Recommended Posts

I'm not all that hopeful, TBH.

Me neither. I just find that following a Möbius path of logic and explaining to the OP where it got us is good practice, even if they don't listen.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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:

Consecutive posts merged
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.

 

:)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
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.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
Sign in to follow this  

×
×
  • 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.