Math Defines and Explains Four Dimensions of Reality

Discussion in 'Philosophy' started by TheJourney, Dec 27, 2012.

  1. #1 TheJourney, Dec 27, 2012
    Last edited by a moderator: Dec 29, 2012
    Alright, well this is a mathematical thought I just went through now. It is associated with the general idea, and this seems to be the place to put it. It has incredibly profound implications. Now, this is 'math,' and if you think you don't like math you might not really ponder what is being said with these equations, perhaps because you will think they are complicated. These are actually very intuitive ideas, expressed using math. If you understand the 'idea,' the math makes perfect sense.

    E=hv
    THEREFORE E/v=h
    THEREFORE v=E/h
    THEREFORE v is inversely proportional to h


    E=mc^2
    c^2=E/m
    THEREFORE E is inversely proportional to m
    THEREFORE E is directly proportional to v
    CREATE variable t, which is equivalent to E
    CREATE variable s, which is equivalent to m
    t=v/m

    c = speed of light
    c is proportional to v^2
    THEREFORE
    E=mv^2
    THEREFORE E is directly proportional to v^2
    DUE TO E-t equivalence, t=mv^2
    DUE TO t-v equivalence, v=mv^2
    DUE TO m-s equivalence, v=sv^2
    DUE TO v-c equivalence c=sv^2
    c = speed of photon in 'empty' space

    We can thus operationally define empty space. Empty space is what exists in a theoretical state of no mass, or physicality. We can say this is equivalent to there being no spatial dimensions, 'space,' hence variable s. Let us then create variable z, representing 'zero' spatial dimensions. Since z represents empty space, we can define a limit of 0 for variable z. 2-dimensionally, on a graph, we can represent this spatial dimension by x. Let us give t, 'time,' the graphical dimension y.

    z(as x approaches 0) = xv^2
    DUE TO E-v^2 equivalence, z=xE
    E=z/x^2
    z=Ex^2
    DUE TO z = 0x
    z = E(x/0x)
    DUE TO E-t equivalence
    z = t(x/0x)
    DUE TO E-t , t-y, and x-z equivalence
    LIMIT OF x(as x approaches 0) = y(x/0)
    THEREFORE y-x equivalence
    THEREFORE LIMIT OF x(as x approaches 0 from either positive or negative numbers) = LIMIT OF y(as y approaches 0 from positive or negative numbers)
    ALSO LIMIT OF x(as x approaches infinitely large positive or negative numbers) = LIMIT OF y(as y approaches infinitely large positive or negative numbers)

    These limits essentially define the x and y axes. These axes define perfect 90 degree angles, defining a circle. Since these 90 degree angles are themselves perfect, due to the symmetry of the equivalent limits, they are actually unable to be 'perfectly' modeled, due to the assymetry of inversely non-equivalent limits. This inability to perfectly model data is related to chaos math. Due to this perplexing fact of both equivalent and non-equivalent limits approaching 0 and infinity, we can only define a bisecting line by another limit. That limit is 90 degrees, as it approaches itself.
    Angle = 45+(90 degrees, as it approaches itself)

    Due to this impossibility of 'perfect' modeling, we cannot say that the graph 100% accurately contains the form of the graph. It is always slightly disturbed by the existence of the limits. Therefore, despite the fact that four 90 degree angles defines the circle which defines a graph, four 'quadrants' cannot be said to ultimately define the reality of this equation. Since 90 degrees is always approaching itself, it can have virtually any value, from negative infinity to positive infinity. Therefore, circles can be defined according to virtually any point, graphically, in 2-dimensional space. In 3-dimensional space, these can be represented by 'balls.'

    We can, using this methodology, define the first three dimensions, using the model of angles bisected by lines. The 1st dimension has no line, therefore 360 degree angle. The 2nd dimension has 2 180 degree angles, bisected by 1 line. The previously define equation can therefore be demonstrated to define the third dimension, using a standard infinitely-close-to-perfect 2-dimensional graph.
    The x-axis is defined by y approaching 0
    The y-axis is defined by x approaching 0
    3-Dimensional reality is defined by a perfect 360 degree circle.

    The implication is that we can, in 3-Dimensional reality, understand the 'graphical' representation of 3-dimensional reality, from a 4th-dimensional perspective. That would be defined by a perfect 3-dimensional 'ball' that is defined by being perfect in terms of 2 dimensional lines spreading out at every possible angle(approaching infinity).
     
  2. You are wrong in your third line of useless bullshit.
     
  3. These are actually very intuitive ideas

    Not really.

    Changing the title of this re-post is not going to work. What happened to it being a reconciliation of physics?

    MelT
     
  4. Doesn't physics start from algebra? I notice that unable to understand physics and other scientific/math related subjects, you need to master how to solve algebraic equations; that's the trouble I had with Math but everything else is good.
     
  5. E=hv
    THEREFORE E/v=h
    THEREFORE v is directly proportional to h
    THEREFORE v=E/h
    THEREFORE v is inversely proportional to h


    How does one show they are directly proportional when both clearly shows an inverse relationship with v and h? I certainly hope it's not my algebra that's messed up :).
     
  6. hehe. Nope, simple type-error. I made a couple of these sorts of obvious little letter-errors, and people are missing the whole point/idea :p Thank you though, fixed that one.
     



  7. No one knows what your talking about unless you explain it clearly. We can't see your thoughts.
     
  8. #8 MelT, Dec 30, 2012
    Last edited by a moderator: Dec 30, 2012
    There is no 'point/idea' in what you write, it has been proven wrong. The journey indeed, to self-delusion and a weird idea that nobody can see through you. Give it a rest.

    MelT
     
  9. I don't know whats real anymore


    I can only conclude that TheJourney is trolling/play devils advocate No one could be this crazy
     
  10. He's test-piloting nonsense for a future time when he has a theory that is so obscure - and corrected for him by others who do know what they're talking about - that he can float it on Youtube or a book. He tries it out here and sees how much flack he gets and adapts accordingly. It's all looking like Journey is hoping to become a scene Woo...:) Do we think he's up to the job? So far it seems not.

    MelT
     
  11. Those who don't understand math aren't going to get this post. Those who do will think it's complete bullshit.
     
  12. Ouch!

    Hey if you entertained these fools for this long then imagine what you could do if you actually knew what you were talking about :p
     
  13. Well he should take a lesson from David Icke and learn how to first put people in an emotional state where they will be more likely to believe you. Convince then that your knowledge is some how being hidden from them by a massive conspiracy. Also invent your own terms like vibrational and photon information. Possible try ripping off an older new-age philosopher but then claim the reason its the same is because you both were visited by the same cosmic force or something.
     
  14. TheJourney seems to be influenced by mckenna....just remember he died from a brain tumor that grew into the shape of a mushroom
     
  15. Hey hernias of any sort can be mushrooms shaped!!!

    Must be a connection

    Journey can you find a mathmatical equation that explains how hernias are mushroom shaped and how that reconcilles quantum physics with anthropology?!?!
     
  16. you just blew my mind because i suffered from an inguinal hernia for 18 years until i took acid and god told me to call the docter
     
  17. I dont see why you all are hating on OP. He is right in many ways, as well as making some mathematical and clerical mistakes, but this does not negate his point, which so many of you missed.

    Math DOES define our world. ut this simple matg for a second. S (speed) = D (distance)/ T (time). SxT=D and T=D/S. These are all proportionial to one another. Without one value, the other 3 values do not exist. Does this not mean that all those equations are esentially one?

    Now extrapolate that further. We just defined speed, time, and distance. Now take the speed of light (which is tied in to distance and time because of the previous equation) and you realize that energy is defined by space and time. After all E(energy)= M (mass) xC sqared (the speed of light sqared) and speed is defined by space/divided by time.

    Im rambling a bit here, but I guess my point is that math truly shows how "one" everything truly is. Everything is defined in proportion to something else, which is equal to itself in some way or another. Without T you wouldnt have D or S. And wothout S (speed) you wouldnt have E=MC squared.

    Everything is connected and defined by math. Quit hating OP
     
  18. ive been reading journeys shit for a long time i just miss his non mathematical shit....his old metaphorical stuff was classic
     

  19. Math, science, philosophy, and the ultimate truth that we all seek, go hand in hand.

    When trying to find the origin of your universe, one must first understand the universe...

    Aka science and math. I honestly dont see why more religions arent based around it. Oh wait thats becaise religion dosent like being based in reality.
     
  20. This thread is great! It is refreshing to hear so many call Bullshit!
     

Share This Page