Eclogite Posted March 10, 2007 Report Share Posted March 10, 2007 221 posts on the infinite splitting of zero, awesome use of intellect.When there is nothing to talk about we can always talk about nothing.:) Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
coldcreation Posted March 10, 2007 Report Share Posted March 10, 2007 . . Tormod 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Little Bang Posted March 10, 2007 Report Share Posted March 10, 2007 Perfect post ecl and cc. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Buffy Posted March 10, 2007 Report Share Posted March 10, 2007 When there is nothing to talk about we can always talk about nothing.:shocked:And of course on Hypography, you can do that very easily 3958... Mistress of nothing,Buffy Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
durgatosh Posted March 11, 2007 Author Report Share Posted March 11, 2007 coldcreation . . Not quite nothing! Similar to an empty space, but yet not nothing. EclogiteWhen there is nothing to talk about we can always talk about nothing. Should I take this as a restrained, respectful, tact .... remark? Or a gross ignorance of the concept of nothingness? Or an attempt to make fun, or simply a funny remark? Or your concept of "sense of humour"? Why can't people be respectful to each other even in disagreement? I believe in my theory and will continue to do so regardless of such remarks. Logic and reasoning appeal to me, not such remarks! DP Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Eclogite Posted March 12, 2007 Report Share Posted March 12, 2007 Should I take this as a restrained, respectful, tact .... remark? Or a gross ignorance of the concept of nothingness? Or an attempt to make fun, or simply a funny remark? Or your concept of "sense of humour"? Why can't people be respectful to each other even in disagreement? I believe in my theory and will continue to do so regardless of such remarks. Logic and reasoning appeal to me, not such remarks!Durgatosh, lighten up man.You entire hypothesis (See. there is respect. I accord it the title hypothesis, when it is little more than speculation. And yes, that clarification borders on the disrespectful, a response engendered by your inflated sense of the value of the speculation.) to continue, your entire hypothesis is about splitting zero, or, in other words, splitting nothing. So what are we doing in this thread if not discussing nothing? I thought my response was witty in the correct sense of the word. You are free to condemn it, as you have done, but if you could try to learn to laugh at yourself you might just find that people were laughing with you. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
durgatosh Posted March 12, 2007 Author Report Share Posted March 12, 2007 Eclogite(See. there is respect. I accord it the title hypothesis, when it is little more than speculation. And yes, that clarification borders on the disrespectful, a response engendered by your inflated sense of the value of the speculation.) What a supreme gesture! What kindness to accord it the title "hypothesis"! This is my last response to such a sledging, but I must say this. It is quite okay to consider oneself as extremely intelligent, but it is the greatest stupidity to consider others as fools. I shall come back to this thread again responding to constructive remarks and criticisms, but not for any such remarks. I regret myself being dragged into such a wasteful exchange of words. DP Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Eclogite Posted March 12, 2007 Report Share Posted March 12, 2007 This is my last response to such a sledging, but I must say this. If you can't stand the heat, stay out of the kitchen. It is quite okay to consider oneself as extremely intelligent, but it is the greatest stupidity to consider others as fools.I don't consider you to be a fool. I don't consider myself to be extremely intelligent. I do think your speculation lacks anything of substance.I don't think claims that our failure to see this is a reflection of narrow minded thinking on our part is valid.I do think you need to take yourself less seriously. I don't think you will.Good luck. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
truth_united Posted May 31, 2007 Report Share Posted May 31, 2007 I am new to this forum and am interested in the problem of origin. This thread has struck me because it attempts to explain the existence of the universe without the need of an origin. The equivalence of zero and infinity (as suggested by Durgatosh) is very appealing. The hypothesis of instability of entities at proximity to zero reminds me of the role of virtual particles in quantum theory. EclogiteIf you can't stand the heat, stay out of the kitchen. Come on Eclogite! If you don't like a concept, don't ridicule it. If sledging is the heat in your kitchen, enjoy the heat yourself. I am sure the other moderators would take a note of this. Don't destroy a good discussion with your whims and fancies please. truth_united Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
truth_united Posted June 12, 2007 Report Share Posted June 12, 2007 The last few posts of this thread have been shifted to the new thread. Understably so, because we were deviating from the core concept of this thread. However, I had asked a few questions in my last post (which has also been shifted), which are relevant to this thread. Hence, I would like to repost it again in this thread. I am curious for an answer. Big-bang indeed is an interesting discussion but was not the topic of this thread. Durgatosh has attempted to describe the nature of universe as infinite and yet zero in sum total. He has used the concepts of equivalence of zero and infinity, infinite instability of zero, etc to explain this. There are certain issues to be explained. I hope we have not lost Durgatosh from this forum. Eclogite tried to put down the concept in an unfair manner and his behaviour must have upset him. I have a few questions for Durgatosh:1. If the sum total of the universe is zero, and this zero is the manifestation of positive and negative infinities, where are the negatives?2. Why is it that all our physical universe can be explained in terms of space, time, mass/energy? You say that these entities may be related in a way that their sum total is zero. Can you please elaborate? truth_united. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
durgatosh Posted June 19, 2007 Author Report Share Posted June 19, 2007 truth_unitedI have a few questions for Durgatosh:1. If the sum total of the universe is zero, and this zero is the manifestation of positive and negative infinities, where are the negatives?2. Why is it that all our physical universe can be explained in terms of space, time, mass/energy? You say that these entities may be related in a way that their sum total is zero. Can you please elaborate? 1. Positive and negative counterparts for each entity is a possible explanation for the sum total of the universe to be zero. These positives and negatives would exist in parallel (as suggested by freeztar in his reply which has been shifted to another thread, "How did the Big Bang form galaxies"). We do not encounter our coresponding negatives because they exist in parallel; otherwise we would be annihilated. 2. There is, however, a completely different explanation to this problem; an explanation which appeals more to me. The fundamental entities of the universe (matter/energy, space, time) are not different entities; rather they are inter-related in a way that their sum total is zero. Let us try to explain this concept. The difference beteen matter and energy dissolved when Einstein gave us the famous equation E=mc2. The theory of relativity is based on the concept of space-time. Here, the distinction beteen space and time does not exist. e are taught to think in 4 dimensions or more and in terms of a space-time curve. There is no absolute space and absolute time; rather there is a space-time continuum. The field theory derived from the theoy of relativity also abolishes the difference between space and matter. According to this, matter is just a manifestation of the condensation of space. If we examine these concepts, the truth glares in front of us. The idea of basic unity of all entities is evident. The differences between the entities of space, time, matter and energy are the product of our conditioned minds. DP Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
freeztar Posted June 19, 2007 Report Share Posted June 19, 2007 Can someone explain to me why my post was moved when it was a direct response to Durg's original idea from post #1 of this thread? :confused: Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
InfiniteNow Posted June 19, 2007 Report Share Posted June 19, 2007 Can someone explain to me why my post was moved when it was a direct response to Durg's original idea from post #1 of this thread? :confused: It wasn't just your post that was moved. The conversation had drifted into two parellel discussions and the staff split the side conversation into it's own thread. Your post was included with the split. I'm sure if you'd like, Craig (or another mod/admin) would be glad to put it back. :) http://hypography.com/forums/astronomy-cosmology/11853-how-did-big-bang-create-galaxies.html#post177495 Carry on. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
freeztar Posted June 19, 2007 Report Share Posted June 19, 2007 It wasn't just your post that was moved. The conversation had drifted into two parellel discussions and the staff split the side conversation into it's own thread. Your post was included with the split. I'm sure if you'd like, Craig (or another mod/admin) would be glad to put it back. :) http://hypography.com/forums/astronomy-cosmology/11853-how-did-big-bang-create-galaxies.html#post177495 Carry on. :cup: Thanks IN. :)I suppose they just got indiscriminately batch transferred and mine got stuck in there too. I do think it belongs in this thread, so any mod happening along, I'd appreciate if it was shifted to its rightful place as I make no mention of BBT in my post. Thanks. :) Now back on topic... Durg, in the other thread (where you addressed my comments), you made mention of your idea of infinite stability of zero as it realtes to "fundamental" forces such as gravity and time with the net result being zero. Can you go into some more depth with this idea? I can envision this if we take each of these forces by themselves (eg time could have an anti-time component; or we could even envision past and future as the two poles), but relating this to more forces is tricky. How do gravity and time, for example, coexist as an infinite stability of zero? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
coldcreation Posted June 19, 2007 Report Share Posted June 19, 2007 1. ...snip... If we examine these concepts, the truth glares in front of us. The idea of basic unity of all entities is evident. The differences between the entities of space, time, matter and energy are the product of our conditioned minds. DP My bold. That is a rather extraordinary stament. So instead of spacetime, mass and energy, you have: spacetimematterenergy, a new word. Or better yet: Spacetimattergy. Yes, I like that one, spacetimattergy. Say it, it sounds cool, almost cold. The basic unity of all entities, spacetimattergy. The truth is right there, glaringinfrontofus (my bold). theproductofconditionedminds CC Tormod 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
lamb.charlie Posted June 19, 2007 Report Share Posted June 19, 2007 On the subject of the big bang. The theory is that all matter, including space/time was contained in this singular grain. I call it a grain because it was essentially the seed of our universe. AS you said in the introduction, we have a very limited perception of out surroundings. It was thought at one time that the universe consisted of the Earth, orbited by the sun, moon, and stars. Then we discovered that the earth is actually only one of many planets orbiting our star the sun. Eventually we have found that our solar system is a tiny spec in the milky way galaxy, and that there are actually many galaxies other than our own.The first question that I would like to bring up follows this same thread of discovery. [further questions moved to new thread, here] Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jay-qu Posted June 20, 2007 Report Share Posted June 20, 2007 These questions blow my mind, and each could almost be a thread by itself. I agree, and I will do so to avoid a disruption to this thread Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.