CuriosOne

2 minutes ago, iNow said:

It must be exhausting carrying around that huge chip on your shoulder and always grinding axes with every post 

I took a snap photo of your personal insults to me and will make sure the owners of this site see it..

2 hours ago, swansont said:

That’s happened, too

Sarcasm is going to happen if you interact with people, and is not inherently a violation of the rules.

As far as insults go, I can’t comment without specific examples. I’ve seen such accusations that were just because someone’s mistake was corrected. Attacking what you post is not only not a violation, it’s expected

There are posts here accusing me of being liar, one is where I told another member that sharing links to videos was against forum rules, I'm sure the rules will bend themselves again.

Here is another personal insult by your members..

1 hour ago, swansont said:

It needs to actually be a violation for staff to take action. In your most recent report, you accuse someone of something they absolutely did not do. Naturally, nothing is going to come of the report.

How intresting, so now im a liar...

Care to share this lie with "us?"

6 minutes ago, MigL said:

You can be a 'quitter',  walk away, and prove us right.
Or, you can prove us wrong about you, stick around, show us up, and actually learn something.

Again, purely voluntary; the choice is yours to make.
( yes, this is called 'tough love' )

Ayy see..

23 minutes ago, swansont said:

If you think rules are being broken, you should use the “report post” function to bring this to the attention of the moderators.

 

(thread has been split and moved to a more appropriate area)

 

I have, and what's the point reporting to those who break their own rules??

49 minutes ago, Casio said:

Infinity has an end?

Infinity means many different things, depending on when it is used. The word is from a Latin word, which means "without end". Infinity goes on forever, so sometimes space, numbers, and other things are said to be 'infinite', because they never come to a stop. ... For example, adding 10 to a number repeatedly. 

Let me know when you reach the end...

So your saying as x-> infinity, infinity  is less 1 of itself??

I speak of the concept of dx---> 5

 As delta x approaches 5 but not exactly 5,  where x =4.9999

I hope that made sense becuase it doesn't to me...Not even after years of rigorous caculus study..

5 minutes ago, swansont said:

You can’t deactivate it.

You can choose not to visit. Participation here is voluntary.

We’ve had people request bans and suspensions. 

I was referring to the reasoning of changing my password forgetting it then walking away.....

Im well aware of the voluntary participation, but was not aware of the sarcasm or indirect passive insults..

40 minutes ago, John Cuthber said:

I'm willing to bet you were not, or, at least you were not told that by any competent authority.
BTW, the formatting seems a bit scrambled and my caption has gone missing somehow.
It said "One minute fifty seconds."

So, go on. Show us where you were told that.
Or... admit you can't even tell the truth.

Again; where did you read that?

Here is the mod note that says placing videos is against forums rules...

Here is a snap shot photo

34 minutes ago, Ghideon said:

Snakes?

 

Both bugs and stakes, I don't understand why you mention them...Seriously what do those have todo with infinity??

17 minutes ago, iNow said:

 

Yes. You acknowledged (but obviously didn't read) them when creating your account profile.

If you feel someone is breaking the rules, use the report post feature so it can be reviewed by staff. If you disagree with how the staff decide to run things, you're under no obligation to continue posting here.

Also, why is this 16 year old thread in the Maths forum??

""I am""" familar with the rules of this forum. 

12 minutes ago, Sensei said:

You can change password to random sequence of characters and don't store it or remember. You won't be able to log in anymore. Or ask mods for banning.

That's the funniest thing I've ever heard...

14 minutes ago, Sensei said:

Like we can read on Wikipedia coefficient can be any mathematical expression. Both variable and number.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Coefficient

Some resources dont "tell you" that the power rule "is used in "differentiation" where the coefficient acts as just a plain ole number, infact the power rule works for both negative and positive and even fractions..

x^2 = 2x^1

x^2/3 = [2/3]*x^-1/3

x = x'= 1

If a function "any function" starts with a coefficient a coefficient has "NO EFFECT" on the process of differentiation..

That's another reason why I asked, What is the point of calculus????

Were given this information by ""scientst""

4 minutes ago, Bufofrog said:

The 2 is only there because the circumference of a circle is pi*D, and D = 2*r

How about  4[a+b]

Is 4 a coeffcient or a natural number??

I cannot see an option in my account settings....

You guys actually have rules??

That's funny, senior members seem to break them with certain people...I actually got excited when I saw this post then  reminded myself of political correctness.....

24 minutes ago, Ghideon said:

I think Migl already answered that.

 

What evidence? 

 

Sorry @MigL, couldn't resist posting a situation where it is reasonable to treat infinity as the next number  . In a typical Java implementation: 

System.out.println(Math.nextUp(Float.MAX_VALUE));
/>Infinity

But my example has no implications on mathematics, it's just useful to be aware of in some situations. For instance when trying to explain bugs to stake holders that have no limited mathematical training.

 

My point exactly..not sure bout the bugs and snakes part

13 minutes ago, Sensei said:

...write more rubbish, hijacking 3rd party threads, and you will be soon evicted from this forum..

 

Excuse me??? This is a mystery question, since when does mystery and science go hand in hand??

Did you ever review "your comments" on my posts?? The ones you did not read??

Where you gave advice that was totally off topic??

You asked a questions and I gave you an answer, blocking me does not change my answer, it just shows "political correctness" which "validates my posts...

10 minutes ago, Sensei said:

Where do you see pi.. ?

I see epsilon and phi.. and in taeto's post rho..

Anything with a radius, is pi , becuase remember units are man made systems, so length is time, and time is bundles of loops that repeat indefinitely...Why? Becuase infinity is a concept, so the concept is the model itself as a volume of probable outcomes. Thats why pi and r work so well together, "it's a real shame that's never talked about." Science is so occultic that way..

All I is see is pi ratio, pi ratio, pi ratio..

12 hours ago, MigL said:

Infinity is NOT a number.
And it doesn't follow one.

Your thinking is common, but certainly not sensical.

 

Understood, but can infinity be represented by a number such as pi ratio, or an irrational constant of some sort?

There may be scientific evidence of such..

To start off:

when we use 2pi*r = circumference..

Is 2 a coefficient?

Or is it a natural number?

2 minutes ago, MigL said:

That is the Newtonian model of gravity.

As to where Gravity needs to take into account quantum effects ?
Separation, on sub-atomic scales , can be considered in terms of energy.
( The amount of energy needed to overcome the separation distance )
Gravity, and other forces, tend towards a common strength at energies in excess of 10¹⁹  GEv ( 10³² deg. K ).
That is normally called the Planck scale.
You would need to get pretty close to these scales before gravity starts being 'modified'.
Otherwise, any quantum effects are as trivial as to the world at large.

It's very disappointing to think a scale that small is nearly impossible...I'm sure there are other alternatives though...

7 minutes ago, MigL said:

Joigus says "get in the box" and study its contents.
Dara O'Briain says " get in the sack" and take your lumps.
The choice is up to you.

Sorry if I was somewhat abrupt ( possibly rude ) with you last night.
I was feeling 'testy' and you got on my nerves with what you call 'science' ( it isn't ).

But we have seen their effects and consequences of their existence.
So even if some things ( Swansont likes to use 'phonons' ) aren't real, they are built into the model, or theory, to account for the effects which we observe.

 

Division by zero is undefined.
You can certainly devide by zero, but don't expect it to mean anything.
Again, we look at effects, so you tell me, how is 2x different from 2x¹  ?
That is the self consistency of math, as opposed to words.

Thanks for acknowledging that..

I think I just need to accept that numbers on their own "act" independent from our math concepts just as a particle acts as a wave...

3 minutes ago, Phi for All said:

I missed where anyone said this at all, and I certainly didn't mention it, so I don't know why you quoted me as if it's a response to what I said. Part of discussion is responding to what's actually been said, otherwise everybody but you is superfluous. 

This actually isn't as important here as you think. Civility is what we want when it comes to personal behavior, but ideas should stand on their own merit (attack ideas, not people). I don't have to "respect" any idea, I just have to analyze it to see if it explains what it's supposed to. If it's a good idea, that becomes apparent when discussing it. 

If you hadn't made the decision long ago that science is wrong, the questions you ask would be different, and might help you solve your dilemma. You may have unintentionally blocked the path to learning by filtering out the explanations you didn't immediately understand. 

By way of analogy, it's like you're trying to drive to a certain city but you're convinced the GPS is lying to you, so you keep taking all kinds of shortcuts, going every way EXCEPT the way the navigation software advises. "Years of study" later, you're still nowhere near the city, and cursing the GPS device.

I can agree, but im under impression that no one really knows what numbers "represent", I've read to treat pi as a number, then I read treat pi as an exponent, then I read pi really is base 10.. 

Distribution and Algebrea make it worse.

I'm sure other scientist had similar encounters with this situation..

9 minutes ago, swansont said:

iWhen you solve Schrödinger's equation for the hydrogen atom, the potential term is just the Coulomb potential energy. Completely classical. And as Serg pointed out, the value for the gravitational potential energy is ~40 orders of magnitude smaller.

There's nothing here that suggests you need anything but Newtonian gravity, since deviations from that would only happen for exceedingly massive entities (which we don't have) or exceedingly short distances. We already know the effect can be safely ignored, so GR deviations from it can likewise be ignored.

I wasn't even referencing virtual particles, which we acknowledge not to be real.

Phonons, for example, are just a convenient way of describing the quantized nature of vibrational states. It makes understanding the behavior easier, but phonons don't have to actually exist in order to do the analysis. Or semiconductor holes; they are literally the absence of an electron, so the hole is not some object that independently exists. It's purely for convenience of understanding and ease of calculation.

So are electrons actually particles, or are they excitations of some field? It depends on what you're trying to do. In science you use the model that is going to give you the answer that is in best agreement with how nature behaves. It doesn't matter if elements of that model don't physically exist; the model works.

What is a model in scientific terms??

When i think of a model I think of:

G*m1*m2/r^2

10 hours ago, Danijel Gorupec said:

Hmm... I have no doubt gravity exists even at atomic scales, but the question was about 'classical gravity'. In my understanding, 'classical gravity' would be a 'smooth' (non-quantum) thing that behaves perfectly predictable. Sure, it could be that at the atomic scale the gravity is (still) pretty much classical, but do we know this?

Great point, I would also love to know.

5 hours ago, swansont said:

At some level, we don't know if they are real (there are lots of things in physics we know aren't real). But the nuclei behave as if they are.

We make models and compare experimental results with the models. The best model for what we observe is that neutrons and protons are made of three quarks, which interact in a certain way, as Markus has mentioned.

The models do not lay claim to reality of existence, just the reality of behavior. 

 

Even if they were real, they are believed to be "vertual" in just that fact that atoms & molecules act as waves makes it more complex, I do respect its field of study and dedication.