[Ve9aPrim3 (OP)]

I have been racking my brain trying to decompile the universe as of late, and this is what I have so far.

1.The Universe is considered to be made of Spacetime

2. Spacetime can be defined as f(x)=0

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

4. How do I balance that? I conclude that one side of the equation is denser than the other and I start modelling what that might look like on a graph.

5. I decided my graph should represent a multiverse with each square representing a separate universe since that's what seemed like a logical place for me to start.

6. After a few revisions, I then came up with an equation... Kind of. Looking at it, it makes no sense, it's lopsided, but that does fit with my prediction about an uneven yet balanced equation. It came out like this:

(f(x)≠0)±(f(x)=(∞<1)/(∞≥1))

I see Quantum Foam. The "f(x)=0" of a multiverse. The reason it's lopsided is because it's balanced at "±" instead of "=".
I think I found it. Is this possibly correct? I really feel like I'm onto something with this.

[guest39538]

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

What?

And what is quantum foam ?

[guest39538]

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

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quantum_foam

Space-time at small scales looks like space,  I would not waste anymore time on this if I was you. 

[Ve9aPrim3 (OP)]

Quantum Foam can easiest be described as 3 dimensions of quantum space plus one of time. Almost exactly like real space only not as neat and tidy. It's messy and chaotic, and next to impossible to work with.

Turning 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.

[guest39538]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quantum_foam

Turning 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 . 

[Ve9aPrim3 (OP)]

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

What?

And what is quantum foam ?

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

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quantum_foam

Space-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.

[guest39538]

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

What?

And what is quantum foam ?

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

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quantum_foam

Space-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.

Then ƒ: 0 = 0

[Ve9aPrim3 (OP)]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quantum_foam

Turning 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 .

All very true. However I am not thinking about a singular universe.

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

My equation is proposing the structure of the multiverses. It's more like a compilation formula.
Messing with Quantum Mechanics has always yielded unpredictable results. I'm proposing those results find their way into the equation, and spit out the resulting universe on the other side. That's also why it's balanced on a ± symbol instead of =. It needs to be flexible enough to accept a variety of different inputs, while rigid enough to weed out absolutely impossible scenarios.

[Colin2B]

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

A great many functions =0 and they dont describe a singular universe. You need to be far more specific.
Describing spactime as f(x)=0 is not describing anything unless you are being more specific. You need a better transform for inside out space than just making it nonzero.
If your ideas are meaningful rather than random scribblings you can describe better in words, then notation can follow.

[Ve9aPrim3 (OP)]

A great many functions =0 and they dont describe a singular universe. You need to be far more specific.
Describing spactime as f(x)=0 is not describing anything unless you are being more specific. You need a better transform for inside out space than just making it nonzero.
If your ideas are meaningful rather than random scribblings you can describe better in words, then notation can follow.
[/quote]

Thank you, your suggestion helps me a great deal.
Ok, here goes...

The state of the universe as far as it is believed before the Big Bang to be was a hot dense soup of protomatter, just floating around until one day it collapsed in on itself and expanded.

An expanded universe can be described as f(x)=0
A collapsed multiverse can be described as (f(x)≠0)±(f(x)=(∞<1)/(∞≥1))

And so the multiverse as a whole that we live in can then fully be described as:

(f(x)=0)/(f(x)≠0)±(f(x)=(∞<1)/(∞≥1))

It's cyclical.

[Colin2B]

You say “An expanded universe can be described as f(x)=0”
You previously said:
1.The Universe is considered to be made of Spacetime
2. Spacetime can be defined as f(x)=0
But 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.

You will also need to explain how an expanded universe can be described by f(x)=0.

Otherwise this is all hot air and we’ll leave tou to Mr Box.

[Ve9aPrim3 (OP)]

You say “An expanded universe can be described as f(x)=0”
You previously said:
1.The Universe is considered to be made of Spacetime
2. Spacetime can be defined as f(x)=0
But 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.

Gladly.
I hereby officially present the Universal constant to the world..
I'm gonna call it the IOU, and you'll soon see why.

IF
expanded universe = (f(x)=x)
AND
IF
collapsed multiverse = (f(x)≠x)±(f(x)/(∞<1)/(∞≥1))
 Inside out universe (IOU)
THEN
(f(x)=x)/(f(x)≠x)±(f(x)/(∞<1)/(∞≥1))
(x/∞)±(x/∞)
±(x/∞)
±∞
∞
ELSE
∅

[Colin2B]

Well, if you are not going to bother to answer the question I’m out of here.

[guest39538]

My 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?

[Ve9aPrim3 (OP)]

My 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.

(∞∅)=((f(x)=x)/(f(x)≠x)+(f(x)=((x<1)/(x≥1)))

I mean on paper working with (f(x)=x) is fine to figure out how to engineer with rock and stuff..

[guest39538]

My 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..

Well, in a multi-verse scenario,    ƒ: x = λ  and directly proportional to the inverse for each/all universes, based on human sight limitation.

[Ve9aPrim3 (OP)]

ƒ: x = λ

That's limiting.
What about?

Z=((f(x)=x)/(f(x)≠x)+(f(x)=((x<1)/(x≥1)))

The left side is whole numbers, the right is everything in between.

[guest39538]

ƒ: x = λ

That'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

I am limited to simplification math, I do not yet understand what you just put, I am presently learning algebra etc.

A multi-verse is easy to explain without any complexity.     Each observer in their respective observable Universe can only observe so far.  The multi-verse is not divided by boundaries , it is divided by limitations of sight relative to light intensity etc.

So one simple equation would be true for each observable  ''realm''.

ƒ:x = c / k     where c is light and k is space

[Ve9aPrim3 (OP)]

So one simple equation would be true for each observable  ''realm''.

ƒ:x = c / k     where c is light and k is space

I'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" Mwahaha
Seriously. 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=x
y=f(x)
f(x)=x
z≠f(x)
z≠x
z≠y

Solve 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)))

[guest39538]

So one simple equation would be true for each observable  ''realm''.

ƒ:x = c / k     where c is light and k is space

I'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" Mwahaha
Seriously. 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=x
y=f(x)
f(x)=x
z≠f(x)
z≠x
z≠y

Solve 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)))

x=y=z

or do you mean something else by Z?