 |
|
|
|
Thursday, February 12, 2009 - 07:22 am  I thought I would share the secret to creation while I was waiting for my corps to build.
| |
| Thursday, February 12, 2009 - 07:49 am Thanks for sharing, I don't think I could have lived another day being denied that knowledge.
| |
| Thursday, February 12, 2009 - 08:29 am Indeed, something out of nothing happens every day.
| |
| Thursday, February 12, 2009 - 08:45 am Haha, good work, this forum has been in need of something requiring a few brain cells, but your reasoning relies on a few assumptions. I'm not a mathmetician, but i can respond to the general concepts used. Firstly in:
You justify that in removing xsomething from xsomething you achieve 'nothing', which at first glance seems a balanced statement. But, (delving into thought experiments here) if you have a room with just a chair inside and you remove that chair, do you have nothing? No, you have an empty room that once contained a chair. For there to be 'nothing' there would have to be something, because we could not comprehend the application of 'nothing' in the material world, as to do so would be to try and imagine a situation in which we would not exist (go on, try it). Furthermore, there cannot be such a thing as a total opposite in this applied reality. To continue with the previous situation, there is no such thing as an 'anti-chair,' the process of removing it from the room is not one, it is an action and thus not a positive addition but a changing of the components in the equation. 'Opposites' are just variants in the way we perceive things. With regards to things and antithings, in any action and reaction in a material object the ultimate result can be seen as a change of quality of form, not the creation of 'something' or 'nothing.' All in all it was a good hypothetical twist on reasoning, but cannot be applied to the world in which we live.
| |
| Thursday, February 12, 2009 - 08:51 am Nimz, the resident Mathematician says, regarding any errors.. "0^-X ≠0/X is the most blatant." but i think you are special nonetheless ^____^ \/..
| |
| Thursday, February 12, 2009 - 08:52 am (though, i have no idea why its an error. but nimz is nimz. he is made of magic)
| |
| Thursday, February 12, 2009 - 11:14 am Infinity^0= 1 There I have made everything into 1 whats your point?
| |
| Thursday, February 12, 2009 - 11:21 am 'To continue with the previous situation, there is no such thing as an 'anti-chair,' Actually. There is matter and there is antimatter. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Antimatter Every object has an opposite. this brings us upon a law of physics that may not be recognized for such a conversation. "every action has an equal to or greater reaction." /side note- Does this prove Karma? You be the judge. So lets add in this equation. M= matter A=antimatter. add in the law of physics we'll signify with= P So once again. M= Matter A= Antimatter P= laws of physics 0 still means nothing. 0(M+P)= 0(A+P)= 0(M=P)= 0(M=P) By creating something you create nothing. Now lets take a look at how the universe works. In Cycles. The water cycle, nitrogen cycle, oxygen cycle. The moons orbit...etc etc This implys that eventually something becomes nothing and nothing becomes something. "How is that possible?" Lets take a deeper look at the universe. What is the most basic make up of everything? Energy. As long as energy flows the light stays on. Flip off the switch. Kill the current. and the light goes off. Then turn the switch back on and the light turns back on. If for some reason the energy currents of the universe were to reverse, it would result in an opposite of what exists today. Now what exactly is nothing? Nothing is, in fact, something. Nothing is nothing and everything is something. In a sense, something has always existed. In one form or another. "again, how is this possible?" We all know that Energy can be moved, harnaced, transformed, stored up, released and channeled. It cannot, however, be destroyed. Taking this knowledge and applying this to our current discussion. Energy is something that makes up everything. This also means that there is, in theory, an antienergy exist. Take our previous points of 0(m+p)= 0(a+p). This means that Matter, energy and therefore existences inevitably becomes Antiexistence or nothing. And vise versa. Hence- life and death. now lets compare this theory to a modern religion. In Hinduism, it is believed that there are cycles of existence and nonexistence (Wow!). Every now and then, an old cycle ends and a new one begins. basically A+A=A as apposed to A+B=C. this means that if something exists, it has and always will exist in some form. Not saying this means an afterlife as most religions view it. More like we are just a light on a pannel. When a circuit guides energy to it, it lights up. Then the circuit divertes the energy and the light goes dim. However, when your light goes dim, another lights up that will one day go dim. Endless flickering of lights. Now lets delve into "Why are we here?" "Why" is a lot different than "How". Ultimately harder to conceptualise. What seperates us from most other matter? we exist and a rock exists. We exist and corral exists. What is that little thing that sets us apart? not the thumbs. Not just a mechanically inclined brain. The few things that sets us apart from even Monkeys are- (drumroll please) the abilities to contemplate our existence, the ability of emotional and spiritual love and the ability to understand and end suffering. That that is also known as "compassion and Understanding" In one post I have answered "How" and "Why". /me pats own back
| |
| Thursday, February 12, 2009 - 01:25 pm Hehe a nice reply i guess. But answer me this. Irrefutably prove to me that you are not dreaming right now, then i will believe in your physics! P.S. You can't, it's a centuries old problem. I am aware of the physics you are quoting however, and like any unproven theory (Antimatter, Darkmatter, Darkenergy) the end result (how we experience the world) is justified by the means (the theory). For example, we know there is not enoguh gravity to hold the universe together, so we invent the theory of dark matter. There is no evidence for it- it is impossible to detect, but it's subsumed into scientific 'fact' because something MUST be doing it's job. That is knowledge or truth, that is just the element of chance presenting unjustified 'knowledge.'
| |
| Thursday, February 12, 2009 - 02:12 pm touche...to a point. That long winded response was actually just an over complicated way of saying- ehem.. "We cannot know what is going on. We are, after all, just along for the ride. So why not enjoy it." /side note- enjoying it, does not mean you can be a dick. I mean, of course, dick in the sense of being a jerk in any and all forms. Thank you
| |
| Thursday, February 12, 2009 - 03:09 pm 0 is not nothing. It is the sum of x and -x. Two equal and opposite forces do not create nothing, they create a balance. Nothing is the abscense of eveything. 0 as definfed above is the product of 2 opposites. Not the same as nothing at all.
| |
| Thursday, February 12, 2009 - 04:24 pm 0^0 isn't 1. You might as well have just said 1=0^(X-X) = 0^(X)*0^(-X) = 0*0 = 0 if you're going to do that And people are being far too philosophical about what 1-1=0 means
| |
Thursday, February 12, 2009 - 04:25 pm
No. It's still an indetermination, even when the numerator is 0.
| |
| Thursday, February 12, 2009 - 04:31 pm 42
| |
| Thursday, February 12, 2009 - 05:54 pm i agree the answer is 42
| |
| Thursday, February 12, 2009 - 09:04 pm Anti-matter isn't an unproven theory... it is matter composed of anti-particle (positron, anti-proton, anti-neutron). They have even made anti-hydrogen atoms in labs. @Karff If I had done it that way I would not have come up with 1 which would defeat the purpose, and X ^ 0 is generally agreed to be 1 in all cases, even 0, mostly likely because it makes more sense that way (I'm no true mathematician). @John R Yeah, forgot that... und. = und. + und. still has the same effect. @Messiah I can irrefutably prove that it doesn't matter whether or not I am dreaming right now. When I am awake, what is 2 + 2? We all know 2 + 2 = 4. When I am asleep, what is 2 + 2? It still equals 4, regardless of whether I am dreaming, I can believe that 2 + 2 = 5, but 2 + 2 = 4 regardless of what I believe. This can reasonably be extended to multiplication, division, subtraction and by extension all math as each level is built upon the previous. Math is the same regardless of whether I am dreaming. Now what is physics? The science that studies how the universe behaves. It establishes consistencies in the relationship of objects through the concepts of force, energy, mass, etc. Now, regardless of whether the universe is a dream or not, physics can be observed and is rooted in math which means that ultimately the physics is as real as the universe. If both are a dream then physics will only matter in the dream, and mean nothing outside the dream. However, in that dream the physics is of utmost importance as it explains a variety of phenoma within the dream. However, if we were to wake up from that dream into a world of very different physics, it wouldn't make the dream-physics less important because the dream-physics still apply in the dream. Therefore, if we are dreaming then the physics is still important. So ultimately, it doesn't matter if we are dreaming or not because still nobody has the power to change the rules of our universe.
| |
| Thursday, February 12, 2009 - 10:34 pm "When I am awake, what is 2 + 2? We all know 2 + 2 = 4. When I am asleep, what is 2 + 2? It still equals 4, regardless of whether I am dreaming, I can believe that 2 + 2 = 5, but 2 + 2 = 4 regardless of what I believe. This can reasonably be extended to multiplication, division, subtraction and by extension all math as each level is built upon the previous. Math is the same regardless of whether I am dreaming." You're assuming you're conscious when you say that 2+2=4. The point is that you COULD be asleep. In the conscious world 2+2 COULD equal 5! As silly as it sounds, it's pretty much impossible to refute. Math leads you nowhere because the math you know may be part of the dream or influenced by Descartes mad scientist.
| |
| Thursday, February 12, 2009 - 11:52 pm 2 + 2 = 4, no matter what. If 2 + 2 = 5, then 4 would simply be represented by 5. You forget that numbers are representations of values, rather than the values themselves. A + A = B, if B represents A + A. So if 5 represented 2 + 2 then 2 + 2 = 5. It is impossible for 2 + 2 to be 5, unless 5 were the value which 4 represents. If 2 + 2 = 5, then 5 + 5 = 8, or (2 + 2) + (2 + 2) = 8. In your situation, 5 is what we imagine 4 to be. Taken further, if 1 + 1 = 2 and 2 + 2 = 5 and (1 + 1) + (1 + 1) = 4, then 4 = 5. This would mean that we have 2 numbers representing the value of 1 + 1 + 1 + 1. Which would mean 5 does not equal what we normally consider 5 to be. If you are dreaming, then you know that you exist. Therefore, you can count how many of you that you know for a fact exist, 1... which can be represented by anything. If you know that 1 exists, then you can conceptualize how many you's would exist if 1 more of you existed, 1 + 1 which you can represent by anything and according to common practice is represented by 2, you can then conceptualize what it would be like if you existed, along with another you, another you, and another you, 1 + 1 + 1 + 1 which you can represent by anything and according to common practice is represented by 4. So the statement 2 + 2 = 4 is the same as the statement 1 + 1 + 1 + 1 = 1 + 1 + 1 + 1. There is no way to deny this as you are in fact saying the same thing as "Myself and myself would be the same as myself and myself, which for conveniences I will represent by 2 of myself" so "2 of myself and 2 of myself would be the same as 2 of myself and 2 of myself, which for conveniences I will represent by 4 of myself"
| |
| Friday, February 13, 2009 - 12:00 am Ah, but if..... x = {q + [q2 + (r-p2)3]1/2}1/3 + {q - [q2 + (r-p2)3]1/2}1/3 + p where p = -b/(3a), q = p3 + (bc-3ad)/(6a2), r = c/(3a) What then?
| |
| Friday, February 13, 2009 - 01:22 am (Elephant)x(chicken)= A dead chicken with a tore up butthole. sq. If there are anymore questions, I'll be in my library smoking my pipe. Dirt
| |
| Friday, February 13, 2009 - 02:24 am Arrh Stuart you made my head hurt. Do you want to assign values to your algebra for all us people who aren't the rain man. I'm assuming you created and incorrect equation.
| |
| Friday, February 13, 2009 - 02:28 am angus, he just posted meaningless blabber
| |
| Friday, February 13, 2009 - 02:30 am Actually Karff, no I didn't and I resent the accusation. Perhaps if you want meaningless blabber you should look at the post above this one. Its actually a formula which has been around for around 500 years, and is instantly recognisable to anyone in the know. I just thought I would give it a shot to see if anyone here recognised it. Sadly for me, I had to memorise it when I was doing my math degree.
| |
| Friday, February 13, 2009 - 02:55 am I see... So is there any point to it, or do maths nerds just like to compete with each other?
| |
| Friday, February 13, 2009 - 02:57 am lol. Yes, there is a sort of point to it!
| |
| Friday, February 13, 2009 - 03:01 am Well does it have any practical use? Not to dog on math but us humans are extremely terrible at math, wouldn't it be better if we just used computers to do the math for us, I'm sure our time would be better used for things that require creative thought.
| |
| Friday, February 13, 2009 - 03:11 am Basically, it enables you to solve any third degree polynomial equation which was first theorised in the 1500's so yes, it does have a practical use. Just found this which will help to explain it; http://books.google.co.uk/books?id=5Yo3AAAAMAAJ&pg=RA1-PA431&lpg=RA1-PA431&dq=cardan's+formula&source=web&ots=f9M88bPlhv&sig=y8uPPUT9Q8Rp4YRmTXK4iiUIrpU&hl=en&ei=hNuUSbjDOJSIjAe5uIyqCw&sa=X&oi=book_result&resnum=10&ct=result#PPP1,M1
| |
| Friday, February 13, 2009 - 04:08 pm "2 + 2 = 4, no matter what. If 2 + 2 = 5, then 4 would simply be represented by 5. You forget that numbers are representations of values, rather than the values themselves." I may not be explaining it as well it could be. This has nothing to do with numbers. The point of the epistomological debate is that you have no idea that either math or numbers actually exist outside of your personal life/dream/whatever. Values don't matter. Logic doesn't matter. Everything you know now is irrelevant. The flaw in this theory is that it can't be sensibly debated. Dub was likely correct in saying that it can't be refuted because no matter what you say, according to this philosophy, you could very well be wrong. Descartes tried ("Cognito ergo sum") but still left plenty of room for argument. That said, I don't know if it's relevant to your original argument. Hope this clears things up. BC
| |
| Friday, February 13, 2009 - 07:06 pm I think nothing only occures when a atom loses, through degradation, either its postive(+)energy or it's negative(-)energy and has'nt yet come across any more opposite energy to make it something again. I also think that the Big Bang happens time and time again because over time, one type of energy, either positive or negative, has been broken down to the point where there is no longer enough of that energy (say -)to stabalize any atoms that lose the - side of their being, creating lots of fast moving pure energy (due to the attraction of their opposite energy). Lets say our atom has lost it's negative(-) energy, so it's pure positive(+). It will be attracted to the nearest (-) energy and like magnets will travel to that source. At the same time weaker pure atoms of (-) energy will be attracted to our pure (+)atom. In todays life pure atom reactions occur every milli second of the day, but as there are plenty of opposite atoms everywhere, our pure atom wouldn't have to be un-stable for long or travel far before it would find or be found by it's opposite energy, meaning there are no noticable reactions. But if our pure atom had to travel a long way(due to the shortage of negative energy near by) to reach what it's attracted to, by the time it gets there, it would have built up that much speed that if it was to slam head on into a opposite pure atom going in the other direction, the force created would create a Big Bang. Which in turn creates all the positive and negative energy needed to re-stabalize the pure atoms and re-create creation. Which is what they are trying to re-create with this big bang experiment.  1=2x0.5 1=1(0.7)+(0.3) 1=0.25x4 0=1-0.00000001
| |
Saturday, February 14, 2009 - 10:05 pm
I think if you fully understood the implications of my dream comment this one still does not apply.
PossA: We could all be the extended consciousness' of a hypothetical organism PosssB: Dreaming only proves that you can think, you cannot multiply thought or the ability to think. Thought/think+thought/think does not equaly 2thought/think.
It can be demonstrated that all empirical 'knowledge' (science) can be seen as a product of chance, not in fact true knowledge: (heres a little scenario). Laguna drives his car on a country road, near to a village that has recently had a competition to build the most convincing barn facade (ie boards that from the road look exactly like real barns). As he drives, he comes across them. There are 4 barn facades on his left, and 3 barn facades on the right with a real one too. Iti s impossible for Laguna (even though he has excellent eyesight) to tell the difference between the fake and real. However, by chance, Laguna points at the real barn and says "ooh, i can see a barn." Yet he was just as likely to do that do a barn facade, and say the same thing. This is not knowledge, whilst it is justified - Laguna has good eyesight normally and can see the 'barns.' He believes it is a barn (for something to be knowledge you must believe in it to be possible and true) and thirdly it is in fact true that there is a barn there which he has pointed to. However, as he was just as likely to say the same about the fake barns, and came to the truth through observative chance, it is not knowledge. You can appply this to physics- they may have observed themselves creating an 'anti hydrogen particle' in a lab - as the result may have been them observing it balance a hydrogen particle. However, there could be an unlimited number of unobservable forces and mechanisms at work, and we are only observing that result throguh chance, and see the cause and effect to be that way when it fact it is only circumstantial. To give a more easy to understand example of this, you can look at the problems of global warming and global dimming. Whilst global warming is well known (and disputed, but that is not relavant to this argument) as a product of excess gases in the atmosphere trapping heat and causing a general rise in temperature, attempts have been made to clean up our factories and lives to emit less gases and less pollutive particles. A good idea you would think. However, scientists recently realised that the amount of light reachign the Earth's surface has reduced, due to the amount of pollutive particles in teh air, thus slowing the process of global warming down (for evidence of this just google it). in attempting to reduce pollution output to improve health and the global warmign situation, in fact we are reducing this effect and making the Earth heat up faster (the less pollutants in the air, the less light from the sun is reflected and the Earth heats up.) Before this phenomenon was discovered by a couple of scientists in Australia and Germany, it was 'knowledge' that reducing emissions and pollutants would slow global warming, where in fact there was an entirely unobserved factor working in the background.
|
