Reply
Sat 3 Feb, 2018 10:54 pm

Hello All,

I am working on a theory about the universe geometry and i would like to share it. and will like to know your

thoughts about it.

When i start thinking about this theory.

I was starting with two old assumptions.

The first assumption by Pythagoras that the universe is fully mathematical.

the second assumption was by Immanuel Kant that said that the universe is with out time and space.

Arthur Schopenhauer when read this Immanuel Kant philosophy said that, if the universe is without time or space then it have to be a one thing.

The assumption that the universe is fully mathematical, i was thinking that i can take any of the known mathematical disciplines to create the universe, i decide to use fractal disciplines, with a "makeover" of dimensional analysis.

i start with the equal sign. the left side of the equal sign i put the landscape of the universe, from the right side i put one.

landscape=1

Next I decide to start with the size of Planck (h) and i add to it dimension like this: f (h)=h^k

And this function will look like a spiral, When k ≠ 0.

It was not enough to make a complex universe, so i had to add something more, but with the assumption that the universe is a one thing, all i can add is: whatever the universe is not. (-h /h^k)

and the symbol h can be named: f(F)=F ⃗^k-(F ⃖ /F^k ), in a wider perspective.

and you can named it like this: f(h)=h ⃗^k-(v ⃖ /v^k)

or like this: f(E)=E ⃗^k-(m ⃖ /E^k)

Now, I was thinking what can possibly be the size of k, and I assume that k =π. The meaning of π in this sense is “in all directions”. Moreover, π is a natural number. In addition, when you use the power operation, you actually create dimensions in fractal geometric. In this case, 3.141 dimensions or the roughness of a π.

And for the last part when i plugin the equation to the software (Xaos) i saw that there is only a amazing complexity only when the left size of the equation is must be positive 2,4,6,.....or ^2. anther way if is odd then the fractal is look like a tours inside of a tours, with little complexity.

Therefor:

c^2=E^π-m/E^π

same equation only in math : f(z)=(z^π)-(z/z^π)+(z^π)-(z/z^π)+....

Last part was to check if the geometry of the outcome fractal, corespondent to the universe geometry.

there is no way to show picture here, so you have to try yourself and look for primordial solar system hd163296,hd163296,hd61005.

and much more...

I put some photo here: **Edit [Moderator]: Link removed** with the name "origin of the universe"

Thank you

@maadim,

Admirable speculation but philosophically naive !

I suggest you read this re: your 'mathematical assumption'.

http://www.cogsci.ucsd.edu/~nunez/web/FM.PDF
@fresco,

I suggest just look at the evidence . and then decide

@maadim,

'Evidence' is never independent of an observer's perceptual set. What 'matters' in comparing viewpoints is elegance and predictive power.

@fresco,

What you try to say can you be more clear .

@maadim,

Nietzsche: There is nothing that will ever be accessible which we might call 'ultimate reality' which is beyond what we call 'description'. Descriptions continuously evolve, and some descriptions are merely more useful than others.

'Evidence' is 'observation in accordance with a useful predictive description'.

'State of knowledge' and 'descriptions of the universe' involve continuous reciprocal interaction.

@fresco,

you know that friedrich nietzsche

just quote emanuel kent from 200 years before.

just tell Newton’s and Einstein that Nietzsche said its not posible to do what thay did.

@maadim,

No...Nietzsche did not just quote Kant. He rejected Kant's 'noumena' as meaningless. You don't seem to understand that, nor do you understand that Newton and Einstein represent successive transitions in human 'states of contextual knowlege' which will perpetually continue to evolve.

Good luck with your speculations. But note that you are merely one of countless self publicists using this and other forums to announce their 'revelations'.

@fresco,

when i am thinking on the universe. i am seeking for the true,

and if lots of people will review my work i can be sure that some people will like it. and help me to get to the true.

any way thanks! and have a great day

@maadim,

you know something else fresco, i am doing this kind of thinking on this theory, for the past 10 month or so. with no one to talk with about it, because no one care about it.

i will be very happy to talk with someone about it.

@maadim,

Unfortunately, mathematical speculation is a bit like abstract art with an even more limited audience! You are also hampered by your level of English competence and your selective engagement with ontology (philosophy of existence). I suggest you try to contact a university department of theoretical physics for more useful feedback.

@fresco,

I was trying the university next to my home, but it was a waste of time.

It was like they didn't try to understand me.

so here i am .