1. Newbie
Join Date
Jan 2010
Posts
4

## One thing

There is ultimatly at least one thing anything and everything at least needs to stay coherent in particlised actuality. The tihng itself can can ultimatly be anything so basicly would have no end nor would it ever be the complete same. Nothing varies from that though nothing no matter how complex or simple. An equation does not have to be blocks of variables trying to explane one conception of duality. if your trying to explain a universaly square gravity you wouldnt need 2 paragraphs of mathmatical representations on a sheet of paper. A conception could to be symbolacly represented with one symbol. For example the unit one iteslf does not require a mathmatical representation simply because 'one' is basicly the smallest could ever get it would be an ingraned idea that would be pre learned since birth. One can actualy be mathmaticly represented it would be a collection variables that represented the restrictions of this current universe. One is completly contractictory because it is not ultimatly a neccessity of anything. There is not an actual basic enough unit that could ever be ultimated into a 100% actual one. One denotes a start in increasing number but one is in essence never ending number it never is the same which means it does not actualy naturaly occure in nature but not even in any concepulisable existance. Your ideas of temperature mesurement actualy need to be broken down more because just like time they ultimatly have one in the same meaning. Temerature represents far more than speed of particles but ultimatly also shows the influencing eternal sequences it caused out of conceptuality simply because they would be all at an oposite curvater than everything else. These particulates would also being out of curve they would be basicly be being reflected but without the ability to not stay out of a reflected shape they would be stuck in it. so they would go an oposite direction of all the other particles. they would travel back in time but they would have started at the end of the universes life not the begining but oddly going back in time so they would appear to have never not always existed during the complete life span of the universe. This entire conception explaines your idea of any sort of eternity paradox. They only appear eternal because they start at the end of a cycle but go backwords from the reaction not forwards. If things acted like this if this is how reactions ultimatly never end because they happened in both directions and simply just then rereacted again to the same source. It would be not even possible for things to just ultimatly have the ability to never end one thing would always last.

2. ## Why bother?

Originally Posted by Umbrava
{Snip!} An equation does not have to be blocks of variables trying to explain one conception of duality. If you're trying to explain a universally square gravity you wouldn't need two paragraphs of mathematical representations on a sheet of paper. {Snip!}
{Spelling cleaned up by me.}
Why bother using an equation when a great big opaque blob of text will do?

3. There doesn't appear to be a question in your post, Umbrava. This Space/Astronomy Questions and Answers forum of BAUT is for questions about space and astronomy, generally. I'll probably have to move your post to OTB.

#### Posting Permissions

• You may not post new threads
• You may not post replies
• You may not post attachments
• You may not edit your posts
•