I developed “FTOE “after reading
“A BRIEF HISTORY OF TIME ".
2/3 means 2 cut into 3 parts and 3/0 means 3 cut into 0 parts or we can say 3/0 means 3 disappears.
Let's use XY=1... We can clearly see that neither X nor Y can ever be zero. That is X=1/Y i.e; 1/0 is impossible.
XY=1 or XY=3 proves that 1/0 or 3/0 is impossible.
why is creation not possible?
Why is destruction not possible?
Creation means 1 or 2 or 3 popping from 0 right?
0 becomes 1 0 become 2 or 5 becomes 10 and so on.
When you say 1 becomes 13 then you mean 1=13 right?
But XY=1 says 1/Y or 1/X is impossible if X and or Y equals 0.
In other words 1/0 is impossible.
If 1/0 is possible then we get 1=0 and 2=23 and so on.
The fact that such equality is impossible means creation and destruction are simply impossible.
Many or almost all think that these two postulates contradict each other.
Simple equation that says velocity of light is relative to change in gravity... is
We can't say velocity of light is relative change in velocity since we can't carry light but, we can say velocity of light is relative to change in gravity as gravity does carry light with it.
So gravity changes velocity of light changes...
If you take two frames of reference which have different gravities then light's velocity will be different in these two frames of reference when compared.
Let me give you an example...
If you take Time on X-axis and Space on Y-axis then it is said if we travel with velocity of light then time will stand still(light has zero time)
and if we move faster than light we go backwards in time but this isn't true.
S -> Distance travelled
V -> Velocity of the body or light
T -> Time taken or clock time
It takes 8 minutes and 20 seconds for light from our Sun to reach Earth.
And, if light has
zero time [ If you take Time on X-axis and Space on Y-axis then it is said if we travel with velocity of light then time will stand still(light has zero time) ]
then S=0 so same light should be on Sun and Earth but it isn't so light's velocity depends upon time and it depends upon gravity too...
We should carry light with the frame of reference to observe its change in velocity.
v = a.t
velocity = acceleration . time
As velocity of a body increases its acceleration increases and the time it takes to reach a particular destination decreases.
E = (1/2) m.v.v [ Kinetic Energy equation ]
here acceleration is replaced by acceleration due to gravity and the equation is not v = g.t
The equation is...
E = (1/2) m.v.g.t
Why don't we take v = g.t? Because when we consider the acceleration due to gravity of a body we have to consider its energy and its mass too.
Now, as "g" acceleration due to gravity increases, as gravitational pull increases the velocity of the body decreases and time or clock slows down due to relatively higher gravity.
And, the E/m of the body increases when gravity increases.
So E/m of a body is greater on the surface of the Earth/Planet than the E/m of the same body far above in the sky, away from the surface of the Earth.
"c" or velocity of light is constant where gravity doesn't vary. So c doesn't have acceleration. Acceleration is change in velocity per time and c doesn't accelerate.
But c=a.t is required to get E = m.c.g.t
Now as gravity increases c decreases.
Albert Einstein said velocity of light is constant.
Velocity of light is constant if g is constant and velocity of light varies if g varies.
Albert Einstein said that as gravity increases space-time is curved so light passing near to a massive object appears to be bent.
Actually light is bent because gravity attracts light. As g increases c decreases. So c is not constant if g is not and c is constant if g is.
In other words light doesn't escape black holes since light is attracted by gravity and with constant gravity c is constant too. Rockets can be made to accelerate but light can't be made to accelerate so c decreases with the increase in g without any alternative to it.
As g increases c decreases and its E/m increases.
Therefore we will have higher energy radiation on the surface of Planets and Stars than on the location where there is considerably lesser gravity. So higher energy radiation is observed where there is more gravity.
g is proportional to
Light is form of Energy with relativistic mass so
Now, with increase in
Also General theory of relativity suggests increase in gravity means
Is the above explanation true?
Is velocity of light relative?
XY=1 an equation where a curved line doesn't meet a straight line next to it.
XY=1 an equation that says X and or Y can never equal zero.
XY=1 if X and or Y equals zero then we get 1=0, in fact we get --->[any number = zero]
XY=1 is the proof that creation and destruction are impossible.
XY=1 is the proof that balance exists and only change related creation and destruction are possible.
XY=1 proves that our World was never created ( no beginning )
XY=1 proves that our World will never cease to exist ( no end )
Beginning and end are relative terms.
Our life (WORLD) can begin can end but existence itself can't begin and can't end.
Only Change is possible.
0^0= can not exist...
If we travel along a path A to B and then B to A does it mean flow of time?
If you mean Calendar-Time by "flow of time" then it is just a number.
Relative Time(Actual Time)--->
"we know that creation and destruction are impossible"
1) You've made a ridiculously broad assertion. So you're denying anyone could create works of art, TV sets, or simplistic arguments.
2) You didn't mean that?
3) Oh - you specifically meant quantities which physicists consider to be conserved - like energy for example.
So yes I disagree.
"Space cannot be infinite"
This is an argument based upon your gut feeling, and nothing more.
I'm going to stop there, because I already feel I've invested more thought into this than you have.
53. You are not serious when you compare Aladdin's Genie's virtual existence to Time , are You ? Time is man made .
It is the result of an idea, not a physical process. Quantum theory is based on time.
Thus some of the difficulties /complexities ... See Heisenberg Uncertainty PRINCIPLE and Zeno's Paradox.
1 comes before 2 in time, but 2=1 in space. Time you could also say is an a-prior intuition of mind so is not physical entity of itself.
Time has never been discovered independently of its application. How then can it be considered a dimension ?
(A). Time is a measure of change. It is not physical also it is not imaginary but virtual indeed.
54. What are the differences between Genie and Time?
(A). Genie has virtual existence and time too has virtual existence.
Genie is imaginary, not real.
Time has no physical existence but it is real.
So there are two kinds of virtual existence.
1. Imaginary Virtual Existence. Example is Aladdin's Genie.
2. Real Virtual Existence. Example is Time.
55. What is the Difference between the 3 and 3 only Spatial Dimensions and 1 and 1 only Temporal Dimension?
(A). Spatial Dimensions are absolute. They are never smaller or bigger, they are finite.
Only objects that occupy this 3 D's space has smaller Dimensions.
The Volume of our World/Universe/100% Existence is finite and these three absolute dimensions never shrink and never expand, they are constant and constant only.
Where as the single Temporal Dimension is relative in nature. Time can be negative, zero and positive and always finite, never infinite.
Only Calendar-Time is infinite.
56. Is Gravity lensing true?
(A). No, Gravity lensing is wrong if it states that gravity bends space. Gravity has its control over everything except emptiness/space. Emptiness/Space is absolute, it doesn't curve or bend or contract or expand. The volume of Space is always the same.
If Gravity lensing means gravity bending light then it is correct and if Gravity lensing means gravity bending space then it is completely wrong.
Gravity acts as lens but not space. Space is always absolute and constant. Length is relative, volume is relative but volume of our World/Universe/100 % Existence is absolute. Space is absolute so our Universe's volume is absolute too, gravity bends everything that occupies space but not space itself.
If Gravity bends space... Why doesn't Temperature bend space? Temperature and gravity are connected. Temperature is supposed change gravity. If light rays observed during Solar eclipse appear to be bent because of gravity bending space then what about Sun's massive temperatures causing differences?
Space is always constant and, gravity can bend anything that occupies space, even light but not space itself.
The 3 Dissensions that make up the space are absolute in nature.
57. Why is time relative rather than absolute?
Is there a theoretical reason? [ https://www.researchgate.net/ ]
(A). Why is time relative? Why is it not absolute?
Time is a measure of change.
Gravity is not same everywhere, gravity varies from place to place.
Gravity, temperature and such other things govern changes/time.
Gravity and temperature are connected to time.
You can look for equations. Since gravity and temperature vary from place to place time or changes also vary.
Since time is not same everywhere, time can't be same everywhere so time is relative and never absolute.
The calender we use is absolute.
Because calender-time is a number, it is not real time.
Real time is not a number and has no physical existence but it is the result of something that has physical existence.
Time has real virtual existence.
Aladdin's Genie has imaginary virtual existence.
Therefore time is always relative but never absolute.
The paradox of infinity: where does the nonlinearity come from?
The principle of linear superposition holds for the integers, eg. 3 + 4 = 7. However, when we take the integers out to infinity we now obtain nonlinear behaviour. Infinity plus any amount is still infinity, so linearity has broken down.
It seems paradoxical that the system of integers possess linear behaviour, under addition, and then that linear behaviour fundamentally changes at infinity. How can linearity result in nonlinearity out of seemingly nowhere?
This seems fundamentally paradoxical to me.
A worrying aspect of this is that logical induction breaks down. By induction, we can predict linear superposition for the addition of integers for higher and higher values, and then at infinity the induction process collapses.
Is this not a philosophical worry, in general, for proofs by induction?
A. Infinity is the opposite of finite.
Numbers are infinite but no number is infinity.
Numbers collectively are infinite.
Numbers individually are always finite, never infinite.
Numbers however large are never infinity.
In other words, numbers are infinite but no number is infinity.
Numbers being infinite is the property of numbers.
Infinity is a property, it is never a number.
Using infinity as a number in mathematics is completely wrong... it serves logical purpose technically speaking it shouldn't be used as a number.
1/(any number) will never reach infinity. Smaller number in the denominator gives you bigger number and it can get bigger and bigger as denominator gets smaller and smaller but it will never equal infinity as infinity is not a number.
I developed a theory on this and you can watch the video here...
[ http://www.researchgate.net/go.Deref.html?url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.youtube.com%2Fwatch%3Fv%3Dv0EHGIbFt7U ]
and, you can read my theory here...
[ http://www.researchgate.net/go.Deref.html?url=http%3A%2F%2Fsagargorijala.blogspot.in%2F ]
Our Universe exists instead of nothingness, can this equation explain it? 0=something.
Our Universe exists instead of nothingness, can this equation explain it?
0=absence of something so zero is also relatively something???
0^0= can not exist... why?0^0 = 0^19/0^19 = 0^(19-19) = 0^0 but zero can't exist as denominator so 0^0 is impossible.1/0 is impossible. If 1/0 is possible then equations fail.
@Sagar Gorijala: the first part of 0^0 = 0^19/0^19 = 0^(19-19) = 0^0 holds only if 0^0 = 1. The simple truth is that 0^0 is not defined mathematically. The rest of your thoughts I cannot understand, I'm afraid...
@Sachchidanand Dhar: actually, a line is formed by an (uncountable) infinity of points.
Nothing in mathematics does exist in nature, it can merely be used to describe real things.
You can start with numbers - there is nothing like a "3" in nature (as an example), but you may use the concept of "3" to count 3 apples, horses, people, etc...
Also you won't find Euclidean spaces in nature, you may just describe certain parts of it with Euclidean geometry (the same holds for Riemannian manifolds, Hilbert spaces, etc...).
Exactly this is what makes mathematics such a powerfull tool - it is the completest form of abstraction.
A. 3 has virtual existence
3 apples have physical existence
1/0 means 1 cut into zero parts or we can say 1/0 means somehow 1 disappears or 1 gets destroyed.
0+0=0 not 1
so zero can't become 1 and 1 can't become zero.
xy=1 says if x and or y equals zero we get 1=0
which is impossible
In other words x can't be zero simply impossible neither can y
so 1/x or 1/y or 1/0 is impossible.
My first postulate
1. Zero can't exist as denominator.
0/0 means denominator comes into play first so 0/0 is not indeterminate and 1/0 is not undefined
1/0 and 0/0 are impossible or ----> 1. Zero can't exist as denominator.
My theory... [ http://sagargorijala.blogspot.in/ ]
Zero is absence of something so nothingness is relatively something, it is actually absence of something. In other words nothingness has meaning only when existence is possible. So Universe/World must exist and there is no alternative.