## Canada Builds |

BUILDINGS

Angle of Incidence

Ashrae Window Test

Doors

Exposed Bldg Face

Fire Protection

Fire Walls

Floors

Footings

Foundations

Height Area and Use

Means of Egress

Mezzanines

Newton's Cannon

Roofs

Thermal Massing

Vegetation

Walls

Ventilation

ENERGY

Solar Energy

Solar PV Panels

Geothermal Energy

Cost of Energy

RESOURCES

Measuring Height

Size a Radiator

Size a Wood Beam

Size a Steel Beam

Deflection Calculations

TANGENTS

The Area of a Circle

Stonehenge

World Population

Bouncing Ball

The Number One

(adsbygoogle = window.adsbygoogle || []).push({});

Angle of Incidence

Ashrae Window Test

Doors

Exposed Bldg Face

Fire Protection

Fire Walls

Floors

Footings

Foundations

Height Area and Use

Means of Egress

Mezzanines

Newton's Cannon

Roofs

Thermal Massing

Vegetation

Walls

Ventilation

ENERGY

Solar Energy

Solar PV Panels

Geothermal Energy

Cost of Energy

RESOURCES

Measuring Height

Size a Radiator

Size a Wood Beam

Size a Steel Beam

Deflection Calculations

TANGENTS

The Area of a Circle

Stonehenge

World Population

Bouncing Ball

The Number One

Start with an apple and cut it in half. You might say that you now have a half an apple for yourself and a half an apple to share with someone else. You could also say that you now have a ‘fraction’ of the apple you once had or that you now have ‘two’ pieces of an apple. The latter option - that you now have two pieces - is a little different than the first.

How small is the number one? If I use a frame of reference and state that the apple before being cut in half is ‘one’, It would follow that this ‘one’ is no longer ‘one’ but rather ‘one half’. But who is to say that you had one in the first place? Perhaps the apple might have been one thing but if you cut it in half, It could be suggested that you now have ‘two’ things’. It depends upon how you count. It depends on your frame of reference. It depends on how you label things

We are forced to accept the argument of a fraction if we work within a forward or linear axiom of time. If this axiom is abandoned, the pattern of things in the universe is described using whole numbers. No fractions, no negative numbers, no imaginary numbers. 1 (one) is the base number. Zero is impossible in the context of the universe that we have been able to see thus far. The number one represents a kind of ‘infinity’ because no one really knows what ‘one’ is yet. I might say I have one thing in my hand but if I split it in half I now have two things. Am I looking at one universe or many? Certainly, these two ‘things’ will be smaller than the original ‘thing’ but there will still be two. Not one half and one half but ‘two’.Why this matters is not entirely certain.

Binary systems use this logic to deduce arguments at the speed of light. Yet binary systems demand that hot and cold or ‘one’ and ‘zero’ happen in sequence not at the same time. If warm comes from hot and cold happening simultaneously then the notion of maybe could also be construed as the instantaneous presence of a yes and a no at the same time in a persons mind. We are aware of what it is to be ‘uncertain’ or 'undefined’. We know this feeling. We are conscious of it. This awareness though is not reflected within the construct or axiom of a measuring system that relies on linearity. Yes or no? Hot or cold? On or off?

If the universe behaves in a linear fashion as is commonly described with the theory of the ‘big bang’, then it is no longer possible to conceive of what before means. The Big Bang is Zero.

Abandon the idea of linear progression for a moment and consider the argument in the context of a spiral as opposed to a circle or line. The impossibility of zero becomes clear. Try cutting the apple in half until there is no apple. It can’t be done. The math would be cutting a number in half and trying to get to zero. Start with a 1/2, 1/4, 1/8, 1/16, 1/32, 1/64, 1/128, and so on. No matter how many times the number is cut in half, it will never get to zero.