-
Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:- Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
- Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
- Access to private conversations with other members.
We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!
Hi, New to this Reddit, but my father has been working on a creation equation. Can anyone check it?
No need, the answer has already been found.
The answer to the answer to the meaning of life, the universe, and everything is... 42, here's the workings
The answer to the answer to the meaning of life, the universe, and everything is... 42, here's the workings
whirlingmerc
Well-Known Member
Shadow Wolf
Certified People sTabber & Business Owner
hod said:
You could also try using wolframalpha.com to see if the numbers add up by entering the different parts as problems. I can't say for sure if you will be able to do that, but you could give it a try. Its a fun site, anyway and knows what the current accepted values are for the constants.
Its simply saying "Assuming God decided to use X then the universe would have appeared like it is now with a young Earth." It has a lot of reverse-engineered assumptions, so it is an attempt at a partial proof. Someone might put something like this together to find out what observations they should be seeing if such & such happened. On the other hand the paper doesn't begin with observations, so what is it calculating?
To check it would require typesetting it neatly and posting it somewhere Physicists and Mathematicians practice, such as arxiv.org or maybe a physics forum or astronomy forum, however there is no guarantee that you will be able to attract attention. Also if its worth anything people will expect it to be typeset. You can use word processing software, and most of the programs have ways of typesetting formulas.
Samantha Rinne
Resident Genderfluid Writer/Artist
AM x DE -> M x DM
From my understanding of the universe, I'm sure if I know the decimal point math, but I understand symbolic concepts, and seems like Energy is missing from this equation.
I'm slightly Taoist and (EA x E)/DE -> (M x AM)/DM represents a better equation for me. From my understanding protons and electrons cancel with neutrons acting as a sort of buffer. It stands to reason that you'd multiple or divide or even add matter with antimatter and energy with energy antimatter, and these would be generally convertable.
Let's use positive, negative, and zero to explain what I mean.
(pos x neg)/0 -> (pos x neg)/0
Despite that you're freaking dividing by 0, the average is balanced. Let's look at yours.
neg x 0 -> pos x 0
While technically true, you are basically saying two dissimilar things are the same and relying on dark matter (which may not exist) to fudge the data.
From my understanding of the universe, I'm sure if I know the decimal point math, but I understand symbolic concepts, and seems like Energy is missing from this equation.
I'm slightly Taoist and (EA x E)/DE -> (M x AM)/DM represents a better equation for me. From my understanding protons and electrons cancel with neutrons acting as a sort of buffer. It stands to reason that you'd multiple or divide or even add matter with antimatter and energy with energy antimatter, and these would be generally convertable.
Let's use positive, negative, and zero to explain what I mean.
(pos x neg)/0 -> (pos x neg)/0
Despite that you're freaking dividing by 0, the average is balanced. Let's look at yours.
neg x 0 -> pos x 0
While technically true, you are basically saying two dissimilar things are the same and relying on dark matter (which may not exist) to fudge the data.