# Thread: infinity minus one equals time?

1. Originally Posted by TheBiologista
That is to say, present your idea with minimal coherent argument and no empirical evidence and then promptly attack the entire scientific establishment via ad hominems at the first hint of scepticism.
[m... ... I quoted your post from 6pm tonight.

the below post is from a good day ago. (i did edit today lol)

knee. jerk.]

Universe/Time = 1/(∞-1)

so what's wrong with this? the implied value of infinity changes over time but as it is equally impossible to count to 3 using 2 quanta as it is to count to 1000 using 999 quanta the actual value remains ∞ in each successive time frame.

a natural number of quanta cannot express the number of quanta in its own set plus one, as an integer. therefore it can only imply the existence of natural number sets of higher value than itself.

the future retains infinite potential, at the instance of the futurity.

an you predict the lottery numbers? Would it be any easier if the lottery was tonight? Would it any eaqsier to predict the results if it was starting in 60 seconds? can you predict the next number to drop, the INSTANT BEFORE it drops?

no?

oh.

surely?

still no?

then have another look..

Universe/Time = 1/(∞-1)

so what's wrong with this? the implied value of infinity changes over time but as it is equally impossible to count to 3 using 2 quanta as it is to count to 1000 using 999 quanta the actual value remains ∞ in each successive time frame.

a natural number of quanta cannot express the number of quanta in its own set plus one, as an integer. therefore it can only imply the existence of natural number sets of higher value than itself, using simple, but still imperfectly described (and variable) curves and arcing vectors. thiiiiiiink*

the future retains infinite potential, at the instance of the futurity.

an you predict the lottery numbers? Would it be any easier if the lottery was tonight? Would it any eaqsier to predict the results if it was starting in 60 seconds? can you predict the next number to drop, the INSTANT BEFORE it drops?

no?

oh.

surely?

still no?

then have another look.. Universe/Time = 1/(∞-1)

(and also... tell me which side of the dividing line we ARE on ... is the universe 'n+1' or a '1/(n+1)' ?) (no? Then why not put the sneer away and pick the up the abacus)

??

*so what would small sets of rational numbers trying to describe natural sets of higher value their amount of rational fractions look like? to us they would very probably look like some very short, very simple curves whose exact paths would be impossible to predict (and probably impossible to track to definitive exactness)

um..

collider results anyone?

2.

3. Universe/Time = 1/(∞-1)

so what's wrong with this? the implied value of infinity changes over time but as it is equally impossible to count to 3 using 2 quanta as it is to count to 1000 using 999 quanta the actual value remains ∞ in each successive time frame.

a natural number of quanta cannot express the number of quanta in its own set plus one, as an integer. it can only imply the existence of natural number sets of higher value than itself.

the future retains infinite potential

surely?

[late addition - is the universe an n+1 or a 1/(n+1) ?]

4. Infinity minus one equals infinity. One over infinity is equal to zero AFAIK. From my limited understanding your equation makes no sense.

5. infinity = highest possible natural number you can describe at time frame x, +1

highest possible natural number at time frame x = total number of indivisible bits of the universe at time frame x

future = number of indivisibleparts of universe at time frame x, +1.... but the +1 has infinite potential position relative to the total universe in time frame x: the +1 exists in potential, in the future, and is the bit that can't be counted... yet.

higher natural numbers can be implied in time frame x, but cannot be proved.

so infinity is implied to have a different value in different time frames, while it retains the same (unknowable by definition) infinite value [*edited after quote below]

which might make infinity = any unknown value, until it(the value) is known... by which point infinity is somewhere else(?)

apologies - don't get me wrong, i do tend to talk from the wrong way up.

6. infinity = highest possible natural number you can describe at time frame x, +1......so infinity is implied to have a different value in different time frames, while it retains the same (unknowable by definition) actual value
I am sorry, but none of it still don't make sense to me. Infinity isn't a number or even a value per se AFAIK. The highest possible number anyone can describe, plus or minus 1, is not infinity at any time frame.

You are dealing with different very big numbers here and not true infinity at any stage.

7. ok, well thanks for clearing that up for me.

at least i had a thunk. :wink:

8. I had another thunk - sorry.

imagine your stride is exactly 1m. There is a cliff edge 2m directly in front of you. Now... take at least 3 strides forward... how far did you get?

total distance = 2 strides + dea..

Did it make any difference whether you decided to take 3 strides or 300? Is the safe number of strides a finite amount less than the unsafe?

At every extra real natural number described by the universe infinity loses a quanta of data, which is both against law of conservation and implies infinity might one day be defined - a paradox

But for every new natural number (n+1)there is an equally new rational number - 1/(n+1) which becomes the new smallest divisible unit of the universe and is in reality impossible to detect or measure until it becomes part of a larger set (composed of a number of (1/n+1) sets)...

so the paradox is avoided and time carries on slicing up reality into more and more smaller and smaller parts.

??lol

would that imply a mobius-like view of the universe? self-wiping the past to a point of absolute uncertainty, but with a future so long it implies the potential development of infinitely more varied emergent complexities?

our time is another object's physical dimensions being pulled across the edge of an event horizon. srsly. isn't it? and we're facing outwards, into the onrushing detritus of some other existence. woop kn woop

9. Would anyone, other than the OPer, object if I send thread to Pseudo? As far as I qualified to judge, it has no place here.

10. like i'd mind. i'm surprised it lasted this long.

although a decent answer would be nice before it gets trashed. no wonder everyone's so busy being depressed the models don't work, all people do is keep trying to fix the already broken models to the nth degree and shoot down anyone who asks why bother.

particle formation as expression of expanding universe (as universe expands it needs more quantum points to express the internal division... quantum points (each qp is a fraction of universe = 1/Universe) would appear between current existing parts of the universe - they soak through the cracks, not appear at the edges. LHC is just localising them over a very small area).

so particle behaviour will be a direct function of universe expansion. and will correlate to a scary degree with emergent n-dimensional pattern forming potential of relatively low-count numbers. like, just numbers. what smaller thing can you say than whether a thing exists or not? the smallest thing you can say about the universe is that it =1

you could even put that in one of those limpalong little bodgejobs and see what it said. /bitter

11. Originally Posted by Guitarist
Would anyone, other than the OPer, object if I send thread to Pseudo? As far as I qualified to judge, it has no place here.
An excellent idea.

I'm not this is even Pseudo Science.

12. Pseudo. Let biologista make a judgment call on it

13. lmao.

can't solve the problem so we'll hide it and hope it goes away. like the universe and the Higgs' eh?

:P

14. not really. The "problem" you propose is nonsensical and ignorant of the relevant mathematics and physics.

15. Originally Posted by Arcane_Mathematician
not really. The "problem" you propose is nonsensical and ignorant of the relevant mathematics and physics.

And those are the merits.

16. Originally Posted by Arcane_Mathematician
not really. The "problem" you propose is nonsensical and ignorant of the relevant mathematics and physics.
oh

So your maths and physics work do they? I'm so sorry I didn't realise.

You'd better let the LHC know that it's time to shut down.

or maybe... think.

the problem isn't nonsensical, unless you're ignorant enough to dismiss it without consideration.

and considering that you most certainly ARE ignorant (i've seen no evidence of manners yet)... well everything must be nonsensical to you. found the Higgs' yet have you? No? Then be very careful what you dismiss so easily.

anyone who wants to dispute that infinity is a moving boundary, both in front and behind us, please come back yesterday. or tell me next week's lottery results. mm hmm?

in fact, move back in time, not far .. just far enough to say you did it... and then tell me the position of a single quanta in the future. The very short term future. As short term future as you damn well dare. Oh.

You just fell off the curve. Shocking.

17. pseudoscience

:?

srsly. this gets stuck with untestable bs fantasisms... u jkn?.... no.. u nt jkn.

18. Originally Posted by danny burton
can't solve the problem so we'll hide it and hope it goes away.
It's not hidden. We can still see it. It has just been moved.

19. nah don't worry i don't mind, it's not like i have to persuade you of anything. it ain't my problem lmFao.

the knee-jerk sneer attitude towards anything/one new is however an reflection of the quality of some forum members.

i can understand peeps getting a little impatient with crackpots... but grown-up scientists first treat each crackpot idea as having the potential to be true, then show it isn't (even if only for themselves)... then do the laughter.

if a bunch of ill mannered shut-eye flat earthists want to dislay their awful manners by sneering at something as obvious, and obviously true as gravity. well... i think it's hilarious. i'm archiving the best bits.

history has a habit of looping round and biting you in the goolies. you want to think about investing in some extra pants.

20. nah don't worry i don't mind, it's not like i have to persuade you of anything. it ain't my problem lmFao.

the knee-jerk sneer attitude towards anything/one new is however an reflection of the quality of some forum members.

i can understand peeps getting a little impatient with crackpots... but grown-up scientists first treat each crackpot idea as having the potential to be true, then show it isn't (even if only for themselves)... then do the laughter.

i have at the very least offered testable predictions. and were they acknowledged? were they? or did the sneering screw your faces up before the brains kicked in? you want testable predictions and then when you get one... oh no... we'd rather not... we're far happier sneering. bless.

if a bunch of ill mannered shut-eye flat earthists want to dislay their awful manners by sneering at something as obvious, and obviously true as gravity. well... i think it's hilarious. i'm archiving the best bits.

history has a habit of looping round and biting you in the goolies. you might want to think about investing in some extra pants. mmmwah

god damn but i'm too patient with idiots for my own good sometimes.

have another go.

Universe/Time = 1/(∞-1)

so what's wrong with this? the implied value of infinity changes over time but as it is equally impossible to count to 3 using 2 quanta as it is to count to 1000 using 999 quanta the actual value remains ∞ in each successive time frame.

a natural number of quanta cannot express the number of quanta in its own set plus one, as an integer. therefore it can only imply the existence of natural number sets of higher value than itself, using simple, but still imperfectly described (and variable) curves and arcing vectors. thiiiiiiink*

the future retains infinite potential, at the instance of the futurity.

an you predict the lottery numbers? Would it be any easier if the lottery was tonight? Would it any eaqsier to predict the results if it was starting in 60 seconds? can you predict the next number to drop, the INSTANT BEFORE it drops?

no?

oh.

surely?

still no?

then have another look.. Universe/Time = 1/(∞-1)

(and also... tell me which side of the dividing line we ARE on ... is the universe 'n+1' or a '1/(n+1)' ?) (no? Then why not put the sneer away and pick the up the abacus)

??

*so what would small sets of rational numbers trying to describe natural sets of higher value their amount of rational fractions look like? to us they would very probably look like some very short, very simple curves whose exact paths would be impossible to predict (and probably impossible to track to definitive exactness)

um..

collider results anyone?

21. Originally Posted by danny burton
history has a habit of looping round and biting you in the goolies. you want to think about investing in some extra pants.

Actually the pattern is more like this. You get millions of people who think they've figured out the answer to the really big questions. One of the millions will be right and will face the same resistance as everyone else, requiring him to do a lot of convincing. He will do this using logical argument and evidence. A minority of the ones who are wrong will try this also, and though found wrong, will be respected. The vast majority will do what you've just done. That is to say, present your idea with minimal coherent argument and no empirical evidence and then promptly attack the entire scientific establishment via ad hominems at the first hint of scepticism. It is entirely appropriate for anyone pushing a novel idea to face scepticism- whether they are right or wrong. That is how science works. We place the bar high so that when we accept something, we can have confidence that it is well-tested, rigorously argued. The alternative is credulousness, which would have us forever circling.

22. Originally Posted by TheBiologista
Originally Posted by danny burton
history has a habit of looping round and biting you in the goolies. you want to think about investing in some extra pants.

Actually the pattern is more like this. You get millions of people who think they've figured out the answer to the really big questions. One of the millions will be right and will face the same resistance as everyone else, requiring him to do a lot of convincing. He will do this using logical argument and evidence. A minority of the ones who are wrong will try this also, and though found wrong, will be respected. The vast majority will do what you've just done. That is to say, present your idea with minimal coherent argument and no empirical evidence and then promptly attack the entire scientific establishment via ad hominems at the first hint of scepticism. It is entirely appropriate for anyone pushing a novel idea to face scepticism- whether they are right or wrong. That is how science works. We place the bar high so that when we accept something, we can have confidence that it is well-tested, rigorously argued. The alternative is credulousness, which would have us forever circling.
that is untrue and unfair. if you want to have alook at ad hominem arguments i can direct you to them, but they're mostly aimed the other way... followed by a biteback (naturally).

i'm not attacking the scientific community, i'm offering evidence and it's not that i'm trying to persuade anyone - i'm ASKING for some help.

my complaint is that as soon as i had failed to acknowledge how stupid i am, all i got from the other forum members was the same sort of attitude as you'd, until just then, managed to avoid.

i am asking a question (what stops this working?), not trying to provide an answer - if you find that threatening, please accept my sincere apologies.

if you could provide a better answer than 'because you're stupid we think you smell and we're really smart' then i'd appreciate it very much indeed.

[edit - due to irritation. THE FIRST SIGN OF SCEPTICISM??!! It would be one thing if the first sign of skepticism was a polite "You appear to have overlooked x,y, or z" but the "first sign of scepticism" in this case was insulting, and besides the point of anything I was asking. First sign of skepticism. Muttergrumblemutter]

23. Originally Posted by danny burton
Universe/Time = 1/(∞-1)

So what's wrong with this?
Pretty well everything.

You have not defined time.

You have not defined the Universe.

You have not defined infinity.

You have not specified units.

Apparently you don't actually know what an equation is and, by extrapolation, have no idea what science is, or logic, or anything of that sort.

24. ... that's a FAR better answer than it's just wrong

:wink:

25. Originally Posted by danny burton
... that's a FAR better answer than it's just wrong

:wink:
Which is not an answer anyone gave you before. Some expressed confusion as to what you were trying to say, and you did little to clarify. The above does no better. Others simply agreed that the thread should be moved to pseudo.

It seems you've posted this new thread to get around the placement of your thread in pseudo. If you want that thread moved, make an argument for that on Site Feedback, PM me or PM an admin. Don't just start a duplicate thread.

I am merging this with the thread in pseudo. Please don't do this again or I'll have to issue a warning.

26. Originally Posted by danny burton
... that's a FAR better answer than it's just wrong
:wink:
No. It is a FAR longer answer that it's just wrong.

27. Originally Posted by Ophiolite
Originally Posted by danny burton
Universe/Time = 1/(∞-1)

So what's wrong with this?
Pretty well everything.

You have not defined time.

You have not defined the Universe.

You have not defined infinity.

You have not specified units.

Apparently you don't actually know what an equation is and, by extrapolation, have no idea what science is, or logic, or anything of that sort.
"You have not defined time." i've taken time to be the number of indivisible parts of the universe

"You have not defined the Universe.": the universe is the entire job lot of our observable existence. what is usually meant in physics when we say 'the universe'.

"You have not defined infinity." that's a dirty lie. one that gives the game away... you didn't even think before jerking that knee. wow. i defined infinity (plenty) as being the highest natural number it would have been possible to count to at a point in time, if you'd used all the indivisible parts of the universe at that given time... +1... if you care to look, it's an implied value of infinity that's being defined by the rest of the equation.

"You have not specified units." there are none but indivisible parts of the universe.

"Apparently you don't actually know what an equation is and, by extrapolation, have no idea what science is, or logic, or anything of that sort." Aha... it all becomes clear. It really doesn't matter if it was a serious question....you just wanted to sneer.

bless.

I'll take it you're struggling with the equation then, since you're reduced to such cheap shots.

Score one to teh theory.

ahem...

teh theory 1 - 0 kneejerks

28. Out of interest danny, is this definition of infinity in line with how mathematicians use it? It seems like you're defining it in a very specific way, and if we're not talking about the same concept of infinity, then perhaps you need to be using a different word. Your definition of time also seems to be out of line with the conventional usage of the word.

29. i've taken time to be the number of indivisible parts of the universe
The best way we can describe time at the moment is that it is the measure of relative movement. What you are attempting to describe is Planck time I think, assuming that by "parts" you mean smallest units of time. If not you must be talking about the total number of fundamental particles.

the universe is the entire job lot of our observable existence. what is usually meant in physics when we say 'the universe'.
What did you expect? You have been making up your own definitions of established concepts the whole time. Do you mean universe in terms of everything that resulted from the big bang?

that's a dirty lie. one that gives the game away... you didn't even think before jerking that knee. wow. i defined infinity (plenty) as being the highest natural number it would have been possible to count to at a point in time, if you'd used all the indivisible parts of the universe at that given time... +1... if you care to look, it's an implied value of infinity that's being defined by the rest of the equation.
I have explained why this definition is wholly wrong and fairly arbitrary. If you really want to invent such a proposed number, then define it better. Maybe define it as the largest number you would reach if you counted each unit of Planck time since the universe started, or something, and give it a symbol. This still doesn't provide any use I can see, but there it is. You will never stop counting though, because time doesn't stop. At no time will it describe infinity as understood by those actually trained to describe it though.

Now please stop the sneering. You are spouting nonsense in its purest form. People have been explaining why it is nonsense, but you instead appear to defend it by getting sarcastic. That will get you nowhere. And it is not a theory. Look it up.

Now, what exactly are you actually trying to do here?

30. Originally Posted by KALSTER
i've taken time to be the number of indivisible parts of the universe
The best way we can describe time at the moment is that it is the measure of relative movement. What you are attempting to describe is Planck time I think, assuming that by "parts" you mean smallest units of time. If not you must be talking about the total number of fundamental particles.
I am talking about the number of fundamental parts, although not particles. My contention is that the particles are made, literally, of bits.

Originally Posted by KALSTER
the universe is the entire job lot of our observable existence. what is usually meant in physics when we say 'the universe'.
What did you expect? You have been making up your own definitions of established concepts the whole time. Do you mean universe in terms of everything that resulted from the big bang?
Yes, I've been loose with my definitions, mea culpa, although I did define them in my own words very early on. But yes, when I say 'infinity' it's just the nearest thing I could find. And it does look a lot like infinity... (that's for below)

The universe as in: everything we see as resulting from the big bang.

Originally Posted by KALSTER
that's a dirty lie. one that gives the game away... you didn't even think before jerking that knee. wow. i defined infinity (plenty) as being the highest natural number it would have been possible to count to at a point in time, if you'd used all the indivisible parts of the universe at that given time... +1... if you care to look, it's an implied value of infinity that's being defined by the rest of the equation.
I have explained why this definition is wholly wrong and fairly arbitrary. If you really want to invent such a proposed number, then define it better.
yes, the word was a bad choice in hindsight. However, it still represents an infinite potential for the next moment of future.

[quote="KALSTER"]
Maybe define it as the largest number you would reach if you counted each unit of Planck time since the universe started, or something, and give it a symbol.
or how about the number of indivisible bits of the universe it is possible to have a given point in time... minus one. To be fair, I have been repeating myself on this one, and if I used a word you don't approve of then I'm sorry but I never did try to use your definition did I? It was always my word, and my definition...

[quote="KALSTER"]
This still doesn't provide any use I can see, but there it is. You will never stop counting though, because time doesn't stop. At no time will it describe infinity as understood by those actually trained to describe it though.
It represents the limitless potential in the 'position' of THE NEXT 1 indivisible bit of universe. ie, if we stopped time now and I gave you a quark, how many possible places in the universe could you place it? But as soon as you place it, the potential changes to actual... time moves forward one dividing step and 'osme' (my word for what you don't want me to call infinity) retains the same value as ever - limitless potential for the 'positioning' of a new bit.

Time ticks on, the future has 'osme' or 'infinite' potential still.

[quote="KALSTER"]
Now please stop the sneering. You are spouting nonsense in its purest form. People have been explaining why it is nonsense, but you instead appear to defend it by getting sarcastic. That will get you nowhere. And it is not a theory. Look it up.
Blimey you almost managed to make it to the end without the bs. It's no good insulting people then getting upset because they've the affront to give it back.

If you wish to be treated with manners, then show some. The offer will remain open indefinitely.

Originally Posted by KALSTER
Now, what exactly are you actually trying to do here?
learn. and enjoy. it's called TEH THEORY after all. do I rly hav to spell it out? for people who think they're smart, you're damn damn slow. the only reason i'm having fun at your expense is because you're letting me.

31. Originally Posted by TheBiologista
Out of interest danny, is this definition of infinity in line with how mathematicians use it? It seems like you're defining it in a very specific way, and if we're not talking about the same concept of infinity, then perhaps you need to be using a different word. Your definition of time also seems to be out of line with the conventional usage of the word.
yes, my bad, but i did try to explain what i meant by the word i was using. i think it's because i still think of it as infinite potential (one step in the future, anything is possible lol)...

http://www.thescienceforum.com/potential-23417t.php

time... hmm... i've taken time as the number of indivisible bits of universe.

32. Originally Posted by danny burton
time... hmm... i've taken time as the number of indivisible bits of universe.
Are you sure it isn't, in fact, the number of small salamanders you can't fit on the head of a pin?

33. the salamanders can't fit, apparently your last remaining braincell made its home there.

i take it you've not got over yourself yet. try jumping backwards over an event horizon.

34. Originally Posted by danny burton
Originally Posted by Arcane_Mathematician
not really. The "problem" you propose is nonsensical and ignorant of the relevant mathematics and physics.
oh

So your maths and physics work do they? I'm so sorry I didn't realise.

You'd better let the LHC know that it's time to shut down.

or maybe... think.

the problem isn't nonsensical, unless you're ignorant enough to dismiss it without consideration.

and considering that you most certainly ARE ignorant (i've seen no evidence of manners yet)... well everything must be nonsensical to you. found the Higgs' yet have you? No? Then be very careful what you dismiss so easily.

anyone who wants to dispute that infinity is a moving boundary, both in front and behind us, please come back yesterday. or tell me next week's lottery results. mm hmm?

in fact, move back in time, not far .. just far enough to say you did it... and then tell me the position of a single quanta in the future. The very short term future. As short term future as you damn well dare. Oh.

You just fell off the curve. Shocking.
I won't even pretend that I understand everything necessary to grasp higher level theories on the operation of the universe, but you have defined infinity in such a way that isn't infinity. It has no value. Your posts that show you think this odd concept that infinity has a physical meaning, and that "time" and "the universe" have the same unit of measure, to be true are completely nonsensical.

I'm not an accomplished physicist. I have no credentials, and I have minimal education on the subject, and I can see the crap in your crackpot theory and can tell on sight how meaningless it is. Dr Rocket, a well respected and accomplished physicist and mathematician on this forum saw the crap in your crackpot theory on sight, and gave a response fitting that foresight. The fact that you believe us wrong, is irrelevant. Sorry, that's the way it is.

35. i'm no physicist myself, and didn't claim to be.

what is irritating isn't that teh theory got dismissed so casually, it's that where i totally obviously wasn't taking it too seriously...

some people seem to use the excuse that i HAD an idea to be rude.

i don't give a flying teapot if you rip it to shreds in front of me, but so far all i've got is a bunch of ego's trying to bully me out of the sand-pit. which is weird, because if anyone was that 'respected' they'd not be playing the sand pit bully gamewould they?

if you really want to tell me what a stupid idea it is do it with some bloody manners. or if you want to be rude, be rude... but don't get all shocked when i'm a little bit rude back. It ain't rocket science is it now? (good job it seems)

no wonder you're all so busy on teh webz.

if it is so offensive to you that i didn't use perfect mathematical language, i'm sorry. but even if i call a pear a 'flibble' ...

1flibble+1flibble=2flibble just as accurately as 1pear+1pear=2pear

where when i say 'flibble' i POINT TO A PEAR.

36. the issue is there is nothing to correct, as you haven't said anything "wrong." But, conversely, there is no value to your statements. you are just mixing terms and redefining concepts to make a pretty picture.

It's not right. It's not even wrong.

37. okaaaaay. if we went along one bit by one bit, would anyone be prepared to take each bit in turn and show it has no value? and allow me the room to ask questions - i don't mean argue, i mean ask questions to help me understand... which means i'd be looking for answers with a bit of value themselves.

And not get het up if I confuse the correct terms...

Universe - In mathematics, and particularly in set theory and the foundations of mathematics, a universe is a class that contains (as elements) all the entities one wishes to consider in a given situation. [god bless wiki]

is that ok?

And yes, I used the word time... would it have been better to say 'divisions' or something?

What I mean is the number of indivisible parts of the universe, yes? but at a fixed point in time - I'm trying to describe a freeze-frame. The number of indivisible parts of the universe at a time T seconds (or whatever unit you'd recommend) from the big bang.

[edit - aha: The cardinality of the universe at that freezed-frame.. better?]

anyone's bile levels dropped enough to be patient?

38. ok... so maybe not infinity but future potential.

and it works - it predicts future potential from first god damn principles.

ahem

teh theory 5 -1 kneejerks

srsly srsly. i wasn't even expecting that.

god damn but it works. how mental is THAT?

guess what it shows... go on GUESS

"The cardinal value of the universe at any given frame can be used to calculate the next cardinal value, but not its new 'shape' (how it will be organised). And the cardinal of the previous frame is lost as a knowable number... but the shape becomes knowable!"

if you can get past the bad math words and look at what it means...

39. it's still gibberish without meaning. complete with intentional misspellings and text language... I'm sorry, there is still no substance nor purpose to your "theory". And to top it off, the one link you provided is a 404 no file found error... Quite telling.

40. Originally Posted by danny burton
i'm no physicist myself, and didn't claim to be.
I doubt that anyone was misled in that regard.

 Bookmarks
##### Bookmarks
 Posting Permissions
 You may not post new threads You may not post replies You may not post attachments You may not edit your posts   BB code is On Smilies are On [IMG] code is On [VIDEO] code is On HTML code is Off Trackbacks are Off Pingbacks are Off Refbacks are On Terms of Use Agreement