Welcome to
Science a GoGo's
Discussion Forums
Please keep your postings on-topic or they will be moved to a galaxy far, far away.
Your use of this forum indicates your agreement to our terms of use.
So that we remain spam-free, please note that all posts by new users are moderated.


The Forums
General Science Talk        Not-Quite-Science        Climate Change Discussion        Physics Forum        Science Fiction

Who's Online Now
0 members (), 85 guests, and 1 robot.
Key: Admin, Global Mod, Mod
Latest Posts
Top Posters(30 Days)
Previous Thread
Next Thread
Print Thread
Page 3 of 17 1 2 3 4 5 16 17
Orac #46661 12/11/12 05:32 AM
Joined: Jun 2008
Posts: 1,249
T
Megastar
Offline
Megastar
T
Joined: Jun 2008
Posts: 1,249
Originally Posted By: Orca
I have no problem with that TT in some ways science is a religion and like any religion we have commandments and rules.
And with any religion commandments and rules originate somewhere, and then they are interpreted somewhere else.

Originally Posted By: Orca
At the end of the day this is supposed to be a science forum and thus it should follow science conventions otherwise rename it to NON SCIENCE A GO GO or NSAGG.
Yes religion should always be specific when separating God from science and science from God. wink



Originally Posted By: Orca
Rose needs to decided which we are and moderate accordingly.

Definitely no God here @ SAGG... whistle


I was addicted to the Hokey Pokey, but then I turned myself around!!




.
Joined: May 2011
Posts: 2,819
O
Megastar
Offline
Megastar
O
Joined: May 2011
Posts: 2,819
Originally Posted By: Tutor Turtle

Definitely no God here @ SAGG... whistle


You confuse it with science which there is very little of on SAGG because of the reigious nutters whistle

Perhaps Rose should let me moderate I guarantee you there will be no religion in the science section nor anything that isn't science. Paul can go rant in the NQS section and everyone would be happy.

Last edited by Orac; 12/11/12 10:15 AM.

I believe in "Evil, Bad, Ungodly fantasy science and maths", so I am undoubtedly wrong to you.
Orac #46665 12/11/12 02:34 PM
Joined: Mar 2006
Posts: 4,136
P
Megastar
Offline
Megastar
P
Joined: Mar 2006
Posts: 4,136
Quote:
Now 8/0 = 8 how can you even begin to discuss science with these sorts of basis.


your formula required the division, odunce!

Originally Posted By: odunce
E = mc^2/sqrt(1 - v^2/c^2)charlatan math in red


lets say the speed of light is 2 mps

the mass is 2 kg

the mass has a velocity of 2 mps

E = 8/sqrt(1 - 4/4)

E = 8/sqrt(1 - 1)

E = 8/sqrt(0)

E = 8/0

you cannot divide by 0 , so you still have 8

E = 8

I didn't write the formula.
you or some other dunce did.

if you use a correct formula it will give correct results.

if you think that 8/0 = 8 is wrong then thats just because
your orac , and thats the problem.

if you don't divide something then you still have all of it.


note:

everyone open your calculator up.

enter a 1

then subtract any positive number you want.

the result will be a negative number no matter what number you use.

in the above charlatan math formula we clearly see the evidence of
this type of charlatan math treason used to support theories.

1-100 = -99

1-1 = 0









3/4 inch of dust build up on the moon in 4.527 billion years,LOL and QM is fantasy science.
paul #46666 12/11/12 03:41 PM
Joined: Aug 2010
Posts: 3,570
B
Bill S. Offline OP
Megastar
OP Offline
Megastar
B
Joined: Aug 2010
Posts: 3,570
Quote:
if you think that 8/0 = 8 is wrong then thats just because
your orac , and thats the problem.


I'm not a mathematician, nor am I Orac, but I have a small problem with the logic here.

It goes something like this:

Using Paul's maths:

8/0 = 8 but

8/1 = 8 therefore

1 = 0

Anyone see my problem?


There never was nothing.
paul #46667 12/11/12 03:45 PM
Joined: May 2011
Posts: 2,819
O
Megastar
Offline
Megastar
O
Joined: May 2011
Posts: 2,819
Originally Posted By: paul

everyone open your calculator up.


Open up the same calculator and enter 8/0 smart boy and tell me what it says.

8/0 is not 8 in any maths on the planet it is underfined or infinity take your pick.

But you know that because you are doing nothing but trolling.

So Rose here is your chance to show everyone that you can moderate

This is a deliberate troll deal with it or shall I take up my onslaught on the trolls god. If we have to wade thru this sort of junk of the forum I fail to see how bashing the odd god or two can get us a warning and threat from you.

Yes Bill S the problem is obvious from the religious nutter troll ... so lets see if Rose has a backbone.

If you can't moderate even this stupidity Rose it's time to step down as moderator because thre is no way to have a proper discussion through this rubbish.

Last edited by Orac; 12/11/12 06:15 PM.

I believe in "Evil, Bad, Ungodly fantasy science and maths", so I am undoubtedly wrong to you.
paul #46670 12/11/12 06:19 PM
Joined: Aug 2010
Posts: 3,570
B
Bill S. Offline OP
Megastar
OP Offline
Megastar
B
Joined: Aug 2010
Posts: 3,570
Quote:
if you don't divide something then you still have all of it.


Do you apply the same rule to multiplication?

Is there a distinction between x multiplied by nothing, and x not multiplied by anything?


There never was nothing.
Bill S. #46671 12/11/12 07:28 PM
Joined: Feb 2007
Posts: 1,840
R
Megastar
Offline
Megastar
R
Joined: Feb 2007
Posts: 1,840
Paul is not the first to see it his way:

"In 830, Mahavira tried unsuccessfully to correct Brahmagupta's mistake in his book in Ganita Sara Samgraha: "A number remains unchanged when divided by zero." Wikipedia

Also borrowed from wiki...

With the following assumptions:

0 x 1 = 0
0 x 2 = 0

The following must be true:

0 x 1 = 0 x 2

Dividing by zero gives:

(0/0) x 1 = (0/0) x 2

Simplified, yields:

1 = 2

The fallacy is the implicit assumption that dividing by 0 is a legitimate operation



"Time is what prevents everything from happening at once" - John Wheeler
Joined: Mar 2006
Posts: 4,136
P
Megastar
Offline
Megastar
P
Joined: Mar 2006
Posts: 4,136
Quote:
The fallacy is the implicit assumption that dividing by 0 is a legitimate operation


exactly , that is why I pointed that out!

Quote:
E = 8/0

you cannot divide by 0 , so you still have 8

E = 8


back to the formula.

Quote:
E = mc^2/sqrt(1 - v^2/c^2)


if the mass is 2kg
the velocity of the mass is 2mps
and the velocity of c is 2 mps

E = 2*4/sqrt(1 - 4/4)
E = 8/0

then E can not be zero !
unless the magic of R SR GR QM designates it.

either E = 8
or
E = 0 which says that an object traveling at the speed of light has zero energy...

and we all know that a mass of 2 kg with a velocity of 2 mps
has energy !!! believe it or not.


which is it?

heres is a very familiar formula.
F = ma
m = F/a

if a = zero in the above , then the mass remains the same right?

it is a formula used to properly predict the mass of a object.

if all you know is the force applied and the amount of acceleration caused by the force , the result of the formula is the mass of the accelerated object.

if m = 1 kg
a = zero
F = 1 kg-m/s^2

then
m = F/a
1 = 1/0

if a force of 1 kg-m/s^2 is being applied to an object
that is not accelerating then using the above formula
tells you that the resistance to movement of the object
using that amount of force means that the object's mass is more than 1 kg or its mass and its resistance to movement requires more than 1 kg-m/s^2 of force to accelerate the object.

in classical physics you don't need to use magic formulas
to find results needed.

it's all pretty simple straight forward stuff , that's always correct as it is not in place to support theories , it is used to validate theories.




3/4 inch of dust build up on the moon in 4.527 billion years,LOL and QM is fantasy science.
paul #46673 12/11/12 08:00 PM
Joined: May 2011
Posts: 2,819
O
Megastar
Offline
Megastar
O
Joined: May 2011
Posts: 2,819
You do dribble crap Paul or should I say troll crap.

8 PEOPLE / 0 GODS still equals 8 PEOPLE AND A NONE EXISTANT GOD.

Thus we have proved Pauls GOD does not exist.

Same crap different context I do believe.

Last edited by Orac; 12/11/12 08:03 PM.

I believe in "Evil, Bad, Ungodly fantasy science and maths", so I am undoubtedly wrong to you.
Orac #46674 12/11/12 09:22 PM
Joined: Dec 2010
Posts: 1,858
B
Megastar
Offline
Megastar
B
Joined: Dec 2010
Posts: 1,858
Orac, you are making a big mistake. Starting a flame war is not the way to handle a persistently erroneous poster. It is better to just gently point out the errors in his/her posts and then let the intelligent reader figure out what is wrong with the posts. Starting a flame war may be just what the poster wants, and responding in flames is not any way to make head way. Any way Paul isn't going to change his ways. He has been making preposterous statements on the forum for many years and I expect he will keep on doing it for many more.

For example Paul said:

Originally Posted By: Paul
if the mass is 2kg
the velocity of the mass is 2mps
and the velocity of c is 2 mps

E = 2*4/sqrt(1 - 4/4)
E = 8/0

then E can not be zero !

Well, since we are actually talking about the speed of light lets substitute C for his velocity.

E = 2*c^2/sqrt(1- C/C)

That becomes E = 2*c^2/sqrt(1-1)

so it becomes 2*c/0.

Obviously this is impossible, since division by 0 produces results that are meaningless. But then let's try using m = 0.
Then we get

E = 0*C^2/sqrt(1 - C/C)

This evaluates to

E = 0/0

Now that makes sense, since 0 divided by ANY number is 0.

Then lets try v = 0.99C

That gives us

E = 2*C^2/sqrt(1 - .99C/C)

This leads to

E = 2* C^2/sqrt(1-.99)

E = 2 * C^2/sqrt(.01)

E = 1 *C^2/.1
E = 10 * C^2

I'm not going to bother to go into the derivation of the units to translate that into an energy value, but it will work out and it is a lot of energy.

One thing that all this tells me is that nothing can travel at the speed of light. Or at least nothing that has a non-zero rest mass.

And that gentle readers is how Paul tries to mislead people into thinking that he knows something that nobody else in the world has been able to figure out. Because modern science doesn't depend on somebody arbitrarily saying, "This is how it is". When somebody makes a scientific statement a lot of people look at it and try to see if it is right. Then they start using what was said and seeing positive accurate results in the form of new things to astonish the world.

It is hard to astonish the world with ideas that can be shown to just not work.

Bill Gill


C is not the speed of light in a vacuum.
C is the universal speed limit.
Joined: Aug 2010
Posts: 3,570
B
Bill S. Offline OP
Megastar
OP Offline
Megastar
B
Joined: Aug 2010
Posts: 3,570
Quote:
Dividing by zero gives:

(0/0) x 1 = (0/0) x 2

Simplified, yields:

1 = 2


Sounds logical, Bill, but it seems that mathematical logic and real-world logic are not necessarily the same thing.

I have a box in which there is nothing = one empty box.

You have two boxes in each of which there is nothing = two empty boxes.

One box does not equal two boxes, only the “nothing” in one box is equal to the nothing in the two boxes. We still have a different number of boxes.

I’ve never been able to get my head round the idea of dividing by nothing, so this could be a learning experience, if we can stay on track.


There never was nothing.
Bill #46677 12/11/12 09:41 PM
Joined: Mar 2006
Posts: 4,136
P
Megastar
Offline
Megastar
P
Joined: Mar 2006
Posts: 4,136
Quote:
It is hard to astonish the world with ideas that can be shown to just not work.


since your finally exposing your math skills Bill.

how did this happen?

Quote:
E = 2 * C^2/sqrt(.01)

E = 1 *C^2/.1


lets consider that an object's velocity is measured
to be 299,792,458 m/s

and we use 299,792,458 m/s as c

and lets say our mass is 1 kg

E = mc^2/sqrt(1 - v^2/c^2)

E = 1*89875517873681764/sqrt(1- 89875517873681764/89875517873681764)

E = 89875517873681764/sqrt(1-1)

E = 89875517873681764/0

E = 0 because (nothing can travel at the speed of light because the math dictates it.)

our math ( R SR GR QM ) proves that even though the velocity of the object was measured at the speed of light , it has no energy.

another magic spell cast by the eienstonnedeons

Quote:
It is hard to astonish the world with ideas that can be shown to just not work.


I agree.

should we use the correct formula in place of what orac used?
for a particle with non zero mass.

E = mc^2/(1 - v^2/c^2)* .5





3/4 inch of dust build up on the moon in 4.527 billion years,LOL and QM is fantasy science.
paul #46678 12/11/12 10:21 PM
Joined: Aug 2010
Posts: 3,570
B
Bill S. Offline OP
Megastar
OP Offline
Megastar
B
Joined: Aug 2010
Posts: 3,570
Quote:
heres is a very familiar formula.
F = ma
m = F/a

if a = zero in the above , then the mass remains the same right?


Perhaps a non-mathematician should avoid joining in mathematical discussions.

On the other hand, just think of the Emperor’s New Clothes!

In the above equations, if a = 0, neither equation tells you anything. The mass is static, so there may be no force being applied to it; or there could be any force, as long as it was too small to move the mass.

You say: “the mass remains the same right?”

The same as what? The formulae have given no information about the mass.


There never was nothing.
Bill S. #46679 12/11/12 10:30 PM
Joined: Mar 2006
Posts: 4,136
P
Megastar
Offline
Megastar
P
Joined: Mar 2006
Posts: 4,136
Quote:
You say: “the mass remains the same right?”


yes , m

we dont know what the mass is , nothing changed.

the emperor thought he had clothes on , but he was naked!

I see your point , those who use math that is designed to
give pre-defined results are seen as being naked even though those who are using the pre-defined math think they are clothed.

their nakedness has been discovered!

I asked Bill in one of the previous post if he thought that
we should use the correct formula in place of what orac used?

for a particle with non zero mass.

E = mc^2/(1 - v^2/c^2)* .5

do you think that the above formula would be better to use?




3/4 inch of dust build up on the moon in 4.527 billion years,LOL and QM is fantasy science.
Bill S. #46680 12/11/12 10:33 PM
Joined: Feb 2007
Posts: 1,840
R
Megastar
Offline
Megastar
R
Joined: Feb 2007
Posts: 1,840
Originally Posted By: Bill S.
Quote:
Dividing by zero gives:

(0/0) x 1 = (0/0) x 2

Simplified, yields:

1 = 2


Sounds logical, Bill, but it seems that mathematical logic and real-world logic are not necessarily the same thing.

I have a box in which there is nothing = one empty box.

You have two boxes in each of which there is nothing = two empty boxes.

One box does not equal two boxes, only the “nothing” in one box is equal to the nothing in the two boxes. We still have a different number of boxes.

I’ve never been able to get my head round the idea of dividing by nothing, so this could be a learning experience, if we can stay on track.

Wasn't Bill's post, Bill S, but mine. The point being that dividing by 0 is not a legitimate operation.

(box + 0) + (box + 0) = 2 x box + 0. Do you see a real world problem with that Bill?


"Time is what prevents everything from happening at once" - John Wheeler
Bill S. #46681 12/11/12 10:40 PM
Joined: Aug 2010
Posts: 3,570
B
Bill S. Offline OP
Megastar
OP Offline
Megastar
B
Joined: Aug 2010
Posts: 3,570
Some more thoughts from a non-mathematician:

10/2 = 5 therefore
5x2 = 10

8/0 = 0 therefore
0x0 = 0

8/0 = 8 therefore
8x0 = 8.....or not!


There never was nothing.
Bill S. #46682 12/11/12 11:02 PM
Joined: Feb 2007
Posts: 1,840
R
Megastar
Offline
Megastar
R
Joined: Feb 2007
Posts: 1,840
Bill, on the net you'll find some excellent answers to the issue of division by zero. Some are too arcane for me, but most are clear enough for us bods to understand.

"8/0 = 0"
"8/0 = 8"

What makes you think those might be true?

Division by zero is simply not legitimate. It's like asking how many items would each of 0 people get if you shared 8 items between them.



"Time is what prevents everything from happening at once" - John Wheeler
Bill S. #46683 12/11/12 11:02 PM
Joined: Mar 2006
Posts: 4,136
P
Megastar
Offline
Megastar
P
Joined: Mar 2006
Posts: 4,136
here's a real world way to figure this out , Bill

look in your wallet , pull out a bill.

think about it first.

if you tear it in half , you have 2 halves.

if you dont tear it in half you still have a whole bill.

you cannot divide if you dont divide.

and you cannot divide by zero.

because dividing by zero means that you didnt tear it in half
so you still have a whole bill.

anyway , the formula that orac put up was missing a very important element the (*.5)

which he didnt catch , and if you multiply E = 8
times .5 you get the kinetic energy of the mass
and its velocity , which shows up as the Kinetic Energy part
of the mass energy equivalent.

E = 4

Ke = .5*(mv^2)

since this side of the formula results in nothing

/(1 - v^2/c^2)* .5

and this side of the formula resulted in E = 8

E = mc^2

E = 2 * 2^2

E = 2 * 4

E = 8

by re-writing the formula like the below we get a correct
result.

E = (mc^2/(v^2/c^2))* .5

we get 4


using the above formula lets check its validity using the following.

m = 2 kg
v = 2 mps
c = 2 mps

E = (mc^2/(v^2/c^2))* .5

E = (mc^2 / ( 4/4))*.5

E = (mc^2 / 1)*.5

E = (8 / 1 ) *.5

E = 8 *.5

E = 4


ok that panned out

lets try a real world problem.

lets consider that an object's velocity is measured
to be 299,792,458 m/s

and we use 299,792,458 m/s as c (the speed of light)

and lets say our mass is 1 kg

E = (mc^2/(v^2/c^2))* .5

E = (mc^2/(89875517873681764/89875517873681764))*.5

E = (mc^2/ 1)*.5

E = (1*89875517873681764/ 1)*.5

E = (89875517873681764/ 1)*.5

E = (89875517873681764)*.5

E = 44937758936840882

of course that should be the exact same result as the kinetic energy of the mass.

lets check it

Ke = .5 * mv^2

Ke = .5 * (1 * 89875517873681764)

Ke = .5 * 89875517873681764

Ke = 44937758936840882

yep exactly the same.




3/4 inch of dust build up on the moon in 4.527 billion years,LOL and QM is fantasy science.
Bill S. #46684 12/11/12 11:44 PM
Joined: Dec 2010
Posts: 1,858
B
Megastar
Offline
Megastar
B
Joined: Dec 2010
Posts: 1,858
Originally Posted By: Bill S.
Some more thoughts from a non-mathematician:

10/2 = 5 therefore
5x2 = 10

8/0 = 0 therefore
0x0 = 0

8/0 = 8 therefore
8x0 = 8.....or not!



The problem with your 3rd pair of statements is that 8/0 does not equal 8, it is either undefined (meaningless) or infinity, which is numerically meaningless. That is to say that is if we think of 8/0 as infinity we can't use it in any other mathematical calculation.

Let's look at it this way.
8/4 = 2
8/2 = 4
8/1 = 8
8/.5 = 16
8/.25 = 32
8/.1 = 80
8/.01 = 800
8/.001 = 8000
8/.0001 = 80000
8/.0000000001 = 8000000000 (if I didn't miscount decimal points)
The thing is that as the denominator approaches 0 the result gets larger very fast. So that as the denominator approaches 0 as a limit then the result approaches infinity. But you can't use infinity in any ordinary calculation. It is totally meaningless since there is no way to measure infinity, so division by zero is not allowed.

Bill Gill


C is not the speed of light in a vacuum.
C is the universal speed limit.
Bill #46685 12/11/12 11:54 PM
Joined: Mar 2006
Posts: 4,136
P
Megastar
Offline
Megastar
P
Joined: Mar 2006
Posts: 4,136

you cannot divide by zero.
you cannot divide by zero.
you cannot divide by zero.
you cannot divide by zero.
you cannot divide by zero.
you cannot divide by zero.
you cannot divide by zero.

isn't it 7 repetitions?


3/4 inch of dust build up on the moon in 4.527 billion years,LOL and QM is fantasy science.
Page 3 of 17 1 2 3 4 5 16 17

Link Copied to Clipboard
Newest Members
debbieevans, bkhj, jackk, Johnmattison, RacerGT
865 Registered Users
Sponsor

Science a GoGo's Home Page | Terms of Use | Privacy Policy | Contact UsokĀž»­¾W
Features | News | Books | Physics | Space | Climate Change | Health | Technology | Natural World

Copyright © 1998 - 2016 Science a GoGo and its licensors. All rights reserved.

Powered by UBB.threads™ PHP Forum Software 7.7.5