MWresearch

Anyway, according to our models, there are a finite amount of objects in any finite space. Since we cannot measure outside of the hubble volume, our measurements of the universe are confined to finite space. I don't think we've ever encountered anything that we've "measured" as infinite. By it's very nature, it is impossible to count to infinity.

Thank you for your continuing contributions, Acme.

I provided an answer multiple times, you simply have to read the recent posts that contain it.

Regardless of semantics, it is a fact that people have measured finite amounts of objects. Whether or not you want the parameters of measurement to encompass the whole universe is arbitrary. If you want you can say all measurements are an illusion, but then you would have no basis to say all measurements are an illusion.

I don't know what you fascination is with denial, I gave you a clear answer more than once that you are purposely disregarding and to be frank you may be violating the forum rules by acting as such. Whether you like it or not, the answer I supplied fits the parameters of the question and it has been answered. It doesn't matter if it's not an answer you do not like, it does not matter if certain random people have alternative motives, it is still an answer. As I already pointed, I took too much liberty in assuming too many people would understand the concept of the list by means of sociability. As I also said, the list will be modified to reflect a more strict categorical organization in the future. Well, with the same parameters that apply to the materials and phenomena, the standard is any adjective that can physically describe those materials or phenomena.

Assuming that you do not regard all of humanity's knowledge as an illusion, it in fact is not, because we can measure amounts from empirical observation. A physical amount is different than a concept of a symbol. Well, if you don't have eyes then I suppose it is more difficult to see. Regardless of whatever you may think, we empirically measure amounts of objects. To say otherwise would be to discard all knowledge that exists in humanity. Objects that are real occupy nonzero quantities of dimensional space. If an object does not exist, it will not have any dimensional coordinates or capacity for empirical measurement. Take this apple I'm holding. It has 0 length, 0 width and 0 height, and no one can observe it, not even me. As a scientist, would you tell me that apple exists?

It is not a matter if philosophy if you consider our label of numbers to be different than the inherent values themselves. Obviously, there are finite amounts of real objects.

Well, if real numbers or values exist, mustn't imaginary values as well? Like I said, they appear everywhere in nature, yet they are no where to be found with our eyes.

These questions have already been answered. If you have further misunderstanding, I suggest looking up the words "breanstorm," "save," "organize" and "time."

What is it about the number e? Why does e come up in so many core aspects of nature?

No imaginary time makes sense in terms of treating imaginary numbers as this extra dimension and it is used in line-integrals to define probabilistic paths of particles, like if there's extra actions that happen in each particular moment in time to allow particles to move as they do. But still, treating this one special square root of negative one as its own entire dimension just be multiplying it by different real numbers, like 1i, 2i, 3i, 4i just seems like too much for one number to account for, and we can't even see it. But with that physical situation, I'm confused as to when you say there is no solution. Is there not an imaginary solution? On which coordinate in time is that imaginary dimension perpendicular too? Can I say at y=0, there's some imaginary time where the ball was at 4 meters? How would I go about making sense of the solution i? It seems imaginary numbers encompass all of nature, they must be around somewhere... It kind of seems like wolfram is saying that at an imaginary perpendicular axis in time where t is t=+/- i when real time = 0. A lot functions also make sense when you overlap their complex and real components, like the symmetry of the logarithm function that you'd expect from being the integral of 1/x, except with an addition +pi or the symmetry of the square root function

Except I did not call the list vague, I said there are some items on the list which may be vague. There is a difference between "all" and "some." As I said, there are items which may be vague or blatantly obvious but still fit the parameters, so I put them on.

When I look up brainstorm in the dictionary I do not find "pointless list of arbitrary things." Sorry, you are incorrect.

This is what I mean with the physical problem http://www.wolframalpha.com/input/?i=solve+-x%5E2%2B3%3D4+for+x

Which I already answered, in the simplest and foremost response, it is a pre-made brainstorm. As far as I know, there is no need for further specification. Perhaps in your clearly superior being as an empress of everything, there is some extra dimension of the information in the question which I cannot see.

The question has been answered, you only won't publicly acknowledge it. Like I said, with rules that I hold even myself to, I must put items on the list that fit the parameters, even if they are vague or blatantly obvious. But, since something like fire is so exceedingly well-known, it shouldn't be difficult to overlook.

With any amount of purpose, I simply have to put items on the list that fit the parameters, even if they are vague, nothing wrong with that an nothing I can do without adding more vagueness and unnecessary exceptions in the parameters. I can simply categorize different items as I already mentioned. Based on my response to John, I am in fact interested in substances that specialized scientists come up with, but only as much as any other person's response, they must follow the parameters the same as everyone else. It is simply the case that they may be less likely to contribute as much as other members because their dedication to a specific area of science must come at the cost of learning other things, like modern culture, which, seems to have been established as a problem for some. I also cannot logically agree that most items would not be useful to a variety of scientists. Obviously, fire has its uses, glass has its uses, rocks have their uses, plasma has its uses, electricity has its uses, energy has its uses, superfluid, different oils, water, wood and many other items have their uses. You also only work on a specific type of chemistry currently, likely for only a specific company for an extended period of time. It is in no way logical for you to assume you represent all chemists. Simply put, this list is meant to act as a pre-made brainstorm, saving people time and organizing items in one place if they want a list of more commonly known substances and phenomena and possibly exposing people to new substances and phenomena they somehow never heard of, allowing them to learn if they choose to research further.

Hmm, I think I see where the ambiguity lies. If the imaginary component is bigger than that of another, but the real component is smaller than that of the same other, you cannot determine which is fundamentally greater? That seems to imply imaginary numbers have no precedence over real numbers, its as if they were never related to real numbers at all, completely independent like its own dimension which I guess explains the orthogonality. For practical purposes, lets say I'm dropping a bowling ball from a height of 3 meters, but I solve for 4 meters of a downward parabola with a maximum. Where is that imaginary solution in physical reality? Where is that extra imaginary dimension I'm not seeing?

Thank you for those. It appears the crust is more or less always stable except for specific events where it must adjust due to the loss of angular momentum.

No I really can't because you seem to be purposely ignoring the substances that such a calculation pertains to for some irrational reason. Well that's the shame, some other site will eventually, possibly not geared towards science and they will seep traffic from what would have otherwise helped this site and expose more people to in-depth science. But, I can see that diversifying and collaborating on something that clearly both layman and scientists can contribute to and discuss would be too progressive of you, too much in the interest of others and would deflect attention away from your superiority over all other beings as the empress of everything, clearly refraining is the better move for the site. Also one I can add.

The negative number is what's going the opposite direction, not the output of the square root function over the negative portion of the domain.

Then let's start with 0. What is i compared to 0i? i seems to possess some nonzero distance from the origin, doesn't it have to be greater than or less than 0i? Perhaps it is just that i isn't comparable to real numbers, and thus complex numbers containing both a real and imaginary component are inherently incomparable, but that doesn't answer why imaginary numbers aren't comparable in the first place. So you have the square root of a negative number that's going in the opposite direction of the positive direction on a number line, big deal, why should that create all this anti-symmetry and contradictions of logic? It's like i is its own universe somehow. If you graph sqrt(x) the imaginary range in the negative domain still makes some physical sense, it still functions as some base unit you need to multiply by itself to achieve that specific length, which, is symmetrical to the principal roots when you overlap the plots of the function in both the real and complex plane. For some reason, these lengths transfer to a different kind of number line.

I see more clearly where the infinite numbers are coming from, since imaginary numbers in a way act like their own dimension that also acts to treat fundamental operations differently, whereas just real numbers on a number line would not create a circle of possibilities. Is there any manner of expressing that one complex number is greater than or less than another at all?

When you say relativity, do you secretly mean special relativity and general relativity, where time dilation and length contraction are important factors? Or are you referring to the very act of taking on a different point of view?