Energy/Math Discussion

[David]

Thats part of the "experimental error". If your quantum fluctuations change the values of a result in say the 9th decimal place onwards, you are going to have to take Pi to more than 9 places to make sure that almost all the error lies in the quantum fluctuations. If you take Pi to 15 decimal places, you've got errors 1 millionth the size of the quantum fluctuations. If you're really bothered, go to 20 places, and thats 100 billion times smaller. The slight discrepency of your taken value of Pi and the actual value means nothing, the quantum fluctuations of a system make it irrelevant.

But then that is physics, and has no bearing on wether Pi exists or not in mathematics.

Very good explanation, but in this issue lies the problem. Over the grand scale if this issue of definition is not accurately worked out, and problemistic views can not be eliminated, how are we going to predict larger systems on the basic quantum interactions, and principles based on the previously mentioned solutions to problemistic variations.

Yes, at the state we are at, only spin, and angular momentum are what we look for, but if we wish to go farther it needs to be defined, or addressed at greater 'fine' scale.

You keep bringing up measuring a ruler, as if a mathematician needs to do that when he divides something by 5 or multiplies by 2/7. These are thought experiments where physical constraints don't apply.

I like that one. Proving my point for me, that you are not working in reality, and reality is not what you are working with. Therefore, the math is flawed, and not consistent with physical explanations. In this aspect you still missed the point of E=md^m Think sets, in the fractal way.

As Compact says, this is the crux of your problem. You believe it is a matter of opinion about Pi. You keep mentioning logic, but do not get that "Pi" and all the related work were arrived at, step by step, through logic. Over the last 300 years that logic has been checked again and again and again by people who are better than you at both mathematics and logic.

Yep, ok. More of the same.

You yourself said "Trust has no bearing in science.". Your opinion has no bearing on mathematics.
Perhaps you'd like to notice my last few posts in this thread which take the time to give (very long) explainations, links and attempt to answer each of Sexyanons (and your own) points and misconceptions. Sexyanon seems to be able to converse with myself, because he listens to what I have posted, and thinks about them. You do not.

You know not what you refer to, as you have clouded it away into the corners.

I hold conversations pretty well, maybe you should try sometime instead of being an inflammed asshole. I also hold Sexyanon2 in higher regard than you, something about open-mindedness.

A year from now, Cex, Euler and I will have degrees in mathematics (I'm not sure how far Compact is in his PhD) and you'll still be ranting about how amazing you are, and how you've got all the answers, all to no avail.

Where am I doing this? You are the one posting how far you are, and where you will be, all the while I'm delusional, and self-righteous.

I know where I'll be in three years, I haven't even posted about it here. I think the only thing I have posted on, is that I'm back in a Physics program, and that I had to take the preliminaries to show what I still remember.

BTW I never claimed to have all the answers, but I do have the ones to a few problems that others are confused by still. So that brings me to this question:

What's does your level of education, and all of the rest of that mean to me, or anyone else here? You are not the only person in the world to acheive that level, and certainly not special for it. Validate yourself in your own mind, by developing something new, not just having a status in life. Leave something for your children to be honored by.

I think thats known as "Having the last laugh"

Keep laughing. You might go insane trying to grasp at straws while reality beats you with the broom.

The black hole description was as perfect as I felt was appropiate for this forum. I wasn't in the caring mood to open the notes I have in that pattern. Not like anyone would actually read it, only attackit because they missed a word, or never bothered to try and understand it.

I'd expect some semblence of humility when it's apparent that you're stubbornly arguing against five people, one of whom has a PhD, one of whom is working towards a PhD, and three of whom are soon to be holders of a Masters degree, all in the field that you're debating. Your comment "my opinion will always stand" reveals a lot about your character - it reveals that you're stubborn, bone-headed and will not give others' opinions a chance. All of your arguments involving maths (and some which don't) are fundamentally flawed, and we've pointed this out to you repeatedly. Yet you still keep repeating the same tired nonsense about terminating decimals and ideals. I've lost count of the number of times that we've tried to explain the the decimal representation of a number is not the be all and end all, but you keep ignoring it.

I have already heard all the arguments you guys made before. You think you are the first to tell me this? I'm actually quite humble in person BTW. I am here as well, I just happen to be outspoken when I disagree with the way something is done in practice.

Not ignoring, just seeing that the math is flawed, and doesn't represent reality, and pointing out the easiest one to attack on that accord. Where we ask for precision in measurement in the field, but not in the equations to interpet the measurements, I question that form of rational thought, if rational is what it is. To go into this further it has already been state Pi is irrational, and therefore should not be used as it is.

You guys haven't even heard my argument about co-oridnate systems, or dimensions yet. I've already opened those up, but no one bit, so I guess you guys stick to what you learned in school.
I don't really care about their degrees, it denotes they have knowledge of a field, but nothing else to me.

 

[Cex]

I like that one. Proving my point for me, that you are not working in reality, and reality is not what you are working with. Therefore, the math is flawed, and not consistent with physical explanations.

Let me see if I can get this sorted in my mind, before I go any further. Your argument against using mathematics to explain, or quantify, reality is that mathematics and the real world aren't the same thing, and therefore one can't be used to gain any insight about the other?

Is that it, or have I missed something more subtle?

 

[David]

^^ In the very basic sense of the surface of my statements, I guess that's what I'm implying here in this thread. How I think tomorrow may change, as knowledge is absorbed from reading your posts here.

You guys make me laugh everytime you think I don't read what you are posting. It's quite the opposite, I read them a few times before I even form a thought about them.:D

I enjoy the Gestalt approach, and openness of any discussions. I think more progress is made that way.

 

[PGTips]

Proving my point for me, that you are not working in reality, and reality is not what you are working with. Therefore, the math is flawed, and not consistent with physical explanations.

Maths is flawed because it was developed aside from reality? That is like saying English is flawed because it was derived without "physical evidence", just humans saying "I will call that a tree". We define words and meaning ourselves.

You yourself said maths is a language.

Yep, ok. More of the same.

Have you read Principia Mathematica or have you done any Analysis mathematics? Or was your claim "I'm sure I'll just flick through it one day and laugh at all the errors" just an assumption?

Think sets, in the fractal way.

Perhaps you'd like to explain how to think about sets "in a fractal way". Having just asked a friend about it, he is also dubious as to weather that means anything. Of course, if you would do us the honour of enlightening us, that would be marvelous I'll also ask another friend later who is much more into Set Theory if he can comment, but I suspect a similar response.

You know not what you refer to, as you have clouded it away into the corners.

I have given pretty long, decent explainations of a number of areas of mathematics in this thread. Coupled with other threads, I would say it is evidence I do have a decent grasp of "what I refer to.".

I hold conversations pretty well, maybe you should try sometime instead of being an inflammed asshole.

You will note I have not called you random names in this thread. I called you "a fool" but only because by your own definition, you were one, so by your own admitance, it is justified. I have gone about replying to Sexyanon's posts, responding to each point, and trying to aid him in his understanding. I think that would be pretty decent behaviour, even "non-asshole"-like.

You will notice that aside from Cex's slight tone, the last 1.5 pages have been vaguely civil, and much useful discussion has passed. Within 2 posts you have successfully demolished that, because you are an excellent catalyst for annoyance in people. Given the fact myself, sexyanon, Compact and yes, even Cex can manage a civil discussion, then all hell breaks loose because of yourself, surely thats good "experimental evidence" that the major factor in tempers flaring is yourself?

Perhaps you should heed your own advice and curb your own anger in this thread? I have not been "an inflammed asshole" in the last page and a half, yet you decide to call me that for little reason. How restrained of you.

Where am I doing this?

It is quite clear from your general tone.

BTW I never claimed to have all the answers, but I do have the ones to a few problems that others are confused by still.

You appear to have "all the answers" to physics and mathematics. You've developed a theory about patterns in primes, and also solved Relativity.

The black hole description was as perfect as I felt was appropiate for this forum.

No, if you pitched it properly to layman you'd have said

"A massive cluster of particle with an extreme gravitational pull, and also emits radiation"

which is infact shorter and more correct than your actual post

"A massive cluster of particle with an extreme gravitational pull, and emits radiation at a lower rate than it absorbs new materia"

By adding the "lower rate" part you made it incorrect and longer. Besides, the person who asked you know to be doing an applied maths degree, so you hardly "pitched" your response appropriately, did you? If you were pitching it for the level of the forum, you'd have left that part out and if you were pitching it to Cex you'd have elaborated more.

It was an error, that much is clear.

You guys sould really look elsewhere on the net

I am a member of several forums which discuss mathematics and physics, some populated by people who are helping to develop cutting edge theories in physics and brand new results in mathematics. None have the problems you do with understanding the connection (or perhaps lack of) between reality and mathematics.

Perhaps it is yourself who should find a new website? After all, the rest of us (at least some of us) contribute to physics and mathematics discussions with more than just "You're wrong".

Keep laughing. You might go insane trying to grasp at straws while reality beats you with the broom.

I will keep laughing at your vain attempts to make it appear you have knowledge in these things, while constantly making errors (then back tracking with "Oh I pitched it at the forum").

Reality might be going to "beat me" but at least I will know where reality is

I find it amazing if someone doesn't agree with you, you automatically refuse to acknowledge they may know something, perhaps something you don't, or even something about what you are professed in.

I find it somewhat hypocritical you can say that, then say this :

You guys have no insight, and it's great you are going for maths, because I can see you guys doing much else, because of your lack of insight into reality from your posts.

Surely, you are assuming to know what we do or do not know, and are making the same judgement on us you claim we make on you?

You have done that before, but like previous times, I doubt you'll see this as a contradiction in your own reasoning.

Not like anyone would actually read it, only attackit because they missed a word, or never bothered to try and understand it.

You complain that we'd do that, when you do that to long replies we type giving explainations and corrections to your own understanding Every point you raise about "Its not a proper number!" is countered and explained, yet you stick to your guns somehow thinking that because our knowledge of physics isn't perfect, our mathematics is flawed.

Physics can also be described in words (as we do on this forum), does that make English flawed?

Not ignoring, just seeing that the math is flawed, and doesn't represent reality, and pointing out the easiest one to attack on that accord. Where we ask for precision in measurement in the field, but not in the equations to interpet the measurements, I question that form of rational thought, if rational is what it is. To go into this further it has already been state Pi is irrational, and therefore should not be used as it is.

This validates my comment that you think of mathematics like a physicist.

Maths is maths. Its not flawed. The flaw arises in linking it to reality. "Rational thought" and "Rational numbers" are completely different meanings to the word "rational". The word "Cardinal" can mean a member of the Catholic Church, but in maths it represents the size of a set. Does this mean that because the meaning of "cardinal" means something religious that the mathematics of cardinal numbers is wrong? Of course no,t the word has a different meaning, just as rational does here.

You need to seperate the hang up you have with physics defining mathematics. This is wrong, but you do not appear to want to listen.

What's does your level of education, and all of the rest of that mean to me, or anyone else here? You are not the only person in the world to acheive that level, and certainly not special for it. Validate yourself in your own mind, by developing something new, not just having a status in life.

My point was that you seem to have a thing about saying to people "You know nothing", "You are nothing", "You are noone". It is clear the Cex, myself and others are doing something with our lives. We have an interest in learning things, and we are doing that. We are not wasting our lives infront of daytime TV on benefits, we are not dealing drugs to get by, we are learning and planning on being productive members of society. Your constant "You know nothing, you are nothing" comments are not only therefore incorrect, they are an extreme attempt to completely remove any kind of self worth from the person you aim it at.

Now its obvious my opinion of yourself is pretty low, and I've called you fairly acidic names, but I do not completely reduce your life to pointlessness. You want to do Game Design? Sure, fire away. AI and game development is a good area and brings entertainment and thought to millions of people. Its your "Despite having shown nothing of my own ability, I will reduce your own to utterly worthless" that I find a little hypocritical. How can you claim to be anything, when you offer nothing yourself. I've posted others results in my own words in this thread, which shows I've taken in and assimilated that information and I can pass it on to others. Your own "ideas" you cannot explain well to others, and ideas you've got from others you fail to explain properly. This does not add weight to your "I have the right to call you "nothing"" view.

It would seem it is yourself who feels the need to validate himself because you offer nothing to back up your opinions but just have to dive in with "Thats wrong, thats an error, I haven't even read that but I'm sure its wrong", and then reduce peoples aims in life to "nothing". Perhaps it is more an insecurity in yourself which is reflected in these discussions? That despite no proof, you must inform people they are wrong, and you long ago saw their errors, and in many cases have corrected them (though we never see any corrections).

Compact and Zorn by virtue of being PhD students are doing "original thought". Cex, Euler and myself ar too young to have reached that point in academia, but I know Euler is considering it, and I have too.

I have already heard all the arguments you guys made before. You think you are the first to tell me this?

Perhaps its a sign that you are clinging to incorrect ideas and concepts?

You guys make me laugh everytime you think I don't read what you are posting. It's quite the opposite, I read them a few times before I even form a thought about them.:D

You read, but you do not comprehend.

You guys haven't even heard my argument about co-oridnate systems, or dimensions yet. I've already opened those up, but no one bit, so I guess you guys stick to what you learned in school.

Post it.

Given the constant "postering" you do, I guarentee that Euler, Cex and myself will read it (I cannot speak for Compact and Zorn, but I imagine they'll read it) and if its good, then we'll conceed. If we see errors, then we'll critique it, as anyone you submit a paper to would. Personally, I'll keep any critique as "non-emotional" as I can, and comment on the maths and physics of it only.

This is an honest offer. If you wish to shut us up, prove us wrong, show that your constant "I've got the solution to that problem" claims are true, then post them, and we'll see shan't we. I've behaved civilly in this thread, and I've given points and counters to issues raised. Now you do it. Put your "money where your mouth is". Noone will steal your ideas, you have the original "first drafts" so should anyone of us steal your ideas, you can prove we did. You know which university Euler, Cex and myself attend. If a paper on "coordinates and dimensions" appears in the next year from someone who isn't even a PhD student, then you'll know its us. I promise I won't publish anything.

Now, you going to shut us up, or keep postering with no substance?

 

[Euler]

In this aspect you still missed the point of E=md^m Think sets, in the fractal way.

Awesome David - absolutely awesome. Definitely another one for the archives!

......hmm, the Riemann Hypothesis - it's easy. You know cheese & onion crisps? Just consider them in conjuction with the mating season of the White Rhino. Oh, and of course, don't forget about sellotape...

You guys haven't even heard my argument about co-oridnate systems, or dimensions yet.

I for one would love to see them David. Post them - I implore you!

 

[sourlemone]

it's funny watching this intellectual gangbanging, but at the same time (despite the fact I know nothing about maths or physics) eternally frustrating. I think it's got to come to a point, David, where you suck it in and accept the fact that perhaps it's useful to be a little more open in discussion?

Specificity as opposed to direct ambiguity is also a good idea when talking sciences. I don't even know what sets are or what they have to do with fractals, but even I can tell it's a glib and unnecessarily vague statement. David, I can sense a burgeoning intellect but a burning refusal to assimilate and acclimate to an intellectual culture, and that's where you're letting yourself down.

 

[Blowmonkey]

I think it's got to come to a point, David, where you suck it in and accept the fact that perhaps it's useful to be a little more open in discussion?

No:

Originally posted by David
Only the higher educated people have any right to speak on something that is always relative of intelligence, and knowledge of freely distributed material.

(referring to himself, obviously 8))

 

[thursday]

the exact value of Pi = 1 base Pi.

and why can't you cut a ruler into 3rds?

 

[sexyanon2]

This means in Base 12 0.4 = 4/12 = 1/3.

I'm still confused. .4 in Base 10 would be 4/10. That's because 4 divided by 10 is .4, as 10 goes into 4 .4 times. But 12 goes into 4 .4 times?

Let's start with Base 3. How do I count 5 items in a basket, or 476? With only 0,1,2, I can only see different combinations working there. 001 100 112 111 102 and so on, right? What about fractions? 10002?

If there's a math page or some website that explains base don't hesitate to send me there if I'm becoming too troublesome. I need to understand this idea to get anywhere in this discussion I feel.

so 1/7 = 0.1 and 1/49 = 1/(7*7) = 0.01

I'm confused here again. So we're defining 1 divided by 7 to equal 0.1? But, then 1/49 = 1/(7*7) or 1/7 * 1/7, right? Then that would mean 0.1 * 0.1 would equal 0.01, just like Base 10. Why then can we change what the division of fractions equals but allow for the multiplication stay the same?

Also - shouldn't we stay with one Base when dealing with reality? If you change Bases, such as dealing with the length of a ruler, or any other concrete idea in reality, don't you taint the correctness?

But then that is physics, and has no bearing on wether Pi exists or not in mathematics.

You keep bringing up measuring a ruler, as if a mathematician needs to do that when he divides something by 5 or multiplies by 2/7. These are thought experiments where physical constraints don't apply.

I think we're talking about two different sides of the same coin. On the one side, of mathematics, the ideal exists, and Pi and every other irrational number is real. Although, is "i" (root(-1)) real as well? That's irrelevant but interesting. On the other side, there's reality with substance.

ALL have a terminating decimal in some Base system or other (though not at the same time).

But can we use different Bases simultaneously dealing with reality? Like a Physics problem?

Now, the idea of 1/3 exists in reality. The idea of it. But it can only exist with the measurement or the items in reality. For example: I have three apples and you take one away. I now have 2 of my 3 apples.

See, I was thinking originally that fractions were merely ideas of reality and that terminating decimals were a part of reality.

Then there's this confusion over the example 3 * 1/3 =1. Mathematically there's nothing wrong with that. Yet when you divide out 1/3 you get .3 bar, which when multiplied by 3 is not 1. Of course, you could do this in another base (I'm not sure how but I'm assuming you can), and you'd get a terminating decimal.

Now what then does this mean of the nature of reality? We have both an imperfect and perfect idea existing at the same time, or 1/3. A non-terminating decimal representation that works both in math and in reality, as I can have 3 apples, or 1/3 of a 3 apple system, and add 3 of those apples to create one 3 apple system.

Now, how is it that we take an imperfect idea, a non-terminating number, apply a perfect idea to it, and it works? I'm a bit hesitant to say that fractions aren't numbers - they're ideas. Yes, you can say numbers are ideas too, but you can physically count numbers, not fractions.

Now, what makes a terminating decimal more legit than a non-terminating decimal? The former still comes from fractions, right? Although the fact that you can represent decimals with fractions doesn't mean decimals come from fractions, they both have the same idea.

A portion of a whole. And we know in reality, there are many portions of a whole. Mere numbers can't represent them, can they? Fractions and decimals need to be used here...

Simpsons are on, will be back later.

and why can't you cut a ruler into 3rds?

Beats me.

 

[sexyanon2]

. The flaw arises in linking it to reality.

When do you link math to reality? Or do you ever? One seems to be the ideal while the other isn't. If that's the case, when do you use one for the other? When does math define reality?

Physics can also be described in words (as we do on this forum), does that make English flawed?

Nah. The flaw in English is inherent.

So, what's the relationship between Math and Reality? Like 1/3 = .3 bar, but 1/3 * 3 = 1, and .3 bar * 3 = .9 bar. Or can you not even multiply a .# bar? When do the two mingle? The two being math and reality? Where's the line drawn?

I think my two big paragraphs in this post repeated each other, unfortunately.

Hmm...

 

[David]

The problem with modern common everyday languages we use here, and in the sciences is the fact that they require a state of being, instead of speaking conceptually, and allowing what is just to be as it shows us it is.

This is where the flaw I see is. It requires endless defining, and that is what is subjective, as can bee seen by the discussion here, one person's definition is not another's. I see the definition of something having to be the actual stated concreteness of the statement.

Again I have to tread lightly on this, because the argument I have made relies upon the same flaws. It should be noted that this is why there is a flaw.

Latin is a much better language, and Mandarin, although it's being phased out is even better.

Alpha, we shall see.

 

[michael]

Latin is a much better language, and Mandarin, although it's being phased out is even better.

why do you think that? you have enough problems expressing yourself in english, which i assume is your first language (based on the fact that anyone i've known who speaks it as a second language speaks it much more grammatically proper than you do).

i mean, you haven't even articualted what latin is a better language for. don't you get tired of this shit?

Alpha, we shall see.

btw don't think i forgot about our bet - you're going to overturn general relativity, right? and every physicist is going to be eating humble pie?

i hope you've already submitted your papers, the peer reveiew process is long and hard.

 

[David]

^^ Says the guy that can't read what I post half the time. All the while making erroneous posts trying to flamebait.

Why do I think that? Did you even read the post, or just glance at the screen name, and post some pathetic attempt in defaulting my comments falsely.

BTW the dictionary I used to get the "definition" of the word "Define". M-W.com

Best on the net.


As for that bet, I doubt you have the money to cover your end, so feel free to back out in about four months, when I link you to the abstraction.

 

[sourlemone]

Latin allows you to speak conceptually? Where the fuck did that come from? And what does 'although it's being phased out is even better' mean?

Language requires words and sounds are given arbitrary definitions, otherwise it wouldn't be able to function...perhaps music and art allow 'conceptual talk', but how can you elucidate physics or maths on canvas or CD?

Besides, there is very little ambiguity in the language of maths and physics...since it has to be so.

 

[David]

^^ That's where you are wrong, when you seperate everything, and dilute it within a false system that is an abstraction POV of reality, you create the situation of "falseness". Math is an abstraction, and creates flaws within theories that are based within the realm of math. I'm saying to scrap the whole system, but something does need to be looked at as a solution.

As for the latin, most latin usage refers to concepts, and objects in the way they reside naturally in the world. We have done away with that, and use our language with how e classify them seperate from each other.

Mandarin makes the very same distinctions with how objects, as well as events work within the natural world. Concepts are how they are related in Mandarin, and yes they are doing away with Mandarin. They started this a while back, and soon every one in China will be speaking simplified.

I like to think of the way languages are going as "Newspeak", as it brings images of a dictionary with 114 words in it to my mind.

 

[PGTips]

I'm still confused. .4 in Base 10 would be 4/10. That's because 4 divided by 10 is .4, as 10 goes into 4 .4 times. But 12 goes into 4 .4 times?

Remember, in Base 10 0.4 = 4/10, but in base 12 0.4 = 4/12.

Admitedly this is a tough thing to get your head around initially because you consider the decimal expansion of a number that number, but a decimal expansion is simplely one method of representing something, a non-unique point of view.

Perhaps a poor example, but if you look at the Sun through various filters and spectra you see different aspects of the Sun with each different point of view. It is like that when using fractions, decimals, equations to represent numbers. Just looking at the Sun directly you get no information other than "I'm blinded". Using a bit of thought, you can look at it in a different way and get information and properties from it.

A Google brought up this this and this

I'm confused here again. So we're defining 1 divided by 7 to equal 0.1? But, then 1/49 = 1/(7*7) or 1/7 * 1/7, right? Then that would mean 0.1 * 0.1 would equal 0.01, just like Base 10. Why then can we change what the division of fractions equals but allow for the multiplication stay the same?

We have not changed how division works, simply changed the meaning of what 0.1 represents.

To make it clearer to yourself, always change into fractions.

Base 10:
0.1*0.1 = 1/10 * 1/10 = 1/100 = 0.01

Base 7:
0.1*0.1 = 1/7 * 1/7 = 1/49 = 0.01

Try it with something a little different

Base 10 :
0.34*0.2 = 0.068

Base 7 :
0.34*0.2 = (3/7 + 4/49)*(2/7) = (25/49)*(2/7) = 50/243 = (1+49)/243 = 1/7 + 1/243 = 0.101.

The similarity between the bases is only the same while you are dealing with numbers less than the smallest base, ie You won't notice if I'm using Base 7 or Base 10 if I count 1,2,3,4,5,6. The "Base 7"-ness kicks in when I get to the number 7, then I'd count 1,2,3,4,5,6,10.

Also - shouldn't we stay with one Base when dealing with reality? If you change Bases, such as dealing with the length of a ruler, or any other concrete idea in reality, don't you taint the correctness?

Why would it make a difference. If I'm describing something and I describe it in French instead of English, is my description somehow tainted or wrong? Similarly with bases.
Decimal :
0.2*5 = 1
Fraction :
(1/5)*5 = 1

Is there any "taint" from doing it in decimal rather than fraction or vice versa? No, I'm simply representing it in a different way.

I think we're talking about two different sides of the same coin. On the one side, of mathematics, the ideal exists, and Pi and every other irrational number is real. Although, is "i" (root(-1)) real as well? That's irrelevant but interesting. On the other side, there's reality with substance.

In maths terminology, "i" is known as "Imaginary", this does not imply it is any less valid a number, it behaves in the same way 2 or -1 or 193 might but with certain other properties too. Its most certainly a number.

Does it exist in reality? Definately not, you cannot hold i apples in your hand (to quote VelocideX).

But can we use different Bases simultaneously dealing with reality? Like a Physics problem?

That implies you consider Base 10 special, as if using Base 8 or Base 12 will taint results. As I've said, if we evolved with 12 fingers, you'd be arguing "Can we use anything other than Base 12, surely it taints results?" because Base 12 would be ingrained into your thoughts.

It is simply another way of representing the same thing. If it helps, think of doing Base 12 math as doing "Base 10 math but encrypted". I can do Base 12 math but it takes a me significantly longer to do because I have to translate it when I'm writing it and reading into in and out of Base 10, so it is like coding it. If I did it enough, I'd end up thinking in Base 12, just like someone whose first language is English, goes to live in France and ends up even thinking in French.

I know I keep bringing up the language example, but its a good one. Ideas and thoughts are not invalidated or tainted by thinking in another language, just as numbers are not invalidated or tainted using a different representation.

Yes, you can say numbers are ideas too, but you can physically count numbers, not fractions.

If you looked it it the right way you could.

For instance, what is "1/3". Its 1 out of 3. If I have a total of 3 apples, and I count 1, then I've counted 1/3 the total. I've counted just 1, a whole number, but of the total, I've counted 1/3.

Again, its just a different way of thinking about it. Your point might be slightly more valid (when speaking about reality) if you were talking about irrationals, numbers which cannot be expressed as the ratio of 2 integers (ie a fraction), but your gripe seems to be with some fractions too, which is flawed I'm afraid.

When do you link math to reality? Or do you ever? One seems to be the ideal while the other isn't. If that's the case, when do you use one for the other? When does math define reality?

Maths is used to let physicits, economists, chemists, accountants etc do logical arguments in short hand. Originally, people like Newton wouldn't publish their new maths in symbols and equations, they'd publish it as a logical statement linking 2 things. Now logic is used all the time for many things, and people generally don't complain to much about it. Mathematics is logical steps, methods and arguments in symbol form. You start with axioms and logically extend them. If something you add to mathematics creates a logical contradiction, then you cannot add it.

Mathematics never defines reality. That would be like saying "I define this tree to be an elephant" and suddenly a tree turns into an elephant. Maths is a language of logic, it is not control of reality.

So, what's the relationship between Math and Reality? Like 1/3 = .3 bar, but 1/3 * 3 = 1, and .3 bar * 3 = .9 bar. Or can you not even multiply a .# bar? When do the two mingle? The two being math and reality? Where's the line drawn?

If by "bar" you mean recurring, ie 1/3 = 0.33333......., forever a line of 3's, then I shoudl tell you that 0.9r = 1.

There's a prexisting thread on this from months ago, but if you want actual proofs, I can show you.

This is where the flaw I see is. It requires endless defining, and that is what is subjective, as can bee seen by the discussion here, one person's definition is not another's. I see the definition of something having to be the actual stated concreteness of the statement.

The numbers being discusses like 1/5 = 0.2 or 1/3 = 0.333r, are not different definitions, but different viewpoints of the same thing.

Again I have to tread lightly on this, because the argument I have made relies upon the same flaws. It should be noted that this is why there is a flaw.

I thought you said in your Journal that you never build on concepts you consider to be flawed?

Alpha, we shall see.

Thanks for the great response

post some pathetic attempt in defaulting my comments falsely.

If Michael didn't, then I did make decent attempts. Like why your "Oh I pitched it at the forum" excuse for your erroneous black hole description was clearly lacking.

^^ That's where you are wrong, when you seperate everything, and dilute it within a false system that is an abstraction POV of reality, you create the situation of "falseness". Math is an abstraction, and creates flaws within theories that are based within the realm of math. I'm saying to scrap the whole system, but something does need to be looked at as a solution.

For someone who claims to read a lot of logic, you do not understand the concept of logically building up a closed system to be free of contraductions very well do you?

As for that bet, I doubt you have the money to cover your end, so feel free to back out in about four months, when I link you to the abstraction.

It'll need more than a link to an abstraction. I could type up something and have it online within the next 10 minutes with a link posted here. Does that mean it's making waves? No, it means its hosted on my webspace. Remember, it must make waves, revolutionise the field of physics.

Though not probably a prerequesite for the bet to be won by yourself, I'd like to see a picture of you on the front of Time Magazine too.

 

[David]

You haven't said anything that's incorrect. However, you have left out a whole fucking lot. What's the effect on spacetime in the vicinity of a black hole?

If you follow causality in the true non-linear fashion time is a fallacy. Nothing can be linear in a system of causality except for the next action. Nothing can be predicted about the action after that, because of a little thing I'll steal from QT called uncertainity.

What effect would an observer falling into a black hole see, compared to the effect measured by a stationary observer outside it?

Now how large is this black hole? How massive? Is there any nearby light sources within the local system to the black-hole? Tell me the conditions you want first.

What happens to the information (in the form of entropy) that enters a black hole?

It's either absorbed or emitted, depending on previously declared variables.

What would happen to an observer who collided with the singularity?

Well if they survived hitting it at such a speed, they would probably enter it, and their data would become part of it.

The answers to some of these questions are well understood, and some are mysteries to us. Do you even know which is which?

Why do you think I had an interest in Gravitation in the first place. Why would I discuss black-holes with someone that was clearly well beyond me, and still tell him he was incorrect.

Oh no, that's right, black holes are completely understood, aren't they? In that case, would you care to elaborate on a few of the points I raised?

Yes, to me. Gladly, tell me what you wanted to have as your situation, and I'll get it up here according to what I have come up with.

Feel free to post them. Also, what was the name of this colleague of Stephen Hawking's that you were chatting to over IRC? I only ask because I work in the same faculty building that Hawking does, and I know or recognise a lot of people working in the theoretical physics buildings. There's even a chance that I might know this physicist that you're buddied up with! What a small world that would be, eh?

I can only tell you the channel he was on. Anything else is not for me to openly discuss. If he wishes to come here and open a dialogue about it he will. I'll send him a message about it.

If you would like to hear some of the work I came up with after that discourse, I'd be glad to explain how things would work in the concept I came up with.

The concept itself I will not discuss.

 

[PGTips]

If you follow causality in the true non-linear fashion time is a fallacy. Nothing can be linear in a system of causality except for the next action. Nothing can be predicted about the action after that, because of a little thing I'll steal from QT called uncertainity.

Aside from your dubious use of the word "linear", quantum uncertainties are not relevant when just describing the passage of time for an object falling into a black hole. Its not about what its doing, its about how "clocks tick" for that object.

Now how large is this black hole? How massive? Is there any nearby light sources within the local system to the black-hole? Tell me the conditions you want first.

Light sources exist as the other person having a light with him. The mass of the black hole is irrelevant, do it for a general M. If you've solved relativity, you should have general answers. You clearly having done much analysis of it if you haven't asked "What does someone who falls into a black hole experience". Its General Relativity 101 to ask that question.

The concept itself I will not discuss.

Afraid we might borrow them and claim them as our own?

 

[David]

There's a prexisting thread on this from months ago, but if you want actual proofs, I can show you.
The numbers being discusses like 1/5 = 0.2 or 1/3 = 0.333r, are not different definitions, but different viewpoints of the same thing.

Different view points, but all still not defined within precision. You can't use it in the real world with a ruler, and it doesn't actually apply to reality, just the idealized math world you are so proud of.

I thought you said in your Journal that you never build on concepts you consider to be flawed?

I don't, and I will explain it at a later date, read below.

Thanks for the great response

At the time I was going to go to bed, since it's past midnight here. I was going to devle into it tomorrow, I think I'll still wait till then. I want to go to sleep, and this will be my last post for tonight.

If Michael didn't, then I did make decent attempts. Like why your "Oh I pitched it at the forum" excuse for your erroneous black hole description was clearly lacking.

Ever hear of Socrates? Ever thought about why his teaching methods worked so well? It's because the teacher, or the guy explaining something will be forced to rethink his ideas as he goes along, and the flaws will be made self-evident.

For someone who claims to read a lot of logic, you do not understand the concept of logically building up a closed system to be free of contraductions very well do you?

A system, that is free of contradictions, because you explain them all away with ever more complex contradictions, and the cycles goes on and on.

Then you try to apply it to a system that already has itself as a closed, and perfectly working paradigm. Reality already works, humans trying to create something like it, or a language to explain it is the struggle, that is the strife that is causing people like me, and people like you to argue.

It'll need more than a link to an abstraction. I could type up something and have it online within the next 10 minutes with a link posted here. Does that mean it's making waves? No, it means its hosted on my webspace. Remember, it must make waves, revolutionise the field of physics.

How is a published abstraction/with the white paper on it, on a journal's site something I did on my own site, especially if you listen to Michael I don't know how to do anything like that.

Though not probably a prerequesite for the bet to be won by yourself, I'd like to see a picture of you on the front of Time Magazine too.

Doubtful, I agree with Masemune Shirow,".. it's not the fame, it's the art itself that interests me. What I do for the art is simply to advance it, and put what I think should be there, into it. The artist doesn't matter, just his work, and what it means..."

In the twenty plus years Mr. Shirow has been drawing, and writing, he's never made a single public appearance, and has never published his photograph anywhere. No one knows what the guy looks like, unless you'e worked with him. It's a matter of privacy. I value mine.

You'd be lucky to see me leave the state to speak on it. If even that. I thought about starting my own website though, numerous times. I never seem to have the time for it though.

Yeah nothing there was coherent. I need to stop doing this in the middle of the night, too bad you guys aren't up earlier.

 

[David]

Aside from your dubious use of the word "linear", quantum uncertainties are not relevant when just describing the passage of time for an object falling into a black hole. Its not about what its doing, its about how "clocks tick" for that object.

Please do tell me, how a massive particle, with the nature of a black-hole is not going to have quantum effects. I'm not using space-times here. The point was for me to explain in my thoughts what would be happening here, isn't that what you guys want so badly? I did away with relativity. I just worked out the time problem with sexyanon, and some guy on another site the other day. It was troubling me, and sexyanon asked one question, and the other guy asked me something similar, or at least related, and it popped into my head, like a spark in a barn.

Light sources exist as the other person having a light with him.

I was waiting for him, but then the light source would appear the same for him, and it would red-shift for the observer, if the actual wave-length didn't drop too low, and not be able to make it out. Depends on the strength of the hole, or it's mass.

The mass of the black hole is irrelevant, do it for a general M. If you've solved relativity, you should have general answers. You clearly having done much analysis of it if you haven't asked "What does someone who falls into a black hole experience". Its General Relativity 101 to ask that question.

I'm not doing relativity here, I already stated this, can you read before jumping in to a discussion please.

Afraid we might borrow them and claim them as our own?

Go ahead, if you can figure it out, you can put your name on it with mine.

Bedtime. Have a good day boys.