Logic model for quantizing a real infinity: Proof of the universe by God.

[Usus Vox Tractus]

Twaddle with knobs on.

Sounds like the next Radiohead album.

Thanks for sticking around and for your encouragement Received!

 

[Usus Vox Tractus]

Let me show you where we are going: I am describing a universe as a lofted hologram of 10 place holders. What I described just prior is the 1st tier out of 4. The 1st tier makes the ceiling sphere (10), the star-tet field (8), the space contained by the field (9), and the central self expression (1)

The next tiers we will get to in order.

There are 4 tiers that unfold to make the total top universal Image of 6 nested bends of space time. We and all this lightest type matter is contained by one of them and over lapped by another 1.5.

So our area of space time is set into motion for a "4th" direction. And this is 4d space-time modern science uses.

The existence of our bend is dependent on the loft of the other 5 bends. 6 are required to make "1".


Even briefer: 10 unified, yanked into 10 lofted (individualized), that creates 6 4d time-spaces.



String theory anyone?

Also from the physics department of the university of Oregon: unification, spacetime foam, quantum vacuum, quantum fluctuations

The Universe expands from the moment of the Big Bang, but until the Universe reaches the size of the Planck scale, there is no time or space. Time remains undefined, space is compactified. String theory maintains that the Universe had 10 dimensions during the Planck era, which collapses into 4 at the end of the Planck era (think of those extra 6 dimensions as being very, very small hyperspheres inbetween the space between elementary particles, 4 big dimensions and 6 little tiny ones).

During the Planck era, the Universe can be best described as a quantum foam of 10 dimensions containing Planck length sized black holes continuously being created and annihilated with no cause or effect. In other words, try not to think about this era in normal terms.




So I use abnormal and highly functional terms to describe these things.


Oh yeah, there was no big bang, it was a great contraction!


Are we having fun yet?

 

[Ana the Ist]

Let me show you where we are going: I am describing a universe as a lofted hologram of 10 place holders. What I described just prior is the 1st tier out of 4. The 1st tier makes the ceiling sphere (10), the star-tet field (8), the space contained by the field (9), and the central self expression (1)

The next tiers we will get to in order.

There are 4 tiers that unfold to make the total top universal Image of 6 nested bends of space time. We and all this lightest type matter is contained by one of them and over lapped by another 1.5.

So our area of space time is set into motion for a "4th" direction. And this is 4d space-time modern science uses.

The existence of our bend is dependent on the loft of the other 5 bends. 6 are required to make "1".


Even briefer: 10 unified, yanked into 10 lofted (individualized), that creates 6 4d time-spaces.



String theory anyone?

Also from the physics department of the university of Oregon: unification, spacetime foam, quantum vacuum, quantum fluctuations

The Universe expands from the moment of the Big Bang, but until the Universe reaches the size of the Planck scale, there is no time or space. Time remains undefined, space is compactified. String theory maintains that the Universe had 10 dimensions during the Planck era, which collapses into 4 at the end of the Planck era (think of those extra 6 dimensions as being very, very small hyperspheres inbetween the space between elementary particles, 4 big dimensions and 6 little tiny ones).

During the Planck era, the Universe can be best described as a quantum foam of 10 dimensions containing Planck length sized black holes continuously being created and annihilated with no cause or effect. In other words, try not to think about this era in normal terms.




So I use abnormal and highly functional terms to describe these things.


Oh yeah, there was no big bang, it was a great contraction!


Are we having fun yet?

Well it's amusing....don't know about fun.... but definitely amusing.

 

[Ana the Ist]

Let me give this a try....

I'm now going to mathematically prove the "oneness" of god....

God describes himself as "I AM"...if god is indeed a singular entity, this should work both forwards and backwards. So god described backwards is "AM I".

So both forwards and backwards god described looks like "I AM I".

What's a synonym for "AM"? Well...since its a state of being, we can call it "Equals" or =....

Therefore God forwards and backwards is "I=I" or "1=1"...God's oneness proven mathematically.

Since god is a singular entity, and singular is the root of singularity...

The big bang began with a singularity! Big bang physics anyone?!? God=1=singularity=Big bang!

I'm awesome!

 

[Usus Vox Tractus]

Let me give this a try....

I'm now going to mathematically prove the "oneness" of god....

God describes himself as "I AM"...if god is indeed a singular entity, this should work both forwards and backwards. So god described backwards is "AM I".

So both forwards and backwards god described looks like "I AM I".

What's a synonym for "AM"? Well...since its a state of being, we can call it "Equals" or =....

Therefore God forwards and backwards is "I=I" or "1=1"...God's oneness proven mathematically.

Since god is a singular entity, and singular is the root of singularity...



The big bang began with a singularity! Big bang physics anyone?!? God=1=singularity=Big bang!

I'm awesome!

Yes you are!

Now unfold a super-symmetric, finely tuned metaverse out of ONE and then you'll be cooking!



Oh and I detect a flaw in you logic progress: "I AM" backwards is "MA I".
So God forwards and backwards is "IAMMMAI" pronounced "Ee-yah-mai" or "yummy"

God is fact, delicious.

 

[Ana the Ist]

Yes you are!

Now unfold a super-symmetric, finely tuned metaverse out of ONE and then you'll be cooking!



Oh and I detect a flaw in you logic progress: "I AM" backwards is "MA I".
So God forwards and backwards is "IAMMMAI" pronounced "Ee-yah-mai" or "yummy"

God is fact, delicious.

It's not about reversing letters, it's about reversing the order of the words. God is in the meaning, not the symbols.

 

[znr]

Offs.

 

[Usus Vox Tractus]

It's not about reversing letters, it's about reversing the order of the words. God is in the meaning, not the symbols.

Sheesh, tough crowd, alright have it your way. Meaning!



"I AM" or Yah, is only half the Divine Name. YHVH is the whole thing


YHVH I approach in a number of ways: First I strip the idea of all anthropomorphism. Then I look at its meaning most often translated "I am that I am" as a statement of God's complete self determination.

It's hieroglyphic expression is "Hand/Work/Throw/Worship (Y), Behold/Look/Reveal/Breathe (H), Add/Secure/Hook/Peg/Nail (V), Behold/Look/Reveal/Breathe (H).

Stacked vertically in Hebrew letters it makes head, arms, body, legs.

It's numerical expression is 10,5,6,5. Your DNA is a super conductive 10 point rotating spiral crystal antennae that fires photons in all directions. It is only 10 atoms wide.

If you read sideways counting the atoms of the ring molecules that make up each complete horizontal rung in your DNA, it would read 55665 or 56655.


This next one is a mind stretcher:

Consider the whole universe as a "10" and as a single sphere within an ABC repeating sphere stack (infinite spheres packed together as a vector equilibrium, look up FCC sphere packing): Where a single sphere is touched by the sphere planes above and below is at 1.618ish the way from the pole of the sphere to the equator.

1.618 is phi found in the perfect harmony of cross sections in a pentagram. 5 point star.

When you get to the next contact point of other universes traveling downward, you are at the equator of a single universe. 6 spheres pack in horizon perfectly around a central 7th equal sized sphere. The next contact point is the lower orbital plane at 1.618 from equator to pole. Last is the bottom pole (10) that spins off towards the next universe 3 levels downwards in the stack.

So reading as a vertical line down the stack of infinite universe and "smearing" around a single sphere I read a repeating vertical patterning influence of 10,5,6,5,10,5,6,5,10,5,6,5 etc repeating forever. (Because sphere planes are continuously being created at the bottom of the stack by The Word.)

Every vertical line of travel in the infinite metaversal sphere stack reads YHVHYHVHYHVHYH, etc....



Those are some of my appreciations for the meaning of the Name of God.

 

[Usus Vox Tractus]

Supporting logic for the 3 spatial and 1 energetic implicate orders in the Infinite Saturate before the beginning.


The implicate order of an infinite absolute Nothing: The Nothing is all around itself equally in all directions. Nothing is at the center of The Nothing at every point. There is nothing at every point simultaneously.

These are its 3 infinite spatial relationships with each other. Same as an infinite saturate.

The nothing is at the same energy level at all points (no energy). Same as an Infinite saturate only the I.S. is at full rest energy. (hot enough to destroy all atomic matter)


So hopefully you can now see, what I have been describing are orders implicate in space itself.


The 3 spatial relationships in the I.S. inverts and becomes the 3 structural relationships within the universe. Extremely high rest energy in the I.S. gets flattened to perfect stillness within the universe...so we can move and have our being.

 

[VProud]

Let me give this a try....

I'm now going to mathematically prove the "oneness" of god....

God describes himself as "I AM"...if god is indeed a singular entity, this should work both forwards and backwards. So god described backwards is "AM I".

So both forwards and backwards god described looks like "I AM I".

What's a synonym for "AM"? Well...since its a state of being, we can call it "Equals" or =....

Therefore God forwards and backwards is "I=I" or "1=1"...God's oneness proven mathematically.

Since god is a singular entity, and singular is the root of singularity...

The big bang began with a singularity! Big bang physics anyone?!? God=1=singularity=Big bang!

I'm awesome!

The Big Bang did not start with what you think a singularity is, sorry.
A singularity has nothing to do with something being singular, it's just a place or time that we cannot explain.

We are all ourselves, so 'I Am I' can apply to all things.

Anyway, Am is not synonymous with '='.
2+1 = 3
But the 2 and the 1 can exist as separate entitles, there for 2 + 1 is the same as 3 in sum value only, and is not inherently the same thing.

Also, I think I've been forgotten by the OP. :/

 

[Usus Vox Tractus]

The Big Bang did not start with what you think a singularity is, sorry.
A singularity has nothing to do with something being singular, it's just a place or time that we cannot explain.

We are all ourselves, so 'I Am I' can apply to all things.

Anyway, Am is not synonymous with '='.
2+1 = 3
But the 2 and the 1 can exist as separate entitles, there for 2 + 1 is the same as 3 in sum value only, and is not inherently the same thing.

Also, I think I've been forgotten by the OP. :/

I didn't forget about you, I answered you a page or two ago....I'll go look for it...


Doesn't the BB story describe an issuing of all time/space and matter/energy from a monocentric point? Where all time-space and matter/energy is one?

Maybe all the laws of physics and mathematics break down "back there" because things did not arise in that manner. It would never ever work out.

 

[Usus Vox Tractus]

I think I'm about done here anyway. I've learned a great deal about what not to say and how to not say it.

If no one is interested further in the Image of God / Kingdom of Heaven and how it logically unfolds all the parameters of existence inside us and all around us, I won't waste anyone's times. Especially my own.



It seems few can summon a Zen/childlike mind to consider an idea on it's own merits. Most are quickly sacked into ignorance by their own preconceive notions and paradigms. Such is the current state of humanity.

 

[VProud]

I didn't forget about you, I answered you a page or two ago....I'll go look for it...


Doesn't the BB story describe an issuing of all time/space and matter/energy from a monocentric point? Where all time-space and matter/energy is one?

Maybe all the laws of physics and mathematics break down "back there" because things did not arise in that manner. It would never ever work out.

I shall find it then.

Anyway, no, the BB theory never states that, it's a common misconception, it's actually got nothing to do with the 'creation' of anything.

Here: http://www.christianforums.com/t7836696/ Check the video. ^-^

 

[Usus Vox Tractus]

I shall find it then.

Anyway, no, the BB theory never states that, it's a common misconception, it's actually got nothing to do with the 'creation' of anything.

Here: http://www.christianforums.com/t7836696/ Check the video. ^-^

I can't watch vids, at DL limit for the month.


Would you describe the correct BB scenario for me?

Edit: reading your thread now, thank you VProud!

 

[bhsmte]

I think I'm about done here anyway. I've learned a great deal about what not to say and how to not say it.

If no one is interested further in the Image of God / Kingdom of Heaven and how it logically unfolds all the parameters of existence inside us and all around us, I won't waste anyone's times. Especially my own.



It seems few can summon a Zen/childlike mind to consider an idea on it's own merits. Most are quickly sacked into ignorance by their own preconceive notions and paradigms. Such is the current state of humanity.

Not everyone thinks like you, or has your psychological makeup. So, when you present something, without objective evidence to support it, that is what is to be expected.

You do have solace though, in having your own hypothesis, that seems to work for you.

 

[VProud]

I can't watch vids, at DL limit for the month.


Would you describe the correct BB scenario for me?

Certainly, what it essentially says is this: we observe space to be expanding, therefor it is logical to assume that the further back in time you go, the more dense and hot it is.

Using fancy mathematics, we can make a good guess that this expansion started about 13.8 billion years ago, unfortunately before that space is so hot and dense that we cannot predict much.

Our observable universe (Which is at the very least 20 times smaller than the entire universe) would have been compressed into a smaller area than it is now, but not a single point in space. It's usually cited as being about 3.4 parsecs across.

This gives rise to three situations:
-The universe is infinite, which is most likely, essentially it can expand and contract without limits, similarly as to how you can expand and contract the gaps between numbers on the number-line and still have it be infinitely long.

-The universe is finite, with an infinite space-time differential. Essentially, the universe is like the 2D surface of a 3D balloon, and expansions is like the balloon being blown up. (Imagine I put two dots on the balloon and blew it up, they would move further apart.) Translate that into a 3D universe on a 4D (Or 9D according to some people) balloon.

-There was a universe before this one, which collapsed, and this universe expanded out of the old one. Like some kind of cosmic 'reset' button.

Other than that, it draws no conclusions. It really has nothing to do with the ultimate creation of The Universe, Matter or Energy. And it is most certainly not a 'bang' of any kind. It really is just 'We can see that space is expanding, therefor we think...'

 

[Usus Vox Tractus]

So in essence the BB scenario is saying the same thing I am: It was space that was created. I just achieve it by contraction rather than inflation.

Using the balloon example of expansion; the same expansive motion of the surface of the balloon can be achieved by decreasing external pressure as with increasing internal pressure.

I'm saying the former (decrease in external pressure) is more likely because it produces a much more predictive model, and the prediction line up with every thing modern science is finding out about the universe.

For instance, My model predicts the universe patterns for only 3 stable density levels of quarks to make atoms. This has been "proven" by modern science to a surety level of sigma 5.3. I don't know what the heck that means, but I am told it is very very high.

My model also accounts for equal production of antimatter and explains why we don't find it "here".

Lots and lots of other predictions nailed.

 

[Usus Vox Tractus]

Not everyone thinks like you, or has your psychological makeup. So, when you present something, without objective evidence to support it, that is what is to be expected.

You do have solace though, in having your own hypothesis, that seems to work for you.

To be repeated ad nauseam:

Birth of the Universe: unification, spacetime foam, quantum vacuum, quantum fluctuations


Physics of the early Universe is at the boundary of astronomy and philosophy since we do not currently have a complete theory that unifies all the fundamental forces of Nature at the moment of Creation. In addition, there is no possibility of linking observation or experimentation of early Universe physics to our theories (i.e. it's not possible to `build' another Universe). Our theories are rejected or accepted based on simplicity and aesthetic grounds, plus their power of prediction to later times, rather than an appeal to empirical results. This is a very difference way of doing science from previous centuries of research.


I went through several different logistics (2 physical, 1 theoretical) of how the universe is formed as a sphere/matrix/point, simultaneous arising of structure. I then predicted that such a container for the universe would pattern for a self similar "micro" building block. Cymatics 101.

Are you familiar with the anatomy of an atom?


Do you require another proof for the triple structural Beginning?

 

[Usus Vox Tractus]

Other than that, it draws no conclusions. It really has nothing to do with the ultimate creation of The Universe, Matter or Energy. And it is most certainly not a 'bang' of any kind. It really is just 'We can see that space is expanding, therefor we think...'

Science needs a better PR department. It seems most of the labels that get delivered to the public do not at all mean what they imply.

 

[VProud]

So in essence the BB scenario is saying the same thing I am: It was space that was created. I just achieve it by contraction rather than inflation.

Using the balloon example of expansion; the same expansive motion of the surface of the balloon can be achieved by decreasing external pressure as with increasing internal pressure.

I'm saying the former (decrease in external pressure) is more likely because it produces a much more predictive model, and the prediction line up with every thing modern science is finding out about the universe.

For instance, My model predicts the universe patterns for only 3 stable density levels of quarks to make atoms. This has been "proven" by modern science to a surety level of sigma 5.3. I don't know what the heck that means, but I am told it is very very high.

My model also accounts for equal production of antimatter and explains why we don't find it "here".

Lots and lots of other predictions nailed.

Sorry, I haven't really read much of this thread, so I didn't know that's what you were saying.
Yes, space is being created all the time, we can literally watch it happen.

That's an interesting proposal. Do you have a mathematical model for it? It would be helpful in identifying anything untoward it predicts, like Ghost Particles or Negative Energy, which may mean it would need adjusting.
Honestly, we don't have any kind of working model for 'why' the Big Bang happens, we believe the current rate of expansion to be governed by Dark Matter somehow, and we believe it's start was somehow linked to the curvature of space-time. You should propose that to the Physics forums, it could be useful.

What you're talking about is called the 'Six Sigma' system, it's a useful tool for calculating the probability of us being right.
Sigma 6 would be absolute proof. No such thing exists.
In perspective:
"1+1=2" is Sigma 5.9.
The sun emitting light is Sigma 5.5
The universe wont rip it's self apart within the next hour is Sigma 5.1.

For all intents and purposes, Sigma 5.3 is true.