.........∞
o< <0>= --- → ψ=∞ . h/Ec² > Mc²
.........ψ

Here, there was nothing (0), and then all of a sudden, an energy conditioned appeared <0> which is found proportional to the psi factor and intinity. Giving the products of the psifactor being proportional to infinity itself. This sum must have been squared/multiplied, over h, which is Plancks Constant divided by Energy that spontansously bubbled from the Dirac Space and time. It is multiplied by the constant of light, raised to the power of two.

This creates solid diffused energy... or matter. This is a short equation describing the evolution of nothing into something.

This ttook me a few days to do, but i am thinking about extending it backwards using imaginary mathematics. I hope to show that there can be the possibility of ONLY TWO universes, and the string of math above is a timeline of our universes evolution, but what about this stigma of ''there was nothing,'' and then ''there was???''

Err... the equation was meant to be like this:

.............∞
o< <0>= --- → ψ=∞ . h/Ec² > Mc²
.............ψ

Donovan Leitch may have said it best:

__________________
Microsoft is over if you want it.

The bar has been lowered for the promotion of ATM ideas; the bar for the acceptance of ATM ideas must remain high.

The universe is like inflating a balloon, it will pop at some point.

__________________
Thank God for magnetism.

Uhm, that's according to some theories, weather or not acceleration keeps on going, gravitationally bound objects (clusters of galaxies) aren't accelerating apart.

It is my opinion, that this is not possible.

6*9 = 42

__________________
The views expressed are the febrile product of an overactive imagination of a person who in shadows sees the gyrating Elvis-like ghost of Leonid Brezhnev.

__________________
Never attribute to malice what can be adequately explained by ignorance or stupidity.
Isaac Asimov

6₁₃*9₁₃=42₁₃.

It's quite simple really. Move this here if you want. But let us see if the judgment and understanding is correct. Anyone here care to;

Express the equation in a simpler form

And to solve it?

I can.

-68+68=0

you have the universe of the -68 and the universe of the 68. after that.............

__________________

Why the jokes? Can no one here understand what the equation says?

Your derivation for this masterpiece? It makes vast sweeping assumptions without any explanation as to how or why. Given your habit of posting similar material ( throw enough greek letters at us and call us stupid for not agreing with you ) it is more than a little difficult to take it seriously.

Doug

Because it looks like a tossed salad of random mathematical symbols, that's why. What? You expect this to be taken seriously? Sorry, the "equation" you've written down is utter nonsense.

__________________
Microsoft is over if you want it.

The bar has been lowered for the promotion of ATM ideas; the bar for the acceptance of ATM ideas must remain high.

You wont get jokes from me Occams Ghost if that helps. I came to the various science forums for some help especially since it requires mathematics. No joy on any level but what I can say is that I have enjoyed reading what you present, but the mathematics is out of my league.

Although this has been the best of forums it is like WWF wrestling in a cerebral contest. Apparently unless it is already known and is consistent with the mainstream this nor any other place appears to be where to go for mathematical advice and that is for those with or without the mathematics.

Is it?

I'll explain in another thread, since this thread has been spammed with misunderstanding. Without saying, ''stringing Greek symbols into mathematical salad,'' didn't it cross your limited imagination to ask alone how the equation worked out>?

Michael, cheers.

................∞
0< <0> = ---- (→ ψ=∞)(h/Ec² > Mc²)
................ψ
__________________

Where zero is nothing -- the uncalculatable variable... or time zero.

< this is found to be less than what suddenly happened: An energy condition <0> appeared, equals ∞/ψ and this is found to produce the same calculation of → ψ=∞. The brackets (not shown in last equation), give Plancks Constant over the energy produced, or spontaneously bubbles from the vacuum raised to the power of two, as is the matter produced.

The Energy condition is also found to be infinite:

0 < ∞<0>

Which would most probably be described best as the Dirac Sea, since it is infinitely filled with negative matter, but you can always add one more particle.

Anyway, the equation first shown can be cut down to:

......ψ
0 = --- = ψ = ∞
......∞

Which simplifies to ∞ = 1

One what? You might be thinking? Well the value of 1 is actually the formula for the universe as a whole.

Not only this, but you can turn the equation around, and instead of seeing the production of everything, you can see the reverse (T) when everything goes back to whence it came:

..................ψ
1= ∞ = ψ = --- = 0
..................∞

O rly? You complain that people spammed your other thread with meaningless equations, but the funny thing is that your "equations" are no more meaningful than theirs. The words "not even wrong" comes to mind.

__________________
"It's over you head now. Time to get some professional help." - My fortune cookie from lunch

Ned Wright's Cosmology Tutorial

Usenet Physics FAQ

Code

Do you know about the wave collapse, in laymanian mathematical terms...?

If not, i can show you.

Laymanian? Since you're the one proclaiming to have the "equation of the universe", the question is, do you understand math? On any terms? Infinity = 1? Seriously now...

__________________
"It's over you head now. Time to get some professional help." - My fortune cookie from lunch

Ned Wright's Cosmology Tutorial

Usenet Physics FAQ

Occams Ghost- Don't you have another thread on this over in ATM?
My Equation of the Universe

Why didn't you explain the equation in the existing thread in ATM instead of Sneaking your equation (nonsense) back OUT of the ATM Forum and into General Science?

No, we're not thinking "one what", we're thinking, "why are you spamming this forum with meaningless quasi-mathematical symbols and sentence fragments?".

I have a great deal more imagination than you give me credit for. But your collection of random symbols just makes no sense at all. For example, you give the "equation" in your first post and then correct it in the second. The only difference I can see between the two of them is that there are more periods in the ellipses on the first and third lines. The middle line, which I presume carries most of the content of this "equation" is unchanged.

So for a start, I have to ask you: What is the meaning of the number of periods in the ellipses on the first and third lines?

If you are going to use some revolutionary new mathematical notation of your own devising, wouldn't it help in the understanding of it to explain these innovations?

__________________
Microsoft is over if you want it.

The bar has been lowered for the promotion of ATM ideas; the bar for the acceptance of ATM ideas must remain high.

That'll teach me not to make assumptions about my units.

__________________
The views expressed are the febrile product of an overactive imagination of a person who in shadows sees the gyrating Elvis-like ghost of Leonid Brezhnev.

I asked you about this in the other thread...
But frankly, I'm not buying this.

You removed the basic content of your ATM idea OUT of the ATM forum under the excuse that the members that refuted your nonsense "equation" spammed your thread.

Occams Ghost: Not liking the refutation of your claim does not make it spam- nor does it allow you to move your OP from ATM to a non ATM thread.

This is just my opinion on the matter. But it sure looks bad from where I'm standing.

Now I understand that you may feel like you have stumbled onto something.

I appreciate your intellect and your motivation to produce ideas and work for goals in science.

Sadly, your equation is essentially meaningless, however, and you really should consider accepting the counsel of others on where you should improve your thinking and your knowledge and Not try to slip your ideas out of the Heat of ATM.

I don't know who Donovan Leitch is, but unless he's a very, very old Buddhist, I don't think the saying originated with him.

__________________
Never attribute to malice what can be adequately explained by ignorance or stupidity.
Isaac Asimov

__________________
Never attribute to malice what can be adequately explained by ignorance or stupidity.
Isaac Asimov