Skip to main content

Another thought on infinity from the perspective of overall universal charge being a Zero/Infinite Equivalence

My idea to make science as open source as media gets a great boost when you stumble accross great ideas from people on social media.

Thinking in absolutes on charge is a paradigm,  there is no intrinsic need beyond labels to think of negative charge as fundamentally negative ,  we could call the charge we name "negative"  positive,  it's just a label and the field prevailing in the entire universe may even have universally frozen on these particular values somewhat arbitrarily,  but it goes beyond that.

Previous post:

Further to my previous post on infinity (above) here is something I picked up in comment  section from a Facebook post from Jean Paul Guyse

"Glenn Swart Just looked at your other blogs ref infinity. My theory is a colourless flat pixel lies beneath the curved edge of the event horizon of a black hole, the Zero Squared [-1+1][+1-1]. It may also solve the problem ref dark energy and dark matter.

Under conventional thinking, some-thing can't come from no-thing. But if no-thing is 100% of everything (all negative and positive charges cancelled out) and some-thing is less than 100% (some of both the positive and negative charges remain separate) it simply answers that problem. No-thing of the Zero Squared (100% of everything). It's there but undetectable because it hasn't separated and thus hasn't released any energy beyond its flat surface. Energy is released once the supersymmetry is lost (curvature/warping begins) and the simultaneous Big Bang AND Big Freeze occurs. If the Big Freeze doesn't occur neither can the Big Bang and visa versa. Fire and Ice. This allows for the Universe to both contract and expand at the SAME time. At least TWO open systems but mutually closed into each other. Both stiring into each other and thus entropy doesn't occur. This solves Newton's problem of a close system suffering entropy. Because the Universe is a 'virtual' closed system consisting of two open one's. This is my theory. Quite radical but it works. Not saying it's right but equally it isn't wrong too."

"And just to add, I should have cited Cardot instead of Newton ref Entropy"

Popular posts from this blog

Dīvide et imperā: How To Defeat The Most Effective Social Control Weapon In Human History

Many different empires, cultures and nations have existed in history and while the details, styles, values and aesthetics keep changing, the core structure remains unchanged. In order to benefit from social coperation and steal reward in excess of the labour and value you invest, you cannot take it by brute force for extended periods of time without facing the wrath of the crowds. The crowds need to give it to you willingly or unknowingly. There was one exception to this synopsis, the Feudal System  but there is more to that than people realise, it's a post for a later day and deserves full scrutiny and parrellels do manifest. The support of the home crowd is also needed to win wars. No army has ever been effective fighting under duress, they would assemble, arm  and immediatly turn on you.

Before the current reigning Judeo-Christian Anglo American Empire of today there were other more monolithic empires that the loosely ideologically aligned old money banking dynasties, globalis…

Scientific Consensus is that Consensus is overturned 100% of the time

Everything you know is wrong. There is a very good reason why science succeeds more often than politics does.  Unlike politics, It's not a consensus or a vote,  it's actually method.  The scientific method. Anyone who has read this blog before probably knows I'm a lifelong science junkie as well as someone who spends thousands of hours breaking down the the political and economic agendas behind the special interest groups that guide public policy.  In many ways I'm actually uniquely qualified to tie these angles together in ways not well understood by the overwhelming majority of people.  That actually includes scientists. Scientists are notoriously naive in the political and economic forces that drive the human world.

For example if you are of the opinion that the earth has one moon, the earth revolves around the sun etc you are already wrong. Well sort of. The politicpl world is black and white, the scientific world is nuanced, see…

CO2 is not a pollutant, it is greening the earth!

Whatever your persuasion is on CO² and AGW, nobody disagrees on the tremendous benefit it provides plant life. Many of the past famine disasters and desertification has CO² decline listed as a contributor.

I feel I've already blown the notion that humans are the main cause of climate change out of the water. Or rather I've used the reasoning of others and put it together in a convenient outline. See my previous post above for starters.  However, I recognize that humans do increase CO² levels, no matter how tiny. Increases are likely to be very short lived because the earth has an effective feedback mechanism, but we can apparently get small increases, and it's been put forward on very poor science that this is a bad thing. That assertion hinges completely on bad models. More on that in the bottom most link.  Model's and the measurement sample dates are dubious at best.

Furthermore, the main increase in CO²  as…