Frank Wilczek has done a quality article for Quanta Magazine, and when Frank writes it's always worth reading.

https://www.quantamagazine.org/20160107-arrow-of-time-axions/

Marosz: if you spam the thread just because it has the word time, I am going to ask AR2 to take action against you. You already have 50 odd threads all containing the same children drawings, which make sense to only you.

The definition of SPAMMING .. sending the same messages repeatedly on the same site.

Interesting.

Bill Gill

in order to reverse time the arrow must reverse direction.
spinning the electron in the opposite direction but the charge
itself + and - will flip as electron spin changes direction.

in order to change the electron spin without also flipping the
charge what must you do?

do you know?

can you think about our sun as being an electron in our galaxy?

what causes our suns charge to flip?

Your question Paul is with respect to what are you going to reverse it .. nominate the reference point?

You have chosen a very physical interpretation, which from your beliefs I wasn't really expecting.

You can't use space itself because you argued against Einstein

You got yourself stuck again .. same situation as having no fixed speed of light yet still believing you can have a doppler effect. You have two very incompatible things going on in your physics again.

So care to elaborate the reference or you going to hand wave again?

If you want a suggestion make direction relative to a persons conscious that is always a good way out and science can't test it.

I can't remotely understand it for two reasons.

1.) The discussion is time reversal symmetry and we have a plane wing ... what is the relevance to this thread ?????????

2.) Even if we were discussing aerodynamics and Grover Swartzlander theory it works nothing like what you have drawn.

So a normal person would create a thread with JUST THAT ONE IMAGE not all your other spam images. Then they would need to explain the idea because no sane person is going to remotely understand what you are saying as presented. It sort of comes across like you expect the light to be deflected down from the wing shape like air does creating lift ... most people would know that is wrong, so they will be totally confused.

Beyond all that whichever way you look it, your drawing doesn't belong in this thread and has nothing to do with time reversal symmetry (the topic). We do however thankyou that is was at least only one image completely off topic rather than the usual 3 pages.

Oh sorry sometimes it is hard to understand me


HOW YOU WAN TO MEASURE TIME ?

Symetry in physics ?

mass m and mass m ? how heavy is mass m ?


m>>V .........V<<m

????

m........<<<<<V




HOW HEAVY IS ELECTRON !!!
2,18 * 10^6 m/s (hydrogen )






SYMETRY ???

It's always hard when you don't communicate in the manner you are finally doing now. We don't understand your drawings at all.


Well historically it has usually been a pendulum, a vibration or a mechanical movement (a clock). There is no other option in classical physics because time is created by induction from the above time base. Now if you want to look at advanced sciences like QM there are far more fundamental ways but that is a whole other story.

For you a pendulum will do, link what you are trying to say to a pendulum movement.


What has mass got to do with time? I know you don't believe in Einstein so I can't even connect it that way.

Why so many drawings, they make no sense at all?

If you must ONE DRAWING and then WRITE to us what it shows ABOUT TIME, which is our topic.

We all know there are lots of symmetries in physics and we don't need drawings to explain that.

Anyone will tell you that we understand your english better than your drawings. I replied to each of you written comments because I can understand them. I can't talk about your drawings because they are just confused messes. You have been told that repeatedly on many many sites.

I am struggling to link anything in any of your discussions to time. Write it, do not draw it and I might actually understand you.

Out of that entire post and all your drawings all I got was Marosz recognized there are Symmetries in physics. You said that 3 words in the 3rd sentence and I understood it and it needed no drawings.

Im almost certain that Einstein was real , so I didn't argue
that he was real or unreal , I argue that his usage of optical
illusions to try and prove a theory is obviously flawed.

space is real but illusion is not real.

so if I choose to use space then I can without any reference
to some illusion that only attempts to prop up several
of Einsteins flawed theories.



that makes no sense as a Doppler effect would not require
a set speed of light , even a slow moving light through a medium would present a Doppler effect if the medium containing the slow moving light were traveling towards you or away from you.

the same applies to light traveling faster than the speed of
light.

do you see the problems that your brand of physics accompanied by theory supporting optical illusions and fake math cause in actual physics.

Orac, I'm sorry I didn't get to delete Marosz's posts sooner. I have been offline for 6 days because my computer barfed on an update and ended up costing me more than I can afford to fix. I thank you for your restraint in dealing with him. We can only hope he can be taught at some point.

Amaranth

This from a mathematical Luddite!

Given that x does not = y, are the following equations mathematically valid?

(1) x^0 = 1

(2) y^0 = 1

Given that (1) and (2) are valid, neither is reversible. Presumably this makes them time asymmetric.

Is this because information is not conserved in these actions?

Both of those statements are mathematically valid. But: The problem with your question is that you are looking at a mathematical statement, and trying to make it be a physical statement. While mathematics is used to express physical facts there are a lot of mathematical facts that don't necessarily apply to physics. I kind of hate to sound like Orac, but try to think of a physical measurement where a^0 has any meaning. Right off the top of my had I can't think of one.

Bill Gill

Not much of a mathematical Luddite let me rewrite the problem for you to make whats wrong with his answer clearer

x^0 = y^0
y^0 = x^0

Is x < y or is y < x ?????

Given x and y are representing time that is what we are checking is reversible.

Ask him to prove x is less than y from his proof which is what he has to be assuming.
To show him the problem set x = 3sec and y = 1sec. X comes before Y for him and so now time goes backwards to him

The fact he can't separate x from y is what he actually proved ... he scored an own goal

Even in the purest version of mathematics positive and negative is a convention not something that can be proved. One mans positive is another mans negative. I had ten dollars, when I give it to you I am -$10 but you are +$10 dollars. The plus/minus is totally point of view there is no absolute ... yeah relativity again.

If he is layman naive what he will do next is claim he measures time x before y so he will try to exclude your reversal of y and x

If he doesn't get it ask him to put his car in reverse and ask him to describe which way is forward and which is backwards using his maths. His forward will have all negative signs and so we can conclude forward means negative sign which wont work when actually driving forward. See the problem of using measurement to establish direction.

The connection between convention in maths and convention in physics reality is a very slippery slope even in high energy physics we have a thing called west coast and east coast convention because people took different points of view.



Measuring time X coming before Y doesn't prove that it does it just establishes a convention based on your sign choice of how you saw it unfold, and certainly doesn't prove it can't be reversed.

There is no way into the problem with mathematics he can't even prove to me -1 is greater than 1, they are both one unit from any zero. We choose in some instances that 1 is greater than -1 by definition of number set order, it is not something you can prove. It like car driving direction is simply a convention based on how we usually see things.

You may hate to sound like me but you are spot on and then you are left with the tricky problem described above prove the order x < y or y < x which you have to do to prove non reversible time.

I guess those who follow Max Tegmark and his Mathematical universe hypothesis, may try and give some physical meaning to mathematics but they are a little short on any sort of evidence. The biggest issue with it is, the same as above directions are totally arbitrary so why don't some parts of the universe run backwards and some forwards to the absolute universal mathematical zero.

There exists matter/anti matter so why no time and anti-time?

The problem that crops up is 0^0 is technically undefined it isn't really one. Nothing like a universe built on an undefined

I once asked Max to solve that problem, he sidestepped, he knows the problem his universe is built on consensus.

0^0 is still a very contentious issue in some circles in mathematics it was set to one by consensus not proof
Background: http://mathforum.org/dr.math/faq/faq.0.to.0.power.html

Consensus and lack of proof is easy when the thing you are working isn't real, which is the heart of your correct answer.

I don’t know about sounding like Orac; in pointing to the distinction between mathematical and physical truths, you have climbed onto one of my “soapboxes”.

Just to de-confuse the issue: I was referring to myself as a mathematical Luddite. Also, I was not necessarily regarding x and y as times.

The line of reasoning went like this:

If x^0 = 1 and y^0 = 1, then neither equation can be worked in reverse, because, starting with “1”, there would be no way of knowing if one should arrive at x or y.

Thus I reasoned that neither equation (nor any n^0) would work if time were reversed.

I progressed to asking myself what it was that caused this apparent time asymmetry. The answer seemed to be non-conservation of the information: did we start from x or y?

So you want to go down this path?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mathematical_universe_hypothesis

Even as events you are going to end up with X/Y as some complex function including time.

Lets throw a rock off a cliff and give you two functions one from the start and one from the end

function X = function(mt, ut + 1/2at^2);

Definitions:
m = horizontal velocity I threw rock at
u = vertical velocity I threw rock at (unlikely I got it perfectly horizontal)
a = gravity AKA 9.8 m/s/s
t = time from launch

function Y = function(-mt, -ut - 1/2at^2);

It's the car in reverse problem again see the appearance of the negative signs. Time still goes forward but your motion numbers need negatives.

Now lets write a function Z from the END TIME so time will go backwards

function Z = function(mt, ut - 1/2at^2);

Here t = time from land ... so launch time -5 seconds.
This one is a mix of signs created because the square of a negative number is positive t^2

The point here is Function X, Y & Z are all perfectly valid mathematical functions describing our observation and nothing in mathematics is going to help you work out which way time should go.


Do you see you kicked an own goal .. what you actually proved was you can't distinguish

Function X ^ 0 = Function Y ^ 0 = Function Z ^ 0 = 1


That is the problem but you haven't solved it and about now you should realize there are infact infinite functions not just X & Y.

You snubbed all the points in the middle who are demanding they are actually the start, and time runs both ways. I mean Bill S has a history and a future, you even measure them from present (10 min ago, 15 minutes from now etc)

In classical physics they bring in cause and effect. So time starts at a cause and and effect follows. Many layman get comfortable and trapped in that, the Flat Earth effect what you sense does not make it so. So we need to look at all data and make sure it isn't an illusion, yourself is the easiest person to fool ringing in our ears.

Relativity brings in the problem that one mans cause is another mans effect, two observers don't see things the same.
So we put the restriction cause must precede effect only according to inertial observers. So you will see cause before effect only on things in your inertial frame. Einstein struggled with anguish over some of this stuff and where it lead himself because he wanted to keep cause and effect.

QM introduces us the waveform and it connects the cause and effect and as per Relativity in some instances they can be in reversed time order, making the two theories at least compatible at this level. The connection between two events is the QM wave and it doesn't have an absolute direction that must come from elsewhere.

Now those new B meson experiments are the first sign of hope that we can identify microstate processes that are not time symmetrical and the compounding effect will explain the direction of time for macro objects like us.

On the contrary; I think mathematics emerges from reality (whatever that might be) via rational thinking. The universe does not emerge from mathematics, but mathematics is the best descriptive tool we have yet discovered with which we can formulate tentative descriptions of what we observe.

Im not even sure that the below IS math ...
what purpose does the comma (,) between the
mt and ut serve.

when writing a mathematical question you should give the
values of the elements involved so that your answers can
be checked , also you should give your answers so that they can be checked.




from the gibberish above that you wrote how did you get that
time is equal to -5 seconds?


Im curious about this.
what sort of math is this.
is it mainly for conversation purposes?


function X = function(mt, ut + 1/2at^2);

function X = function ( a number or a letter?)

what was your answer or should we guess?

humor me , what were your answers for
function X
function Y
function Z



if the rock landing time was -5 seconds
then the (-5) tells me that
if you begin with -5 then time will go backwards
starting from -5 seconds.

what is so hard about that , in fact every element involved
can be precisely calculated if needed to millionths or billionths of a second or pick any amount of time
increment you desire , the heat generated from the impact
as the rock impacts the earth , the amount of wind that the rock will generate , any possible element you desire to
include can be precisely calculated not just predicted.

using actual physics.

LOL
1/2at^2
1/2 gravity x time ^2

gravity x time ?

you should have said "nothing in actual mathematics because
actual mathematics involves actual math not fake math like
you are trying to push off on us"


excuse me that LOL should have read ... ROTFFLMAO

Bull's-eye! You tend to over think some of my naïve posts. My point was that if you could not distinguish between two different equations that produced the same answer, from two different starting points, you could not reverse the process. Thus, even if you could reverse time, you would have no way of knowing if 1 (your answer) was derived from x or y by raising it to the power of 0.

My next step was to reason that information had been lost.

I’ll leave it to Paul to discuss the maths, because I don’t see what the dangerous practice of throwing stones off cliffs has to do with this.

BTW, Paul, does my reasoning above make sense to you, or am I talking rubbish?

There is a very basic assumption here, and I often find myself wondering about it. The assumption is that if you reverse time, you reverse physical processes. There have been some revolting things written along those lines regarding eating and eliminating, but let’s not go there.

If reversing time involves reversing physical processes, surely this will run foul of the second law of thermodynamics. Isn’t that the kiss of death for any proposal?

Thermodynamics is a macroscopic law you can't even formally define it at the micro level. I think I have mentioned before temperature suffers the same problem there isn't actually a clean statistic called "temperature" its a macro assembly of a group of QM statistics. So the 2nd law is a consequence of not the reason for the arrow of time.

Formally it's stated like this

What the bit in red is saying you just need statistics to understand the law and it works in QM or classical. Wiki actually does a nice walk thru in all the different ways.

Go down and it takes you directly to the thing you just stated


Can you guess why it's a proposal and not accepted as the explaination .... let me write the word .... STATISTICS

You now need to create how the universe calculates and balances statistics.

Bill S

the below math isn't really used to calculate anything
its open and there is no decision yet.



its something that is more like philosophy , there are
ongoing discussions about its having validity or not.

but its not to be confused with actual in practice math.

and using my calculator

X^0 = 0
and if the X is replaced by a 1
1^0 = 1
then the same would be true
for 0^0=0

if X is not given a value and there are no other values
that can be used to find a value for X then X has no value.

so X^0=0
assigning a 1 to X Y and Z
X Y and Z must each have a value of 1 for the equation
to be correct.

Please noone say anything .... just don't

Paul what does you calculator say this answer is

X^(T^0) = ?

I should know this but I am really stuck.

Hint: Paul you just utterly broke calculus you cant even solve 3y = 3, it's stone dead like a blue Norwegian parrot. Think carefully what you just did above.

X has been given no value
T has been given no value

so X^(T^0)= 0



its already solved -->(=3)

solve for y is y = 1

3 x 1 = 3

anything else is nonsense , I don't use letters that have
no value in math unless Im writing a formula to find a value
or to determine how to find a value.
I only use letters that have known values within a formula
mainly because my math must be written into a computer
program because I mostly only use math within computer programs.

and my computer cant deliver a correct calculation
using letters that have no value.

if I use a letter I must assign a value to that letter.

and there is no calculation that I cannot correctly calculate
so the different varieties of math formulas and the ways that they are written don't mean much to me or my computer
because I can work out how the computer needs the programming
to be in order to deliver a correct precise calculation.

if you think that calculus or any of the diverse methods
used to calculate has any advantage over a computer
program then please let me know what that advantage might be.

getting back to my earlier question to you that you
answered with another question pertaining to something else...



([+or-]velocity x time , [+or-]velocity x time [+ or -] .5 gravity x time^2)

what exactly is the comma used for ... and what would you
expect the formula to calculate?

I am trying to understand your gibberish as best that I can


function X = function(mt, ut + 1/2at^2);
function Y = function(-mt, -ut - 1/2at^2);

using v = 10 mps
using t = 5 sec

mt, ut + 1/2at^2
10 x 5 , 10 x 5 + .5 x 9.8 x 5 x 5

50 , 50 + 122.5



replacing your comma with math opperator symbols.

comma as addition
[+50] + [+50] + 122.5 = +222.5


comma as addition
[-50] + [-50] - 122.5 = -222.5

comma as subtraction
[+50] - [+50] + 122.5 = +122.5


comma as subtraction
[-50] - [-50] - 122.5 = -122.5

comma as multiplication
[+50] x [+50] + 122.5 = +2,622.5 <----


comma as multiplication
[-50] x [-50] - 122.5 = +2,377.5 <----

comma as division
[+50] / [+50] + 122.5 = +123.5 <----


comma as division
[-50] / [-50] - 122.5 = -121.5 <----

which is why I asked you what the comma was used for.

again what does the comma represent?

OMG I take it you didn't do calculus at school ... the point of calculus is you don't need to know the numbers.


So now check your answer from your logic from above

So normal maths we do the thing inside the bracket first, T^0 has two possibilities according to you ... either T is zero, or T is some non zero value.

a) If T = 0 then you say T^0 = 0
b) If T = any other number T^0 = 1 is what what you said above

Ok so lets put simplify these results into the X power using the same rules

a) So T=0 hence (T^0)=0 so simplified you get X^0 = ?
b) If T is any other number T^0 =1 so simplified you get X^1 = ?

b) is easy there is only one answer X^1 = X ... so your answer is X

a) We are back to needing to know if X is zero or not
So if X = 0 then X^0 = 0
If X = any other number the X^0 = 1

So Paul mathematics breaks like this with 3 answers
b) If X & T are both non zero X^(T^0) = X
a1) If X is zero but T is non zero X^(T^0) = 0^1 = 0
a2) If X is non zero but T is zero X^(T^0) = X^0 = 1

For the rest of us we set X^0 = 1
We get only one answer X^(T^0) equals X always ... your (b) answer. We agree with your answer except for T or X equal to zero.

So whats the problem with Paul's answer ... well that is where the next bit comes in


Well you would think that but there was a little bit of information I withheld from you

Directly above it I put this line and didn't show you

Let y = 0^0

So y actually equals 0^0 I just neglected to tell you it shouldn't matter it's only a number

You say 0^0 = 0

ooops I get 3 x 0 = 3 .... mathematics says NO.

So either I can't use calculus at all with powers or 0^0=0 is wrong

Your decision to make 0^0 = 0 ... creates a massive discontinuity.
All your power maths simply stops working and that is why we can't and won't do that.

Small problems like that never stop you but for mathematicians it's a drop dead and so they rethink the problem
http://www.askamathematician.com/2010/12...chers-disagree/

Mathematician: Zero raised to the zero power is one. Why? Because mathematicians said so. No really, it’s true.

Yeah your mathematics teacher never let you in on this dark little secret at school, we sometimes have to intervene in mathematics. The bad news is there is quite a few of these little nasty secrets in mathematics we don't tell you about because it confuses your poor little layman heads.

Generally you can place them all category called RENORMALIZATION and the problem is always zero, irrrationals and infinities.

As I said this is not a one off problem there are alot of them just layman have it in there heads that maths is totally self consistent ... well it isn't.

it certainly would create a massive discontinuity within the
BS math and BS physics realm but not in any reality realm
where reality resides.

0^0=0 check it on your scientific calculator.

I did...



if you don't have the 3 to begin with then it cant equal 3
and 3 x 0 means that you don't have the 3 to begin with.

you cant multiply by zero , I bet you have a really
difficult time trying to arrive at any type of correct
answer because you cant use a actual calculator unless
someone from the BS math and BS physics realm has designed
one to complement the BS math you guys use.

sorry orac your math system is complete BS and must be the
type of logic that built the BS physics that you reside in.

let me ask you how would you calculate this one...

L * O = ?


I am intentionally leaving out important information so that
you can use calculus to arrive at a answer to my question
to you.

I already know the values for L and O but lets see if
you can predict the values.

and for the fith or sixth time what was the comma used for
in your previous gibberish?

you claim that you answer questions and if you don't answer this question I will get you banned from the forum for
telling lies.

Ok short one for this

Paul when you write the X,Y co-ordinates for a graph or of a 2D formula they look like these example

(3,4) or (5,7) or (1.345,5.6677)

2D co-ordinates are seperated by a comma (x, y)

Now what I did was write the calculus into the formula so here is the first which we called function

function X = function(mt, ut + 1/2at^2)

Ok so what this does is plots the 2D movement over time of the rock ... watch lets plug some values in

m = I threw the rock horizontally at 3ms
u = I didn't quite get it horizontal it was 2ms downwards
a = gravity = 9.8m/s
t = time from throw

So lets do 1 second intervals of t.

t=0sec ... 2D coord = (3*0, 1/2*9.8*0^2) = (0, 0)
t=1sec ... 2D coord = (3*1, 1/2*9.8*1^2) = (3, 4.9)
t=2sec ... 2D coord = (3*2, 1/2*9.8*2^2) = (6, 19.6)
t=3sec ... 2D coord = (3*3, 1/2*9.8*3^2) = (9, 44.1)
t=4sec ... 2D coord = (3*4, 1/2*9.8*4^2) = (12, 78.4)
t=5sec ... 2D coord = (3*5, 1/2*9.8*5^2) = (15, 122.5)

So that is the position of the rock in flight for any given value of time ... that is what the function maps

I also know given how I threw the rock it landed 15m out from where I threw it and the cliff is 122.5m tall.

That is sort of the point of calculus to be able to do that and why we can't let you break it by setting 0^0 = 0.

Your answer in some ways seems logical I cant fault you on that, all I can say is everything breaks.

L can be any value you like it doesn't matter and it can be a function and it can be 0^0 or anything else.

The answer to that is always zero .. its a mathematics definition.

So I am going to say ... I just made this up it doesn't matter

L = X * Y * Z + PQR - S / T

This is why you need calculus to make sense, what you just wrote is what is called indeterminate it could be any number.

If you need me to show you that my answer above multiplied by zero equals zero just say.

Can I suggest you look at this which explains why things become undefined or indeterminate.

https://www.khanacademy.org/math/algebra...d-indeterminate

Finally I would never ask for you to be banned. I am just showing you why mathematicians are forced into making certain decisions.

If you choose not to understand this stuff that is your choice but I will ignore you because things go crazy in maths if you don't fix them.

All this stuff is why I don't think mathematics is fundamental in any way it needs to many human decisions, if you like maths seems to be a construct of the human mind at least to me.

I asked you to determine the values that I intentionally
left out so you could find them.

you failed to find them.

L=15 and 0=20

so it doesn't work.

it has no value at all to me.

I cant think of or even dream up any reason why I should consider calculus as being a viable math method used to calculate anything.

LOL you didn't give me a problem that was solvable (insufficient information) and then complain I can't solve it

Yes well I can see it has no value to you because you really don't want to know .. so why don't we leave it there calculus will always be a mystery to you.

Can I ask did however Paul did you not do calculus at school? I don't know the USA school system very well sorry, most school systems I know it is mandatory.

LOL , so the rock has a final velocity of
5 mps and it has traveled 19 meters vertically when it
impacted the ground 122.5 meters downwards from
where you threw the rock.




Im beginning to understand a little more about how you
believe things the way you do.

Sigh ... Paul, where are you getting that from there is no calculation of velocity in that form

Show me where you are getting the numbers 5mps and 19mps from?

Ok here is what you are working out
https://hannibalphysics.wikispaces.com/Ch+2+Free+Fall

Let me take each movement individually maybe the penny will drop then

Lets just look at the horizontal first its dead easy. I have a horizontal velocity of launch of 3m/s. So every second it goes away from the cliff 3m. If the drop takes 5 seconds it must land 15m out from the cliff and it will still be going at 3m/s.

The x value of the calculus is that number m*t and it matches for every value.

The vertical movement is a bit trickier because the rock accelerates. Without going to elaborate detail there exists a solution called Newtons second equation of motion which gives you the distance over time. The equation removes the need to worry about calculating the intermediate velocities.

http://aphysicsteacher.blogspot.com.au/2010/02/newtons-second-law-of-motion.html

S = ut + 1/2at2

That is what the y coordinate is.

I am totally lost where you are getting velocities from the function doesn't calculate them its calculating distances.

I have hidden a lot of maths including the velocities behind the background which is why you use calculus.

Added: Here the blue ball plot is what we are making the 2D coords (x,y)for each time


Do you get it now the horizontal and vertical need different equations.

He may not have had calculus in high school. I know I didn't. The highest math that was offered was solid geometry. All the 'higher level' math we had was geometry, algebra, trigonometry, and solid geometry. They were all electives. This was a while back and I'm not sure when they added more advanced mathematics. I know they do study things in grade school that we considered to be college level.

Bill Gill

Im taking the velocity from what you originally posted



also , you did use velocity in your post...




and all your doing is multiplying the 3mps times the seconds.

and this would give you the 15 meters distance when the
rock hit the ground but only if the rock fell for exactly 5
seconds...

how far vertically would the rock fall in 5 seconds?

how long would it take for the rock to fall 122.5 meters?

ahemmm ...

another previous point that you pointed out just now.



hmmm... then how does 3*0=0 in your calculation below
if ooops I get 3 x 0 = 3



3*0=0 I agree.

is this the part where we ask the dungeon master to
roll the loaded dice?

because my answers are consistent and your answers fluctuate.

as needed.

Perhaps a better question would be: How much of the information in this thread is worth conserving?

Then again, one could ask: Is this sort of "contest" science, mathematics or urology?

Far be it from me to comment on something I don't understand, but as I have mentioned before, I'm a little suspicious of some of the things from this site that I do understand (sort of).


http://www.askamathematician.com/2011/07/q-does-light-experience-time/#comments

It has sort of got to that hasn't it and leave the layman alone in what they believe.

So I guess for Paul he has got issues with Newton. Reading the old work Newton sets 0^0=1 and there are interesting exchanges with Leibniz, Berkeley and Mach over doing it which they call the "nearness" problem (things getting close to zero). He had to do it because of the square root but the other mathematicians of the time are not sure about him doing it. It's actually quite funny watching them work thru the argument.

Perhaps we just let him have his 0^0=0 and say Newton was wrong it really doesn't matter to us.

Yes but you understand things now

His answer is sort of right if you are talking to layman, it just won't hold up if you use modern science which isn't a surprise. You created the problem by introducing GR which hardly a layman topic you are a very bad boy. Think about it if you were talking to Paul he would say that is all fantasy and you are back to the answer he gave.

Ask a builder to measure the 3m pole. When he tells you 3m, tell him no you can't determine the length because of uncertainty principle and see what he says to you ... hey you are right but his reaction will be funny

You are never going to convince him in that argument because he has a tape measure and he can see it. In the end you will do what we all do let the dumb smuck go off believing whatever he wants. The more you understand the more times you just have to walk off shaking your head .. trust me

Why do you think I rarely insist on answers I just ask questions

Our answer 0^0=1 definitely isn't right either, its just nice, if we go at it with more modern mathematics ... there is a lovely new branch of mathematics called discrete calculus. Yeah we can deal with the massive problem setting 0^0=0 creates and give Paul his way but it isn't pretty and bags not teaching it to school children.

I said at the onset the technical answer is it is undefined but for layman mathematics which includes calculus it to HAS TO BE SET TO ONE and the site correctly stated that and he did say why .. because a mathematician said so, I liked his humour.

I prefer that you guys that think that way keep using
your fake math myself.

so don't trouble yourself with giving me my way besides
you cant use fake math to create anything just because
you do it your way.

so you should go back to the problem you worked out
and replace the 3*0=0 with 3*0=3 because that is
how you think things should be.

and I really don't want to change how you think nor do I care how you think things should be because the physical world doesn't care either.

so you and yours will always be wrong to me if math is involved

that will never change as long as the math never changes.

and btw have you guys invented another set of math
operators lately that replaces actual addition , subtraction , division and multiplication because it sounds like you may have , I would expect that from you guys before long if you haven't yet.

because that would be the only way that your math will ever be
correct.

also:

the rock did not travel vertically 122.5 meters
in 5 seconds.

the rock did not travel horizontally 15 meters from where
you threw it either.

so you were wrong both times above , the entire set of
calculations you posted are invalid as important elements were
left out.

but you using your math you can leave important things out because in your realm exactness is not necessary a close proximity is all that is required of you or your math or your
fantasy realm.

but Im not going to tell you the answer Im going to let
the dumber than dirt smuck go off believing whatever he wants

Paul I really don't mind what you think so please at least have the courtesy to not misquote or misrepresent me.

I understand you, beg to differ how this all works but at the end of the day mathematicians want to pull rank on both us. It is their field and I am not positioned to argue.


Touche so lets leave it at that it isn't worth getting upset over. We will never agree but I do get that you think all mathematics and science is fake.

That said, do you really need to post a full diatribe of that in every response to me ... I understood it the first thousand times you posted it. It's just becoming like spam now. Feel free to express a different view but just leave out the maths and science is evil/bad sob sob stuff. I have put it on my tagline to save you the effort.

I don't need the motive for your argument just what your view and argument is, like everything it comes down to how you want to look at things. So argue certainly but we don't need to know what you think of science/maths repeatedly.

I have no idea what you would do with the next calculation
t=1 because you wrote that 3*1=3 !!! logic tells me that
you would use 3*1=6 etc etc etc but logic doesn't seem to
be in play or a part of your math belief.



non layman explanation of your actions ...

what your doing is your complaining about the red paint
on your barn while standing on the ladder dipping your
paint brush into a can of red paint and painting your
barn red.

layman explanation of your actions ...

your lying.

when do you lie , it depends on when and where you need to lie.

you say that 3*0=3 then a couple of post further down
when you actually need to calculate 3*0 you say 3*0=0
because you know that 3*0=0 and that's the bottom line.

you promote and advertise false math to suit your
selfish needs and you don't care what troubles that
false math will cause to others that read this forum
possibly even others that come in close proximity to
some device that was designed using the false math.



wrong again , I don't think that actual math is
fake only the fake designer math that is used.

and actual science itself is not fake either , but when
fakery is brought into science then that fake part of
science is fake.

that is why I have given science two labels

actual or real science
and
fake or BS science

its not that I think it is fake either it is that I know the designer math is fake , its 100% positive fakery.

if you truly believed that 3*0=3 then why didn't you apply your
heart felt belief into your math.

your action of not applying that belief and using actual
math when you wrote 3*0=0 proves that your belief is complete BS and that you don't even believe it.

there are no instances where 3*0=3

What idiot introduced the idea of power of zero?
Oh wait, I did. Ah well, we all make mistakes. :P
Could be time for a change of topic.
What else can I stir up?

No No Not an idiot by any means Bill S.

besides you have more opposing biased input on the idea of
power of zero and hopefully you can dismiss its validity.

I kind of picture you sitting there in your drawing room
beside a toasty oversized stone fireplace with you beagle hounds by your side drinking chamomile tea and pondering
well what can I stir up now that this has gotten on with.

conserved yes , cautious yes , idiot no way.

lies don't suck up to him .. he is just a naughty boy .. you ask him

Noone expects the Spanish Inquistion.

Bill S, Come back and get what's coming to you! I'll bite your legs off!

Can we discuss my Brontosaurus theory as people are trying to take the credit for it. Brontosauruses are thin at one end, much much thicker in the middle and then thin again at the far end. That is my theory, it is mine and belongs to me, and I own it.