[guest39538]

He does this all the time. He goes through lists of maths symbols, picks one, misuses it and claims it is New Maths.

Correct me if I am wrong, if you had not learnt any science maths you would not know what the maths meant?

So how can you conceive that my maths is wrong if you have not learnt it or understand it ?

I am not sure it really give a result but it explains something relative.

I am not sure myself it is a correct and accurate, but to me personally it looks like it explains something that I visual imagined. I imagine that 0 is nothing and infinite at the same time.

I could choose any part of a void of any specific ''zero point space'' reference frame and conclude it was nothing, but at the same time I could observe the ''whole'' of the infinite void and conclude that was also nothing.

Zero point space I mentioned before is the ''nothing point''  where space joins/meets space.  Nothing points are the entirety of infinite nothing space.

It looks like this

∞0→→→0_ps←←←∞0

But isotropic from any  0 point space in any reference frame.

Now if you haven't worked out yet that a black hole is simply a visual Universe, I will explain.

Imagine my explanation of space , now imagine throughout this infinite nothing space which is in absolute dark, there is bubbles of light ''floating'' around, however they are not really bubbles and you do not see them as a light bubble you don't observe at all they blend in, why do they blend in?  because of the inverse square law and relative to the external observer the light is not reaching them in magnitude to see anything of the light bubble.

So the nearer to a black hole you get, the lighter it gets and the more you see inside the ''black hole'',

In another terms if there is multi-verses, and beyond the black background of space there was a sister earth, they could not see us and we can not see them but we both could see the same stars on the edge of our vision,

as the distance stars expand and an eventually of the diminishing light reflected and vanishing points perspective, the stars ''vanish'', the ''others'' on the other side of the blackness, will see new stars appearing.

[Colin2B]

I'm not saying your maths is wrong. I'm saying it is impossible to judge because you are misusing standard maths terms and not defining your terms or showing how your use is different.
Real mathematicians when inventing a new maths idea will invent a new symbol, but they always explain its use and give examples.
They also explain as simply as possible without using convoluted wording.

[guest39538]

I'm not saying your maths is wrong. I'm saying it is impossible to judge because you are misusing standard maths terms and not defining your terms or showing how your use is different.
Real mathematicians when inventing a new maths idea will invent a new symbol, but they always explain its use and give examples.
They also explain as simply as possible without using convoluted wording.

I did not think it would be that difficult to understand only 0 and 1 and the infinite symbol.


0∞³ defines an infinite void of nothing

0∞³-0∞³=0 defines a 0 point space


1³-1³=0

1*1*1-1*1*1=0

because to have something, 1 of anything, it has to be 1xyz

and so on , do you get it now?

still work in progress of course. Not a completion.
X³=XYZ

0∞³/c=r₁

[Ethos_]

I'm not saying your maths is wrong. I'm saying it is impossible to judge because you are misusing standard maths terms and not defining your terms or showing how your use is different.
Real mathematicians when inventing a new maths idea will invent a new symbol, but they always explain its use and give examples.
They also explain as simply as possible without using convoluted wording.

Excellent point Colin, math is only properly used when applicably used. One can't apply equal values to the number one when speaking about one apple and one orange.

[alysdexia]

0∞ includes anything, not only 1; when you subtract that from itself you still get anything.

[guest39538]

0∞ includes anything, not only 1; when you subtract that from itself you still get anything.

0+0=00=1=x=something

0∞-0∞=0=nothing

4/3 pi r³ - 4/3 pi r³ = 0 = nothing


x-x=0=nothing


0(neg)∞/0(neg)∞=1=kE  ( I need to explain a sphere compressing/contracting?)  How do I do contraction? 

∀L_0∞neg ∆L=kE?


If I expand nothing that would be logically less nothing, but if I compress nothing, then logically surely I get something.  Making something out of nothing, however we can also define nothing as infinite empty space.  So even nothing is something, just lots of nothing.

[alysdexia]

0∞ includes anything, not only 1; when you subtract that from itself you still get anything.

0+0=00=1=x=something

Where in the hell do you get 00=1?

0∞-0∞=0=nothing

0∞ ≠ x ∈ ; 0∞ ⊆ .  (Note it's a set equality, not element equality.)  Same goes for your ratio.

If I expand nothing that would be logically less nothing, but if I compress nothing, then logically surely I get something.  Making something out of nothing, however we can also define nothing as infinite empty space.  So even nothing is something, just lots of nothing.

You can't expand or compress nothing.

[guest39538]

You can't expand or compress nothing.

Tell that to the big bang or the big crunch then?


''Where in the hell do you get 00=1?''


0+0=x=1

[alysdexia]

You can't expand or compress nothing.

Tell that to the big bang or the big crunch then?

Who said it was nothing?

''Where in the hell do you get 00=1?''


0+0=x=1

Not at the same time.