Creation of the Big Bang!

Marvellous Patrick, absolutely marvellous…your diagram says it all.

You should rush to publish straight away. This idea obviously has a multitude of applications and makes many predictions about our universe, as any good theory should, and I'm just getting in the way now.

(P.S. I was tempted to mention the oddity of a scale that goes from 1cm to infinity then to 2cm, but you'll just accuse me of deliberately misunderstanding, and makis will tell me off for mentioning maths/numbers etc, so I won't (ooops!))
<img src=icon_smile_blush.gif border=0 align=middle>

<BLOCKQUOTE id=quote><font size=2 face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id=quote>quote:<hr height=1 noshade id=quote>

Please don't get upset, but.... can I be bold enough to ask you to consider, 0*0=inf or 0/0=inf, without hurting you too bad?

<hr height=1 noshade id=quote></BLOCKQUOTE id=quote></font id=quote><font face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" size=2 id=quote>

0*0 = 0

0**0 = undetermined or illegal opearation and so is 0/0

That's far I can go Patrick and avoid getting dogmatic.

I consider 0 as an Operator that transformed inf into Everything, although someone could consider inf as the Opearator that turned 0 into Everything. As a matter of fact, it might be a interchangable Operation.

I must stay away from the notion that 0 created Everything. You need two constituents for creation. The medium and the agent. Am I clear on that?

<BLOCKQUOTE id=quote><font size=2 face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id=quote>quote:<hr height=1 noshade id=quote>

1. An entity.
2. The primary constituent of everything that does, did, or can, exist.
3. The highest, most pure form of existence.
4. Responsible for the creation of everything including time and space.
5. The only thing that is truly infinite.
6 The only constituent that is not reliant upon anything else for its own existence.
7. Provable through mathematics. The entire mathematical proof of “ZERO” is simply the number “0” itself.

<hr height=1 noshade id=quote></BLOCKQUOTE id=quote></font id=quote><font face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" size=2 id=quote>

I submit to all of the abobe but 5.

Also, 4 needs furher explanation. The word "responsible" is not enough, or even appropriate, to explain "creation". Although 1,2,3,5,6 & 7 describe properties, 4 describes a mechanism for Creation, not a property.

My view (for whatever it worths):

4. Zero and infinity created everything. Zero alone did nothing. Also, I suggest you ingore time. Time may have been created as a due process attributed to the primary creation of space.

5. Zero is 0, not infinity. (because if it were infinite, Creation would never happen and the Universe would remain a singularity, i.e. 0. Therefore, duality of zero and infinity must be rejected, or if admitted, it leads to Theological domains.

Also, 6 may be a corollary of 2&3.

Patrick, I highly doubt you can go any further than this without invoking either Unicorns or Gods, or both.

One more time,

Any experiements out there? None. Well, some have proposed an experiement in semantics? I say lets pass on that one.

The problem with this whole forum is a redefinition of terms, which incapacitates any hope of real experiment.

Patrick, you have skillfully separated "zero" from "nothingness," and then asserted that mathematics is a tool to prove your theory.

"Everything" is an operation of affirmation. Linguistically, all dialogue [ie. in these forums] and all calculations [in experiment] using units of meaning can only operate in terms of affirmation (ie. "1"; real measurability).

Negation, nothingness ("0") will ultimately destroy meaning (linguistically), and destroy its own usefullness (experimentally), resulting in inapplicability.

Therefore, we have no other option than to operate from the foundation of existence: "1" (ie. the singularity of measurability).

Dissolution and negation ("nothingness"), or existence and affirmation (infinity). Let this forum be clear... these are your choices, devoid of mathematical proofs.

[quote}

Does anybody have any input on this?(Makis, Atko, anybody)

1) x = y
2) x^2 = xy (multiply both sides by x)
3) x^2 - y^2 = xy - y^2 (subtract y^2 from each side)
4 (x + y)(x - y) = y(x - y) (factor)
5) x + y = y (divide out (x - y))
6) 2y = y (substitute y for x from #1)
7) 2 = 1

Ali Khounsary, Ph.D.
Advanced Photon Source
Argonne National Laboratory
=========================================================
This is not really a mathematical crisis. It follows quite naturally fromthe definition of the of the operation we call multiplication, or put another way, the definition we give to the symbol "1".


[/quote]


This is an not an example of mathematical crisis Patrick but one of total mathematical ignorance to the point of tragedy.

In step 4, you can only divide by x-y, if and only x is not equal to y. But in step 1, you have alredy defined x=y. Therefore, division by x-y is not allowed, actually produces a singularity.

In other words, the crisis is caused intentionally by incorporating it in the premises in advance. A similar example goes as:

(x-1)/(x+1) + (x+1)/(x-1) = 2

Makis, Ff.D (grades I give for the problem)
Advanced Joke studies
International Laboratory for Common Sense

If you solve the above equation for x, you get: 2 = -2

However, notice this:

If Z = (x-1)/(x+1) then the bogus equation above reduces to:

Z + (1/Z) = 1, which has imaginary roots for Z: ( -1+-i*sqrt(3)/2)

Why is there wrong? The wrong act is stating that a number Z plus its inverse equals 2. That cannot be held true for any Z in R - {1}. But is Z =1, then x-1 = x+1. That is, we again intentionally use invalid premises to generate invalid conclusions.

There is nothing wrong with mathematics. What is wrong is its use in an invalid way. Both examples, yours and mine illustrate invalid use of mathematical principles.

<BLOCKQUOTE id=quote><font size=2 face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id=quote>quote:<hr height=1 noshade id=quote>

Perhaps a new paradox, "Patricks Paradox":
1). Does "0" equal "nothing"?
2). If "0" does not equal "nothing" then what does it equal?
3). If "0" does equal "nothing" then how does "nothing" exist?

<hr height=1 noshade id=quote></BLOCKQUOTE id=quote></font id=quote><font face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" size=2 id=quote>

This is an Aristotelian tautology of the form P v notP. Always true, so there is no need to answer anything if expressed that way. It is either nothing or something.

A fourth option is that zero is nothing everywhere except in a set with measure zero. This allows existence for zero, although in a heterological sense (antinonies). Therefore, the notion of zero maybe self contradictory in logical context but exist only beyond comprehensibility or observability. Metaphysics? Maybe, zero is a metaphysical concept.