kailas_knight Posted December 25, 2006 Report Share Posted December 25, 2006 In "durgatosh's" article about split zero theory .....he explained how split 0 concept works.... but he mentioned 2 contradictions about that concept, to which he didn't give explanation.... i have thought about possible explanations for those 2 contradictions ..... the 2 contradictions are (1) if 0=+X -X then why not 2= +4 -2 and like that... ans: the original author said that +ve and -ve things were compartmentalisedso that they wouldn't react and cancel each other out... then why not consider that they were compartmentalised such thatall +ve matter and +ve energy and time were in one compartment and all -ve matter(antimatter) and -ve energy and time - "in reverse direction " were in another compartment. then we can think that "the +ve compartment represents the +ve universe and -ve compartment represents -ve universe........ +ve universe contains matter , energy and time .. -ve universe contains anti-matter , anti-energy , time- in the reverse direction...... the things in the +ve universe has the exact opposite properties of things in the -ve universe... the sum total of all things in the universe =0. perhaps this statement can be rephrased as the sum total of things in the positive and negative universes =0. ie, [+X ]+ [-X]=0 the contradiction why other magnitudes can't also seperate is irrelevantcoz, a +ve magnitude x can't split into "x+n" +ve magnitude where n=1,2,...,k and "x-n" negative magnitude ,n=1,2,....,k. how can a +ve thing split into a +ve quantity more or less than it's own magnitude and a -ve magnitude .... only 0 or "nothing" is so much unstable that it can't exist by itself and needs to split into equal no of +ve and -ve things , to exist... a magnitude other than zero is not very unstable as zero ,as any magnitude other than 0 or nothing is "something" , so it's stable and can exist by itself without splitting....so the 1st contradiction is irrelavant... contradiction (2) why dont we see things spontaneously splitting up? ans: the peculiarity of "nothing" is that it's neither +ve nor -ve and infinitely unstable .so inorder to exist it has to split into n +ve and -ve things..similarlythe peculiarity of 0 is that it can represent "nothing" and it's a whole number, ie, it can represent equal amounts of both +ve and -ve things such that their sum total is nothing(0). 0 = [+ X ][- X] the answer is that , as everthing is compartmentalized as i said above, +ve things are in +ve universe and -ve things are in -ve universe.... so +ve and -ve things in the +ve and -ve universes cant split up further....coz , a +ve magnitude is "something".and this property also applies to -ve magnitude also.so they are stable. and stable things can't subdivide as they can exist in the form they are in. I remember reading about "white holes" which runs backward in time, being derived from theory of relativity.. so that should support my modifications to this theory......... reference to white holes , alternate universe and worm holes available at this URL http://www.zamandayolculuk.com/cetinbal/EinsteinRosenBridge.pdf i'm looking forward to read what you have to say.... i did not intent to take credit of anyone else's work.i just added some possible modifications.i have expressed my modifications without stealing anything .....and i have specified that original split 0 concept is from durgatosh..... hope this solves the problem of the alleged "copy threading" ... there is also another possible explanation , which will again deviate from the original theory.... cwes99_03 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
InfiniteNow Posted December 25, 2006 Report Share Posted December 25, 2006 Wow, I've now read this text in 3 or 4 different threads. Trying to set a record or something? :hyper: Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
durgatosh Posted December 26, 2006 Report Share Posted December 26, 2006 Dear Kailas, Don't you realize that you are duplicating the entire idea (even the scripts) which was formulated in the article I had written in the thread, "The Origin of Universe: Solving the mystery"? The concepts about the "split of zero" and "infinite instability of zero" were formulated and discussed at length in that thread. White holes and wormholes indeed support the idea. But that does not give you the licence to take credit of somebody else's concept as yours. Yopu have done the same in your other thread." I had even warned you in a private message, but you don't seem to understand. I write this with anguish but I believe my fellow hypographers will understand and do something to prevent such duplication. It takes much effort to formulate a concept and it pains to see somebody suddenly taking credit of one's efforts. DP P.S: I have written a similar message in your other thread because I want the fellow hypographers to know the truth. DP Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cwes99_03 Posted December 26, 2006 Report Share Posted December 26, 2006 Perhaps the mods or admins need to delete the multiple threads. Durg, are you saying that some "e-plagiarism" went on here? If so, then I believe that this thread should definitely be deleted. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LJP07 Posted December 26, 2006 Report Share Posted December 26, 2006 Don't agree with E-Plaigarism. Kailas, you should NEVER take credit for other peoples work especially after they went to the bother of doing it. You should of at least asked. Cwes, I don't think the thread should be closed maybe just her post. :) Prolu2007 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LJP07 Posted December 26, 2006 Report Share Posted December 26, 2006 Actually on second thought, theres only 5 posts and the thread is probably repeated, yeah, Mods please remove this thread, we don't recommend it's use anymore after E-Plaigarism and copy-threading. :) Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cwes99_03 Posted December 26, 2006 Report Share Posted December 26, 2006 :) I like that.... "COPY-THREADING" Sounds like a cry to take up when on the warpath of keeping the forum from becoming a spam site. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kailas_knight Posted December 26, 2006 Author Report Share Posted December 26, 2006 Dear Kailas, Don't you realize that you are duplicating the entire idea (even the scripts) which was formulated in the article I had written in the thread, "The Origin of Universe: Solving the mystery"? The concepts about the "split of zero" and "infinite instability of zero" were formulated and discussed at length in that thread. White holes and wormholes indeed support the idea. But that does not give you the licence to take credit of somebody else's concept as yours. Yopu have done the same in your other thread." I had even warned you in a private message, but you don't seem to understand. I write this with anguish but I believe my fellow hypographers will understand and do something to prevent such duplication. It takes much effort to formulate a concept and it pains to see somebody suddenly taking credit of one's efforts. DP P.S: I have written a similar message in your other thread because I want the fellow hypographers to know the truth. DPdurgatosh, as i said to you in my letter before ..that ,,, i have made some modifications to your theory...... i have given explanatins to supportthat that theory can be true.... i admitt that this is your theory , your concept , but you haven't given expainations to make the contradictions irrelevant..... but i have given it...... and how am i supposed to post my modifications to that article without explaining the basic idea of that concept...... my fellow hypographers please note that i am not trying to take credit of someone else's work ,but i only added more explaination to that idea,that the author of the article did not explain... How can i present my modifications without specifying the central ideaof the concept....... there are several things that the author of the theory didn't explain. If anyone compares my article to durgatosh's article , he or she would know that i haven't done anything wrong.. but that i only addedextra information to that article.... i haven't finished the modifications yet , there are some more modifications to be added to make that concept perfect.....but i can't do it if you guys keep criticising me like this....... but i can do one thing ,,, i can add a comment that the split 0 concept is really from durgatosh ,and i have modified that concept... that would be fair enough ,wouldn't it ...that way everyone would know thatthe original article is from durgatosh and the modifications are from me... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
InfiniteNow Posted December 26, 2006 Report Share Posted December 26, 2006 i only added more explaination to that idea,that the author of the article did not explain...If anyone compares my article to durgatosh's article , he or she would know that i haven't done anything wrong.. but that i only added extra information to that article.... If I retype Alice in Wonderland, but change Alice's name to Dorothy and add a scene with a kangaroo and claim that it is a story I wrote, it's still plagiarizing. and how am i supposed to post my modifications to that article without explaining the basic idea of that concept...... How can i present my modifications without specifying the central idea of the concept.......Rudimentary outline: You need to use your own words, and restate with your own voice the relevant parts, then mention from where the idea orginated. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cwes99_03 Posted December 26, 2006 Report Share Posted December 26, 2006 More rudimentary than that, you credit someone else's work and then explain your modifications to their original thoughts. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cwes99_03 Posted December 26, 2006 Report Share Posted December 26, 2006 Can anyone verify whether or not this is the only place this is still being discussed? It is pointless for this to be discussed on more than 1 thread started by the same user. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cwes99_03 Posted December 26, 2006 Report Share Posted December 26, 2006 Did a quick search of mr. knight's other posts and i see he is discussing this idea on at least 3-4 other threads, including whether or not he is claiming someone else's work on this thread. http://hypography.com/forums/astronomy-cosmology/9667-einstein-rosen-bridge-wormhole-black-hole.html Strongly recommend closing this thread. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kailas_knight Posted December 26, 2006 Author Report Share Posted December 26, 2006 Don't agree with E-Plaigarism. Kailas, you should NEVER take credit for other peoples work especially after they went to the bother of doing it. You should of at least asked. Cwes, I don't think the thread should be closed maybe just her post. :) Prolu2007it has been taken care of .....i modified my article as durgatosh said.... i wanted to present my modifications and i did it in a good way,., Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LJP07 Posted December 27, 2006 Report Share Posted December 27, 2006 Like InfiniteNow stated, modifications on someone's elses work. Anyway, the thread was previously discussed at length and I'm sure you can contribute to those threads very well but this thread has been an absolute disaster because of E-Plaigarism. Go to search and search for it and open one of them threads that deal with the Origin of the Universe. There are quite a few! :) Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kailas_knight Posted December 27, 2006 Author Report Share Posted December 27, 2006 Don't agree with E-Plaigarism. Kailas, you should NEVER take credit for other peoples work especially after they went to the bother of doing it. You should of at least asked. Cwes, I don't think the thread should be closed maybe just her post. :) Prolu2007everyone , especially durgatosh , it's me kailas_knight ....... the problem of the alleged "copy threading" has been taken care of.... i have made necessery changes to my thread "origin of the universe ??? " , as durgatosh requested.... i removed the entire split 0 concept from my thread and replaced it with the modifications i made to that concept.... i have used some important points from that concept as a back bone to present my modifications ,buti have specified that the original author of split 0 concept is durgatosh....and i have specified my modifications in my own words.... that seem's fair enough.doesn't it? i didn't mean any harm to anyone....i swear. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cwes99_03 Posted December 27, 2006 Report Share Posted December 27, 2006 Two recommendations though, mr. knight. 1) it is okay to reexplain parts of that theory when suggesting your changes, but on this forum, generally you should use the quote tags to show that it was another's work. They are very simple to use, and just adding an =username after the first quote tag, you will attribute the quote to the original poster. 2) it is generally bad form to discuss the exact same point on more than 1 thread. It doesn't lead to coherency. Therfore we have recommended this thread be closed and that you continue the discussion on the other thread that was created for discussing this exact topic, a thread that apparently has been well posted on. Please, return to that thread, post your modifications to his theory there, and discuss it there. There is no reason to start a new thread on the subject. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
durgatosh Posted December 27, 2006 Report Share Posted December 27, 2006 Dear Kailas, Never mind. Its okay. Everybody makes mistakes. No hard feelings. You are a bright person, but as I said, you got a bit carried away and hence the problems. Your explanations about the white holes and wormholes as answers to the contradictions to the "split of zero" are not without merit, although I have some differences. I visited your thread to discuss these differences but as you can see, most members don't want to discuss the thread any longer. I would be very happy if both of us and others can discuss this in my original thread. This would clear you from the unnecessary controversies. All the best. DP 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.