Time Is Only Dimension

Author: ebuc

Posts

Total: 192
Topic's author
#91
ebuc
ebuc's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 5,359
3
2
4
ebuc's avatar
ebuc
3
2
4
-->
@Reece101
Put your ego aside. Edit: I posted this before I read your edited post.
My ego lays out my research ---mostly with clarity, yet take time to grasp by those not familiar--  and what I believe is correct approach to understanding some of the many mysteries that still exist with our lack of understanding Universe fundamentals.

There exist static --Euclidean--- examples, geodesically curved examples of a dynamically operative Universe where this give, take, left and right-skew-ness, torque, spin, inside-out, expansion-conraction, precession and charge associated with all of observed time { quantised }, physical reality, and not for mono-polar Gravity and presumed mono-polar Dark Energy.

When your ego has any logical, common sense critical thinking to add too or detract from my givens please share.

Topic's author
#92
ebuc
ebuc's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 5,359
3
2
4
ebuc's avatar
ebuc
3
2
4
Meta-space time is abstract mind/intellect/concepts, wherein we impose a abstract unit of time related to period/duration of time  between two occupied space events ergo a frequency. Here is example of two events * * or as /\

Observed { quantised PING } occupied space  occur as dynamic vector { magnitude and direction } that of motion that cannot exist without minimally:

...1} a 3D volume of occupied space

...2} an associated spin, and/or orbit, andor torque, and/or expand-contract, and/or inside-outing, and/or precession at 90 degrees or less.

My explorations lead me to believe the latter above is can be no less than 14 nodal events that, define a dynamic 3D tube having a surface set of nodal events --9 such events--- and five body/inside nuclear set of nodal events.

Further more I believe this latter above is a tube/cylinder-like shape.

..."But look a little closer and you’ll see that evolution, the master architect, has been economical with that complexity, relying on the same components again and again in different contexts. Take tubes, for example. “We’re basically a bag of tubes,” says Celeste Nelson, a developmental bioengineer at Princeton University. “We have a tube that goes from our mouth to our rear end. Our heart is a tube. Our kidneys are tubes.” So, too, are lungs, pancreas, blood vessels and more — most of them intricate systems of tubes with many branches. "...

However, to be clear, the 14 is only a space and time pulsation with slight longer tube, that, has 19 nodal events.

12 nodal events on the surface { outer and inner } and  6 on inside of tube as nucluei.

That is total of 19 nodal events and 19 has a total of 171 lines of relationship. 19^2, minus 19,  / 2 = 171

..1.........................5p..........7p.......................11p.........13p.....................17p.......Gravity outer
-
-
0......................................6.......................................12.....................................18..observed { quantised } time reality
.................3p......................................9.......................................15.........................observed { quantised } time reality
-
-
...........2p.........4............................8..........10.........................14........16.....................Dark Energy inner

Lets simply the above more complex tube for our more simple minded readers
.................................................outer surface
/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/ inside physical  reality quantised
******************************inner surface

The reason I say inner and outer surface is because we have to imagine that each of the four lines or in the  latter presentation above, the outer line, inner line and sine-wave pattern each circle around to meet them selves ergo, we have three ---or four lines as seen first presentation--- defining four circles in the same plane,

or outer circle,  inner circle and sine-wave pattern on the same plane.  outer(    ( (   (inner)    ) )     )outer  two inside are between outer and inner.

Next we imagine that the some of lines-of relationship, that follow in the simple 0 to 18  are curvated geodesics when going from outer to inner, and then from inner back to outer.  ex 1 to 2p is curved geodesic trajectory, 4 to 5p is curved geodesic trajectory etc, and now we have created a tube via our conceptual imagination to do so.

Here is link to outer positive and inner negative of our tube, that we no conceptualize as a torus { space and time torus }

This above link is only the outer and inner surface and does not present the invagination resultants as the physical reality body of the tube/torus

One final note, is that the outer Gravity and inner Dark Energy are ultra-micro. Some consider them likened to another dimension ex hyper-space, because they are so ultra-micro.   Also in this above case, our inside body sine-wave nuclei may require ultra-high frequencies before we detect { quantise those sine-wave frequenices }.

We would have to take 10^-36 --what is assumed to approximate ultra-micro quantum of graviton-darkEon to power  of 10^20, 0r 30 or I dunno before we pop out the minimal fermionic neutrino or  bosonic photon.
Topic's author
#93
ebuc
ebuc's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 5,359
3
2
4
ebuc's avatar
ebuc
3
2
4
.."all that exists is moderation/modification of angle and frequency "...Bucky fuller
.." all that exists is interfering and non-interfering patterns, operating in pure principle "...Bucky Fuller

Pattern falls in catagory of Spirit-1, Meta-space mind/intellect/concepts and ego { i/identity }.
Ex extend your arm-hand out in front of you. Move your arm-hand laterally back-n-forth, and raised and lower it as you do. You create a Meta-space, sine-wave pattern.

Stop moving your arm-hand. So your occupied space arm-hand is still seen in front of you. The Meta-space pattern exist in Meta-space mind/intellect/concepts as does the hand and arm.

The differrence is that Meta-space is not an occupied space, whereas your arm and hand is an occupied space. All occupied space is complemented by Meta-space mind/intellect/concepts ergo patterns, cosmic laws and cosmic principles

Finite set of cosmically absolute physical laws and principles. Ex there can only exist five regular/symmetrical and convex, polyhedra of Universe. https://www.mathsisfun.com/geometry/platonic-solids-why-five.html


Topic's author
#94
ebuc
ebuc's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 5,359
3
2
4
ebuc's avatar
ebuc
3
2
4
Consciousness = thinking process that sometimes leads to access of Meta-space mind/intellect/concepts and ego, in greater or lesser degrees of access.

There exist relative and absolute truths. If in doubt, use logical, common sense critical thinking, that, is a resultant of our occupied space experiences.

To deny our experience and our access to Meta-space mind/intellect/concepts and ego, is a position of denial and a such is a mind game to avoid acknowledgment of existence of relative and absolute truths.

AI is Meta-space algorithms executed via humans access to Meta-space mind and applied via binary on, or off, electronics and to whatever degree, and Qbits i.e the superposition of quantum as both on and off --fuzzy twoness dead and alive-- simultaneously. AI = human Meta-space access on computing steroids, or coke, so to say.

Observed time is the flow, the change etc that is associated with frequency of sine-wave pattern or other repeating patterns.
#95
FLRW
FLRW's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 7,605
3
4
8
FLRW's avatar
FLRW
3
4
8
-->
@ebuc

I think time is not a dimension. For Hermann Minkowski, Einstein mathematics teacher and co-founder of spacetime notion, time was an additional dimension (coordinate), probably because it transforms like space coordinates (Lorenz transformation). However, physics is mathematics with units. Time and space have apparently different units. It is more natural to think of 4-dimensonal space with time as an affine parameter along a trajectory there. In that 4-dimensional space all mass points follow their trajectory with velocity c. The infinitesimal length element of that curve is dl=c⋅dt (see for example https://physics.stackexchange.com/a/710476/281096). Minkowski metric can be re-written as
c^2 x dt^2=dq^2+dx^2+dy^2+dz^2,
where q (quatro) represents the fourth coordinate.
The time as affine parameter on trajectories in the 4-dimensional space have evidently two distinguish directions but it remains parameter and is not an additional dimension.

Topic's author
#96
ebuc
ebuc's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 5,359
3
2
4
ebuc's avatar
ebuc
3
2
4
-->
@FLRW
I think time is not a dimension.
I think Fuller was speaking from a fundamental --maybe a priori consideration--- that we can only experience as, the modulation/modification of angle and frequency of an occupied space integral, that, has as a whole has trajectory, and only then does it have a trajectory, if there is 2nd, occupied space integral, and in this way we intoduce two parts/integrals, that are relative to each other.  Understand?

Ex, if Universe is a finite integral, then we cannot say it is on a trajectory, because there is no other occupied space integral that is relative to it. Understand?

That Universe integral is embraced by macro-infinite and truly non-occupied space.

So the above experience --whether as five senses or instrumentally detected---  exists as time ergo motion ergo dynamic ergo energy { quantise-able by humans or other creatures }. Understand?

So before going off into your more complicated math stuff below,---XYZ or d or other } I hope we come to some common and simple words to define time. 

In Fullers last book Cosmography, he talks about his personal  meeting with Einstein in and around the 20's sometime.

For Hermann Minkowski, Einstein mathematics teacher and co-founder of spacetime notion, time was an additional dimension (coordinate), probably because it transforms like space coordinates (Lorenz transformation). However, physics is mathematics with units. Time and space have apparently different units. It is more natural to think of 4-dimensonal space with time as an affine parameter along a trajectory there. In that 4-dimensional space all mass points follow their trajectory with velocity c. The infinitesimal length element of that curve is dl=c⋅dt (see for example https://physics.stackexchange.com/a/710476/281096). Minkowski metric can be re-written as
c^2 x dt^2=dq^2+dx^2+dy^2+dz^2,
where q (quatro) represents the fourth coordinate.
The time as affine parameter on trajectories in the 4-dimensional space have evidently two distinguish directions but it remains parameter and is not an additional dimension.

Topic's author
#97
ebuc
ebuc's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 5,359
3
2
4
ebuc's avatar
ebuc
3
2
4
-->
@zedvictor4
@FLRW
Define Time

Zed: time is duration ..' the time during which something continues. '...

...to clarify for Zed, time is the a finite duration between twoness beginning and ending terminus and when considered in regards to finite spatially occupied Universe, time is eternally existent, just as is Universe and the macro-infinite, truly non-occupied space outside of it that, embraces Universe....

Ebuc time: two primary kinds of time
...1} Meta-space mind/intellect/conceptual time i.e. duration of conceptual space , between beginning and ending terminus that, we apply an arbitrary other unit of measure too ex second, minute, hour etc,

...2} observed { quantised } time aka physical reality { energy/motion/dynamic } that is associated specifically with Meta-space sine-wave pattern ex /\/\/\/\/ or as ^v^v^v etc

Fuller: two versions of time

...1} time is the only dimension and in synergetic is frequency,

...2} time is the 5th dimension of spin i.e. his first four dimensions are the ABCD triangular planes of a volumetric space enclosure, that, is spun, ergo, spin is motion.
.......2a} Fuller also in later years replaces concept of dimension with powering ex above spin is 5th power, and torque is 6th power, expand-contract is 7th power etc and he has a total of 33 powerings in his book Synergetics 2 LINK 986.857

note:  XYZ is opened ended on three of its dimension, and of itself,  is not a volumetric enclosure, whereas, if we connect three open ended termini of the XYZ we create a volumetric space of a right-triangle tetrahedron and specifically three right-triangles tetra{4]hedron

Triangulating is same as cubing see LINK 990.01
#98
zedvictor4
zedvictor4's avatar
Debates: 22
Posts: 13,019
3
3
6
zedvictor4's avatar
zedvictor4
3
3
6
-->
@ebuc
For sure, time and space are infinitely possible.
Topic's author
#99
ebuc
ebuc's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 5,359
3
2
4
ebuc's avatar
ebuc
3
2
4
-->
@zedvictor4
For sure, time and space are infinitely possible.
Zed ncorrectly stated Zed and partially incorrect concept , even tho Ive presented the most accurate, logical, common sense critical thinking for others for 20 years or more now.

.." Time is to eternity, as,
..Space is to infinity "...Bucky Fuller.

Repeat after me until t you and others get it correct, or offer less words that amount to the same descriptive whole.

1} Observed { quantised } time is the finite, occupied space Universe, that, exists eternally, and, is composed of many integral parts, that, each have a beginning and end terminus ergo a finite period of time for their existence.  Understand Zed? No?

2} Space is infinite and there exists an  occupied space Universe, embraced by the macro-infinite and truly non-occupied space.  Understand Zed? No?

If finite Universe were to expand, what do you think it expands into?  Jello?

The bigger question is, if such macro-infinite and truly non-occupied space exists, then it has a true vacuum and we might think it should pull the finite, occupied space Universe apart. Yes? It eternally would attempt this I should think. There are two seeming answers to this scenario.

1} ____________

2} ____________

I did internet search for this scenario  man years ago. Forget what that answer was.


#100
zedvictor4
zedvictor4's avatar
Debates: 22
Posts: 13,019
3
3
6
zedvictor4's avatar
zedvictor4
3
3
6
-->
@ebuc
Why do time and space need to be observed.

As far as we are able to know, time and space have been unobserved for most of the time.



And if a universe has finite potential....Then what?

Do all universes have the same potential?
Topic's author
#101
ebuc
ebuc's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 5,359
3
2
4
ebuc's avatar
ebuc
3
2
4
-->
@zedvictor4
Why do time and space need to be observed.
I dont recall saying that time and space need to be observed.  It appears Zedm, that you have me confused with some on elese.

As far as we are able to know, time and space have been unobserved for most of the time.

Observed { quantised } time and space eternally happening. Not sure what it is your going on about. Please address any comment by me that you find in error and should be added to or invalidated, using logical, common sense critical thinking.

Humans only quantise physical reality ergo,ergo,  I assign the label meta-physical to Gravity and Dark Energy as they have not been quantised by humans and my guess is never will. Ive made this clear for some eight years now.

And if a universe has finite potential....Then what?
Did I  make some "finite potential" statement Zed? Please present the quote so I better no the context of was presented

Do all universes have the same potential?

All universes? What is that all universe's your going on about. You offer not clarity on the specifics of such a comment.

Humans and, specifically cosmologist, have label our known  --finite is all we know--- occupied space integral parts total as the one Universe.

So lets see here above Zed. You have not offerred any specific quote by me that you find incorrect or that you feel a need to add to.  Please share when you can be be more specific, offer more context for comments and as always clarity using logical common sense, critical thinking.

Small 'e' for effort this time..............space(> * <) i  (> * <)space.......( time )( time ).........(/\/\/)(/\/\/)........(^v^v)(^v^v^)............are various ways to present the fundamentals of our eternally existent,  finite, occupied space Uni{one}verse via bisection view of Quantum Space-time Torus { QStT ), with representations of bilateral consciousness * * and Meta-space ego/i.

   Rather simple to grasp yes?

#102
zedvictor4
zedvictor4's avatar
Debates: 22
Posts: 13,019
3
3
6
zedvictor4's avatar
zedvictor4
3
3
6
-->
@ebuc
See above #99. #101.



"Observed time is finite".

So what about unobserved time.


Ditto. #99

"If finite space were to expand".


So how would you know that there is only one universe in an infinite space. 

"Space is infinite". #99
Topic's author
#103
ebuc
ebuc's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 5,359
3
2
4
ebuc's avatar
ebuc
3
2
4
-->
@zedvictor4
So what about unobserved time.

Gravity and Dark Energy. Ive been stating this for some 8 -20 years now ergo, Gravity and Dark Energy are meta-physical. Old news for those paying attention.

We do not quantise nor quantify Gravity or Dark Energy. Again old news.

So how would you know that there is only one universe in an infinite space. 
Zed get a dictionary learn what the word uni means. One-verse, not binarverse not trianary verse etc.

All parts of Universe are connected  minimally by Gravity and since Gravity and Dark Energy are two sides of the same torus {coin} all { sum-total finite } is the one Universe.

Whatever your going on about is lacks any logic, common sense critical thinking.

"Space is infinite".

Yeah I said that and much more. So what is your point?  You dont have one. It is stated with context of other comments Zed. Practice your reading comprehension skills. Please share when you have some logical common sense critical thinking that adds to or invalidates any of cosmic scenarios. e for effort once again.

You can do better Zed

#104
zedvictor4
zedvictor4's avatar
Debates: 22
Posts: 13,019
3
3
6
zedvictor4's avatar
zedvictor4
3
3
6
-->
@ebuc
Universe in a human dictionary is named for a specific universe, namely this one.

From the Latin Universum.

For sure, neither the old Latin nor the current dictionary are rocket science.

So why, in infinite space shouldn't there be another universe in another dictionary.

As we seem to agree that infinite space has infinite potential.




Topic's author
#105
ebuc
ebuc's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 5,359
3
2
4
ebuc's avatar
ebuc
3
2
4
-->
@zedvictor4
Universe in a human dictionary is named for a specific universe, namely this one.
Yes dictionaries exist so humans start with a common agreement of understanding/definition.

Ive been very descripitive over the years for meanings of Universe and other cosmic phenomena.

Eternally existent, finite, occupied space Universe aka God --not the kind that creates Universe--- Great Spirit { indian movie I saw }, The Whole Sha-Bang,  All { all occupied space that is } etc

From the Latin Universum.
Again sum-total of all of Universe's finite integral parts = Universe. Ive been very clear on this for many years now.

So why, in infinite space shouldn't there be another universe in another dictionary.
Huh? You conflating "infinite space" with "another universe" with " another dictionary " and this makes no logical, common sense to me what your attempting to communicate Zed.

I repeatedly make myself very clear and you do not.

Space: Two primary kinds.

...1} eternallly existent finite, occupied space Universe etc, duhh,

....2} the bove is embraced by the eternally existent, macro-infinite, truly non-occupied space.

How many times do I have to repeat this for before you actually read my lips/text, understand and comprehend any of it.

As we seem to agree that infinite space has infinite potential.

Huh? Please direct me to where I ever made such a comment. PLease And use some context for why your post a quote by me if you do. I.e. have an actual point for doing so, and explain yourself. Large E for larger Effort. Please

There exist finite set of Meta-space physical laws and cosmic principles, ---accessed by humans access to Meta-space mind/intellect/concepts and ego/i-- that, eternally complement occupied space Universe. Old news that Ive been repeating for 20 or more years. 

Why you would want to consistently twist my words and concepts into something Ive not state, is a sort of mind-frustration for me. Understand?  
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
..space(time) i (time)space....

-->---entropic--arrow of time-----> 

...past....>.... in ( * i * ) out ..> ...future....

---<----syntropic arrow of time--<---future>

..past.... <...out (* i  *) in...<...future........<

.."Moderation/modification of angle and frequency is all the exists "... B Fuller.. I.e in defining our eternally existent, finite, occupied space Universe ( @ ).

dissasociative { disintegrative/entropic  } vs associative { integrative/syntropic }

( * i  * ) = complex bilateral biologic that has access to Meta-space mind/intellect/concept and ego/i. Old news

space...space = macro-infinite truly non-occupied

( time )( time ) = Gravity   (   )  and Dark Energy   )(. Old news. New news is that Ive found at least one theoretical cosmologist who believes as I do, that, Gravity and Dark Energy are two sides of the same coin ---only in my case specifically a Quantum Space-time Torus { QStT }.

I have two videos of Verlinde and dont know if this is the one where he states this above. And cant recall off-hand the time stamp. Sorry. I'm out of time here.
Topic's author
#106
ebuc
ebuc's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 5,359
3
2
4
ebuc's avatar
ebuc
3
2
4
-->
@zedvictor4
@FLRW
Also Zed, this sound track may help us along with the idea of sum-total as Uni or in this case the monolistic Universe via superpostion. If you have 9 minutes this is enlightening and easy to listen too regarding the connected, interrelated, monolistic, wholistic Universe via quantum entanglement { superposition } spooky-action-at-a-distance.


Space and time are illusions to be replaced by something else --- I dissagree as I think it is Gravity and Dark Energy---  but you may interprete this conclusion in vid, as you God Principle { irrespective of what you seem to think that is }.

So please find time to listen to this above sound track that you can click on just below the first graphic.
#107
FLRW
FLRW's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 7,605
3
4
8
FLRW's avatar
FLRW
3
4
8
-->
@ebuc


The link is fantastic. I just listened to the audio.
#108
zedvictor4
zedvictor4's avatar
Debates: 22
Posts: 13,019
3
3
6
zedvictor4's avatar
zedvictor4
3
3
6
-->
@ebuc
Makes perfect sense.

The Planet Earth dictionary defines a universe.

Another dictionary on another planet in another universe would probably do the same.

Infinite space, infinite potential.

A simple, simple idea.....I find it odd that you are not able to grasp it.

No reason why infinite space that cannot be observed is necessarily unoccupied. 

Unoccupied infinite space is but one hypothesis.
Topic's author
#109
ebuc
ebuc's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 5,359
3
2
4
ebuc's avatar
ebuc
3
2
4
-->
@zedvictor4
Another dictionary on another planet in another universe would probably do the same.

Mind games via lackiing logic, common sense critical thinking. Try again?

Infinite space, infinite potential.

Mind games lack in logic, common sense critical thinking

A simple, simple idea.....I find it odd that you are not able to grasp it.

No reason why infinite space that cannot be observed is necessarily unoccupied. 
Thats not what I stated. Zed you need to practice your reading comprehension skills

Unoccupied infinite space is but one hypothesis.

Yeah, based on what we observe and logic, common sense critical thinking. Simple not complex to grasp, as Ive been very clear for many years giving very descriptive explanations. Try again?

Topic's author
#110
ebuc
ebuc's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 5,359
3
2
4
ebuc's avatar
ebuc
3
2
4
-->
@FLRW
Great to hear FLRW.  I had forgot about it just happened to come across it bookmarks to give Zed
#111
zedvictor4
zedvictor4's avatar
Debates: 22
Posts: 13,019
3
3
6
zedvictor4's avatar
zedvictor4
3
3
6
-->
@ebuc
Based upon what we observe.

For sure, we observe one universe and hypothesise reasonably logically.

Doesn't mean that we cannot hypothesise another universe reasonably logically too

After all two logically following one is quite an established concept.

And OK. I don't use Ebuc-speak......But you keep suggesting the concept of infinite space, albeit unoccupied. Though I would  prefer to suggest the unlimited potential of infinite space.

Nonetheless, as your observations are limited by your self imposed one universe limitations, then how can you possibly know that no other universal scenarios are playing out elsewhere.

Let's simply refer to the two ideas, as the potentially occupied infinite space hypothesis and  the unoccupied infinite space hypothesis.

After all, given the potential of infinity, then this universe takes up no room at all, and observation is impossible.


Just because we cannot observe another inhabited planet within this universe, that doesn't mean that there is not potentially another inhabited planet in this largely unobservable universe.

I would finally suggest that we actually observe very little and speculate rather a lot.
Topic's author
#112
ebuc
ebuc's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 5,359
3
2
4
ebuc's avatar
ebuc
3
2
4
-->
@zedvictor4
For sure, we observe one universe
1} yes

and hypothesise reasonably logically.
2} integrity of a whole and observed wholes are observed to finite ergo the word whole inherently means finite. We ate the whole doughnut.

Doesn't mean that we cannot hypothesise another universe reasonably logically too

3} capital U  in Universe = sum-total of its finite, integrally whole parts. If want to invoke two universes, then:

....3a} we place the capital Universe to the for the moment and consider your two or more, finite, integrally whole universes, and we are back to the same idea of a finite, sum-total of all baby universes, that sum-total to the capital Universe, that, is the word the includes them all as one finite, integral whole Uni-verse.

.....3b} verse a, verse b, verse c and the name of the overall { finite "  book were reading { observing/considering } is labeled Universe. Not Bi-nary-veres'es, not tri-nary-vers'es etc. Understand Zed?

......4} all of you so called universes, are all connected ---by Gravity minimally and I say also Dark Energy---- ergo all { finite sum-total set } = the one Great Mama, the Whole Sha-bang, The Great Spirit and most recogniz-able, and common to dictionary's is   capital U, Universe. Do you understand Zed? 

After all two logically following one is quite an established concept.

5} Zed, numerical counting is  Meta-space mind/intellect/conceptual process. If two universes exist, and they are connected, then they sum-total as the Uni-verse. Not two seperate universes.  Zed, you need to also learn about quantum entanglment aka superpostion. Did you listen to the 9 minute vid I gave you?

It is like you so greatly fear that we live in one finite Universe, that, your going to create all this small universe'es in you fantasy land, as islands onto themselves, with no water, no wind no sun, no Gravity no Dark Energy connecting them together as an integral whole. Do you have know what it means for an apple to exist as an integral whole, once it is sperated from the tree?

And OK. I don't use Ebuc-speak......But you keep suggesting the concept of infinite space, albeit unoccupied.

Though I would  prefer to suggest the unlimited potential of infinite space.

6} Yes Zed. You appear to keep subtly denying the existence of a finite, sum-total set of phenomena that, we call Universe, That is English. Do you speak English in your country? And if we live in this observed, finite, Universe, then the only logical common sense critical thinking conclusion, is that, what is outside of it, is macro-infinite, non-occupied space.

....6a} the question becomes, why is Zed mind so in fear of accepting this logic?

[email protected]...... and the @ represents you and I living  occupied space @ Universe.com, within the macro-infinite non-truly non-occupied...space....

Just because you or others want to fantasy that we live in universe, and were not connected to any other universe'es were live boob, noob, and droob etc, is an issue with your lacking any evidence or logic, common sense critical thinking, and even if they existed, then you fail to accept there al l connected as an integral whole by Gravity ---minimally-- if not also Dark Energy.

Nonetheless, as your observations are limited by your self imposed one universe limitations, then how can you possibly know that no other universal scenarios are playing out elsewhere.

Because we do not observe any two integral whole parts of Universe, that are not connected minimally by Gravity { mass-attraction --- if not also Dark Energy---, erg, why do not accept the observed limitation of Gravity ---if not also is opposite Dark Energy---?  You have no evidence of other, and no logical, common sense critical to think there exists these non-connected set of universe here and universe there etc.

Have to stop here as I hit incorrect button got stuff that follows all mixed/jumble and ive run out of time to correct.  Will try to get back

Let's simply refer to the two ideas, as the potentially occupied infinite space hypothesis and  the unoccupied infinite space hypothesis.

7} I never stated anything about "potentially occupied infinite space hypothesis".  Your confused and conflating three four or more concepts.

.......7a} fi}nite occupied space Universe is what we observe, and the only logical, common sense scenario.

.......7b} you and only you are offering a set of two cosmic scenarios above:
............7b1:


#113
zedvictor4
zedvictor4's avatar
Debates: 22
Posts: 13,019
3
3
6
zedvictor4's avatar
zedvictor4
3
3
6
-->
@ebuc
Considering the infinite nature of the infinite potential of infinite space, then why would two Universes need to be connected.

Have you ever considered that there might be more than one infinite space.

After all, infinite space is only relative to a Universe with an onboard thinker.

Otherwise-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------




If two universes expanded for ever in separate states of spatial infinity they would never connect.
Topic's author
#114
ebuc
ebuc's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 5,359
3
2
4
ebuc's avatar
ebuc
3
2
4
-->
@zedvictor4
Considering the infinite nature of the infinite potential of infinite space, then why would two Universes need to be connected.

Zed this whole line above is lacks any logic, common sense critical thinking.

Have you ever considered that there might be more than one infinite space.
Again, lack of any logic, common sense critical thinking.

After all, infinite space is only relative to a Universe with an onboard thinker.
False. 

There exists the eternally existent, macro-infinite, truly non-occupied space, that, embraces the eternally existent,  finite occupied  Universe, wherein, we three primary kinds of occupied space existence:

...1} Spirit-3, Gravity (  ), --that invaginates to create the top peak of sine-wave /\/\/  associated reality---,

...2} sine wave /\/\/  or as ^v^v^  Spirit-2, physical reality {{ observed{ quantised } time }}, that is resultant of the above invaginations from outer Gravitational phenomena, and below the inner Dark Energy phenomena, ---in reality is where we coincidentally find bilateral humans with their access to Spirit-1, Meta-space mind/intellect/concepts and ego---,

....3} Spirit-4, Dark Energy )(, --that invaginates to create the bottom peak of sine-wave /\/\/  associated physical reality

Zed, there exists only two primary kinds of infinite this or that:

...1} macro-infinite, truly non-occupied space --inherently is considerate of micro-infinite, truly non-occupied space---,

...2} Meta-space concepts of infinite this, that. Ex concept of infinite set of numbers is just that a Meta-space concept. There exists no macro-infinite set of occupied space numbers.  Here is occupied space set of five numbers as follows. 1, 2, 3, 4 and 5.

Most of your comments above are repeating  Meta-space concepts as sets of infinite this or that. and is not differrent than any others conceptual fantasy land. Ex there exists an infinite set of set of biologicl Unicorns, made by Toyota and bred inside a brown paper lunch bags left over from those people who use brown paper bags for carrying their lunch to school work picnics etc. 

.............space.................................Universe>@<Universe....................................space....................

............space......................many tori >( time)( time )< many tori...........................space.......

...........................................................Space-time-Space.......................................................................
#115
John_C_87
John_C_87's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 287
0
2
5
John_C_87's avatar
John_C_87
0
2
5
-->
@ebuc
Ex .."time is the only dimension" vai Bucky Fuller is good, as far as our pyhsical reality is concerned ergo observed { quantised } time, that associated with the sine-wave patterning resultant inside the tube ---i.e. volmetric body of the tube---  of quantum space-time tori and associated with triangular { structural } numbers.
None have ever offered any shred of evidence that would invalidate the logical common sense critical thinking to arrive at my quantum space-time conclusion regarding tori. No it is not the whole story in those regards, but that part regarding tori is.
The start is at Einstein’s theory of General Relativity asit can be correct quickly to a mathematic law. The theory states E = Mc^2c and because of the conditions set by Einstein’sown field equation it is to be written as mathematic law in the following way (E ≈ Mc^2 ). The proof of this is the observation ofenergy as gravity set as the basis of Einstein’s field equations. Earth, earth’smoon, and the sun are all round as a geometric shape mathematically, and Pi isonly ever explained in one side of Einstein’s field equation. Thus we correct theorywith mathematical law and use the approximation symbol instead of the equalsign to then accurately and truthfully describe the field equation.

From here we then move on to highlight Einstein’s seconderror in mathematics which is his understanding of time and the use of naturalnumbers over the use of real, rational, irrational., integers, and wholenumbers in his attmeps at calulus. More specifically their incorrect use in base operations of algebra, geometry, andtrigonometry and why additional rules had been warranted, if not written new mathmatic law and new mathematic calculation processes. The point made as proof here all natural numbersand a circle are clear in that there is no zero in a number rotation, no zero meanssimply no negative numbers to be used in all integers of algebraand other calulation and it is this error which decribes the misinflmationi of principle space-time.

I am going to conclude my first introduction into the discussionwith an understanding of time in relationship to dimension. Space simply hasthree dimensions and has several mathematics drawbacks when it comes to its ownscaling process. The natural conditions can even be described as uncorrectablethus a need for additional fix equations in algebra, time is not like this ithas a similar issue as space, but the condition is contained in a natural order,and it is this principle which offers the best prospects for advanced mathematicsguidance. In conclusion the fact that time is multi-dimensional and as fact theonly two limits are a natural numerical conflict and scientific conditions ofproper mathematical synchronization.
#116
zedvictor4
zedvictor4's avatar
Debates: 22
Posts: 13,019
3
3
6
zedvictor4's avatar
zedvictor4
3
3
6
-->
@ebuc
Infinite space has infinite potential, is a pretty logical assertion.


Is it possible to create a number that can keep up with infinity?


It's more illogical for Ebuc to assume  that they can calculate the incalculable.


The infinite potential for an infinite number of universes in an infinite space is infinite......This is perfectly logical


Topic's author
#117
ebuc
ebuc's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 5,359
3
2
4
ebuc's avatar
ebuc
3
2
4
-->
@zedvictor4
Infinite space has infinite potential, is a pretty logical assertion.

False and this is not the comments by you I address in #114, erg, you mis-direct away from those comments that lack logic, common sense critical thinking. You do this repeatedly in this thread Zed.

We know that in regards to finite, occupied space Universe there exists only limits, yet many like you Zed, what to live in a illogical fantasy land infinite freedoms.

Ergo immature, uneducated in the ways of Universe and its complementary physical laws and cosmic principles.  ..when will they ever learn...sung to some 60's tune.

This the first trinary subset of Spirit-1, Meta-space mind/intellect/concept and ego/i.  Old news to those who actually search for truth. Ignoring truths presented is a mind-game of fantasy folk, that, hope truth will go away from their  illogical visions and illogical hopes of a set of  infinite freedoms.

Is it possible to create a number that can keep up with infinity?
As Ive made clear in this thread and for many years, via Meta-space mind/intellect/concept and ego/i,  we are free to think any relative truth, absolute truth or false narrative we choose.

It's more illogical for Ebuc to assume  that they can calculate the incalculable.
More misd-direct from you Zed, as Ive made no comments regarding ..."can calculate the incalcuable".., i.e. if you can mis-direct from my actual comments you can ignore and evade those truths ive repeatedly presented in this thread.

The infinite potential for an infinite number of universes in an infinite space is infinite......This is perfectly logical

There exists no infinite potential except in your Spirit-1, Meta-space mind/intellect and ego to fantasize that such exists, when it is obvious non-sense to those who search for truth and have difficulty accepting logical, common sense critical thinking truths when presented to them.

Sort of like the two year old on floor shouting....no, no, no I dont want to  see, speak or hear the truth, no, no, no......

We can lead a horse to truth, we cannot force them to accept those logical common sense truths. The fantasy land of infinite freedoms gives them hope that anything they say is true, because of their illogical beliefs in infinite potentials, ergo, infinite freedoms.

There can only exist five and five, regular/symmetrical and convex kinds of polyhedra. This is one of many cosmic principles that expose the truth of Universe and its associated finite set of physical laws and cosmic principles.  And Zed continues to bang on floor ...no, no, no, infinite potentials infinite potential etc......

Try again Zed. Please use logical common sense critical thinking  next time. Please




#118
John_C_87
John_C_87's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 287
0
2
5
John_C_87's avatar
John_C_87
0
2
5
-->
@zedvictor4
The infinite potential for an infinite number of universes in an infinite space is infinite......This is perfectly logical
It is not logical, it is presumptuous, it is a truth, it isnot a reasonable truth. Space is not infinite due to just size numerical issues set in all described parts of space that should be measurable by science are not preciselymeasurable by science and must be approximated by humans. Infinite uses anapproximation itselfs going along well with the princples of measured space when performed for money. So, let’s rephrase your conjecture. (To approximate, forapproximating, by variables and not constant numbers is vast.) This is a truthnot a reason of logic to follow. What it is can be described as a gamble and nothing else. Somuch so in fact people can simply corrupt mathematic princiles like time, algabra, trigonetry, and geometry to acomidate calculus avoiding neccesary constants.

The letters X, Y, and Z are used to describe the dimensionsof space in algebra because they are variables and not constants.
#119
zedvictor4
zedvictor4's avatar
Debates: 22
Posts: 13,019
3
3
6
zedvictor4's avatar
zedvictor4
3
3
6
-->
@John_C_87
Firstly, it wasn't I who proposed the concept of infinite unoccupied space

I merely questioned the concept, and asked how Ebuc could be certain that an infinite space would be unoccupied.

I based this question upon the fact that our universe occupies space.

So relative to another Ebuc in another universe, which would logically infer two universes.

How could the other Ebuc be certain that infinite space relative to their universe would be unoccupied, etc etc.


So let me ask you  simple non-scientific, non-mathematical, non-trigonometric imaginative questions.

If space isn't an infinite potential  then what happens?

What is beyond space if not more space?
#120
John_C_87
John_C_87's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 287
0
2
5
John_C_87's avatar
John_C_87
0
2
5
-->
@zedvictor4
First thanks forallowing me to join the debate... it is appreciated.
If space isn't an infinite potential  then what happens?
Said in the simplestway we as people are held to the physics standard of visible observation. In amore complex and intriguing answer the idea of the Universe is describedsimply by time, it is not space-time. It is simple just time which is calibrated in thecorrect way, or it is not syncronized to establish precision in a act of perfection. The idea is very simple, it starts with a time-zone (01-00). 

Or space as we seethe universe by fact round and begins and ends at or on location. The onlyobstruction to truth being will the energy of where motion begins being equalto the energy at the location that we fulfill a circumference of travel.

What is beyond space if not more space?
All that is beyond space is time.
All that is beyond time, is a perfect sycronization of time.
The argument raisedto me is that infinity does not exist all that exists in math is "google" whichwas the short name given to the last largest number before we can count nohigher by observation.