/sci/ - Science & Math

[Anonymous No.5551163]

I discovered/figured-out a proof that proves that there was a first thing to exist, what that first thing was, and it seems that I can figure out all the things that came after the first thing by designing a computer simulation program.

However I want someone else to code the computer simulation program for me because I don't want to do it.

Do you have any ideas of which people or organizations I could show and explain my proof to, that would then code the computer simulation program for me for free?

[Anonymous No.5551172]

>for free

[Anonymous No.5551178]

>>5551163
>code the entire universe from the start
>for free

no thx

[Anonymous No.5551179]

>>5551172
Well they are designing a computer program that calculates the first thing and everything that happened after it. You would know all of physics and as much of the history of existence as you were able to compute.

This would answer most, if not all, of our physics questions and maybe it would eventually be used as a legal aid to see who committed a crime.

I guess what I'm asking is why wouldn't someone be willing to design a computer simulation program of the first thing and to calculate all the things that came after it knowing that it would be beneficial?

[Anonymous No.5551181]

>>5551178
Sir, please stop posting badly and simply explain to me the following ;

>>5551179
>I guess what I'm asking is why wouldn't someone be willing to design a computer simulation program of the first thing and to calculate all the things that came after it knowing that it would be beneficial?

[Anonymous No.5551182]

>>5551179
does it calculate every atom ? every quark ? every string ?
stop dreaming kid and go read some quantum theory

[Anonymous No.5551186]

OP, I've been working one something like this myself. Maybe we could both benefit by working together. Here's what I have so far:

10 PRINT "BANG"

[Anonymous No.5551185]

are u retard? do u even think you are the first to try to simulate the universe on a computer?

[Anonymous No.5551188]

>>5551182
Look I'm really sorry if I offended you but the point of this thread isn't to debate whether I know what I'm talking about, the point of this thread is, given that I do know what I'm talking about and I do know how to do what I stated - how to find a person or organization that would code the computer simulation program for me for free.

Sir, please stop posting badly it is killing me.

[Anonymous No.5551189]

>>5551185
>>5551186
please read: >>5551188

[Anonymous No.5551191]

>>5551188
The point of this thread is whatever the fuck we want it to be. Nobody will work with your illiterate ideas since you evade the very simple questions. If you want coders, ask >>>/g/.

[Anonymous No.5551192]

>>5551188
Nobody is going to work for free for you.
Especially on this...

[Anonymous No.5551193]

>>5551188
the only reason someone would agree to code for you for free is if they thought you were onto something and were passionate about it. If you don't tell anyone what stupid idea you have, that will never happen.

[Anonymous No.5551196]

What you are suggesting is physically impossible.
To simulate the entire universe accurately to a point where you can calculate events here on earth it would have to be accurate to the smallest degree, like >>5551181 mentioned. Also you'd have to know the exact physical laws in their entirety that applied at any point in time plus of course the actual null-state from which you start computing.

Even IF you had all this information it would be impossible to get anywhere near enough computing power to do this, lest you turned the entire universe into one giant computer.

[Anonymous No.5551197]

>>5551189
If you do not got any money or anyone to finance it, your best bet is to go to a university department find a relevant professor form the CS department or physics department that would be interested.. (you gotta sell your idea).. and scheduel a meeting with them to talk about your idea..

Now keep in mind if the university helps you program ect.. they'll lend up taking credit for it.. and you'll just be a foot note.. they gotta do that do to public financing ect. However you might gain a lot of nonliterary and respect.. maybe even get invited to a phd program ect, if you want to paly hard ball try to negotiate a tentative agreement you want credit for your work.. although this is likely to make them ignore you, cause they are not going to negotiate with crazies.

this all of course assumes you are not full of shit.. but i will humor you for one second

[Anonymous No.5551198]

>>5551189

20 FOR N = 1 TO 7
30 IF N < 7 THEN PRINT "EXPAND" ELSE PRINT "REST"
40 NEXT N

[Anonymous No.5551205]

>>5551193
Who said I wasn't going to tell people the idea that I have? I simply don't want this thread to be about the idea's validity, but what I stated in the OP.

Why can't you guys simply just show me someone or a organization who would code the computer simulation program for me for free?

Why is this so difficult?

[Anonymous No.5551209]

>>5551205
Estimate the amount of work involved.
What skills/knowledge would the programmer need?

[Anonymous No.5551208]

>>5551197
Thank you, I thought of that but I wanted to see if there were other options I didn't think about. Now that I see no one has any other ideas than I originally did, I'll go through with that plan.

For your help, here's the link to my site
http://calculatingexistenceREPLACEWITHPERIODwebsREPLACEWITHPERIODcom/calculating%20existenceREPLACEWITHPERIODpdf

[Anonymous No.5551212]

>>5551196
I already got my answer and you didn't answer my question but since you didn't REALLY post badly I'm going to reply to you.

I would only need to turn the entire universe into one giant computer if I wanted to calculate the events/things that existed a fast as the universe does, but as long as progress is being made then EVENTUALLY you will get to whatever point you want to.

[Anonymous No.5551217]

>>5551209
Be able to do this visually;
1 Create two points distance x apart
2 Create a circle of radius x from each of the two points
[3 Analyze where the circles intersect
4 Record where the circles intersect
5 Create circles of radius x from each of the points where the circles intersect]
Repeat bracketed 3-5

Other useful functionalities would be to be able to exit the program, start it again and start off from where it last was and also to export the data of the simulation so another computer could do the work.

Zoom out/in, speed variability, and other things I haven't thought of yet would probably also be useful.

[Anonymous No.5551221]

>>5551212
Well what good is "eventually" if it would take you longer than out solar system is still going to exist? And of course your assumption of how exactly the universe was composed at the point you start calculating would have to be correct.

That being said your idea is not applicable in reality.

[Anonymous No.5551224]

>>5551217
>an infinite recursion of venn diagrams
s

[Anonymous No.5551227]

>>5551221
*our

[Anonymous No.5551228]

>>5551208
And how exactly would a programmer use this to simulate the universe?

Also, your proof is stupid.

[Anonymous No.5551231]

>>5551221
I guess it wouldn't be any good if we wouldn't be able to stop our solar system from not existing and if we wouldn't be able to escape our solar system and survive.

It is easy to figure out exactly how existence was at the point I start calculating, since you seem interested e-mail me and I'll explain [e-mail]

Why is my idea not applicable in reality?

If we can't stop the solar system from not existing and if we can't escape the solar system for when it stops existing then at least we would discover some, most, or all of physics if we don't calculate the events that happened up until modern times.

[Anonymous No.5551240]

>>5551228
That is at least at the very beginning, how existence develops. So you're question how would a programmer use those instructions to simulate existence? Those ARE the instructions for creating existence from the first thing to exist.

Is calling my proof stupid going to get you anywhere?

That's in the style of Wittgenstein's Tractatus, a groundbreaking philosophy treatise. So since you're not talking about the form, which of the statements is stupid and why?

Please post constructively.

[Anonymous No.5551286]

>>5551240

Not the statements (except for assuming that nothingness must have a spatial dimension), but rather the conclusion. You've shown that time is finitely divisible and something came from nothing, but you still don't know what the original something is. You can abstract it into your venn diagram idea, but you still need to know what the original thing was that existed to be able to interpret the state of the universe at any given simulation point.

[Anonymous No.5551303]

>>5551286
I do know what the original (which I take to mean first) something is. It was an indivisible distance in the midst of nothingness, ie 1 in >>5551217

I don't know what you mean by "interpret the state of the universe at any given simulation point" btw. By interpret do you mean figure out? If so since I do know what the original (again, which I take to mean first) something is, and how to calculate at least some of the first things that came after it, I do know how to figure out the state of existence at any given simulation point in the very beginning at least.

[Anonymous No.5551310]

>>5551303
>I do know what the original (again, which I take to mean first) something is

No you don't.

[Anonymous No.5551329]

>>5551310
Ok i'll edit my proof to include that I do know what the first something was, exactly what it was.

Make another e-mail and e-mail me so if this thread is deleted I can talk to you about it, my e-mail was stated here >>5551231

[Anonymous No.5551337]

>>5551303
Except that that's probably wrong. Look up quantum fluctuations and tell me that's not how the universe got started.

[Anonymous No.5551356]

>>5551217
At any given iteration, do you want to know where all newly drawn circles intersect or where all circles drawn so far intersect?

[Anonymous No.5551397]

>>5551356
Neither, I want to know the points where the circles intersect that isn't "inside" but is on the "outside". Notice how the animation attached to this post grows in all directions, the intersections that aren't on the boundary of the outside are not having any new circles made, but circle intersections that ARE on the boundary of the outside are having new circles made.

Since it could be (but i'm not sure yet) that every circle intersection point that isn't already the center of a circle is a circle intersection point that I want to make a circle from, perhaps it should be that every circle intersection point that isn't already the center of a circle is a circle intersection point I want to make a circle from.

But since I don't know that for sure yet, just make a circle from every circle intersection point drawn so far.

[Anonymous No.5551406]

Since it could be (but i'm not sure yet) that every circle intersection point that isn't already the center of a circle is a circle intersection point that I want to make a circle from, perhaps it should be that every circle intersection point that isn't already the center of a circle is a circle intersection point I *should* (not want) to make a circle from.

But since I don't know that for sure yet, just make a circle from every circle intersection point drawn so far. *This is sure to lead to some redundant computing, but it is the surest way to go so far that I know of*

[Anonymous No.5551589]

>>5551303
I think the premise of using the concept of time as a finite unit if flawed. Time is an arbitrary concept made up by humans to quantify entropy. Entropy itself is infinite as the universe is its own system. There is no change in total entropy within itself, unless there is some other system which our universe is within. There was never a "nothing". In some form or other, until we can confidently say that the universe is a part of another system, the universe as a system has always been.

Lastly, nothingness can only exist in the absence of something. If there was no something to compare to, there would be no such thing as nothingness. You are working under flawed logic in that you yourself placed something further in time to take away and call what was before it nothing in order to begin your proof. You don't actually know what the original something is. You made it up yourself.

[Anonymous No.5551607]

>>5551397
>>5551406

Before you ask someone to code this for you, get a compass, and draw out the first few iterations of circles.

You'll soon see some indication of what things will look like after 100, 1000, or even millions of iterations. I don't think you'll find the results very exciting.

Also, why did you choose to do this in two dimensions with circles rather than three dimensions with spheres? You could instead have uninteresting results in 3D.

[Anonymous No.5551630]

>>5551589
If you e-mail me i think i'll most likely be abl to resolve your disagreements. [e-mail]

>>5551607
lol!

I like you, you're funny.

>why did you choose to do this in two dimensions
>why did you choose
>choose

I didn't really "choose" to use "two dimensions", I arrived at the conclusion that I should use "two dimensions" based on logic.

For more info, e-mail me, my e-mail was mentioned above in this post.

[Anonymous No.5551667]

I'm super busy with my ap calc class right now, but if you'd be willing to share credit I'm teaching myself python right now so I'd love to help this summer

[Anonymous No.5551669]

I would be willing to do this for you.

Although I don't know how to at all and I dropped out of grade 9 in the late 80's and have been on a bender since then so learning may be an issue but if you'll try to teach me how I'll try to do it until I get bored or maintenance enforcement finds me.

But the offer stands!

[Anonymous No.5551686]

>>5551667
I'll most likely get someone to do it for me by then but in case I don't my e-mail was mentioned here >>5551630 so e-mail me when exactly you'll be able to start and e-mail me programs you've made so I can see your capabilities.

[Anonymous No.5551750]

>>5551630
I enjoyed reading your pdf.

>>5551669
If you'd like some help, I can simplify the process for you:
1. Draw two equilateral triangles which share one side.
2. For each exterior side in that figure, draw two new equilateral triangles such that each of the two includes that side. It is likely that portions of these new triangles will overlap previous triangles.
3. Repeat step 2 forever.

Oh, and if you want to achieve the mess of circles OP's steps will yield, simply draw a circle (radius = the side of a triangle) at every vertex in your figure.

Then admire your universe.

[Anonymous No.5551822]

>>5551179
>and maybe it would eventually be used as a legal aid to see who committed a crime.
How is that?
You think a computer program can simulate all of the interactions of atoms in, say, a city?

You have no idea of the scope of the universe or what forces act in it.
Having no idea means your 'proof' of the operation of the universe cannot be even vaguely worth reading.

[Anonymous No.5551831]

>>5551205
>Why can't you guys simply just show me someone or a organization who would code the computer simulation program for me for free?
>Why is this so difficult?

Because you haven't given us any skill, expertise, knowledge, framework, or physical principle to use as a criterion.

Let's say you wanted someone to design clothing.
If you don't say anything about the clothes you want made, how can anyone point out a designer? Sports, casual, high-fashion, mass-produced, shoes, leathers, textiles, weatherproofed, what?

[Anonymous No.5551840]

>>5551208

I'm sorry, but that isn't a cogent set of principles;
it's a list of related conditions that set up a framework.

In order to calculate ANYTHING in the universe, you also need:
a framework of universal constants
explain energy
explain physical matter
explain motion
explain the current state of the universe well enough to establish how it became this way

What that page shows is nothing but axioms establishing ground rules for not much more than time as quanta.

[Anonymous No.5551856]

I read your proof OP, it made me chuckle. You are either a troll, a complete autist or a pompous fool.

You posit in L: that there are such things as spatial dimensions in addition to this entity of time. You aditionally posit there should be three such spatial dimensions. Neither of these are substantiated, merely assumed ab initio.

Where do the spatial dimensions come from?

[Anonymous No.5551866]

>>5551856

I should rephrase that.

What, in conditions A-K, would give rise to the existence of three spatial dimensions? Also how are these dimensions related to time?

Oh do please reply, I am interested in your theory and will fund you with a slice of my pizza.

[Anonymous No.5551873]

>>5551840
I'm going to help by pointing out where you write nonsense, so you can fix it:

"H: Whatever was before the first indivisible part of time caused it. H-A: G.
I: There was nothing before the first indivisible part of time. I-A: F.
J: The nothing that was before the first indivisible part of time caused the first indivisible part of time."

This doesn't establish anything that makes sense: it just shows enigmatic writing that contradicts yourself.
And it looks like you think you proposed something important, but it is only self-contradictory.

"Nothingness can't exist." and then "Nothingness exists in at least one spatial dimension."
This is supposed to be the clearest possible framework for your concepts: enigmatic writing is verboten.

"If the spatial dimension(s) that nothingness exists in were infinitely divisible"
You need to pick one; is it divisible or not, give an example and maybe a consequence for the opposite?

"parts of space in a consecutive order then the all the spaces would first"
maybe remove 'the'?

"It is impossible for an infinite amount of space in a consecutive order to end."
Are you trying to justify the word 'infinite' or just repeat what 'infinite' means?
If space exists, how is there a consecutive ordering to it?

"nothingness exists in must be have"
word missing?

[Anonymous No.5551895]

>>5551866
I'll answer your question but any further questions or rebuttals should be e-mailed to me at [e-mail]

>What, in conditions A-K, would give rise to the existence of three spatial dimensions?
Nothing, the line(s) L-A-A are just meant to convey the fact that Existence is in at least three dimensions, that is supposed to be self-evident.

>Also how are these dimensions related to time?
I don't see what this has to do with anything, and I don't remember stating that those dimensions were related to time.

Could you be a bit clearer in what your point is and what you are trying to say if you are to e-mail me please? Thank you very much sir.

[Anonymous No.5551908]

>>5551873
Thank you.

[Anonymous No.5551910]

>>5551895
>>What, in conditions A-K, would give rise to the existence of three spatial dimensions?
>Nothing, the line(s) L-A-A are just meant to convey the fact that Existence is in at least three dimensions, that is supposed to be self-evident.
Yes, existence IS in 3 dimensions -- but he is making the point that those dimensions have to COME FROM something. That is the first parts of the universe -- space, time, dimension. You try to establish space and time, but forgot dimension.

>>Also how are these dimensions related to time?
>I don't see what this has to do with anything, and I don't remember stating that those dimensions were related to time.
Relativity theory established very firmly that space and time are inversely related.
While your framework doesn't approach any of those issues, once it does you're going to find you need to establish a relationship between the concepts (space, time, indivisibility, energies, fundamental constants, and matter).

[Anonymous No.5551921]

>>5551910
if you don't see how to do that, read 'The First Three Minutes' and see how it is different from what you propose; it will give you ideas.

[Anonymous No.5552334]

>>5551921

How about you explain the ideas, since it's your nonsense you need to defend.

"The end to the amount of indivisible parts of time that have passed before the indivisible parts of
time that are passing in each moment of the present is the first indivisible part of time that passed if the
count starts from the first indivisible part of time before the indivisible parts of time that are passing in
each moment of the present and then onto the second indivisible part of time before the indivisible parts of
time that are passing in each moment of the present and then onto the third indivisible part of time before
the indivisible parts of time that are passing in each moment of the present and so on."

This is fucking ludicrous, man. You can't honestly be expecting to do something with this as it's basis, you're not even writing sensible sentences.

Just because you think you've explicated the idea in your head perfectly simply by writing longer sentences with more and more nested clauses doesn't mean you've gotten any kind of point across at all, or that you've said something which makes sense!

That "sentence" in particular, and every other time you use moment, you use the word as a benchmark for all these 'indivisible parts of time' but you don't define what you mean by a 'moment of the present.?

[Anonymous No.5552358]

nope

[Anonymous No.5552713]

OP, it can't be more obvious that you're a 13 year old just dreaming, having no base knowledge of anything you're talking about. It is now time for a spider man thread.

[Anonymous No.5552720]

>>5552713

Pretty sure you didn't need to bring this up again

[Anonymous No.5552721]

[Anonymous No.5552725]

>>5552720
Again? This my first post. Sorry for pointing out the obvious.

[Anonymous No.5552729]

[Anonymous No.5552749]

>dumb faggot thinks he's onto something
>scientists must have somehow missed this revolutionary discovery
>post on /sci/
>other dumb faggots who know even less science start spouting their own idiotic bullshit
>the bullshit streams merge into a bullshit river
>bullshit river gently winds it's way down the mountains
>starts picking up speed
>it get's so big it contaminates all water supplies
>everyone dies choking on bullshit
Average day on /sci/

[Anonymous No.5552768]

>>5552749
If you're going to blather, make an effort to be entertaining, please.

[Anonymous No.5552843]

>>5552768
The emotional amputee, entertained? Good one.

[Anonymous No.5553227]

please check out the crack pot index.. this definitely comes into it