Notices
Results 1 to 3 of 3

Thread: apparently it's magic

  1. #1 apparently it's magic 
    Forum Freshman
    Join Date
    Dec 2012
    Posts
    14
    The connections between number theory and physics are too powerful, too certain, to be ignored for much longer by the mainstream scientific community. At some point surely we will realise physics can be investigated through the analysis of number theory, and the implications of this are - well, interesting doesn't really cover it.

    The universe is clearly and unambiguously mathematically consistent. There can only be, by definition, one sum total of existence. And at that scale, the only value we can ascribe to the sum total of existence is that it = 1. If then everything within the sum total of existence is composed of parts of that sum total, it's not illogical to suggest that whatever exists within the universe is 'made' of nothing more complex than fractions of the whole, self-organising at every scale from the astromnomical to the quantum - according to the laws of number theory.
    Our human number system is only a system of classification - representative of the natural ordering of the universe into integer parts. We have names for the different parts of the electromagnetic spectrum, so we have names for the different parts of the numerical spectrum.

    As the theory of gravity is a human description of a natural characteristic of the universe, so number theory is a human description of a natural characteristic of the universe. We don't pretend we invented gravity, simply because we worked out some of the 'rules' by which it operates, why then do we insist that we invented numericality and mathematicality? Particularly when it is so self-evident that for humans to have evolved, the universe HAD to have both those characteristics already.

    But what really blows my mind isn't the amazing possibilities this has for science. No. What blows my mind is that these connections are so clear, and they so clearly make scientists uncomfortable - so uncomfortable they refuse to look any closer and when pressed begin to mumble excuses about anthropocentricity they never put forward when investigating gravity, or quantum mechanics - both of which we're only able to investigate because our existence is predicated on theirs, in exactly the same way.

    Surely, surely if ANYONE should be refusing to look away from what makes them uncomfortable, it is the scientific community? Any true scientist, when they came across a natural phenomena that weirded them out so badly as this, would surely LOOK MORE CLOSELY?!

    Come on people. Sort yourselves out! Solve the mystery! Bloody hell, whatever else the connections are - they're nothing if not seriously strange, and seriously cool.

    Let's call it 'teh big bang theory' - like the big bang theory, but you need some humour to get it.


    Reply With Quote  
     

  2.  
     

  3. #2  
    Forum Ph.D. merumario's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2012
    Location
    nigeria
    Posts
    844
    You seem to stand for mathematics so much. Why not stand for english language? Say the name galaxy should be spiral stars! Since we name things,we also attribute mathematical value to them.

    Physics is physical science...we do not form the laws we ascribe mathematical expressions to phenomenons...this mean: physical occurrence imply mathematical expression..mathematics cannot imply physical occurrence...mathematics can only exist if and only if there is physical phenomenon...mathematics is a short form of explaining reality.and sometimes mathematics do not refer to reality.

    I would direct you to this thread to know what mathematics stand for.."zero value"


    Last edited by John Galt; December 2nd, 2012 at 06:36 PM. Reason: Sequential posts merged.
    "I am sorry for making this letter longer than usual.I actually lacked the time to make it shorter."###
    Reply With Quote  
     

  4. #3  
    Forum Bachelors Degree Kerling's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2012
    Location
    Copenhagen
    Posts
    440
    Quote Originally Posted by tbbt View Post
    The universe is clearly and unambiguously mathematically consistent.
    Nope it is not, it is in fact intrinsically flawed:
    How Big Is Infinity? - Dennis Wildfogel - YouTube

    Also, I would hardly call physics mathematically consistent.
    In the information age ignorance is a choice.
    Reply With Quote  
     

Similar Threads

  1. apparently my dad solved fermats theoreme
    By luxtpm in forum Mathematics
    Replies: 5
    Last Post: November 21st, 2009, 04:35 PM
  2. Apparently Antarctica is warming after all.
    By Bunbury in forum Environmental Issues
    Replies: 4
    Last Post: August 25th, 2009, 04:45 PM
  3. Replies: 3
    Last Post: March 7th, 2008, 08:50 AM
  4. Movie magic
    By biohazard87 in forum Computer Science
    Replies: 7
    Last Post: May 6th, 2006, 11:25 PM
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
  •