Physics and math people: I have just figured it all out, and no, the aliens did not tell me.

[originalpckelly]

I hate to inform Deep Thought, but the answer to everything is 0, not 42.

If you fill in v1 in the following equation as 0, won't it cause momentum to be un-conserved in the other, if it has any non-zero value?



Einstein didn't think what it would be like to be a single particle all by itself in it's own lonely universe. Without any reference point, you can't have a v.

I would suggest to you that in fact, the standard model is coherent with itself. Quantum physics and general relativity are the same thing, it's just that quantum physics deals with few points of reference, and relativity is at least two points of reference.

If you have a number line, just one point on the line doesn't tell you anything. It's undefined. It should be for all practical purposes 0.

What if you make the universe the only frame of reference? What can you compare the whole universe to? Nothing, as the universe is the reverse of an atom. An atom (by the thinking of Democritus) is a thing which cannot be divided any further.

The universe by general definition, is the the thing that is not the product of division.

If you can't divide anything any further, then it makes the division in that momentum equation useless. If something can't be divided, it too makes the division in the momentum equation useless.

Can you divide 0? Can you divide by 0?

That is why you could never, but never have v = 0, it appears in both the numerator and the denominator.

It stands to reason that as you approach the indivisible unit of matter that it should be harder to find, after all, you have fewer points of reference when you drill down so far. You would need to have at least three points reference not in the same plane to know where something is in X, Y, Z.

Isn't it curious that electrons behave so wildly and they are thought to be of a class that is the last division of matter so far discovered?

If you stripped away the electrons, the quarks in the protons/neutrons would be necessary for X, Y, Z points of reference, and they would all have to be in different planes, or else it would just be X,Y, or if it was three points on a line, then you'd just have X.

If matter is energy and energy is just a measure of difference (as you'd have un-conserved energy if you made v 0 in the kinetic energy equation), then isn't that kind of like saying probability at some point?

What's the disequilibrium of one point? None, you can't sub-divide a single point. If you had two points, what's the possible disequilibrium (aka difference)? 1/2, however many "units they are apart."

If you had three points, what's the possible disequilibrium? 1/3.

If John has one marble in a bag, and reaches in the bag and pulls out a marble, what's the probability that John is going to get the one marble?

1/1

1=1

How meaningful is it to reach in a bag and get out one marble? It's just one marble. There is no probability/difference of one marble, it's one marble.

What if the marble isn't in a bag, and is all by itself? The bag presumes that you have two things, which you don't in either the case of the universe or a Democritian atom by definition, you have only one thing. How can you know what one thing is all by itself? Don't you need a frame of reference? At least another point?

Energy is just a measure of difference, just like probability. And probability is division. 1/2, how many probabilities are there in one out of two? 2.

0 = 0-0
0 = 1-1
1 = 2-1
2 = 3-1
You need to be able to do that and not get 0 to have a difference, which is what probability and energy are, because you simply cannot subtract one point from itself. Then you have nothing.

One thing by itself cannot truly be analyzed in probability, and no value assigned it for lack of a second thing to make the comparison.
1=1 is really two things, one thing and another which are equal to one another, not just itself.

1 = 0 for the universe and a Democritian atom.

That ladies and gentlemen is the joining of quantum physics with relativity.

There is just one more thing:
Every physicist working on this is a complete and total idiot for not getting this sooner. EOM.

My name is PC Kelly, and I just figured out that you can't have a difference in one thing.

[barbtries]

1. i have a headache.

ouch.

[originalpckelly]

3. And yet, it is true. And you can prove it mathematically.

I think my proof is off. If should be

0 = 0-0
0 = 1-1
1 = 2-1
2 = 3-1
And so on and so forth...

[Teaser]

4. don't waste the pain on it.

stream of consciousness rambling doesn't make good physics.

[originalpckelly]

7. No, it is true.

If you have only one thing, can you compare it with something else?

Isn't a meter dependent upon two points in space? Without two points, can you have a meter?

Isn't a second dependent upon two points in time? Without two points, can you have a second?

It's like Zeno's Paradox, but the question is:

If you do not have a point b, can you travel from A at all?

[Teaser]

17. Uh, this is just Mach's principle, restated poorly.

and with much less precision.

Express it in mathematical terms, and show me how you can derive something from it. Until then, it's word salad.

[originalpckelly]

22. I did show you in math.

At least as it applies to the universe.

What is a meter? It is the difference between two points. You can probably have infinite points of precision between those points.

Well, velocity is m/s.

What is a second?

The difference between two points in time.

How can you have a difference between one point and itself? What if you are just one atom, all by yourself, in your own universe. Wouldn't you be the same thing as a universe?

I'm not waxing philosophical here, I'm being completely practical. How the fuck do you know the Ke of something by itself? Think about all of Einstein's thought experiments, they are about two or more things.

I would suggest to you that my conclusion is completely consistent with Heinsenberg's uncertainty principle, and that the Heisenberg uncertainty principle is just the physics manifestation of a mathematical truth.

I made the mistake of thinking you could add up everything in the universe to find the universe a couple days ago. This is the obvious reason why it was a mistake.

If you change the scale of a graph to anything smaller than one unit in the graph, you lose any information one unit in size in the old graph, if you do not subdivide the spaces on a piece of graph paper (in other words drawing another point on a line to keep the old precision.) I proved this yesterday. Well, just work backwards. The universe is everything, so the scale of the graph would be everything. You lose everything.

If you don't fucking believe me, go get a piece of graph paper, and make a graph of graph unit to graph unit jumps yourself. Then divide your graph into a two unit by two unit space. If you only have lines that are drawn from one point to another, then when you reduce the precision of the graph, you lose information.

If you reduce the scale of the universe's graph to the universe itself, won't you lose all information in the graph? To prove this, just go draw a bunch of connected points on a graph. Then just draw one big box that has them all in side. It has to be a graph that has x and y with equal divisions, or else you'd have two division for one of the dimensions.

You still technically draw a line between one point of a box and another, but that's because you have a 2d thing to do it with. You have four points in a square.

Well, just reduce the scale down to one in a number line or one. That's a point. You can't make a multi-point based relationship with only one point, unless you are comparing the point to itself. Then I suppose the identity property applies. But isn't any value higher than 0 arbitrary? If there is no difference, then how in the hell do you know it's 1 or 2 or 3?

That's the point, as it were, to this.

[originalpckelly]

28. I posit that energy is just a measure of probability, and matter too.

The answer to all of this is:
What is the difference in probability of something?

The formula for that would be:

difference in probability = numerator of probability - denominator of probability

Let d_p = difference in probability
Let p_n = numerator of probability
Let p_d = denominator of probability

d_p = n_p - p_d

If d_p = 0, then there is no difference in probability.

This is why you cannot divide by zero.

I accidentally screwed that up! Give me a break, I'm a tad excited here, and my hands are like frozen!

[originalpckelly]

29. There is your fucking mathematical proof.

Eureka motha fucka!

[originalpckelly]

32. The universe is everything...

1/1

The difference in probability for the universe is:
0 = 1-1

That is, of course, using that formula.

The atom is the smallest unit of something, and by itself has no comparison.

The difference in probability for the atom is:
0 = 1-1

[originalpckelly]

54. I keep fucking it up, and screwing around with it. So here it is with simpler letters:

If a = b, then a/b = 1, then 0 = a - b

I think that's the best simplest proof, but if you apply that to relativity, then you find that energy/mass must just be a probability, so anything that involves units of measurements must have a difference in probability of anything > 0.

Entropy is just the difference in probability, and over time the difference in probability tends to decrease, in terms of absolute value.

[originalpckelly]

11. An equation can be an eqivalency of two things or itself.

In the case of something by itself, it is equal to itself.

[Teaser]

19. and is therefore trivial.

because it conveys no information. An identify tells you nothing you don't already know.

[EOTE]

82. Nonsense. If it tells you nothing, it also tells you everything.

Like, imagine if you would a house made of nothing but foyer.
http://www.theonion.com/content/node/38734

I just blew my own mind.

[Teaser]

2. TIMECUBE!

http://www.timecube.com

This physicist thanks you for the education. What an idiot I've been.

[Orrex]

5. If you multiply both sides by zero, via the symmetric property, you can avoid the whole mess

:crazy: It's so simple! :crazy:

[Teaser]

8. E TO THE I PI, BEEYATCHES!

.

[RagAss]

6. What are the implications of this?

[originalpckelly]

10. I have only begun to understand.

WTF? does this mean.

[RagAss]

12. Could this be the void the ancient Buddhists spoke of ?

[Teaser]

no.

.

[Name removed]

24. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[RagAss]

30. Dumbass? Buddhism is a philosophy of reality...isn't that what you're attempting here?

Oh I forget. Your idea gets to be called "Science" because you have an equation to go along with it. An equation that other writers of equations, in their attempt to explain reality, will chop up and spit out while you try to defend it.

None of this is religion. Religion is dogma employed to make slaves of men.

Peace...... and good luck with your explanation of reality.

[Orrex]

64. Does your brand of Buddhism believe in reincarnation?

[originalpckelly]

66. Unfalsifiable claims = bullshit.

The only reason I'm not full of it, is that what I'm talking about is not found through experimentation. Could you every do an experiment to verify the universe is itself? No, that doesn't make any fucking sense, because if there's something to compare it to, then by definition, it isn't the universe.

If you only have one indivisible thing, can you make a comparison to something other than itself?

In school, I learned that you simply never divide by zero, as it's undefined. But what about 1/1? There is no definition there either. It is as undefined as 1/0.

[Orrex]

70. I beg your pardon, but you're kind of off-base there

In school, I learned that you simply never divide by zero, as it's undefined. But what about 1/1? There is no definition there either. It is as undefined as 1/0.

Um, 1 / 1 = 1, and this can be demonstrated pretty readily. How? Like this:

What number, muliplied by 1, yields 1 as the product? The answer is 1.

1 / 0 = undefined, and this can likewise be demonstrated pretty readily. How? Like this:

What number, muliplied by 0, yields 1 as the product? The answer is.... Undefined.


You're also making a basic mistake of reason: the universe is not a thing, it is the set of all things, in much the same way that the set of all real numbers is not a number. You may object that this is a gimmmick, but it is not. In fact, your attempt to identify the universe as a thing is the gimmick, and it's as meaningless and inappropriate as asking "What does 437 spell?"


Incidentally, I haven't suggested that you're full of it. However, you're making the mistake of using metaphorical imagery and koans to imply a limitation of science, and most people who've gone through Philosophy 101 can see through that. You also seem to be missing a basic concept about the nature of the universe.

That doesn't mean that you're full of it. You might be, or you might not be; it's not up to me to say.


Additionally, the statement that unfalsifiable claims only equal bullshit is only useful for people whose belief system depends on them being bullshit, and even for them the statement is nonsensical. You're using a computer, right? You've taken medicine in your life, right? You're wearing clothing made by a machine, right?

None of these would be possible if unfalsifiable claims were bullshit.

[KittyWampus]

9. as someone who has studied Qabalah, I agree with the assertion 0=Everything

But the One Thing is fully capable of drawing polarities within itself.

[Orrex]

13. My own extensive research confirms that One is the Loneliest Number

[originalpckelly]

40. Some might say it's even nothing, after seeing this!

:P

[EOTE]

95. But what of 2?

Are you of the mindset that 2 can be equal to 1 in terms of loneliness? And that 2 is in fact only surpassed in loneliness by the number 1? And slightly off topic, do you believe that it's appropriate for a man to engage in a platonic relationship with members of the Ranidae family? Particularly those named Jeremiah?

[originalpckelly]

27. No, it's more like the difference in probability when something itself is considered...

is zero.

[sammythecat]

14. You're a morning person aren't cha?

:boring:

[Sal Minella]

34. That explains it. I'll bookmark this and come back after some coffee.

[originalpckelly]

36. I've been thinking about this for about 7 or 8 years.

I used to think of it while sitting outside the door of my high school physics classes, both years, one when I had physics and the other when I had AP Physics, which was lumped in with International Baccalaureate. I'm no idiot, no nutcase, and everything I've said is true and mathematically so.

[Gman]

15. A solution can contain everything except zero

and the graph of which is denoted with a circle at 0. But I'll not clutter the discussion anymore with my limited knowledge of physics.

[originalpckelly]

18. And that would seem to be the point, as it were.

-1 > 0 < 1

[Gman]

31. I'm not sure if you mean what you posted

as -1 is not greater than 0. I believe it should read -1 < 0 < 1.

[WilmywoodNCparalegal]

16. But the Democritian atom itself can be divided

simply because we cannot discern the byproduct of the division does not mean that it cannot be divided. Possibly it can be divided ad infinitum. What if it were so, that an atom could be divided infinitely but, by each division, it releases more and more energy?

(Disclaimer: I know little of physics; I was a political science major :)

[originalpckelly]

20. No, the idea Democritus has is that an atom can't be divided.

[dysfunctional press]

25. then what are electrons, neutrons and protons, and other sub-atomic particles?

:shrug:

[originalpckelly]

26. What we call the "atom" isn't really the atom of Democritus...

That's well established fact. Since the definition of Democritian atom is the thing which cannot be divided, the "atom" which can be divided into at LEAST electrons, protons and neutrons, and the protons and neutrons into quarks, is not the real atom. Who knows, the electrons and quarks/etc. may be further divisible, and then they wouldn't be the "atoms" that Democritus was talking about.

[SheilaT]

21. This looks suspiciously like the

"proof" that 1=2, which only works if you don't notice that you're at some point dividing my zero.

I remember my math teacher pulling that on my algebra class way back when, and I rather quickly noticed what was going on. He was a little frustrated that I so quickly noticed the flaw in the "proof" (especially since I was merely a decent math student, not one of the class stars) and ignored me. The point of the exercise is to pay careful attention to everything when you manipulate equations.

[originalpckelly]

23. Is 1 = 2 though? NO! 2 implies some kind of difference that there isn't in 1.

3 implies more precision than 2 and still more than 1.

You can reduce a fraction like:
1234
1234

To 1, but isn't "1" still an arbitrarily high definition.

[SheilaT]

102. The original shows two

slightly different equations equaling each other. I don't want to try to reproduce the notation here.

But anything that looks like that only "works" if at some point, through the sleight of hand of substitution and the further slight of hand of not reducing some other fraction, you wind up with dividing by zero. Everyone else here has simply gotten sidetracked by complex notation.

I'm reminded of the stupid Zeno's Paradox, which purports to prove that you can't possibly ever reach a destination because all you can ever do is cut the remaining distance in half. Time is ignored, which quite frankly is an important part of how long it takes you to get somewhere. Again, I remember the first time that was described to me and my first question was about time elapsed. Again, the "Paradox" is only a paradox if some really fundamental aspect of the problem is ignored

[zipplewrath]

33. Singularity

You're dabbling in singularities. A universe of one particle is a singularity. Space-time will be collapsed upon itself. You can't have a vector because everything will have curved to a point. For that matter, mass-energy in your thought experiment is poorly defined. I'm trying to figure out how one gets a single particle universe, that's potentially a very energetic particle. A singularity is proposed by some to be how the big bang happened in the first place. But it resulted in the creation of alot of energy/particles, and dimensions. You want to create a single particle universe, but potentially it has vastly less energy than the current one. Interesting masters thesis, but I'm not sure what one does with it.

[originalpckelly]

35. Hi, yeah, um how can you have something different from only one thing?

Hello there! Energy is just a measure of probability.

There is no difference in probability when you consider the whole universe or a single particle.

What the probability that the universe is itself? 1/1
What is the probability of an atom, in the indivisible unit of everything sense of Democritus, is itself? 1/1

Difference in probability = numerator of probability - denominator of probability.

You take the absolute value of the difference in probability, because a negative number or a positive number is just as much different as the other.

[zipplewrath]

44. Mass-energy

A single particle universe isn't without energy (or at least I don't understand the premise without it). Energy has mass. Without a description of the energy, it's distribution, and to some extent its form, I can't completely discuss your single particle universe. How many dimensions in this universe?

[originalpckelly]

46. Hello, look at the units of e=mc^2.

mass in kilograms times meters/seconds squared.

If you can't have a difference between two things, then how can you have a meter? Or a second? Then, by that definition, the instantaneous measurement of energy (joules) is totally meaningless for a single particle, which I assume would be a point, or for the entire universe.

This is so because the probability of difference between 1/1, which is the denominator of the probability minus the numerator, is 0. When you have 25/25, you shouldn't simplify it to 1/1, you should simplify it to 0/0, at least in situations involving probability.

If a and b in a/b are equal, then a-b = 0.

[zipplewrath]

52. How do you have a particle without energy?

Mass-energy are the same thing. If you have a particle, the presumption is that you ALSO have energy. If you are presuming no energy, you'll have to describe this universe, because it is impossible as we currently understand mass-energy and space-time. Heck, in the universe you are describing, there doesn't appear to be room for dimensions incluiding time. A single particle universe with no energy, no time, no external observer, no dimensions, no gravity.....

[originalpckelly]

56. And that's the crux of it. Energy is really just a measure of difference in probability...

as I imagine mass is too.

just look at e=mc²

How could you say this differently? Divide both sides by m.

e/m = c²

Why not just call seconds meters? After all, if space and time are a part of one thing, then should they be considered difference?

The new unit would be meters⁴

Now that means that some meters aren't equal to others. Wouldn't that be the idea time dilation? 3 meters per second. That means you've distorted the dimensions so that in three dimensions (X, Y, Z) meters are not equal to a meter in time.

m/s

Something divided by itself? It's not always 2 meters to a second, now is it? The basic unit there can be simplified to m².

[zipplewrath]

74. light years

Time is variable, as is length. I think the unit you are looking for is light years. It's the only constant there is.

And mass and energy are the same thing. So are space and time.

[originalpckelly]

91. The relationship to time is variable, but the basic unit of time to space...

m/s is equal for 1 meter a second.

If you go two meters a second, there are two meters a second to each meter.

Think of a piece of graph paper. When you map one meter per second, what do you do? If (0,0) is the starting point, you put a point at (1,1).

If you have 487 meters to every second, and a large enough piece of graph paper, then you have (1, 487.)



That's a fraction.

If you have an equal amount of mass to velocity, and that just happens to be c, what happens?

c/c = 1/1

1² = 1
1 - 1 = 0

Sqrt of 0 = 0
The numbers on the top can be simplified to c³

If you don't have any slices of a pie, the pie can be called 1/1.

If you have 0 slices in the pie and the pie is whole c³/c³

http://www.google.com/search?q=(c^3)%2F(c^3)&ie=utf-8&oe=utf-8&aq=t&rls=org.mozilla:en-US:official&client=firefox-a

c is about 299,792,458 m²

And why shouldn't it be, after all if time is just another dimension of space, shouldn't one unit of time be equal to one unit of meters?

The only thing keeping that equation from having an answer is that "you can't divide by 0, that's undefined."

Isn't that what 1/1 is?

[Occam Bandage]

92. "light year" is not a constant, it is a unit of measurement.

The speed of light in a vacuum is a constant. There are many others. 0 is a constant. So is 1. So is π. So is e. So is G. So is h.

[RagAss]

123. Void !

[NeedleCast]

37. I'm sure all the scienece rags will beat a path to your door

[originalpckelly]

38. Is that meant as a joke?

If no one else has proved this, then it is kind of a big deal.

And if someone has proved this in math, no one has come across it in physics with enough common sense to realize that it applies. Sometimes common sense rules the day. This is one of them.

It's the theory of self-relativity. And actually, since it can be proved in math, it should be a basic part of math too, if not already discovered. I know I didn't hear a damn thing about this in school when we were doing probability.

However, the difference in probability matters a lot for science, as it explains one of the problems in physics: why does Einstein think things move smoothly, and quantum physics think things are scattered and random?

If you look at the universe itself, which is what the cosmologists do, this applies as an upper limit.
If you look at the allegedly indivisible unit of matter, which is what the particle physicists are after in a way, this applies as a lower limit.

I'm willing to jump to a conclusion, that entropy is really the measure of probability difference. The ice melts as the heat flows into it from the surrounding water. The difference between the temperature of the H₂O and the temperature of the water, is the difference in probability of the energy in the surrounding area v. the ice.

[NeedleCast]

42. If you've really made some astounding break-through

Perhaps DU isn't the place to report it. You might try a scientific forum.

[originalpckelly]

45. I did already, and it may not be a breakthrough.

Who knows, maybe someone else thought of this before I did?

I still have yet to get a response back from the actual physicists there.

I just thought it would be cool to talk about here, hence the joke about Deep Thought being wrong. Someone might get a kick out of it, because the way I explained it, it's actually quite easy to understand for anyone.

[Ms. Toad]

108. You actually did,

I just didn't announce myself. Your analysis is flawed at the level of middle school arithmetic/pre-algebra (division by zero is undefined; any term in an expression in the denominator can be zero as long as the expression itself is not zero). No point in even looking at the physics.

[originalpckelly]

112. Have you ever heard of Zeno's paradox?

You can infinitely divide the distance between two points.

To get from point a to c, you must first go 1/2 of the distance between a to c, b. But, before you go to 1/2 of d between a and c, you must go one fourth.

But before that, you must go 1/8.

Then 1/16.

You may continue to divide by 2 to amuse yourself. This is the solution:

It's all a matter of precision. Anyone who knows about computers knows what I'm talking about. There can be precision in all dimensions if you reduce the divisions that make 1 unit below that.

I got the idea from all of this looking at a thing called a dichotomic search tree. This is one of them:


I went and I made a graph of "$100" in binary ASCII code. I went up for 1 and down for 2.

It turns out that when you increase the size of the scale to be x units of a graph, you lose information.

And it makes sense that you would, you're reducing the number of possible points/division.

[Ms. Toad]

124. Your premise was you can't divide by zero,

Because you made a basic arithmetic/pre-algebra flaw, you reached a false conclusion. V being zero does not violate the mathematical prohibition on dividing by zero, because when V is zero the denominator one.

Talking about limits (which, along with the relationship between discrete and continuous) is essentially what creates the particular Zeno's paradox described. That paradox has nothing to do with your analysis because when v is zero you are dividing by l, not zero.

It's like saying we can eat foods, the moon is made of blue cheese, blue cheese is a food, therefore we can eat the moon. I tell you that is is a scientific fact that the moon is not made of blue cheese, and you respond, "but you're wrong, we can eat with a spoon."

[Extend a Hand]

39. The ALIENS told ME the REAL truth...

but I have been sworn to secrecy. :P

[Jim__]

41. Can I have a toke?

[B o d i]

128. You sure you want what he's smoking? I think it's laced.

[Ms. Toad]

43. Without sorting through too much of the word salad...

you have a simple arithmetic problem here:

>>Can you divide 0? Can you divide by 0?

>>That is why you could never, but never have v = 0, it appears in both the numerator and the denominator.

V doesn't appear in the denominator by itself. What appears in the denominator is the expression square root of (1-(v/c)^2). It is the expression that cannot be zero, not a term within the expression. That would happen when v=c, not when v=0.

[originalpckelly]

48. You are right, but what happens when everything is 1 in there, including m?

It is 1.

c * c = c^2

v in the bottom would have to be c.

1/1

1² = 1

1-1 = 0

The sqrt of 0 = 0

The conclusion from this, I presume, is that anything divided by 0 is zero, as the difference in division is nothing. So if you're not dividing something, then it's itself. 1/1 = 0/0

Because there is no difference in that either. You're not really dividing by one, you're saying there is no division.

I guess you could say I've figured out why you can't divide by 0, because that means you're not dividing anything.

[Ms. Toad]

103. Anything divided by zero is undefined, not zero.

I assumed you knew that, since you correctly stated that you could not divide by zero. Your arithmetic problem was in stating (incorrectly) that the fact that division by zero is undefined means that v cannot be zero.

If it is important to your analysis that v cannot be zero (and I have not sorted through the rest of the word salad to see), your analysis fails because nothing prohibits v from being zero.

[originalpckelly]

109. True, and if you have a whole unsliced pie, how many slices are in the pie?

You need to have two or more points to make relationships, but in one dimension, the different between two points is undefined. You can divide it infinitely, and I bet you will never have anything but 1/1.

distance between two points/1

1 = distance between two points.

Only when you add a third point can you make a relationship between three things.

distance between a and b = 2
distance between a and c = 5
distance between b and c must be 3

Or did I do that wrong?

|b| = a - c

If you don't believe me, you can go get out a piece of graph paper, and see for yourself.

[Ms. Toad]

126. This has nothing to do with your basic arithmetic flaw. n/t

[EstimatedProphet]

47. Hell, I could have told you that!

Of course he answer's 0. That's entropy at work.

[originalpckelly]

49. Exactly! That is exactly what that means!

It is entropy at work. Entropy must therefore be described as the tendency of a system to have no difference in probability over time.

The probability of 1/1 has no difference in probability.

Then entropy is the universe trying to become itself, what ever the FUCK that means.

[WhollyHeretic]

50. Physics and math? or physics and meth?

[originalpckelly]

51. Don't mind me folks, I'm just trying to help the universe find itself.

[mudesi]

53. LOL!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

You remind me of myself back in high school.

You haven't discovered or proved anything here. Don't get too excited.

[originalpckelly]

57. m/s

Now I want to think about this, if I just switch the s to an m, isn't that m²

But you'd say, "There's not always one meter to every second! Sometimes there are two!"

And isn't that it? If v in this is equal to c:


And m is too

that's x², even if the units are "different."

and in the bottom, if v = c, then it's 1/1.

Well, 1² = 1, the last time I checked.

And one minus 1 is 0, and the square root of 0 is 0

Then doesn't that mean x² isn't being divided by anything?

If you have a pie with no slices it is 1/1, right?

Could you also say the number of slices in the pie is 0?

You certainly could.

[mudesi]

117. You're All Over The Place

I want you to start over and CLEARLY explain what it is you're trying to say here. Make it simple. Then I'll tell you why you haven't really discovered anything.

[tjwash]

55. So....we meet again, giant wall of text...I had mistakingly thought that you died in Calcutta.

So nice...to see...your alive.

[EnviroBat]

58. I don't know about all of this, but I wish Schroedinger would take

that damn cat out of the box already! It's got to be hungry by now. Unless...

[originalpckelly]

59. I know, he's a pretty fucking cruel bastardo!

[EnviroBat]

60. I know! I'm a fan of the cat!

[originalpckelly]

62. Asshole should just open the box and feed the cat if it's still alive.

It might even grow to like him, although I don't know if I would if someone pulled that shit on me.

[rucky]

61. What's a "thing"?

serious question, if we're talking quantum.

[Occam Bandage]

63. ...

Antipodes
will not allow a God One on Earth -
where opposites equal zero existence."
+ 3 Billion (0) -3 Billion = zero Value.
Evil One voids antipodes = doomsday.
Taught One Evil, you're wiser ignorant.
Human cyclopic unfit to see antipodes.
No alien will visit evil ONEness Earth.
Earth is like a prison ship for Evil Ones
Evil God Believers refuse to
acknowledge 4 corner Days
rotating simultaneously around
4 quadrant created Earth -
in only 1 rotation, voiding the
Oneism Evil 1 Day 1 God.
You worship Satanic impostor
guised by educators as 1 god.

No 1 God equals 4 - 24 hour
Days Rotating Simultaneously
within 1- 24 hour Rotation of
4 quadrant created Earth.
Ignoring 4 Corner Earth Days
will Destroy Evil Humanity.
I am organizing Children to
join "Cubic Army of 4 Days"
to convert Evil 1 Day Adults
to 4 Day mentality existence,
to serve perpetual humanity.

"Nothing on Earth more Evil
than a human educated as 1,
when composed of opposites
that cancel out as an entity."
In fact, man is the only 1 Evil,
and will soon erase himself by
ignoring Cubic 4 Day Creation.
If a Man cannot tear a page
from the bible and burn it -
then he cannot be a scientist,
or participate in Symposium -
to measure Cubing of Earth
with Cubic intelligence wiser
than any man or god known.
Educators have destroyed the
human analytical brain to a
single perspective, in spite of
all creation within Universe
being based upon opposites,
binaries & antipodes, including
Sun/Earth binary relative to the human male/female binary. No
ancient insignificant dead 1 Jew
godism can match or exceed the
enormonity of the Sun/Earth
Binary. His heart is not big
enough for sharing with the
vastness of created opposites.
1 has no heart beat or breath,
constituting death of opposites.
God in Human form has human limits as body controls activity.
You are taught Evil, You act
Evil, You are the Evil on Earth.
Only your comprehending the
Divinity of Cubic Creation will
your soul be saved from your
created hell on Earth - induced
by your ignoring the existing
4 corner harmonic simultaneous
4 Days rotating in a single cycle
of the Earth sphere. Religious/
Academic Pedants cannot allow
4 Days that contradict 1Day 1God.
Educators destroy your brain,
but you don't know, so why care?

Creation ocurrs via opposites,
but Religious/Academia pedants
suppress it teaching Satanic One.

After 30 years of research, I now
possess the Order of Harmonic
Antipodal Cubic Divinity Life -
too large for physical form, but
Binary Spirit of the masculinity
Sun & feminity Earth Antipodes.
ONEism is demonic Death Math.
I have so much to teach you, but
you ignore me you evil asses.
You will recognize 4 corner Days
or incur Easter Island Ending.

Never a Genius knew Math
to achieve my Cubic Wisdom.
Cubic thought Reigns as the
Highest Intelligence possible
on the planet Earth. One 96
hour rotating Cube within a
single rotation of Earth - is a
SuperNatural Transcendence.
Bible and Science falsify 1
corner day for the Cubic 4
corner Days rotating daily.
A single god is not possible
in our 4 Day Cubic Science,
that equates Cubic Divinity.
Everybody is both stupid and
evil for ignoring the 4 days.
Cube Divinity transcends all
knowledge, Humans can't
escape 4 corner Cubic Life.
Fools worship mechanics of
language - while they wallow
in fictitious & deceitful word.
Exact science based on Cubics,
not on theories. Wisdom is
Cubic testing of knowledge.
Academia is progression of
Ignorance. No god equals
Simultaneous 4 Day Creation.
Humans ignore their 4 corner
stages of life metamorphosis.
This site is a collection of data
for a coming book - peruse it.
No human has 2 hands as they
are opposites, like plus and
minus, that cancel as entity.
Academia destroys your brain,
your ability to think opposite.
The eyes of the flounder fish
were relocated, why were yours relocated? Your opposite eyes
were moved to 1 corner to overlay
for single perspective, but that
corrupts your Opposite Brain.

http://www.timecube.com/

[originalpckelly]

65. Oh will you people stop with that crap already.

If you can't get it after so much mathematical proof, you are all just fucking idiots.

Listen:
If I have a pie, and there are no slices in it, the number of slices is 0, right?

You could also say the pie is a 1/1 fraction.

No division 1/0 = 1/1. It's the same exact thing. There is no difference in division.

difference in division for the pie = 1 whole pie - 1 whole pie.

That's 0. Therefore, there is no, but no division of the pie.

1/0 = 1/1.

1/2 ≠ 1/0 because there is division. If it was a pie, it would be cut in half.

It's difference in division would be = 1-2
which is -1.

The pie has one level of division.

We already accept that:
1/2 ≠ 1/1

A little common sense will go a long way.

[Occam Bandage]

67. No, the number of slices of pie is 1.

If there are zero cuts, there is one slice of pie. "Zero slices of pie" means "no pie whatsoever." You're mixing English and math, and that's the realm of crankery. Math is pure and does not require English assistance. If you think you've got something to say about math, say it using only math. That's the way math works.

[originalpckelly]

68. a=b

a/b
0 = a-b

Can it get any fucking simpler?

Now look at this:

1/352

-351 = 1 - 352

It's like the odds of something, isn't it? You always subtract 1 from the probability to find the odds, because 1 is one division inside the 351.

[Occam Bandage]

71. Step two isn't an equation. Is it an operation? If so,

you have

a = b
(a/b) * a = b * (a/b)
(a^2)/b = a,

which is obviously true, and from which you can easily get back to a-b = 0, which isn't really saying much, since we started by defining b and a as equal. If something is equal to itself than it is equal to itself. That's a great discovery; I'm sure Nature will make it their cover story next issue.

[originalpckelly]

76. No, it's a fraction.

Does every fraction have to be an equation? Only to itself:
a/b = a/b

What if meters and seconds are the same size in different dimensions?

The difference in divisions for 1 meter to every second should be 0 then.

0 = m - s

And isn't that true if you have 1 meter: second?

Time and space are supposed the same thing. When you move faster, you're just moving more units (X, Y, Z) of the same thing.

That's why you can have 2 meters per second.

m/s should be m² for one dimensional motion over time.

[Occam Bandage]

81. You're mixing up semantics with mathematics again.

Yes, meters and seconds are both units of measurement. They aren't numbers you can meaningfully manipulate on their own, except to provide ratios of conversion. Yes, if you arbitrarily define them as being equal to one another, then it is true that they are equal to one another. Saying "if a = b, then a-b=0" is not a breakthrough, it is simply the creation of a tautology.

m/s = m^2 only makes sense if you define a second as being 1/m, which is something else entirely. That would, rather be defining a "second" as "per meter," which would make "meters per second" the same as "meters per per meter," which is semantically confusing but mathematically equal to "meters squared," which still wouldn't be saying anything beyond "I am arbitrarily defining units as things they are not."

[originalpckelly]

94. Get out a piece of fucking graph paper and look at the shit.

If I have a graph of m/s, do the units on the paper magically not equal one another? Does 1 up on a piece of graph paper not equal 1 right?

No, they have the same area 1.

If I have two squares on a piece of graph paper that represent meters, per one second of time, I have two squares.

[sammythecat]

69. I V is 0 in the left side of your equation,

you're left with nothing divided by the square root of 1, which is nothing. Then when you make this equal to the right side of the equation and assign a value to V on that side, you are saying that nothing is equal to something. Makes no sense.

[originalpckelly]

73. The problem is that it makes perfect sense. Time and space are the same thing...

If time and space are the same thing, should the units that measure them be the same thing?

meters per second
m/s

Make the s and m.

m²

If time and space are a part of the same thing, shouldn't one unit of time be equal to one unit of space?

The question arises, "Um, yeah, what about 2 meters for every second? Shouldn't you have a 1 to 1 ratio?"

Yeah, but that's the point here. If time and space are the same thing, then motion through space should be definable in a ratio to time. Are the squares on a piece of graph paper you use to model time/space and movement over one dimension and different in size?
m = s
0 = m - s

That should be true.

[Occam Bandage]

78. Space and time are not the same "thing."

Dimensions are different vectors in a Euclidean space. "Space" are how we refer to three of those dimensions, and "time" how we refer to one more of them. "Space" is generally measured in a relative unit called the "meter," and "time" in a relative unit called the "second." To claim one meter is equal to one second is the exact same as claiming that a mile to the west is the "same thing as" a furlong to the north. Well, yes, they're both units of measurement, and both are expressed as vectors, so there is some semantic equivalent, but claiming they're mathematically equal to each other is bogus.

[originalpckelly]

87. How could they not be equal to each other if time and space are a part of the same thing?

Just think of a piece of graph paper.

What would cause time to be smaller than 1 square on the paper to every meter?
If t is the x-axis
And distance is the y-axis

Wouldn't more meters mean more of the same thing to each unit of time?

[Occam Bandage]

88. In the same way "West" and "North" are not equal to each other despite being part of the same thing.

The same way "Up" and "Right" aren't equal to each other despite being part of the same thing. Heck, the same way "Shanghai" and "Cleveland" aren't equal to each other despite being part of the same thing. You're getting semantic equivalence ("both are dimensions," or "both are cities" in the previous sentence) mixed up with absolute mathematical equivalence ("both are absolutely identical and may be freely substituted").

A mile to the west isn't the same as a kilometer to the north, beyond the fact that both are vectors. Neither the directional component nor the magnitude scalar of either is equal to the other's. Similarly, a meter to the north and a second forward in time are not the same thing, beyond the fact that both are vectors.

[originalpckelly]

97. Different signs, same distance on a graph.

If I have something 2 units north, that's the same as 2 units south. If you don't move east, then one unit south is (0,-1) and one unit north (0,1) is positive.

Doesn't velocity come in signs?

This, this explains a lot:



Just remove the subtraction of the rest mass.

For every action, there must be an equal an opposite reaction. Are you implying that momentum isn't conserved?

[originalpckelly]

107. Here, I removed the rest mass so it is there and that's momentum:

[sammythecat]

79. delete

nevermind

[NoFederales]

72. Indeterminate

NoFederales

[HamdenRice]

75. All kidding aside, I think you need to speak to a doctor. You're having a manic episode.

Two or three days ago, you had mathematically solved all economic and banking problems. You're on a roll! Yesterday, all economists were ignorant imbeciles compared to your one man totalizing economic theory.

Today, the entire physics establishment are dumb asses compared to you.

This is called by psychiatrists, "grandiose thinking."

Do you think it just might be possible that you've lost touch with reality?

You're really beginning to worry me.

All snark aside, I think you may be having a manic episode or some form of nervous breakdown or psychotic hallucination. I would talk to a family member or doctor if I were you.

Reality check: A lot of what you are writing would be considered "word salad" by a psychiatrist.

[originalpckelly]

77. If you know what entropy is, as I now do, then you can solve those problems...

or at least deal with them knowing what they are.

It is not word salad. I can say it without words:

a = b
a/b
0 = a - b

A non-zero number and the tendency of the universe to make that a zero number as time goes on is all that entropy is.

[sudopod]

119. Entropy is

boltzman's constant times the natural logarithm of the number of possible microstates states that the system in question can inhabit and still be in the same macrostate. It isn't magic.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Entropy_(statistical_thermodynamics)

(edited for loosey-goosey explanation, lol)

[Occam Bandage]

85. To be completely serious, I think you bring up valid concerns.

A visit to a doctor would be helpful.

[HamdenRice]

90. It suddenly struck me that he sounded like the narrator of "Notes to My Biographer"

That's a short story by Adam Haslett. It's narrated in the first person by a retired inventor/entrepreneur in the throes of a manic episode.

Unless PC Kelly is just messing with us, I'm very concerned that this is what we are witnessing. No one in a "normal" state of mind is likely to conclude that they have solved all the problems of both economics and physics within the course of five or so days.

[originalpckelly]

96. I have not been thinking about this five days,

You make a false assumption.

[sudopod]

120. Um...what you said.

I feel like a total ass now. :/

This does fit the description of a manic episode to a T.

[xocet]

80. "That ladies and gentlemen is the joining of quantum physics with relativity."

No. The joining of quantum physics with special relativity is called quantum field theory. Nothing you said coherently referenced anything concerning general relativity.

You should go to college and start with basic physics and mathematics if you want to address these issues. You should take a few courses on philosophy, too: this is so that you know the difference between rationalism and empiricism.

Good luck, but so far the OP is a total waste of time to read - however, if you want to continue in this vein, you might find some potential co-authors on the site: http://www.crank.net. On the bright side of this non-sane option, you may have a future going on Coast to Coast AM with George Noory (http://www.coasttocoastam.com ) as a guest! Just tie your writing into something that R. C. Hoagland (http://www.enterprisemission.com ) has had to say and you will probably achieve some odd form of successful delusion.

[NeedleCast]

86. Good to see crank.net is still around

That's some good killing time at work stuff.

Never ceases to amaze just how invested the cranks are in their little theories:

http://www.geocities.com/freeyourbrain/

[bemildred]

83. I think it's all relative. nt

[slackmaster]

84. I say let x=x

:hi:

[earcandle]

89. Love the reasoning!

[Beetwasher]

93. Physics Blues

Fusion and fission blurring my vision
A zig-zagging grey fuzzy line
With all of this matter none of it matters
But I like to waste my space-time

Meaning illusion inclusion exclusion
Understanding what can't be expressed
Knowing I'm knowing thinking I'm thinking
Infinite finite regress

All we are is all we know is all we'll ever be
All we know is all we are is all reality

A verse to a version my only perversion
Sillooey soo-ay saw salloo
Padacious padigeon but only a smidgeon
Callacious callay caw calloo

Averse to aversion my only perversion
Sillooey soo-ay saw salloo

[HiFructosePronSyrup]

98. It's a shame they don't make kaopectate for logorrhea.

Did you spend a lot of time on this?

[NeedleCast]

101. OP claims to have spent 7 to 8 years thinking it up

[Occam Bandage]

110. That's a long time for "1-1 = 0"

[originalpckelly]

113. You're right.

I'm a fucking stupid ass myself for not seeing this simple idea sooner. Of course, I just assumed that dividing by 0 is undefined, which it is. The distance between two points is undefined without a third point in between, isn't it?

[HiFructosePronSyrup]

122. I'll agree with the first part.

"The distance between two points is undefined without a third point in between, isn't it?"

If two points are in different locations, then there are an infinite number of points between them, by definition.

[NeedleCast]

116. You owe me one Coke sir

I LOL'ed.

[Raskolnik]

99. Manic pseudo-mathematics paired with metaphysical grandiosity.

You've already established that you're much, much smarter than any economist that's ever been born, and today you've made clear that every physicist is "a complete and total idiot" for not seeing your (somewhat hazy) point sooner.

Anything else on your schedule in the next week or two?

[Beetwasher]

100. I Foresee Chess As The Next Item On The Agenda

Checkmate in one move.

[Raskolnik]

104. Every grandmaster who ever lived will have been a *fool* for not seeing the elegant

simplicity sooner.

[cliffordu]

105. That's a really nice bong, man. Can I see it for a minute???

[iamthebandfanman]

125. lol ,

theres a new stereotype to add to the mix...

stoners just sit around contemplating physics all day! what a waste! hehe

[JitterbugPerfume]

106. well my life is over

I put all of my faith in 42 , and now you say that my life has been a lie.

[NeedleCast]

111. You're going to get us all killed

[originalpckelly]

114. Infinitely divisible is what 0 means.

The distance between two points is always undefined, unless you have a third point to define it.

[NeedleCast]

115. You're off your nut. Get help

Until then, I will continue to post zany divide by zero images.

[sudopod]

118. This is why you are wrong.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Division_by_zero#In_elementary_arithmetic

You are not the first person to think about dividing stuff by zero. Also, wtf does special relativity have to do with it?

[Orrex]

127. Duh. Special relativity is actually fairly central to it.

It helps to pad it out and make it seem more impressive to casual inspection.

[MilesColtrane]

121. DU has it's very own Professor Irwin Corey.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Professor_Irwin_Corey

'Professor' Irwin Corey is an American comic, film actor and left-wing political activist, who is often billed as 'The World's Foremost Authority'.

From the late 1940s he cultivated his "Professor" character. Dressed in seedy formal wear and sneakers, with his bushy hair sprouting in all directions, Corey would amble on stage in a preoccupied manner, then begin his monologue with "However..." He created a new style of doublespeak comedy; instead of making up nonsense words like "krelman" and "trilloweg," like other comics, the professor would season his speech with many long and florid, but authentic, words. The professor would then launch into nonsensical observations about anything under the sun, but seldom actually making sense. Changing topics suddenly, he would wander around the stage, pontificating all the while. His very quick wit allowed him to hold his own against the most stubborn straight man, heckler or interviewer.

One notable fan of Corey's comedy was Ayn Rand, and influential theatre critic Kenneth Tynan once wrote of the Professor in The New Yorker, “Corey is a cultural clown, a parody of literacy, a travesty of all that our civilization holds dear, and one of the funniest grotesques in America. He is Chaplin’s tramp with a college education”.