Creation of the Big Bang!

<BLOCKQUOTE id=quote><font size=2 face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id=quote>quote:<hr height=1 noshade id=quote>(Makis)
X/0 = inf

is a perfectly legal operation in math.
<hr height=1 noshade id=quote></BLOCKQUOTE id=quote></font id=quote><font face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" size=2 id=quote>

It's not. And I'm not going through the pain of explaining it again. This time I figure you're the one having a laugh.

<BLOCKQUOTE id=quote><font size=2 face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id=quote>quote:<hr height=1 noshade id=quote> ZERO IS THE PRIMARY CONSTITUENT OF EVERYTHING IN AN INFINITE SENSE OR WAY.<hr height=1 noshade id=quote></BLOCKQUOTE id=quote></font id=quote><font face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" size=2 id=quote>

Now you're simply stating, well, shouting, a personal belief. Try proving it or my suggestion would be to apply for a job on The Enterprise Mission, your style has great affinity with theirs.
<img src=icon_smile_big.gif border=0 align=middle>

<BLOCKQUOTE id=quote><font size=2 face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id=quote>quote:<hr height=1 noshade id=quote>


It's not. And I'm not going through the pain of explaining it again. This time I figure you're the one having a laugh.


quote:

---

ZERO IS THE PRIMARY CONSTITUENT OF EVERYTHING IN AN INFINITE SENSE OR WAY.

---

Now you're simply stating, well, shouting, a personal belief. Try proving it or my suggestion would be to apply for a job on The Enterprise Mission, your style has great affinity with theirs.

<hr height=1 noshade id=quote></BLOCKQUOTE id=quote></font id=quote><font face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" size=2 id=quote>


When debating issues of great depth and importance I try to refrain from statements referring to the character or ability of those involve, because that simply proves that someone has no strength in making valid points. At some point however, a response is provoked:

A. You are a very intelligent and knowledgeble person, but:
B. You are a shallow technocrat
C. You think that Universal Operations can be done with your calculator or that your calculator is all there is.
D. You think that what you learned about math in college represents what Math really is and its porpose.
E. You argue for just the shake of it and refuse to accept another point of view, even when you know you're dead wrong.
F. You fail to see that when talking about Cosmology and the Universe, one deals with concepts beyond the microscopic and mandaine perceptions of everyday life.
G. When you hear someone saying "life is a bitch", you propose to him to avoid dogs and maybe get a kitten instead. <img src=icon_smile_big.gif border=0 align=middle>

Makis

Blimey, I didn't realise I'd rattled your cage so hard. Now you're a psychologist as well as a visualiser of the true nature of the universe. Ah well, I won't take it personally. Us shallow technocrats don't mind a few digs!<img src=icon_smile_shy.gif border=0 align=middle>

I'll leave the last word to yourself -

<BLOCKQUOTE id=quote><font size=2 face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id=quote>quote:<hr height=1 noshade id=quote>I try to refrain from statements referring to the character or ability of those involve, because that simply proves that someone has no strength in making valid points<hr height=1 noshade id=quote></BLOCKQUOTE id=quote></font id=quote><font face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" size=2 id=quote>

and a fellow shallow technocrat - he's a lot brighter than any of us who've contributed to this thread - and my ability to suspend belief is exhausted -

"I frame no hypotheses; for whatever is not deduced from the phenomena is to be called an hypothesis; and hypotheses, whether metaphysical or physical, whether of occult qualities or mechanical, have no place in experimental philosophy."

Isaac Newton

"

<BLOCKQUOTE id=quote><font size=2 face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id=quote>quote:<hr height=1 noshade id=quote>

The best question that has not been asked yet is:
How did "ZERO"(0) create (+),(-),(1) from only (0)? Any ideas?

<hr height=1 noshade id=quote></BLOCKQUOTE id=quote></font id=quote><font face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" size=2 id=quote>

One possible way to approach this difficult problem is to consider what happened when 0 met infinity. It is my position that 0 alone could have stayed as a "cold" zero. The joinning or facing out of 0 and inf created a partition process that generated physical reality and the operations {+, -} along with the primary entity 1.

Actualy, 1 maybe just the intersection of zero and inf according to:

1/inf = 0

+ and - where created by implication.

But it is still my position that 0 alone could not do the job. It needed infinity for creation of the operations.

In another view, the presence of the operatios {+,-} allows 0 to expand and help infinity to map itself. Likewise, infinity can divide everything down to 0 and maintain 0's existence. They become one force, the Universe, but they retain their independence. If they separate, the Universe will stop to exist.

But I think the Universe was just an accident of the action taken by 0 and inf to preserve or eternalize their existence.

Now, some friend reading this may think we are religious freaks Patrick. I am, in just the above sense, but no more that that. Let's call my religion the 0-inf God.<img src=icon_smile.gif border=0 align=middle>

<BLOCKQUOTE id=quote><font size=2 face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id=quote>quote:<hr height=1 noshade id=quote>

"I frame no hypotheses; for whatever is not deduced from the phenomena is to be called an hypothesis; and hypotheses, whether metaphysical or physical, whether of occult qualities or mechanical, have no place in experimental philosophy."

Isaac Newton

<hr height=1 noshade id=quote></BLOCKQUOTE id=quote></font id=quote><font face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" size=2 id=quote>

But Newton also said:

"...Whereas the main Business of natural Philosophy is to argue from Phaenomena without feigning Hypotheses, and to deduce Causes from Effects, till we come to the very first Cause, which certainly is not mechanical." (Newton, Opticks, 368-69)

It is a good idea when quoting others, and especially Philosophers like Newton, to present their whole chain of thought.

That is what we are talking here Atko, that which Newton calls the very first Cause, "...and is certainly not mechanical".

<img src=icon_smile_big.gif border=0 align=middle>

I've no problem with that quote either - the bit about

"the main Business of natural Philosophy is to argue from Phaenomena without feigning Hypotheses"

would be the part I'd focus on, and would suggest you do before putting the cart before the horse.