Science Forums

# The Topology Of Time, Or The Universe Or Something....

## Recommended Posts

Hmmm. I can't seem to find a reference to "rewind" an any of my posts in this thread, but I assume there's some other word that I'm using that you're unfamiliar with that you posit is equivalent in meaning. If so, let me know and I'll clarify.

But anyway. An 8-track tape has no end, yet you can "rewind" it to an arbitrary "beginning": on the tape an electronic mark, in our universe the big bang. That doesn't mean it's not infinite in both directions (topologically speaking), and the notion of zero is simply an arbitrary point that's significant only to the observer. In either case, a Flatland observer would not be able to distinguish between loop or infinite linearity, and quite frankly it would not matter, since the two are isomorphic from a reference point inside the system.

If this isn't clear please let me know.

While I agree with the conclusion as a possible interpretation, this is unfortunately not a valid logical argument...unless you're taking back your contention that God is not equivalent to the Creator.

Sometimes when attempting to make a point, consistency can be useful.

Grasp the subject, the words will follow, :phones:

Buffy

You also have to remove the Big Bang, because it is using a decimal arbitrary point in time. You have to remove all references to decimal to get what I am saying. An 8 track tape has an intelligent beginning created by man, it doesn't count. If it was a tape of white noise it would have no logical beginning.

Edited by Pincho Paxton
• Replies 44
• Created

#### Popular Posts

The "Cause" arguments presented above are always quite amusing as they're so simplistically false.   The basic argument is:   Everything has a cause There was a beginning There was nothing before t

No that's an illusion created by the decimal counting system. A decimal counting system has ends. 1 to 100 has two ends, it starts at 1, and ends at 100. However every action has an equal, and opposit

I know how you feel Pincho.   Were you aware that I have invented a cure for cancer? I have developed a computing algorithm which when applied to DNA causes cancerous cells to revert to a non-cancero

#### Posted Images

You also have to remove the Big Bang, because it is using a decimal arbitrary point in time. You have to remove all references to decimal to get what I am saying.

Yep. The reference points are arbitrary. Do you understand the implications of that statement?

Film confers a kind of spurious eternity, :phones:

Buffy

##### Share on other sites
Yep. The reference points are arbitrary. Do you understand the implications of that statement?

It suggests that the Universe had a beginning, because the point has to be a place where everything meets up. But that's decimal. The video I posted had a loop, and a loop has no beginning. Time would be looped, physics would be looped, life, and death would be looped, positions would be looped. That's not decimal. Do you not see how we automatically think in decimal? I don't think that way, because I've been working on the none mathematical version since 2003. I plan on recreating the physics from loops.

Edited by Pincho Paxton
##### Share on other sites

It suggests that the Universe had a beginning, because the point has to be a place where everything meets up.

Um, no. Check the dictionary for the meaning of the word "arbitrary". If your understanding of this word is different, please share!

But that's decimal.

Um, no. As I said earlier, "decimal" refers to the representation of a number, and outside of computer science and calligraphy, mathematicians, physicists and cosmologists pay no attention to it. Number systems are number systems.

But with what we're talking about here, zero can be placed anywhere. Our date system uses the wrong date for Jesus' birthday--which is pretty darn "arbitrary" using the conventional definition of the word--and it actually doesn't have to be at the big bang--we could use "42 minutes after the big bang" as zero if you wanted, but it's also arbitrary, and "-43 minutes" is still going to be a valid date point and does not actually require any kind of loop, although it does not contradict it either!

An important point here being, when you don't have a loop, it does not mean that you still don't have infinity (that is "there's no ends").

The video I posted had a loop, and a loop has no beginning. Time would be looped, physics would be looped, life, and death would be looped, positions would be looped.

Cool! But it doesn't have to be looped to be infinite. I could be, but it also might not and still be infinite.

That's not decimal. Do you not see how we automatically think in decimal?

No, I'm not "thinking in decimal" because that phrase has no meaning whatsoever using the conventional definition of the term. The example I give earlier in this post should make it clear that the "limitation" you're trying to describe really does not exist in mathematics and physics.

It's not clear that you understand this distinction, so pleas ask if you need clarification.

I don't think that way, because I've been working on the none mathematical version since 2003. I plan on recreating the physics from loops.

Cool! So far not a bit of it seems to be necessary or explanatorially superior to the existing theories, but more power to ya! :cheer:

Be brief, for no discourse can please when too long, :phones:

Buffy

##### Share on other sites

Um, no. Check the dictionary for the meaning of the word "arbitrary". If your understanding of this word is different, please share!

Um, no. As I said earlier, "decimal" refers to the representation of a number, and outside of computer science and calligraphy, mathematicians, physicists and cosmologists pay no attention to it. Number systems are number systems.

But with what we're talking about here, zero can be placed anywhere. Our date system uses the wrong date for Jesus' birthday--which is pretty darn "arbitrary" using the conventional definition of the word--and it actually doesn't have to be at the big bang--we could use "42 minutes after the big bang" as zero if you wanted, but it's also arbitrary, and "-43 minutes" is still going to be a valid date point and does not actually require any kind of loop, although it does not contradict it either!

An important point here being, when you don't have a loop, it does not mean that you still don't have infinity (that is "there's no ends").

Cool! But it doesn't have to be looped to be infinite. I could be, but it also might not and still be infinite.

No, I'm not "thinking in decimal" because that phrase has no meaning whatsoever using the conventional definition of the term. The example I give earlier in this post should make it clear that the "limitation" you're trying to describe really does not exist in mathematics and physics.

It's not clear that you understand this distinction, so pleas ask if you need clarification.

Cool! So far not a bit of it seems to be necessary or explanatorially superior to the existing theories, but more power to ya! :cheer:

Be brief, for no discourse can please when too long, :phones:

Buffy

I still don't think you get it, because you still mentioned a Big Bang which suggests a beginning to the Universe. In a loop system you get to a time where the Universe looks like my video. Infinite loops of white noise. No Big Bang because that has a position. No 42 minutes after the Big Bang because that also has a position. What you get is white noise of infinite loops, and then you get Infinite Galaxies everywhere with no time position. So no way to look 4 billion years into the past with a telescope, because all of the Galaxies are not lined up in any sort of time placement. The Universe would be a fractal of time, and space. That's how you get rid of decimal, by removing the straight lines. Suggesting a Big Bang would be like asking which leaf grew on the tree first? They all grew at the same time, there was no Big Bang. The Galaxies have no linear sequence of distribution. No decimal counting system is relevant.... total chaos... but with symmetry.

Edited by Pincho Paxton
##### Share on other sites

I still don't think you get it, because you still mentioned a Big Bang which suggests a beginning to the Universe.

Au contraire! I don't think of the big bang as being a beginning at all! It's simply a really noticeable event! Beginning? Who knows? I personally doubt it, but that's the point: there's no way to prove it one way or the other, and if it's not--which must be accounted for in any proof--then it's simply an arbitrary point. Doesn't matter whether it's zero or -42 or the square root of pi.

Do you understand that a loop is isomorphic to an infinite line? You've offered no way to test whether it's a loop or not!

If you would like to try to prove its a loop, you're welcome to, although the ironic thing is that applying an arbitrary point for measurement purposes could be quite useful!

Sounds like you really just don't want to deal with numbers, but really, they're your friend! :cheer:

Do you understand the meaning of the word "arbitrary"?

Part of the scientific method--which we try to apply even in the Theology forum--is to respond coherently to questions. It's something we're all judged by...

You think that's noise - you ain't heard nuttin' yet! :phones:

Buffy

##### Share on other sites

Au contraire! I don't think of the big bang as being a beginning at all! It's simply a really noticeable event! Beginning? Who knows? I personally doubt it, but that's the point: there's no way to prove it one way or the other, and if it's not--which must be accounted for in any proof--then it's simply an arbitrary point. Doesn't matter whether it's zero or -42 or the square root of pi.

Do you understand that a loop is isomorphic to an infinite line? You've offered no way to test whether it's a loop or not!

If you would like to try to prove its a loop, you're welcome to, although the ironic thing is that applying an arbitrary point for measurement purposes could be quite useful!

Sounds like you really just don't want to deal with numbers, but really, they're your friend! :cheer:

Do you understand the meaning of the word "arbitrary"?

Part of the scientific method--which we try to apply even in the Theology forum--is to respond coherently to questions. It's something we're all judged by...

You think that's noise - you ain't heard nuttin' yet! :phones:

Buffy

A Big Bang has a point, a location. It's a straight line from then till now... decimal. Time would be linear.. decimal. The Galaxies would grow in a direction.. decimal. I don't think you know how to get away from decimal. It's hard work to give so many examples, and still have you thinking in decimal. Numbers have a sorting order, the Universe has a physical order which is chaotic.

Do you understand that a loop is isomorphic to an infinite line? You've offered no way to test whether it's a loop or not!

I posted the loop, it's a grain structure of physics... the video. A spacetime grain, some people call a spacetime froth. I posted one section of it, but the sections link together infinitely. My version of the spacetime grain structure is symmetrical.

Here's a bit more of it...

What you need to think is... how do you use any sort of counting system through a froth like that? How do you find a beginning to a structure that has no beginning? How do you get to a position where you allow a God, or a Big Bang to become more significant in any direction? It's infinite so it's infinitely perfect, with no linear time line. There is no X/Y/Z either. You have 12 choices of direction per section.

No easy decimal system in that grid. I had to figure out a new way to locate particles, and energy. I decided to make the Universe the way that the Universe makes itself.

The energy distribution is just as complicated...

Do you see what I mean now? when you remove decimal, things look a lot different. X/Y/Z is a total mess.

Edited by Pincho Paxton
##### Share on other sites

I still don't think you get it, because you still mentioned a Big Bang which suggests a beginning to the Universe.

No it doesn't. It simply suggests the occurrence of an event.

##### Share on other sites

It's a straight line from then till now... decimal. Time would be linear.. decimal. The Galaxies would grow in a direction.. decimal. I don't think you know how to get away from decimal.

You seem to have a broken dictionary with all of your misunderstood use of the word decimal. Decimal simply means the base 10 numeral system. It does not mean or imply that anything is linear or ordered.

##### Share on other sites

You seem to have a broken dictionary with all of your misunderstood use of the word decimal. Decimal simply means the base 10 numeral system. It does not mean or imply that anything is linear or ordered.

It goes 1,2,3,4,5,6 so that's ordered.

My counting system does whatever it likes. My version of time travels forwards, backwards, anywhere it likes. I have no Big Bang because Galaxies are all that I need, and Galaxies are my Multi-verse. That's removing order.

Edited by Pincho Paxton
##### Share on other sites

It goes 1,2,3,4,5,6 so that's ordered.

No, just because you've placed numbers in order does not mean they must be used in any particular order. Is that concept confusing to you?

##### Share on other sites

No, just because you've placed numbers in order does not mean they must be used in any particular order. Is that concept confusing to you?

No that's not confusing me, you are not following the meaning of my replies. In fact I give up.

##### Share on other sites

No that's not confusing me, you are not following the meaning of my replies. In fact I give up.

I applaud your lack of tenacity, at least now possibly we can again talk about the original question...

##### Share on other sites

I applaud your lack of tenacity, at least now possibly we can again talk about the original question...

The original question has to be confirmed by Gods saying "Hello, we are running the Universe."

##### Share on other sites

No that's not confusing me, you are not following the meaning of my replies. In fact I give up.

You mean the alleged meaning of your replies which seem to be meaningless for the most part. Don't give up, just hit the books a bit harder.

##### Share on other sites

You mean the alleged meaning of your replies which seem to be meaningless for the most part. Don't give up, just hit the books a bit harder.

The books? I have solved the Theory Of Everything, I don't need books, I have a TOE abacus in my head. Nobody believes me, but I keep proving it over, and over again.

Edited by Pincho Paxton
##### Share on other sites

The books? I have solved the Theory Of Everything, I don't need books, I have a TOE abacus in my head. Nobody believes me, but I keep proving it over, and over again.

http://www.thefreedictionary.com/egoist

## Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.