Jump to content


Senior Members
  • Posts

  • Joined

  • Last visited

Posts posted by 1x0

  1. 30 minutes ago, koti said:

    C^2 in an equation is not equivalent to the velocity of twice the speed of light in reality. Objects which have mass cannot travel above or at the speed of light. Mathematics is just a tool which helps us to describe whats going on around us.

    This I understand. 

    What c2 exactly refers to in the equation? 

    As far as I am able to sense, it says Energy = Mass in SpaceTime

    I know it is crazy....and I also think that while space can be volume, time can be just information. Still physical....


  2. On 2018. 02. 10. at 1:14 AM, Gees said:

    If I understand your ideas correctly, you are flexing between the ideas that space/time originated from nothing, or it originated from information. This is why you are trying to find physical attributes in information, so you can understand how it became energy and matter. Yes?


    On 2018. 02. 10. at 1:14 AM, Gees said:

    I have problems with theories that state everything is predetermined.

    We have the freedom of the mind.

    On 2018. 02. 10. at 1:14 AM, Gees said:

    many people think that it is Nothing.

    Determine please what you mean by Nothing?

    On 2018. 02. 08. at 11:47 AM, swansont said:

    Energy does not have mass. Matter has mass, and mass is a form of energy.


    This basically says matter is transformed energy. What transformed energy? Space and Time

    Thought experiment:

    Could the initial velocity of empty space-time be c2 at the beginning and why would the limitation apply(i.e why it is not infinite)? Energy, mass, and matter appear


  3. I think you should see the title of the topic in speculations and recognize why he has been placing the question at first hand. 

    I hope your profound answers on the raised topic will really help him to trust from now on, the clarity of mathematics.


    Koti, you could define what 0 means in a mathematical result. Please on a way that me and my other 7 billion undereducated fellow earthlings with limited mental capabilities understand that too. (i.e you connect your explanation to the physical reality)

    7 minutes ago, Strange said:

    That is addition, not multiplication.

    Multiplication is basically repeated addition. 

  5. Since this thread is already derailed by you into the realm of nonsense, why don’t you give us a mathematical proof of what you state in your paper: 1*0=1.

    I have an apple. I multiply it with nothing (i.e i did not add anything to it) I still have an apple. 

  6. 1 minute ago, Strange said:

    I assume you failed. Otherwise business schools have even less value than I suspect.

    don't derail the thread Strange. Do not be a bully. Respect the different pace and methods of learning and different interests of the individuals.

  7. 2 minutes ago, billasker said:

    By saying nothing I mean that the scale of my knowledge is minimal.

    27 minutes ago, 1x0 said:

    I know. That is why I say it is not nothing. 

    3 minutes ago, billasker said:

    Thank you,it is nice to know that I share this opinion with someone else.As for trying to find mathematical references points I struggle as much as you do(I'm assuming it since you mentioned you raised questions like mine).This is why I think maths are wrong-to a point.This might just be a perfunctory conclusion that I created but even though maths are tools that other aspects of science use,but they do not appear(to me at least) to have any sort of connection to reality.

    They have connections to reality and most of the axiomatizations are true but some fundamental determination for some reason seems to be blur which from my perspective causing confusion. 

  8. 2 minutes ago, koti said:

    As for being here to learn and just chatting around its all good. You don’t get to feed people nonsense like your 1*0=1 or undefined expression like 1/0 on a science site though.

    I play with the idea and raise questions I recognize from this anomaly that there is some problem with our calculus. I learn like this.  

  9. I think I work on the most simple math in the know universe. 0 1

    I always have a reference point to compare information to and I have to say it works awsome in the praxis because I understand my patients problems from any perspective while you can not clearly enough describe a simple mathematical axiomatisation supported with a physical example which I can not confute. 

    So I am pretty fine wondering around about value recognition and try to understand how scientists recognize different values. I have the right to chat around, I learn(ed) the rules, it is a forum and I do not force anyone on anything, I ask questions and I make few suggestions which you can deny reasonably. I am all good with that. I am here to learn which is one purpose of life after all.  


    22 hours ago, billasker said:

    Before you read,understand that this is a personal question that I managed to create.I don't know why,but mathematics seem a bit off to me.I agree that I am questioning almost everything related to science and am probably very wrong but if man created a tool to explain,understand and calcute the results and causes of phenomena of his surroundings,shouldn't it be perfect to be usable?And perfect is something only perfect can create.And man is not perfect.I accept any responses and am happy to read and reply to most of them I can.I'll have you know I'm 16 years old and hope to understand more than the nothing I currently do in this world.

    I kind of agree with you. I have raised your questions myself seeking to find clear mathematical reference points to be able to determine physically recognizable values as human performance, knowledge, medically relevant information, space, time, energy, matter...

    I am sure you understand more than nothing. The question is do you understand what nothing is?  

    So here is my Strategic Value Recognition paper I wrote to my Strategy exam at a Business School, which became quite personal at the end but I think it shows well what is the problem with the mathematical value recognition from a Nature lover, reality worshipper veterinarians point of view.



  11. 15 minutes ago, ag400002 said:

    Outside of the physics of spacetime, perhaps, very generally,the future would be infinite and the past would be finite and the present would be the transitional point

    There cannot be something outside physics....i.e everything has some kind of physical attribute... 

    Infinity seems to be a potential rather then reality....

    Interestingly this potential seems to be real and so part of reality even it is nothing more than information about its Nature. 

  12. 40 minutes ago, Area54 said:

    No. It's not limited. You just keep going round the figure-8 for ever. That is an infinitely long way.

    That journey would have a starting point when I first saw the sign on the screen and start my rounds from a single point on the path, so I could measure the time since when I am going around and so the exact length of my journey around the symbol. This makes that I can potentially* circulate infinitely long but with an exact point of space and time at any observation (if anyone would be interested since when I am circulating and how far I have reached).

    The potential to going around infinitely would not make the journey itself infinite. 


    *possible but not yet happened. 

  13. 5 minutes ago, Strange said:

    What thought experiment? The nonsense about trying to count to infinity? Infinity is not a number so I just ignored that as irrelevant nonsense.

    So what. It still demonstrates that you can have a finite subset of an infinite series. If that is not what you were asking, you need to ask a different question.

    There is no physical evidence for an infinite universe. The fact that it appears to be flat, is consistent with being infinite (which is often as good as it gets in science).

    Your "thought experiment" doesn't appear to have any relevance.

    What does it mean for it to be "applied everywhere"?

    Infinite just means it has no limit. How would "no limit" be applied everywhere?

    Is the fact that the integers are infinite "applied to 5"?

    This is close to the definition of infinity: however much time you have, you can never count all the integers. There is always one more.


    5 minutes ago, Strange said:
    32 minutes ago, Area54 said:

    And if you want a physical sign of infinity, how about this one?    ∞      :)



    It seems to me quite limited in space-time to my computer screen :) 

  14. 44 minutes ago, Strange said:

    What is wrong with you? Didn’t you read the answer to this?


    Yes I did, and I gave a thought experiment on it.

    44 minutes ago, Strange said:

    There are an infinite number of integers but we can still use a finite range of integers. 

    3 hours ago, 1x0 said:

    It is an informational theory created by us. What is the physical evidence for infinity and why the thought experiment is not acceptable?

    44 minutes ago, Strange said:

    Why not?

    3 hours ago, 1x0 said:

    Because if it has a starting point there is a physical reference point since universe could evolve. In the physical reality, there is physical limitation to infinite evolution (e.g. photons does not have infinite velocity, no infinite amount of energy or matter, no infinitely manipulatable time, no signs of absolute infinite intelligences etc ...)

    44 minutes ago, Strange said:

    This is getting tedious. If you don’t understand the previous answer to your questions, don’t just ask the same thing again. Instead you need to explain why you don’t understand. Otherwise you will just get the same answer. 

    I understand the previous answer, I responded with a thought experiment. You are right it is tedious, and I can not force you to recognize the thought experiments, so it is better if we just leave this question to rest a bit until I gain more insight and I can give better questions or better examples to think about. 

    26 minutes ago, Area54 said:

    Which part of this explanation, badly worded as it is, do you not understand?

    How can be that if infinity is a nature of our universe, it is NOT applied everywhere and on everything and so appear finite? It is paradoxical for me (maybe the limitations of my brain) so I would be very happy for anything more than a number theory created by our subjective axiomatization. 


    3 hours ago, 1x0 said:

    How you prove this infinite numbers of intergers? If we give the task to our first advanced AI that s/he can use any energy and matter to count the integers possible, there would not be enough energy and matter in a finite universe to execute this task. 

    Thoughts on this?

    26 minutes ago, Area54 said:

    It is bewildering to me why you don't get it, but I am happy to persist in trying to help you understand.

    Thank You! I really appreciate it. 

    26 minutes ago, Area54 said:

    The universe is larger than what we can observe. Light from the unobservable portion cannot reach us, since space there is expanding, relative to us, at a speed greater than that of light. We do not know whether this unobservable portion is finite or infinite.

    This is clear but does not imply infinity. From the observed part, we should be able to make the conclusion to the nature of the unobservable portions as well, because infinity(or finite) should be universal if it is true so should be applied and observable in the known universe as well be true in the unobservable. 

  15. The shape of the universe should be spherical on an overall view (spacetime itself) as it will identically expand in every direction since it is guided by the laws of nature, which are applied in the overall universe, providing the same physical setup.

    The energy and matter present in it could be spherical, flat or a torus on the overall view depending on the general impact of mass on the visible physical reality. 

  16. 20 hours ago, Area54 said:

    Are there an infinite number of integers? Yes, there are.


    How you prove this infinite numbers of intergers? If we give the task to our first advanced AI that s/he can use any energy and matter to count the integers possible, there would not be enough energy and matter in a finite universe to execute this task. 

    Could the AI continue her task if we know that the universe although is finite, it is bigger and more with every upcoming second (evolving) so there will be always new energy and matter usable to do the task? It could count forever although with the limitations what the accessible energy and matter probably would cause, which would reduce the speed of the counting but could run forever. 

    20 hours ago, Area54 said:

    Thus a finite "realm" may be part of an "infinite" realm. This isn't rocket science. I don't do rocket science.

    Very good. How could an infinite physical entity act as finite at some part and as infinite everywhere else where we it cannot be observed? 

    How can everything seem to be finite and the only things that can be infinite is the theoretical recognition of mathematicians and physicians trying to digitalize the Universe? 

    On 2018. 02. 11. at 10:55 PM, Strange said:

    Being finite does not imply a starting point. 


    So how could it be finite then? 

    On 2018. 02. 11. at 10:55 PM, Strange said:

    The whole universe could be finite or infinite. 

    On 2018. 02. 11. at 10:36 PM, 1x0 said:

    How, when there are no physical signs of infinity?

    A second cannot last forever. 

  17. 33 minutes ago, Area54 said:

    The observable universe , the universe we can actually see, is finite. There is no doubt about that. We have every reason to accept that there is more of the universe that is not observable. That portion may be finite or it may be infinite.




    How can some part of the same realm be infinite and some part of it finite?

    If infinity would be a physical possibility should not we observe its nature all over the universe as it should be determined by the fundamental physical laws and applied everywhere?


    1 hour ago, Strange said:

    But you said it was meaningless so how can it be relevant to anything. 

    Where did I say this? 


     My expression of Nothing above mentioned was not clear enough I am sorry. 

    Nothing: A space, time, energy, matter, information-free state at the beginning of the universe. The lowest possible physical state. (speculative conclusion based on Hubble's recognition that space expands)


  18. 14 minutes ago, Strange said:

    Then why say it? Are you deliberately wasting our time?

    Because it would be an information about the system we observe and so it seems to be relevant to determine its nature. Without this recognition, the system seems infinite which can be just my perception. 

    I have no intention to waste your time. 

    As it feels like a waste of time it is better than I just stop this line. 

    Thank you Strange for your participation and thoughts. 

  19. 9 hours ago, MigL said:

    relativity refers to relativity of measurements, NOT perception.

    the perception is relative to the result of the measurements, which ones do not seem to be detailed enough, that we could make such a conclusion that the universe is finite or infinite. 

  • Create New...

Important Information

We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue.