**'s book**

__Prof. Stephen Hawking__“

**".**

__A BRIEF HISTORY OF TIME__Dear Friends,

I have a dangerous mind disorder known as Paranoid Schizophrenia (Negative symptoms - Paranoid delusions and day dreaming --- Inside my Brain the only activity that takes place is, Creation of minute unreal paranoid stories, one after the other and that's why I end up learning nothing new also I can't remember anything also I completely fail to perform daily activities and there is never an end to negative symptoms and health supplements and anti psychotics give me lot of relief and make me live all alone but comparatively a peaceful life. I keep failing to learn or let alone remember anything new. While talking to others I talk like a wise guy, I come up with questions and when I'm alone I just fail. This disorder makes a perfect learning disorder and life a living hell if the circumstances are very trying. I hope the circumstances never become so trying enough that I completely fail and this theory is my last hope...) and I know very little Mathematics and Physics apart from this theory. This theory is the only success I have ever achieved. My memory is worst of its kind, it seems I've very little or no working memory and, long term memory seems to be impaired too. I keep forgetting my very own theory and had to read my own blog to recollect the information and I couldn't even create a good, pleasing video on FTOE.

Thanks.

Yours sincerely

Sagar Gorijala.

FTOE is Fundamental Theory Of Existence.

__Fundamental Theory Of Existence.__1. Zero cannot exist as denominator.

2. Anything cannot be created out of nothingness, only change of form is possible and change is everywhere.

3. Anything cannot be destroyed into nothingness, only change of form is possible and change is everywhere.

4. Existence of anything cannot be infinite.

5. There is no beginning and an end to the existence of the World.

6. There are finite absolute laws.

7. Velocity of light is relative.

8. There are three dimensions and three dimensions only.

9.Time Travel is impossible.

10.Tan 90 cannot exist.

11. God(s) cannot exist.

12. Space is absolute.

12. Space is absolute.

__Fundamental Theory Of Existence.__
What is infinite?

Infinite = Not finite.

If any number is finite then Infinite cannot be a number.

Conclusions such as “It is Not Defined or "Undefined " are not proper.

Numbers being infinite is a property of numbers and, no number can ever equal INFINITY... INFINITY is not a number.

Any number, however large or small is always finite. So, no number is ever infinite.

Numbers are infinite.

Numbers being infinite is one of the properties of the numbers.

Numbers don't have physical existence.

Undefined or Not defined means it has no definite solution.

When you divide any number with zero it can never be said as Undefined.

When you place an Apple on the table and eat it then you can say there is no Apple on the table.

That is...

There is nothing on the table!

Zero = Nothing.

If Zero is Mathematics and, Nothing is English and, Nothingness is Physics then how can I say... THEY ARE CONNECTED!

Mathematics is some form of Truth or Law.

Also English and Physics are some forms of Truth and Laws.

The M, E and, P words are different names but they are all truths or laws governing the World or Universe.

So “nothing” is not just an M or E or P word, it is all!

When you say (Apple/Zero) then you mean Apple destroyed into Zero.

How?

1/2 means 1 cut into 2.

So, 1/0 means 1 cut into 0.

If 1 Apple can be cut into 0 or if 0 can give birth to 1 Apple then 1/0 has an answer but, it is not possible.

The answer to 1/0 is not Undefined, it is Impossible.

So, 1/0 is impossible.

It is said that 0/0 is indeterminate...

Is it so?

How?

Why not?

No, it is not indeterminate.

And, why is it so?

Because, when you divide with anything then the denominator is given the first preference... it is not just preference, it is the truth or common sense or logic.

Anything divided by 0 is said to be 0.

And, it is true because 0 in the numerator means you have nothing to divide.

So, you are not given the Apple in the first place.

How can you eat an Apple if you don't have any?

So, what is 0/0 then?

When you are dividing some number with another number then the number that acts as the denominator is the first thing that is important, not the other way around.

So, when you are asked to divide an Apple into two parts you don't say... here... take this two Apples!

It is, two halves of the 1 Apple.

So, division of an Apple into zero parts is impossible.

And, 0/0 doesn't mean you have nothing to divide, it means you can't divide anything (even 0) into 0 parts.

When you say 0/0, there are no two things such as...

First thing: 0 in the numerator meaning “Nothing to divide "...

Second thing: 0 in the denominator meaning “Divide the numerator into nothing ".

The “Second thing “is the correct answer.

Why?

Because, 1/2 doesn't mean 1/2 = 1!

It means 1/2 = 0.5.

So, the denominator is the first thing that is to be used.

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.

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.

What is division with 0.1?

(A). Division with 0.1 is possible in virtual reality or virtual existence and is impossible in physical reality or physical existence since you can’t cut a single Apple with 0.1 and make it into 10 Apples.

You can say 1/0.1 as 10/1 as 10 units is a single apple.

So single apple divided by 1 so 1/0.1 is 10/1 where 10=single apple.

In physical reality division is possible if the divider is 1 or greater than 1.

There are two types of realities, virtual reality and physical reality.

Infinity means ever increasing.

So, +ve infinity is ever increasing and -ve infinity is ever decreasing.

Ever decreasing is -ve infinity that keeps on going below zero, further left to zero on a number line where negative values are on left side and positive values are on the right side with zero in between.

In virtual reality negative infinity is possible and in physical reality there is no such thing as negative thing, the least value for physical existence of anything physical or anything that depends upon physical things is zero.

So in virtual reality the opposite of +ve infinity is -ve infinity, that is; in virtual reality the opposite of ever increasing is ever decreasing since in English the opposite of increasing is decreasing this holds good and is appropriate.

But, in physical reality it is the other way around. In physical reality English plays the key role.

Positive infinity/+ve infinity/ever increasing means unlimited.

The opposite of UNLIMITED in physical reality and English is LIMITED.

The opposite of infinite Mondays is Zero Mondays. So in physical reality the opposite of infinity is zero.

Therefore, in virtual reality the opposite of +ve infinity is -ve infinity and in physical reality the opposite of +ve infinity is zero and in physical reality there is no negative existence hence -ve infinity is impossible.

In physical reality negative thing exists in a sense that it is relatively negative but not absolutely...

If there are four apples on a table and if I eat three of them we can say the 4-3=1 so -3 is a relative or comparison thing, -3 is the absence of three physical apples which cease to exist in their original form.

If we go in opposite directions we can use negative values to indicate such result but physically there is no negative apple. If I am supposed to give you money i.e; if I owe you money then it doesn't mean I own negative money simply because we are in debt but negative value can be used to represent some deficit and that is all, there is no negative physical existing thing.

If time is negative it doesn't mean we went back... if you play a video and go back and forth it doesn't mean there is negative time even though you went back and forth in time(video time-relative time)... so there is no negative physical thing in the entire World/Universe what so ever.

Okay Friends...

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.

Okay Friends...

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.

10:36 AM

1 is false. 2 and 3 are non-issues because there is no such thing as "nothing". 4, 5, 6, and 7 are false. 8 hasn't been demonstrated to be true. 9 is false. 10 follows from 1 and is therefore false. 11 is impossible to prove (and is probably false). 12 is false.

12:43 PM

Please visit my blog and read it if you have time and patience before concluding my postulates as wrong. Thanks.

12:50 PM

I did visit your blog. It is very hard to read. The actual content is very scattered and incoherent.

12:50 PM

You can't divide numerator with zero. You can't convert [1/0] 1 into 0 parts. You can't make 1 disappear.

12:54 PM

Now you say it is scattered... previously people used to say it is poorly formatted... so I used space to format it... space bar after sentences. I also changed white background to black background... now it is much pleasing to the eye then it was ever before.

12:55 PM

You are obviously not a mathematician. There is a number system called the extended real numbers. It is just the real numbers, with the addition of infinity (and negative infinity). In this system, dividing any number by zero produces the undetermined value of +-infinity. When taking limits of functions, this undetermined value becomes determined. For example, what is the limit as x goes to 0 of 1/x^2? The answer is +infinty.

12:57 PM

Do you know that infinity is not a number? How can you get a non number answer when you divide two finite numbers? Also division with a smaller number leads to larger number so it tends to larger and larger number as you divide 1 with smaller and smaller number but you never get infinity. Infinity is not a number.

1:09 PM

Give me an answer to 1/0. Guess what there is no answer why because such division is impossible. 0 in the denominator is impossible. There is no definite answer. You can never divide numerator with 0.

1:12 PM

Johnathan if I convince you that my first postulate is correct will you show my theory to a teacher of yours, to a teacher of your choice?

1:13 PM

No, because even if I concede the first point (which I don't) all but point 10 are still invalid.

1:13 PM

I already told you that infinity is not a number. And it is not a definite answer to anything.

1:15 PM

And why are they invalid? Can you provide me with alternate explanation, if possible?

1:16 PM

You yourself admit that you do not know much math or physics, so why do you argue with someone who does?

1:21 PM

Whenever a statement is "cannot" it is a statement that requires proof. You have to show that it is impossible for it to happen. It was the belief in Europe that swans cannot be black. When European explorers traveled to China, they saw that it is indeed possible for swans to be black.

If you replace "cannot" with "probably not" the statement become true, but they are no longer universal truths.

If you replace "cannot" with "probably not" the statement become true, but they are no longer universal truths.

1:24 PM

This is not a theory. It is a set of statements you came up with that you think are true. Except for 7, 8, and 9, they aren't even testable. 7 is demonstrably false. 8 is also false since there are at least 4 dimensions. 9 is also false because you are traveling through time at a rate of 1 second per second.

1:26 PM

If you use "CAN" you don't need proof? I think we need proof no matter what we say, whether we say "CAN" or "CANNOT" we do need proof on both of these occasions and I used postulate 1 as proof to 9 other postulates. So in my theory there are 12 postulates and 10 postulates are dependant on 1/0. If you have a different answer to 1/0 other than impossible then you have proof that 10 of my postlates are wrong. If 1/0 is impossible indeed then 10 of my postulates are proved.

1:29 PM

This clearly proves one thing, you didn't read my blog and you are unable to beg to differ with your old knowledge which is proved wrong in this case.

I explained why velocity of light is relative in a detailed manner. And paasage of time doesn't mean time travel. You should read my blog before coming to any conclusions.

1:40 PM

I don't think you know what theory means. "A scientific theory is a well-substantiated explanation of some aspect of the natural world that is acquired through the scientific method, and repeatedly confirmed through observation and experimentation." http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_theory

What you have provided is a list of statements that are mostly untestable (and therefore cannot be "repeatedly confirmed through observation and experimentation"), unsubstantiated (and therefore not "well-substantiated"), and not explanations of the natural world. How can I use any of your statements to determine the result of any experiment?

The word "cannot" is stronger than the word "can." Something that can happen may still not happen, while something that cannot happen may not happen. I can eat apples, that does not imply I will tomorrow. I cannot eat a jet engine and therefore I will not eat one tomorrow. The negation of "cannot" is "can" but the opposite of "cannot" is "must." Any statement with "cannot" or "must" (or synonyms) requires proof, "can" does not most of the time. If I jump up, I must come down.

What you have provided is a list of statements that are mostly untestable (and therefore cannot be "repeatedly confirmed through observation and experimentation"), unsubstantiated (and therefore not "well-substantiated"), and not explanations of the natural world. How can I use any of your statements to determine the result of any experiment?

The word "cannot" is stronger than the word "can." Something that can happen may still not happen, while something that cannot happen may not happen. I can eat apples, that does not imply I will tomorrow. I cannot eat a jet engine and therefore I will not eat one tomorrow. The negation of "cannot" is "can" but the opposite of "cannot" is "must." Any statement with "cannot" or "must" (or synonyms) requires proof, "can" does not most of the time. If I jump up, I must come down.

1:45 PM

But postulate 7 as been proved. Some where in America they conducted an experiment indoors and outdoors and the experiment that was conducted outdoors showed difference in velocity of light and they concluded sensors went wrong because of temperature variations they didn't understand that velocity of light is relative to temperature. They probably never heard of my theory. If I didn't have this disorder you would have heard it long before today. I started this theory during 1999-2000.

1:46 PM

I did read your blog, enough to know that you are wrong. I know you are wrong because you make wrong statements. I do not care how many times you say the velocity of light is relative, it is not. The velocity of light is, and will always be exactly 299,792,458 meters per second. It does not matter what frame you are in. It does not matter if you are on Earth or on the Moon. It does not matter what temperature you are. When you talk about the speed of light in a medium, that is the propagation speed, not the actual speed. Light interacts with the matter in the medium. It reacts with the molecules and atoms in the medium, sending the photons in a random but biased direction. This slows down the observed speed, but does not affect the speed that light travels between interactions.

1:49 PM

Aren't you forgetting something? Temperature is a medium... Gravitational filed/gravity is a medium.

1:49 PM

You still haven't addressed my most important questions. What physical phenomenon or phenomena does this help to explain? What predictions does this make? How could this be falsified?

If you cannot answer the first question, you just have a random collection of sentences. If you cannot answer the second, this cannot be tested. If you cannot answer the third, it is worthless.

If you cannot answer the first question, you just have a random collection of sentences. If you cannot answer the second, this cannot be tested. If you cannot answer the third, it is worthless.

1:51 PM

No it isn't. The bending of space-time is what produces gravity, but that does not make gravity or space-time the medium through which light or gravity propagates. Neither require a medium.

1:55 PM

1. What physical phenomenon or phenomena does this help to explain?

2.What predictions does this make?

3. How could this be falsified?

This explains that gravity doesn't bend space itself. This explains that gravity lensing is not gravity bending space.

The predictions that are already made do suffice but, they are misinterpret.

This could be falsified if we measure velocity of light during noon at equator and during midnight at poles or measure velocity of light in a space station and on earth or on moon and earth. You will know that I am correct. You will know that velocity of light is relative indeed.

2.What predictions does this make?

3. How could this be falsified?

This explains that gravity doesn't bend space itself. This explains that gravity lensing is not gravity bending space.

The predictions that are already made do suffice but, they are misinterpret.

This could be falsified if we measure velocity of light during noon at equator and during midnight at poles or measure velocity of light in a space station and on earth or on moon and earth. You will know that I am correct. You will know that velocity of light is relative indeed.

1:57 PM

You said bending of space-time produces gravity and experts all around the world say gravity bends space and it's not just space but it's always space time....[ what others say].

Eric Dean Campbell

Yesterday 2:04 PM

Contraction upon contraction.

Johnathan Gross

Yesterday 2:05 PM

Gravity is the bending of space time. They are the exact same thing. It's like saying 1 plus 1 produces two.

The velocity of light has been measured, many, many times. It was this very measurement that brought Einstein onto the radar of physicists.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Michelson%E2%80%93Morley_experiment

Johnathan Gross

Yesterday 2:09 PM

Here are some links I suggest you read before you continue:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Theory_of_relativity

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Spacetime

http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/physics/relativity-and-the-cosmos.html

http://galileoandeinstein.physics.virginia.edu/lectures/spedlite.html

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Falsifiability

Shiro Lenore

Yesterday 4:39 PM

Furthermore, your research seems to be minimal. What other sources did you consult besides "A Brief History of Time"?

Stanton Ludwick

Yesterday 8:48 PM

Anyone can have a theory based on anything or nothing.

Nick James

2:08 AM

+Johnathan Gross You could also add

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Infinity

I am very impressed by your patience with +Sagar Gorijala .

There do seem to be a lot of holes in his understanding of very well established physics and mathematics and an extensive use of techno-babble to achieve not a whole lot.

Johnathan Gross

3:23 AM

+Nick James Text does not convey tone.

Nick James

3:25 AM

I just came across an interesting post by Brian Koberlein that talks about techno-babble.

https://plus.google.com/100479352836033641546/posts/FUX6s8Fc2AV

Sagar Gorijala

5:17 AM

This isn't the first time I'm facing such ignorant comments... none of you read and understand my blog and I completely know that for sure.

Sagar Gorijala

5:18 AM

THE END. GOODBYE. NO MORE COMMENTS PLEASE. POSTING ALL THIS TO MY BLOG. GOODBYE. SEE YOU LATER. My email...

[ nimzosagar@yahoo.co.uk].

Johnathan Gross

Eric Dean Campbell

Yesterday 2:04 PM

Contraction upon contraction.

Johnathan Gross

Yesterday 2:05 PM

Gravity is the bending of space time. They are the exact same thing. It's like saying 1 plus 1 produces two.

The velocity of light has been measured, many, many times. It was this very measurement that brought Einstein onto the radar of physicists.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Michelson%E2%80%93Morley_experiment

Johnathan Gross

Yesterday 2:09 PM

Here are some links I suggest you read before you continue:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Theory_of_relativity

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Spacetime

http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/physics/relativity-and-the-cosmos.html

http://galileoandeinstein.physics.virginia.edu/lectures/spedlite.html

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Falsifiability

Shiro Lenore

Yesterday 4:39 PM

Furthermore, your research seems to be minimal. What other sources did you consult besides "A Brief History of Time"?

Stanton Ludwick

Yesterday 8:48 PM

Anyone can have a theory based on anything or nothing.

Nick James

2:08 AM

+Johnathan Gross You could also add

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Infinity

I am very impressed by your patience with +Sagar Gorijala .

There do seem to be a lot of holes in his understanding of very well established physics and mathematics and an extensive use of techno-babble to achieve not a whole lot.

Johnathan Gross

3:23 AM

+Nick James Text does not convey tone.

Nick James

3:25 AM

I just came across an interesting post by Brian Koberlein that talks about techno-babble.

https://plus.google.com/100479352836033641546/posts/FUX6s8Fc2AV

Sagar Gorijala

5:17 AM

This isn't the first time I'm facing such ignorant comments... none of you read and understand my blog and I completely know that for sure.

Sagar Gorijala

5:18 AM

THE END. GOODBYE. NO MORE COMMENTS PLEASE. POSTING ALL THIS TO MY BLOG. GOODBYE. SEE YOU LATER. My email...

[ nimzosagar@yahoo.co.uk].

I read, and understood your blog. I just understood it to be garbage. You are the one without understanding.

Moderator's Note: +Sagar Gorijala We encourage original posts drawing on peer reviewed science. This Community does not allow speculative posts on theories unless the arguments are backed up by empirical or theoretically sound research. We welcome future posts from you that draw on established science.

*Sagar Gorijala:*

*The post above [*

*Johnathan Gross*

__says my theory is garbage. There are many who said the same thing about my theory and that is the precise reason why my theory is not World famous.__*]*

*There are people who ridiculed me, called me stupid, idiot, fool...etc;*

*passed jokes on it...*

*Let me tell you one thing...*

*They didn't understand simple plain english postulates that are explained in a down to earth manner.*

*What a waste?*

*Who is the real fool here?*

*There quite a few forums where I registered and posted my theory and eventually I was permanently banned for one or the other reason and one physics forum even went on saying that I was banned because of a "crackpot theory".*

*Who is the real fool here?*

*If you ever call me a loser, I shall completely agree with that fact. I'm a major loser. I'm a LOSER with a capital L.*

*All World loves a winner and there is no time for a Loser.*

*Everything is 100% conditional.*

*"EVERYTHING" is a super set with "friendship" being a single element in the superset.*

*Like everything friendship and*

__too are 100% conditional.__*love*

*Going with the masses or questioning what is wrong?*

*Everyone asks for peer reviewed material and I did submit my theory to few journals and I got few replies, (sometimes there were no replies) and, they replied that they don't accept such theories and, what shall I do? Bang my head to the wall? Yup, that's easy.*

*The Guy from the above post --->*Johnathan Gross

*said my theory is garbage. He did Graduation in Mathematics and he said 1/0 is infinity and he is doing or done Post Graduation in Physics. What kind of joke is this? I'm not a Mathematics or Physics Graduate but, a Mathematics and Physics student.*

*Needless to say.*
Therefore...

1. Zero cannot exist as denominator.

The fact that the numerator cannot be divided into zero parts means anything that exists cannot be destroyed into nothingness.

And the fact that sum of zeroes gives us zero alone means anything that does not exist cannot be given existence out of nothingness.

Therefore...

2. Anything cannot be created out of nothingness, only change of form is possible and change is everywhere.

3. Anything cannot be destroyed into nothingness, only change of form is possible and change is everywhere.

Once again we need to know what infinite means.

What does infinite mean?

Infinite means not finite and not finite means Unlimited.

By now we know that creation and destruction are Impossible.

If creation is impossible then there is no other way new things can add up to the World that already exists.

If new things can not add up to the World then there is no way anything that exists in this World can be infinite.

Space cannot be infinite.

Anything that has physical existence can't be infinite.

Space has physical existence.

Numbers don't have physical existence.

The word Apple doesn't have physical existence but the edible Apple in your hand has physical existence and the edible Apples in your hands can't be infinite.

Also, Time is never Absolute, it is always Relative and, it has no physical existence.

Time is a measure of Change and sometimes Change is a turn of events, events can be numbered to an extent and, existence of more than one event of the same part of World or Universe is impossible.

So, Time can never be infinite.

Therefore...

4. Existence of anything cannot be infinite.

Apples - Edible apples have physical existence.

Numbers have virtual existence.

4. Existence of anything cannot be infinite.

5. There is no beginning and an end to the existence of the World.

Many or almost all think that these two postulates contradict each other.

I explained these postulates in my blog.

But, the problem is not all read the entire blog.

Not all understand the content even though it is in simple English.

Sometimes it is highly impossible to accept new knowledge.

Fourth postulate says...

Physical existence can't be infinite.

Fifth postulate says...

Virtual existence can be infinite.

Numbers are infinite.

But no number is infinite.

So fourth postulate says space,gravity,volume,...etc can't be infinite.

Fourth postulate also says time is not infinite.

Some think time is infinite.

But time is not absolute.

Time is always relative.

Time=Distance/Velocity and distance and velocity are always finite.

Calendar Time is numbering of events and this Calender Time can be infinite.

Calendar Time has virtual existence.

Some think that fifth postulate says Time is infinite but time is never infinite.

Fifth postulate says Yesterdays apple and today's apple don't count as two apples if they don't exist simultaneously and thus can never reach infinity.

Fourth postulate: Time is finite.

Fifth postulate: Calender time is infinite.

Numbers are infinite but number of apples (existence) cannot be infinite.

Now, we know that creation and destruction are impossible and we also know that the existence of anything cannot be infinite.

We are part of the world we live in.

In our world existence of anything cannot be infinite.

That is Space, Mass, Energy, Density, Gravity, Force, etc.; cannot be infinite.

Also, in our World creation and destruction are impossible.

Creation is impossible means no new things can add up to the World that already exists and it also means what already exists cannot come out of creation.

Creation is impossible, creation is completely ruled out. We also know that destruction of the World is impossible.

Space is timeless.

Therefore...

5. There is no beginning and an end to the existence of the World.

According to the fourth postulate space cannot be infinite and according to the fifth postulate space is timeless.

We know what an equation means.

An equation is a law of equity.

If creation and destruction are possible then all laws have to fail.

In a World where creation and destruction are

possible laws cannot exist, only Chaos exists.

We know what infinity means.

Infinity means not finite and it means infinity is something that is unlimited, something that is ever increasing.

Positive infinity is ever increasing and negative infinity is ever decreasing.

Infinity means unlimited and it can not be used in equations.

If creation is possible, equations will fail.

Therefore...

6. There are finite absolute laws.

Where Albert Einstein went wrong...

Velocity varying with frame of reference depends upon (1)Velocity (2)Acceleration/Gravity (3) Temperature and whatever...

Velocity of light on Earth is constant for every observer as we can't make light to accelerate or decelerate. We can't carry light. A moving train doesn't carry light.

Velocity of light is relative if we measure its velocity on Earth and on Moon (Gravity must be different for the two observers in this case).

Velocity of light is relative with temperature variation... If we measure velocity of light on two locations with different temperatures we will find that velocity of light is relative.

Time(Clocks) depend upon

(1)Velocity (2)Acceleration/Gravity (3) Temperature and whatever... Therefore VELOCITY OF LIGHT IS RELATIVE where there is difference in gravity and temperature too...

If we say Light has zero time it means one of these two things...

(1) Light is everywhere so Distance travelled is zero S=0.

(2) Light(Electromagnetic radiation) has completely come to a grinding halt which is as impossible as 1. So, 1 and 2 are impossible.

Therefore S/Distance traveled can never be zero.

S=VT

Distance Travelled(S) = Velocity(V) X Time(T).

If T=0 then S=0 but T can't be zero so S can't be zero so V too can't be zero. Light has time. How much?

S=VT

Take unit Distance S=1

1=VT

T=1/V

T=1/C

T=1/[( 3 X 10 )m/sec.sec]

So Time or Clock for light is too low/slow but not zero. Light's velocity is dependent on Time and Time varies with (1)Velocity (2)Acceleration/Gravity (3) Temperature and whatever...

Light's velocity doesn't vary with velocity of a moving body/carrier but it is completely dependent upon different frame of reference if gravity and temperature are considered as variables in the new frame of reference.

Simple equation that says velocity of light is relative to change in gravity... is

v=at

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.

Why?

Because S=VT

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.

Velocity varying with frame of reference depends upon (1)Velocity (2)Acceleration/Gravity (3) Temperature and whatever...

Velocity of light on Earth is constant for every observer as we can't make light to accelerate or decelerate. We can't carry light. A moving train doesn't carry light.

Velocity of light is relative if we measure its velocity on Earth and on Moon (Gravity must be different for the two observers in this case).

Velocity of light is relative with temperature variation... If we measure velocity of light on two locations with different temperatures we will find that velocity of light is relative.

Time(Clocks) depend upon

(1)Velocity (2)Acceleration/Gravity (3) Temperature and whatever... Therefore VELOCITY OF LIGHT IS RELATIVE where there is difference in gravity and temperature too...

If we say Light has zero time it means one of these two things...

(1) Light is everywhere so Distance travelled is zero S=0.

(2) Light(Electromagnetic radiation) has completely come to a grinding halt which is as impossible as 1. So, 1 and 2 are impossible.

Therefore S/Distance traveled can never be zero.

S=VT

Distance Travelled(S) = Velocity(V) X Time(T).

If T=0 then S=0 but T can't be zero so S can't be zero so V too can't be zero. Light has time. How much?

S=VT

Take unit Distance S=1

1=VT

T=1/V

T=1/C

**8**T=1/[( 3 X 10 )m/sec.sec]

So Time or Clock for light is too low/slow but not zero. Light's velocity is dependent on Time and Time varies with (1)Velocity (2)Acceleration/Gravity (3) Temperature and whatever...

Light's velocity doesn't vary with velocity of a moving body/carrier but it is completely dependent upon different frame of reference if gravity and temperature are considered as variables in the new frame of reference.

Simple equation that says velocity of light is relative to change in gravity... is

v=at

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.

Why?

Because S=VT

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.

Anything that has mass is in turn influenced by gravity.

If we take E=mcc

and replace c with gt [c=gt]

then we get E=mcgt

and this means g=E/mct

Since light is a form of energy with relativistic mass we can't consider

c=gt

but we should consider

g=E/mct

therefore light's gravitational pull is inversely proportional to its velocity...

Greater the gravity lesser the velocity also lesser the gravity, greater the velocity.

The velocity of an Apple on ground and on a moving train is different.

The velocity of light on ground and on a moving train is same.

When we move the source of light on a train we don't carry light, we carry light source.

So, on ground and on a moving train velocity of light is same.

What happens when we take two frames of reference when they differ by gravity?

Velocity of light is not the same and this is explained by General theory of relativity.

Can we say that

"Velocity of light is RELATIVE" using this relationship?

E=mcc

c=gt

E=mcgt

g is proportional to

E/mc

Light is form of Energy with relativistic mass so

Light is form of Energy with relativistic mass so

E/mc is needed but not

c=gt

Now, with increase in

Now, with increase in

gravity means decrease in Light's velocity.

Also General theory of relativity suggests increase in gravity means

time/change/clock is slower so velocity of light is lesser...

According to General theory of relativity light's velocity will be lesser in a frame of reference with higher gravity when compared to frame of reference with relatively lesser gravity.

Also E=mcgt suggests velocity of light is decreased in a frame of reference with higher gravity not just because of General theory of relativity but also due to the fact that light is a product of energy and mass and this results in its inverse proportionality with gravity.

Is the above explanation true?

Is the above explanation true?

Why not?

Is velocity of light relative?

Proof of Velocity of Light being Relative to Gravity.

Albert Einstein: Special Relativity Theory

1. The laws of physics are the same in all inertial (=non-accelerating) reference frames,

and

2. The speed of light in free space is constant.

General Theory of Relativity

Clocks which are far from massive bodies (or at higher gravitational potentials) run faster, and clocks close to massive bodies (or at lower gravitational potentials) run slower.

This is because gravitational time dilation is manifested in accelerated frames of reference or, by virtue of the equivalence principle, in the gravitational field of massive objects.

Albert Einstein in his Special Theory of Relativity said that Velocity of Light is Constant in Free Space.

That is, Velocity of Light is Constant on the Surface of the Earth or on the Surface of the Moon. But, it's not so.

I beg to differ on it and here is my explanation.

Ordinary body is measured in terms of MASS.

Total Energy is equal to the Sum of Kinetic Energy and Potential Energy.

For ordinary body-Gravity is Directly Proportional to Change in Velocity per Time.

Velocity of Light is constant when it is measured on the surface of the Earth i.e.; it's Constant where ever there is No Considerable Change in Gravity.

What happens when the Velocity of the Same Light (Same Source, Same Conditions – Except Gravity) is measured on the Surface of the Earth and on the Surface of the Moon?

According to Albert Einstein it must be Constant. But, I beg to differ.

It's not constant and here is why?!

For ordinary body we have “MASS " but when it comes to LIGHT we have “ENERGY/MASS” since Energy = Product of Mass and Velocity Square. E=m c (square).

For ordinary body

g is proportional to c/t

For Light

g is proportional to E/mct, since Light is a

form of energy with mass Let's take t (Time) as constant?!

On different places such as Surface of the Earth and, Surface of the Moon...

Gravity is different...

If Gravity is different Changes are different and Change is a measure of Time.

So, Time is not constant or same on different places such as Earth and Moon.

But, it doesn't differ by much. So when it's ordinary body...

Gravity is directly proportional to Change in Velocity. But, when we take Light into account...

1. Gravity is inversely proportional to Velocity [ Gravity is proportional to E/mc i.e.; Change in Gravity leads to Change in Velocity of Light].

As gravity increases velocity of light decreases and when gravity is lesser then the velocity of light is more when compared to a location where gravity is more...

So, Velocity of Light on Earth is lesser than Velocity of Light on Moon.

For ordinary body Acceleration is directly proportional to Velocity (When Gravity increases Velocity of a free falling object increases...

and, when it comes to Light Gravity is inversely proportional to Velocity...

So, as Gravity increases Velocity of Light decreases.

Why?

Because, Light is a product of both Energy and Mass unlike an ordinary body which is a product of Mass alone.

So, as Gravity increases Velocity of Light decreases.

So velocity of Light is more in space (where there is little gravity) and on the Moon (where the Gravity is lesser than that on the Earth) when compared to Velocity of Light on Earth.

And, this results in...

So when it's ordinary body...

Gravity is directly proportional to Change in Velocity.

But, when we take Light into account...

1. Gravity is inversely proportional to Velocity [ Gravity is proportional to E/mc i.e.; Change in Gravity leads to Change in Velocity of Light].

When we take E/m into consideration...

g is inversely proportional to c.

Here is a better explanation...

E = m c square

So, for light

g t = E/mc

g t is inversely proportional to c and, for ordinary body (ordinary body in a sense mass is taken into consideration unlike mass and energy for light) For a Body of mass m

g t = v

g t is directly proportional to v

For any body with Energy/Mass

g t = E/mv

g t is inversely proportional to v

According to Albert Einstein's Special Theory Of Relativity...

Velocity of light is constant in free space and, According to General Theory Of Relativity...

it is relative when there is difference in gravity.

That is...

When Clocks run slower (When Time is relatively lower)

i.e.; when Gravity is more Velocity of light is lesser...

similarly it is more when gravity is lesser.

g t = E/mc

That is...

gt inversely proportional to c.

According to Albert Einstein Velocity of light depends upon Gravity-Time but not Relativistic Mass.

Therefore,

it is same/constant on a moving Train and on Land. Where as it varies where there is change in Gravity- Time.

Actually Light has RELATIVISTIC MASS...

And, that is why I say it varies with Gravity.

For a Body of mass m

g t = c

g t is directly proportional to c

Light...

E = m c square

So, for light

g t = E/mc

g t is inversely proportional to c

Therefore, velocity of light is relative not just because of General Theory Of Relativity but also due to the fact that light has relativistic mass and anything with greater E/m value than light can travel faster than light. But, nothing travels faster than light itself since light is electromagnetic radiation. Light, as with all types of electromagnetic radiation (EMR), is experimentally found to always move at the same speed in vacuum.

Velocity of light is relative because of Gravity-Time (Clocks running faster or slower) and also because Gravity attracts light (Relativistic mass).

Why is it that the velocity of light is same on both the Train and on Land?

The reason is...

When you carry an Apple with you on a moving train then the Apple has the train's velocity and it has no velocity on land.

And, when you carry light!

Carry light?

When you have a source of light on a train and on land velocity of light is observed to be one and the same and, it is because we don't carry light, we don't get hold of light, we carry light source but not light.

Light is generated at the source and it travels on its own.

Therefore velocity of light is observed to be constant in free space.

But, Light can't escape the Train called Gravity.

When Light travels through the Train called Gravity it has a (both because of General Theory Of Relativity and due to Gravity attraction of Relativistic Mass) relative velocity.

In light's case gravity is inversely proportional to its velocity. Velocity of light is constant in free space and is relative with respect to change in gravity both due to General Theory Of Relativity and also due to its Relativistic Mass.

Gravity bending Space is something I don't know and don't understand too.

If Space is something, emptiness that can be occupied what does Space occupy?

How can it be bent if it doesn't occupy anything?

If Space=Emptiness then how can it be bent?

There are equations quoting Space is bent also there are some cosmic observations that are said to prove this bending phenomenon but, I don't understand it.

I think Gravity bends light and everything that has physical existence (but not space???), also Time has no physical existence but it is a result of something that has physical existence so time too is dependent on gravity.

Everything is connected!

Gravity connects everything!

Gravity controls velocities...

If gravity lensing is true, why do planets deviate from circular orbits?

According to Gravity Lensing light travels in a straight line and looks like it is bent due to bent space...

According to me...

Gravity lensing can be true but gravity bending light is definitely true.

Gravity bends light.

Space or Emptiness or anything that has existence can't be infinite according to Fundamental Theory Of Existence and it is also true that anything that has physical existence or anything that is influenced by anything that has physical existence is in turn influenced by gravity.

Is gravity lensing true?

There is no doubt Space and or Emptiness has properties and it is so because it has existence and can't be infinite.

So, gravity lensing has a point to prove...

Is it gravity bending everything else except emptiness or it is the finite emptiness that can be bent?

Space/Emptiness has physical properties and is finite.

Maxwell's equations state that "C" velocity of all EM waves is constant or is same in free space...

If it is not same then we will get to see different positions of stars in the sky with varying spectra.

So C in free space is constant but, it can't escape a train called gravity.

So, C is not constant when there is change in gravity.

Gravity controls velocity of everything, absolutely.

Velocity of light on Earth's surface is lesser than velocity of light in free space.

All EM waves travel with same speed in free space and their velocity varies with medium... also their velocity is controlled by gravity.

Velocity of light or any EM wave varies with varying gravity and it is so, because of two reasons...

Reason 1: Time varies with Gravity so C is different.

Reason 2: C is inversely proportional to Gravity so with decrease in gravity c increases.

According to

reason 1... Time is faster when gravity is low and C is more and, according to

reason 2... Gravity is low means gravity effect on mass E/m is lower so C is more.

For an ordinary body as gravity increases the velocity of the body increases...

If you drop an object from sky then the velocity of the object increases as it approaches the earth and that is because velocity is directly proportional to gravity and, if you measure the velocity of light focused from moon to earth its velocity is greater on moon, even greater where there is lesser gravity is slower on earth than that on the moon and that is so because EM waves are E/m waves and their velocity is inversely proportional to gravity. Therefore...

7. Velocity of light is relative.

On Tuesday, 12 August 2014 2:47 PM, Shashanka Viriventi <shashankav@live.com> wrote:

I just read FTOE. It is an amazing theory.Everything makes sense.Thanks for such an amazing theory,

I have some doubts . can i ask you

Date: Tue, 12 Aug 2014 14:12:03 +0100

From: nimzosagar@yahoo.co.uk

Subject: Re: FTOE:Amazing

To: shashankav@live.com

Dear Friend,

You are among the few who liked it and one and only one who said it's amazing. I'm always open for any of your doubts. I thank you for spending your precious time reading the theory that is not even close to famous and is not accepted by peers or many others who discarded it as nonsense. Thanks a lot.

Yours sincerely,

Sagar Gorijala.

On Tuesday, 12 August 2014 7:43 PM, Shashanka Viriventi <shashankav@live.com> wrote:

My doubt is does light have mass? people say it has no mass but einstein said it has momentum that implies it has mass....pls clarify my doubt

My reply:

Energy equals mass times velocity of light means energy and mass are connected and velocity of light completes the equation. It is said that mass annihilated gives equivalent energy and velocity of light. So E is energy produced by destruction of mass and velocity of light completes the equation. E=m.c.c also means Energy has relativistic mass and velocity of light completes the equation. Another definition for E=m.c.c is E=energy of light, m=relativistic mass of light and c its velocity.

Another email:

Actually if you take any object such as light which has "Relativistic kinetic energy" E = m.c.c is incomplete. The complete equation is...

E = Relativistic kinetic energy + m.c.c

For light "Relativistic kinetic energy" will never be zero.

Shashanka Viriventi

To Me

Today at 6:29 PM

I took your theory to one of my professors ...He told he it is "false"...but I think this is pretty accurate what should I do?

On , "nimzosagar@yahoo.co.uk" <nimzosagar@yahoo.co.uk> wrote:

Never mind.

On , "nimzosagar@yahoo.co.uk" <nimzosagar@yahoo.co.uk> wrote:

If any one can conduct an experiment on velocity of light with varying temperature my theory will be proved. Take two insulated boxes, boxes where the sensors are placed, boxes where there is no temperature fluctuation and make sure you send light and receive light using these sensors during noon(high temperature) and during night(low temperature) and my theory is proved!!!

To Shashanka Viriventi

Today at 6:35 PM I am posting all these emails to my blog and this is the last mail I will post. Thanks for believing.

On Tuesday, 12 August 2014 2:47 PM, Shashanka Viriventi <shashankav@live.com> wrote:

I just read FTOE. It is an amazing theory.Everything makes sense.Thanks for such an amazing theory,

I have some doubts . can i ask you

Date: Tue, 12 Aug 2014 14:12:03 +0100

From: nimzosagar@yahoo.co.uk

Subject: Re: FTOE:Amazing

To: shashankav@live.com

Dear Friend,

You are among the few who liked it and one and only one who said it's amazing. I'm always open for any of your doubts. I thank you for spending your precious time reading the theory that is not even close to famous and is not accepted by peers or many others who discarded it as nonsense. Thanks a lot.

Yours sincerely,

Sagar Gorijala.

On Tuesday, 12 August 2014 7:43 PM, Shashanka Viriventi <shashankav@live.com> wrote:

My doubt is does light have mass? people say it has no mass but einstein said it has momentum that implies it has mass....pls clarify my doubt

My reply:

Energy equals mass times velocity of light means energy and mass are connected and velocity of light completes the equation. It is said that mass annihilated gives equivalent energy and velocity of light. So E is energy produced by destruction of mass and velocity of light completes the equation. E=m.c.c also means Energy has relativistic mass and velocity of light completes the equation. Another definition for E=m.c.c is E=energy of light, m=relativistic mass of light and c its velocity.

Another email:

Actually if you take any object such as light which has "Relativistic kinetic energy" E = m.c.c is incomplete. The complete equation is...

E = Relativistic kinetic energy + m.c.c

For light "Relativistic kinetic energy" will never be zero.

Shashanka Viriventi

To Me

Today at 6:29 PM

I took your theory to one of my professors ...He told he it is "false"...but I think this is pretty accurate what should I do?

On , "nimzosagar@yahoo.co.uk" <nimzosagar@yahoo.co.uk> wrote:

Never mind.

On , "nimzosagar@yahoo.co.uk" <nimzosagar@yahoo.co.uk> wrote:

If any one can conduct an experiment on velocity of light with varying temperature my theory will be proved. Take two insulated boxes, boxes where the sensors are placed, boxes where there is no temperature fluctuation and make sure you send light and receive light using these sensors during noon(high temperature) and during night(low temperature) and my theory is proved!!!

To Shashanka Viriventi

Today at 6:35 PM I am posting all these emails to my blog and this is the last mail I will post. Thanks for believing.

Theory Of Everything?

Watch

Theory Of Everything

What does this video contain?

Here it is...

[1.] Theory of Everything?

Is String Theory really a theory of everything?

Why not?

[2.] According to different string theories there are 10 or 11 spatial dimensions.

[3.] The truth is there are three and three dimensions only.

Refer to:

[4.] Time = Change

Time is a measure of change.

[5.] It is said that time is the 4th dimension.

[6.] Time has no physical existence.

[7.] There are 3 length and 1 time dimensions.

[8.] What about more than 3 length/spatial dimensions?

10 length/spatial dimensions?

11 length/spatial dimensions?

[9.] We sometimes study different parameters in 1 dimension and sometimes in 2 dimensions and also in 3 and 4 dimensions.

[10.] Let us not talk about the time dimension.

So here is what we have...

3 length/spatial dimensions.

[11.] Is there anything in this World/Universe that is 1 dimensional?

1D? Really?

[12.] The moment of truth...

[13.] There is no such thing as 1D and 1D only...

We simply neglect the other 2 length/spatial Ds.

[14.] So... There is no such thing as1D only or 2D only...

[15.] It is always 3D and 3D only. We simply neglect other Ds for our convenience.

[16.] What about 10Ds and 11Ds???

[17.] The 3 Ds are mutually perpendicular to each other.

[18.] If there are 10Ds or 11Ds... Wait! Let us talk about 4Ds only...

Just for now!

[19.] If 4th D does not exist, that leaves us with the answer: No 10 or 11 Ds.

[20.] Now, to prove that 4th D does not exist.

[21.] Here is the proof...

[22.] The 3Ds are mutually perpendicular.

If there is another D, 4th D then it will be mutually perpendicular to the measurable 3Ds?

[23.] No way.

[24.] So, There is no 4th D.

[25.] If there is a 4th D then what?

[26.] Let us take a look at the World if there is a 4th D.

[27.] Density= (Mass/Volume)

[28.] The formula for Volume is different for different 3D objects...

Basically the formula is...

[29.] Basically... Volume=Length x Breadth x Height - Volume = 1st D x 2nd D x 3rd D.

[30.] We know that Earth revolves around the Sun in 3Ds and if there is a 4th D then...

[31.] If there is a 4th D then Density, Mass, Volume, Energy, Space and everything else change!!!

Yes, EVERYTHING changes!!!

[32.] So the 4th D...

1. Cannot be mutually perpendicular?

2. It can not be measured?

3. It cannot have a visual effect on Earth – Sun relationship?

[33.] There is no 4th D Or More...

[34.] We know that Energy, Mass, and others have 1. Units and 2.Dimensions

[35.] If String Theory says... There are more than 3 length/spatial Ds then it is wrong.

[36.] If 3Ds are length/spatial, 4th D is time and other Ds (10 or 11) are Energy or Mass or something else then String Theory is really the Theory Of Everything. TOE.

[37.] Therefore... There are 3 and 3 only length/spatial Ds.

[38. LAST] Thanks for your valuable time, patience and undivided attention. Thanks again. Have a nice day/night! Goodbye.

Song:

Love Connects.mp3

Download it from mediafire:

Size:

428.57 KB

My Theory:

My E-mail:

Everything is well defined in three dimensions.

Space too is three dimensional.

String Theory claims more than three dimensions.

Time is an imaginary dimension.

Time is a measure of Change.

There are three and only three Length/Spatial dimensions and one Time dimension.

Existence of anything short of three dimensions is impossible since anything that exists cannot be destroyed into nothingness.

If more than three dimensions can exist, they have to exist everywhere and always.

Since anything cannot be created out of nothingness more than three dimensions cannot be given existence out of nothingness.

Therefore String Theory cannot be true. Therefore anything short of three dimensions and more than three dimensions is impossible.

Therefore...

8. There are three dimensions and three dimensions only.

Time travel!

How do you define it?

Can we go to past?

If Past=Memory then we can possibly go to past.

If going to past is like travelling from a city to a village then time travel is possible!

May be going to past is possible depending upon how you define PAST.

If Past is a physical World/Universe that is the precursor of the Present World/Universe then Time Travel is impossible.

It is not only impossible but also meaningless.

Why?

Because, the so called Past World/Universe has changed into Present World/Universe and it is not two or more copies of The World...

Thus, Time Travel is only a story or just another day dream!

What about Future?

Also Future is not another copy!

So, it is also not possible.

Wait!

Is that all?

Didn't I tell you...

Time is a measure of Change.

So more Gravity means slower changes and two places with different gravity will have different time or clock...

Is that you call Time Travel?

Really?

Think twice!

If so,

Time Travel is indeed a reality and it is something that all Life has always experienced.

How?

Gravity is not the same everywhere...

So, we have gone to places with varying gravity and thus we have made that amazing trip...

The TRIP, The so called Time Travel Trip.

There are no infinite parallel Worlds with infinite parallel changes and we cannot Time Travel.

Time Travel is meaningless.

Therefore...

9. Time Travel is impossible.

It is said that... --> [At Ï€/2 radians, or 90° (and -Ï€/2, 3Ï€/2, etc.) the function is officially undefined, because it could be positive Infinity or negative Infinity. ]

Infinity is not a number and it can't replace an unknown number in Mathematics and it is erroneous to say the result as undefined.

When we are in High School we are taught that two parallel lines never meet and a line with slope next to a straight line eventually meets the straight line at some point.

This is not completely true.

There are two cases.

Case 1 is...

1) The line with slope never meets the straight line next to it. The line with slope never meets X axis or Y axis. and

Case 2 is...

2) The line with slope intersects the straight line at some point.

Case 1 example is XY=1

If X=0 we get 1=0

and

If Y=0 we get 1=0

Therefore the line with slope never meets X-axis or Y-axis.

The reason is...

There are infinite numbers between 1 and 2 (or) 0.001 and 0.002 (or) any two different numbers.

So in XY=1, X and Y can have smaller values but never zero, also they can have bigger values but never infinite...

Let me remind you again...

Infinite is not a number and the answer is never undefined.

Case 2 example is X+Y=1.

If X=0 the line with slope meets Y-axis.

So there are three cases.

Case-I

Two parallel lines never meet.

Case-II

A line with slope never meets the X-axis or Y-axis.

Case-III

A line with slope meets the straight line next to it Tan 90 graph gives a line with slope and this line with slope never meets a straight line next to it.

Why?

There are three cases and they are...

Case 1: Two parallel lines never meet.

Case 2: A line with slope never meets a straight line next to it.

Example is XY=1.

Case 3: A line with slope does intersect X-axis and or Y-axis.

Example is x+y=1.

The “CASE -II “is the reason for first and tenth postulates.

There are infinite numbers between 0.001 and 0.002.

Tan 90 is same as 1/0.

The first and the tenth postulates are one and the same!

Therefore...

10. Tan 90 cannot exist.

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.

http://sagargorijala.blogspot.in/

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.

http://sagargorijala.blogspot.in/

God(s) cannot create and God(s) can not destroy and God(s) can not change laws.

God(s) cannot create laws and also can not destroy laws...

Therefore God(s) cannot exist.

Therefore...

11. God(s) cannot exist.

Gravity doesn't bend space. Gravity bends everything that has physical existence except Space.

Gravity bends light.

Gravity bending light and light traveling in a gravitational field that acts as a lens causes gravity lensing.

Gravity lensing is not gravity bending space, space can't be bend, space is absolute.

Gravitational field acts as gravitational lens and light traveling through it causes gravitational lensing.

Time changes with gravity. Though time has no physical existence, it depends upon something that has physical existence.

Time can change with velocity, gravity, temperature,...

Light's velocity doesn't change with velocity since it can't be accelerated or decelerated.

Light is in the same frame of reference since it can't be made to speedup or made to slow down.

Light's velocity changes with gravity as gravity causes change in frame of reference.

Light's velocity changes with temperature as temperature causes change in frame of reference.

Light is bent in space due to gravity but not non bending light traveling though bent space. Space can't be bent by gravity.

12. Space is absolute.

Gravity doesn't bend space. Gravity bends everything that has physical existence except Space.

Gravity bends light.

Gravity bending light and light traveling in a gravitational field that acts as a lens causes gravity lensing.

Gravity lensing is not gravity bending space, space can't be bend, space is absolute.

Gravitational field acts as gravitational lens and light traveling through it causes gravitational lensing.

Time changes with gravity. Though time has no physical existence, it depends upon something that has physical existence.

Time can change with velocity, gravity, temperature,...

Light's velocity doesn't change with velocity since it can't be accelerated or decelerated.

Light is in the same frame of reference since it can't be made to speedup or made to slow down.

Light's velocity changes with gravity as gravity causes change in frame of reference.

Light's velocity changes with temperature as temperature causes change in frame of reference.

Light is bent in space due to gravity but not non bending light traveling though bent space. Space can't be bent by gravity.

12. Space is absolute.

Name:

**Sagar Gorijala**
Mobile: 9492511174 (B.S.N.L)

and

8977548558 (TATA DOCOMO)

Mobile

S.T.D code: 0 (In India - Out of Andhra Pradesh)

I.S.D code: +91 (Outside India)

Address:

**Sagar Gorijala**, S/O

**Dr.G.Sambasiva Rao**, Flat no. 102,

Keerthi Enclave, Bank Colony,

Syamala nagar,

Rajahmundry,

East Godavari District,

Rajahmundry,

Andhra Pradesh,

India. Pin code: 533103.

Permanent Address:

**Sagar Gorijala**,

S/O

**Dr.G.Sambasiva Rao**,
Tirunetralayam,

Near R.T.C Bus Stand,

Nandigama, Krishna District,

Andhra Pradesh,

India,

Pin code: 521185.

E-mail: nimzosagar@yahoo.co.uk

1. If creation is impossible how did our World or Universe come to existence?

(A). Time has existence if World or Universe or Everything has existence and our World has never been created and no new Worlds will ever be created since creation is impossible.

2. Is nothingness or non existence of Everything (World/Universe) possible?

(A). No, never.

Finite World or 100% of this World is Everything.

World=Universe=Everything which is 100% and is finite.

3. If Everything or World or Universe was not created what is the first chain of events?

(A). There is no such thing as first or start for existence.

4. If creation is not possible does it mean that there is no such thing as “First” or “Starting point” or “First chain of events”?

(A). Yes.

5. Do laws depend upon equations?

(A). Yes. Since creation and destruction are impossible laws are possible.

In a World where creation is possible balance will fail and equations and laws are impossible.

6. Is everything connected or related?

(A). When you put some sand into a vessel, the particle that lies below is the foundation for what lies above that is, the position of one sand particle is responsible for the position of the other sand particles and that is how everything is connected.

Everything is connected doesn't mean anything is connected to anything else in every way.

It means something is connected to something else in some possible way.

7. Are equations necessary for relations to be established?

(A). Without equations how can anything be related?

8. If creation is possible, will the balance or equations fail?

(A). If creation is possible, all laws fail. Let’s say you are buying 1 kg tomatoes so the seller puts a 1 kg stone on one side and 1 kg tomatoes on the other side and tomatoes keep getting created on the tomato’s side… what happens?

Balance is lost!!!

9. Can more than a single copy of our World or Universe possible?

(A). No.

No because creation is not possible and change is not decided.

Free will exists and we have some percentage of ability to make decisions and change our Life/World.

10. What is time travel?

(A). If moving from one place to another place where gravity is different is considered as time travel then it’s possible otherwise it’s impossible.

There is a single World/Universe that is changing differently and that different changing parts of this World are known as frames of reference and they are different frames of reference so if you say time travel means traveling from one frame of reference to another than we constantly time travel in cars, trains, buses...etc;

So ultimately there is only one World and there are no unlimited copies of it so that we can actually time travel...

time travel is simply impossible.

This ONE/SINGLE World changes with differences in different parts of it and that is all... so time travel is not only impossible, it is also meaningless.

11. What is tan 90?

(A). It is same as 1/0 which is not possible.

12. What is rectangular or equilateral hyperbola?

(A). This is an equation such as XY=1 where X and Y can have any values other than zero.

This equation suggests that division with zero is impossible and it also suggests that creation and destruction are impossible.

13. If there is a curved line in a graph sheet with four quadrants does it touch x-axis and/or y-axis?

(A). It doesn't follow a single rule. Sometimes it touches and in some cases it can’t touch.

14. Do parallel lines meet?

(A). No.

15. Does a curved line or a line with slope meet x-axis and/or y-axis?

(A). If you take XY=1 then this curve never touches x-axis and/or y-axis.

Why?

Because there are unlimited numbers between any two different numbers.

16. What is the volume of our World or Universe if there is a fourth Spatial dimension or more?

(A). If there are more than 3 Spatial dimensions then volume changes and that means Earth doesn't revolve around Sun the way we see it.

17. If God created our World or Universe where does God stand?

(A). Our World, World=Universe=Everything is 100% there is and is finite.

Beyond this finite World…

there is no such thing as beyond this finite World because when we say World we are taking everything into consideration and there is nothing beyond this 100% finite World.

Can we call our finite World or Universe as Everything?

18. Does it imply that Everything=World=Universe?

(A). Yes.

19. If Space is emptiness what does it occupy?

(A). It doesn't occupy anything and I have no proof.

I believe World=Universe=Everything= Space + Everything else inside space.

20. Does Space have properties?

(A). Anything that has physical existence has properties and space does.

21. Does Space have edge or boundary?

(A). Space is finite.

22. If our finite World or Universe is 100% or is Everything, what does reside on its edge or boundary or outside of it?

(A). 100% means nothing else so there is no meaning in saying “outside”.

23. What is virtual existence?

(A). The word A.P.P.L.E is virtual… numbers are virtual but the Apple, the edible Apple you hold in your hand is what we can call as real or physical existence.

24. What is physical existence?

(A). Something that can be perceived as physical thing has physical existence.

Magnetic lines of force have physical existence but Aladdin’s Genie has virtual existence.

25. Is Existence always positive?

(A). Existence is never zero and is always positive.

Change related existence can be zero.

26. Does Nothing mean non existence?

(A). Yes.

27. Does negative Apple exist?

(A). No.

28. Is time absolute or relative?

(A). Always relative.

29. What is Calendar Time?

(A). Calendar Time is different from Relative time.

Calendar time is like numbering of different events.

What is the first event?

Human evolved, Earth evolved, Big Bang happened, what came first?

Time has existence only when the World itself has existence also creation is not possible so the possibility of first event is zero.

There is no such thing as first or last event.

Existence is a Circle which has no beginning and no end, it’s a never ending line without any beginning.

If you say everything has a beginning than the same question arises, what happened before that particular beginning event?

30. How does Calendar Time differ from Time which is Distance traveled divided by Velocity?

(A). Time is relative and Calendar time is numbering of events.

31. Why is velocity of light same on a moving train and on the surface/ground?

(A). We don’t and can’t carry light. Only Gravity can carry light.

Light can’t escape the train called Gravity.

32. Does velocity of light depend upon gravity?

(A). Yes.

33. Can light escape the train called gravity?

(A). Gravity has its influence on light’s velocity.

34. Is velocity of light constant in free space where there is difference in gravity?

That is, if gravity varies in free space and light travelling in this free space has a constant velocity?

(A). No. Velocity of light is relative.

35. How many dimensions do we have?

(A). Three Spatial and one Temporal.

36. If everything such as Energy, Force, Pressure,…

have units and dimensions can they be incorporated into String theory and does it lead to Theory Of Everything?

(A). I don’t know String Theory.

May be such integration will lead to TOE.

37. Does light have mass?

(A). Relativistic mass.

You state that everything is 3D and that there is nothing that is 1D or 2D only.

38. What is a shadow if not 2D?

(A). Shadow has no physical existence, it has virtual existence.

Can a 2d object have a shadow in 2d that is if there is no 3d???

Impossible.

The smallest thing that exists is itself has three dimensions... even a shadow is cast on a 3d surface...

39. What is the significance of xy=1?

(A). xy=1 is an example of Rectangular Hyperbola(Equilateral Hyperbola) and we can also use equations such as xyz=1 or some other equations which demonstrate that 1 can never equal zero.

No matter what value you take for x, y will never become zero and vise verse, which proves that 1 can never equal zero.

xy=1 suggests 1 can not be created from zero so creation and destruction are impossible and gods can't exist

40. How is light’s velocity connected to gravity?

(A). v=gt

E=mcgt

For ordinary body [ g proportional to v ]

Velocity is directly proportional to g

For light [ g proportional to E/mc ]

velocity is inversely proportional to g

41. How can you use 1/0 and describe Apple or anything similar?

(A). When I say 1/0 suggests 1 can't be created or 1 Apple can't be created, it is what it looks like.

Let me explain...

1 cm or 1 m is a measurement and we used 1 in both the cases...

what happens is... A.S.S.O.C.I.A.T.I.O.N, Yes "association" is the magic word or truth.

When we say Water-English or Paani-Hindi or Neeru-Telugu or Tannir-Tamil we are using the same physical thing but language or association is different...

we are associating different symbols or sounds to the same thing and 1/0 can be used to describe existence of any real physical thing and 1 can mean anything real, we associate any number, for example 1 to Apple or Plate or Table and we can say 1 of anything can't pop out of any space and it is so because 1/0 doesn't yield any physical answer.

v=gt

v is directly proportional to g

E=mcc

c is m/sec

c is m/sec.sec X sec

g is m/sec.sec

t is sec

c is gt but c is energy with intrinsic mass so c is not directly proportional to g, in case of ordinary bodies v=gt but in case of light c=E/mc that is c=E/mgt.

How can we take c=gt?

E/m is directly proportional to c.c and c is mt/sec so c is mt/sec.sec X sec so

c=E/mgt

Velocity =gt

makes sense but c is not equal to gt.

We replace one c with gt using its units and dimensions and another c is inversely proportional to g.

Velocity is directly proportional to g when we don't consider its E/m and velocity is inversely proportional to g when we consider its E/m.

So two cases...

Case 1: Velocity is directly

proportional to g.

v=gt

Case 2: Velocity is inversely proportional to g when E/m of the body/light is considered.

That is c=E/mgt.

E=mcgt

E/mc=gt

c is inversely proportional to g

light is a form of energy E with intrinsic mass m and velocity c

(another definition for E=mcc)

Velocity is directly proportional to Gravity when its Energy/Mass is not taken into consideration and when the velocity of a body or light which has E/m is taken into consideration then its velocity is inversely proportional to gravity.

42. What is the meaning of EVERYTHING?

(A). Absolutely:

EVERYTHING=UNIVERSE=WORLD=100% EXISTENCE.

Relatively: Relatively speaking there are so many meanings for "everything".

If a tablet/drug can save your life then that tablet/drug is relatively everything.

We can say everything=decision making, everything is a variation, everything=life and so on...

43. Sorry..

What is it

**Mr. Sagar Gorijala**?
No. 4 and 5 don't match.

And no. 8??

we live in four dimensional space-time! Mr. Hawking said no. 9??

that's impossible!

and no. 10?

what does it mean? tan 90=infinite.

(A). 4 and 5 don't match?

According to postulate 4...

At any instance of time physical existence of Apples is finite and according postulate 5 Numbers which are examples of virtual existence are infinite.

4 is Physical existence can't be infinite.

5 is virtual existence can be infinite.

Time has no physical existence.

Time is a measure of change.

time=change and calender time can be infinite but time/change is relative and can never be infinite.

Time is temporal dimension...

What I mean is... there are 3 and 3 only spatial dimensions.

tan 90 is never infinite...

infinity is not a number.

Division with zero is impossible in Mathematics and Existence.

Division with less than 100% is possible in Mathematics but, is impossible in reality or physical existence.

You can divide 1 with 0.1 in Mathematics but in reality you can’t divide 1 Apple into 0.1 parts and make it into 10 Apples.

Physical Existence: In mathematics division with zero is not possible.

In mathematics division with 0-1 zero to one is possible 1/0.1=10 In physical existence or existence division of one apple with 0.1 is not possible.

1/10 is one apple cut into ten parts and each part is 0.1 but in existence 1 apple can’t be cut into 0.1 parts.

Existence of anything is 1 or more than 1 or 100% is 1.

1 means 1 full/complete thing 100% thing.

You can’t create 10 apples by cutting 1 apple into 0.1 parts.

0.1 is not a 100% part.

You can only divide with 1 or more than 1 in terms of existence.

If 0.1 is not allowed for division how is 1.1 allowed?

1.1 is 11/10 that is you are cutting 11 into 10 parts.

That is one apple, considered as a single unit which represents 11 (single apple) is cut into 10 parts.

Existence: Zero means nothing.

Existence is never negative.

Negative numbers have virtual existence but not physical existence.

You can place 4 apples on a table and eat 1 apple and you can say 4-1=3 but, you can’t say there are zero apples on the table and you ate 1 apple and there are negative apples on the table.

-1 apple is not possible.

0 is nothing and -1 is negative to existence.

And, existence is always positive, it is never negative.

If you say -1+1=0 creation and destruction = zero then there is this problem...

-1 apple is positive to existence -1 apple exists so it is positive to existence +1 apple is positive to existence +1 apple exists so it is positive to existence How can two positives become zero?

If you say mathematics is wrong then you can say god exists.

If you say mathematics is not wrong then gods can’t exist.

Or you can say god has mysterious ways of creating a world or universe where there are contradictions such as mathematics (1/0 division by zero not possible) suggesting creation and destruction are not possible yet god can create and god can destroy.

What came first?

God came first?

Can god have a beginning?

Gods can’t be created?

Who or what created god?

Can god create anything yet god has no beginning?

God has no beginning and god has no ending and god manipulated mathematics and existence in a way that there is a beginning and an ending to the world or universe but not to god itself?

If god exists then the only truth, the only option is god has no beginning and god has no ending.

Negative numbers have virtual existence. Positive numbers have virtual existence and positive apples have physical existence and there is no such thing as negative apple.

So negative apples have no physical existence.

You can say negative apples like 4 apples -1 apple = 3 apples.

You can’t say negative single apple exists because negative is not possible to existence or physical existence.

Existence/Physical existence is always positive.

Physical existence is always positive and virtual existence is like a dream, it has no limits, no boundaries and no restrictions.

Let’s just say there are limits to everything, so virtual existence too has limits but it can be infinite for the name sake.

There are infinite numbers in virtual existence but you can’t write infinite numbers without erasing any written numbers and infinity is not possible or not positive to physical existence.

There is no starting point?

If creation is possible why is creation not happening now?

And, why is not happening everywhere and, in all proportions?

Can an Apple or a Brain be created without evolution?

If there is no beginning, what about evolution?

If there is a beginning, what about evolution?

What came first?

According to XY=1 1/0 is not possible and it means there is no creation and no destruction and it means the World or Universe was not created and can't be destroyed.

If creation is possible, what happened before creation?

If creation is not possible what came first?

Existence is a never ending line, just like a circle that existed, exists and will exist without any beginning or an ending.

Our Calender-Time suggests that there is a beginning for every event.

How did the circle come to existence?

Who or what started the circle?

According to Mathematics where is no creation or destruction so there is no beginning and no ending to physical existence of our World or Universe.

Let's face three logical questions:

(1). If there is a beginning, what happened before that beginning?

(2). If there is no beginning, what came first?

No beginning means no first occurrence.

If it is so, how do you explain evolution?

Man came out of evolution so there is a beginning for man and Earth too has a beginning.

Mathematics suggests that there is no beginning and there is no ending to physical existence of our World or Universe.

We have no problem understanding the -no end- part.

But, what about -no beginning-...?

(3). If there is a beginning, why do we need evolution or why do we need male-female or why do we need Apple trees?

Why can't they be created out of nowhere on an empty plate?

There are two alternatives:

(1). There is a beginning.

What happened before that beginning?

(2). There is no beginning.

What is the first chain of events if there is no beginning?

No beginning means no first chain of events.

But, we have calender-time and there is a beginning to every event in the calender-time.

If you say there is a beginning then the questions are:

(1). What happened before that beginning?

(2). Can Apples have a beginning without evolution?

(3). Why is creation not happening now and, why is it not happening everywhere and, why is it not happening in all proportions and why can't just about anything be created?

(4). Why do we have laws when creation is possible?

If creation is possible then laws can't exist, equations are impossible.

If you say there is no beginning then the only question is what is first chain of events.

But, no beginning means no first chain of events.

We have no trouble understanding -no end- part but, we have trouble understanding -no beginning- part.

But, 1 is not equal to 0 and 1/0 is not possible so, creation is impossible.

So, according to Mathematics there is no beginning and no ending to the existence of our World or Universe.

If creation is possible then equations will fail because creation means 1=0 or anything=anything else One kg stone on one side and 1+ something kg tomatoes on the other side if tomatoes get created equations fail.

According to xy=1 neither x nor y can be zero so division of 1 with 0 is impossible and creation and destruction are impossible. What came first?

First?

First-what does it mean?

If creation is possible then equations fail.

Why?

Can our Sun double in size due to creation?

Can our Brain disappear due to destruction?

Nope.

If creation and or destruction are possible then balance fails and, if balance is lost equations fail and if equations fail all laws fail.

Therefore if creation and or destruction are possible then all laws fail.

If 1=0 then creation and destruction are possible.

If 1 can't be divided into 0 parts then creation and or destruction are not possible.

Let's take rectangular hyperbola or equilateral hyperbola then we have xy=1 and according to this xy=1 equation if creation and destruction are possible then x and or y can be zero and if x and or y can be zero then we get 1=0 that is anything=anything else.

But x and y can never be zero so 1 is never equal to 0 so creation and destruction are impossible.

Also division of 1 with 0 is impossible because x and or y can never be zero.

If x and or y can be zero then we get 1=0 and division of 1 with zero is possible and creation and destruction are possible.

But, x and or y can never be zero so division of 1 with 0 is impossible and creation and or destruction are impossible.

If creation is not possible our World or Universe was never created and can never be destroyed.

First?

What is First?

What came first?

If there is a fourth spatial dimension then volume of the World or Universe as we see it changes so there is no 4th spatial dimension.

44. Heidegger held the most important question to be "why is there something rather than nothing?"

(A). My previous answer...

There is something rather than nothing because...

Number 1. Creation is impossible so physical existence is not infinite.

Number 2. Destruction of physical existence is impossible so Nothing or Non physical existence is impossible and therefore there is something rather than nothing.

Existence can't be zero or nothing because creation and destruction are impossible. New answer...

So some finite World/Everything/Universe exists and it can't increase or decrease or cease to exist so there is something rather than nothing... this means something everything/world/universe) exists and it can't cease to exist and therefore there is something rather than nothing...

But in the first place why is it existing?

Why does it exist in the first place?

Why is there something rather than nothing?

From the above conclusions it is easy to say "Nothing/Non physical existence is impossible" but why is there something rather than nothing?

Why do I explain the answer saying something(everything/world/universe) already exists and it can't be created or destroyed so there is something rather than nothing?

Isn't there a more fundamental answer to it?

Yes, there is.

The answer is...

Nothing means zero and zero is change related so zero is only possible when there exists something that can change and when something exists it changes and therefore zero or nothingness or nonexistence is impossible.

You can only think of nothingness when you with your intellect do exist!

Isn't it?

Therefore there is something rather than nothing because Nothing(Zero/nothingness) is impossible.

You can say something is absent or zero when it changes into something else or you can say something is zero only when there is a possibility of its existence.

You can't say nothing when nothing has no meaning.

Nothing is the opposite of something and or everything so the possibility of nothing is possible if and only if something or everything can exist.

0^0= can not exist...

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.

45. What are the main physical consequences of having two time dimensions in a 5-dimensional space-time?

(A). There can't be another time dimension for one logical reason.

Time is a measure of change and this change is monitored by a clock-time and therefore there can be different clocks for different parts of the world/different frames of reference but two clocks for the same frame of reference/same part of the world doesn't make sense.

Two time dimensions mean:

Two clocks for the same event.

Can the same apple seed be burned to ashes and can be planted at the same time?

How is that possible?

Simply not possible.

We can't have more than one temporal dimension but we can have different clocks relative to one another.

46. Is the flow of time an illusion?

(A). Flow of time?

If we travel along a path A to B and then B to A does it mean flow of time?

But it is two different directions.

Yes, it's two different directions.

Time is never absolute.

Time is always relative.

Relative time can be zero and also it is always finite.

Time is never infinite.

So the words "flow of time" can only be related to any clock with finite time.

Then what is infinity?

Is there any kind of time that is infinity?

Yes, there is and it is Calender-Time.

Calender-Time is infinite.

Time is Distance/Velocity or some other relation using Temperature but it is always relative and finite in nature.

Calender-Time is not the original TIME which is relative, Calendar-Time in fact is a number.

Calendar-Time is numbering of events.

Calendar-Time can be infinite and is infinite.

If the words "flow of time" mean flow of Calendar-Time then this number keeps on increasing to infinite, it never ends.

Yesterday's apple is one time and today's apple is second time???

No. Yesterday's apple and today's apple can't be counted as two apples.

So Time is always relative and finite and for this reason it can never reach infinity.

Calendar-Time says yesterday's apple and today's apple count as 2 apples.

The real Time is a measure of change.

Time has no physical existence but it represents things which have physical existence, it is closely connected to objects with physical existence.

Since objects with physical existence can never be infinite time too is finite.

Where as Calendar-Time is a number and numbers too have virtual existence and this thing can be infinity.

Numbers are infinity but no number is infinite.

If you mean Calendar-Time by "flow of time" then it is just a number.

If you mean Calendar-Time by "flow of time" then it is just a number.

Calendar-Time -->

Flow of time is --->

change in numbers of the events.

Relative Time(Actual Time)--->

Flow of time is --->

What event we consider...

what frame of reference we consider...

what clock(relative time) we consider.

47. Does god really exist?

Or is it just a product of a weak mind?

(Question from

https://www.researchgate.net/

)

(A). Creation and destruction are impossible and therefore God(s) can't exist.

If creation and destruction are possible then it means 1=0=anything but the Rectangular Hyperbola or Equilateral Hyperbola XY=1 says 1 can never equal 0 so God(s) are impossible in reality.

48. How many D's or dimensions do we have in our Universe/World?

(A). There are 3 and 3 only spatial/length Ds/dimensions and there is 1 and 1 only temporal/time D/dimension.

What about mass, electricity, magnetism, force, etc; If string theory is all about having more than 4 Ds then the three Ds are spatial and one D is temporal and all other Ds are Ds that are mentioned above.

A single D object can move freely in 2D space and a 2D object can move freely in 3D space and if there is a 4th spatial D then Earth shouldn't be revolving around Sun the way we observe it.

The 4th D can never be small.

2 D - area.

3 D - volume.

4th D - WHAT?

4th D i.e;

4th spatial D if exists can't be small.

It should be super set of all 3 Ds so there is no 4th or more than 4 spatial Ds.

There are 3 and 3 only spatial Ds.

And, one and one only temporal D.

There is no 2nd or 3rd or more temporal D because the same single object can't have more than one simultaneous changes/clocks.

Time is a measure of change.

Change=clock=time.

Single, any single object can only have a single clock.

Clocks are relative in nature, never absolute.

Universe or Multiverse or what ever can only have different clocks but not simultaneous clocks.

That is it.

49. Dear

**Sagar**,You posted too many things and ideas at once.
Regarding your "Fundamental Theory Of Existence".

I suppose that you want some comments, if you decided to post your theory here.

I think that it is not bad, though it needs some workaround.

You are mixing many trivial conclusions with those which are not so easy. Now more concretely.

Regarding your points:

4. Existence of anything cannot be infinite.

5. There is no beginning and an end to the existence of the World...

Aren't they in a contradiction?

And what you think about the 'existence' itself, or the 'existence of existence'?

Is it finite or infinite?

Regarding 'God':

It seems that you are a victim of confusion, like many people who meet a culture completely different from their own one.

Many people from Asia understand to the term 'God' just as a singular form of 'gods', 'gods' from their own mythology.

But this is completely wrong.

The appropriate notion could be rather 'tao', 'brahma' or the 'eternity behind the eternity'.

This 'God' is completely transcendental.

Although also this is not completely right, simply because the 'tao' which we can speak about is not the real tao (Lao-C'), etc.

This is, by the way, the reason why some religions prohibit from portraying God - in order to avoid evoking wrong ideas and conceptions about him.

Just like Lao-C' is warns against talking about tao. Probably your term 'existence' is 'God', but not in the sense you understand to this notion, and rather in a sense in which I understand to it.

Regarding the finiteness of everything:

If you mean that everything is finite, you probably correctly noticed that our experience with the world, or with the Universe, whatever it is, is finite.

However, it says completely nothing about the nature of the Universe itself.???

(A). Okay.

Done.

Here is the answer...

Is existence itself infinite?

But existence is always finite?

When I mean existence can never be infinity...

its like 3 is +3 you need not say positive 3 but -3 should be said as negative 3.

So this postulate... ( Existence is finite) means Physical Existence is finite.

That is number of apples are finite.

And, there is no beginning and no end means numbers have no limits...

yesterday's apple and today's apple do not count as 2 apples.

So physical existence is finite and virtual existence is infinite.

What about Existence itself?

What about change?

Yes, change is infinite.

Every event is a different event, the events change.

When I said physical existence can't be infinite that means no single event can reach infinite.

For example if you consider the existence of all apples as an event then it can never reach infinity.

So the change of events and existence itself are infinite.

There is no beginning and no end means ... change is infinite and existence itself is infinite and virtual existence is infinite but physical existence of any event can never be infinite.

If we consider

EVERYTHING=100% EXISTENCE=WORLD=UNIVERSE/MULTIVERSE

then nothing in it can reach infinity but existence itself that is change itself is infinity.

Also forever is true but time being infinity is not true.

Forever means number.

And, numbers are infinity.

Forever is Calendar-Time and Calendar-Time is infinity.

Forever is not Time.

Time is never absolute.

Time is always relative.

Time can never be infinity.

Calendar-Time or Change of events or Existence itself is truly infinite.

What do you say about Dimensions?

3 Dimensions only?

50. What about String theory?

What about more than 3 Spatial and more than 1 Time Dimensions?

(A). There are 3 and 3 only Spatial Dimensions and 1 and 1 only Temporal Dimension.

Why and how?

Let us forget about 10 or 11 Dimensions... Let's talk about 4th Dimension.

If 4th Dimension doesn't exist then that leaves us with the answer...

no 10 or 11 Dimensions.

String theory says the 4th or 4 or more Dimensions are very tiny.

What?

Wait a minute.

Tiny?

Really?

Let me tell you this...

1 cm or 1 m is relative measurement.

If you take a small object it will have small Dimensions and these length measurements are relative in nature.

That is...

length is finite and absolute but the units used can vary and are relative.

Now what are these 3 small Dimensions?

They are small and they are not absolute Dimensions of our World/Universe, they are small and true Dimensions of the smaller object.

The real 3 Dimensions of our World/Universe are finite and giving them a unit to measure is like measuring something finite and absolute using something small and relative/that can vary.

Units are not absolute if units are numbers. If you take the word length it is absolute but cm or m or mm are relative.

The 3 real Dimensions of our World/Universe are finite and are never bigger/larger than the World/Universe itself and certainly they are never smaller.

So the 4th Dimension is impossible to exist.

If it exists it can never be smaller and if it exists volume of entire World/Universe will change.

If the Dimensions in string theory are 3 Spatial 1 Temporal and other Dimensions such as Gravity, Magnetism, Electricity, etc;

then String theory is the candidate for Theory Of Everything.

What about more than 1 Temporal Dimension?

Time=Change.

More than 1 Temporal Dimension means simultaneous changes to the same World/Universe.

Can the same Apple seed be planted, burned, eaten, etc all at once?

Impossible.

Same World/Universe having multiple Temporal Dimensions is physically impossible.

Therefore there are 3 and 3 only Spatial and 1 and 1 only Temporal Dimensions respectively.

4th dimension is impossible because dimensions are impossible to be small. Spatial Dimension means Space.

If 4th D is small...

Some part of space is smaller?

No.

It doesn't make any sense.

4th D is impossible.

4th D means extra space which can never be small if it exists.

I said 4th D is impossible.

I provided you with 2 reasons why 4th D is impossible...

Reason 1: 4th D can never be small.

Reason 2: What about all the volume change if 4th D exists?

Why is volume same as 3Ds?

The 3 Ds are finite and they are never small or big... they are just finite.

Any object that exists in these 3 Ds is smaller or bigger, relative in size and volume.

4th D can never be smaller and volume can never cease to exist.

A Spatial Dimension is not an object but the container for any object itself.

It can never be smaller and volume will always be 100%.

If there is a 4th D then it will be equal to all other 3 Ds and Volume will be equally important and Earth wouldn't revolve around Sun.

It will be an all different ball game.

51. Let me politely say that I disagree with the majority of assertions you make here, and pretty much all of the arguments and conclusions.

"we know that creation and destruction are impossible"

I disagree.

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?

You meant physical things?

So how about particles/anti-particles - they are created / destroyed constantly.

3) Oh - you specifically meant quantities which physicists consider to be conserved - like energy for example.

3) Oh - you specifically meant quantities which physicists consider to be conserved - like energy for example.

So why didn't you say so?

Oh hang-on dark energy is increasing relentlessly.

So that's not true either.

So yes I disagree.

"Space cannot be infinite"

This is an argument based upon your gut feeling, and nothing more.

So yes I disagree.

"Space cannot be infinite"

This is an argument based upon your gut feeling, and nothing more.

No-one KNOWS whether the universe is infinite.

It may be, it may not be.

I'm going to stop there, because I already feel I've invested more thought into this than you have.

I'm going to stop there, because I already feel I've invested more thought into this than you have.

(A). Okay you said two things...

creation is possible and space is infinite.

Infinite means unlimited.

For Space to be unlimited it needs to be created.

So there are no two things but only one thing. And, you are saying creation is possible.

I have given detailed explanation on my blog why creation is impossible.

Here is the reason... Let us not talk about creation related to change.

Yes an artist can create and this creation is virtual creation.

Yes an Apple tree can create and Apple.

When I said creation is impossible I mean to say that 1 can't become zero and zero can't become one.

Please try understanding the equation XY=1.

XY=1 proves that it is impossible for X and or Y to be zeroes.

So 1 can never equal zero or anything can never equal anything else but 1=1 and 0=0 and 2=2 is only true and yes there is change so the reality is not as simple as 1=1 but the truth is 1 change=1 related change therefore 1=1.

But creation and destruction are impossible.

52. Time is a numerical order of material change.

How could it be considered a dimension ?

The time dimension is mathematically represented by an imaginary coordinate, and cannot be visualized in a concrete way.

I would also argue that considering time as the fourth dimension of space lacks any experimental support.

(A). Time is a virtual dimension and it is real. It has no physical existence but it is the outcome of something that has physical existence.

Aladdin's Genie too has virtual existence but it is imaginary.

Time is not imaginary, it is real and is always relative.

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.

Change=Time.

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.

Why?

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.

58. Question

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 ]

59. https://www.researchgate.net/post/Our_Universe_exists_instead_of_nothingness_can_this_equation_explain_it_0something

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=something...

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.

(Q). What about 10 or 11 spatial dimensions in String Theory?

(A). I don't know string theory but I do know that division in physical reality is possible when denominator is 1 or greater than 1. In virtual reality you can use any number except 0 as denominator.

Survival of the fittest is partially true and rest of the truth is, decisions and luck. What's luck? We do know that there are so many events which we don't have control over so, if an event or a set of events happen that favor us, it's good luck and if they don't it's bad luck, it's like we don't have control over all positive or negative outcomes and the result is we tend to call it luck. Is it luck? What is the Dictionary meaning of luck? So... Survival of the luckiest is true as well.

I hope we have all the good luck that is ever possible for eternity.

I hope we live for eternity.

Thanks.

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.

Change=Time.

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.

Why?

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.

58. Question

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 ]

59. https://www.researchgate.net/post/Our_Universe_exists_instead_of_nothingness_can_this_equation_explain_it_0something

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=something...

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.

(Q). What about 10 or 11 spatial dimensions in String Theory?

(A). I don't know string theory but I do know that division in physical reality is possible when denominator is 1 or greater than 1. In virtual reality you can use any number except 0 as denominator.

Survival of the fittest is partially true and rest of the truth is, decisions and luck. What's luck? We do know that there are so many events which we don't have control over so, if an event or a set of events happen that favor us, it's good luck and if they don't it's bad luck, it's like we don't have control over all positive or negative outcomes and the result is we tend to call it luck. Is it luck? What is the Dictionary meaning of luck? So... Survival of the luckiest is true as well.

I hope we have all the good luck that is ever possible for eternity.

I hope we live for eternity.

nimzosagar@yahoo.co.uk

gorijala@hotmail.com

way12go@gmail.com

+91 8977548558