SplitInfinity Posted May 22, 2013 Share Posted May 22, 2013 The hounds are gathering! hounds.jpg I ,m Off to Italy He----l--P ! Mike...I like the drawing showing MULTIPLE HOUNDS and this representing possibility and probability. I am thinking of a person I knew years ago that would tell me not to worry about petting his Half Wolf...Half German Shepard. I know animals and especially Dogs as well I am an experienced Hunter and know how any Dog that has even a part of him or her that is Wolf is going to be part wild and should be handled very carefully. This guy was sitting in front of his dog on his knees playing rough telling me how JAKE...would never bite. I saw it coming right there and tried to warn him as a Wolf might play with other pack members but in the event another wolf is in either visual or smelling range...and say that wolf...male pup that is it's son or daughter starts to play rough and the wolf smells or see's another wolf or possible threat...that wolf will attack their own Pup never mind another pack member to show dominance as well as show strength. Jake bit his owner right on the nose...badly. His owner wanted to destroy the dog but I talked him out of it as JAKE never did things like that and it was not his fault it was the owners fault. The human put the dog/wolf in an intollerable situation and as the owner did not want the dog anymore...I took Jake in and he lived for 4 more years until his back legs and hips started to fail him so I put him down. As this applies to the topic...think of all the things that had to align for this Wolf/Dog to end up being my Pet. And how LOW the probability was for me to be the person that was there when the bite occurred as I KNOW...if it was anyone else...that Dog would have been put down. And even though that was the only time Jake had ever bit someone...if the biting did not happen then when I was there...it would have happened another time as the Owner demonstraiting how timid Jake was in front of another unknown to Jake...Male...Jake would have bit the owner another time. The combination of events and actions and non-actions and times for this to have happened were like on the level of winning the lottery. Plus the after ripple effects as I became the Dog/Wolfs owner...I made certain that Jake would never be put into a situation where Jake would react badly...plus since this dog was about 200 lbs and 6 foot 2 inches standing up on rear legs...only a person of Large and Powerful Physical stature and ability as well as a person who understands that such animals need to be treated in a pack...alpha to omega...form of association as well as such an animal is very social and cannot be left alone for long. I made certain that if I could not be with him...my Military Dad would be as well as my..."CIVILIAN" Mom. Jake was a very loving and protective friend and I KNOW that Jake would DIE trying to protect me or my family. There are no BAD DOGS....there are only BAD OWNERS...and such owners...even if they dislike discipline forms of caring for an animal and treat the animal with hugs and kisses like they would treat a child...Jake was NOT A CHILD....not human...he was a potentially LETHAL KILLING MACHINE....and all it takes to make an animal like that happy and mentally sound...is to understand that such an animal is hard wired for pack mentality and dominance/submissive actions. As to this topic...I believe without a doubt that every possible scenario involving Jake has, was and is playing itself out. Split Infinity Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...

Mike Smith Cosmos Posted May 22, 2013 Author Share Posted May 22, 2013 (edited) Mike...I like the drawing showing MULTIPLE HOUNDS and this representing possibility and probability. Jake was a very loving and protective friend and I KNOW that Jake would DIE trying to protect me or my family. As to this topic...I believe without a doubt that every possible scenario involving Jake has, was and is playing itself out. Split Infinity We live in Italy 1 hour up from Assisi where St Francis of Assisi did his (whatever he did with Animals) one of which was to Visit Gubbio Roman Town near to us. He came to speak to the Wolves in the hills that hunted in packs and were taking some of the Children. He was supposed to have spoken to the Wolves ( 100's years ago) They never took any more children. Nowerdays there are no longer packs just lone wolves . I believe I saw one cross our road. We still have many wild Bores ( Chingali ) outside our garden occasionally, as we are in a wood (Edge) The Pigrims from all different parts of the world come to Assisi, some stray past our house lost ( Pilgrims I mean). Edited May 22, 2013 by Mike Smith Cosmos Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...

kristalris Posted May 22, 2013 Share Posted May 22, 2013 A lingual theory of everything should be called an idea or concept of everything. But okay using current scientific lingo a TOE. The bottleneck is however not the logic but the garbage or non garbage you put into that theory. The reason for that is the want for more essential data in order to clench the issue. This you get via testing and thus dreaming up testable idea's and subsequently concepts that providing thus the testable idea's. Given thus that it calls for educated creative guesswork. To require therefor a mathematical basis requiring measurements on the nano-meter given an inherent deviation in meters dictates that a lingual logical approach is at first the primer way to go about this. That is BTW a dictate of mathematics applied properly! -1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...

SamBridge Posted May 23, 2013 Share Posted May 23, 2013 (edited) Sam...I am a bit confused here. I have been posting about how Non-Existence is not possible. Are you arguing with me? Split Infinity Of course I'm agreeing, I said "therefore nothingness cannot exist". Btw, going off topic with hounds guys, I doubt hounds have many contributions to understanding the nature of non-existence. Also, logic alone can't answer a question based on physical circumstances because you need at least some data of physical reality that the given set of logical equations applies to reality in the first place in order to prove that the sequence of logical steps applies to the specific component of reality at all. You can think of it like an integral. When you take the integral of say, 2x, you get x^2+c. The curve at any point can always be destroyed as at least behind a function of x^2 involving x^2, but you need to know a specific data point of an actual function of x^2+c to know what C is and thus have a complete picture of the equation you are trying to describe. Edited May 23, 2013 by SamBridge Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...

Mike Smith Cosmos Posted May 23, 2013 Author Share Posted May 23, 2013 (edited) Btw, going off topic with hounds guys, I doubt hounds have many contributions to understanding the nature of non-existence. You can think of it like an integral. When you take the integral of say, 2x, you get x^2+c. The curve at any point can always be destroyed as at least behind a function of x^2 involving x^2, but you need to know a specific data point of an actual function of x^2+c to know what C is and thus have a complete picture of the equation you are trying to describe. SamBridge, You clearly think like a mathematician. With your example here, of intigration and how you need to have a constant to lock into a spacific curve rather than any of an infinity of curves, demonstrates how your mind thinks ! Clearly a very useful brain if you want to solve problems mathematically. Clearly from other posts of yours you can and do visualise problems. Contrary wise , I have a visualisation brain. Always for understanding my brain searches, hunts, gropes and usually furnishes me with a visualisation. similarly , it is not that I cannot do maths ( with the rider that it usually hurts my brain), it is likely to be last in line. Visualisation First. Experiment Second. Language third . .......................Maths down here somewhere ........... I understand many scientific principles can have and do have maths as a core idea. However , because of who I am and What I am , I owe it to myself to try to use ( what IS ME ) to the best use. Hence I see it as there can not be any greater challenge ( for me) , than to understand " what the whole Shebang is about" . So to me ( and maybe me alone, I doubt it ) I need, and must have a Visualisation of the whole Shebang. Failing that, I must use the features of language to describe what I cannot visualise. Hence this thread that you say is going on... is studded from my direction with a LINGUAL theory of everything together with visualisations . The Experiments believe me have been done . You may wonder and to some extent be justified in saying " Why is he continuing to Bang On About This " I have a feeling that the current body of science has built up a very effective bastion built on principles, determinism, predictability, maths , formula and laws, which is demonstrated in our current industrialised world. Great. But its not all there is. Clearly observing the natural world , we are still poles apart from how nature runs the world, the stars, the galaxies , the structure of the astronomical universe , and whatever is beyond the visible. I think there is a Gap, a very large Gap ,maybe an uncrossible Gap , many many Gaps that can NOT be CROSSED by our current mathematical models. We need to fly a bit. So the thrust of a few of my threads is to examine possible ways that could unlock, or form a navigable channel to further understanding as to . " HOW THE UNIVERSE WORKS ". and I believe I am not alone. I think many scientists are beginning to probe these new frontiers . . . Edited May 23, 2013 by Mike Smith Cosmos Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...

SamBridge Posted May 23, 2013 Share Posted May 23, 2013 You need visuals to know a certain mathematical pattern is applicable to reality, but you need math to prove what a pattern in reality actually is. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...

SplitInfinity Posted May 23, 2013 Share Posted May 23, 2013 Of course I'm agreeing, I said "therefore nothingness cannot exist". Btw, going off topic with hounds guys, I doubt hounds have many contributions to understanding the nature of non-existence. Also, logic alone can't answer a question based on physical circumstances because you need at least some data of physical reality that the given set of logical equations applies to reality in the first place in order to prove that the sequence of logical steps applies to the specific component of reality at all. You can think of it like an integral. When you take the integral of say, 2x, you get x^2+c. The curve at any point can always be destroyed as at least behind a function of x^2 involving x^2, but you need know what C is and thus have a complete picture of the equation you are trying to describeto know a specific data point of an actual function of x^2+c to . Sam...I am very good in the fields of Mathematics, Physics and a wide variety of other fields with many specific to the ARTS...such as Music, Sculpture, Painting upon a great many types of materials and mediums and I am especially good at using both my left and right brain hemispheres at the same time which if you check out the abilities of such people with Left/Right Brain Hemisphere Interconnectivity...you can google and view a great many sites detailing everything from such a persons ability to play guitar...using left and right hands while singing, reading music or accessing the song from memory...while performing or dancing on stage...taking a swig of beer or the like...developing new additions to the music...checking out a pretty girl...or guy...standing on a predetermined effects specific spot on stage for the purpose of effects, lasers, lighting, smoke...etc...used during a song...etc...etc...etc.. Such people...and being a signed, touring musician...I am apart of this group of people...can also rub their stomach and pat their head at the same time! LOL! Even more difficult for many...raise your arms and point your index fingers at each other and place their tips together. Now...at the same time...rotate your arms and hands and index fingers in circles...say the left side going clockwise and the right side going counter clockwise...thus to make perfect circles with both arms, hands and fingers...circles with a diameter of about 12 inches...and keep doing it. Make the circles using both sides at the same time just make certain one circle is made by going clockwise and the other...counter clockwise. Also...make certain you are making circles and not just moving your hands and arms up and down...and make certain each side is making the circles in opposite directions. This is A LOT harder than one would think and there is a very small percentage of people who can even do it after even practicing...and a tiny number of people who can do it the first time. The people who can do it right off the bat...are Left/Right Brain Hemisphere interconnective. The reason I told you all that is because...it has to do with your quoted above equations and specifically...to your statement..."to a specific data point of an actual function..." And from this quoted statement I will talk about your use of the word...FUNCTION. In Quantum Mechanics...we see Quanta such as say...Photons and Electrons among the other Quantum Particle/Wave Forms...as existing as BOTH PARTICLE AND WAVE. Experimentation...and this has been repeated and certified as a FACT...as when the experiment is repeated again and again...the results show us the specifics and VALUES of the specific Quanta being used...show us that when a Single Electron was used in the experiment...it had more than one FUNCTION. The Electron was shown to be used to power a Micro-Electric Motor and also be present elsewhere where it traveled to a ground. Thus the Electron...which is a Quantum Particle/Wave Form...was shown to have TWO FUNCTIONS...and other experiments have shown such Quanta to be able to have TWO OR MORE FUNCTIONS. Thus by such Quanta having two or more functions this then by logic and Math would mean such Quanta would have a VALUE SPECIFIC TO EACH FUNCTION. That of course would mean that such Quanta are demonstrating MULTIPLE VALUES...by condition and use. When looking at a Photon...again a Quantum Particle/Wave Form. Photons or Light have Frequency...as a Photon will exist as a VIRTUAL PARTICLE...existing at Infinite Position upon the Wave Length...that is frequency. Since this Quanta...Photons...can as the Electron have Two or More Functions...as has been demonstrated in the DOUBLE SLIT EXPERIMENT...we again can know that Multiple Function of a Quanta also means Multiple Value. As this applies to my Left/Right Brain Hemisphere explanation...a person who is perhaps...Left Hemisphere Dominant...and is very good in all things analytical as is needed to be good in all Math...can and will see exactly what you have seen and understood to type what you have as well as the explanation of needing data to point to function...you have gone there because you are HARDWIRED to do so. You are not wrong...it is just that you are only looking at the issue from the perspective of One Unit= One Function= One Value. When in reality...One Unit= Infinite Units= More than One Function= More than One Value. Split Infinity Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...

Mike Smith Cosmos Posted May 23, 2013 Author Share Posted May 23, 2013 (edited) You need visuals to know a certain mathematical pattern is applicable to reality, but you need math to prove what a pattern in reality actually is. You have played the part of the " Man of Words " Now I will play the part of " the Visualiser " Are you happy with my interpretation of what you have said in your last quoted post , in this visualisation . . . Is this roughly what you mean . . Edited May 23, 2013 by Mike Smith Cosmos -1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...

SamBridge Posted May 23, 2013 Share Posted May 23, 2013 No, I played the part of logical thinking. Formulas for circles are only approximations for circular objects found in reality and any legitimate mathematician will say that. But because of our observations, we know that a circle formula is such a good approximation for the area or circumference of of an equally curved object that we cant ignore it, and can show that if the object was perfectly circular that it would have an area or circumference very close to what the formula predicts. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...

SplitInfinity Posted May 23, 2013 Share Posted May 23, 2013 No, I played the part of logical thinking. Formulas for circles are only approximations for circular objects found in reality and any legitimate mathematician will say that. But because of our observations, we know that a circle formula is such a good approximation for the area or circumference of of an equally curved object that we cant ignore it, and can show that if the object was perfectly circular that it would have an area or circumference very close to what the formula predicts. You know...by kind of bringing up Pi....it allows me another example of the existence of Infinity. The calculation of Pi...and it is 3.141592653589793238462643383279502884197169399375105820974944592307816406286....etc....to the infinite. To get the Circumference of any circle you take the Diameter...the distance between any one point upon a circle to another point directly across from it upon that circle...and to know it is directly across the line between the two pints must cross the direct center point of the circle as well as their distance around the circle in either direction will be the same. Anyways...you take the Diameter of a circle and multiple that length or assigned value to Pi...or 3.1415926...etc. This sum will equal the circumference. To find the Area of a circle you multiple Pi times the Radius Squared. The radius being 1/2 the Diameter. To find the Volume of a circular ball...4/3 X Pi X Radius cubed. To find the surface area of a sphere...4 X Pi X Radius squared. Now all these formulas were created by using a specific ratios of aspects of a circle or sphere and by assigning values known or represented...we get our answers. Now this is Cold Hard Math and is undeniable. It is specific and unchanging. This Cold Hard Math brakes down when we go into the realm of QUANTUM MECHANICS. We are used to having a thing having one specific Function and Value. We are not used to a Thing...existing as Two Things...or existing as not a thing at all. Most have a hard time even dealing with the concepts in Quantum Mechanics but just like the Cold Hard Math...they exist within our Universal Reality. The question is...does Quantum Mechanics just exist in our Universal Reality...or is it by it's very nature existing within Multiple Universal Realities? Split Infinity Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...

SamBridge Posted May 24, 2013 Share Posted May 24, 2013 (edited) I've done a ton of stuff with my life to, but that has little to due with the discussion at hand. Probability density functions describes the probability of an electron around an atom with one output per input of an x value, which isn't the point anyway. The point is, we think of a logical pattern, then look at observed data to figure out the details of the pattern, or we have observations and make a pattern from it such as linearizing data. Math does not break down in quantum mechanics, in fact quantum mechanics exists practically because of math, particles only exist the way they do because it is not mathematically logical for their existence to be sustained when they have non half integer or non-integer spins or have frequencies with energies that are not multiples of Placnk's constant. If atoms had any other such frequencies, they would not exist, purely because the mathematical logic of the patterns that describe them do not permit atoms to exist those ways. Furthermore, just because something cannot be directly described as a Cartesian function does not mean it cannot be described in math at all. The curve x^2y^3-2xy^2-x^2+y-8xy+5 does not pass the vertical line test, yet it only has one output per input in polar coordinates. Something not being able to be classified as a function has little to do with weather or not it physically exists anyway. Another common misunderstanding about irrational values as well, they are in fact exact numbers that can represent definite length. Look at a square tile on a floor. If you label the length of one side as "1" unit, a line drawn between opposing vertices will have a length of exactly the positive square root of two units, which is irrational, yet this does not mean the line between those two points is infinitesimally shrinking or growing. On top of that, you can label the line drawn between vertices as its own single unit of length making the sides a length of exactly the (positive square root divided by two) units, and It's not changing at all. Both systems are logically correct and describe a pattern observed in reality, it doesn't matter which one you use. Quantum mechanics is a field of study verified countless times by scientific experiments as well, it has physical applications to reality. Edited May 24, 2013 by SamBridge Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...

SplitInfinity Posted May 24, 2013 Share Posted May 24, 2013 I've done a ton of stuff with my life to, but that has little to due with the discussion at hand. Probability density functions describes the probability of an electron around an atom with one output per input of an x value, which isn't the point anyway. The point is, we think of a logical pattern, then look at observed data to figure out the details of the pattern, or we have observations and make a pattern from it such as linearizing data. Math does not break down in quantum mechanics, in fact quantum mechanics exists practically because of math, particles only exist the way they do because it is not mathematically logical for their existence to be sustained when they have non half integer or non-integer spins or have frequencies with energies that are not multiples of Placnk's constant. If atoms had any other such frequencies, they would not exist. Furthermore, just because something cannot be directly described as a Cartesian function does not mean it cannot be described in math at all. The curve x^2y^3-2xy^2-x^2+y-8xy+5 does not pass the vertical line test, yet it only has one output per input in polar coordinates. Something not being able to be classified as a function has little to do with weather or not it physically exists anyway. Another common misunderstanding about irrational values as well, they are in fact exact numbers that can represent definite length. Look at a square tile on a floor. If you label the length of one side as "1" unit, a line drawn between opposing vertices will have a length of exactly the positive square root of two units, which is irrational, yet this does not mean the line between those two points is infinitesimally shrinking or growing. On top of that, you can label the line drawn between vertices as its own single unit of length making the sides a length of exactly the (positive square root divided by two) units, and It's not changing at all. Both systems are logically correct and describe a pattern observed in reality, it doesn't matter which one you use. Quantum mechanics is a field of study verified countless times by scientific experiments as well, it has physical applications to reality. Sam...although much of what you have posted I agree with...there is a few things I do not. Let's look at QCD Quantum Chromodynamics. In QCD...such Hadrons as Protons and Neutrons which have such Quanta as Quarks and Gluons...we know that the bond between two Quark/Gluon to another Quark/Gluon is at a state where the amount of force that exists within such a bond...will increase exactly to the amount of energy used to separate the Quarks. Because of this even if an INFINITE AMOUNT OF ENERGY were applied to separate two Quarks...the bond between the quarks would increase to an Infinite amount of Force keeping them together. Now given this aspect of QCD...if we look at the behavior of Quarks existing within Protons and Neutrons...such Quarks regardless of QCD must exist between a numerical minimum and maximum but at or between these numbers...QUARKS CAN EXIST NUMERICALLY AT WILL....as well such quarks are BLINKING IN AND OUT OF OUR UNIVERSAL REALITY. Here is where the Cold Hard Math Brakes Down...and other area it also brakes down is in Black Holes. Black Hole created Singularities have been studied and calculated and postulated till the cows have come home and even Steve H. has flip flopped upon the math on this more times than a pancake on a hot griddle. Split Infinity Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...

SamBridge Posted May 24, 2013 Share Posted May 24, 2013 (edited) s. In QCD...such Hadrons as Protons and Neutrons which have such Quanta as Quarks and Gluons...we know that the bond between two Quark/Gluon to another Quark/Gluon is at a state where the amount of force that exists within such a bond...will increase exactly to the amount of energy used to separate the Quarks. Yes, this is mainly why quarks have color confinement, the amount of energy calculated that you put into trying to separate quarks is exactly the amount of energy needed to create another quark. Because of this even if an INFINITE AMOUNT OF ENERGY were applied to separate two Quarks...the bond between the quarks would increase to an Infinite amount of Force keeping them together. Without reading I head I wouldn't see how these points pertain to the discussion, the bond doesn't "increase" necessarily, in fact if you add enough energy you can separate the nucleons of an atom to separate quarks to create quark-gluon plasma. Now given this aspect of QCD...if we look at the behavior of Quarks existing within Protons and Neutrons...such Quarks regardless of QCD must exist between a numerical minimum and maximum but at or between these numbers...QUARKS CAN EXIST NUMERICALLY AT WILL....as well such quarks are BLINKING IN AND OUT OF OUR UNIVERSAL REALITY. This is why I don't like pop-culture, it mis-interprets complicated things or over-simplifies them. From here I would guess that you would later say "because quarks exist out of reality, physics doesn't apply to them the same way". No quantum particle in any way phases through existence in reality and non-existence, their probabilities merely fluctuate, nothing more. Virtual particles in fact still exist with an energy proportional to some coefficient of i, the square root of -1. On top of that, quarks don't have "will", "will" is a property of living things, which last time I checked, quarks weren't. Quarks don't chose anything, their exact location is inherently random, nothing is forcing them to pop-up at a specific point, so their location is by nature is not predictable, though their probability in a given energy state and mode is precisely defined by accurate mathematics. This is not a failure of mathematics at al as we can logically describe probability using logical statements, if math somehow logically described the exact location, it could still say a particle exists in multiple locations at once, which there's nothing wrong with so long as the information does not past between two points equal to or greater than light. The randomness is a property of the probability not being confined to a specific location, and when you measure a particle you localize it to a point-like object that no longer has those indeterminate properties. Here is where the Cold Hard Math Brakes Down...and other area it also brakes down is in Black Holes. Black Hole created Singularities have been studied and calculated and postulated till the cows have come home and even Steve H. has flip flopped upon the math on this more times than a pancake on a hot griddle. Math doesn't ever "break down", our predictions do or our equations do not give the results we expected because we did not apply the right equations, math is the culmination of logical statements themselves, there are accurate equations besides Schwarzild's equations that can accurately describe what happens to an object in a black hole based on our current physics. Saying math breaks down is like saying there is an instance where 1 doesn't equal 1. 1 is always 1, and you will never find an instance in the universe where something is not itself. Edited May 24, 2013 by SamBridge Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...

Popcorn Sutton Posted May 25, 2013 Share Posted May 25, 2013 Is 1 also equal to the closest thing to it as well? How close does it need to be in order to equal 1? Also, black holes are the mind because we can't predict that unit, it is prompting/printing us. It needs to emit attention in order for our galaxy to have been solidified to this point. Waves collapse, but if there were any observation to cause that to occur prior to my known existence, then it needed to originate from the ultimate point of interest. The one where all prediction breaks down Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...

SplitInfinity Posted May 25, 2013 Share Posted May 25, 2013 Yes, this is mainly why quarks have color confinement, the amount of energy calculated that you put into trying to separate quarks is exactly the amount of energy needed to create another quark. Without reading I head I wouldn't see how these points pertain to the discussion, the bond doesn't "increase" necessarily, in fact if you add enough energy you can separate the nucleons of an atom to separate quarks to create quark-gluon plasma. Not everyone here is familiar with Particle Physics or Quantum Mechanics. I used the word...INCREASE...because I did not feel like making my post overly complex. This is why I don't like pop-culture, it mis-interprets complicated things or over-simplifies them. From here I would guess that you would later say "because quarks exist out of reality, physics doesn't apply to them the same way". No quantum particle in any way phases through existence in reality and non-existence, their probabilities merely fluctuate, nothing more. Virtual particles in fact still exist with an energy proportional to some coefficient of i, the square root of -1. On top of that, quarks don't have "will", "will" is a property of living things, which last time I checked, quarks weren't. Quarks don't chose anything, their exact location is inherently random, nothing is forcing them to pop-up at a specific point, so their location is by nature is not predictable, though their probability in a given energy state and mode is precisely defined by accurate mathematics. This is not a failure of mathematics at al as we can logically describe probability using logical statements, if math somehow logically described the exact location, it could still say a particle exists in multiple locations at once, which there's nothing wrong with so long as the information does not past between two points equal to or greater than light. The randomness is a property of the probability not being confined to a specific location, and when you measure a particle you localize it to a point-like object that no longer has those indeterminate properties. The FACT remains that inside such Hadrons...Quarks can exist numerically at or in between a certain set of numbers. Since Quarks are constantly in a state of random numerical quantity within Protons and Neutrons...and will never exceed or be in a lessor numerical state than the minimum...your description within your last sentence quoted above does not apply. Your sentence is applicable to Quantum Particle/Wave Form Particle/Wave Duality...but does not apply to Quark Numerical Existence within such Hadrons. Math doesn't ever "break down", our predictions do or our equations do not give the results we expected because we did not apply the right equations, math is the culmination of logical statements themselves, there are accurate equations besides Schwarzild's equations that can accurately describe what happens to an object in a black hole based on our current physics. Saying math breaks down is like saying there is an instance where 1 doesn't equal 1. 1 is always 1, and you will never find an instance in the universe where something is not itself. It could be said that MATH DOES NOT BREAK DOWN when being applied to specifics and constructs that are limited solely to our Space/Time Geometric Dimensionality. But the moment we attempt to apply our MATH which has at the very heart of it's logic and design the associations to our Universal Reality...to any construct, reality, existence or action that is either only partially governed by our Universal Physical Laws or has a dual or multiple state of existence which our Universal Reality is just but a part...our MATH is no longer relative or viable for any such use of defining a Value or State in such conditions. Split Infinity Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...

SamBridge Posted May 25, 2013 Share Posted May 25, 2013 It could be said that MATH DOES NOT BREAK DOWN when being applied to specifics and constructs that are limited solely to our Space/Time Geometric Dimensionality. The only way mathematics can break down is if we cannot conclude any logical pattern from a given set of data. Since this is not true, math does not break down. But the moment we attempt to apply our MATH which has at the very heart of it's logic and design the associations to our Universal Reality...to any construct, reality, existence or action that is either only partially governed by our Universal Physical Laws or has a dual or multiple state of existence which our Universal Reality is just but a part...our MATH is no longer relative or viable for any such use of defining a Value or State in such conditions. By definition, the universe contains all that exists, therefore nothing that exists can exist outside of it. Physics describes properties of all that exists, therefore if it is inside the universe, physics is applicable to it, therefore physics applies to all particles no matter what time frame they are in or what position they are in. Math is simply logical statements put into terms of numeric values, since we can do this with just about everything we see in the universe, I don't see a specific place in reality where math breaks down. We can always make some logical pattern out of something we observe. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...

SplitInfinity Posted May 25, 2013 Share Posted May 25, 2013 The only way mathematics can break down is if we cannot conclude any logical pattern from a given set of data. Since this is not true, math does not break down. By definition, the universe contains all that exists, therefore nothing that exists can exist outside of it. Physics describes properties of all that exists, therefore if it is inside the universe, physics is applicable to it, therefore physics applies to all particles no matter what time frame they are in or what position they are in. Math is simply logical statements put into terms of numeric values, since we can do this with just about everything we see in the universe, I don't see a specific place in reality where math breaks down. We can always make some logical pattern out of something we observe. OK...Logical Pattern Issues...try to show me some Math to describe why Quanta exist as both Particle and Wave? Try to show me some Math that will define what exactly is the state of the Matter and Energy that has been swallowed by Black Hole Singularity? Since singularity is One Dimensionality...thus not even Quantum Particicle/Wave Forms can exist in such geometry...and yet we can calculate by the observation of Gravitic Effect what a Black Holes Mass equals...is the matter and energy swallowed existing within our Universal Reality or is it not? By the way...I am enjoying the debate. Split Infinity Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...

SamBridge Posted May 25, 2013 Share Posted May 25, 2013 OK...Logical Pattern Issues...try to show me some Math to describe why Quanta exist as both Particle and Wave? Try to show me some Math that will define what exactly is the state of the Matter and Energy that has been swallowed by Black Hole Singularity? Since singularity is One Dimensionality...thus not even Quantum Particicle/Wave Forms can exist in such geometry...and yet we can calculate by the observation of Gravitic Effect what a Black Holes Mass equals...is the matter and energy swallowed existing within our Universal Reality or is it not? By the way...I am enjoying the debate. Split Infinity Particles can be logically described as waves of probability which can change localization according to their energy states, using equations such as Schrodinger's Equation to describe those probability waves. If you observe 2kg of mass falling into a black hole, the black hole gains 2kg of mass. What's complicated about that? We can use a computer to project what happens when a probabilistic wave-particle travels into a black hole. Whether or not that's what really happens is in no way related to faults of logic itself, it is related to whether or not we are applying the right logic to black holes and/or particles in the first place. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...

SplitInfinity Posted May 26, 2013 Share Posted May 26, 2013 Particles can be logically described as waves of probability which can change localization according to their energy states, using equations such as Schrodinger's Equation to describe those probability waves. If you observe 2kg of mass falling into a black hole, the black hole gains 2kg of mass. What's complicated about that? We can use a computer to project what happens when a probabilistic wave-particle travels into a black hole. Whether or not that's what really happens is in no way related to faults of logic itself, it is related to whether or not we are applying the right logic to black holes and/or particles in the first place. Well you certainly tried real hard to give me something to answer my questions...but obviously...and I know you know...that these answers won't cut it. The questions I asked cannot be solved...nor have you provided a Mathematical Representation for their solution...which is what would be needed at the very least to answer the question. What you have provided is as far as the Particle/Wave Question....is a Theoretical Association and Equation which would be used to describe Particle location variance dependent upon energy state. This assuming that such a Particles Wave State is based upon probability. My question was...Show me some math to explain why Quanta exist as both Particle and Wave...NOT show me a possible associatative equation detailing aspects of wave existence. The Black Hole question is even further off mark...I am asking you to give me some Math detailing what is the state of the particles of Mass and Energy after being swallowed by a Black Holes Singularity? You are not even close on that one. The reality is...our MATH is specific to our Universal Reality and anything that is either connected to a Universal Condition or Universal Reality that is not our own yet also is connected to our Universal Reality...as is DEFINITELY the case in the Black Hole Singularity question....THE MATH BRAKES DOWN. Split Infinity Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...

Popcorn Sutton Posted May 26, 2013 Share Posted May 26, 2013 When it comes to black holes and waves, I think the equation goes like this. Hole/wave = P(time| unit) as opposed to P(unit |time) And split, I know that youre a very smart person. There is a typo here and there, but, is there a reason you use the word "BRAKE" as in "the math BRAKES down" as opposed to "break"? Does the math not break down? It just "BRAKES" down? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...

SamBridge Posted May 26, 2013 Share Posted May 26, 2013 (edited) The questions I asked cannot be solved...nor have you provided a Mathematical Representation for their solution...which is what would be needed at the very least to answer the question. No I'm pretty sure I answered one of them, you wanted to know how a particle could go through a black hole, so just take a wave packet and project it going through a black hole with and calculate it's relativistic speed and time dilation using Einsteins equations and the Lorentz Transformation. Ideally you'd have a computer to do it because it would take hours or even days to calculate the exact pattern over time by hand. My question was...Show me some math to explain why Quanta exist as both Particle and Wave... See Schrodinger's Equations. Energy does not have the same properties as matter and thus multiple energies can occupy the same space, uncertainty being a mathematical principal also follows the property of not being matter. Because of this, amplitudes or "amounts" of energy and uncertainty can add up and subtract by occupying the same region of space in what is called destructive and constructive interference, and the specific results you get of that interference is the result of how mathematical logic works, that .5 + .5 = 1, or 1/2 - 1/2 = 0, which are based on the amplitudes in different coordinates in space. Edited May 26, 2013 by SamBridge Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...

Popcorn Sutton Posted May 26, 2013 Share Posted May 26, 2013 If you guys give me the results of your calculations in wave/particle duality and black holes, I can plug it into my program and get the best approximation of what occurs Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...

SplitInfinity Posted May 26, 2013 Share Posted May 26, 2013 When it comes to black holes and waves, I think the equation goes like this. Hole/wave = P(time| unit) as opposed to P(unit |time) And split, I know that youre a very smart person. There is a typo here and there, but, is there a reason you use the word "BRAKE" as in "the math BRAKES down" as opposed to "break"? Does the math not break down? It just "BRAKES" down? Pop...I am quite possibly the worse speller on Earth! LOL! I type run on sentences and for the LIFE OF ME...I cannot remember where I might have put my $500 Sunglasses 2 seconds ago! LOL! The really weird thing is I can remember incredibly long musical pieces as well as my long term memory is second to none. I have memories when I was just a few months old...crazy huh? It seems that my mind has the ability to do just about anything but it seems to have a MIND OF IT'S OWN! THAT...is why my forum name is SPLIT INFINITY...not because of some Sci-Fi Fantasy Book. Split Infinity No I'm pretty sure I answered one of them, you wanted to know how a particle could go through a black hole, so just take a wave packet and project it going through a black hole with and calculate it's relativistic speed and time dilation using Einsteins equations and the Lorentz Transformation. Ideally you'd have a computer to do it because it would take hours or even days to calculate the exact pattern over time by hand. See Schrodinger's Equations. Energy does not have the same properties as matter and thus multiple energies can occupy the same space, uncertainty being a mathematical principal also follows the property of not being matter. Because of this, amplitudes or "amounts" of energy and uncertainty can add up and subtract by occupying the same region of space in what is called destructive and constructive interference, and the specific results you get of that interference is the result of how mathematical logic works, that .5 + .5 = 1, or 1/2 - 1/2 = 0, which are based on the amplitudes in different coordinates in space. Sam...I appreciate and enjoy our debates a great deal and I want you to know that I am not the kind of a person to take anything of this nature that I place such a high value upon for granted. I am telling you this as a Just In Case as some people have a problem separating the Mental and Intellectual Conflicts which are inevitable in such complex debates from some kind of perception of a slight or personal attack. I am not like that and I hope and think that you are not like that either. Saying that...Hold On...let me get out my NUNCHUCKS and BRASS KNUCKLES! LOL!....I am STILL ticked off about SHROATY'S example that uses the Dead or Not Dead or Quasi-ALIVE/DEAD....via Poison Gas...CAT IN THE BOX! I have a Black Cat and even though the Little SOB is always jumping up on top of my lap top and the next thing I know I am looking outside my front door looking at a Large Box that has been shipped to me from Amazon containing 2000 Copies of a stupid book called of PANDAS AND PENCIL NECKED GEEKS! Curiously....it has a picture of Jesus sporting an AK-47 pulling the trigger and filling Charles Darwin with Bullet Holes! LOL!....I still LOVE the little SOB! So I have ISSUES! The thing is that a Black Holes Singularity is a state of ONE DIMENSIONALITY. This would be an independent Universal Reality all to itself. Since a One Dimensional State has no length, height, width, time....nor can FREQUENCY EXIST never mind the Quantum Particle/Wave Forms that obtain such Frequency....the particles of Mass and Energy that are swallowed by a Black Hole are Leaving our Universal Reality as they cannot exist once they are swallowed....thus we HAVE ABSOLUTELY NO IDEA what such Particles state would be....so our Math is USELESS in this case. Split Infinity Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...

SamBridge Posted May 27, 2013 Share Posted May 27, 2013 The thing is that a Black Holes Singularity is a state of ONE DIMENSIONALITY. Hypothetically singularities are actually 0 dimensional, but scientists have moved on from that and actually realized it doean't make physical sense for something be be infinitely small, and thus adapted different theores about singularities using string theory, quantum foam and extreme localization. This would be an independent Universal Reality all to itself. No, it wouldn't, it would mean you can describe it's location in space as a line, which doesn't make physical sense and is why scientists looked for new models. Since a One Dimensional State has no length, height, width, time....nor can FREQUENCY EXIST never mind the Quantum Particle/Wave Forms that obtain such Frequency....the particles of Mass and Energy that are swallowed by a Black Hole are Leaving our Universal Reality as they cannot exist once they are swallowed....thus we HAVE ABSOLUTELY NO IDEA what such Particles state would be....so our Math is USELESS in this case. ZERO dimensional objects have no length width or height, which itself has led to speculation that the interior of a black hole is all uniformly one object. However, as it was stated before, this does not make physical sense and there is little evidence for the phenomena of 0 dimensional objects occurring. You're trying to complain about lack of evidence and you're supporting an idea that has even less evidence than current theories. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...

SplitInfinity Posted May 27, 2013 Share Posted May 27, 2013 #1...Hypothetically singularities are actually 0 dimensional, but scientists have moved on from that and actually realized it doean't make physical sense for something be be infinitely small, and thus adapted different theores about singularities using string theory, quantum foam and extreme localization. #2...No, it wouldn't, it would mean you can describe it's location in space as a line, which doesn't make physical sense and is why scientists looked for new models. #3...ZERO dimensional objects have no length width or height, which itself has led to speculation that the interior of a black hole is all uniformly one object. However, as it was stated before, this does not make physical sense and there is little evidence for the phenomena of 0 dimensional objects occurring. You're trying to complain about lack of evidence and you're supporting an idea that has even less evidence than current theories. I placed a number...1, 2, 3, before each question so I can refer to them in such a manner given my penchant for multipurposeful sentence structure. LOL! As far as your #1 Reply...this is a case of Physicists and Cosmologists trying to out smart themselves and look right past the obvious. The obvious being...although length, width, height and time have been assigned the roles of Dimensional states 1, 2, 3 and 4...with 4 being time...the REALITY is far more complex as only 4 Dimensional States assigned to our Universal Space/Time and all the Matter and Energy within it are NOT ENOUGH dimensional states for our reality to exist. But still...the OBVIOUS is being over looked at that is...Every single Universal Dimensional State is interconnective and governed to every other existing Universal Dimensional State. So even though Hadrons such as Protons and Neutrons are comprised of Quantum Particle/Wave Forms which need far more Universal Dimensionality than 3-D or 4-D just to be able to exist...3-D as it would be used to describe an object with the words Length, Width and Height...are 3 specific dimensional states that cannot exist without each other within our Universal Space/Time reality. So we can't have 3-D without Time or 4-D...(in reality we can't probably have 3 or 4-D without at the very least 10 or 11-D and maybe as high as 26 to 48-D)...or more...but for argument sake...a 2-D object cannot exist...3-D objects cannot exist as Time is needed or 4-D to allow MOVEMENT for Electron Orbital Fields...and even 4-D cannot exist as this will not allow for Electrons and Photons and other Quanta to behave as both Particle and Wave as well as will not allow for Frequency. So as far as 1-D or Singularity...I will say that Singularity CANNOT be described as ZERO-D...as 1 Single Point of Reference MUST exist to allow all the other possible existing Universal Dimensionality to have a base construct upon which they can be interconnective and thus allow for all dimensional states to effect and be effected by each other. So whoever thought up...HEY! Let's pretend we are REAL SMART and tell everyone...LOOK NO HANDS!...or NO D!...really are not very smart at all! LOL! I guess I forgot to list 1,2,or 3 when posting so...oh well! Split Infinity Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...

## Recommended Posts