by meggidon555 20 Replies latest watchtower beliefs
good point
but when you get to a point when science creates a parts bucket equation
some how I wonder how you get something from 0xinfinty
scientist better start taking a lesson from religios history and deflate their egos a bit
before people revolt against them even I admit that would be a bad thing
oh and scientific method started from religion see link so do not knock faith to much
Meggidon555,
In this kind of science if the equations balance, we test them in the real world and if the results conform to the mathematical modal we consider it proven. In the M theory, the equations balance but there is no way to make an observation. So the theory is as it is presented, just as it is, an equation that seems to work. What there is to rebel against i don't see, Math is not a matter of egos. Where do you think the hostility you feel towards scientists stems from? We are taught one world perspective and when we feel that reality threatened there must be a reaction. but where does that come from, who taught it to us, for what purpose?
Meggidon555,In this kind of science if the equations balance, we test them in the real world and if the results conform to the mathematical modal we consider it proven. In the M theory, the equations balance but there is no way to make an observation. So the theory is as it is presented, just as it is, an equation that seems to work. What there is to rebel against i don't see, Math is not a matter of egos. Where do you think the hostility you feel towards scientists stems from? We are taught one world perspective and when we feel that reality threatened there must be a reaction. but where does that come from, who taught it to us, for what purpose?
so by sticking a zero into the equasion and timming your equasion by it by that is balance and passes for mathematical science these days. sounds like cheating and beside last time I remeber wasn't the abomb putting math to the test did that go over well in fact did not einstien asking a was it really a good thing they proved and it is still theory e=mc2
so by sticking a zero into the equasion and timming your equasion by it by that is balance and passes for mathematical science these days.
Well there is no sticking involved but yes you can do that. It is an algebraic Property known for a very long time.
sounds like cheating
I don't know what to say, is that why you don't like it?
and beside last time I remeber wasn't the abomb putting math to the test did that go over well in fact did not einstien asking a was it really a good thing they proved and it is still theory e=mc2Yes the abomb was puting math to the test. It went well, just as the modal predicted. Enstien did question what man would do with the power. Yes, It is still a theory, Theory being a scientifically acceptable general principle (theory never becomes law).
Did you know that electricity is still a theory? It always will be.
One may argue that the M theory is not a theory at all because it is not testable, the math however is not in question.
let me tell you a story about one of my brainy friends who made it through school with honors
we had an argument one in a pizza joint. on the table was a circle left by a cup from my glass
i don't remember how thw coversesion got on circles but he basically said in theory with math he could turn that circle into some other shape
basically saying sometimes 2+2=5
I told him I have no to prove you wrong but I still feel your wrong why? he never bothered to prove it and he could not if he tried we both knew it?
why do I get the feeling that these scientist are basic saying the samething?
by the way it is still a circle no math can change that?
0 means nothing or every thing because you can not derive a number from infinity
god is in theory infinte or was I reading the wrong bible <====( damn sorry I tried not to say it )
so god is zero nowhere or everywhere I think we were told a long time ago zero and infinty are too much to grasp for man
Meggidon... it's possible to use fake math to "prove" false statements (like your friend's 2+2=5). But any mathematician can look at that "proof", and immediately point out to you why it's wrong. So scientists and mathematicians can't get away with making mistakes like that, because other mathematicians will catch them.
Regarding infnity: you're right, infinity is not a number; it cannot be calculated. Instead, mathematicians use what they call a "limit": they calculate the value of a formula as it gets closer and closer to infinity (i.e. higher and higher numbers). If they find that the formula is getting closer and closer to a particular number, then that number is called "the limit approaching infinity."
So it's true that we can't calculate infinity... but we can get infinitely close. That seems good enough to me.
So it's true that we can't calculate infinity... but we can get infinitely close. That seems good enough to me
what how do you get infinitly close to infinity? infinity is as ever expanding as the universe the is no set number so how do you know when you are infinitly close to the end when there is no definable end? In a sence you handed me a zero, man.
Euph:
Regarding infnity: you're right, infinity is not a number; it cannot be calculated.
And yet we have a discrete symbol for it!...and typically use the term as if we really understand what it means.
At a differential math class years ago, a professor presented this question:
If the 'hour' leg of this clock is moved an infinitesimally small angle away from verticle, how long will it take that leg to move down to 6 o'clock?
The correct answer is: Infinity.
God, Infinity, and Humanity...all part of the same "equation."
If the 'hour' leg of this clock is moved an infinitesimally small angle away from verticle, how long will it take that leg to move down to 6 o'clock?
Cool quote onacruse,
It will take infinity to reach 6 o'clock but (correct me if i am wrong) that is also how long it will take to come all the way back to 12 or to move just one degree. But since an hour hand does traverse infinitely small zenith angles i feel comfortable saying, in practice it will take 6 hours to move from 12 to 6.
If i toss a rubber ball and think about the distance as an infinite half-length 12 feet, 6, 3, 2.5, 1.1, 0.55, 0.275, 0.1375, 0.06875, .....The ball will never hit the wall at the end of the 12 feet. Now you may say the strong force will stop the ball from touching the wall and so this is a true statement but the ball will bounce back to me anyway.
Meggidon... let me give you a simple example. Take the function 1/x (that's "one divided by x"). Plug in 100 for "x". Then 1,000. Then 1,000,000. Keep plugging in bigger and bigger numbers. What do you get? Smaller and smaller numbers, closer and closer to zero.
Now, let's reason on that a little. Will the function ever actually equal zero? No. One doesn't divide into zero. You can't multiply zero by anything and get one.
How about a negative number... will the function ever be negative? Again no, because a positive number divided by a positive number is always a positive number. That's one of the basic rules of division.
So as long as you keep increasing the value of x, the function will keep getting closer and closer to zero, but will never actually reach it. Thus we can say that the limit of 1/x approaching infinity is zero.
Mathematicians have more formal techniques for determining limits, but that's the basic concept.
Onacruse
And yet we have a discrete symbol for it!...
Of course! We also have a discrete symbol for God. Anything we can conceptualize, we can symbolize; that's what thinking is, the manipulation of symbols.
we really understand what it means
We do understand what it means. It means "without end". The concept of "without end", however, is very obviously not a number.
If the 'hour' leg of this clock is moved an infinitesimally small angle away from verticle, how long will it take that leg to move down to 6 o'clock?
Ah, but that's a false paradox. If infinity is not a number, than infinitesimal is also not a number. That's precisely why mathematicians use limits.
An alternate solution to the paradox would be to refer to the discontinuity of space, but I prefer mathematical answers to physical ones.
