0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

3. Turning Spacetime inside out could be defined as f(x)≠0

it is impossible to be certain what space-time would look like at small scales.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quantum_foamTurning the universe inside out let's us manipulate it's growth trajectory and ultimate shape once we flip it back over to f(x)=0 later.

Quote from: Ve9aPrim3 on 15/02/2018 11:15:403. Turning Spacetime inside out could be defined as f(x)≠0What? And what is quantum foam ?

Quote it is impossible to be certain what space-time would look like at small scales.https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quantum_foamSpace-time at small scales looks like space, I would not waste anymore time on this if I was you.

Quote from: Thebox on 15/02/2018 11:17:37Quote from: Ve9aPrim3 on 15/02/2018 11:15:403. Turning Spacetime inside out could be defined as f(x)≠0What? And what is quantum foam ? Quote from: Thebox on 15/02/2018 11:20:43Quote it is impossible to be certain what space-time would look like at small scales.https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quantum_foamSpace-time at small scales looks like space, I would not waste anymore time on this if I was you. I understand spacetime at small scale looks like spacetime. I'm assuming it looks like spacetime on a scale larger than our universe as well. That's my point. It's called symmetry of scale and is a fundamental principle of Chaos Theory.

Quote from: Ve9aPrim3 on 15/02/2018 11:22:47https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quantum_foamTurning the universe inside out let's us manipulate it's growth trajectory and ultimate shape once we flip it back over to f(x)=0 later. The Universe has no shape, what we call a shape of the Universe is ''dots'' outlining a volume of space. A formation defined by the spherical sight boundary. In other words if we were any given position in an infinite space, our observable Universe would always look ''spherical'' because the observer is always centre of the observation. Quantum foam and turning the Universe inside out makes no logical sense whatever .

A singular universe is described as f(x)=0

You say An expanded universe can be described as f(x)=0You previously said:1.The Universe is considered to be made of Spacetime2. Spacetime can be defined as f(x)=0But you havent said what f(x) is. I will be amazed when you reveal how spacetime can be described by a single variable.Show please.

My equation is proposing the structure of the multiverses. It's more like a compilation formula. .

Quote from: Ve9aPrim3 on 15/02/2018 11:44:39My equation is proposing the structure of the multiverses. It's more like a compilation formula. . What multi-verse? So you want to make a formula to describe something at this time , that is of the imagination?

Quote from: Thebox on 15/02/2018 23:41:10Quote from: Ve9aPrim3 on 15/02/2018 11:44:39My equation is proposing the structure of the multiverses. It's more like a compilation formula. . What multi-verse? So you want to make a formula to describe something at this time , that is of the imagination?In short, yes.I'm trying to conceptualize working with quadratics, but with all whole numbers unavailable, rendering all work done at the Micro/Macro level, effectively cutting off the Meso level where the whole world operates on physics with half an equation for some reason.I mean on paper working with (f(x)=x) is fine to figure out how to engineer with rock and stuff..

: x = λ

Quote from: Thebox on 16/02/2018 01:00:16: x = λThat's limiting.What about?(∞∅)=((f(x)=x)/(f(x)≠x)+(f(x)=((x<1)/(x≥1)))The left side is whole numbers, the right is everything in between... I suppose (∞∅)=1 works just as well

So one simple equation would be true for each observable ''realm''. :x = c / k where c is light and k is space

Quote from: Thebox on 16/02/2018 01:12:44So one simple equation would be true for each observable ''realm''. :x = c / k where c is light and k is spaceI'm trying to stay away from observable physics. I'm trying to find their shadow.I'm trying to work exclusively in the "Shadow Realm" MwahahaSeriously. I did ace Sophomore Math but I never took anything beyond that, I don't even have a GED, and that's why I'm here. To propose my vision and try to make it fit in practice.Everybody pictures Spacetime as smooth, others as a chaotic mess of waves and such and trying to understand it with strings and all sorts of nonsense, picturing a virtual world rather than a real one. I propose that they are both right.Starting Quadratics, I asked my teacher if we ever solved for Z? He told me no, that's why we solve for f(x) instead.OK...?so,y=xy=f(x)f(x)=xz≠f(x)z≠xz≠ySolve for Z I got this...Z=(f(x)=x)Z≠(f(x)≠x)±(f(x)=(x<1)/(x≥1))Z=((f(x)=x)/(f(x)≠x)+(f(x)=((x<1)/(x≥1)))