Me and my clone are against the walls in the corners of a perfect room. We are a perfect distance from each other, and the distance between us perfectly proportional. Neither of us has to turn our heads' in a different direction to see each other, we can both look forward and we see each other at the same distance. If we are chemically identical at this point, we remain chemically identical so long as we ingest chemically identical food, air, and water with equally proportional quantities. In this scenario, since there is no differentiation between either of us, my clone is still perfect.
Now, what happens when an external stimulus is introduced in a dis-proportional way?
The circle represents an event, object, or what have you. It is closer to me than my clone. At this point, my clone ceases to be a "perfect clone" and branches out as an individual. Why? Well, if we are chemically perfect and everything about our environment is perfect... Until the stimulus arrives. The object is closer to me and it is to my clone. Since I am closer, my brain will perceive the object as closer, where my clone will see the object as further away. Our brains' will have different interpretations of the object, and since the information will be different, we no longer share a perfect reference to each other. My brain will record the object as being, say, 2 feet away, and my clone will see the object as 7 feet (or so) away. That immediately differentiates me from my clone, as from that point forward, he will be operating with a different chemistry (although slight) from my own.
That alone proves that perfection is impossible unless conditions themselves are perfect, which is essentially impossible. The moment something imperfect is introduced into this perfect environment, the perfection ceases. All proportions of perfection are immediately destroyed. The clone will have slightly more air on his side of the room than I will, and I will have slightly less due to our relative distances from the object and its' mass. The perfect frame of reference is shattered since the object gives a reference point that differentiates corners of the room (i.e. the ball is in the top left corner, or if no direction available, the ball is on that side and there are 3 sides it is NOT at).
However, I will take this a step further and apply this theory to the Universe.
This graph represents the Universe and the Big Bang. It is a standard Cartesian Plane...
Now, since I have established that perfection is not possible for any extended period of time, I would like to establish that if perfection is not possible, complete imperfection is also not possible. The following graph demonstrates this, although the graph is not perfectly proportional. Had I shaded in all areas, you would not be able to see the numbers on the x and y planes at the origin.
(Black areas indicate Universe possibilities, while non-shaded areas represent Universal impossibilities)
Perfection implies that all quantities involved would be in perfect proportions, i.e. (+inf,+inf). If perfection is not possible, then the inverse must not be possible as well, i.e. (-inf,-inf). However, that leaves two remaining possibilities... (-inf,+inf) and (+inf, -inf). How does this relate to the Universe? Well, by way of the composition of atoms.
As everyone knows from elementary science, there are Protons, Neutrons, and Electrons included in EVERY atom with no exception. I.E. Hydrogen has 1 proton, 1 neutron, and 1 electron. Protons represent (+), neutrons represent neither positive or negative (origin or possible z axis), and electrons represent (-). Our atoms, at least in the Universe we can study, indicate that there are even proportions of + and - charges in equal degrees, with the exception being isotopes, which have extra neutrons. As this is a simple (x,y) graph, I have not included the z axis, which could, potentially, indicate neutrons.
Going back to the original graph, I can input atoms as x=number or protons and y=number of electrons. I will graph a few basic elements.
Assuming protons come first in line with electrons second, this is the direction the graph would take for ideal samples. Isotopes do cause variances in this graph, but they could be charted as well, though I will ignore them for the sake of simplicity.
Since this graph works since atoms DO have positive and negative charges, and inverse of this graph would also be true, which I will combine with the above graph...
I shaded in the impossible regions of the Universe in the above example and included the inverse atomic proportions of the previous graph. This shows that, while not reaching 0, the possibilities of atoms work on these levels. Beneath 1, however, you no longer have stability, though in theory you could have atomic particles that make up the 1 to near 0 ranges.
This would indicate that the possibility exists of two universes, at least, universes that exist within the (+,-) and (-,+) quadrants.
As for the title of this post, allow me to explain. If perfection is impossible, God becomes impossible. At least in the way we perceive God. God would have to be 0, and in order for there to be a 0, 0 must exist with no external stimuli because 0 has perfect proportions with the absence of positive or negative stimuli. However, had God been perfect, there would never have been a need for stimuli at all. That being said, that would mean that if God were perfect, the Universe would not exist in its' current form, assuming that God was the source of the Universe.
This grid-model is eerily similar to a pulsar, as shown below... (remember, shaded in areas above are universal impossibilities)
In this photograph, which is very similar to my graph, forces that are not extending outward from the center of the poles of the star form a magnetic "link" with each other. I believe that the Pulsar may help us explain the Universe as a whole and that they jets being forced out would contain vast quantities of inversely proportionate matter.
Since perfection is impossible, and individuality/inverse-individuality and inverse-infinity are the only possibilities that exist, each element has an uneven total composition. Atomic Masses, while very similar, will never be the same due to differentiation of composition, however slight.
Joshs' Theory of Matter Composition:
The total masses of any two of the same element are not perfectly proportional nor shall they ever be.
Anyway, this is the work I have done so far. I truly believe I am onto something, and will update this as time permits.
Wow, going to edit this later. Quite a few misspellings and incomplete sentences. Well, there could be more, but anyway.
ReplyDelete