We assume that 0 allways indicates nil would that be a correct assesment?

What if were wrong and 0 indicates true unity instead of 0 nil, it is

0.99999999? would it still be an additive?

If 0 is a indicator of unity would it change the way we look at the results

of many componants of physics?

Could you furthur your calculations replacing the 0 nil with 0.999999999

unity?

If = 0 is true unity wouldn't it unify all the forms of physics?

It isn't at all possible that the mathematics could be wrong?

Isn't it possible that the result "= 0" in complicated mathematics isn't

really nil? Which is common opinion in basic mathematics and I support basic

mathematics as 0 bieng nil. But in complicated mathematics because it is

concidered as an additive it must be nil. That's wrong it isn't a additive

it is true unity = 0.99999999. rounded off to 1 because the sum nil isn't

useable in calculations. However 1 is also regarded as unity and works in

the mathematics however it isn't true unity as popular opinion indicates.

Define unity it's the radius of a curve. the result = 0 has a physical

representation as with most results in mathematics. 0's physical form is a

closed radius "RING". The mathematics is drawing a picture of a ring however

one critical element can't be viewed in a picture of a ring, that is

eccentric movement. I would think that the fact that a infinite number such

as unity ( 0.9999999-infinite) would make mankind question our symbol for

infinity. However I must point out that the symbol for infinity is a twisted

ring. twisted to represent movement on a constant reoccuring cyclic path.

In short unity is a ring rotating cyclic for infinity.

So with that said the *error* in mathematics is the misunderstanding that 0

is nil and not true unity. this error is furthur compounded by

misunderstanding that

in the laws of physics = 0 nil, no result. "end game" however you want to

refer to it is really the result = 0, unity, ring, eccentric, cyclic,

infinite conservation.

What if there is a unifying force to physics? Would it be perpetual?

I admit I'm not a math guy but I feel this needs atleast some serious

concideration. I see a pattern in physics with one common result = 0.

That's discovery by invention at work.

ring