Secret of creation...

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.

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

"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

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

<!-Quote-!>Quote:

2 + 2 = 4, no matter what. <!-/Quote-!>

I think if you fully understood the implications of my dream comment this one still does not apply.

<!-Quote-!>Quote:

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<!-/Quote-!>

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.

<!-Quote-!>Quote:

Now what is physics? The science that studies how the universe behaves.<!-/Quote-!>

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.