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 (), 74 guests, and 1 robot.
Key: Admin, Global Mod, Mod
Latest Posts
Top Posters(30 Days)
Previous Thread
Next Thread
Print Thread
Page 5 of 6 1 2 3 4 5 6
Joined: Dec 2010
Posts: 1,858
B
Megastar
Offline
Megastar
B
Joined: Dec 2010
Posts: 1,858
This is a sort of a confession of error. Up above I explained how I justified adding a scalar to a vector. Thinking about it some more I have now realized that in fact there is no sure justification for that concept. The a vector scalar multiplication is actually the process of adding a vector to itself. That clearly implies that it is the same vector each time, including the direction. However, there is no such clear implication for adding a scalar to a vector.

However, I can somewhat justify my belief that adding a scalar to a vector by extending the magnitude of the vector by the amount of the addend is reasonable. My idea can be demonstrated with the following example.

Suppose I am traveling at 10 mph to the NE. This is a vector since it has both a magnitude and a direction. I am told to add 2 miles to my speed. I will then increase my speed to 12 mph and will continue to travel NE. In this case the command to increase my speed did not have a stated direction, so it is a scalar. But in this case there is no reason to assume that I should make a change of direction. Therefore for all practical purposes the command to add a scalar to a vector will be naturally interpreted as a command to add the scalar to the magnitude of the vector.

A mathematician might object to this but if I am working on almost anything I can think of I will just go ahead and do scalar addition unless there is some good reason not to.

Bill Gill


C is not the speed of light in a vacuum.
C is the universal speed limit.
.
Joined: May 2011
Posts: 2,819
O
Megastar
Offline
Megastar
O
Joined: May 2011
Posts: 2,819
Finally something I totally agree with.

Yes I understood your logic and agree it is one of many possible answers and it was the one that made sense to you. You were never wrong but you were never explicitly right either.

However as you have obviously now worked out the parameters or definition of the problem you are trying to solve (what we call the maths argument) generally will actually define which of the infinite answers is the one singled out and generally you can not pre-judge it like you did.

As an example if I was plotting a diagonal line thru the complex numbers the next "count" should be the next point 1 unit away on the line and it will be one of two, one you consider forward one you would call backwards. How you decide the direction is also usually defined by the maths argument.

It's actually a very important concept to grasp that the full grid of complex numbers may never if ever be valid answer or inputs.

When I worked out you were treating EVERY complex number as a valid solution it wasn't hard to frame a question where it gave really stupid results to try to get you to see the issue.

That is why we call that complex grid you did your vector maths on a "solution space". There is no guarantee your solution space answer is valid until you map it back thru the maths argument and generally what you hope happens is only one of the answers in the solution space is valid to the argument.

Now you have got that concept sorted and you even understood what a reimann sphere does you can see things a lot clearer. I actually think even with all the antagonism you are at least thinking and seeing the logic and problems clearly.

Now a new caution you are bringing in standard vector maths as a solution to all complex maths. Look at the surface of a reimann sphere it curves in 3D so your vectors curve in 3D and hence you usually switch to polar maths. I am sure you will understand this now.

This all feeds back to my original question to Bill S which is what solution spaces/number system should we be using. Now armed with your clearer understanding you should see the shape of space may ultimately be very important to this question.

I don't have an answer and never did just interesting things to discuss.

Last edited by Orac; 12/06/14 02:15 PM.

I believe in "Evil, Bad, Ungodly fantasy science and maths", so I am undoubtedly wrong to you.
Joined: Dec 2010
Posts: 1,858
B
Megastar
Offline
Megastar
B
Joined: Dec 2010
Posts: 1,858
Originally Posted By: Orac
As an example if I was plotting a diagonal line thru the complex numbers the next "count" should be the next point 1 unit away on the line and it will be one of two, one you consider forward one you would call backwards. How you decide the direction is also usually defined by the maths argument.

But I wasn't working in 'counts' I was working in numbers. for simplicity I chose +1 as the number, but it could have been any number. If I had chosen 9.731*10^43 it would not have been very clear what I was saying.

I also understand that many problems have to be worked out in non-Euclidean spaces. At that point the mathematics becomes much more complex. But the problem you gave me was not a non-Euclidean problem. It was on a Euclidean plane. Therefore I took the most straightforward interpretation. If there was more information required to solve the problem than what you gave then it is your job to provide that information. Otherwise it is not a problem for me if you don't get any answer you like.

By the way, while I see that in Riemann space there is a way to work with infinity it doesn't really seem to me that infinity is a number.

Once again the big problem is that you make elliptical statements, but expect the readers to understand just what you are saying. That is not going to happen unless you start making clear concise statements. If you are trying to teach us something you need to study up on your teaching skills. Your method is an abysmal failure.

Bill Gill

Last edited by Bill; 12/06/14 06:06 PM.

C is not the speed of light in a vacuum.
C is the universal speed limit.
Joined: May 2011
Posts: 2,819
O
Megastar
Offline
Megastar
O
Joined: May 2011
Posts: 2,819
Originally Posted By: Bill
But I wasn't working in 'counts' I was working in numbers. for simplicity I chose +1 as the number, but it could have been any number. If I had chosen 9.731*10^43 it would not have been very clear what I was saying.


On the complex number system it is rare to work at a scale 1:1 it would usually only be trivial examples you would do that for. For example you may be working in feet or meters or some unit etc.


Originally Posted By: Bill
By the way, while I see that in Riemann space there is a way to work with infinity it doesn't really seem to me that infinity is a number.


It depends how you define "number". Infinity in a reiman you can do every normal normal operation like add, subtract etc because it's a distinct point. I can ask for all the point "X" distance from infinity for example and you get a circular ring of coords.

Whether you consider it a "number" is entirely how you want to define "number" I have no way to answer that as there is no standard or authority I can refer.


Originally Posted By: Bill
Once again the big problem is that you make elliptical statements, but expect the readers to understand just what you are saying. That is not going to happen unless you start making clear concise statements. If you are trying to teach us something you need to study up on your teaching skills. Your method is an abysmal failure.


If I try an teach you guys anything then I get abused (look at Redes comments for example). All I can really do is try and provoke you to look carefully at your answers by questioning what you say and provide hints for you to think about.


I believe in "Evil, Bad, Ungodly fantasy science and maths", so I am undoubtedly wrong to you.
Joined: May 2011
Posts: 2,819
O
Megastar
Offline
Megastar
O
Joined: May 2011
Posts: 2,819
This might test you but see what you make of it Bill, someone else knows my game I was playing.




Last edited by Orac; 12/07/14 03:13 PM.

I believe in "Evil, Bad, Ungodly fantasy science and maths", so I am undoubtedly wrong to you.
Joined: Aug 2010
Posts: 3,570
B
Bill S. Offline OP
Megastar
OP Offline
Megastar
B
Joined: Aug 2010
Posts: 3,570
Originally Posted By: Orac
...someone else knows my game I was playing.


Playing (mathematical) games with infinity is probably all that one can do, except, for asking, and possibly answering, the only really meaningful question about infinity: "Is it possible that no infinite entity exists?"


There never was nothing.
Joined: Dec 2010
Posts: 1,858
B
Megastar
Offline
Megastar
B
Joined: Dec 2010
Posts: 1,858
Originally Posted By: Bill S.
Playing (mathematical) games with infinity is probably all that one can do, except, for asking, and possibly answering, the only really meaningful question about infinity: "Is it possible that no infinite entity exists?"

In my opinion it is possible that nothing is infinite. There I got both nothing and infinity into one sentence. However, at the present time, there is no answer as to whether or not there is anything that is infinite. There may never be an answer.

Bill Gill


C is not the speed of light in a vacuum.
C is the universal speed limit.
Joined: May 2011
Posts: 2,819
O
Megastar
Offline
Megastar
O
Joined: May 2011
Posts: 2,819
The universe may collapse tomorrow do you worry about that Bill S?

I agree with Bill G it's a meaningless question it can't be tested anytime soon, so it's a futile waste of time to worry about it.

Those who like the question you can play games with because there are no solid ways to test the idea smile

Last edited by Orac; 12/08/14 04:01 PM.

I believe in "Evil, Bad, Ungodly fantasy science and maths", so I am undoubtedly wrong to you.
Joined: Aug 2010
Posts: 3,570
B
Bill S. Offline OP
Megastar
OP Offline
Megastar
B
Joined: Aug 2010
Posts: 3,570
Originally Posted By: Orac
The universe may collapse tomorrow do you worry about that Bill S?

I agree with Bill G it's a meaningless question it can't be tested anytime soon, so it's a futile waste of time to worry about it.


Worrying is not something I do, as a rule.

Until someone can explain how something can spontaneously emerge from nothing, I think there is a very strong argument for maintaining that something has always existed.

If something has always existed it is, by definition, eternal. Eternity is a concept of infinity. Ergo, something is infinite, or we would not be here to raise questions, meaningless or otherwise.


There never was nothing.
Joined: Aug 2010
Posts: 3,570
B
Bill S. Offline OP
Megastar
OP Offline
Megastar
B
Joined: Aug 2010
Posts: 3,570
Those who looked at TNS will have seen this comment by “Ethos”.

“There are those that will contend that nothing lies outside our present universe. In fact, they will suggest that there simply is no outside at all. If that's the case, and our universe is finite in both size and age, it came to being within an region that did not formerly exist. And that logic simply does not make any sense at all. If that region didn't exist, nothing could arise within it.”

I think it is an interesting point.


There never was nothing.
Joined: May 2011
Posts: 2,819
O
Megastar
Offline
Megastar
O
Joined: May 2011
Posts: 2,819
Originally Posted By: Bill S.
Until someone can explain how something can spontaneously emerge from nothing, I think there is a very strong argument for maintaining that something has always existed.

I love the logic says there has always been something so very layman smile

That answer is no more likely than the reverse and you simply have no data to make a judgement. You live in one tiny little backwater of space and only have your tiny insignificant experience of the universe and you want us to rely on your view.

Science history has taught you very little and I guess the Earth is Flat, it is the centre of the universe and the sun rotates about the earth because that is how it appeared to some very limited human experience people for long periods of time in history. We have a name for those believers as well smile

Originally Posted By: Bill S.
If something has always existed it is, by definition, eternal. Eternity is a concept of infinity. Ergo, something is infinite, or we would not be here to raise questions, meaningless or otherwise.

That is a lovely religion and it is even at odds with most other religions which have the universe created by a god. So all the scientists and other religions need to convert is that the process?

Do your cult followers knock on doors on weekend to convert the unwashed masses? smile

As this has moved into the religious domain I will definitely leave you to it.

Last edited by Orac; 12/09/14 01:05 AM.

I believe in "Evil, Bad, Ungodly fantasy science and maths", so I am undoubtedly wrong to you.
Joined: Aug 2010
Posts: 3,570
B
Bill S. Offline OP
Megastar
OP Offline
Megastar
B
Joined: Aug 2010
Posts: 3,570
Originally Posted By: Orac
I love the logic says there has always been something so very layman


So you know how something could emerge from nothing, but are not going to pass that esoteric information to a layman? More pedestalism. laugh

Quote:
Do your cult followers knock on doors on weekend to convert the unwashed masses?


Thanks Orac. If the best response you can muster is "schoolyard" ridicule and judgmental jibes about the "masses", then I guess I have a valid point - somewhere.


Quote:
....I will definitely leave you to it.


May be wise to stick to questions you can answer. :P


There never was nothing.
Joined: Aug 2007
Posts: 84
P
Member
Offline
Member
P
Joined: Aug 2007
Posts: 84
“Until someone can explain how something can spontaneously emerge from nothing, I think there is a very strong argument for maintaining that something has always existed.”

BS… (that stands for Bill S). I’d agree with that.

I know it's not proven at present but sometimes one has to think “outside the box” (even if the box can’t exist in nothingness because the sides of it would touch each other).

I also really liked your quote; “This is one of the fascinating things about science; scientists seem to be able to claim that the "inertial energy which is already there" is nothing, yet maintain that it can give rise to something.”

Joined: Aug 2010
Posts: 3,570
B
Bill S. Offline OP
Megastar
OP Offline
Megastar
B
Joined: Aug 2010
Posts: 3,570
Originally Posted By: Pokey
BS… (that stands for Bill S).


Tell that to Orac!!!! laugh


There never was nothing.
Joined: May 2011
Posts: 2,819
O
Megastar
Offline
Megastar
O
Joined: May 2011
Posts: 2,819
Originally Posted By: Bill S.
So you know how something could emerge from nothing, but are not going to pass that esoteric information to a layman? More pedestalism. laugh

Nope but nor do I know of anything that exists or has existed forever. Have you thought that your answer is every bit as unlikely and tell me what you know that has lasted for forever smile

Only a Layman would prefer one answer over the reverse laugh

Originally Posted By: Bill S.
Thanks Orac. If the best response you can muster is "schoolyard" ridicule and judgmental jibes about the "masses", then I guess I have a valid point - somewhere.
Then perhaps stop asking school yard children stupid questions, that are as unintelligent as they are purile if you want to be treated intelligently smile

Originally Posted By: Bill S.
May be wise to stick to questions you can answer. :P
No-one can answer the question it is logically inconsistent, look it up.

Last edited by Orac; 12/10/14 01:01 PM.

I believe in "Evil, Bad, Ungodly fantasy science and maths", so I am undoubtedly wrong to you.
Joined: May 2011
Posts: 2,819
O
Megastar
Offline
Megastar
O
Joined: May 2011
Posts: 2,819
Originally Posted By: pokey
“Until someone can explain how something can spontaneously emerge from nothing, I think there is a very strong argument for maintaining that something has always existed.”

So you have seen something that lasts forever and has no start point but always just been there have you Pokeysmile

Dare I ask what came before the eternal something, Pokey laugh

Surely Pokey you see the problem both answers are logically flawed and neither is more likely than the alternative. When you get these sorts of problems as a scientist it usually means there is issues with the question.

I will show you the school yard classic version which goes like this.
Originally Posted By: ye old schoolyard
Q. Can GOD do anything?
A. Yes
Q. Can GOD make a rock so heavy he can't lift it?

Answer1. No
Punchline: Then there is no GOD because you said GOD could do anything and he can't make the rock.

Answer2. Yes
Punchline: Then there is no GOD because you said GOD could do anything and he can't lift the rock.

Hopefully you as an adult worked out the joke rolls around the definition of "anything". Layman take that in a very literal sense but "anything" if you apply science would exclude things that are forbidden by logic and we give this a name called Consistency (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Consistency).

Hopefully you progress out of the school yard jokes and see the word game for what it is smile

A question that both answers are logically flawed has a problem with the question not the answer and that is the memo.

Last edited by Orac; 12/10/14 12:50 PM.

I believe in "Evil, Bad, Ungodly fantasy science and maths", so I am undoubtedly wrong to you.
Joined: Aug 2010
Posts: 3,570
B
Bill S. Offline OP
Megastar
OP Offline
Megastar
B
Joined: Aug 2010
Posts: 3,570
Originally Posted By: Orac
….but nor do I know of anything that exists or has existed forever. Have you thought that your answer is every bit as unlikely and tell me what you know that has lasted for forever.


The absurdity of that reasoning (if it can be graced with that epithet) can be demonstrated by asking the related question: Do you know of something that has emerged from nothing? You use the word “unlikely”, yet you insist on scientific rigour. Be consistent.


There never was nothing.
Joined: May 2011
Posts: 2,819
O
Megastar
Offline
Megastar
O
Joined: May 2011
Posts: 2,819
Again I don't know anything that has emerged from nothing nor do I know anything that can or has existed for ever.

Both answers are unlikely, impossible, stupid, crazy, absurd, nutty and any other description you care to use. It's telling you the logic in the question is flawed and inconsistent smile

For some reason you prefer the answer of the "always been here universe" which is just as stupid as the reverse and has exactly the same data to back it up.

I would ask you what came before the eternal universe because your crazy layman logic demands that we have a start point smile

Most religions put GOD as the start point so what are you going to put there for the start of the great eternal universe Bill S?

It's not hard to understand the question is the problem and thousands of versions of these flawed logical questions exist would you like me to give you some? The chicken and egg problem is probably the most widely known which is probably only resolvable to those who don't accept evolution.

Last edited by Orac; 12/11/14 02:54 AM.

I believe in "Evil, Bad, Ungodly fantasy science and maths", so I am undoubtedly wrong to you.
Joined: Dec 2010
Posts: 1,858
B
Megastar
Offline
Megastar
B
Joined: Dec 2010
Posts: 1,858
Originally Posted By: Orac
Again I don't know anything that has emerged from nothing nor do I know anything that can or has existed for ever.

Both answers are unlikely, impossible, stupid, crazy, absurd, nutty and any other description you care to use. It's telling you the logic in the question is flawed and inconsistent


Both something coming from nothing and nothing existing forever are crazy stupid ideas. That means that the universe didn't come from nothing, and that there was never anything for it to come from. Doesn't that seem like a rather questionable statement? You have just excluded both of the possible answers. Unless you have a third answer you have just created a total impossibility and we aren't here.

Sometimes I kind of think that Orac may actually know something, but after a while it begins to look like he isn't really interested in conducting a conversation. He is just interested in stirring the pot.

Bill Gill


C is not the speed of light in a vacuum.
C is the universal speed limit.
Joined: May 2011
Posts: 2,819
O
Megastar
Offline
Megastar
O
Joined: May 2011
Posts: 2,819
You get stupid answers because the question is invalid look at the chicken and egg problem and using your layman stupidity chickens can't exist either. Great logic from above answer Bill S smile

THE QUESTION IS INVALID IS THE ANSWER AND OPTION 3!!!!!

Your definitions are far to loose to provide a consistent framework to answer. That is what all these stupid questions work on and only fools don't see the issue.

Even the religious layman get the problem ... here try
http://www.gotquestions.org/God-rock-heavy-lift.html
http://carm.org/questions/about-god/can-god-make-rock-so-big-he-cant-pick-it

That by the way is the correct answer science would say to that religious question, that is the question is logically flawed.

So no you can't prove GOD doesn't exist using the same schoolyard stupidity either.

If you try and resolve the chicken and egg problem under science you get much the same issue with your question
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chicken_or_the_egg
Originally Posted By: science argument
Even if such a threshold could be defined, an observer would be unlikely to identify that the threshold had been crossed until the first chicken had been hatched and hence the first chicken egg could not be identified as such.
That is the question can not intelligently be answered.

Last edited by Orac; 12/11/14 03:16 AM.

I believe in "Evil, Bad, Ungodly fantasy science and maths", so I am undoubtedly wrong to you.
Page 5 of 6 1 2 3 4 5 6

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