neil2366

Dear friend, Thank you for posting. Balance is perhaps the right word ! Is there any mathematics which can accurately convey your view? Pls share.

doesn't exist! need some sort of input and it is hard pill to swallow for who has belief that it is true!

Thank you for reply. Big bang one can not digest yet & different views among many scientist. Entropy one has look up and yes it is concept but does not give me enough clarity.The law of entropy is conceived on the bases of time flow in one direction.Isn't it possible that simultaneous state where many intyeractions happens at ones so detections is not possible? Also entropy has always log formula? All planet,galaxys, sun attract =nagative entropy perhaps because all interactions in it combine & become dense =reduction in entropy? all these leads universe seen always in balance or expanding as per entropy concept?

everthing in universe seems to be happening in cyclic form,isn't it? day-night,year,seasons ,birth & death etc. some cycles are bigger and some are smaller at fundamental level. So one post question so some of you may haveperhaps insight pls share towards these questions.

Thank you for post. This is perhaps most important question for all of us to understand ,isn't it? Is there any tools we have besides human sences and its interpretation through brain what we know(our memory,experience,knowledge) as our conclusion and where our sences limited using instruments invented by human mind based on previous knoledge? everything we have is conclusion from past that we use and hoping to find total picture? Can we ever find total picture from that past which is limited? ofcourse we can find limited ,which can be detected through observation and put in form of limited understanding as a theory,which is self evident as there are many theory and many more will surface based on limited observation.Isn't it afair question that what is that prevent relationship between observation & theory? It seems everything is cyclic process in universe.isn't it? Isn't it possible that obesrvation & detection perhaps a phase of total cyclic process? In other words detection is a time (sequential) oriented process where other phase of total cyclic process (simultaneous) which has a much smaller time gap which by any means can not be detectd but perhaps can be understand mathamatically?

nt Can you explain one phenomena? let me share simple example. if ten people clap one by one in a room we can count 10 claps --event is sequential as time gap is involved.Now if 10 people ina same room clap at once we will here only one loud clap. where 9 count vanish .--event is simultaneous where time gap is very small so feels like disappear. in our cerabral system to everything in universe as aphenomena going through simultaneous & sequential events all the time. Isn't it? not understanding simultaneous phase of the total event led us to hypothesis as there is need for algoritham that fulfill both simultaneous & sequential event with precision as many good scientist often looking for.

respectfully and in all honesty post is not about proving anyone wrong or right but for one to share, unlearn & learn.All mathamatical numbers are derived through axioms with accuracy and verified and perhaps provide some clue to understand objectively more about axioms. Also shows how seven neutrino when radiate simultaneously becomes photon. This is just to point out if anyone is interested in looking further to axiomatic principal has derived all values & more from within , without using experimental input or any arbitary constant. http://www.kapillavastu.com/index.html?r=20120707024127 http://s1.webstarts.com/Sankhyakarika/index.html.

as long as the methodology used throught is sound--is a very precisly said. Isn't it fair to say in beginning to scientific investigation we should know that in universe two form of actions are taking place all the time 1.simulatneous 2 sequential ?sequential actions are time bound so experimentally can be measured but simultaneous actions are in questions.isn't it? perhaps can only be calculated mathamatically ?

This is an attampt for everyone to objectively look into without any conclusion and points mentioned are applies to axiomitic logic .Also let me correct the error one has made you can look at it at original source. http://www.kapillavastu.com/index.html?r=20120707024127 http://s1.webstarts.com/Sankhyakarika/index.ht

Friends, question is stiil there that ANY theory based on axiom which is not using any arbitary constant,emprical value,experimantal value and still produce result with great precision, what science has so far produce through experiments & arbitary constant . Also It can apply to all unsolved anomalies and unify everything eternaly from axiomatic principal.Here are some points on axiom based theory Sankhya(means logic of counting/process of counting).Pls kindly look at it objectively who are interested. ankhya, as a holistic theory is correct and complete whereas Science, comprising Physics and Cosmology has no answers to the anomalies that have been found by its Physicists and Cosmologists? 1. Sankhya is based on axioms that are precise whereas Science is based on experimentally detected inputs that have built in errors. 2. Sankhya uses time, as the interval of an axiomatic cycle, which enables the derivation of parameters accurately and proportionately, while in Science all parameters are defined in an arbitrary manner and leads to errors. 3. Sankhya treats all phenomena exactly as humans experience events locally, whereas Science depends on created hypothesis based on detected evidence. 4. Sankhya depends on a logical and unified model of phenomenal activities that are intellectually acceptable whereas Science creates models based on experimental findings and creates theories to unify these. 5. Since Sankhya has a intellectually defined model it is able to treat detectable and hidden phenomena accurately whereas Science depends on detection first , hidden phenomena get treated as anomalies or unexpected behaviour that cannot be defined by its theoretical findings. 6. Axiomatic derivations based on numerical logic in Sankhya gives precise and definite results always whereas in Science experimentally formulated numerical logic has to be equated by creating arbitrary constants. 7. As Sankhya depends on axiomatic logic to understand phenomena it is able to predict experimental results accurately and hence is effective, whereas in Science there is always uncertainty that makes it depend on statistical verification as measure of accuracy. 8. In Sankhya, the axiomatic base dependant on a single variable as cyclic time provides verifiable and dependable internal numerical theoretical proof whereas in Science it is entirely dependent on observable experimental detection from which a theory is deduced and has no definite or alternate method of verification except through statistics. 9. Sankhya theory based on axioms is objective and its combinatorial mathematical logic enables the derivation of both maximum and minimum limits, which defines its limiting boundaries with certainty whereas in Science the observable experimental limit severely curtails its ability to be precise, certain and complete. 10. Sankhya being axiom based and complete with internally generated proof it forms a permanent theory whereas Science has necessarily to change continuously depending on its experimental findings and the consequential evolution of it’s dependent theoretical logic.

This is quite constructive explanation indeed for oneself from both of you and perhaps for many on this forum.Ronald indeed put in right words.Now the formal system so far been used don't have all questions answerd form scientific point of view and we are all left with many anomalies unanswered ,aren't we? like pioneer .dark matter,red sift ,neutrino faster than light etc..etc. list goes down to more than 30 anomalies in wikipedia and many scientific journals. so can we say that something is seriously missing in formal system so good physicist are not be able to turn physics where axiom can become true laws of nature? One has try to understand Nodal and few others talked about axioms ,but couldn't grasp them.

"The fun thing, though, is we need not concern ourselves with reality when making formal systems such as mathematics or logics" -- if theory based on mathamatics & logic brings accurate result what science has discoverd through practical approch ,without using any arbitary constant or emperical value , for all phenomena from within the axiomatic principal ,valid? If theory on axiom proves everything what sciencehas discoverd so far and much more where science is having questions ,without practicla approch,consider valid? sure it should have practical varificatin after that.

dictionary shows Axiom can not be disproved. do we need any arbitary derived constant or experimentally measured value or emperical derivation to form theory if theory is based on axiom. Is there any theory out there based on axiom?

Thank you for posting questions. One is fairly new to subject & learning . isn't it fair to say that any theory based on axiom can have all answer to currant science with practical verification? Can Axiom based and complete with internally generated proof forms a permanent theory whereas Science has necessarily to change continuously depending on its experimental findings and the consequential evolution of it’s dependent theoretical logic?