So you already know that the observable universe will shrink when all the things in expansion leave the observable Universe? Why didn't somebody say save me making an ass out of myself! OK I guess then I am left with time dilation , gravity and light. Any of those subjects interest you or others?
Felt like years since I logged in. I am not going to read 24 pages of posts, so summarize. I am a mathematician working in cosmology, so it's your time to shine.
To summarise , I have viable argument about several different things. Most people do not discuss my content and pass it off based solely on present information as if present information is set in stone. I find it interesting you are a mathematician in cosmology. I have you a question sir. The Universe is measured to be as big as the last thing/furthest away you can observe?
I am feeling humbled now a mathematician is in the house. These guys are good with numbers. Maybe I should start with 0+0=1x? by stating plus we are stating that the second 0 point is not the first 0 point , hence 1x the smallest measurement possible. You can call this a Box length 1x³ you can call this a Box's box added- Just in case you did not get that, 2 , 0 points , make up a box length.
lol At least one in every crowd. Related to Pres Donald Trump? I sense some similarity in personality traits
Another science forum as just locked my thread. The thread was explaining gravity and their choice was to ignore it, preaching I should learn. How funny when the subject as no teachings and the mechanics is unknown. I was explaining using matrices, where have you gone Mr Mathematician I am sure you can handle a simple matrice? A{000}→←B{111} A{000}→←B{111} A{000}→←B{111} The arrows represent force vector, matrice (A) is a mono-pole negative and matrice (B) is a mono-pole positive. This matrice explains that all points of (A) are attracted to all points of (B) and vice versus, they will merge to occupy the same space. Somebody please tell this moron that an electrical field is not the same thing as the earths magnetic field. He asked for evidence of an electrically neutral field , I tried to explain the electrostatic field of the Earth , he then proclaimed I meant the magnetic field. if it were not for neutral , there would be no positive or negative readings. If it were not for neutral, we would all fry.
It is highly likely he did as the rest of have and spent the required seconds to understand the nature of your "Formulas" and dismissed the idea of attempting to correct them after reading this thread. You present gibberish and believe it to be somehow important.
That is so ambiguous. 1) you dismissed trying to correct them because they are correct 2) you dismissed them because they were .....no idea...
Personally, I dismissed them partially because they could not be reconciled with the information I already have and partially because YOU seem somewhat unstable mentally and come off as an ego sick child. The "Data" you have thus far provided is mostly inaccurate imagined nonsense.
Well actually I was not as accurate on matrices as I thought. The friendly moderator elsewhere is trying to help me learn matrices better with some top advice and links. I even have learnt a bit about mapping. V[000]+W[000]=0 and the map is ƒV→W and ƒW→V Apparently you should know by the 0's in each matrice that they are opposite signs/polarities? and for the mono-pole map f: V ←→V
In general it is not. We have a different name for that. If we want to refer to what you are commenting (which is very common, btw), we call it observable universe. When we talk about universe, we tend to refer to all universe, even the parts which we cannot directly see, but have indirect proof of its existence.
I would sorely recommend you either use a different notation than the real numbers one, or define the mathematical structure you are working in beforehand. For example, you may be using a metric space M, therefore you have to define a distance, which could be the the Euclidean one, or any of your liking. Then you can decide to use a discreet field for it, in order to have a non dense field. For example Q, but could be anyone. So then, we know that d(a,b) will only tend to 0 when a = b. Therefore, we can call this discreet distance X, so we can construct M³, in which we can find some discreet cubes of X sides, and "volume" X³.
I can surely handle matrix. maybe it would be better to write it in a paper, and then make a photo and post it here, just for better format. Second point is how do you define attraction in mathematical terms. How do you express point a is attracted to point b? a¹¹ -> <- b¹¹ results in what? Merging into one in which in which fashion? Maybe attraction is only defined in matrix form? How? Any dimensional limitation?
By simply putting vector arrows in the direction of travel, or force vector arrows in the direction of force. Merging to occupy the same space Maybe , Maybe the size of an atom is the limitation.
Why not a quark? MAYBE you do not quite understand that symbols in equation are just that, they are symbols that represent aspects of thought rather than magic words.
F→ ←F [000]+[000]=0 In this simple matrix the force vectors show that the matrices merge to give a null result. The left of the equation is a negative mono-pole and the right is a positive mono-pole Δx=F1+F2 In your terms maybe and the linear map ƒv→w ƒw→v
Why not a quark? In my thoughts atoms are different than present information and model suggests. In my Matrices a quark could not exist because f: V → V and vice versus. A Quark would literally expand into obliteration at the speed of c the instant it was formed. All 0 points of the Quark being likewise in polarity can only have repulsive consequence. In my notion we have an electron field and a proton field and only the fields exist to form a particle AB. However both the Proton field and the electron field have to manifest simultaneously in the same space to exist. One is needed to retain the other . would a matrice work this way [aaa]+[bbb]=ab
We are talking here about maths, not physics. First, we will see if your theory is mathematically consistent. Then, we will see if it has something to do with reality. However, first we must do the math. In the matrix vectorial space there is no such things like travel, forces, and the likes. Therefore, you have to define them mathematically. An example would be to have a two dimension vector, with (a, A), with a being the point in question, and A is s vector which specifies the direction and module of the "attraction". Their is a physical way to put it. But we need a mathematical way to do it. So, how we express mathematically the merging of two points? We work with their relative position? With their attraction value, which is given by their auxiliary vector? A combination of the two? I was referring to maths. The dimension of a vector space is the number of coordinates you need to describe a point in it. That means, a line in R³ has one dimension because you only need one vector to define it, even if the the vector is of the form (x,y,z). Even so, not that important.
Let's analyze the first one. With A + B = C we have three points, and a sum operation. As we are adding points in space, we need a geometry that allows that, so we can't use vectorial spaces. We will need something different like affine space, for example, in which sum of points is defined. That, however, will bring us something like this: Where A would be the left vertex, B the left vertex, and C the uppermost vertex. So, if you weren't thinking about two points merging into one that is not in the middle, the usual sum does not work for us. Btw, the middle sum would be (a+b)/2 =C And in the last one you are just using general spaces, well done btw, but we want to focus first in two particular points in R³ or whatever space you want to use.
