|
is this the higgs-boson?
[8:43:18 AM] Jeffrey Haynes: i've developed an intricate quantum theory
[8:43:28 AM] Jeffrey Haynes: about the temporal elderly particles in the universe
[8:43:33 AM] Jeffrey Haynes: vs the young particles of course
[8:43:40 AM] Jeffrey Haynes: that the younger particles are
[8:43:43 AM] Jeffrey Haynes: perhaps
[8:44:06 AM] Jeffrey Haynes: perhaps the universe is all a single idempotent matrix
[8:44:14 AM] Jeffrey Haynes: I I^I I^I^I
[8:44:14 AM] Jeffrey Haynes: etc
[8:44:24 AM] Jeffrey Haynes: so the "singularity" is omnidimensional
[8:44:32 AM] Jeffrey Haynes: and self-expansionary in time
[8:44:55 AM] Jeffrey Haynes: therefore all the particles are the same particle and their size and so on varies by iteration of some significance
[8:45:01 AM] Jeffrey Haynes: perhaps linked to reproductive stuff
[8:45:21 AM] Jeffrey Haynes: anyway if you were to "meditate" you could see all this first hand
[8:45:27 AM] Jeffrey Haynes: but you refuse to meditate
[8:45:43 AM] Jeffrey Haynes: well i know i haven't asked you to but i haven't got an extra cushion at the apartment
[8:46:35 AM] Jeffrey Haynes: so this essentially is important because it proves the existence of the superatomic universe
[8:46:41 AM] Jeffrey Haynes: which will have some building block larger than an atom
[8:46:48 AM] Jeffrey Haynes: maybe its building block is the universe itself
[8:46:56 AM] Jeffrey Haynes: and is the singularity
[8:47:19 AM] Jeffrey Haynes: so this is essential because it explains phylotes
[8:47:20 AM] Jeffrey Haynes: and the
[internet out]
User was temp banned for this post.
  
|
Do elaborate.
I mean you haven't yet explained how it ties in with the meaning of life, the universe, and everything, nor have you explained how the lizard people are involved. Quantum information and quantum consciousness allow people to subjectively iterate their perceptions of reality, but I don't understand quite how this can tie into your theory above....
|
This sounds like gibberish.
For example... What singularity? What is an elderly particle, or a young one? An idempotent matrix is just a square matrix (M) that has the property MxM = M... So the universie is a idempotent matrix is just gibberish.
This seems like it belongs in https://www.reddit.com/r/iamverysmart
|
Did you just copy and paste a conversation you had with yourself?
|
Bisutopia19316 Posts
This has nothing to do with Bisu or his children...
|
I am really curious what kind of Cushion this is you speak of
|
United States15275 Posts
If you can know phylotes, tell them to stop raiding my refrigerator.
|
On July 28 2015 01:45 Smancer wrote:This sounds like gibberish. For example... What singularity? What is an elderly particle, or a young one? An idempotent matrix is just a square matrix (M) that has the property MxM = M... So the universie is a idempotent matrix is just gibberish. This seems like it belongs in https://www.reddit.com/r/iamverysmart
honestly you are not thinking outside the box. what about the power set of a set and cantor's theorem? the power set has strictly greater cardinality than the set itself. so does the universe evince the property that it could have a lattice-like structure akin to the power set relationship? what if it did? that's why i said it was omnidimensional. arthur rarely to never lies about these things, so if that's what he said in the conversation that's what it is.
|
stop trolling
or if you're not
go read a real book
|
lots of fancy words together sound cool
|
Why do you hate ontological pluralism? Did it bully you in high school?
|
On July 28 2015 03:18 BisuDagger wrote:
This has nothing to do with Bisu or his children...
yea, bisu is the greatest BW protoss of all time. the subtlety of his builds and the smoothness of his mechanics leave most viewers wondering about bisu's true ability when compared with flashier builds like that of stork. but what's the difference between a bonjwa protoss and a bonjwa zerg? it's one thing to be a connoisseur of the game and say this is my favorite player and another thing to be a player of the game and say this is my favorite player. protoss fans will always say that bisu was the greatest of all time but in some ways it was just design confining him. design notwithstanding you can't give the nod to a player whose achievements don't measure up to his ability. unfortunately for protoss it's clear that the title of greatest player was denied the race as much because of maps as because of game design and that too much of what was reflected in SC:BW was incomplete at the time of SC1's completion (i.e. there was no protoss expansion).
|
On July 29 2015 15:50 ninazerg wrote:
Why do you hate ontological pluralism? Did it bully you in high school?
well, think about it this way, now that we're finally friends.
what i said in the previous post ties gives us some very interesting implications of the OP.
the implications of einstein's famous said something like that it takes an infinite amount of energy to accelerate anything to the speed of light, therefore nothing, not even information can travel faster than the speed of light.
but what is infinity?
even if we suppose infinity is a quantity and not a quality or some nebulous vector projection, cantor's theorem and diagonalization prove that there are different sizes of infinity. (this is a result that is widely accepted in topological analysis).
this is the best article i've found for an explanation of diagonalization and how we can be certain there are different sizes of infinity.
Cantor's Diagonalization Argument
things get kind of hazy when we talk about this. are we going to say that there is infinity and then two infinity (and they're the same), and then there is infinity and infinity in two dimensions (and one is demonstrably larger than the other), and then "real infinity" is infinity in "infinity" dimensions? and so on.
and none of this accounts for the idea that infinity could be described as a velocity, an acceleration, a jerk, etc.
so it's quite clear that infinity isn't a real upper limit.
what's interesting is that light is the fastest medium we can apparently observe and that presumably that means all our observations are never faster than the speed of light. (or else, anomalies are detected -- or else, we should expect to use a different mode of detection to detect faster-than-light objects, however unintuitive this-faster-than-light medium might be to us creatures of five senses).
but coming to the point, perhaps it is simply "matter", chemistry, and the universe of atomic weights that are bounded in this familiar way. unfortunately i am not as well-versed as i might like in chemistry, but my understanding is that we're using various accelerators and so on to generate tremendous amounts of energy to discover more and more "powerful", rare or heavy atomic elements.
but is this really the boundary?
we apparently can't "see" other universes. but by metaphor, we can't "hear" the moon. (it seems most of our suppositions in this area assume various puzzles like "there is no sound in space").
but suppose we apply cantor's results to the idea of infinity that tells us the speed of light is the boundary for not only all matter "chemically" composed, but also all information, mind-data, cognition, etc.
but light may be only one boundary. there may exist atomic weights that assume more than "infinite" energy, because it is possible for there to exist "quantities" greater than infinity. for instance the greeks didn't know about irrational numbers, imaginary or complex numbers, infinitesimals and so on, and this bounded their calculations.
it seems quite reasonable to me that we could develop and eventually become well-acquainted with more complex and advanced systems of evaluation than the "real" number system that presumably was applied in einstein's calculations. certainly there is merit and a great deal of intuitive appeal to the real number line, and there is a good chance, so to speak, that there is no coincidence between light as a boundary of our perception and what we call "real" in our conception of the world.
so if there are faster-than-light objects, and if there are heavier-than-light "atoms" we may need non-traditional modes of detection. feedback appreciated.
|
Calgary25996 Posts
![[image loading]](http://i.imgur.com/WDL5arE.png)
STOP.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
