Calling all Great Minds: The Theory of Everything

[Anthem (0)]

Calling all Great Minds: The Theory of Everything

 

 

 

The Theory of Everything

 

Premises:

 

1. We don’t see in three-dimensions, we see intwo-dimensional surface area. We canonly see the OUT sides of objects.

 

2. What we call dimensions are determined by theinversion of INside and OUTside. Oddsand Evens, binary.

 

3. We call this effect relativity, and it is the motion whichmanufactures reality.

 

 

 

Nutshell:

 

Let’s assume Spacetime is 4-dimensional. Most people translate this is as we live inthree dimensions (up down, left right, forward back) and we move through thefourth, time. It’s better translated asthe 4^th dimension is IN and OUT, which is the direction microscopeslook and the direction telescopes look, respectively. OUT is the composite of surface area whichlight is able to touch on objects, and IN is the invisible volume known as darkmatter.

 

 

 

Airtight Visual Empirical Evidence

 

Outer Space is a hall of mirrors. Outer Space inverts itself at the asteroidbelt. This is the point at which all therocky planets become gas giants with multiple rocky moons. What actually is happening is the asteroidbelt represents an infinity, beyond which point the inner solar system inverts anda mirrored inversion of itself is shown.

 

 

 

Specifically, examine the Jupiter System. The four Galilean Moons lie on the OUT sideof Jupiter’s ring system, each of which are exact inversions of celestialbodies in the inner solar system INside of the asteroid belt. Venus is a ball of fire – Io is a frozen ballof fire. Earth is a ball of water –Europa is a frozen ball of water. Earth’sMoon is a ball of rock – Ganymede is a frozen ball of rock. Beyond that is outer space, dark and fleckedwith stars – Callisto is a frozen ball of outer space. Even the ratio of the sizes of theplanets/moons are inverted (the Ganymede is the largest: the Moon is thesmallest, etc.)

 

 

 

I assure you, this isn’t a coincidence. Outer Space works off the principle ofinversion. Follow the Laplace Resonanceshared between Io, Europa, and Ganymede – an exact 1:2:4 ratio, all bodiestidally locked to Jupiter and thus also necessarily to each other (this isEuropa/Earth’s solar and lunar cycle). Earth’smoon is tidally locked to it, and Venus inexplicably is tidally locked (orlocking itself) to Earth, despite orbiting the “other side” of the Sun. All planetary and lunar resonances can bedecoded into patterns of IN and OUT in every solar system in existence. The patterns are consistent and predictableonce you learn them.

 

 

 

When we enter Outer Space, we can see the same exactlocations (Sun, Venus, Earth, Moon, Space) represented as INside OUT inversionsof each other, and all that separates them is a mysterious asteroid belt whichitself spans an area as large as the distance from the Sun to Mars. It just so happens that all the gas giantplanets have this same “asteroid belt” orbiting them. This is complicated to explain unless youbetter understand OUT and IN, but each gas giant planet is a representation ofmoving OUT one infinity from the previous view. Saturn is the maximum value of OUT, Neptune is where OUT recycles backto the beginning…kind of (it’s slightly more complex than that, but only just).

 

 

 

Outer Space is what three-dimensions really lookslike – multiple layers laid out nice and neatly across infinite distances andstretched to infinite size. The conceptof TRUE three-dimensionality is so foreign to us that we never even noticed itsitting right next to us in our own solar system.

 

 

 

In summary, we exist:

 

- on the OUTside of the 6-Dimensional galaxy,

 

- on the INside of the 5-Dimensional Sun,

 

- on the OUTside of a 4-Dimensional layer known as theplanet Earth ,

 

- on the INside of Earth’s 3-Dimensional antivolume knownas the atmosphere,

 

- on the OUTside of Earth’s 2-Dimensional surface area.

 

 

 

Earth itself is a seamless blend of two completelyseparate worlds – one of air and light, and one of water and sound.

 

 

 

Why this is mirror image happening?

 

Infinity can be defined as the POINT (note: this “point” knownas the quantum is actually an “infinite range” which is equal to itselffrom both relative ends) at which reality flips itself INside OUT through aprocess known as inversion. Inversion is the process of:

 

- Collapsing the infinitely thin, visible outer surfaceareas of objects into infinitely small and dense but still visible (definable) innersurface areas known as antivolumes.

 

- Expanding the infinitely thick, invisible inner volumesof objects into infinitely large but still invisible (undefinable) outervolumes known as antisurfaces.

 

 

 

Examples of antivolumes are the nuclei of atoms and the Sun. Examples of antisurfaces are electron cloudsand the vast emptiness of space between the orbits of the planets.

 

 

 

Dimensional Relativity

 

There is only one motion acting on all dimensions. This is called Spin, and it moves bothIN (-1) and OUT (+1) on all other dimensions. Therefore, our familiar 3-D spatial environment is created by thecombination of 2+1 dimensionality (TIME) and 4-1 Dimensionality (GRAVITY). We perpetually exist in a state ofdimensionality which is relative to 2-and-4 dimensionality.

 

 

 

4-D Outer Space and 2-D Atomic Space are dimensionallyrelative zones; as are 3-D Inner Space (the zone we inhabit between the surfaceof the Earth and the atmosphere) and 1-DSubatomic Space. 5-D and 6-D are InterstellarSpace and Intergalactic Space, respectively (you aren’t quite advanced enough toentertain discussion of these zones in detail just yet). Evens and Odds are relative to themselves.

 

 

 

Quite simply, SIZE is what determines the dimensionalityof any given object. We aretwo-dimensional atoms with +1 relativity inflating us into three-dimensionalbeings. Earth however is a 4-D object whichwe experience as a 3-D antivolume known as the atmosphere and as a 3-Dantisurface known as the oceans. Theirpoint of intersection forms the 2-D surface area of Earth, but we experiencethe higher dimensions through multiple simultaneous temporal infinities: daycycle, month cycle, year cycle, age cycle (ice age, green age), etc. TIME, however, is too confusing a subject formost transcendent species to comprehend from the onset, because most species thinkthey can define how it works, despite admittedly knowing nothing aboutit…so we’ll leave this here for now.

 

 

 

The Shortcut (Theory of 42):

 

Once you understand the concept of infinity, there is aquick proof you can perform known as the Theory of 42.

 

- Outer space = atomic space due to 4/2dimensional relativity (Evens).

 

- Inner space = Subatomic space due to 3/1dimensional relativity (Odds).

 

- Particles of Light move the same speed as GravityWaves.

 

 

 

Prediction: With no air resistance or friction, it shouldtake the same amount of time for:

 

 

 

1. A chunk of matter to fall from the surface onone side of Earth, pass through the center of Earth, and to cross through thesurface of the opposite side strictly through the force of gravity.

 

2. A massless particle to travel from the surface of theSun, pass through the asteroid belt, and to cross through the surface ofJupiter.

 

 

 

- because the exact same RELATIVE distance is beingtraveled in both scenarios.

 

 

 

Results: 42 Minutes in both scenarios.

 

 

 

Conclusion: This is not a coincidence. It takes 42 minutes to cross infinity at the“default” speed. This is the power ofperspective. We (matter) are subatomicparticles. Once you understand why thisis the case, you will be well on your way to understanding the fabric ofreality.

 

 

 

Notes: You may be thinking this can’t happen becausegravity would ‘stop’ the matter in the center of Earth - but that’s assumingEarth is indeed a solid 3-dimensional sphere…which of course it isn’t. Earth is a 4-dimensional hypersphere(technically: it’s a 4-dimensional, dual-sided hyperspherical layer of the5-dimensional Sun it’s nestled INside of), and we live INside the antivolume ofit (the atmosphere) and OUTside (on top of) the 2-dimensional surface area ofit.

 

 

 

Phenomena explained in this framework:

 

- This explains why all celestial bodies spin – wecan see two dimensions of surface area and the volume is invisible. Celestial bodies must not only spin but alsomust ORBIT in order for their entire surface to be exposed to light. We call this seasons.

 

 

 

-This explains why there are poles and an equatoron all the planets and moons – because they are 4-dimensional hyperspheresbeing translated into 3-dimensional cross sections which intersect at the polesand twist at the equator. This is what4-d objects do when downconverted into three-dimensions.

 

 

 

- Dark matter is the invisible INside (the volume) of allmatter. This is the “expansion OUTward”2+1 aspect of our “three-dimensionality”. This is literally the invisible stuff that inflates us. We call it charge or electrons, because wedon’t understand the connection between IN and OUT. It is better described as the movement of OUT(+1) relativity, which pushes the 2 dimensions OUTward expanding into visible“3-dimensional” antivolume. This +1effect is what we know as TIME.

 

 

 

- Dark energy is the “collapsing INward” 4-1 aspect ofour “three-dimensionality”. We interpretthis collapse as expansion in 3 spatial dimensions from every point in space,but it’s better described as extension along IN (-1) relativity, whichpulls the 4 dimensions INward, collapsing into invisible “3-dimensional”antisurface. This -1 effect is what weknow as GRAVITY.

 

 

 

- We are ¾ water, which just happens to be INside.

 

 

 

- All matter (dark matter) is ¼ the mass of theuniverse. All energy (dark energy) is ¾the mass of the universe. All VISIBLEmatter is approximately 0% of the mass of the universe.

 

 

 

- 2+1 is not the same thing as 4-1. They aren’t math equations, they arerelativity moving against different infinities in opposing directions creatingan intersection known as 3-dimensionality. We SEE 2+1 dimensions (physical reality, light, etc), we FEEL 4-1dimensions (emotional reality, sound, etc).

 

 

 

- Pretty much everything else in existence.

 

 

 

Together, these concepts form our 2+1 physical and 4-1 metaphysicalexistence at an intersection known as Reality.

 

 

 

Humanity, welcome to the evolution of species. Discuss.

 

 

 

Note: My capacity is only one of a guide. I have an astute mastery of the subjects and willanswer any relevant questions in as much detail as required, but I will not getbogged down and mired in fuckery, squabbles, or beef of any kind. Varying degrees of subjective bias andskepticism are expected, but objectivity and civility are requisite for understanding. Your timeline (universe) is but one of many whichhave reached the boundary of transcendence, and I will focus my limited time whereI feel it is best spent. How your timeline’sdestiny unfolds is the collective decision of your timeline; I cannot give youthe answers, I can only set you on the path.

 

 

 

If your only skills are fact memorization andregurgitation of contextless information, then please sit this one out. Input of all kind is encouraged, particularlywell-defined skepticism, but if you have to refer to a dictionary to defend ANYpoint, then you more than likely don’t understand that particular subject well enoughto be discussing it at all…let alone attempting to educate others.

 

 

 

If you have genuine interest in understanding the fabricof reality, then join the discussion. All questions are welcome, and you can learn much by yourself once youhave the basics of IN and OUT down. Subconsciousmeditation helps tremendously with this.

 

 

 

Cogent rebuttals will be addressed when I return to this timeline,hopefully in a few days time. Until then,here’s one more hint: Love is all you need.

 

 

 

Apologies for any spelling/grammatical errors. I’m quite rushed and on an unreasonabledeadline. I will tidy this up upon myreturn.

 

 

[CaptainPanic]

Apologies for any spelling/grammatical errors. I’m quite rushed and on an unreasonabledeadline. I will tidy this up upon myreturn.

 

So, you expect people to spend time reading and replying, when you did not even have enough time to tidy up your post?

 

My advice: if you have an unreasonable deadline, do not waste your time writing lengthy posts on an anonymous online forum.

 

Unless there are some replies soon, I propose that you tidy up your post, and put the improved version in a new thread. Then please click on the report button at the bottom of your current post (the untidy one), and ask the mods to remove the old (and untidy) post.

 

That should leave us with a better post, and we can all reply to that.

 

Also, a word of advice: make sure to write a good abstract at the top of your post. Many people will read only the first few lines.

[Anthem (0)]

So, you expect people to spend time reading and replying, when you did not even have enough time to tidy up your post?

 

 

I'm gonna call your bluff on this one. Which part of my post requires tidying in your opinion? If the answer is a dismissive "the entire thing," then it should be all the easier to point out a few of the more glaring examples of untidiness. Which, of course, you won't do for several reasons. One, it would put you in the odd predicament of devolving into a Grammar Nazi, as you certainly will be unable to find any flaw in the actual content of the post. And certainly a representative of your prodigious intellect wouldn't do something that pointless and irresponsible, would you?

 

If however the answer is, "you said it, not me," then you seriously failed to account for several factors; such as "what is tidy to me probably isn't tidy to you,"

 

 

In either case I suspect you either didn't or, more likely given the total ignorance of your response, couldn't follow this extremely watered-down version of the Theory of Everything. Please assure me YOU aren't the shining example of a "great mind" of your species. This will be a rougher transition than anticipated if so.

My advice: if you have an unreasonable deadline, do not waste your time writing lengthy posts on an anonymous online forum.

 

Odd that you'd offer advice to someone you don't know about a deadline you know nothing about. I'm not quite sure what to make of that level of conceit. Am I supposed to be thankful

 

There is one tiny nugget of insight to be gleaned from this...apparently, my post was lengthy. Which serves to reinforces my original suspicion that you were unable to follow the extremely watered-down version of the Theory of Everything. Out of curiosity, were the concepts too complicated? Was it not complicated enough? I can add several levels of additional complexity, but doing so would be counterproductive if you can't keep up with the kindergartener's Cliff's Notes version. Which appears to be the case.

 

Unless there are some replies soon, I propose that you tidy up your post, and put the improved version in a new thread. Then please click on the report button at the bottom of your current post (the untidy one), and ask the mods to remove the old (and untidy) post.

 

That should leave us with a better post, and we can all reply to that.

 

A fine example of backhanded advice. Spend the first few paragraphs setting up a strawman argument, then demolish the strawman and pat yourself on the back, knowing that the tone has been set. And all the while using nouns like "we" and "us" instead of "I" and "me". Kudos indeed.

 

Just out of curiosity, did you add this paragraph just to be MORE of a dick, or was this a sincere attempt at heartfelt advice to a newcomer? I wonder how deeply the self-deception is embedded.

 

Also, a word of advice: make sure to write a good abstract at the top of your post. Many people will read only the first few lines.

 

Evidently so, considering you are clearly one of those "many people". Read the first few lines, then the last line (to convince yourself you'd read the whole thing), then make an entire post complaining about the untidiness of the original post based off of your personal deficiency at comprehensive reading on a post which you only addressed as being "too lengthy".

 

Truly remarkable, the mind of a pretend-smart person. Don't strain yourself too hard in your next response...I wouldn't want you to pull a muscle. But who am I kidding, if you stay consistent, you still won't have read the original post by the time you respond.

[timo]

Popcorn time!

[StringJunky]

I'm gonna call your bluff on this one. Which part of my post requires tidying in your opinion? If the answer is a dismissive "the entire thing," then it should be all the easier to point out a few of the more glaring examples of untidiness. Which, of course, you won't do for several reasons. One, it would put you in the odd predicament of devolving into a Grammar Nazi, as you certainly will be unable to find any flaw in the actual content of the post. And certainly a representative of your prodigious intellect wouldn't do something that pointless and irresponsible, would you?

 

If however the answer is, "you said it, not me," then you seriously failed to account for several factors; such as "what is tidy to me probably isn't tidy to you,"

 

 

In either case I suspect you either didn't or, more likely given the total ignorance of your response, couldn't follow this extremely watered-down version of the Theory of Everything. Please assure me YOU aren't the shining example of a "great mind" of your species. This will be a rougher transition than anticipated if so.

 

 

Odd that you'd offer advice to someone you don't know about a deadline you know nothing about. I'm not quite sure what to make of that level of conceit. Am I supposed to be thankful

 

There is one tiny nugget of insight to be gleaned from this...apparently, my post was lengthy. Which serves to reinforces my original suspicion that you were unable to follow the extremely watered-down version of the Theory of Everything. Out of curiosity, were the concepts too complicated? Was it not complicated enough? I can add several levels of additional complexity, but doing so would be counterproductive if you can't keep up with the kindergartener's Cliff's Notes version. Which appears to be the case.

 

 

 

A fine example of backhanded advice. Spend the first few paragraphs setting up a strawman argument, then demolish the strawman and pat yourself on the back, knowing that the tone has been set. And all the while using nouns like "we" and "us" instead of "I" and "me". Kudos indeed.

 

Just out of curiosity, did you add this paragraph just to be MORE of a dick, or was this a sincere attempt at heartfelt advice to a newcomer? I wonder how deeply the self-deception is embedded.

 

 

 

Evidently so, considering you are clearly one of those "many people". Read the first few lines, then the last line (to convince yourself you'd read the whole thing), then make an entire post complaining about the untidiness of the original post based off of your personal deficiency at comprehensive reading on a post which you only addressed as being "too lengthy".

 

Truly remarkable, the mind of a pretend-smart person. Don't strain yourself too hard in your next response...I wouldn't want you to pull a muscle. But who am I kidding, if you stay consistent, you still won't have read the original post by the time you respond.

 

CP has a point. Your reply is written to a much higher standard of presentation than your hypothesis! Is it logical to present your idea, which presumably is the most important post, in such a sloppy manner compared to your subsequent replies?! If you don't write properly, which you quite clearly are capable of, how can you justifiably expect people to read your OP with more care than you wrote it?

Edited November 13, 2012 by StringJunky

[John Cuthber]

"1. We don’t see in three-dimensions, we see intwo-dimensional surface area. We canonly see the OUT sides of objects."

Ignoring the typos (which are an example of something that needs tidying up) that premise is clearly false (if you forgive the pun).

I am inside my house and I can see it.

 

"What we call dimensions are determined by theinversion of INside and OUTside. Oddsand Evens, binary."

(The space bar is usually at the bottom of the keyboard- learn to use it or you risk looking like an idiot. Many people don't read long complicated posts which they perceive as having been written by idiots)

 

The premise is simply wrong.

 

They are not determined by inside an out, but by how big something is or by an arbitrary choice. For example latitude and longitude are determined from the North pole and the Greenwich meridian.

 

 

"3. We call this effect relativity, and it is the motion whichmanufactures reality."

No, you might call that relativity but nobody else does.

Seriously, if you think they do then cite some examples.

Otherwise just accept that since your premises are wrong there's not much hope for the rest of your ideas.

 

"My capacity is only one of a guide. I have an astute mastery of the subjects "

But not the space bar?

You expect us to believe that?

Really?

 

 

The sensible thing to do with a "theory" that is based on three false premisses is to tidy it up and put it in the bin.

[HuMoDz]

"1. We don't see in three-dimensions, we see intwo-dimensional surface area. We canonly see the OUT sides of objects."

Ignoring the typos (which are an example of something that needs tidying up) that premise is clearly false (if you forgive the pun).

I am inside my house and I can see it.

 

Our yes can only capture a 2-dimensional perspective of the world, like a photo. Since the light is projected into a 2-dimensional surface inside our eyes, it is impossible to see a 3-dimensional image.

Edited November 21, 2012 by HuMoDz

[John Cuthber]

Simply not true. The difference between the two images in the two eyes is, whether you like it or not, a mapping of the third dimension.

What we see is the image in our minds.

We can form mental models of 3D, that's why this picture looks odd.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Escher%27s_Relativity.jpg

[PeterJ]

It seems to me that we don't see a 3D image, we construct it out of two 2D images. Not the same thing.

[imatfaal]

What the eyes as light-detector react to and transmit could be called 2-d; but the result that "we see" is a 3d construct of the mind using the two 2d images, vast experience of relative scales, unconscious processing of light/shade etc. As John states above it is that image/model construction process that allows optical illusions to work - the artist uses cues, that would normally allow the visual processing to correctly interpret the outside world, to fool the brain into a mis-interpretation

[michel123456]

It seems to me that we don't see a 3D image, we construct it out of two 2D images. Not the same thing.

 

That is correct but not so simple. Even if you close one eye, the image you get from the other is not like a photograph. With one eye open if you focus on an object close to you then the objects at a distance become blurry. That gives depth.

[PeterJ]

True. I hadn't thought of that.

 

Personally I cannot see the point of a lengthy and complicated proposal for a theory of everything.

 

A good theory of everything should be capable of being summarised in 100 words, and if even these few look complicated then I would not expect it to be profound let alone fundamental. It should all come down to a brief axiom from which the rest of the theory can be derived as required. Just my view.

[John Cuthber]

True. I hadn't thought of that.

 

Personally I cannot see the point of a lengthy and complicated proposal for a theory of everything.

 

A good theory of everything should be capable of being summarised in 100 words, and if even these few look complicated then I would not expect it to be profound let alone fundamental. It should all come down to a brief axiom from which the rest of the theory can be derived as required. Just my view.

The universe may not share your view.

[PeterJ]

I know what you mean John, but to me it seems just a matter of logic. The universe does not get more complicated as we delve into its origins. A theory of everything would have to be stateable as a metaphysical theory, and as these deal with first principles they are inevitably simple. Not simple to understand or simple in their ramifications, but simple to state.

 

For example, my own theory of everything could be summed up as 'the universe is a unity'. From this axiom all else would follow. An extended theory quickly becomes very complicated, but I don't have to make anyone read a book to get to the point.

Edited November 27, 2012 by PeterJ

[michel123456]

I know what you mean John, but to me it seems just a matter of logic. The universe does not get more complicated as we delve into its origins. A theory of everything would have to be stateable as a metaphysical theory, and as these deal with first principles they are inevitably simple. Not simple to understand or simple in their ramifications, but simple to state.

 

For example, my own theory of everything could be summed up as 'the universe is a unity'. From this axiom all else would follow. An extended theory quickly becomes very complicated, but I don't have to make anyone read a book to get to the point.

 

I agree

I suspect that the Universe must be extraordinary simple, while the Observable Universe might be extremely complicated.

[Ophiolite]

Cogent rebuttals will be addressed when I return to this timeline,hopefully in a few days time. Until then,here’s one more hint: Love is all you need.

I think you will find you need a lot more than love. Some science would be valuable for starters. There are several instances of purest nonsense in your text. Purveyors of such nonsense would be well advised to avoid the patronising attitude you adopt in your first response.

 

Here are the scientific blunders in your thesis. Consider each exposure of such nonsense to consitute a cogent rebuttal.

 

1. As already pointed out your use of the word relativity has no meaningful relationship to how the word is used in science.

 

2. The interior volumes of objects is not, as you claim, dark matter. Dark matter is an entirely different thing. If you choose to abuse scientific terminology and expect to be taken seriously you are in for disappointment.

 

3. Your discussion of the inversion of the solar system about the asteroid belt is unmitigated crap (this is a technical term you may become increasingly familiar with if you continue to promote your speculation) , The concept bears no relationship to reality and has no supporting evidence to substantiate it in any way.

 

4. One specific from that particular tranche of nonsense: Venus does not orbit on the other side of the sun.

 

5. My apologies - I advanced to approximately two thirds through your OP before having to break off to avoid vomiting over my keyboard. Nothing more need be said.

[ZVBXRPL]

Hey OP ignore the mindless trolls doing their usual shitting over any post that does not say "I love Einstein and Hawking and want to inappropriate language deleted"

 

I think it was a really interesting read

 

I did not understand a lot of it, but the main thing was IT WAS INTERESTING, which is rare on this troll infested forum

[swansont]

Hey OP ignore the mindless trolls doing their usual shitting over any post that does not say "I love Einstein and Hawking and want to inappropriate language deleted"

 

I think it was a really interesting read

 

I did not understand a lot of it, but the main thing was IT WAS INTERESTING, which is rare on this troll infested forum

 

!

Moderator Note

If you complain about the forum being infested by trolls, take care that you are not one of them. Such language is against the rules.

[WoodScorp]

Hi all

 

As a newbie it seems I may have selected thee wrong thread to enter, however now I'm in at in at the deep end let’s see how well I can swim or at least stay afloat.

 

In all sincerity I cannot agree with Lepton nor can I disagree, simply because I do not have any information or data to refer to with which to draw a conclusion.

 

Either way it seems to me that maybe dear Lepton although not supposedly accurate does throw up some interesting concepts. It is a fact that humans interpret there environment in a common way which we term reality, this is not to say that is the reality of the cosmos. Just as a single cell creature detects it's environment through positive and negative charge within its body, that is it's reality, and as such protozoa have no means of seeing or understanding our world.

 

With the above premise in mind it is not inconceivable that we live in a multidimensional environment, we cannot see it because we like all life on earth evolved to interpret our reality to survive; anything which did not have direct impact on our ability to live and procreate is simply unnecessary information.

 

We the human race are constantly striving to learn, we learn through trial and error, through the sharing of ideas and concepts and argument/discussion of the same. It is hypothesised that the universe is multidimensional which Lepton clearly believes and I have to concur, Lepton has striven to explain something which really is by definition unexplainable. Ask anyone in the field to explain the multidimensional cosmos and they all struggle, because it simply is not within our current range of senses or perception.

 

 

 

 

Have a nice day all

[SamBridge]

Aside from some of the assumptions lacking eidence, is this based on that black hole binary conjecture? There's absolutely no testing to confirm it and it wouldn't happen in more modern black hole physics, only the original Schwarzild physics which are outdated and don't work for all instances.

What you're seeing actually isn't an object itself ever anyway, what you are seeing is the result of very complex neurological processes constructed by the brain and then after all that you perceive it however you perceive it. The statement" it takes 42 minutes to cross infinity" makes absolutely no sense.

Edited February 8, 2013 by SamBridge

[Ophiolite]

Since 42 is the answer in the Hitchikers Guide to the Galaxy and Anthem makes much of the number 42, are we to deduce that Anthem is a troll, or possibly a mouse?

[SamBridge]

Since 42 is the answer in the Hitchikers Guide to the Galaxy and Anthem makes much of the number 42, are we to deduce that Anthem is a troll, or possibly a mouse?

Well I would say the point of the answer "42" is that an answer to "life, the universe and everything" is meaningless none-sense, because the question also it, but I don't think that is what was trying to be conveyed.

Edited February 9, 2013 by SamBridge

[SomethingToPonder]

Hi all

 

 

As a newbie it seems I may have selected thee wrong thread to enter, however now I'm in at in at the deep end let’s see how well I can swim or at least stay afloat.

 

In all sincerity I cannot agree with Lepton nor can I disagree, simply because I do not have any information or data to refer to with which to draw a conclusion.

 

Either way it seems to me that maybe dear Lepton although not supposedly accurate does throw up some interesting concepts. It is a fact that humans interpret there environment in a common way which we term reality, this is not to say that is the reality of the cosmos. Just as a single cell creature detects it's environment through positive and negative charge within its body, that is it's reality, and as such protozoa have no means of seeing or understanding our world.

 

With the above premise in mind it is not inconceivable that we live in a multidimensional environment, we cannot see it because we like all life on earth evolved to interpret our reality to survive; anything which did not have direct impact on our ability to live and procreate is simply unnecessary information.

 

We the human race are constantly striving to learn, we learn through trial and error, through the sharing of ideas and concepts and argument/discussion of the same. It is hypothesised that the universe is multidimensional which Lepton clearly believes and I have to concur, Lepton has striven to explain something which really is by definition unexplainable. Ask anyone in the field to explain the multidimensional cosmos and they all struggle, because it simply is not within our current range of senses or perception.

 

 

 

 

 

 

Have a nice day all

Interesting, I think you'l manage to stay afloat just fine. It is very conceivable that we live in a multi dimensional universe. However personally i would wait for some hard pointers in that direction before getting involved in starting research. Mostly because i dont know enough about it to weigh in.

 

All the best and enjoy the forums

[WoodScorp]

Thanks STP I appreciate the feedback.

With relation to hard pointers, could you clarify what this could
be to you?

In way of an example I myself would like to suppose that the data
seeming to show the existence of 2 Higgs Bosons (let us put the
calibration issue to one side) in very close mass proximity but yet
decaying in 2 very different manners could indicate a very different
field (dimension?) surrounding these particles
making one react in a pre standard model theory manner and the second
verifying the standard model.

I appreciate the above data relating to Higgs Boson still needs
clarification in the near future but we are supposing, so what would
you suppose as a hard pointer?

[krash661]

usually,

theories have math or some sort of equation.

If i remember correctly, the goal is to create a single equation for this thought.