Energy/Math Discussion

[Euler]

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.

Oooohhhhh! You make blatant errors all over the place to help us learn? Right.....

Will you post you thoughts on dimensions and coordinate systems anytime soon? We're all waiting with bated breath.

 

[Euler]

I did away with relativity. I just worked out the time problem with sexyanon.

Sounds about right - you've been working with a guy that doesn't understand different number bases (no offence Sexyanon).

You must have come up with some cracking stuff.

 

[PGTips]

Please do tell me, how a massive particle, with the nature of a black-hole is not going to have quantum effects. [/B]

When considering space-time curvature, quantum effects are not important for general trends. If Cex had asked about radiation, then clearly quantum effects come into play.

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.

Owwww, not right there I'm afraid. It redshifts, but to an observer, it redshifts infinitely at the event horizon. Doesn't matter the size of the black hole, simply that it is a black hole.

Also, wouldn't the strength of a black hole be dependant on the mass? They are not independant variables. Change one, change the other.

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

My point was, if you've develped a counter theory to Relativity, surely somewhere along the lines you considered a particle inbound to a massive gravitational field? Whats the point of the theory if you didn't? Its like developing Quantum Mechanics and not saying "I wonder how this applies to the electrons around an atom".

Besides, I did read, and I'm hardly jumping into the conversation, given the number and size of my posts in this thread, wouldn't you say?

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.

So if you're following Socrates method, then I would conclude Socrates explained things to people incorrectly, then hoped they'd notice his error, then explain it was a deliberate error? So its not you're in error, but you're following one of the great teachers of ancient times, because you're a great teacher yourself. I think all you've taught so far is your ability to self-contradict.

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.

There's that "I view maths as a tool of physics, not as an field of thought seperate to it" view point. We are talking about maths. You claim 1/3 cannot be used because its not a number. In maths it is. I conceed that in reality you'll have trouble cutting something into 1/3 perfectly, but then that applies to any fraction.

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.

You talk a lot about contradictions in maths, but have proved the existance of none. Your own posts contain a lot of contradictions of your own logic, but you ignore them.

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.

You'll notice from a lot of the time stamps on my posts in this thread I've made the majority of my posts between 1 and 3am my time, which is early evening your time.

I did away with relativity. I just worked out the time problem with sexyanon

No offense to Sexyanon, the guy clearly is interested in this stuff, and is reading our replies and giving them some thought, but because of the nature of the questions he's asking, I don't think he's going to be coming up with a qualatitive theory comparable to relativity, even if someone as amazing as yourself is helping him.

I remember once speaking to someone who was going to solve relativities problems by applying newtons laws of motion fo a black hole. No amount of explaining as to the utter falacy of that mode of thought would deter him from it. Kind of reminds me of yourself David. I mentioned him before, and you were insulted I compared your work to that of a 16 year old, but I've seen exactly the same amount of evidence of theories from yourself as I have from this kid, zero.

As Euler requests, show us your work and we'll comment on it. As you said, if we can understand it, you'll be damn impressed, so it'll do no harm showing us.

 

[michael]

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

ah yes. you make no sense, which means i can't read. suuuure. more like what you write is generally so stupid i don't want to read it. more than one bluelighter has commented to me that they are reluctant to post here because they are afraid you will reply with yet more of your 'brilliance.'

here's a tip: usually people who feel the need to keep telling you how [brilliant, funny, etc] they are really aren't.

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.

not good enough - the bet was that you would get published and overturn everything the scientific establishment thinks about general relativity. better get cracking on it.

 

[sexyanon2]

lol. Thanks for busting my balls guys. Although I'm not sure what Bases have to do with time.

If I'm describing something and I describe it in French instead of English, is my description somehow tainted or wrong?

When you put it that way, no. But, many of us misuse English words when describing non-everyday things. Different ideas are attached to these words than what we're trying to convey in the first place.

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.

You're misunderstanding me. I'm saying that in every base we're going to have a non-ending decimal.

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.

(1) Is the proof less than a hundred pages? (2) isn't multiplying .3bar by a number the same as multiplying infinity by a number? There's no cut-off in each idea. The difference in change by adding on a 3 is insignificant in the big picture, but there still is a difference. Thus, you're rounding, or making an imperfect idea perfect, like an ending number.

but in base 12 0.4 = 4/12.

I see now. 11/12 = .(11) or .A. Alright.

Alright. Does .3 bar exist in reality? Can you find anything in reality that has .3 going on infinitely? If not, how can .3bar exist in reality? But, you can have .5 exist in reality, right? The magnification does not matter - you can still measure out .5 mm. You cannot, however, measure out .3bar mm, can you?

The bases are irrelevant here. We will always have some fractions that are non-ending in any base.

Now, we have three actors here. (1) the Number 4. (2) The fraction 1/3. (3) The repeating decimal .5bar. Which of these can exist in reality?

We know (1) can for sure. Unless what I said above is false, then we can eliminate (3), as .5bar does not exist in reality.

However, we have two issues here. 1/3 is an idea, a portion of a whole. .3bar is the numerical representation of this idea.

These non-terminating numbers, or sometimes fractions, cannot count, like normal numbers or other fractions that are terminating.

With non-terminating fractions, when they're "used," like multiplied, with other numbers, sometimes the number will end, sometimes not.

5/3 is 1.6bar. A number you can't place on reality. But 9/3 is 3, a whole number, a number that you can find easily. So 1/3 can't always be used, as it creates non-ending numbers which have to be rounded some time or another in order to be used. Are we just going to say the difference appears to be so small that it's insignificant? Maybe it is..

But now, is 6.15 actually 6.150 bar, with a bar over the zero?

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.

If the proof is readable, I'd like to see it.

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.

I don't think he's going to be coming up with a qualatitive theory comparable to relativity,

Sounds about right - you've been working with a guy that doesn't understand different number bases

All he said is I asked him a question. Maybe in Physics asking one question due to curiosity is considered "working together." Has a simple question ever been asked of you and you think of the answer to a riddle that's been puzzling you all afternoon? Emotions blind our reasoning and judgement.

So, if .9bar = 1, what does .3bar equal (excluding fractions)? The problem with these non-ending numbers is you cannot use them without approximations. I think in school a few years ago we did some proof that .9bar = 1. However, we did ".99999..." Can you take infinity to the first power?

I'll check out that proof of root(2)'s existance. Never got around to doing that.

 

[PGTips]

When you put it that way, no. But, many of us misuse English words when describing non-everyday things. Different ideas are attached to these words than what we're trying to convey in the first place.

But thanks to the method of creating mathematics, its possible to check for logical consistency between these "different languages" and they are indeed consistent.

(1) Is the proof less than a hundred pages? (2) isn't multiplying .3bar by a number the same as multiplying infinity by a number? There's no cut-off in each idea. The difference in change by adding on a 3 is insignificant in the big picture, but there still is a difference. Thus, you're rounding, or making an imperfect idea perfect, like an ending number.

No, its not the same as multiplying by infinity, nothing like it.

Proof to 0.9r = 1 is here : http://www.bluelight.ru/vb/showthread.php?s=&threadid=160459

There is no rounding up, it is exactly 1.

I see now. 11/12 = .(11) or .A. Alright.

Its 11/12, not 0.11. 0.11 base 12 is 13/144, which isn't 11/12.

Alright. Does .3 bar exist in reality? Can you find anything in reality that has .3 going on infinitely? If not, how can .3bar exist in reality? But, you can have .5 exist in reality, right? The magnification does not matter - you can still measure out .5 mm. You cannot, however, measure out .3bar mm, can you?

Wrong. If 1/2 of something exists, then 1/3 of something exists.

The bases are irrelevant here. We will always have some fractions that are non-ending in any base.

No, there always exists a base in which a fraction has a terminating decimal. Its almost the definition of something being a fraction.

Now, we have three actors here. (1) the Number 4. (2) The fraction 1/3. (3) The repeating decimal .5bar. Which of these can exist in reality?

0.5r = 5/9, its also a fraction, so its "valid" an entity as 1/3.

I'll say again we are not talking about reality. In reality you cannot cut something exactly into 1/2 or 1/4 or 1/3 or 394/1945, because you'll never cut something perfectly, its the nature of existance. We are talking about mathematics, where a concept can exist if you can imagine it so, and its not a logical contradiction. Can I imagine 1/3 of something? Yes. Does this contradict anything else? No. Is 0.3r = 1/3? Yes.

However, we have two issues here. 1/3 is an idea, a portion of a whole. .3bar is the numerical representation of this idea.

They are both numerical representations of the same thing. Changing how you represent something does not change the thing itself.

But now, is 6.15 actually 6.150 bar, with a bar over the zero?

Yes.

If the proof is readable, I'd like to see it.

Proof to what? That 0.3r = 1/3?

So, if .9bar = 1, what does .3bar equal (excluding fractions)? The problem with these non-ending numbers is you cannot use them without approximations. I think in school a few years ago we did some proof that .9bar = 1. However, we did ".99999..." Can you take infinity to the first power?

1/3 = 0.3r (or 0.3bar, whatever your terminology). If you wish to "exclude fractions", then its the solution to 3x-1=0.

Taking "infinity to the first power" is irrelevant (and a badly posed question), 0.9r is not an infinite number. Its clearly between 0 and 2, it therefore cannot be infinite.

 

[zorn]

>>> Not exactly -- the definition of 'information' presupposes some semantics and encoding mechanism.

From what I understand information doesn't really have a clear definition. Just because a human can't make sense of the information present doesn't mean it hasn't been encoded.

What information? Let's consider a simple physical system -- a featureless ball of mass 1 kg. Now what information is present in this system?

By itself that question has no answer. There is no information present or not present just in the physical system itself. However, there can be information present in the system combined with semantics for encoding. For example, if we are encoding iinformation by either having a ball or not having a ball, then there is exactly 1 bit of information present. If we are encoding information by having a ball of mass 1kg, 2kg, 3kg, or 4kg, then there are exactly 2 bits of information present. The amount of information is only defined relative to a given system AND a given semantics.

You could look at objects as containers for energy, but what are the particles made of then?

Eh.. I wouldn't say "containers" really -- just think of energy as a property of things, exactly the same as mass, or color, or weight, or velocity.

What are particles "made of"? Huh? What does that have to do with anything we've been talking about? Anyways, I'm not sure what you're looking for... depends on what kind of particle it is. A dust particle, for example, is made up of atoms of some sort of another. An alpha particle is made up two neutrons and two protons. Elementary particles are not "made up" of anything.

 

[yougene]

What information? Let's consider a simple physical system -- a featureless ball of mass 1 kg. Now what information is present in this system?

By itself that question has no answer. There is no information present or not present just in the physical system itself. However, there can be information present in the system combined with semantics for encoding. For example, if we are encoding iinformation by either having a ball or not having a ball, then there is exactly 1 bit of information present. If we are encoding information by having a ball of mass 1kg, 2kg, 3kg, or 4kg, then there are exactly 2 bits of information present. The amount of information is only defined relative to a given system AND a given semantics.

I see your point for information to exist a system must have the capacity for semantics.

Eh.. I wouldn't say "containers" really -- just think of energy as a property of things, exactly the same as mass, or color, or weight, or velocity.

I understand energy is the capacity to do work. Now can someone please explain the mechanism behind this? Even if energy is a "property" we should still be able to break it down to mechanics can we not?

Elementary particles are not "made up" of anything.

Well how do we know they are elementary, and why would it be logical to believe that there is a particle that cannot be broken down? After all almost every particle discovered in the past has been broken down to more fundamental components why should this be any different for "elementary" particles?

If these "elementary" particles are indeed the most fundamental level what does this imply about what is below them? That things are made of nothing?

 

[zorn]

(2) isn't multiplying .3bar by a number the same as multiplying infinity by a number? There's no cut-off in each idea.

No, it's not like multiplying "infinity" by a number. You can't multiply "infinity" by something because "infinity" isn't a number. 0.3bar is a infinite decimal expansion, and you can define multiplication on it without a problem -- although it is a little bit tricky to show that you can.

The difference in change by adding on a 3 is insignificant in the big picture, but there still is a difference. Thus, you're rounding, or making an imperfect idea perfect, like an ending number.

Rounding? Where? We're not rounding anywhere.

I'm not sure why you keep calling nonterminating decimals "imperfect." There is nothing imperfect about them.

I see now. 11/12 = .(11) or .A. Alright.

Not quite!

11/12 (base 10) = B/10 (base 12) = 0.B (base 12)

Alright. Does .3 bar exist in reality? Can you find anything in reality that has .3 going on infinitely? If not, how can .3bar exist in reality? But, you can have .5 exist in reality, right? The magnification does not matter - you can still measure out .5 mm. You cannot, however, measure out .3bar mm, can you?

What do you mean by "exist in reality"? You seem to be saying "the number N exists exists in reality if we can measure out an object N mm long."

How can you measure out 0.5 mm? Say you have a ruler with mm markings on it. You would divide each mm into 10 segments -- but you can't do this "perfectly"! The fifth mark will not be exactly 0.5 mm from the beginning, it will be slightly more or slightly less.

You would measure out 0.3bar mm the exact same way: divide each mm mark up into 3 segments. It's the exact same thing.

In fact, you can't even measure out 1 meter exactly. You can have a meterstick, and measure something to be the same length as the stick, but really all you can say is that it's close to 1.0 meter -- say, within a millimeter or so. Does that mean 1 is not a "real" number? No. It just means that all real-world measurements of continuous quantities are necessarily approximate. The only things we can measure exactly are discrete quantities.

If you want to say that the positive integers "exist in reality" in some metaphysical sense, but no other numbers do, that's a reasonable viewpoint. Kronecker famously expressed it as "God made the natural numbers; all else is the work of man."

But there's absolutely no reason to consider "terminating decimals" different from nonterminating ones. The fact that this classification is base-dependent should tell you that you have a problem. The reason it's base-dependent is because decimal expansions are just sums of certain fractions, by definition. Think about it: what does it mean to say something is "0.5 mm"? It means that if you divide up a mm into tenths, it spans 5 of them, ie it means 5/10 mm. "0.12 mm" is just 1/10 mm + 2/100 mm. You can't measure tenths any more exactly than you can thirds, or fifths, or whatever.

So, if .9bar = 1, what does .3bar equal (excluding fractions)? The problem with these non-ending numbers is you cannot use them without approximations. I think in school a few years ago we did some proof that .9bar = 1. However, we did ".99999..." Can you take infinity to the first power?

Of course you can use them without approximations -- that's what we've been doing in this thread! We can work with them as fractions, or by using "bar" or whatever to denote how they repeat.

If the proof is readable, I'd like to see it.

That 0.333... = 1/3 ? Well, you have to define those types of symbols (ie, decimal expansions and fractions) first. And in fact once you've done that the proof is going to be really simple and straightforward. I'll take 1/3 to be defined as the number which satisfies (1/3) * 3 = 1. And 0.333... will be defined as the number which is the limit of the infinite sum (0 + 3/10 + 3/100 + 3/1000 + ....).

That second definition probably requires some explanation. What I mean by limit of the infinite sum is this. Let's call the sum of the first n terms S_n. So

S_1 = 3/10 = 9/30 = 1/3 - 1/30
S_2 = 3/10+3/100 = 33/100 = 1/3 - 1/300
S_3 = 3/10+3/100 +3/1000 = 333/1000 = 1/3 - 1/3000
etc.
S_n = 1/3 - 1/(3*10^n)

Now if as we go to bigger and bigger n, S_n gets arbitrarily close to some number, then we say that number is the limit of our infinite sum. So,

0.333.. * 3 = 3* limit (S_n) = limit(3*S_n) = limit ( 1 - 1/10^n )

Now clearly 1-1/10^n gets arbitrarily close to the number 1 as n grows large. So limit(1-1/10^n) = 1 and we have showed

0.333.. * 3 = 1

which implies that 0.333... = 1/3 by the definiion of 1/3.

 

[zorn]

I understand energy is the capacity to do work. Now can someone please explain the mechanism behind this? Even if energy is a "property" we should still be able to break it down to mechanics can we not?

The capacity to do work? Yeah, that's a Phys 101 definition but it's a little vague.

Basically, the energy of a system is defined by the sum of the kinetic and potential energies of all its components. The kinetic energy of an object with mass m and velocity v is 1/2*m*v^2. The potential energy depends on what forces are present -- for example, the potential gravitational energy between two bodies of masses m1, m2 separated by a distance r is -G*m1*m2/r. etc.

Then total energy is always conserved. If one object loses some amount energy, another object(s) must gain the exact same amount. If you want to speed up a car of mass M from rest to a velocity v, that requires an energy of 1/2*M*v^2 which you've got to take from something else -- eg, from the chemical potential energy of gasoline molecules. Similarly, if you want to slow the car down again, you've got to transfer that 1/2*M*v^2 of energy someplace -- for example, into your brakepads and tires as heat energy.

Well how do we know they are elementary, and why would it be logical to believe that there is a particle that cannot be broken down? After all almost every particle discovered in the past has been broken down to more fundamental components why should this be any different for "elementary" particles?

We certainly don't know for certain that the particles currently thought to be elementary*** are truly elementary. What we do know is they appear point-like as far down as we can currently see. So any internal structure, if it exists, must be smaller than that -- about 10^-18 meters for the electron.

There is however a reason to believe they aren't made up of smaller components in any normal way. In quantum mechanics, a size scale has a corresponding mass (energy) scale associated with it -- given by ~hc/size. We expect composite particles that are confined to some size to have roughly the corresponding mass. For example, a proton has a size ~10^-15 meters, which corresponds to a mass of ~1200 MeV, which is on the order of the actual proton mass of 938 MeV.

The current bound of ~10^-18 meters for any composite structure of the electron gives us a mass scale of around 1,000,000 MeV. (a billion mega-electronvolts.) But the mass of the electron is only 0.5 MeV! The only way an electron could be made out of more fundamental point particles is if there were some miraculous cancellations in their binding that reduced the composite electron mass to a billionth of its "natural" value -- extremely bizarre & unlikely.

So if electrons etc. are made up of more fundamental objects, it will probably be in some weird way -- such as being modes of a string, as string theory postulates -- and not in the "ordinary" way of being composed of several "smaller" particles.

If these "elementary" particles are indeed the most fundamental level what does this imply about what is below them? That things are made of nothing?

Huh? "Below" them? Made of nothing?

I'm guessing you're used to thinking of the world as being made up of various objects which each "take up space," move around, bounce off each other, etc. That sort of "intuitive" physics is just totally wrong; it's not really at all useful for modelling how the world behaves. At a microscopic level, we essentially have point particles which interact through fields. A point particle doesn't "take up" any space -- it simply has a position, velocity, mass, and perhaps other properties. It interacts through fields which spread out over all of space and which affect other particles (as their fields affect it.)


***electrons, neutrinos, quarks, their antiparticles, and the gauge bosons.

 

[sexyanon2]

Meh. Alright. *waves white flag*

6.150 bar is just like .3 bar. Boo.

Measurements are all approximations then.

Thanks zorn & AN.

If you want to say that the positive integers "exist in reality" in some metaphysical sense, but no other numbers do, that's a reasonable viewpoint. Kronecker famously expressed it as "God made the natural numbers; all else is the work of man."

Yeah.

Damn man made machines! You'll be the death of me.

*time for nap time*

 

[yougene]

At a microscopic level, we essentially have point particles which interact through fields. A point particle doesn't "take up" any space -- it simply has a position, velocity, mass, and perhaps other properties. It interacts through fields which spread out over all of space and which affect other particles (as their fields affect it.)

In other words the "point particle" is simply the center of a force field, where the force field is most concentrated.

I'm guessing you're used to thinking of the world as being made up of various objects which each "take up space," move around, bounce off each other, etc.

Quite the contrary actually.

 

[David]

]When considering space-time curvature, quantum effects are not important for general trends. If Cex had asked about radiation, then clearly quantum effects come into play.
Owwww, not right there I'm afraid. It redshifts, but to an observer, it redshifts infinitely at the event horizon. Doesn't matter the size of the black hole, simply that it is a black hole.

You really think i would state something if it wasn't part of the theory I have been working on? radiation does have something to do with it, in fact it's almost the entire basis of the theory.

Yes, according to Relativity is red-shifts in that manner, but we're not talking relativity as it is currently known here. Face it you have no idea WTF I'm talking about here, and never will fucking get it, will you.

Also, wouldn't the strength of a black hole be dependant on the mass? They are not independant variables. Change one, change the other.
My point was, if you've develped a counter theory to Relativity, surely somewhere along the lines you considered a particle inbound to a massive gravitational field? Whats the point of the theory if you didn't? Its like developing Quantum Mechanics and not saying "I wonder how this applies to the electrons around an atom".

No they are independent based on density. I'm thinking gravastar here, but I don't see a blackhole as known in the '70s sense really is possible in reality, remember this is my theory we are talking about here, not relativity. You wanted to hear about for some time, and now you are not even listening.

I've thought od all that already, thanks for caring, and not paying attention.

Besides, I did read, and I'm hardly jumping into the conversation, given the number and size of my posts in this thread, wouldn't you say?

Actually you were not even part of the conversation I was initiating with him. I responded to him, notice I never quoted you on this aspect of the discussion. If you wish to take part read everything I posted first, and if you don't get something the first time, read it again, or ask. I'm not a dick if you are polite about, why haven't you seen this already? You were in the CE&P reading the posts there, you must have seen it.

So if you're following Socrates method, then I would conclude Socrates explained things to people incorrectly, then hoped they'd notice his error, then explain it was a deliberate error? So its not you're in error, but you're following one of the great teachers of ancient times, because you're a great teacher yourself. I think all you've taught so far is your ability to self-contradict.

You are pathetically horrible with word-play, and I won't even bother with you there, as you have shown, you're only good with numbers.

There's that "I view maths as a tool of physics, not as an field of thought seperate to it" view point. We are talking about maths. You claim 1/3 cannot be used because its not a number. In maths it is. I conceed that in reality you'll have trouble cutting something into 1/3 perfectly, but then that applies to any fraction.

I can cut something in half quite easily though, same with 1/4, and every division based on the 2s. Math should be a tool, not a field. I agree about that with everything though. read some Bohm some time, you might start to see what I mean.

You talk a lot about contradictions in maths, but have proved the existance of none. Your own posts contain a lot of contradictions of your own logic, but you ignore them.

The contradictions have been shown, it's you that denies them. You explain them, but I see don't see the defined methods behind them, much less how you came to that conclusion, and you endlessly attack me on not being knowledgable enough, well I guess we are in the same boat, considering I chastized you for not understanding this theory of mine, I'm willing to share parts of it, but I was waiting for someone to ask the questions, because I know I'm no good at outright explanations. I already knew this, and everyone else can see it here, and in every post I have ever made. It goes with having a disabiliy called Asperger's syndrome. It makes it difficult to formulation explanations other than in the simplest terms, unless asked direct questions about it. Raw Evil here could explain it as well. He too suffers from it.

You'll notice from a lot of the time stamps on my posts in this thread I've made the majority of my posts between 1 and 3am my time, which is early evening your time.

I'm usually still working in the early evening. I have the early morning, and late at night available only, and when I go back to classes I won't even have that.

No offense to Sexyanon, the guy clearly is interested in this stuff, and is reading our replies and giving them some thought, but because of the nature of the questions he's asking, I don't think he's going to be coming up with a qualatitive theory comparable to relativity, even if someone as amazing as yourself is helping him.

LMAO! I came up with something based on a question he asked me, and one from another person I have met that's in the field on another board. Who BTW is a string theorist.

I remember once speaking to someone who was going to solve relativities problems by applying newtons laws of motion fo a black hole. No amount of explaining as to the utter falacy of that mode of thought would deter him from it. Kind of reminds me of yourself David. I mentioned him before, and you were insulted I compared your work to that of a 16 year old, but I've seen exactly the same amount of evidence of theories from yourself as I have from this kid, zero.

LMAO! There you go again.

As Euler requests, show us your work and we'll comment on it. As you said, if we can understand it, you'll be damn impressed, so it'll do no harm showing us.

I'd request the guy to suck my dick before I handed out something I worked so hard on, but that would be insane, and long-distance blow-job relationships never pan out. I need someone that can suck it when-ever I feel the need, and I think that his goals in life don't include swallowing my seed.

Ask questions I'll explain what would happen, otherwise piss off.

 

[PGTips]

Measurements are all approximations then.

Yep In nature, due to a mixture of technical limitations, practicality and properties of "the very small", you'll always get errors. If I ask you your height I'm happy if you say "178cm", I'm not after the nearest billionth of an millimere. If you are then the equipment is expensive and complicated, and you'll get a better result, but not exact.

In mathematics its like saying "We've a perfect machine, which cuts things into the exact size fraction we want". Its not in exact correspondence with reality, but then neither is "i" or -2, and few people complain they aren't numbers.

When mathematics passes close to things in reality people get them jumbled up, its important to keep the distinction.

No they are independent based on density.

So are you saying an object's gravitational power is based on its density? Are only desne objects black holes?

I'm not a dick if you are polite about,

I've been polite in this thread recently (politer than I normally am to you) and you've been less than polite to me. "Inflamed asshole" was an unprovoked one I would say.

You are pathetically horrible with word-play, and I won't even bother with you there, as you have shown, you're only good with numbers.

That was not an attempt at wordplay, that was how you come across. You said something in error, which would have only been corrected by people who knew enough of it to know there's an error. If Socrates really did that, then he'd have to teach to people who already knew the material otherwise how could anyone correct him. Philosophy you can see holes in someones argument, but physics you need prior knowledge.

You made an error and no amount of calling into question my dexterity with the English language is going to make that any less obvious.

I can cut something in half quite easily though, same with 1/4, and every division based on the 2s.

So you've failed to understand the last page or so of explaination. Well, at least we got somewhere with Sexyanon.

Math should be a tool, not a field.

Thats the 3rd time you have made it clear you think of maths from a tool for physics. Can you please explain why you think it cannot and shouldn't be developed as a field of just thought? Much of philosphy is, is it not?

The contradictions have been shown, it's you that denies them.

If your comment "It can't exist in reality" or "Its a non-terminated decimal" counts as showing a contradiction, then Zorn, Cex and myselfs explainaions count as showing they aren't, because neither ours or your argument is formal or exact in any kind of way, but at least we have given explainations, links and discussion rather than just saying "Haha, thats wrong". Great contribution there, and you wonder why noone can understand your theories if you discuss things like that.

If you wish to formally prove the existance of a contradiction, then place go ahead. Just to start you off, usually a contradiction is taken to arise if you can do something like prove 0>0. Perhaps you'd like to show how using 1/3 or 0.3r leads to this, or similar contradiction.

You have not shown it exists any more than I prove the sky is purple by saying "The sky is purple".

LMAO! There you go again.

I compared one person who was going to use "dubious methods" to do something in physics to another person whose going to use dubious methods in physics. Both who have shown zero work thus far. I would say thats a fair comparision. Would it have made you feel better if I'd said he was 23?

Besides, as I have mentioned in previous posts, are you not the person who says to people "You are nothing, you know nothing". At least I'm comparing you to others, rather than just blankly calling your life worthless, which I do not think it is. At least I have the decency to give you some credit, just in fields outside of maths and physics.

I'd request the guy to suck my dick before I handed out something I worked so hard on,

So after an honest offer from myself of having a look at it without as little biase as I can do, you're still going to keep it close to your chest.

Ask questions I'll explain what would happen, otherwise piss off.

We asked you to describe what a black hole was and you were wrong. I think delving any deeper would be fruitless on our part.

Ah well. We're into May now David, less than 8 months so we'll just have to wait it seems. Now I've got to go and think fractally about sets

 

[David]

So are you saying an object's gravitational power is based on its density? Are only desne objects black holes?

In essense, yes, but then the mass is in accordance to the density, I'm also claiming a few other things, and they will appear in the next few years as new data pours in, but for the most part my entire workings is proven already, thanks to NASA, and a few astronomers, let's not forget that one particle physicist there, or was it two....

Don't worry Mike I didn't forget you, and our deal.

I've been polite in this thread recently (politer than I normally am to you) and you've been less than polite to me. "Inflamed asshole" was an unprovoked one I would say.

Yeah, sure. You can claim it was unprovoked after you deleted your posts. You remind me a lot of how rach tried to de-base my arguments with deleting his posts, but you forget I have other people on this board watching the posts you make. I have friends here that read everything I post here, as well as on the other sites I'm active on. Don't fool yourself into thinking, that people are not in support of me because they don't post. Most of them banter me on why I even bother to try and explain something you won't even listen to. You can try all you want. I will not be fooled by patrons of a plagarist, and fool.

You made an error and no amount of calling into question my dexterity with the English language is going to make that any less obvious.So you've failed to understand the last page or so of explaination. Well, at least we got somewhere with Sexyanon.

You seem to mistake me not caring, because I have already seen it being argued before on other boards, for not understanding. I don't jump through hoops, especially not yours. You should know this by now.



The rest is garbage that you usually post towards me. I've tried three time now to make an open dialogue, and I can show everyone here, and you where all three were. It's not wirth my time explaining anything to you. You will get it someday, I hope.

 

[PGTips]

Yeah, sure. You can claim it was unprovoked after you deleted your posts.

I haven't deleted any posts in this thread. If you're refering to the ones in C&U, the only people who were interested (if thats the word ) were you and me and we'd both read the replies. I deleted yours and mine after someone commented it was a bit petty, which it was. When you started posting "Oh he's deleting his posts" I thought you were referring to Blowmonkey who I think removed a post of his in another thread. Certainly wasn't me.

Since the removal of posts in C&U you'll notice the slightly more retrained nature of my posts. Yours however have not improved.

The rest is garbage that you usually post towards me. I've tried three time now to make an open dialogue, and I can show everyone here, and you where all three were.

And I've offered to read your work, and not put a bias on my reply. Its in at least 2 posts in this thread. So now I'm offering, its suddenly not worth your time?

I will not be fooled by patrons of a plagarist, and fool.

To be a plagerist I must take someones work, reword it (if that) and then pass it off as my own work. Please point me to a post of mine where I have said "I came up with ....." and then said something that wasn't mine.

Its quite clear (by my own admitance) nothing I have posted I have developed or helped develop myself. By definition, I am therefore not a plagerist.

By the way, by your own admittance you're a fool, so doesn't that mean we shouldn't be fooled by you either

but you forget I have other people on this board watching the posts you make

Seems like you've an awful interest in me if you've got people to make a note of all my posts. Hi to those people

Most of them banter me on why I even bother to try and explain something you won't even listen to.

Are they the people in your Game Design lectures who you explained relativity to using 2D prime spirals

to de-base my arguments with deleting his posts

As I said, apart from the ones in C&U I have deleted nothing. And as I pointed out, there was no contradiction in the topic those posts covered, since I never actually said what you thought I did

 

[ebola?]

Personal freaking messages, guys.

ebola

 

[gloggawogga]

I'm still waiting for someone to resolve the debate over whether matter really exists.

^^^ Huh? Of course it does. How is there any doubt about this?

'Physical matter' is just the way we model it. Information enters our minds through our senses (sight, sound, touch, etc.) and our minds model this information as a 3 dimensional universe with physical matter in it. We don't know what what's 'really there'. We just know what we observe has an apparent mathematical/logical consistency to it that allows us to use mathematical/logical models to to predict future observations. To me, personally, its all just information presenting its self to us and our modeling of it is just a way of abstracting the consistent patterns that we find in that information, allowing us to use the information to our advantage.

 

[PGTips]

^ While I see your point, even me, Alpha-"I'm a huge skeptic"-Numeric, thinks thats taking skepticism a touch too far. If you doubt your senses, you doubt everything. Are we a brain in a jar? Are we in The Matrix? Am I your imagination? Are we just programs within a machine?

While there is no way to prove any of these or disprove them, I think it becomes overly doubting to say "No, I don't think matter exists". While Occum's Razor can be used to cut away a lot of things which perhaps shouldn't be cut away, I think it does apply pretty well to that. Still, I conceed the point it makes for interesting thoughts, particularly if certain foreign chemicals are in your bloodstream

 

[qwe]

why dont we sticky a thread called "Personal attacks" for anyone who wishes to attack people instead of ideas. then we can leave the other threads alone? harm minimisation