Naked Science Forum
On the Lighter Side => New Theories => Topic started by: allyoop1234 on 28/06/2017 16:21:24
-
Hi,
This is not a theory. This is a proof that is related to all science. It results in better medicine and a new clean energy so it is very important this get read by the appropriate people working in the field of science.
You may not understand this but you will in time. Can you please forward this to as many scientists so that it can reach it's intended audience. https://1drv.ms/b/s!AgDkabLXWPCqh2goM8OXTp2oO2s1
Any questions, please leave a response
-
I'm sorry, but your paper is littered with logical fallacies. I see non-sequiturs, false dichotomies, and an ignorance of the way that chemistry works. Go ahead and try to produce this "white gas" you hypothesize. If you can do that, then your speculation will surely catch the interests of scientists.
-
Couldn't read the paper, but I don't need to.
This computer is not infinite- I can pick it up.
-
Couldn't read the paper, but I don't need to.
This computer is not infinite- I can pick it up.
You didn't read it so you don't get the logic or the rationale that does prove everything is Infinite. Everything degrades over time and the elements from which it is composed go on and combine with other elements thereby lasting forever. Your laptop is no different. Atoms is degrading from it every day and those atoms are inifnitely travelling through the air. You being able to pick it up has no relevance to it living forever in one form or another.
Please read, be open-minded and give me a steer on where you think it should go.
-
I'm sorry, but your paper is littered with logical fallacies. I see non-sequiturs, false dichotomies, and an ignorance of the way that chemistry works. Go ahead and try to produce this "white gas" you hypothesize. If you can do that, then your speculation will surely catch the interests of scientists.
This is a very ignorant unhelpful reponse. Is this what kind of help people give on this site. How you got you're rating is beyond me. If there are non-sequiturs, false dichotomies it doesn;t matter. The rationale can not be argued. Furthermore, the gas can be created as easy as i say it can and it does prove what i say it proves. It's already been created by people i've collaborated with this on but i now need more people. The document says you have to be open-minded, you must be one of those close minded arrogant people. If you can help me contact some people higher up in the science field, please do, otherwise don't reply back, better yet, delete your replhy because it is crap.
-
This is a very ignorant unhelpful reponse. Is this what kind of help people give on this site. How you got you're rating is beyond me.
I'm just calling it as I see it. Your conclusions do not follow from your premises. Plain and simple.
If there are non-sequiturs, false dichotomies it doesn;t matter.
It critically matters. If one has to use logical fallacies in order to come to a given conclusion, then that conclusion cannot be trusted. As one example, you say that humans can have any one of an infinite number of thoughts in any one second, so you conclude that the odds of a person thinking about anything at one time is one-in-infinity. This is incorrect, because (1) human minds have limited knowledge, so there are not an infinite number of things they could potentially be thinking about, and (2) human thought is not random, but is strongly influenced by recent events in their lives. We are significantly more likely to think about some subject matters than others in particular situations.
If a random number pops into your head, it is significantly more likely to be a simple, often-encountered number than a very large, rarely encountered number. People are going to think about the number 70 much more often than they will 1,330,495, for example. So your false dichotomy of "1-in-infinity chance vs. divine intervention" is based on flawed reasoning. Sometimes coincidences do happen.
Furthermore, the gas can be created as easy as i say it can and it does prove what i say it proves. It's already been created by people i've collaborated with this on but i now need more people.
Get the gas examined by chemists and physics in order to verify your claims. Anyone can claim anything on the Internet. If I see you on the news for discovering some amazing new field of chemistry, then I'll know that you've found something interesting. According to existing chemistry knowledge, mixing hydrogen with hydrogen at standard conditions will not result in anything but hydrogen (except a bit of helium now and then due to decay of the tritium isotope). Get your gas analyzed by a spectrometer. There is your test. If the spectrometer shows just hydrogen and other, known, contaminant gases, then it will falsify your hypothesis. If it shows something never seen before, then it is worthy of further investigation.
The document says you have to be open-minded, you must be one of those close minded arrogant people. If you can help me contact some people higher up in the science field, please do, otherwise don't reply back, better yet, delete your replhy because it is crap.
I'm guessing you see all people who disagree with you as being closed-minded. Sorry, but that's not how that works. An open-minded person is willing to observe and evaluate evidence, a closed-minded person isn't. I actually did look at your paper. After seeing that your evidence and logic is lacking, I see no reason to accept your conclusions. It's not a good idea to accept a conclusion when it is easy to point out flaws in the reasoning used to get there.
If you think that makes me a bad person, then that's not something I can help.
-
The best way to promote an idea to scientists is to publish a paper in a peer-reviewed journal that those scientists read. The next best thing would be to present at a conference attended by your desired audience. (I would caution that the treatise linked to in the OP would not be well-received in its current form)
As for the content of the treatise, I think Kryptid has given a fair and reasonable critique. I don't want to pile on additional criticism, but I do want to communicate that I share Kryptid's evaluation. There are some interesting points in there, but there are some serious flaws in the logic, math, and chemistry presented. One would do well to remember the difference between the abstract (logic and math) and the tangible (chemistry, physics, etc.). The former is often very useful for describing the essence of the latter, but there are many absurdities that arise when treating the abstract as tangible (many of these crop up within the text of this treatise).
Finally, infinity is a very tricky concept, and even the most brilliant mathematicians can get themselves tied up in knots when using it. I would recommend the book, "Infinity and the Mind," which helped me greatly when I was struggling with some of these concepts.
-
https://1drv.ms/b/s!AgDkabLXWPCqh2goM8OXTp2oO2s1 (https://1drv.ms/b/s!AgDkabLXWPCqh2goM8OXTp2oO2s1)[/color][/font]
[/color]See if this link works.[/size]
Thanks. I tried updating with the link andit still put the same thing in front.
-
I had a quick look.
I myself am a scientist
This is the first claim in the document
Please indicate your qualifications and experience as a scientist.
you therefore have “Infinite” things because the universe is expanding
The causes of the expansion of the universe are a bit of a mystery today.
- It is possible that the universe contains infinite matter.
- But a universe containing finite matter can also expand.
So the logic here is flawed.
so everything spawning from numbers has only ever got two options and these options are “Right or Wrong”
Godel (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/G%C3%B6del%27s_incompleteness_theorems) showed that there is another option: "I don't know", or indeed "Nobody knows".
the number system is flawed. It only caters for the 100% Right/Wrongand it does not cater for the 0.0000001 ->99.999999% which is where all answers actually reside.
The field of probability (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Probability) actually focusses on this range of numbers.
when you add infinity to infinity what do you get? The answer is simple, you get an Infinitely bigger answer.
I am afraid this is incorrect.
Cantor (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Georg_Cantor#Mathematical_work) showed that when you add infinity to infinity, you get (the same type of) infinity. This is easily shown by the illustration of Hilbert's Hotel (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hilbert%27s_paradox_of_the_Grand_Hotel).
To get a number that is demonstrably larger than infinity, you have to use exponentiation: 2infinity > infinity.
This is enough comments from me. I ran out of time and stopped reading the paper.
-
It critically matters. If one has to use logical fallacies in order to come to a given conclusion, then that conclusion cannot be trusted.
As one example, you say that humans can have any one of an infinite number of thoughts in any one second, so you conclude that the odds of a person
thinking about anything at one time is one-in-infinity. This is incorrect, because (1) human minds have limited knowledge, so there are not an infinite number
of things they could potentially be thinking about, and (2) human thought is not random, but is strongly influenced by recent events in their lives.
We are significantly more likely to think about some subject matters than others in particular situations.
If a random number pops into your head, it is significantly more likely to be a simple, often-encountered number than a very large, rarely encountered number. People are going to think about the number 70 much more often than they will 1,330,495, for example. So your false dichotomy of "1-in-infinity chance vs. divine intervention" is based on flawed reasoning. Sometimes coincidences do happen.
Thank you that's much better. You are talking about the conscious mind only. Yes, the conscious mind produces about 60-70k thoughts a day and a lot are based on on what has
recently happened. I'm on anout the combination of both the conscious and the subconscious. The conscious only accounts for a tiny fraction whereas the subconscious accounts
for 98%. You say human minds have limited knowledge, in the beggining, yes of course but as you grow, it keeps growing infinitely. Also i'm talking, not just about thoughts, i'm
talking about permutations of your knowledge to produce thoughts. The subconscious contains unbounded information but only the odd thoughts pop into the consciousness usually going to
sleep but during the day as well. Although conscious thoughts are strongly influenced by recent activity you mention, they are not always. People often project their minds forwards
in what you might consider dream-like thoughts. So, you are only looking at one aspect of thinking and you are trying to bound it. For someone to think "70 dogs", this is not a
thought bound by recent events. Think about it, it's impossible, so therefore this means, this thought is from the subconsious and it has randmoly been pushed from the subconscious
into the conscious, thereby making it a random thought. Given the size of the consciousness and much bigger subconsciousness and the fact they both constantly grow in terms of what
they contain and the thought is random, this is therefore 1 randmom thought in any infinite number of thoughts. So put simply you say "human minds have limited knowledge" has no
bearing on what i'm saying which is a random permutation of information popping in to your head at a given point in time not related to recent activities. So to re-emphasize
the odds are 1 in Infinity. Also you are forgetting that the thought has to combine with the object itself. i.e. what is the likelyhood that object with that number will be at
the same position you are at? Finally, you are forgetting the object needs to be within your vicinity at the exact same time, or within a couple of seconds of time. So, therefore
your odds are A RANDOM SUBCONSCIOUS THOUGHT times YOU AND THE OBJECT AT THE SAME POSITION AT THE SAME TIME. This is Infinity times billions/millions times billions/millions.
Given all of this, the odds are beyond numbers, hence beyond people, hence beyond science, hence beyond the universe, hence divine intervention.
Plus, numbers themselves are unbounded as you can see in the proof.
Get the gas examined by chemists and physics in order to verify your claims. Anyone can claim anything on the Internet.
If I see you on the news for discovering some amazing new field of chemistry, then I'll know that you've found something interesting.
According to existing chemistry knowledge, mixing hydrogen with hydrogen at standard conditions will not result in anything but hydrogen
(except a bit of helium now and then due to decay of the tritium isotope). Get your gas analyzed by a spectrometer. There is your test.
If the spectrometer shows just hydrogen and other, known, contaminant gases, then it will falsify your hypothesis. If it shows something never seen before,
then it is worthy of further investigation.
Thank you, that is exactly what i am trying to do. As mentioned i need to take a collaborative approach on this whereby people in wider science take this, produce the
gas as i did and verify it. I'm not looking to be on tv, i'm looking to do what i'm supposed to which is help people and the planet in the best way and fastest way possible.
Is there anyone you could forward this on to and put me in contact with that i could work with on this? Spectroscopy is amazing but as you'll read in my post it is using external
stimulation to produce a bounded result. It is not giving a picture of the atom in it's natural state. The proof that it is a different element and a more pure element is the way
in which the gas burns. It's completely different to hydrogen. Yes, you can't see it with todays technology but you will be able to some day. Just because it might hit the same
area on the spectrum in spectroscopy does not mean it's the same element/atom because the rnge on which elements can land is always going to be bound by the spectrum of light.
The fact it is a different element/atom can only be seen through behaviour. Also, through rationale as presented in the paper. Think about it, the world of things being constituent
of compounds of 116 elements is a probable immpossibility. The electron microscope is the best we have now but you cannot see the level of detail we need to be able to. In the future,
we will have this technology and all will be able to see what i'm taking about.
In the meantime, this produces a new clean energy and countless new medical advancments through pharmaceuticals. If there is anything you can do to help me get in contact with people
who can re-verify this, that would be greatly appreciated, Thanks[/quote]
I'm guessing you see all people who disagree with you as being closed-minded. Sorry, but that's not how that works. An open-minded person is willing to observe and evaluate evidence,
a closed-minded person isn't. I actually did look at your paper. After seeing that your evidence and logic is lacking, I see no reason to accept your conclusions.
It's not a good idea to accept a conclusion when it is easy to point out flaws in the reasoning used to get there.
If you think that makes me a bad person, then that's not something I can help.
You are guessing wrong. I welcome criticism, as a scientist you need to be able to welcome criticism, accept it where necessary or defend your work through counter argument showing
reason, rationale and logic. What you gave in your first response was a 3 line answer with absolutely no indication of what you were disputing. Any scientist has no other option
but to assume this type answer is someone being close-minded and only scanning the document. I appreciate you think the logic is lacking, but i am of course free to disagree and
i do feel i have given a sufficient answer to further qualify the logic. Whether you accept it or not, i don't mind and i welcome any further criticism you may have as long as it
is not like your original close-minded response which was basically "I don't like it.". After reading this response, i appreciate you have read it but there was no evidence in
your existing reply to support that so whether you did read it the first time, i can only take your word. "If you think this makes me a bad person...". I never said you were a bad
person. I said you were ignorant and dismissive which is what you were. This doesn't make someone a bad person. I for one can be like that from time to time and as you stated above,
when i see this "I call it like it is."
I'd very much like you too comeback with anything else and if you could help me to contact people you think may be able to work with me to validate this and get to market that would
be great because this innovation will help the world. So can you help?
-
in the beggining, yes of course but as you grow, it keeps growing infinitely.
We have a finite life span and therefore can only learn a limited number of things, subconsciously or not.
Also i'm talking, not just about thoughts, i'm
talking about permutations of your knowledge to produce thoughts. The subconscious contains unbounded information but only the odd thoughts pop into the consciousness usually going to
sleep but during the day as well. Although conscious thoughts are strongly influenced by recent activity you mention, they are not always. People often project their minds forwards
in what you might consider dream-like thoughts. So, you are only looking at one aspect of thinking and you are trying to bound it. For someone to think "70 dogs", this is not a
thought bound by recent events. Think about it, it's impossible, so therefore this means, this thought is from the subconsious and it has randmoly been pushed from the subconscious
into the conscious, thereby making it a random thought. Given the size of the consciousness and much bigger subconsciousness and the fact they both constantly grow in terms of what
they contain and the thought is random, this is therefore 1 randmom thought in any infinite number of thoughts. So put simply you say "human minds have limited knowledge" has no
bearing on what i'm saying which is a random permutation of information popping in to your head at a given point in time not related to recent activities. So to re-emphasize
the odds are 1 in Infinity.
(1) Subconscious knowledge is not unbounded. There are a finite number of unconscious bodily functions that the subconscious mind controls (reflexes, breathing, heart rate, perspiration... ). There are also a finite number of events that can occur in a person's life that can influence them subconsciously (trauma, conditioning, memories... ). In either case, the amount of information contained in the subconscious must be limited.
(2) Can you demonstrate that there is such a thing as a truly random thought? It's quite easy to demonstrate a correlation between certain thoughts and certain stimuli (you are likely to think about food when you smell food or when you are hungry). On the other hand, I don't know how you could possible demonstrate that a thought has no cause at all. Subconscious thoughts are indeed influenced by outside events as well. Scents in particular are known to trigger memories, for example.
Also you are forgetting that the thought has to combine with the object itself. i.e. what is the likelyhood that object with that number will be at the same position you are at? Finally, you are forgetting the object needs to be within your vicinity at the exact same time, or within a couple of seconds of time. So, therefore
your odds are A RANDOM SUBCONSCIOUS THOUGHT times YOU AND THE OBJECT AT THE SAME POSITION AT THE SAME TIME.
In order to calculate this, you would need to know the probability of a given thought occurring at a particular time for a given person (which isn't 1 in infinity for multiple reasons, especially given the fact that different people often have the same kinds of thoughts and the same person can have the same thought at different times), the probability of an object with some observable characteristic related to that thought being within the visual range of the person (there isn't only one object in the world with the number 70 written on it but there are also a lot of dogs and pictures of dogs in the world too), the number of people who could potentially have this experience (many millions) and the period of time over which you are measuring this (it becomes more likely the longer you wait).
This is Infinity times billions/millions times billions/millions.
Infinity multiplied by any finite number is still infinity.
Given all of this, the odds are beyond numbers, hence beyond people, hence beyond science, hence beyond the universe, hence divine intervention.
This is the argument from ignorance fallacy. Even if it was true that a particular coincidence lacked a current, physical explanation, that doesn't automatically lead to the conclusion that it is divine in origin. A lack of evidence for explanation A is not necessarily the same as the presence of evidence for explanation B. If I have no evidence that a particular (unobserved) coin flip landed on heads, that cannot be used as evidence that it landed on tails. There is simply not enough information to tell.
Plus, numbers themselves are unbounded as you can see in the proof.
Numbers represent finite values as per definition of what a number is.
Thank you, that is exactly what i am trying to do. As mentioned i need to take a collaborative approach on this whereby people in wider science take this, produce the
gas as i did and verify it. I'm not looking to be on tv, i'm looking to do what i'm supposed to which is help people and the planet in the best way and fastest way possible.
Is there anyone you could forward this on to and put me in contact with that i could work with on this? Spectroscopy is amazing but as you'll read in my post it is using external
stimulation to produce a bounded result. It is not giving a picture of the atom in it's natural state. The proof that it is a different element and a more pure element is the way
in which the gas burns. It's completely different to hydrogen. Yes, you can't see it with todays technology but you will be able to some day. Just because it might hit the same
area on the spectrum in spectroscopy does not mean it's the same element/atom because the rnge on which elements can land is always going to be bound by the spectrum of light.
The fact it is a different element/atom can only be seen through behaviour. Also, through rationale as presented in the paper. Think about it, the world of things being constituent
of compounds of 116 elements is a probable immpossibility. The electron microscope is the best we have now but you cannot see the level of detail we need to be able to. In the future,
we will have this technology and all will be able to see what i'm taking about.
The chemical properties of a substance are directly tied to its electron configuration and electron energy levels. The absorption spectrum is likewise directly tied to its electron configuration and electron energy levels. If your white gas has chemical properties that are different from hydrogen, then it must also have a different electron configuration and energy levels from hydrogen. This would inevitably be revealed by spectroscopy. You can't have a change in chemical behavior without also having a change in absorption characteristics. So spectroscopy would work as a test.
You are guessing wrong. I welcome criticism, as a scientist you need to be able to welcome criticism, accept it where necessary or defend your work through counter argument showing
reason, rationale and logic. What you gave in your first response was a 3 line answer with absolutely no indication of what you were disputing. Any scientist has no other option
but to assume this type answer is someone being close-minded and only scanning the document. I appreciate you think the logic is lacking, but i am of course free to disagree and
i do feel i have given a sufficient answer to further qualify the logic. Whether you accept it or not, i don't mind and i welcome any further criticism you may have as long as it
is not like your original close-minded response which was basically "I don't like it.". After reading this response, i appreciate you have read it but there was no evidence in
your existing reply to support that so whether you did read it the first time, i can only take your word. "If you think this makes me a bad person...". I never said you were a bad
person. I said you were ignorant and dismissive which is what you were. This doesn't make someone a bad person. I for one can be like that from time to time and as you stated above,
when i see this "I call it like it is."
I didn't say "I don't like it". I stated that there were logical fallacies present (and even said what kinds). That is not the same as saying "I don't like it".
I'd very much like you too comeback with anything else and if you could help me to contact people you think may be able to work with me to validate this and get to market that would
be great because this innovation will help the world. So can you help?
Unfortunately, I don't know any scientists personally. You might be able to get somewhere if you contact some chemistry professors at a college near you.
-
Thanks you Evan for your response
This is the first claim in the document
Please indicate your qualifications and experience as a scientist.
I am 1st class honours Bsc. in Computing
The causes of the expansion of the universe are a bit of a mystery today.
- It is possible that the universe contains infinite matter.
- But a universe containing finite matter can also expand.
So the logic here is flawed.
Not necessarily, my entire proof is that everything is expanding infinitely. In the beginning we did not have the same amount of matter as we do now so if the universe expanding has produced any new matter at any point the only logical and rational answer is that it is still behaving the same way now because it is still expanding. It is impossible that there is finite matter. There is even infinite matter on earth. Things grow, die decay, become part of the earth then the cycle continues hence all those nice dinosaurs we are putting into out cars. If matter on earth is infinite until it's demise that alone means the matter in the universe is infinite because earth is part of the universe. So there is no such thing as finite matter. Impossible, the evidence is around us.
Godel showed that there is another option: "I don't know", or indeed "Nobody knows".
Ok, that's interesting. That said, from a real world problem solving perspective using mathematics the result of those answers are the exact same as a wrong answer. Also, that would be the exception not the rule. Point is you cannot get an answer 70% right, or 80% or 99.99% you can only get 100% in math in general, when there is no such thing as 100%, a perfect answer is impossible outside of math.
The field of probability actually focusses on this range of numbers.
Yes of course there are areas of mathematics that can provide percentage estimations, but, i'm not talking about mathematics. I'm talking about the number system as a construct.
I am afraid this is incorrect.
Cantor showed that when you add infinity to infinity, you get (the same type of) infinity. This is easily shown by the illustration of Hilbert's Hotel.
I have not disputed Cantor. I did not say you don't get "Infinity", i said you get an Infinitely bigger answer which is supported by Cantor -"It is also possible to accommodate a countably infinite number of new guests". I just chose english to express.
Thanks for looking at it, comments very much appreciated, if you've any more let me know.
-
We have a finite life span and therefore can only learn a limited number of things, subconsciously or not.
We do not have a finite life span. All energy converts from one form into another. We have a life and then we go to our afterlife and it is unbounded. Consciousness is no different than any other type of energy. Our vessels as i our bodies, decay but the things from which it is composed live on in one form or another, hence dinosaurs in your fuel tank. Whether you are one of the scientists who believe in the afterlife or not, is up to you but it does exist.
(1) Subconscious knowledge is not unbounded. There are a finite number of unconscious bodily functions that the subconscious mind controls (reflexes, breathing, heart rate, perspiration... ). There are also a finite number of events that can occur in a person's life that can influence them subconsciously (trauma, conditioning, memories... ). In either case, the amount of information contained in the subconscious must be limited.
Again, life goes to afterlife as does your subconscious thereby it is infinite. Never mind that, the subconsciousness records near everything you ever see,feel,hear or otherwise sense and experience, hence why hypnotists and pschologists can bring you back to your darkest deepest thoughts that you have long let vacate your consciousness. Therfore, even on earth the capacity is unbounded until you die and because you can't but a number on the capacity you can only say it is infinite for any given purpose. But main point, you have an infinite afterlife so you have an infinite subconsciousness. You might be an ahteist though?
(2) Can you demonstrate that there is such a thing as a truly random thought? It's quite easy to demonstrate a correlation between certain thoughts and certain stimuli (you are likely to think about food when you smell food or when you are hungry). On the other hand, I don't know how you could possible demonstrate that a thought has no cause at all. Subconscious thoughts are indeed influenced by outside events as well. Scents in particular are known to trigger memories, for example.
The large majority of people, myself included have been in a scenario where by an "..Idea, just pops into there head". Whether this is what correlates for a given person i do not know. People cam be thinking about random things maybe in response to ceratin things at times like you say, but even at that, what is the likelihood that anyone would respond to anything and have that drive their thoughts down a specific angle. For example, if i watch a programme that's about dogs and there are 70 dogs and then a few weeks/months later after my brain has interpreted millions of other thoughts and stimuli then i just happen to see a dog that makes me think about the 70 dogs and at that exact same time there happens to be a sign with 70 on it? The likelyhood is the same. You're talking about billions upon billions of thoughts before and after seeing tv and the event. The likelyhood that it would draw you back to that one thought is infinitely unlikely never mind seeing the dog to trigger it, then seeing the sign, and it to happen quick enough for your brain to interpret it all. This is impossible without assistance, there are too many thoughts and too many permutations of thoughts.
I of course agree that thoughts are triggered by outside events i.e smells, but even at that, if you smell something that triggers your memory of a person and then that person just happens to appear on television or walk around the corner at pretty much the same time, tht would be infinite to one again. Actually, that's even way further out. You're talking about the likelyhood of that smell out of all smells, combined with the likelyhood it would actually bring you back to that 1 in a billion thought, times the likelyhood the person it reminded you of would be in the position they are in for you to see them, times the likelyhood it would all happen within those exact number of seconds, perhaps 2. The probable odds are beyond numbers therefore it is the divine.
In order to calculate this, you would need to know the probability of a given thought occurring at a particular time for a given person (which isn't 1 in infinity for multiple reasons, especially given the fact that different people often have the same kinds of thoughts and the same person can have the same thought at different times), the probability of an object with some observable characteristic related to that thought being within the visual range of the person (there isn't only one object in the world with the number 70 written on it but there are also a lot of dogs and pictures of dogs in the world too), the number of people who could potentially have this experience (many millions) and the period of time over which you are measuring this (it becomes more likely the longer you wait).
I'm enjoying this, thanks for the response.
Forget about all people. Just one person. What you actually said above compounds it higher as i've shown. If you see 70 dogs on the television then a month later, you're in the passenger seat of a car, a journey you do regularly and you flip over a page in something you are reading and you see dogs in a picture and and it instantly triggers the thought about the 70 dogs and at that exact second you look out the window and you see the number 70 on a sign! This is even more ridiculous. Firstly, the initial thought has to register in a way that it becomes meaningful. i.e. i watch suits on tv, i forget everything about it, 2 hours later....Secondly you have to be reading something that has dogs in it...i.e there is any uncountable number of things the newspaper could be broadcasting daily, yet that day it happens to be dogs and you happen to be at that exact part of the paper...Thirdly, the dogs above all the other information in the paper has to register in away so as to bring you back to that thought about 70 dogs i.e. it could bring you back to dogfish, dog fights, kennels, lassie or any countless number of things a picture of dogs could bring you back to...Fourthly, you have to look out the window at that same point in time....Fifthly, you have to notices the number 70 and it has to combine the whole way back through those thoughts and interactions for you to realise it has just happened....Although, i know it is infinite to 1 let's say at the very least this is millions times millions times millions, the number is still too big for this to even happen once in the history of time, let alone it happen to you in your life.
Furthermore, as you'll read in the paper the number system is flawed and the only number that exists in reality is "Infinity" so the thought is in essence bouncing off infinity.
Infinity multiplied by any finite number is still infinity
I know that, i didn't say it wasn't in that quote.
[qoute]
This is the argument from ignorance fallacy. Even if it was true that a particular coincidence lacked a current, physical explanation, that doesn't automatically lead to the conclusion that it is divine in origin. A lack of evidence for explanation A is not necessarily the same as the presence of evidence for explanation B. If I have no evidence that a particular (unobserved) coin flip landed on heads, that cannot be used as evidence that it landed on tails. There is simply not enough information to tell.
[/quote]
Ok, maybe the divine is hard for scientists don't believe in the afterlife because they don't see it. The coin analogy is a poor one, of course tails means tails and heads means heads. That's a physical object. What i'm talking about here is rationale, reason and logic. There is no scientific answer for this, through deduction this means it is above people and science and if it is above science it is above the universe because we can't explain it in the universe of things before us hence the only thing it can be is above the universe. If it's above the universe as a rationale and reasonable human a scientist would have to look at and accept what billions of other people all over world through the history of time have captured as being "Beyond the Universe". This information being the first information stating what it is would then have to be scientifically disproven for scientists to be right about what they are saying is beyond the universe. Perhaps in time this would happen, but not until science comes up with an answer. That said, to tell you to truth, they never will come up with a different answer because the divine did kick off the universe and they are there but of course people need reason and rationale.
Let's put it short, just like a lot of scientists, if you do have logicial evidence to imply there is some answer other than your answer, you have to accept that answer until a time comes whereby you can provide a better answer. You'll find if you look around in wider science a lot of people are going back questioning everything in science, they are not relying on the past. All science needs to do this. Religion has accepted science largely speaking, it never happened the other way even though it is us scientists who are the one's playing the divine with external stimuli to produce perfect results.
Look you may not believe in the divine but this is true. I have a lot more to. This will essentially be me pulling a star out of the sky and putting it in the hands of all people when i make that Wg gas. If people don't believe in divine intervention after that, well i can't do much more to save them.
Plus, numbers themselves are unbounded as you can see in the proof.
There is no such thing as finite in the universe of things. Everything is degrading/growing/changing from one form to another. Numbers are the only finite thing. There is no such thing as perfect either in the universe but the number 1 is perfect. This means they are flawed. This means they shouldn't exist. Also, when you read the proof about the number system you will see the Infinity inside the number thereby meaning they are unbounded by nature. But in there current form because they are the only thing we have that is perfect, which the universe of things can't attain, they are therefore super-natural and the people who guided introduction of them were the divine.
The chemical properties of a substance are directly tied to its electron configuration and electron energy levels. The absorption spectrum is likewise directly tied to its electron configuration and electron energy levels. If your white gas has chemical properties that are different from hydrogen, then it must also have a different electron configuration and energy levels from hydrogen. This would inevitably be revealed by spectroscopy. You can't have a change in chemical behavior without also having a change in absorption characteristics. So spectroscopy would work as a test.
Ok, that's good then. If a different flame would result in a different result on the spectroscopy well then it should be different. But if the same pure white flame ends up in the same place as hydrogen well then spectroscopy is missing something. Thanks
[qoute]
I didn't say "I don't like it". I stated that there were logical fallacies present (and even said what kinds). That is not the same as saying "I don't like it".
[/quote]
Ok, you were abrupt and ignorant. Usually people qualify criticism with detail like you've done since. It's constructive criticism not just criticism. Nevermind though, thanks for your reposne
Unfortunately, I don't know any scientists personally. You might be able to get somewhere if you contact some chemistry professors at a college near you.
Thanks, would you reccommend any other sites that may have scientists frequenting them?
-
The best way to promote an idea to scientists is to publish a paper in a peer-reviewed journal that those scientists read. The next best thing would be to present at a conference attended by your desired audience. (I would caution that the treatise linked to in the OP would not be well-received in its current form)
As for the content of the treatise, I think Kryptid has given a fair and reasonable critique. I don't want to pile on additional criticism, but I do want to communicate that I share Kryptid's evaluation. There are some interesting points in there, but there are some serious flaws in the logic, math, and chemistry presented. One would do well to remember the difference between the abstract (logic and math) and the tangible (chemistry, physics, etc.). The former is often very useful for describing the essence of the latter, but there are many absurdities that arise when treating the abstract as tangible (many of these crop up within the text of this treatise).
Finally, infinity is a very tricky concept, and even the most brilliant mathematicians can get themselves tied up in knots when using it. I would recommend the book, "Infinity and the Mind," which helped me greatly when I was struggling with some of these concepts.
Thanks very much for your response. I was hoping to get in touch with some sort of experimental group that would like to try this out i.e. make the gas. Would you have any advice on that?
In terms of what i've written i know myself it is accurate from what i can see. The reasoning with the math and the logic, led me to the answer with the physical as in the checmistry and the producing of the Wg gas. This does work, i'm just looking to find a group whop may want to give it a try themselves.
Any critique or help in containg people would be appreciated
-
Thanks. I tried updating with the link andit still put the same thing in front.
I know. You have to have a certain number of posts under your belt before your links work; 20 I think.
I agree with the comments that argue against various parts of your paper, but do think that once you get comfortable with the concept of infinity when it comes to cosmology, you are the right track. Infinite space, time, and energy are the three infinities that I like to apply to the cosmology of the universe. You have not gone that far. Notice that if you invoke those three infinites, you have a universe that has always existed. That possibility did not appear as an option to you, but do you acknowledge it is another option?
Ok, still talking it through. I do know the permutation of thoughts are infinite but everyone has an opinion and i respect that but of course will dispute. Of course i have understandings in cosmology on top of this that i will document in time but, getting clean energy and better medicine to the world is my first task. In terms of space, time and energy they are infinite but just like everything else, they have a beginning too. The big bang did occur and the divine kicked it off.
-
...
Please read, be open-minded and give me a steer on where you think it should go.
It should go in the trash can.
-
We do not have a finite life span.
Even considering an eternal afterlife, the amount of time that a person has lived up to the point when they notice a 70 mph sign is finite.
Again, life goes to afterlife as does your subconscious thereby it is infinite. Never mind that, the subconsciousness records near everything you ever see,feel,hear or otherwise sense and experience, hence why hypnotists and pschologists can bring you back to your darkest deepest thoughts that you have long let vacate your consciousness. Therfore, even on earth the capacity is unbounded until you die and because you can't but a number on the capacity you can only say it is infinite for any given purpose. But main point, you have an infinite afterlife so you have an infinite subconsciousness. You might be an ahteist though?
I'm a Christian, but that's not relevant. The amount of time you spend on Earth is finite and thus the amount of knowledge that your subconscious could possibly attain on Earth is finite as well.
The large majority of people, myself included have been in a scenario where by an "..Idea, just pops into there head". Whether this is what correlates for a given person i do not know. People cam be thinking about random things maybe in response to ceratin things at times like you say, but even at that, what is the likelihood that anyone would respond to anything and have that drive their thoughts down a specific angle. For example, if i watch a programme that's about dogs and there are 70 dogs and then a few weeks/months later after my brain has interpreted millions of other thoughts and stimuli then i just happen to see a dog that makes me think about the 70 dogs and at that exact same time there happens to be a sign with 70 on it? The likelyhood is the same. You're talking about billions upon billions of thoughts before and after seeing tv and the event. The likelyhood that it would draw you back to that one thought is infinitely unlikely never mind seeing the dog to trigger it, then seeing the sign, and it to happen quick enough for your brain to interpret it all. This is impossible without assistance, there are too many thoughts and too many permutations of thoughts.
I of course agree that thoughts are triggered by outside events i.e smells, but even at that, if you smell something that triggers your memory of a person and then that person just happens to appear on television or walk around the corner at pretty much the same time, tht would be infinite to one again. Actually, that's even way further out. You're talking about the likelyhood of that smell out of all smells, combined with the likelyhood it would actually bring you back to that 1 in a billion thought, times the likelyhood the person it reminded you of would be in the position they are in for you to see them, times the likelyhood it would all happen within those exact number of seconds, perhaps 2. The probable odds are beyond numbers therefore it is the divine.
I'm enjoying this, thanks for the response.
Forget about all people. Just one person. What you actually said above compounds it higher as i've shown. If you see 70 dogs on the television then a month later, you're in the passenger seat of a car, a journey you do regularly and you flip over a page in something you are reading and you see dogs in a picture and and it instantly triggers the thought about the 70 dogs and at that exact second you look out the window and you see the number 70 on a sign! This is even more ridiculous. Firstly, the initial thought has to register in a way that it becomes meaningful. i.e. i watch suits on tv, i forget everything about it, 2 hours later....Secondly you have to be reading something that has dogs in it...i.e there is any uncountable number of things the newspaper could be broadcasting daily, yet that day it happens to be dogs and you happen to be at that exact part of the paper...Thirdly, the dogs above all the other information in the paper has to register in away so as to bring you back to that thought about 70 dogs i.e. it could bring you back to dogfish, dog fights, kennels, lassie or any countless number of things a picture of dogs could bring you back to...Fourthly, you have to look out the window at that same point in time....Fifthly, you have to notices the number 70 and it has to combine the whole way back through those thoughts and interactions for you to realise it has just happened....Although, i know it is infinite to 1 let's say at the very least this is millions times millions times millions, the number is still too big for this to even happen once in the history of time, let alone it happen to you in your life.
Furthermore, as you'll read in the paper the number system is flawed and the only number that exists in reality is "Infinity" so the thought is in essence bouncing off infinity.
This whole line of reason is self-contradictory. If you don't think that numbers exist (or that all numbers are equal to infinity), then probability calculations become meaningless and any assertions made about them become meaningless as well. You also can't say that 1 is 100% perfect because "100%" would have no meaning.
Ok, maybe the divine is hard for scientists don't believe in the afterlife because they don't see it. The coin analogy is a poor one, of course tails means tails and heads means heads. That's a physical object. What i'm talking about here is rationale, reason and logic. There is no scientific answer for this, through deduction this means it is above people and science and if it is above science it is above the universe because we can't explain it in the universe of things before us hence the only thing it can be is above the universe. If it's above the universe as a rationale and reasonable human a scientist would have to look at and accept what billions of other people all over world through the history of time have captured as being "Beyond the Universe". This information being the first information stating what it is would then have to be scientifically disproven for scientists to be right about what they are saying is beyond the universe. Perhaps in time this would happen, but not until science comes up with an answer. That said, to tell you to truth, they never will come up with a different answer because the divine did kick off the universe and they are there but of course people need reason and rationale.
According to the reasoning in your own paper, your own argument is flawed because you claim that nothing which is perfect can exist. This would mean that there is no such thing as a perfect argument, thus all arguments have flaws (including yours). So you either have to conclude that your arguments are flawed, or that some things which are flawless do indeed exist.
Let's put it short, just like a lot of scientists, if you do have logicial evidence to imply there is some answer other than your answer, you have to accept that answer until a time comes whereby you can provide a better answer. You'll find if you look around in wider science a lot of people are going back questioning everything in science, they are not relying on the past. All science needs to do this. Religion has accepted science largely speaking, it never happened the other way even though it is us scientists who are the one's playing the divine with external stimuli to produce perfect results.
That depends entirely upon how good the evidence is. "I don't know" is also perfectly acceptable.
Plus, numbers themselves are unbounded as you can see in the proof.
Your "proof" can be disproved easily. If numbers are infinite, then you could place an infinite amount of water into any container or put an infinite amount of information on any computer. You can't. Numbers are finite.
There is no such thing as finite in the universe of things. Everything is degrading/growing/changing from one form to another. Numbers are the only finite thing. There is no such thing as perfect either in the universe but the number 1 is perfect. This means they are flawed. This means they shouldn't exist. Also, when you read the proof about the number system you will see the Infinity inside the number thereby meaning they are unbounded by nature. But in there current form because they are the only thing we have that is perfect, which the universe of things can't attain, they are therefore super-natural and the people who guided introduction of them were the divine.
(1) Please demonstrate that the number 1 is perfect.
(2) Please demonstrate that perfect things cannot exist.
Ok, that's good then. If a different flame would result in a different result on the spectroscopy well then it should be different. But if the same pure white flame ends up in the same place as hydrogen well then spectroscopy is missing something. Thanks
It won't miss it. Why don't you make a video recording of you burning your white gas sample and then comparing it to a sample of hydrogen burning? If the two are truly different, then you should be able to demonstrate this on the video.
Your claimed method of producing white gas shouldn't work either, because infinite hydrogen plus infinite hydrogen is not "infinitely purer" hydrogen. It's just infinite hydrogen, like what you started with. Adding infinities doesn't get you anything other than infinity. You can't make a "bigger" infinity by adding or multiplying infinities.
Thanks, would you reccommend any other sites that may have scientists frequenting them?
This is the only one that I go to right now, but Quora and Reddit might be able to help.
-
...
Please read, be open-minded and give me a steer on where you think it should go.
It should go in the trash can.
Get back in your box ugly!...Noone wants to hear from a Boring rude chemist!..
-
...
Please read, be open-minded and give me a steer on where you think it should go.
It should go in the trash can.
Get back in your box ugly!...Noone wants to hear from a Boring rude chemist!..
You may not have noticed yet, but nobody wants to hear from someone who strings a lot of nonsense together, and then tries to pass it off as "proof" of something which is plainly false.
That's why your efforts here have been unsuccessful, and will continue to be so.
-
Even considering an eternal afterlife, the amount of time that a person has lived up to the point when they notice a 70 mph sign is finite.
of course, but we're talking about a picture of dogs combining with a memory of 70 dogs combining with a sign post within a tiny period of time. And, i'm not saying people don't regularly experience this, i'm just saying the odds are too big, that it should only have very happened once but it happens everyday so something must be causing it. I do know it is divinity, but even if it weren't you'd have to go with that anyways until something else was found to the contrary.
I'm a Christian, but that's not relevant. The amount of time you spend on Earth is finite and thus the amount of knowledge that your subconscious could possibly attain on Earth is finite as well.
That's great to know, i'm Christian too. That depends on your understanding and opinion of afterlife. When you die you can come and go from earth, hence mediums (you may not believe in that, just like in everything else, some are garbage but some are genuine), therefore your conscious and subconcious obtains knowledge from earth forever.
This whole line of reason is self-contradictory. If you don't think that numbers exist (or that all numbers are equal to infinity), then probability calculations become meaningless and any assertions made about them become meaningless as well. You also can't say that 1 is 100% perfect because "100%" would have no meaning.
Of course, using numbers while explaining they're flawed is contradictory but there is nothing else i can do. There is no other system on earth i can use to express the same thing.In reality the only number that exists is "Infinity" but you can't express much with that.
According to the reasoning in your own paper, your own argument is flawed because you claim that nothing which is perfect can exist. This would mean that there is no such thing as a perfect argument, thus all arguments have flaws (including yours). So you either have to conclude that your arguments are flawed, or that some things which are flawless do indeed exist.
Of course there are flaws. It might not be possible to create the combustion engine, the manufacturing cost of the gas
might make it an unfeasible fuel source for a long time. As you mentioned above i'm using numbers while saying they are flawed. Also, you are assuming this is all i have to give. It's not i've got a lot more so undoubtedly some of that will be flawed to. That all siad, my problem now is to get in touch with someone or some group that can take this and prove Wg exists. Why? Because it's a clean energy and the same process can be used to produce countless new medicine an this is the most important part. The deduction is to show people why it happens but the most important is in getting it done.
That depends entirely upon how good the evidence is. "I don't know" is also perfectly acceptable
Ok, fair enough, maybe with math. That said i believe there is a reason and an answer to everything, you just need to find it.
Your "proof" can be disproved easily. If numbers are infinite, then you could place an infinite amount of water into any container or put an infinite amount of information on any computer. You can't. Numbers are finite.
That's not what i've implied. I'm saying the only number that really exists is the "Infinity" number which can be found in the number itself. I do say numbers are finite, which is why they are flawed, because nothing else is. You are talking about a finitely sized container. If you had an infinitely sized container you wouldn't have that problem because universe is infinite. Also, i also have IP in computing coming up and it is to do with SAAS and from any given persons perspective they'll have infinite storage space.
(1) Please demonstrate that the number 1 is perfect.
(2) Please demonstrate that perfect things cannot exist.
(1) and (2) A number is representation of something that is 100% complete. 100% is perfection. This is not the case for everything else and the number "Infinity" itself. Everything else has some level of imperfection so the best everything
else can be is 99.99999% complete. Everything physical we make is incomplete from the time the first screw is put into the product. It's already degraded, thereby it was never 100% to begin with. Also, just look around you, there is no such thing as blemish free object . Numbers on the other hand in there basic construct are blemish free. You can never do anything to improve a number either. A number is a number and it will only ever be a number and it will only ever add the value that the number could add in the beggining. Language on the otherhand represents the "Infinity" and the reality that shows everything is imperfect. A single sentence can live on for 1000's of years impacting people all over the world in different ways hence it's value is Infinite. You can always find a flaw with how somebody has expressed something thereby giving rise to new lines of reasoning, thoughts, rationale etc. The number 1 on the otherhand means the same thing it did when it was first coined through divinity and that was 1. It is therefore, perfect from the point of creation. It can't mean anything else, you can't do anything with it and it is complete in definition therefore it is the 100% which is impossible to attain because everything else is imperfect. There is no such thing as perfection, only the strive for perfection, numbers in their raw form behave the pther way around. An example of something imperfect would be you, hence everybody in the world, hence all other life given we are the most advanced. Your table, hence all objects, hence by deduction and logic, all atoms. You can't have perfectly formed
atoms and then everything else is not perfect.
It won't miss it. Why don't you make a video recording of you burning your white gas sample and then comparing it to a sample of hydrogen burning? If the two are truly different, then you should be able to demonstrate this on the video.
Your claimed method of producing white gas shouldn't work either, because infinite hydrogen plus infinite hydrogen is not "infinitely purer" hydrogen. It's just infinite hydrogen, like what you started with. Adding infinities doesn't get you anything other than infinity. You can't make a "bigger" infinity by adding or multiplying infinities.
I think that's what i'm going to have to do. I was hoping i didn't have to do it and that i'd get in touch with some people who might want towork with me to give it a go but that mightn't be possible. I'm trying to get in touch with chemistry contract companies this week and i'll see how it goes.
Adding infinity to infinity, in accordance to the Hotel scenario you mentioned above results in infinte objects being added into infinite objects thereby still giving "Infinity". That said i said an "Infinitely purer". My case, is, this Wg is a new element, created by combining hydrogen elements and it therefore has a much better flame because it is "Infinitely purer" than hydrogen.
Thanks again for your response
-
...
Please read, be open-minded and give me a steer on where you think it should go.
It should go in the trash can.
Get back in your box ugly!...Noone wants to hear from a Boring rude chemist!..
You may not have noticed yet, but nobody wants to hear from someone who strings a lot of nonsense together, and then tries to pass it off as "proof" of something which is plainly false.
That's why your efforts here have been unsuccessful, and will continue to be so.
This is a "Forum" ! .... Do you know what a Forum is ? .....It's for discussions you Ugly Monkey.....They're supposed to have differing opinions......Who are you, mother goose?.....The nice people posting are all grown up.....they can just sign off if they're not interested in it............"That's why your efforts..." .....I don't know what you're reading. My efforts have been very successful.....I'm getting to talk to a number of great people which is what i was looking for......Look, no need to throw your toys out of the pram, just go to a thread you do like!
-
...
Please read, be open-minded and give me a steer on where you think it should go.
It should go in the trash can.
Get back in your box ugly!...Noone wants to hear from a Boring rude chemist!..
You may not have noticed yet, but nobody wants to hear from someone who strings a lot of nonsense together, and then tries to pass it off as "proof" of something which is plainly false.
That's why your efforts here have been unsuccessful, and will continue to be so.
This is a "Forum" ! .... Do you know what a Forum is ? .....It's for discussions you Ugly Monkey.....They're supposed to have differing opinions......Who are you, mother goose?.....The nice people posting are all grown up.....they can just sign off if they're not interested in it............"That's why your efforts..." .....I don't know what you're reading. My efforts have been very successful.....I'm getting to talk to a number of great people which is what i was looking for......Look, no need to throw your toys out of the pram, just go to a thread you do like!
Have you really not noticed that you are being told that you are wrong by all of these grown up people.
Incidentally, calling people names isn't very grown up. It's also a breach of the forum rules.
-
I give up.
-
If everything is infinite then the extent of scientists' knowledge of the OP's idea is already infinite, and there is no need for anyone to spread it further.
There is no need to promote it because its "promotedness" is already infinite.
On the other hand, f there is a need to promote it then the extent to which it is known is finite and thus provides a counter-example to the original hypothesis.
-
...
Please read, be open-minded and give me a steer on where you think it should go.
It should go in the trash can.
Get back in your box ugly!...Noone wants to hear from a Boring rude chemist!..
You may not have noticed yet, but nobody wants to hear from someone who strings a lot of nonsense together, and then tries to pass it off as "proof" of something which is plainly false.
That's why your efforts here have been unsuccessful, and will continue to be so.
This is a "Forum" ! .... Do you know what a Forum is ? .....It's for discussions you Ugly Monkey.....They're supposed to have differing opinions......Who are you, mother goose?.....The nice people posting are all grown up.....they can just sign off if they're not interested in it............"That's why your efforts..." .....I don't know what you're reading. My efforts have been very successful.....I'm getting to talk to a number of great people which is what i was looking for......Look, no need to throw your toys out of the pram, just go to a thread you do like!
Have you really not noticed that you are being told that you are wrong by all of these grown up people.
Incidentally, calling people names isn't very grown up. It's also a breach of the forum rules.
Of course i can see people are having a different opinion. That would be a standard thing. I guess the proof would be in the creation of the gas.
-
I give up.
Ok, Kryptid, thanks for your time. One last question : Would the creation of the Wg gas i talk about change your opinion on the rest or would you still have the same opinion?
-
If everything is infinite then the extent of scientists' knowledge of the OP's idea is already infinite, and there is no need for anyone to spread it further.
There is no need to promote it because its "promotedness" is already infinite.
On the other hand, f there is a need to promote it then the extent to which it is known is finite and thus provides a counter-example to the original hypothesis.
Read back again. Your consciousness and your subconsciousness is infinite, it lasts forever. What knowledge someone fills it with it their choice. Infinite means "limitless or endless in space"...it does not mean "Everything" which is what you are implying. How can an idea be "..endless in space"? How can "promotedness" be "....endless in space"? So what you are saying is completely irrelevant. Also, yes, this will live on infinitely until the sites it is on dies thereby it is will have infinite life. That said, "Infinite" can consist of anything and doesn't consist of everything hence of course there is a need to promote. This need to promote is nothing to do with what's in the document. Read it again, it was talking about the Universe being limitless as well as things in the universe being limitless based on them changing from one form to another.
Again, maybe producing the gas will silence all of this, then again maybe not, some people tend to look at books and look at what other people are writing and producing and then let that dictate their opinion when anything new comes up. When i do get Wg created you will see a Star on Earth and a new element and it also proves a lot more that matter.
So, any help in finding people who may be able to work with me to create and prove this would be appreciated.
-
Read back again. Your consciousness and your subconsciousness is infinite,
No it very clearly isn't.
At best it might be semi infinite.
It doesn't go bck infinitely into the past. (I rather doubt it will go infinitlely far into the future too). Infinite means "limitless or endless in space"...it does not mean "Everything" which is what you are implying. How can an idea be "..endless in space"? How can "promotedness" be "....endless in space"?
Good point, but if it is true that, for example, an idea can not be "endless in space" then, by your own definition, it can not be infinite.
And it is, therefore, a counter-example to your claim that everything is infinite.
-
I give up.
Ok, Kryptid, thanks for your time. One last question : Would the creation of the Wg gas i talk about change your opinion on the rest or would you still have the same opinion?
Not most of it, no. Finding a way to make a new substance would not automatically mean that the rest of your arguments are correct.
-
I give up.
Ok, Kryptid, thanks for your time. One last question : Would the creation of the Wg gas i talk about change your opinion on the rest or would you still have the same opinion?
Not most of it, no. Finding a way to make a new substance would not automatically mean that the rest of your arguments are correct.
Ok, we'll have to agree to disagree then. I enjoyed the conversation though. Thanks
-
No it very clearly isn't.
At best it might be semi infinite.
It doesn't go bck infinitely into the past. (I rather doubt it will go infinitlely far into the future too)
When you include the afterlife which is infinite, yes both do last forever. With respect to the past and future, you'd
be surprised. A lot of people in history have been able to predict the future accurately, too accurately to be lucky and
I think you are able to go back to the past as well using your consciousness. Nevermind that though, just like the big bang, your consciousness has an origin and it lasts infinitely after that between life and afterlife.
Good point, but if it is true that, for example, an idea can not be "endless in space" then, by your own definition, it can not be infinite.
And it is, therefore, a counter-example to your claim that everything is infinite.
Where do you get idea? Anyways, if you write something down, such as what we are doing now, that is endless in space as in, the space being the forum and endless meaning, until someone takes it down or the site goes, it lives forever. Same with an idea? If the idea is good enough i.e. E=MC2, it can last forever until someone comes up with something better.