--- In c_s_s_p@yahoogroups.com, Lee V wrote:
>
> Oh Gosh, here we go big time. Ok, please bear with me here Andrew as I appreciate the dialogue.
>
> Granted, complex manifold theory is used to define spacetime topologies. That's not exactly the same as saying that 1/0 is THE definition of the unified field. Now is it?

> Also, I'm glad that Einstein found the physical application for the tensor, but again, that's not exactly the same as saying what I stated above. And as far as some "genius" finding a physical explanation for everything from pure mathematics, with all due respect that so-called genius may be in your midst.

You must pardon me, Lee, but as Oscar Wilde said, I am not young enough to know everything.
But certainly retain enough curiosity to wonder how 1/0, "one thing divided by nothing," combines magnetism,electricity, gravity, strong force, weak force, AND, I'm sure you 'll agree, that strangest energy of all -- the moebius vortex of consciousness --- all as parallel forms of one energy.

But no one can argue about sources of inspiration in the creation of your device. Tesla saw something in the sun in a waking dream that inspired him to conceive the rotating magnetic field. Kekule dreamed of snakes biting their tails and conceived the benzene ring...Obiously, the "inherent geometry of that number" inspires you, and that's a good thing.

> Using ideas from algebraic geometry to write computer algorithms does not come close to creating a free energy machine based on the inherent geometry of that number which is said to be undefined.

>
> Mankinds role in the universe is not a philosophical question it is part of the theory of everything and part of the geometry of the unified field itself. Now I could tell you what mankinds role is, but you should know it has something to do with appreciating the absolute greatest value and realizing that the unified field is one thing divided by nothing.

Yes, insofar as a unified field theory must include consciousness, the "knowing" field, say,
it would include mankind as a physical and metaphysical entity. As according to Nicolas of Cusa,
"finite beings are contractions of the universe: each contracts and is 'mirrored' in every other thing. The universe is therefore a harmony of plurality in unity, a manifestation of God in whom the opposites are reconciled. Man as a microcosm mirrors the macrocosm" I completely agree with this (alchemical) formulation.

http://www.philosophos.com/philosophical_connections/profile_052.html

But you present a valid anthropomorphic argument that the universe exists because we are here to appreciate it. And this is another deeply philosophical question.


> Your assumption that the attributes you think I gave 1/0 helped me answer the questions is just that, your assumption. The truth is is that 1/0 spoke to me all that which is hidden. The truth comes from that number and what it means, not from me. All you have to do is evaluate the number using limits to see that it represents the coincidence of opposites, then you will have to understand what that means to see farther than man has seen. Or you could read the work of Nicolas of Cusa who figured the same thing out only he used a slightly different framework not based in mathematics as I have done.
>
> Riemann sphere is different than the yin yang symbol because the Riemann sphere itself does not represent the coincidence of opposites.

The Riemann sphere doesn't represent the coincidence of opposites, only the point on the sphere with the infinite coordinate represents pos and neg infinity as the object wraps around in a sphere. In the planar projections of the sphere the separate infinities reappear, but I could be wrong about that....

best regards,
ab

>Look at the wikipedia page for Riemann sphere and it says 1/0 equals infinity. That is just plain wrong! Any mathematicians knows that 1/0 is equal to both positive and negative infinity. If it was just equal to one infinity they would have defined it. The reason they haven't defined it is because it does represent a coincidence of opposites and the mathematicians can't wrap their heads around that yet. If they did, they would see that it implies that the laws of thermodynamics are incomplete and it would shatter their world view. Hopefully you see how important this is. Now as far as positive and negative infinity being combined in the same symbol, you are exactly correct. THAT is the coincidence of opposites my friend.
>
> The riemann sphere does not represent the point of the coincidence of opposites. It does not include negative infinity which is a big big mistake that renders the whole thing virtually useless. Even if it did, it's like the difference between the number circle and the symbol of truth. The symbol of truth is a direct relationship to the workings of nature, whereas the number circle is just a graph pretty much.
>
> regards, Lee