Cookies-law

Cookies help us to bring you our services at overunity.com . If you use this website and our services you declare yourself okay with using cookies .More Infos here:
http://www.overunity.com/5553/privacy-policy/
If you do not agree with storing cookies, please leave this website now. Many thanks for your understanding.
Amazon Warehouse Deals ! Now even more Deep Discounts ! Check out these great prices on slightly used or just opened once only items.I always buy my gadgets via these great Warehouse deals ! Highly recommended ! Many thanks for supporting OverUnity.com this way.

User Menu

FireMatch

FireMatch

CCKnife

CCKnife

Poplamp

poplamp

CCTool

CCTool

LEDTVforSale

Magpi Magazine

Magpi Magazine Free Rasberry Pi Magazine

Battery Recondition

Battery Recondition

OverUnity Book

overunity principles book

Arduino

Ultracaps

YT Subscribe

movieclipsfree

movie clips free

Gravity Machines

Tesla-Ebook

Magnet Secrets

Lindemann Video

Navigation

Products

Statistics

  • *Total Members: 81797
  • *Latest: geochem

  • *Total Posts: 487383
  • *Total Topics: 14340
  • *Online Today: 44
  • *Most Online: 103
(December 19, 2006, 11:27:19 PM)
  • *Users: 6
  • *Guests: 206
  • *Total: 212

Facebook

Author Topic: Another half baked idea.... or is it?  (Read 15520 times)

Offline 13thHouR

  • Jr. Member
  • **
  • Posts: 51
    • R-Force.org
Re: Another half baked idea.... or is it?
« Reply #15 on: July 27, 2007, 02:59:36 AM »
Sorry about the delay, been seriously busy the past couple of days.

Finally tracked down a new Oscilloscope and Function Generator, I can give some real time feed back on the other experiments.

Anyway to get back to your question, think back to the bucket of water.

Now imagine that you link 3 full buckets of water with tube near the bottom connecting them, and anything that overflows from one bucket is  pumped back into the other two buckets. Will the levels ever change permanently if the stone is removed from one bucket and placed in another?

So basically what this means is that no matter what you gain or lose in any specific scale, it has to come from somewhere  or go to somewhere. Even so called sub space of sci-fi is just another scale of existence. So your nice little message home to your parents whilst your are travelling around Alpha Centuri could very well end up being very odd looking shapes that appear in front of caveman on another time density scale  ;D

OK the probability of that effect occurring in that point in space time on earth is very remote, but is is a good example of how density and time are interlinked. Also how you should consider the consequences in space time the next time you fart, maybe that last mouthful of beans could be enough to kick start the big bang   ;D ;D ;D

All right so I am joking, but in that joke is genuine facts of how we take our normal interactions for granted and do not seem to comprehend that on one hand we are so insignificant but on another just how much our very existence alters the structure of the universe.

Put simply,space time always fills in the mistakes.

The generally considered figure of the mass of the finite universe is 1053Kg of so this falls short of the actual amount but is a figure that we can work with. If a single object in a finite universe became 1053Kg then it would be our finite universe.

However on a different scale universes what we measure as 1053Kg could be photon or and entire Galaxy. However in relativity to those scale  universes (TDM states) they would be considerably less than  1053Kg
 

Free Energy | searching for free energy and discussing free energy

Re: Another half baked idea.... or is it?
« Reply #15 on: July 27, 2007, 02:59:36 AM »

Offline 13thHouR

  • Jr. Member
  • **
  • Posts: 51
    • R-Force.org
Re: Another half baked idea.... or is it?
« Reply #16 on: July 27, 2007, 03:56:00 AM »
If I properly understand your conjectures on on a new "multiverse", once energy / mass reaches some prededurmined point, be that our reletivistic zero, or the other end of the spectrum ( Speed of light?) the energy or mass in question ceases to exist in our luminal universe, and is now contained within the next "level" of the universe hierarchy if you will.

Assuming I have this correct, and taking into account your theories on reversability being of chief importance in the validation of such theories...

One could consider the avarage machine. If you were to take into account all energy losses, be it friction, light, heat, sound, in closed systems this machine, whatever it may be will halways have a COP of 1, no more no less. Energy put in = energy out (be it in various forms).

Now we take our avarage OU machine, and apperently we we have...all things considered...more energy out than put in. We put some energy in, but the addition of all energies out is more! Now, this is explained from your theory by saying that we have borrowed energy from one of the levels of universes either above us or below (or just above only?) us on the "energy scale". So far so good, this jives with current emprirical data. We are not creating energy...there is no system out of equilibrium, we just need to look at a bigger picture and see that the energy is not "free" not invented, or created, simply take from somewhere else.

But should it then not be possible to have an energy system that depleats or injects energy into another universe just beyond our "horizon"? With reversability, could we not then create a device which has a negative COP? Where if we were to put in some energy, the total energy out would be less?

Just a thought....but I it would be interesting to hear some responses, as this poses another question....would this device be usefull somehow?

P.S.

You gave an example of energy being injected from our horizon zone into a higher level and then re-entering our zone again (the car and light analogy). This makes perfect sense, but what if we put energy into the level below ours...will it be gone forever? will it return and have any impacts on our universe that are forseeable? What from that zone below us, can push that energy back into our zone?

By jove I think he's got it  ;D  (although light velocity is nearest zero point and ultra low velocity is the larger low density boundary of our finite universe)

Seriously this is the point, we still essentially have the same system where in this conjecture model, we understand that we still do not get something from nothing.

However because we cannot physically step beyond that Horizon without leaving interaction with where we where originally, then in all sense and purposes, like the fleet of frigates firing back at us over the horizon, to us this will be over unity, as we can only interact with one specific scale range at any one time. (That scale range of interaction can be composed of many scale ranges spanning different locations in space time, but again that is very steep learning curve, so for the moment we will stick to the simpler model of the linear scale TDM states)

In losing matter/energy via decompression to lower density scale, this is a similar reaction, however in this case the filling back in of the missing matter comes from normal lambda space around us, as in the displacement follows the easiest path which is an implosion of matter to fill the void in the higher density of our scale.

This would be like instantaneously removing the stone from the bottom of  the bucket of water and having its density lowered so it floats near the top. Basically the water rushes down to fill in where the stone was previously. Which if you plot scale density from the bottom of the water to the top, then again in our limited range it would be like we are on the side of the frigates firing all the shells away from us across the horizon. Air fills in where the shells where previously but as we know from TDM that is not where it stops this filling in spans  our relative universe and beyond.

Some of you make realise when I mentioned Lambda space. That in fact I am talking about Einstein's rather elusive aether.

by now you may be beginning to understand that the entire process is a bit more complex of filling in from TDM+ and TDM- states, but as I said for easier understanding it is better to keep it in singular linear terms for the moment.


To answer you other question about usage with a few furthers questions of my own, what benefits would there in be in losing mass from certain heavy isotopes without gaining energy?  ;)

What would happen is you lost massive amounts of energy in the middle of a nuclear fission chain reaction (Atomic explosion).  ;)


On a smaller scale, how efficient would cooling of your PC be? Or how about an air portable air conditioner which does not require heat exchanger tube to be hanging out of your window.

There are as many practical uses for Under Unity as there are for Over unity.
« Last Edit: July 27, 2007, 11:01:48 PM by 13thHouR »


Offline 13thHouR

  • Jr. Member
  • **
  • Posts: 51
    • R-Force.org
Re: Another half baked idea.... or is it?
« Reply #17 on: July 27, 2007, 04:42:09 AM »
No worries, all rambles welcome, TDM can be quite heavy going at the best of times.

The bucket example is not directly about the stone or issues of over unity, it's more to do with how water easily flows to fill in loss or gets displaced to compensate for gain. Something that most people can easily visualise.

However To alter the density of the stone only requires you to alter its resonant frequency. If you fool other matter into responding to oscillations at a different resonant frequency then the object will find another stable point to interact with, but I leave that area for Hutchinson to investigate. Of Which he was doing quite well from what I last seen.

I can understand your approach its more to do with the outcomes of the experiments and what benefit this has to mankind or just us in a our daily lives. Ultimately I guess that is all of our goals. Although a few do like the idea of fame and fortune too.

Making things more efficient or replacing them completely, each idea has it place and its specific target, it is important that  although we pool our resources on the most probable that we don't forget that there are as many ways of achieving our goal.

The more saturation of different devices we have. Then there is more probability that somebody has the materials or the skill available to repeat this for themselves.

In respect of magnets, look at those links I made to the flying frog experiments. This can be created with permanent magnets. We just have to learn to look at magnetism like any other physical force. It can be saturated and compressed.

Consider this:

"There is insufficient Uranium on our planet to create an Atomic Bomb".

Ernest Rutherford replying to H.G.Wells description of the Atomic explosions in his writings.

Was Ernest Rutherford wrong as we now have atomic weapons?

Well actually he was correct, it was only by some  very clever concentration of a standard explosive force by the guys on the Manhattan Project, that for a few nanoseconds we can make fissile material react as if it has become super heavy.  (increase it's physical and gravitaitonal density)  which to surrounding matter reacts like we have more fissile material per volume than exists on earth.

So we proved H.G.Wells to be correct, yet also  proved Rutherford to be so as well.

Just shows that TDM is not the only place where opposing arguments can be shown to be correct without violating either standpoint.
« Last Edit: July 27, 2007, 03:57:40 PM by 13thHouR »

Offline Silvije

  • Jr. Member
  • **
  • Posts: 93
Re: Another half baked idea.... or is it?
« Reply #18 on: July 27, 2007, 09:03:52 PM »


Offline 13thHouR

  • Jr. Member
  • **
  • Posts: 51
    • R-Force.org
Re: Another half baked idea.... or is it?
« Reply #19 on: July 27, 2007, 10:43:51 PM »
That changes nothing, just classical physics peering down telescope with the other eye closed and saying why can't I see the world next to me?

A lot of double talk about a relative  zero point that they seem to think is absolute. (not sure why they think that as physics tells them it is not)

Anyway as I said I leave the finite physics to the rest of the scientific community to argue about.

TDM in single increment uses all they define. So if they adapt the definition, TDM in it's very nature adapts with them.

btw Time is our construct, our description of a period of interaction. To have glass jar sitting on shelf and say "that is time". It is a rather silly concept, much as not being able to define duration near relative zero as being time, is the 'blatantly obvious being put into practice. I guess with not much else to do somebody has to waste "time" on this.  ;D ;D ;D


I do find research like that fascinating, as the general scientific community make out the overunity research to be the realm of crackpots, yet time and time again we hear of the most ridiculous research in mainstream science that makes even the most obscure overunity designs seem like works of genius.

Like ?250,000 spent on finding out if buttered toast always falls on the floor butter side down, ok this was resolving issues of probability, but that could be done on a ?400 PC, 50 loafs of bread, a few Kg of butter and a ?40 test rig.

So where did the other ?249,500 go to?

The same goes for the research quote in that article, the cost of the equipment involved is astronomical.

Do you know what they are really proving?
 
That when there is nothing, there is nothing to define time.

It does not  take a ?multi million test rig to prove the blatantly obvious. If you have nothing there then there is no (a) to (b),

If there is no (a) to (b), there is nothing to define time with, it's simple as that.

OK beyond relative zero TDM gives us a scale related (a) to (b) and so on, but they are not using TDM, they are stopping at relative zero.

At least even the most obscure idea in over unity is trying to achieve a goal. That quoted research achieves, absolutely nothing, is nothing, yet it is not actually absolute nothing.  Me thinks its yet more double talk, about 'nothing'  ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D


Anyway for the record, time does not cease to exist at around or at zero, its only the guys sitting in the smaller picture trying to define the large picture without actually setting any base rules for it. So their findings are meaningless constructs of narrow mindedness.

If they would only open their eyes they would see in the finite universe terms, Yes time ceases to exist at relative zero, but in the infinite possible scales of the universe it is a constant.

Einstein was correct in the finite terms, time is not a constant, but on infinite terms it is. The more accurate term is as Einstein said, time is relative.

I know that sounds like a contradiction, however its the combinations of two ranges of observation, one that it limited and one that is unlimited. So in turn the contradiction's that this creates in definitions. On or around the relative absolutes of the limited range one would normally switch to a larger range to give you more data to work with. Thus cancelling out these contradictions 

With blinkers on of a limited range of observation, relative zero becomes the absolute, so the duration of one pulse to the next is infinity. so it does have time but that time is infinity. However if you had that one pulse, it would not be even relative zero as its existence means you are more than zero.

Getting the point yet?

Relative or absolute zero, either way experiments in this area are pointless in the finite because the event of measurement makes it non zero and your results are wrong.

Again TDM can get around this by defining relative zero points as scale relative zero points, spanning for infinite negative to infinite positive scale voids, but you would have come full circle and would be defining the interactions of the universe again  ;)
« Last Edit: July 29, 2007, 01:06:40 PM by 13thHouR »

Free Energy | searching for free energy and discussing free energy

Re: Another half baked idea.... or is it?
« Reply #19 on: July 27, 2007, 10:43:51 PM »
Sponsored links:




Offline 13thHouR

  • Jr. Member
  • **
  • Posts: 51
    • R-Force.org
Re: Another half baked idea.... or is it?
« Reply #20 on: August 14, 2007, 07:00:25 AM »
Been busy rebuilding a test lab. So not had time to post the TDM  details.

Anyway Mostly set up now (still need to get two more function generators), just got to get some decent RF shielding before i really push the boundaries again.

For the guys over in the TPU section.

This is what you are trying to create with the soliton waves being created in your devices. (The soliton is the harmonics created after the peak in the square wave)

http://www.ma.hw.ac.uk/~dugald/breath.mpg

This is commonly the 5 Mhz carrier observed in other TPU devices. This wave is essentially the electron carrier/accelerator. By increasing the frequency of this carrier you will increase the rotational inertia of the device, however as a counter reaction the electrons will be pushed faster.

As you are aware, the electrons cannot technically exceed light velocity, however if your collectors contain universal stable atoms in the circuit such as iron. This moderator will rapidly compress the high velocity electrons, thus in classical physic terms induce high level quantum electron tunnelling.

Be very careful with this type of setup, I am not talking about 1 or 2 times increases here, this has the energy potential to push the soliton peak into yottawatt territory  ( 1024 watts)

Well actually it is much more, in planck power terms it is 3.63 * 1053 watts per single planck length

There is sufficient energy in these soliton waves to create nuclear fusion of most atoms.

In realistic terms we are not working on scales that will cause critical mass, however  it is vital that those replicating the TPU  devices are extremely careful when injecting 2 or more frequencies as soliton collisions will cause the spikes to increase exponentially.

As already observed by device builders
« Last Edit: August 14, 2007, 04:32:57 PM by 13thHouR »

Offline Grumpy

  • TPU-Elite
  • Hero Member
  • *******
  • Posts: 2267
Re: Another half baked idea.... or is it?
« Reply #21 on: August 14, 2007, 04:59:00 PM »
http://magnetism.fateback.com/Overunity.htm

5 MHz keeps popping up...Dave calls it a "NMR pulse" rather than a soliton.

Build it.

Free Energy | searching for free energy and discussing free energy

Re: Another half baked idea.... or is it?
« Reply #21 on: August 14, 2007, 04:59:00 PM »
Sponsored links:




Offline 13thHouR

  • Jr. Member
  • **
  • Posts: 51
    • R-Force.org
Re: Another half baked idea.... or is it?
« Reply #22 on: August 14, 2007, 08:37:16 PM »
Yep it a quite important frequency.

The important thing here it that we can easily isolate this peak and solitary waves.

In doing this we can visualise how the electrons surf the soliton carrier wave. When electrons are moving in this free state we can create very interesting ZPE effects as observed by Tesla in his high energy burst tests.

The use of targets (moderators) to rapidly enhance the Quantum tunnelling does raise the spin properties of the electrons exponentially. (alteration of Density sphere as mentioned in the page you linked to) I refer to this as TDS shift in TDM.

Soliton waves are also referred to as Scalar waves. The most efficient way to create these waves is as I mentioned previously the double helix (As others reminded me here) this is a Caduceus (Smith) Coil setup.

As an example of a scalar (Soliton) wave transmitter.

http://jlnlabs.imars.com/spgen/

This setup displays the tunnelling effect that I mentioned previously. Where the radio emissions can easily penetrate standard radio emission shields.


For those of you that do not have scopes to see this in action, here is a video of non grounded pulse wave resonance in a coil (soliton waves) that I found on youtube.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XpEYlmsMmyw

That is a good visualisation of the spikes.

btw I am working on a non grounded variation of the TPU setup, just to see how well this performs.

(WARNING!!!) non grounded soliton wave coils can have extremely high tension charge, do not attempt this unless you are familiar with high tension safety protocols. As high capacity HT discharges can instantly stop your heart.
« Last Edit: August 26, 2007, 09:56:07 AM by 13thHouR »

Offline 13thHouR

  • Jr. Member
  • **
  • Posts: 51
    • R-Force.org
Re: Another half baked idea.... or is it?
« Reply #23 on: August 19, 2007, 03:42:24 AM »
For those of you that don't quite get the idea of the loop that travels in a straight line, how about a simpsons explanation.

http://youtube.com/watch?v=cNV9FEKi9FQ

 ;D

Says it better than paragraphs of words explaining it.

Also shows the TDM decompression in action

Offline pauldude000

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 560
    • My electronics/programming website
Re: Another half baked idea.... or is it?
« Reply #24 on: August 19, 2007, 11:22:36 AM »
Hmmmmmm......

The mass is decreasing in this universe, (or so I've read). Black holes (Singularities for the purist) in the center of each galaxy are slowly ripping matter apart, and sending it "somewhere". Say it is a drain effect, sending it to another scale universe. This would mean that we are not tpm 0, as it would have all drains leading to it, but not away.

Assume we are then TDM 2. Assuming this is a "direct touch" TDM conclusion, IE that TDM 2 would touch TDM 1 and TDM 3, but not TDM 0 or TDM 4, then we would also detect numerous "drains" into OUR finite universe, from the black holes in TDM 3. Even though TDM 3 would necessarily be a smaller scale (progressive entropy) it could not be infinitely so, since you claim an inifinity of TDM's.

Since each TDM could then be viewed as a close sustem, any change in mass would be detectible. Since we would be losing mass/energy to TDM 1, and gaining mass/energy from the smaller TDM 3, we would then be able to directly detect the incoming mass/energy, since TDM 3 and our own TDM 2 would have an infinitely small difference in mass. IE our loss of mass/energy would be infinitely small to TDM 1.

These black holes in each finite universe (singularities) would be your horizon points. This makes your theory directly falsifiable, with defineable and predictable ability, even with our limited understanding of our own finite universe.

The only problem is the detectable mass/energy decrease of our TDM is anything but infinitely small, it is in fact staggeringly huge (the probability of hundreds of thousands of entire suns have been ripped apart and sent through the drain as I write this)........

Also, any drain in the mass/energy from the infinitely small TDM's, even if said drain was infinitely small, would eventually lead to the destruction of a finite but infinitely small universe. Since this scale of reduction would be FASTER (if my understanding of your acceleration scale is accurate as linearly progressive) than ours, it would lead to a scalar reduction of infinitely small TDM's at an infinite speed, since the acceleration in these universes would approach infinity. This would happen on both the + and - sides of the TDM scale.  Therefore there could not be an infinity of TDM's.

Next, consider the "-" TDM's. These would naturally follow to be mirror image or anti-matter universes.

NOW CONSIDER TDM 0 (this might blow you away). TDM 0 would be the recieving TDM, recieving all mass/antimass/energy, both from the - antimatter TDM's, and from the matter TDM's. Now, just like our TDM scenario, it would HAVE to be finite by definition, therefore would be full of both matter and antimatter...... (remember that it is only a tiny bit larger than TDM - 1 or TDM 1, and that the drains from each lead to TDM 0)

OUCH! (just something to chew on)

Paul Andrulis

Free Energy | searching for free energy and discussing free energy

Re: Another half baked idea.... or is it?
« Reply #24 on: August 19, 2007, 11:22:36 AM »
Sponsored links:




Offline 13thHouR

  • Jr. Member
  • **
  • Posts: 51
    • R-Force.org
Re: Another half baked idea.... or is it?
« Reply #25 on: August 26, 2007, 08:36:03 AM »
Trying to disprove a conjecture by re-writing it, is not a good start, but I welcome the feed back and will explain how in one sense your are both right and wrong at the same time. (Don't you just love logic of infinite states  ;D )

What ever is relative to you, is the zero state. Without this approach classical physics falls flat on it's face, as you may remember unless you define a point to observe to and from, you can never really be sure where anything is in the space time continuum. (You always need a comparison to define a measurement).

Yes we are losing matter and also proportionately gaining matter. Although the origin of the matter is constantly changing, each state has a density or volume which relatively constant (Again it is classical physics that defines this requirement, physics requires measurements and measurement require constants).

However your argument is like saying this is a lake. The sun shines, the water evaporates, it turns to cloud and rains, flows off the land into the lake. It is a closed loop so none of this can exist.

Essentially it is this need to achieve the stable state that fuels everything we observe around us, if everything was already at this absolute point of rest where there is absolutely no loss or gain, then we would be as you stated a closed loop that is basically a void. Well this may seem like a contradiction, but it is a closed loop and yes it is a void, but that is a seriously steep learning curve for everybody else reading this so I will fill a small spec of the infinite possible finite states that exist between us and the absolute void that is the basic requirement of infinity. Infinity=Void

We have numerous drains, but we also have as many fawcett's as well. But always just a little out of balance with each other. As perfect balance would become an infinite closed loop or void, that is the final or beginning state.

The very action of matter being compressed on our state so that it interacts with say TDM state 1000, would create an equal and opposite displacement.expansion  wave through space time, that would gain so much energy that it would literally syphon itself off into other scale ranges before it ever got back to us.

The very nature of physics creates a state which is directly falsifiable 'The Void'

In your very argument, instead of disproving TDM. You have in fact proved viability of the conjecture.

As TDM relies upon this absolute close loop, but is composed of infinite possible relative absolutes (Event horizons).

Are you not aware that equal and opposite reactions of basic Newtonian Mechanics creates a close loop if you take it to it's extremes?

A= Void       Infinite possible scale state in between  B=Void

To get from the void to void, requires the infinite possible actions and reactions to have occurred and we at our relative location are only part of the way along that path.

So although the universe became a void in the blink of an eye, because we exist within the relativity to the matter that was formed in that instantaneous burst, a great expanse of infinite possible finite states exist to us.

I came up with a very similar argument about 20 years ago, and it backfired on me when I broke it down into the probabilities within TDM.

The argument only holds water, if you change the laws of physics.However even then, because you have changed the increment, does not change anything other than the definitions of the dimensions of an object. TDM instantly adapts because of what it uses as its increment of measurement.

As I stated this is a stubborn little conjecture, as a single state in TDM is composed of all that which we can define within our laws of physics. Later those laws, you do not alter TDM.

I wasn't kidding when I said you could use anything. The Universe could be composed of infinite scale versions of a nasal hair and TDM still works.

It's a simple rule really, but you cannot disprove an object using the same object. As to do so would disprove the evidence you are using in the first place.



To put it simply why your argument holds no water (yet), To achieve the perfect closed loop void, Every possible reaction that can occur in that closed loop must have occurred. On our perspective of being within the reactions, they have not all occurred yet.

So basically you are jumping to the end of story (or is that the beginning) without reading all the pages in between.

However I am honoured to have had you put so much thought into this argument.

I am going to really mess with your head now. If your matter is compressed to say TDM state 6.5, if you scale it up to our current state you will have the x,y,z,t location of the exit location on our scale range.

Every possible state that exists can be scaled up or down to our scale. Now you can ask yourself how is it possible that an infinity can exist in a finite.

I will be interested to see if you can answer that? It's ok if you can't.

To be fair, one is just scale, the other relates to Zeno's Ulysses and the Arrow. In the latter you may see something very familiar  ;)

btw Yes TDM state 0 (Our current state) Which does not mean it is a zero, its just a coordinate. Does gain and lose matter to all other states, but only if those states have reactions that create matter within our scale range/density. or we create matter within their scale range/density

If We gain, we also lose to another scale a proportionately as the reactions allow, that is a kind of very large closed loop, but as your seeing now.it is so much more complex, if we have a reaction that causes us to lose, we gain again. Always trying to keep a balance but never quite getting there, as it take infinity to do so.

It that trying that is the non closed loop part, because it never quite fills back in, because of all the side reactions. So more actions and reactions occur to try and compensate for than and so on.

Also you seem to be assuming this is just expansion, refer back to what happens when the expansion gains too much energy, as in the expansion is also subject to compression, thus folds back in space time again before it ever gets back to us, Thus leaving an imbalance that has to be filled in from elsewhere.

Lets just say the initial explanation is simple, but what is involved is a chain of actions and reactions has a complexity that far exceeds the human capacity to even begin to contemplate all of the instances of what is occuring. As it would take an infinity to do so.

The one fundamental mistake you have made in your argument, is quite a simple one. You have forgotten that there is infinite possible finite states. So the absolute rest state you describe would take infinity to reach. So until you can define a point where infinity ends. It stops being a closed loop, yet it is still a closed loop.

I did warn you it's a steep learning curve if you try to run before you can walk.  ;)

If you really want to run so soon, if I say all these infinite possible states and our finite universe are on in the same, can you visualise that?

Again don't worry if you can't because being able to visualise such complexity of form is still quite a rare ability that only shows up in nature every few generations. Even the likes of Stephen Hawking or Even Albert Einstein could not even attempt grasp that one. However  Nikola Tesla, did possess this ability.
« Last Edit: August 26, 2007, 10:03:28 AM by 13thHouR »

Offline emon1

  • Newbie
  • *
  • Posts: 8
    • stock market news
Re: Another half baked idea.... or is it?
« Reply #26 on: March 25, 2014, 03:33:30 PM »
thank you very much for your great post !
i learn well this post ..

thanks again for sharing !1


 

Share this topic to your favourite Social and Bookmark site

Please SHARE this topic at: