Ultimate Infinity

[Ultimate Infinity]

A theory of everything that is based on the idea of infinite realms of reality all of which are part of an infinite number of larger realms. It believes that there are infinite levels of existence, each of which are infinite, and contain infinite levels themselves, and so on.

Please tell me what you think of this theory- I am still working on it if you have any questions ask.

Basically I think that everything little thing is infinite and that you can go infinitely up and infinitely down in levels of existence. For example: our universe is part a multiverse which is part of megaverse and so on. You can also go down infinitely ... Galaxy clusters, galaxies, solar systems, and so on

[Strange]

Please tell me what you think of this theory- I am still working on it if you have any questions ask.

 

 

It is a bit vague. And lacking in evidence.

 

 

 

It believes that there are infinite levels of existence, each of which are infinite, and contain infinite levels themselves, and so on.

 

Scientific theories are not about beliefs but about evidence and predictions.

 

 

 

You can also go down infinitely ...

 

The current evidence is that there are fundamental particles which are indivisible, so this part of your theory appears to be wrong.

[B. John Jones]

Of course infinity is infinitely dense. But infinity is always finite, and is only understood in the context of eternity.

 

These are 2 very different concepts.

 

----------

[The second line of my answer was edited in.]

Edited June 27, 2016 by B. John Jones

[Ultimate Infinity]

This is not just a belief, it is based on many accepted scientific truths and is technically a prediction.

Also please understand that I am a high school farmer that has not taken a physics class in my life - this theory just popped in my head and it makes so much sense to me because I am Christian and a scientist and believe in a infinite God

[B. John Jones]

Sure, music for example can be studied mathematically. But it can't really be studied scientifically or analytically. You can try, but it doesn't work that way. My guitar and technique can be analyzed but my musical approach and performance cannot really be evaluated scientifically. There are an infinite number of processes I could apply on my guitar if time permitted. But music requires more than processes and infinity and analysis. Nature and life are more musical than analytical.

Edited June 27, 2016 by B. John Jones

[Ultimate Infinity]

I don't understand

Instead of just one infinite universe, I think that is an infinitely small fraction of existence. An analogy that makes sense to me is that instead of just having just one infinity such as infinite apples- that infinty is just one of infinite infinities which they themselves are just one of infinite infinities and so on. I suppose I am very affected by my religious standpoint of a perfect infinite God, I just feel like this theory is basically the past possible existence because it is the most infinite it can be. Hence ultimate infinity. In fact I think creation it self is just one action of God and is one of infinite and you get the idea - I hope

[Strange]

This is not just a belief, it is based on many accepted scientific truths and is technically a prediction.

 

 

What are these "accepted scientific truths"?

And can you explain how your idea is based on them?

 

[Ultimate Infinity]

Well I guess I'm realizing this site isn't for me I wanted help and constructive criticism not just trying to prove me wrong I'm not here to argue

[Strange]

Well I guess I'm realizing this site isn't for me I wanted help and constructive criticism not just trying to prove me wrong I'm not here to argue

 

 

I'm afraid that is how science works: by trying to prove ideas wrong. It is a very successful strategy that has lead to the development of modern science and technology.

 

But I can understand that having your ideas challenged, and having to find evidence for them, is not for everyone.

[swansont]

Well I guess I'm realizing this site isn't for me I wanted help and constructive criticism not just trying to prove me wrong I'm not here to argue

 

 

If you're wrong, it's not constructive to agree with you.

[Ultimate Infinity]

Hey there is absolutely no hard feelings guys and gals I guess I'm just frustrated because I can't make any progress with this theory by myself I also am figuring out that I am a little outclassed here my iq isn't up to par on this forum - but please tell me - do you just disagree with these theory or do you not follow me because I even confuse myself sometimes

Hey there is absolutely no hard feelings guys and gals I guess I'm just frustrated because I can't make any progress with this theory by myself I also am figuring out that I am a little outclassed here my iq isn't up to par on this forum - but please tell me - do you just disagree with these theory or do you not follow me because I even confuse myself sometimes

[Bignose]

Hey there is absolutely no hard feelings guys and gals I guess I'm just frustrated because I can't make any progress with this theory by myself I also am figuring out that I am a little outclassed here my iq isn't up to par on this forum - but please tell me - do you just disagree with these theory or do you not follow me because I even confuse myself sometimes

UI, science isn't about agreeing or disagreeing. It is about prediction an evidence.

 

For example, using Newtonian mechanics, I can throw a ball at a certain speed, direction, angle and make a prediction when and where that ball will land. For example: 145 feet away 5.2 seconds from now.

 

Science then takes this prediction, and compares it with measurement. So, we get someone to throw the ball at a certain speed, direction, and angle. Even better, we get a machine to do it so it is more repeatable. And then we compares where and when the ball really lands.

 

Newtonian mechanics has been very successful as doing this, hence is a very widely accepted theory. But if someone came along and created an even more accurate way of predicting things, then it would become the best theory we have.

 

By comparison, you are saying "well, the ball, will, ummmmmmm, kinda go off in this direction, I think, and uhhh, land some time."

 

Quite simply, not very useful compared to "145 feet away 5.2 seconds from now."

 

There are modern ideas about the universe, particles, etc. that make very specific predictions as opposed to the vagaries you've written here. In short, you have a story and not much more.

 

Now, if you work on developing that story to make specific testable predictions, well then we can compare them to measurements that have already been made and will be made. But right now, your idea as present can't do that. That's the level of detail people are looking for.

Edited June 28, 2016 by Bignose

[Ultimate Infinity]

Also sorry I typed that twice

How in the world do I prove that theory

[Bignose]

How in the world do I prove that theory

1) no theory in science is ever proven.

 

2) As I showed above, you use your idea to make predictions, and then demonstrate that the predictions from your idea are the most accurate. When your predictions are the ones with least amount of error, your idea becomes the best.

[Ultimate Infinity]

The thing is that my theory is part scientific theory but most a religious/philosophical theory

[Bignose]

The thing is that my theory is part scientific theory but most a religious/philosophical theory

Without predictions, there is nothing scientific at all. Sorry, but really, comparing prediction and measurement is pretty much the definition of science.

 

In addition, religion is in many ways very different from science as religion demands you believe in things without evidence, or possibly even in spite of evidence. This is not to say that religion and science are necessarily incompatible, but the way you've used the words here make it almost irreconcilable that your idea could be both at the same time.

Edited June 28, 2016 by Bignose

[Phi for All]

The thing is that my theory is part scientific theory but most a religious/philosophical theory

 

!

Moderator Note

If you can support the idea (not a theory; theory is the best you can get in science, and would require a LOT more examination) with science, you can discuss that part here. Evidence is the key to matching concept to reality. Without it, we're just guessing, and not doing science.

 

The Other Sciences section is NOT for religious or philosophical topics. Would you like me to move this to Religion, or to Philosophy?

[Ultimate Infinity]

Please move this to religion

also big nose are you a professor of physics or something

[Bignose]

also big nose are you a professor of physics or something

Nope. Just knowledgeable about science and how it works.

[Sensei]

Infinite stupidity, does it count also.. ?

 

 

 

This is not just a belief, it is based on many accepted scientific truths and is technically a prediction.

Which one for instance.. ?

 

Also please understand that I am a high school farmer that has not taken a physics class in my life - this theory just popped in my head and it makes so much sense to me because I am Christian and a scientist and believe in a infinite God

How do you dare to call yourself per "scientist" if you have not taken "physics class in your life"... ?

 

Hey there is absolutely no hard feelings guys and gals I guess I'm just frustrated because I can't make any progress with this theory by myself I also am figuring out that I am a little outclassed here my iq isn't up to par on this forum - but please tell me - do you just disagree with these theory or do you not follow me because I even confuse myself sometimes

Scientific theory is based on observations.

For instance, object fail from height h, in time t.

Repeat observation couple times, with scale and stopwatch, to gather data, analyze data, to derive equation: h = 1/2*g*t^2 (g=9.81 m/s^2)

The next time something will fail from different height, in different time,

you can tell them in advance,

how long (time) object will be traveling (if height is known),

or

how far it will be traveling (if time is known).

 

1) observation of phenomena

2) gathering data

3) analyze data

4) make equation

5) check equation in practice with more data to check whether it's universal

Edited June 28, 2016 by Sensei

[Ultimate Infinity]

I believe in an infinite God anxiety think all that exists can only be that - infinite I believe there are infinite levels of existence all of which are infinite and have infinite levels themselves

Edited June 28, 2016 by Ultimate Infinity

[Bignose]

I believe in an infinite God anxiety think all that exists can only be that - infinite I believe there are infinite levels of existence all of which are infinite and have infinite levels themselves

You can believe anything you want.

 

The current standard model of particle physics https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Standard_Model is based on particles that appear to be indivisible. Your beliefs appear to be in conflict with the current best scientific knowledge. How you rectify that is your personal choice. But you should know what the current best scientific ideas are.

[Ultimate Infinity]

This is under religion right?

[Phi for All]

This is under religion right?

 

!

Moderator Note

We have a section on Religion to discuss religious topics with a scientific approach to the subjects.

 

We do expect even religious discussions to use scientific rigor, otherwise it's all about "belief" (which is subjective to each person, and therefore not reliable) instead of "trust". In science, we want to be able to trust what we accept as information, and use that to help us build ideas into hypotheses, make predictions that confirm or refute, develop ways to test, share and discuss our results, and eventually build a solid theory that is trustworthy.

 

I just wanted to clarify the site's position. I don't want to participate in the discussion as staff. Carry on.

[Ultimate Infinity]

Shut the hell up