CuriosOne

2 hours ago, Phi for All said:

When I snip out the middle part of your OP, I think the answer to your title becomes more apparent.

You've spent "years of study", but you've always rejected mainstream explanations. Now you're YEARS down the line, sounding pretty bitter, arguing with people who make this stuff work every day, YET you somehow believe you're a "better thinker" thinking up "better mouse traps", and blame it all on jealousy and hate?! Does that sound reasonable? 

You have to know what's inside the box very well before you have the capacity to realize you need to think outside it. Maybe the confidence of having their explanations actually work makes it seem like scientists "think they know everything". Explanations that work, that give us the power to predict what will happen next, this is what's important. 

I've known members here to be professionals in their field, and I do welcome anyone a challenge to prove my post have been either offensive or disrespectfull....

""Give respect to be respected. ""

One of my books say "You cannot devide By Zero" 

Another says y' = 2x 

How do we know if 2 is a natural number or a coefficient? And why not just say 2x^1 and is 1 a natural number or not..

This information "comes" from scientist not me..

And yet "yall" have a conversation on quantum foam, the Higgs field, Plank lenth and quarks, "without ever have seen these, and have somehow an issue with questions i ask?

Now that's funny....LMFAO..

2 hours ago, John Cuthber said:

 

I was told posting videos was against Forum Rules, """my point exactly""" thnks for validating my point....

4 hours ago, swansont said:

I don't care if the thinking is out of the box, but there has to be some physical basis for the ideas, and at the end of it all, a model has to be compared to experiment/observation.

 

OTOH, words have meaning, and concepts are laid out on some sort of framework. You can't make up new definitions on a whim, or whip up a concept out of thin air.

 

 

My point exactly, thats why asking questions about a subject "even if the questions" don't fall into the category of science itself is important....Scientist make it as though speaking requires rules like mathematics.

7 minutes ago, Markus Hanke said:

Yes, and I think that’s a really important part of the process. Novel ideas need to be scrutinised, tested and evaluated in great detail, since that is the only way to establish whether they are of any scientific value or not. This being said, this process needs to happen within reason - sometimes peer reviews read like personal vendettas, and to me that’s not ok. But that’s just human nature.

I disagree. Every single physicist I know wants to see new physics being discovered...simply because that’s where the excitement and gratification comes in. As scientists we are driven by one basic motivation - curiosity, a desire to know and discover. Discovering new physics would be the pinnacle of every scientist’s career, so no one feels “threatened” by this.
For example, my own area of expertise is General Relativity; I am perfectly aware that the model has limitations, and that it breaks down if you extend it too far. It’s evidently an effective theory that is the limit of some more fundamental model. I would love nothing more than to know what that underlying level of reality is...but that does not mean I would just blindly accept any old idea that someone puts forward to extend GR. I am very sceptical towards all new ideas, until such time when they have been thoroughly investigated and tested. That’s how science works.

People usually only see the one model that has been accepted into mainstream science, but they can’t see the 9999 other models that were also proposed, but ultimately turned out not to work.

Very well put...And thanxxx..I really want to get back into General Relativity, I miss seeing my wall to wall notes in front of my desk, it made the learning curve easier..

8 minutes ago, MigL said:

Base 10 is the number system in common usage.
Two others in less common usage are base 2, and base 16.
( familiar to computer scientists/programmers )

Infinity is best describes as a concept.

I think I need to invest time with these systems then, especially the octal system...Becuase base ten im sure does not work alone...

11 minutes ago, Markus Hanke said:

Yes...but on these scales the effects of gravity are so small as to be negligible. 

Electromagnetism, the strong interaction, and the general laws of quantum mechanics.

No. The strong interaction has a very short range, it is only effective within the nucleus.

No, they are entirely different phenomena.

The strong interaction is not a force in the Newtonian sense, rather, it denotes the dynamics of how colour charges are exchanged between quarks, by way of gluons. Its precise details are very complicated.

This makes clearer sense now....

But in regards to the inner atom's quarks and etc...How can we truly know they are real??

Yes I know about particle colliders, but how do we really know fundamental particles exist??

9 minutes ago, Markus Hanke said:

Thinking out of the box means you acknowledge that the box is there, and then you look for meaningful ways to extend its boundaries outwards. It does not mean you discard the box and replace it with some other random shape...that would be more like taking a shot in the dark, which is rarely successful, and sometimes disastrous.

It's a Nobel approach that is worth traveling, it worked for Newton and Einstein..But both however were scrutinized and scandalized much like scientist do to each other today...Its Jelousy and it disturbs comfort zones to change when theories may be incorrect or start breaking down and need upgrades..

That's what Thinking out of the box is for, it should be inspired not ridiculed.

3 minutes ago, MigL said:

I just wish you would start making sense ... Woops, my bad 🤣🤣 .

Me too "trust me."😎

16 minutes ago, MigL said:

You must be talking about Swansont because I'm not a scientist 😄 .
But even I know that ignorant wild-ass guesses are not what people expect from 'out of the box' thinkers.
And I've yet to see any reasoning in your posts; never mind authentic ( ? ).

You not being a scientist now makes sense....Opps My Bad!🤣🤣🤣

1 minute ago, MigL said:

So you think there is a 'last' number just before you reach infinity ?

That's another thing you don't understand.
( and you don't even seem embarrassed about it )

There has to be a last number like there has to be a conserved unit like there has to be a number that is no more divisible than that of an atom itself...

That's common sense and embarrassment is for people whom are trying to impress others and gain something, this is science not Hollywood.....lol

20 minutes ago, MigL said:

Why would you think that ?
Any two masses are attracted with the same force, at the same distance, whether one is a Black Hole or not.

Gravity is a force just like Electromagnetism, which can more accurately be described as space-time curvature.
How or why would it manifest itself as a particle or a wave ??

 

No, more likely you are putting no effort into understanding your educational sources, and spectacularly misinterpreting them.

I was talking about "quantum gravity" research, so the "you" as "me" is the many of them in this field, and before you go ahead and start to passively insult this too, it's been in the making for years...

I respect your opinion on my educational sources, and im glad I don't believe anything I read or study...

In my years of study and questioning the ideas of science that effect our world, especially the environment I "always" come across scientist whom for "political reasoning" need to bash others with discriminate words and other "in-direct" or """passive""" insults that brake forum rules systamatically to "diverge" the very fact that scientist have not one clue of what they speak of when dealing with out of the box thinkers" and authentic reasoning...

There is no such thing as a dumb question as there is no such thing as absolute concepts..

So the saying goes, there will always be better thinkers as there will always be better mouse traps, as there will always be jealousy and haters....

2 hours ago, MigL said:

Maybe in your 'make believe world', no one knows.
In the real world, they most certainly do.

Maybe if you asked sensible questions, instead of nonsense, people might tell you.

Is base ten infinity??

1 hour ago, MigL said:

So many misconceptions.
So many wrong assertions.
Remember what I said about looking stuff up, before putting your ignorance on display ?

Ask one question at a time, and don't go jumping to conclusions.
The only gravity there is, is classical, whether Newtonian or GR.
Yes, atomic particles interact gravitationally.
For an atomic particle, the Electromagnetic interaction is approx. a billion, billion, billion, billion times stronger than the Gravitational interaction.
The Strong interaction, mediated by gluons and binding quarks below its asymptotic limit, is 137 times stronger than the Electromagnetic interaction, but only 'residual' force binds nucleons inside the nucleus, and quickly drops off after that.

So why would you conflate the two, and go on to make all the other ignorant assertions ???
 

Isn't there a huge difference between "electro magnatism" and gravity??

For instance, Gravity "weak force" becomes very strong in black holes.

""I also need to mention this"""

Can gravity be described as waves, just as particle wave duality?

If what you are saying is true, then some of my educational resources are "not lagitimate" which is dissapointing to me.

Also, all of my OP have not been conclusive in general, they remain opened ended questions...

1 hour ago, MigL said:

There are an infinite number of points, or numbers if you will, between zero and one.
But infinity has no 'beginning' and no 'end'.

What is the last number before infinity begins ???

You mean "Eurler's" Number of "Base 10?" It would help a bit..

The last number would need to be the exponent of the number itself, and so far all we really use is a maximum of 2 numbers in a "number with a magnatude."

Example:

h = 6.626e-33 has 2 numbers in the base.

 On another note I think I just realized that, it's not the exponent but rather that e as Eurler's constant...."The supposed" most important number in math was what I meant...

Does Classical Gravity exist in the "atom."

If not what keeps the atom held in place..

Ok so the strong nuclear force...understood..

Is this strong nuclear force, the same that governs the Macro Universe?

Is the strong nuclear force another name for Gravity??

F = m1*m2/ "the distance of both "from their centers squared"

7 minutes ago, MigL said:

Funny how people who know very little are always so sure of themselves.

You keep living in your make believe world.
The rest of us prefer the real world.

That's funny becuase the foundation of science is to bring micro observations to the macro observable level in the phyiscal world to be tested and confirmed by scientists...

And yet, no one knows what links numbers to geometry, why energy is quantized, and why do particles act as waves...If I were to guess the system is reversed...lol

How so??

If 0--->1  defines any quantity, then the quantity itself has a limit within itself, thus infinity is made of limits within limits and contradicts itself with the very nature that defines it....And what would that be???

The ""limit itself.""

21 minutes ago, joigus said:

No. You don't understand mathematics, that's all.

No one knows the "origins" of math and no one can claim legitimacy for its use..

Like no one knows why energy is quantized and "what exactly are plank's units."

There is no such thing as understanding anything becuase "everything" is a collection of ideas linked to outcomes that simply predict and repeat without chronological proof at the universal level..

There are , and will always be gaps in science....

13 hours ago, swansont said:

“Theoretical” doesn’t mean you can make up anything you please 

Everything is make believe...

1 hour ago, joigus said:

Are you aware that you don't make any mathematical sense? Your sentences are like dadaist poems with mathematical words in them.

Ok..y = x^2 and it's derivitve is y' = 2x

then shouldn't the derivitive tell you that

y' = 2x^1+2

After all x means x^1 but they don't really "make that a point" and just assume everyone justs knows that.. 

if x^1 "in regards to dy/dx, then y and x take on separate variables as [a^2+b^2]^1/2 = y^2 because 1 is a conserved natural unit, and x becomes 2 of x.....But if x--> a limit, it can never be exactly that limit, only very very very close to it...Special Relativity "at least as I see it, does the same thing...Gets close to the speed of light but not exactly.

I will wait till others accuse me of "jumping from" subject to subject, but a its how "your standard system" works apparently confusing the hell out of people whom take science and math to another level of seriousness.

By the way, Numbers and Geometry and how they "connect" are not fully understood..

19 minutes ago, joigus said:

You seem to be under the impression that 0.99999999999999999... is the closest number to 1. This proves that you don't understand real numbers. That number,   0.99999999999999999... with infinitely many 9's in its digits, is exactly 1.

Number one seems to get past you. Why don't you accept the help of people who know more than you?

If a number 0----> 1 is within infinity, then where is 0??? Its location?

Becuase within means "inside something" infinity must have a limit itself...I Love Grammar and Math...

I do respect the help and field of everyone.

10 minutes ago, MigL said:

Mathematics is the very definition of NOT subjective.
Everything is clearly defined so that everyone can understands the 'terminology'; there are no hand-waving descriptions.

Maybe, before using terms, in your posts, which you don't understand, do an on-line search for what they mean.
Again, it'll save you some embarrassment.

Your saying that numbers don't carry hidden information?? What about quantum cryptography? Decoding Reality, or the Universe..

There is a famouse value in Special Relativity in regards of "momentum" that states 0.99999999999999999 is the closest to light speed.....They should tell people its simply a ratio number of .3 cosine and I will leave it at that...

As far as accelleration is concerned, I hope we all know its simply pi ratio "confused" as a Bhor Energy Level.."Chukkles."

Also: [0.2051]^2]^2]^2 = 3.1313e-6 m/s

That is a "real" physical quantity by the way..And "the numbers change" not the variables themselves, remember water comes in 3 forms, liquid, gas and solid..

As you can see I do know math and numbers "quite well" nothing gets past me, numbers and math formulas don't make sense nor their prediction or outcomes...That's why my questions "don't get any more basic."

1 minute ago, joigus said:

If constants change, then they're not constants; they're variables.

Constants as G, p, h, c can be "variables" too? And the units that make these?

3 hours ago, studiot said:

I think I understand your question.

 

Unfortunately you have confused everyone else and probably yourself with your additional remarks which are totally irrelevent.

So please start another thread inquiring about units and dimensions.

 

You are asking about what I call continued or repeated exponentiation and the American Mathematical Society calls infinite exponentials see here.

https://www.math.usm.edu/lee/BarrowInfiniteExponentials.pdf

 

This is following on from the idea of

repeated addition (the sigma symbol)

repeated product (the Pi symbol)

Continuous division

Continuous square rooting

and so on.

 

Now further information

 

A repeated process can be convergent (the result of each repeat is smaller and smaller)  or divergent (the result of each repeat is larger and large) or neither.

A repeated square root is convergent (for initial numbers greater than 1) as each time you take a square root the result is smaller than before.

A repeated square root is convergent (for initial numbers less than 1) as each time you take a square root the result is greater than before.

A repeated square root is neither convergent nor divergent (for initial number is equal to 1) as each time you take a square root the result is the same as before.

 

Can you look at your squaring process and make the same sort of analysis   - it is a worthwhile exercise for you .

 

All these processes involve infinity in some way since they could involve an infinite count of repetitions.

But only some (divergent processes) involve an infinite result.

 

For most processes it is possible to devise conditions where one of the three alternatives (for the results) holds sway for an infinite count of repetitions.

 

Does this help ?

 

It helps more "than you know" thnks!

About 7 years ago, I recalled this but "forgot" how to search for the "terminology" online.

It makes just as much sense now as it did before...I truly think its a very important principle concerning "time domains" and makes things more clearer.

In my idea of 3*12 "The Summation" or summing up "part" are bundles of 12 to the root of 5...

That may not make any sense "right now" becuase its informal mathematics...But at this point informal and formal appear to work quite well with repetitions or loops or "for loops"..Its an oberservation 'in my field.'

15 minutes ago, joigus said:

I think there should be no reason in principle to be surprised that the mathematical description of a physical system requires even an infinite amount of dimensional numbers to account for its behaviour. Why not?

What is surprising is that we can get away with so much from just a limited number of universal constants.

What if those constant change???

By themselves??

What then?

Maybe this deserves another new topic..

2 hours ago, joigus said:

For example, if you have a constant with units (length)^-1, you multiply it by a variable with units of length, and you get a dimensionless number.

You've started by considering a limitless power of a physical quantity. Now, that is not possible unless your model or theory has a number that 'absorbs' those dimensions.

Consider, e.g., length. If your unit of length is L. In the limit of infinite powers, you would have,

 

(xL)∞=0

 

if,

 

x<L

 

But if your unit were smaller than the quantity you're considering:

 

(xL)∞=∞

 

if,

 

x>L

 

So you would need a constant to absorb those dimensions and give a sensible unit to measure in a laboratory:

 

kn(xL)n

 

These constants normally arise because of Taylor series expansions.

It's going to take me some time to read all other comments from members.

 

This is the key, @CuriosOne. You're getting tangled in a concept that requires the notion of convergence.

Yes, I agree totally  I should have remembered about "converging factors of 1."  But I have issues working with numbers that "tag" along in equations without these numbers popping out and introducing themselves, I speak of "round off errors" and choosing significant numbers...Its an issue for all of us "especially" in statistics..

4 hours ago, swansont said:

“Theoretical” doesn’t mean you can make up anything you please 

Of coarse not,  but my OP asks a question as it does not regard anything absolute or certain, which is funny becuase nothing in science ever is..

No one knows why enery is quantized, and how to "RECONCILE" this with the macro universe. We will never get their without bizaare thinkers, intuitives, artist or out of the box thinking.

So making up something "within" the barrier of what we know, at least to me is closer than what we "don't know." 

3 hours ago, ahmet said:

hi, I meant and suggested that you use suitable mathematical expressions. 

telling with sentence sometimes is not sufficient for the case to be accepted or understood within mathematical approach and / or philosophy. 

recommendation: 

use and (don't leave general) theorems in basics of mathematics for instance when any function is monotone and bounded at the same time, you will not be able to say or discuss whether it would be divergent. (Because it will definitely be convergent) 

 

 

I 100% agree, and I've done this before and got scrutinized becuase math is very subjective due to how numbers carry hidden information, "prime numbers" is a good example as they can be used in cryptography, squaring pi is close to the acceleration of earth 9.8 m/s^-1, and I just found that 3*10^8 m/s and 299,458,792 m/s are interchangeable and that awfull square root of x^1/2 makes no sense to me....

Atleast to me numbers mean many things all at once and im "very skeptical" about them.

9 hours ago, joigus said:

An infinite power of a dimensional quantity makes no sense unless there is a constant to absorb the units to make it a sizable thing.

Otherwise, you could use a bigger unit, so that the number is zero, because it's below the unit, or a smaller unit, so that the number is infinite, because it's above the unit.

How can a constant absorb the units??

Is the constant a 3 dimensional number for volume??

I hope it is, it sounds like "Summations."

10 hours ago, ahmet said:

you should (be able) to define your expession mathematically,

any set (here X)  will be infinite if

for every x element X ,there is y element X such that y>x

 

Is y and x "like terms?" 

Meaning same units? Same Base 10?

10 hours ago, swansont said:

No, it doesn’t.

It was a "theoretical" statement reference for x in my OP.

I do understand now that 1 meter =100 cm or 39.37007 inches.

And that my 3*12in = 36in + 39in = 3 × (1×1/4)

In this 1 =100cm

Are "significant digitwise" related.

For distribution I get..

25^1/2 + 1/2* 100cm = 25.50

My OP is a "Theoretical Idea."

5 hours ago, Sensei said:

You have no idea what are units..

Units (dimensions) are e.g.: kilogram, meter, second, Coulomb, Volt, Faraday, Curie, Becquerel, Hz, etc. etc.

PI, e, sqrt(2), 0.5, 0, 1, 2, 3, etc. etc. are dimensionless values. Irrational numbers, rational numbers, natural numbers.

 

Speed of light is 299792458 m/s.

It is value and dimensions together.

 

Values with the same dimension can be summed together in math equation.

e.g. 1m+9m=10m

Values with varying dimensions cannot be summed together.

e.g. 10 m/s + 100 s = INVALID..

 

But values with varying dimensions SOMETIMES can be multiplied or divided, even if they have different units/dimensions.

e.g. 10 m/s * 10s = 100m ("how far away object traveling with constant speed of 10 m/s, will move in time 10 seconds".. The result is 100 meters).

It is also example of "cancellation of units". https://www.google.com/search?q=cancellation+of+units

We had meters per second, and after multiplication by seconds, seconds disappeared from the final result.

 

Value with dimension SOMETIMES can be converted, to different value with different dimension.

e.g. 1m = 100cm = 0.001 km = 39.37 inch

100 m/s = 360 km/h

(how did I convert it? 100 m/s * 3600 s/h = 360000 m/h / 1000 m/km = 360 km/h ... It is example of several levels of unit cancellation one by one, and multiplication/division by appropriate coefficients)

 

 

Thanks this helps a lot....

299,792,458 m/s in a vacume?

3*10^8 m/s in a vacume too?

Where did that 3 in 3*10^8 come from??

Looks like a hidden variable or unit to me, and maybe that's why I'm confused on what units are...Looks like everything follows a 10, 12 , 6 and , .5 all the time wrapped up in a Base 10 numeral system that works much like atoms..Meaning you can only devide a certain number a certain amount of times...Maybe that's off topic buts it's all related..

6 hours ago, MigL said:

No, that's a yard.
A meter is 100 cm ( or approx. 39 inches ).

No, that's a rounded off figure.
Actually c = 299 792 458 m/s ( but has been measured to many more significant digits )

I can't even begin to guess what you mean by this ...

That would be because 'kilo' means 1000 gm.
IOW,  10³  gm.

No, numbers, or digits, count the amount of units.
Similarly Pi is a number counting the amount of radian ( sections of arc ) units.

Remember the advice I gave you about not embarrassing yourself ...
 

100 cm = 1 meter..And the round off figures for 3*10^8 m/s and 299,792,458 m/s "makes sense now."

THIS NEW INFORMATION "DESERVES" A NEW POST....ThnXxxxxx!

5 hours ago, joigus said:

How can a comment about units be personal?

In my opinion, @MigL and @swansont are investing very valuable time in telling you what's wrong with your "ideas."

You should be thankful.

Free electrons in QM, e.g., have no characteristic radius, though they have velocity.

Becuase embarrasing myself assumes a "future event" with the opinions of other "mind frames" and points of view, for instance number theorist would be very intrested in this thread, so would sacred geomotrist and even esoteric mathematicians, and although these fields maybe considered holistic, they stem back to the ancients and deserve to be respected..

However I just learned that.

3*10^8 m/s and

299,792,458 m/s was due to rounding off difference..I believe it's this very issue that has haulted scientific progress...

I need to open a new post on this..

But before I do....

Can a unit be rounded off??

Is the velocity you mention linear with magnatude and direction? If yes then this beings up acceleration.