-
Posts
-
This reply has been reported for inappropriate content.
Hi taz,
You are aware of course of Euler’s identity, you even quoted it up above:
e^iπ + 1 = 0
It uses the term “i” which also isn’t real as far as your calculator is concerned (square root of -1).
You are most correct in your last post and I want to use it as a stepping stone for a little more of my “crazy” ideas, if you would please indulge me.
Euler’s identity above is cyclic. It refers to motion. Motion is creation and creation is a shadowy, imaginary projection of higher spirit realities. The imaginary, i, is finite reality as opposed to spirit reality. No one, even the brilliant Dr Feynman of QCD fame could fathom the mystery of this equation and called it “beautiful ‘.
Complex numbers were invented to deal with rotational (cyclic) problems in mechanics. But we must understand why what you did in your last posts seems to work. What this equation tells us is that space is four dimensional, hyper cubic and cyclic. Hyperbolic space is governed by e, a transcendental number, and is cyclic. This refers to the primary and secondary motions of space TUB speaks about. Space is bounded by orthogonally related time governed by ∏, which TUB tells us is circular simultaneity. The i,tells us that time and space are related orthogonally, but that we are also no longer in an unbounded cube, but projected into the imaginary on the screens of space.
TUB tells us that space is not an unbounded cube. In order to bound a cube you must go to the next dimension. This is hyper cubic space like a tesseract. This hyper cube expands and contracts and simultaneously rotates. An unbounded cube is best visualized as three orthogonal planes that extend to infinity. It corresponds to the x,y,z coordinate system with the arrows at the ends. Anyone can see that there cannot be any other plane orthogonal to these three. The imaginary plane cannot be a part of this infinite reality. The only way to bound this infinite cube and make it finite is to project the imaginary orthogonally from these planes, thus creating hyper cubic space. This 4 dimensional space moves as it is conditioned (bounded) by time; whereas the 3 dimensional infinite, unbounded cube has no motion whatsoever.
So, a 3 dimensional unbounded cubic is bounded by orthogonally projecting into the 4th dimension (power).
To put this in an equation one would write: 3^i4 + 1 = 0. I will show the math of this in the next post. Note that it is in the same form as Euler’ identity.
e^i∏ + 1 = 0 says that hyperbolic cyclic (spiraling) space is bounded by orthogonal circular time. I say spiraling because there is a missing transcendental in that equation, and that is φ (1.618…), the Divine Ratio.
Φ^2 + Φ = 1, where Φ is 0.618…, or the conjugate of φ, φ-1,or 1/φ.
So Euler’s equation should more properly read: e^i∏ + Φ^2 + Φ = o.
In this equation we have the three transcendentals that govern motion in space-time (not Einstein’s space-time).
The phi spiral is the pattern for projected motion (imaginary). We are created in His image. We are the images of His imaginings. But remember that God is not what He imagines.
The generally accepted equation of the phi spiral is: r = e^aΘ. This is of the same function as y = e^x in polar coordinates where Θ is the angle from origin.
And since y=e^x is its own derivative, the spiral is its own derivation and does not change when inverted (mirror imaged).
The inversion or mirror image of y = e^x is y = nl(x). Therefore, Y = nl(x) must also be its own derivative.
What you have done, every one else, in your previous post is rotate a graph (exchange y for x) that is absolute and not moveable.
You have used the absolute graph (3 dimensional) for x > 0 and the imaginary (4 dimensional) for x < 0.
Essentially you (they) are combining and mixing your realities. The infinite and the finite. One cannot do this. Either you are strictly in the finite reality of motion or you are calculating in the realm of the infinite, and this is not possible. No mathematician likes infinities. The background of our math is in the absolute, unmoving, infinite reality. This is a problem, even if one “illegally” move back and forth between
realities to attempt to solve the problem by the cleaver use of complex number systems.I hope that you and others can see this. Notice that I make no grandiose claims unless you consider TUB revelations to be so.
Manny
P.S. Please not that my characters phi φ (lower case) and Phi Φ (upper case) Greek letters are very similar on these fonts and should not be confused.
3^4[i] = -1 NOTE: This is in the same form As Euler’s Identity e^i∏ + 1 = 0
3 to the (4 * i) power =
-0.312610304 – 0.949881465 [i] = -1
Squaring both sides of the equation we then have⎯
[ -0.312610304 – 0.949881465 (i) ] ^2 = (-1) ^2
Then, 0.098 – (0.902) (i) ^2 = 1
It follows that, 0.098 – (0..902) ∗ (-1) = 1
Concluding, 0.098 + 0.902 = 1
Therefore, 1 = 1 QED!
This exercise reveals how the 4th dimension of space effectively binds motion, a projection from the Infinite.
Manny
emanny3003 wrote:
[e3]: “But why would we need a boson the size of an iron atom to flip a quark over? Has anyone ever asked? (pesky question)”
Dear Manny, thanks for asking all the right pesky questions! I’m very keen to reply, but first, could you please re-read what you’ve written in this thread? Notice how you are presenting “the gospel of Manny”, not having a discussion. Which makes it hard for us to progress. This is what I meant by “adjusting the style”.
Also, since this thread has become a discussion about ellipses and logs, could you rename the title? This would allow us to have a proper discussion about “Higgs physics”.
thanks,
NigelHi Nigel,
I acknowledge my error and I apologize for it. I am always the skeptic but too many times I cross the line into cynicism. I have been appropriately chastised by both you and taz.
I will henceforth change my tune and proceed in a fashion more befitting a discussion.
What I will ask in return is that, in posting, can some effort be made in incorporating some of the science in TUB or at least mention some reference to the book? My intent was always to look for ways that TUB agrees with current science and where it does not. I want to dig deeper with anyone who is willing. I work better if I am asked questions as well. It stimulates thought.
Thanks for the kind manner in which you made me see my error.
In sincerity,
MannyPS Would be happy to change thread name but do not know how.
emanny3003 wrote:
“can some effort be made in incorporating some of the science in TUB or at least mention some reference to the book? My intent was always to look for ways that TUB agrees with current science and where it does not. I want to dig deeper with anyone who is willing. I work better if I am asked questions as well. It stimulates thought.”
Fantastic! Over the next hour I’ll create a thread about the “limiting and critical explosion point of ultimatonic condensation.” (458.6, 41:3.6). Please hold back replies until all 7 parts are posted
In a separate thread, let’s go deep into the fascinating potentials of ultimatonic-weak interactions.
Nigel
Hi Nigel,
Fantastic! Over the next hour I’ll create a thread about the “limiting and critical explosion point of ultimatonic condensation.” (458.6, 41:3.6). Please hold back replies until all 7 parts are posted
Looking forward to it!
Manny
What I will ask in return is that, in posting, can some effort be made in incorporating some of the science in TUB or at least mention some reference to the book?
Well, here is the Urantia Book quote which explains why I am still discussing this before any consideration of “digging deeper” as you’d like:
“Do not make the mistake of the foolish carpenter who wastes valuable time squaring, measuring, and smoothing his worm-eaten and inwardly rotting timber and then, when he has thus bestowed all of his labor upon the unsound beam, must reject it as unfit to enter into the foundations of the building which he would construct to withstand the assaults of time and storm.” (156:5.3)
It’s foolishness to attempt a deep and complicated exploration of concepts when at the first most elementary step there’s already a sideways shooting off into wrongness. When there’s an unsound timber at the very beginning of the building project, then there isn’t any hope of being able to make anything useful from it.
You have a tendency to make various big grandiose claims — and as I’ve seen, very unsound claims — and in this thread it has been that there’s a very specific rotten timber at the basis of mathematics and physics that you’ve been eagle-eyed enough to spot though nobody else has.
Therefore, the derivative of nl(x) was to equal 1/x. WHAT A COLOSSAL BLUNDER!
When you consider that all motion is logarithmic, this is a major problem that has gone unrecognized.
The current derivative of nlog(x) is said to be 1/x but if you just look at the table, that isn’t true.The truth is that the curve y=e^x is its own derivative. The curve y=nlog(x) is its own derivative. Why? Because e^x = 1/nlog(x). LOGARITHMIC FUNCTIONS CANNOT BE RECTIFIED, THEY ARE NOT SUBJECT TO THE CALCULUS!
The inversion or mirror image of y = e^x is y = nl(x). Therefore, Y = nl(x) must also be its own derivative.
This is not trivial but a big, big deal.
As usual you’ve then wanted to go ahead with all sorts of intellectual building projects based on logic and math that is based on stuff like this taken as gospel truth in your mind, which no one else you can point to even agrees with. To me, it seems clear you’re perfectly comfortable doing this because, rightly or wrongly, you have supreme confidence in your own intellectual conclusions even if it means they’re contrary to every mathematician in the world and for centuries in the past. You have no problem with declaring loudly and publicly that they are wrong and you are right.
I don’t have a problem with that either really, and it’s been of a bit of interest to see what all your noise is about. In looking ever so slightly closer however, it becomes very very evident to see that this isn’t a situation of someone giving remarkable insights, despite the delivery with the rhetorical flourishes of someone thinking they are giving out huge and important and world-changing information.
I won’t belabor the topic much longer, for this post however I’d just like us to step back a moment, and let’s just re-visit a very basic mathematical truth and definition about this topic. Your beef is with differential calculus as applied to the natural log. We’ve been arguing about the “derivative” of ln(x): I know it to be y’=1/x and you claim that all the world is wrong and it’s very different. Well, what is it that differential calculus does for us? What meaning do we get from the “derivative” of an equation?
It’s actually very simple. Here is a definition from wikipedia:
“The process of finding a derivative is called differentiation. Geometrically, the derivative at a point is the slope of the tangent line to the graph of the function at that point, provided that the derivative exists and is defined at that point.”
I agree with this. The meaning of the derivative is that it provides us with an equation that tells us what is the slope of the original equation at any given point on its curve. That is all we are talking about.
What is the slope. If we take an equation like y = 2x, which is just a line, the derivative is just y’=2. The slope is just a constant of “2” and for all infinity it’s the same. If the equation is y = x^2, which is a curve, the slope is always changing and depends on where we are on the curve. The derivative of this function is y’=2*x. We are now able to calculate the slope of the curve for any value of x using this simple formula, 2*x.
A slope has two components of information. It has a magnitude, which tells us how steep or shallow the slope is, and beyond that, it is also either positive or negative. A slope which is proceeding upwards is a positive slope and one that is proceeding downwards is a negative slope.
As I proved in an earlier post, for the natural log function y=ln(x), the equation that tells us the slope of this curve at each point is in fact 1/x.
You do not believe this result. Instead this is what you believe:
“The inversion or mirror image of y = e^x is y = nl(x). Therefore, Y = nl(x) must also be its own derivative.”
You believe that the slope of the curve ln(x) is itself also described by the very same function, ln(x). I do understand your logic for believing this. Since the slope of the function e^x is itself e^x, therefore you think that the same must be true of ln(x). You think this is “not trivial but a big, big deal” that mathematicians have gotten such a basic thing wrong.
While I understand your intuition on this point, it is of course extremely simple to test your intuition against reality, just like it was easy to test my earlier points by punching numbers into a calculator. No matter how attractive and inherently persuasive the intuition is in your mind, if in comparison to reality it in fact doesn’t match reality, then your intuition has not been correct. You can take either of two paths from there however you’d like: either not accept the reality or not accept that you had a good intuition. You won’t find that many people will want to follow along on your journey away from reality for too long and deeper into your own system of personal intuitions, so that’s one reason not to go that way, but on the other hand you seem to see these intuitions of yours as very deep and profound insights and so you also seem extremely attached to them. That’s my impression from your posts on this message board and the other one where you often participate, take it or leave it as you’d like.
So, now let’s compare your conjecture against reality. Let’s not worry about mathematical expressions and equations again, let’s just simply examine the curve of the function ln(x), we really can learn all we need just from that.
Again, here is a graph of it using WolframAlpha. The way the site works at the moment, it’s showing me two versions of the function’s plot, one on the scale of -1 < x < 1 and the second is on the scale of -6 < x 6. I’d ask that we focus on the second one since it gives us more to look at.
Starting at x=0, the curve is down off the charts in the depths of infinity at -y. As we move forward along x, the curve rapidly springs upwards from this negative infinity. You can see easily for each little bit of movement up x, huge strides upwards for the y value are made. The curve is ascending at this point and therefore the slope is positive. Not only is the slope positive but it has immense magnitude, it is very steep. In fact in just going from x=0 to x=1, the curve ascends all the way from -infinity up to intersect with the y=0 axis. That is an immense journey to make for traversing just one value of x!
But you can already see that by that point, x=1, its slope seems to have slowed and rounded a bend of sorts. What happens for the next value of x, x=2? Do we go shoot up to infinity? No — and for this I’ll use my calculator — but instead we just ascend from
ln(1) = 0
to
ln(2) = 0.693
We certainly are not going up at such a steep rate anymore… Let’s see some more values:
ln(3) = 1.099
ln(4) = 1.386
ln(5) = 1.609
ln(6) = 1.792
ln(7) = 1.946
ln(8) = 2.079
ln(9) = 2.197
.
.
ln(100) = 4.605What is happening is that the curve is continuing to ascend. Its slope is still positive. We can see already that that is never going to change now. For each next value of x, the result of y is always going to be a little bigger than the earlier y value: The slope of the curve for ln(x) is always positive for all values of x>0.
What you can also see from the curve however and from the numbers is that the amount of change gets to be less and less as we go higher with x: The magnitude of the curve’s slope is always getting smaller as x gets bigger.
So, let’s see how that compares to your beliefs. Your conjecture is: “Y = nl(x) must also be its own derivative.”
First test: We know that the slope of the curve is always positive. If we find any result of ln(x) for x>0 where we get a negative value, then that definitively disproves your conjecture that ln(x) describes its own slope.
Result: For all values of x between 0 and 1, the result is negative. Therefore your conjecture is definitively disproven.
Second test: We need to see magnitude of slope decreasing as x gets bigger in order to accurately describe the curve.
Result: For every increase in x the result of ln(x) actually increases, not decreases. Therefore your conjecture is disproven for this characteristic also.
There is a function however that does capture these characteristics perfectly and mathematicians have known it and proven this to be the case for centuries. They will be able to continue to rely and trust on this fact indefinitely, because it’s true.
Hi tas and all!
Thank you for that trip down memory lane to my long-lost days of high school maths. I barely understand about one percent of what you guys are talking about but I do admire the big effort you put into your posts. I’m really looking forward to hearing more about what you’ve discovered regarding how the UB lines up with or contradicts current thinking in the world of physics/astrophysics.
Love and peace,
Julian
:Hi taz and welcome Julian,
I asked those who post to provide TUB quotes or references pertinent to the subject but you have used that request as an opportunity for personal attacks. That is a pity. Be that as it may, I will agree to proceed to evaluate foundational principles that I find rotten.
I will start my reply by mentioning some relevant particulars from TUB that apply here.
1. Space is not an unbounded cube.
2. Space is not absolute.
3. Space moves.
4. Space and time are inseparable.
I think we can agree on these if we are Urantia readers.
It’s actually very simple. Here is a definition from wikipedia:
“The process of finding a derivative is called differentiation. Geometrically, the derivative at a point is the slope of the tangent line to the graph of the function at that point, provided that the derivative exists and is defined at that point.”
You may quote Wiki and WolframAlpha all that you like, but I would ask these questions first. Are they using a graph that is an unbounded cube? Has anyone used space as anything other than an unbounded cube since Descartes? Did Newton assume space and time as absolutes? Did not Newton and Leibniz invent the calculus? What do those arrows at the ends of x and y axes mean?
Well, the “graph” is indeed ABSOLUTE and it is ‘representational’ of space. No time is implied on this “graph” because it does not move.
First, the differential does not exist because NOTHING IS DEFINED AT A POINT. A point is an infinity, a singularity. You may then say that a point is a coordinate, a position in that space. My reply would be; what does position mean in an absolute space? Position has no meaning. That is fundamental. So, the derivative does not exist!
When I said that the derivative of y=e^x is it own derivative, it is the same as saying that it has no derivative. Something that does not change has no difference or differential. Neither does the derivative of y=nl(x) exists because the derivative does not exist.
Any line drawn on this absolute graph is infinite. Any curve drawn on this graph does not represent change because an absolute space changes NOT. Slope is meaningless on this graph. Time on this graph is not implied because time is absolute on this graph and that means that this graph is in eternity. The absolute of time is eternity (TUB). The infinitesimal is infinite. The smaller the line segment the more the segment is infinite.
There is no function on “the graph” that can represent motion. That is sad and pathetic because the calculus is supposed to be the mathematics of change, the mathematics of motion.
103:6.12 Out of his incomplete grasp of science, his faint hold upon religion, and his abortive attempts at metaphysics, man has attempted to construct his formulations of philosophy. And modern man would indeed build a worthy and engaging philosophy of himself and his universe were it not for the breakdown of his all-important and indispensable metaphysical connection between the worlds of matter and spirit, the failure of metaphysics to bridge the morontia gulf between the physical and the spiritual. Mortal man lacks the concept of morontia mind and material; and revelation is the only technique for atoning for this deficiency in the conceptual data which man so urgently needs in order to construct a logical philosophy of the universe and to arrive at a satisfying understanding of his sure and settled place in that universe.
Regards, Manny
Hi taz, Julian and all others interested.
Allow me to expose the rotten wood of other foundations, namely, Euclidean geometry.
Lets start with the same Urantia Book postulates as in the previous post.
1. Space is not an unbounded cube.
2. Space is not absolute.
3. Space moves.
4. Space and time are inseparable.
Of the five postulates of Euclid, the most important is the fifth postulate of The Elements. It states:
“Given a line and a point not on the line, there is not more than one line which can be drawn through the point parallel to the original line.”
Without this postulate the whole of Euclidean Geometry crumbles.
Immediately one could see that TUB is in conflict with this postulate. Parallel lines can only exist in an absolute space, otherwise they would indeed meet at some distance and, therefore, not be parallel.
Space is not absolute according to TUB. In one statement TUB invalidates plane geometry and there is no getting around that.
Now we must address the concept of a line. A line is a one dimensional idea. It only has length. There can only be one line because parallel lines do not exist. Two lines cannot have any distance between them because in this dimension of only length, space-time is nonexistent. Distance requires space and time.
There can only be one line and that line must have relationship. All things are related in the universe. There is only one relationship in the universe and that is orthogonality. Why you ask? The Holy Trinity is relationship. We are provided with this relationship by TUB. Recall the arrangement of the Deity on upper Paradise. They are in concentric circles. This is an orthogonal, right handed relationship. All concentric circles are perpendicular to one another because they share one center and intersect their radius at 90 degrees mutually. Thus, there is but one relationship in the Universe of Universes.
The one infinite line becomes three intersecting at right angles but remains one line with relationship to itself. There is only one plane and it lies orthogonal to itself and is the unbounded cube. This is the cartesian graph system MINUS the numbering. One cannot chop up infinity into number segments and not be left with the same infinity. Infinity cannot be divided.
Calculus and the rest of the mathematics that follows is thus doomed in this metaphysical confusion.
You may ask about non-Euclidean geometries but they fare no better. They merely turn Euclid’s fifth postulate around by postulating infinite lines through a point not on the original line. Sorry, it won’t fly either.
The blasphemy comes in when one considers how math supposes to place moving object in x, y, z coordinate “projections”. This presumes creation and there is only One Creator! These are projections from the Infinite plane. They are not distances, they are not extensions. These are projection and God is the only one that can project from the Infinite Spirit Plane.
The Calculus cannot exist because it presumes to function in God’s domain of Infinity. Calculus presumes to be the mathematics of change, but God changes not. He projects motion as a creator. He images motion from stillness. And God is not His imaginings.
This cannot be found in Wiki or WolframAlpha, only in communication with the Alpha and the Omega.
Regards, Manny
Since this thread is not about the Higgs boson, and adds nothing to our study of the Urantia book, could the moderators please delete it?
thanks,
Nigel
Hi Moderators,
Is it the practice of this forum to stifle discussion that does not suit some? Many threads divert to other topics.I would appeal to you not to delete anything here. I have been willing to change or broaden the topic title to whatever anyone suggests. I wonder why Nigel is doing this. Nigel claims that nothing here adds to our study of TUB. Just read for yourself and note that I reference or refer to the Urantia book in all of my posts. If Nigel’s request is granted, it would certain be a warning to all who post here that the Urantia community is intolerant to open discussion. Thank you for your attention to this matter.
Regards, Manny
Hi Manny,
If you and tas can see value in such presentations, and would like to continue, and if the moderators can rename this thread something like “ideas about algebra”, then please, carry on.
Nigel
I would appeal to you not to delete anything here. I have been willing to change or broaden the topic title to whatever anyone suggests. I wonder why Nigel is doing this. Nigel claims that nothing here adds to our study of TUB. Just read for yourself and note that I reference or refer to the Urantia book in all of my posts. If Nigel’s request is granted, it would certain be a warning to all who post here that the Urantia community is intolerant to open discussion. Thank you for your attention to this matter. Regards, Manny
Manny, your efforts were admirable, and with this post, this subject will lead to a death sentence to be sure. However, even the omission of a PM function on this forum would indicate that there is an attempt to isolate specific open minds from making contact with each other, where it would seem that rebellion is still a primary function of this realm and will soon come to an end. If you wish to contact me outside of this forum you may through the following, midichlorian@optonline.net if not then I’ll know that you have been compromised as to your goal of enlightenment. Where even my efforts to be removed have fallen on deaf ears, all the way up to the IUA. So, if you wish to explore what I have found embedded in the UB, let me know, because those who resist Our Fathers Plan, merely prove that they do not know what it really is.
Hi Nigel,
If you and tas can see value in such presentations, and would like to continue, and if the moderators can rename this thread something like “ideas about algebra”, then please, carry on.
How about renaming the thread title to “What TUB says about math and science”? This is broad enough that If anyone like yourself would like to spinoff from this to starting another more specific thread, they are free to do so.
Regards, Manny
Login to reply to this topic.
Not registered? Sign up here.