Measuring the shape of the Milky Way's black hole

Measuring the shape of the Milky Way's black hole
This figure shows the locations of the radio telescopes linked together to observe the supermassive black hole at the center of our Milky Way. Credit: Ortiz-LeOn et al.

At the heart of our galaxy's center is SagA*, a supermassive black hole containing about four million solar-masses of material. SgrA* is relatively faint, unlike the supermassive black holes in some other galaxies. This is probably because, unlike its active cousins, it is not aggressively accreting material and so is neither heating up its environment nor ejecting particularly intense jets of fast-moving charged particles. Of course, it is also faint because it is located about twenty-five thousand light years from Earth and because it is shrouded in absorbing, intervening dust. Nevertheless, radiation at radio, submillimeter, infrared and X-rays can penetrate the veiling material. As the closest super massive black hole to Earth, SgA* is a template for astronomers actively studying black holes, offering the best views of the physical properties and environments. The radio emission in particular is thought to come from material falling onto a disk around the black hole and heating up electrons, and from ejected material both within the jet itself and its nozzle.

One of the most exciting new projects studying SgrA* uses Very Long Baseline Interferometry (VLBI) techniques, which links an array of widely-spaced radio telescopes to obtain very high spatial resolutions. CfA astronomers Michael Johnson, Shep Doeleman, Lindy Blackburn, Mark Reid, Andrew Chael, Katherine Rosenfeld, Hotaka Shiokawa, and Laura Vertatschitsch and their colleagues used a VLBI network to detect SgrA* in millimeter wavelengths. They were successfully able to model its size, thanks to the inclusion in the array for the first time of the Large Millimeter Telescope Alfonso Serrano in Mexico.

The scientists conclude that the radio emission comes from a region only 1.2 astronomical units in diameter (one AU is approximately the average distance of the Earth from the Sun). The black hole's radius of no return itself (its Schwarzschild radius) is only about 10 times smaller. They estimate that the emission they see comes from hot electrons in the inner parts of the accretion flow, but there are many details to sort out and additional observations are needed to eliminate other possibilities. Nevertheless, this first result is a remarkable achievement in probing the nature of supermassive , their environments, and the processes taking place around them.


Explore further

No fireworks in the galactic center

Citation: Measuring the shape of the Milky Way's black hole (2016, June 24) retrieved 21 May 2019 from https://phys.org/news/2016-06-milky-black-hole.html
This document is subject to copyright. Apart from any fair dealing for the purpose of private study or research, no part may be reproduced without the written permission. The content is provided for information purposes only.
122 shares

Feedback to editors

User comments

Jun 25, 2016
Is shape a meaningful word here?

Jun 25, 2016
Bet it's round..
Most certainly won't be triangular or rhomboidal

Jun 25, 2016
@Enthusiastic, yes. At least two ways:
1. The shape of the event horizon depends on the rotation of the BH.
2. The shape of the event horizon depends on the surrounding matter which alters the gravity field.

That's leaving aside any additional effects from the EM, weak, and color forces.

@Transmission, does "round" include ellipsoids in your view? If so then you are correct; but if not you are incorrect in assuming that BH EHs cannot be anything but perfectly spherical. This is implicit in GRT.

Jun 25, 2016
The real shape of a BH can be seen here;

https://www.googl...;bih=332

Jun 25, 2016
@Da Schneib in this somewhat jovial context round can be taken to mean no sharp corners.

I would assume due to spin they would be elliptical.

I recall you mentioning earlier there are four types of black holes, do you reckon the Schwarzchild variant with no spin or charge would be spherical? or very close to it?

Jun 25, 2016
@Da Schneib in this somewhat jovial context round can be taken to mean no sharp corners.

I would assume due to spin they would be elliptical.
Good answer. ;)

I recall you mentioning earlier there are four types of black holes, do you reckon the Schwarzchild variant with no spin or charge would be spherical? or very close to it?
That would depend on the gravity around it due to relatively nearby and/or large masses that could change its shape. Very close to it? Yes, the only exception being if another BH or a neutron star were nearby. Or maybe a white dwarf.

But that assumes that it has no spin; I'm not sure the dynamics of star formation could allow that. The most likely source for spinless uncharged black holes is primordial creation during the Big Bang. How likely that is remains to be seen.

Jun 25, 2016
So the Schwarzchild variant is a theoretical BH yet to be observed..

Cheers mate,
I learnt more stuff today
:) : )

Jun 25, 2016
So the Schwarzchild variant is a theoretical BH yet to be observed..
Not surprising considering that the ones we can see are the ones that have accretion disks, and those are the ones that are spinning. Otherwise, they wouldn't have accretion disks... Heh.

And if a star passes by off-center but close enough to be consumed even partially, it inherently introduces spin into the black hole when it is absorbed: linear momentum giving rise to angular momentum. Heh again.

Finally even if spinning there has to be something to consume for us to see it being consumed. A hole in intergalactic space wouldn't have anything to consume, so we wouldn't see it. Heh yet again.

Could be systematic selection.

Cheers mate,
I learnt more stuff today
:) : )
Sure! That's good to hear.

Jun 25, 2016
Not surprising considering that the ones we can see


You crank, no one has ever seen a Black Hole. If someone has as you suggest, we'd sure like to see the picture & not another one of those artistic renderings of accretion discs.........oh, wait, I forgot, you have a picture of one because you've been there.

Jun 25, 2016
Here is the power of evidence.

We've now seen black holes four ways: with X-rays, with visible light, with infrared, and with radio.

To top it all off we've also now detected them with gravity waves. Not once but at least twice and perhaps three times.

The gaps grow smaller and smaller. The shrill whining that there are gaps grows fainter and fainter.

Just as a reminder:
-m'' + m'n' - m'² - 2m'/r = 0
m'' + m'² - m'n' - 2m'/r = 0
e⁻²ⁿ (1 + m'r - n'r) - 1 = 0
R₂₂ sin² ϕ = 0

Source: http://www.etsu.e...esis.pdf

Jun 25, 2016
@DaS
1. The shape of the event horizon depends on the rotation of the BH.
2. The shape of the event horizon depends on the surrounding matter which alters the gravity field.


Yeah I expect the general shape of the event horizon to be an ellipsoid. I conjecture most BH would be spinning. What I meant was the article doesn't really discuss the shape of the blackhole so much as its scale or diameter. Furthermore inside the EH all geodesics lead to the center and I don't think euclidean geometry has much meaning there. What is an ellipsoid when space is so warped? It's like describing shapes when the "world" is a funhouse mirror. This is much like how we measure BH spin as a fraction out of 1 rather than by RPM wherein RPM has little meaning to a semi-dimensionless object where time is stopped-ish.

Jun 25, 2016
Here is the power of evidence.

The gaps grow smaller and smaller. The shrill whining that there are gaps grows fainter and fainter.

Just as a reminder:
-m'' + m'n' - m'² - 2m'/r = 0
m'' + m'² - m'n' - 2m'/r = 0
e⁻²ⁿ (1 + m'r - n'r) - 1 = 0
R₂₂ sin² Ď� = 0

Source: http://www.etsu.e...esis.pdf


Crank science Schneibo, just more crank science. Once again, how about some pictures from those claiming to have seen the surface of a BH as you've claimed? Come on, offer up those pictures you've seen as well as the Partial DEs you claim proving the existence of Infinite Gravity Wells on the surface of stellar masses dubbed Black Holes. PICTURES, PICTURES, PICTURES, Schneibo, you claim to have seen them, share them.

Jun 25, 2016
^ More evidence Benni hasn't a clue. Ask for DEs for years, gets DEs, asks for pictures of black holes...

Arguing with Benni is like playing chess with a pigeon. You can make all the right moves but the pigeon is going to shit all over the board, knock over the pieces, and strut around like it's victorious. Benni, like the pigeon, doesn't know or understand the game.

Jun 25, 2016
Benni, like the pigeon, doesn't know or understand the game.


.....sure I do, it's called Crank Science when you claim
that considering that the ones we can see are the ones
. I know, Schneibo has special vision, right? Along with a special telescope? And he only shares what he has seen with special people? Cranks.

......then there is his Crank math which he presents as evidence that Infinite Gravity Wells exist on the surface of a BH. I guess he imagines gravity just starts showing up from nowhere by simply squeezing a given quantity of mass into a smaller space, that gravity is not conserved based on the quantity of mass present.

Jun 25, 2016
What I meant was the article doesn't really discuss the shape of the blackhole so much as its scale or diameter.
Well, you got a pretty good point there.

Furthermore inside the EH
all is speculation without quantum gravity. I usually don't discuss anything inside of the event horizon; no way to obtain data, you see. Not to be impolite or cut you off; I just don't discuss it because I think it's footless.

This is much like how we measure BH spin as a fraction out of 1 rather than by RPM wherein RPM has little meaning to a semi-dimensionless object where time is stopped-ish.
There actually is a reason for that other than this one. See this section of the Wikipedia article on black holes: https://en.wikipe...operties Basically we don't think a black hole with a spin (J/m)² < m² can exist (where J is spin and m is mass).

Jun 25, 2016
Ahh it's making a relation between the mass and the spin. Thanks Da Schneib. I just understood it as without knowing the true radius of the object we wouldn't be able state the rpm. I guess that raises the question, "How do you find the angular momentum of a blackhole?"

Jun 25, 2016
Visual representation of angular momentum of black hole;
https://www.googl...;bih=652

Jun 25, 2016
And.... once again, Benni...
The only one imagining (or calculating) Infinite gravity wells, is you...
Give it a rest.

Jun 25, 2016
I guess that raises the question, "How do you find the angular momentum of a blackhole?"
Here's a pretty interesting page that describes how we do it:

http://stronggrav...le-spin/

Jun 25, 2016
There actually is a reason for that other than this one. See this section of the Wikipedia article on black holes: https://en.wikipe...operties Basically we don't think a black hole with a spin (J/m)² < m² can exist (where J is spin and m is mass).
Thanks for that link, DS.
I actually read the whole page, not just the linked section.
Way interesting and informative...

Jun 25, 2016
I guess that raises the question, "How do you find the angular momentum of a blackhole?"
Here's a pretty interesting page that describes how we do it:

http://stronggrav...le-spin/

And..... so was that one...:-)

Jun 26, 2016
I have a question for both sides of the fence,
Could someone please explain to me how, lets say a star core with 5 x solar mass
can compress to a singularity. Is there a point where the density of the object and gravity is in equilibrium leaving an object of a certain size diameter (say 3kms? or does density never = gravitational force and that's why is goes to singularity?

Which raises the next question, how does a star with 5 x solar masses compress to singularity and a star with say 1000 solar masses compress to singularity too?
Would the larger mass object wield much more gravitational influence in surrounding space than the lesser mass object even though both are singularity because it has more mass packed into it?

Sorry for all the questions but you guys are the only blokes I know who can answer this stuff.

Jun 26, 2016
Well, I'll start the story for you: what happens is a supernova.

Now, remember that the reason a star existed in the first place was that fusion ignited in the core, because enough hydrogen gas came together in a nebula and compressed together by gravity until it formed a proto-star, and it kept compressing until fusion started. The radiation pressure from the fusion holds the star out against its gravity.

Eventually, in the core of the star, all the hydrogen is fused to helium. It turns out helium can fuse too, and that other elements all the way up to iron can be formed by fusion; but once the reaction makes iron, the iron can't be fused and make energy. So it accumulates. And, of course, the radiation pressure then isn't holding the star out anymore.

Once that happens, the star will become a core-collapse supernova; it's inevitable, dictated by gravity.
[contd]

Jun 26, 2016
DaS

I typed an entry level story about this and realized a novella about stars was beyond the length allowed here. I decided to hit refresh and boom you started yours. Thanks to you I can just link interesting wiki pages.

https://en.wikipe...te_dwarf
https://en.wikipe...pressure
https://en.wikipe...ar_limit
https://en.wikipe...ron_star
https://en.wikipe...ff_limit
https://en.wikipe...ark_star

Jun 26, 2016
[contd]
There are various types of supernovae; that's not all that important (except for Type 1a; they're different and don't undergo core collapse). What's important is how much mass there is in the core. And that's dictated by how big the star was to start with.

If the core is under 1.2 solar masses, it will wind up as a white dwarf with no supernova explosion. If it's above that, but still below 4 or 5 solar masses, it will make a supernova and wind up as a neutron star. Above that, it will wind up as a black hole.

This is dictated by the mass, which determines how much pressure there is on the core. In the neutron star, the pressure was enough to push the nuclei together past the electron shells of the atoms in the core, but not to push past the pressure of the quarks in the nuclei; the core becomes a neutron star.
[contd]

Jun 26, 2016
@Enthusiast, link the WIkipedia articles for Type Ib and Ic and Type II supernovae too, please, since you're collecting links.

[contd]
But if the pressure is too strong even to be stopped by the pressure of the quarks in the nuclei, then there is nothing else to stop the collapse and the core will become a black hole.

A supernova is the most powerful explosion we know of. Once the critical percentage of iron is present in the core of the star, collapse takes place in a matter of minutes or even seconds, and the core collapses at half the speed of light; the supernova will shine brighter than its entire galaxy for weeks or months, but all of the action that makes the energy happens in minutes or seconds of core collapse. The outer layers of the star are thrown outward by the explosion, and it's them we see glowing for the extended period.

So the answer to your first question is, in a black hole, even matter degeneracy is not sufficient to overcome the gravity.

Jun 26, 2016
There's a bit more to explain; your first question has more to it, and I'll clean up those loose ends after I've slept some more. Then, if no one else has done it, I'll answer your second question.

Jun 26, 2016
@Da Schneib

I had prior understanding of star formation and neutron stars overcoming electron shell pressure etc.

But didn't know about quark level pressure.

That's awesome mate ta. :)

looking forward to your next post.
Thanks for taking the time too, much appreciated.

Jun 26, 2016
Sure thing DaS
https://en.wikipe...pernovae
https://en.wikipe...upernova

For extra credit:
Sometimes a star with one destiny gets a second shot at greatness by cannibalizing a friend.
https://en.wikipe...upernova
Very energetic hypothetical transition from Neutron Star to Quark Star
https://en.wikipe...ark-nova

Jun 26, 2016
YOu guys have been busy already, this AM...:-)
Off to our art show at Northwestern U in Evanston this morning, so I am looking forward to exploring EF's links tonight after we come home..
Thanks for making this interesting and compelling to all 3 of you!

Jun 26, 2016
Could someone please explain to me how, lets say a star core with 5 x solar mass
can compress to a singularity.
I should point out here that we don't know for sure it compresses to a singularity. In fact, we don't think it can; but we don't know what happens once the event horizon forms (that is, once the density is high enough). Whatever goes on inside it requires quantum gravity to describe, and we don't have a quantum theory of gravity. It would have been more correct to ask how the core can compress to form an event horizon.

There. That detail is cleaned up. Now to answer your second question.

Jun 26, 2016
does density never = gravitational force and that's why is goes to singularity?


Gravity is not DENSITY dependent, it is MASS dependent. Squeezing 100 atoms of something into a smaller space does nothing to increase GRAVITY. In every fission or fusion reaction not only is ENERGY conserved, so also is GRAVITY conserved, there is no FREE GRAVITY lunch here by simply shrinking the size of a given mass to a smaller volume. I learned this in Engineering school studying nuclear reactor design.

Jun 26, 2016
Benni we went over the Inverse square law and how density affects gravity. You're an idiot, willfully!

Jun 26, 2016
Benni,

The point I was trying to make was similar to neutron star formation where the gravitational force squeezes everything to a point where it can't overcome the resistance of the matter not being able to be compressed anymore leaving a body of certain sized matter.

I prob could've worded it somewhat better but hey, I'm just a dumb bloke who finds this stuff awfully interesting and just do the best I can.

By the way, I've noticed in quite a few of your posts to various threads you seem to go against the general consensus. As a matter of interest, was there some point during your "classical training" where the agreed upon curriculum didn't sit very well with you and you decided there are better methods which explain the physics of our universe?

Text doesn't convey tone or inflection so please don't take the above as sarcasm, it's a genuine enquiry.

Jun 26, 2016
Would the larger mass object wield much more gravitational influence in surrounding space than the lesser mass object even though both are singularity because it has more mass packed into it?
The quick answer is, yes, a black hole has a mass, and a black hole with a bigger mass has more gravitational influence than one with a lesser mass.

There you have it, my friend.

Jun 26, 2016
I should point out here that we don't know for sure it compresses to a singularity. In fact, we don't think it can;


Da Schneib

That's really interesting - If it doesn't or cannot shrink to singularity therefore it must have a radius.
That means there would be a minimum radius indexed to angular momentum where it cannot get smaller because it would violate the speed of light constraint.

Jun 26, 2016
Of greater import, a singularity has infinite density, among other apparently impossible characteristics; so physicists don't think that's what will actually happen. They think that quantum gravity effects will become more important than relativistic gravity effects, and that this will prevent there being an actual singularity. But since we don't have a theory of quantum gravity, nobody really knows. What's inside the event horizon is a matter at this time for speculation because we don't have quantum gravity.

Personally I think we'll find a quantum gravity theory, and then we will be able to do more than speculate, but until then I generally avoid talking about what happens inside the event horizon.

Jun 26, 2016
It would make for a very interesting thought experiment / conjecture I guess, especially if classic physics breaks down, then anything could go on inside.

Wonder if we'll ever find out in this lifetime.

Jun 26, 2016
Theory-wise, I suspect there's a fair bit of math between here and there. I wouldn't give better than 50% by 2100 and I think even that's not very solid. A lot of really smart people have tried and nobody's done it yet.

As far as actually going and looking, I'd say that's at least generations off and if we don't find any FTL, longer than that. And maybe never.

Jun 26, 2016
It would make for a very interesting thought experiment / conjecture I guess, especially if classic physics breaks down, then anything could go on inside


It is a mistaken representation of the laws of General Relativity that there exists a POINT where all those laws break down, that in the center of a BH exists a ONE DIMENSIONAL GRAVITATIONAL SINGULARITY, a so-called POINT in which a huge mass is contained within an INFINITELY SMALL SPACE where DENSITY & GRAVITY become INFINITE. No serious Nuclear Physicist believes this, it's why we don't hire Astro-Physicists to design nuclear reactors.

Maximum gravitational attraction of one stellar body to another occurs from the surfaces of those bodies, not from center to center because in accordance with the inverse Square Law as applied to the force of gravity calculation of gravity forces are zero, just the opposite of the manner SINGULARITY is applied to BH Theory where maximum gravity is defined as being in the CENTER.


Jun 26, 2016
As far as actually going and looking, I'd say that's at least generations off and if we don't find any FTL

We could always make our own. Black holes aren't a function of mass but of density.

(Though I'd prefer we don't do this experiment on - or anywhere near - Earth.)

Jun 26, 2016
As far as actually going and looking, I'd say that's at least generations off and if we don't find any FTL

We could always make our own. Black holes aren't a function of mass but of density.
Maybe. If we get a handle on quantum gravity, we might find a way. We might also be able to make an event horizon without a mass. We've seen some folks do things like that in materials science in articles on this site recently, I think.

(Though I'd prefer we don't do this experiment on - or anywhere near - Earth.)
Yeah, no kidding. Or near the Sun (by which I mean within the Solar System, if you want to be really paranoid) for that matter.

Maybe the explanation for the Fermi Paradox is that when a species discovers how to make black holes they always eventually have an accident with them.

Jun 26, 2016
If we do find FTL then we have a method to send information back through an event horizon. Up to a point where gravity overcomes whatever speed our FTL tech is at anyway.

Jun 26, 2016
We can't assume FTL means we can send information through an event horizon; depends on the FTL technology. And we can't assume that any material object can exist in there, either.

Both are good bets, but by no means certain.

Jun 27, 2016
cont.
And lastly -
not from center to center because in accordance with the inverse Square Law as applied to the force of gravity calculation of gravity forces are zero, just the opposite of the manner SINGULARITY is applied to BH Theory where maximum gravity is defined as being in the CENTER.

And lastly... what is beyond zero? Negative. What would be the opposite of gravity?
(Another hint - the Universe loves symmetry)

Jun 27, 2016
Sorry, this comment should have preceded the last one...
It is a mistaken representation of the laws of General Relativity that there exists a POINT where all those laws break down, that in the center of a BH exists a ONE DIMENSIONAL GRAVITATIONAL SINGULARITY, a so-called POINT in which a huge mass is contained within an INFINITELY SMALL SPACE where DENSITY & GRAVITY become INFINITE.

However, there IS a point beyond which we cannot observe (hint - EH)
It just happens to be a point beyond which GRT is no longer applicable.
Once again, No one is positing "Infinite" gravity. (Or even infinitely small space.)
(And, personally, I only believe in "maximum" density...)

Maximum gravitational attraction of one stellar body to another occurs from the surfaces of those bodies, ...

Wouldn't that (technically) be the EH?

Jun 27, 2016
@Benni
Maximum gravitational attraction of one stellar body to another occurs from the surfaces of those bodies, not from center to center because in accordance with the inverse Square Law as applied to the force of gravity calculation of gravity forces are zero, just the opposite of the manner SINGULARITY is applied to BH Theory where maximum gravity is defined as being in the CENTER.


You are hysterical, Benni. Sit down, have a glass of water, and calmly think about it for a minute. If a blackhole's mass is compressed into a one dimensional singularity what's the distance from the center to the surface of the singularity?
(This is assuming a singularity exists of course)

Jun 27, 2016
Hi TransmissionDump. :)

The 'point' concept is a purely Philosophical Abstraction concept, not a Physical Reality concept. This can be easily noted by the fact that there can not be a ZERO-dimensional 'object' or 'thing' in reality energy-space. Wikipedia will explain the origins of that philosophical 'point' concept in maths/geometry:

https://en.wikipe...able=yes

There have been efforts (including my present one for my Reality-Physics based ToE) to do maths without this obviously faulty 'point' concept because conventional point concept makes conventional maths (such as that used in General Relativity extrapolations to r=o) 'point' break down; as it 'gives' an UN-physical "singularity" condition which cannot exist in reality.

PS: It's heartening to see Da Schneib admit this longstanding observation of mine that 'singularity-containing' Black Features are UN-physical maths abstraction from GR extrapolation beyond EH.

[cont...]

Jun 27, 2016
@ TransmissionDump [...cont]

That r=0 brings up the question: Is there such a 'thing' as ZERO in reality physical states?

The answer is NO; ZERO ("0") is also purely maths/philosophical abstraction.

In REALITY physics, the ZERO 'state' is a COMPOSITE or SUPERPOSITION state, NOT a UNIQUE physical 'entity'. By that I mean that BALANCE of forces etc may be 'effectively' ZERO in opposing directional vector 'addition/suerposition' situations, but there is ALWAYS FORCES at work at that 'location'; they merely 'equalize' and/or 'negate' to NETT ZERO 'effectiveness' in one or other direction.

In abstract NUMBER THEORY, these two PURELY UNREAL/PHILOSOPHICAL abstract 'point/zero' concept(s) easily 'seen' in the 'Extended' Number Line (positive and negative ranges going through '0 point') as used in "Cartesion Axis maths/geom 'analysis constructs'.

Hence the UNPHYSICAL or 'undefined' or 'singularity' etc geo/maths 'absurdities' which bedevil conventional maths/theory. Cheers. :)

Jun 27, 2016
@ Really-Skippy. How you are Cher? I could not be doing better, thanks for asking.

(including my present one for my Reality-Physics based ToE)


I would like to put out an unbiased objective completely independent observation. It is/not/your/present toes. For the sake of doing diligence, you should have said FUTURE toes. Is has never yet gotten to be a present anything except something for idle conversations.

Jun 27, 2016
Hi Uncle Ira. :)
@ Really-Skippy. How you are Cher? I could not be doing better, thanks for asking.

(including my present one for my Reality-Physics based ToE)


I would like to put out an unbiased objective completely independent observation. It is/not/your/present toes. For the sake of doing diligence, you should have said FUTURE toes. Is has never yet gotten to be a present anything except something for idle conversations.
Good; thanks for asking, mate. Glad to hear you could not be doing better. :)

You missed where some trolls mentioned it does exist, and has for a decade now, as written my in-house interim report book and in-house explanatory papers. You even read those in-house explanatory papers on my site (not that you understood any of it, due to your 'bot-voting-idiot-level' of insensibility and just plain twat-ness in lieu of actual objectivity/comprehension.

PS: Maybe you could (and should) "be doing better" after all, mate! :)

Jun 27, 2016
You missed where some trolls mentioned it does exist, and has for a decade now, as written my in-house interim report book and in-house explanatory papers.
Non, I must have miss that. I was thinking it is still the secret because you don't want the physorg Skippys to steal your ideas. So now it's not secret any more? Can I buy him on the Amazon like Reg-Monday-Skippy's book? Or do I have to send the money right to you?

You even read those in-house explanatory papers on my site
You mean it is going to be more of the Playhouse stuffs? Psst, Cher, be sure to get your money up front because if you don't you going to have a lot peoples mad at you. Well they will still be mad but at least you will have the money, eh?

PS: Maybe you could (and should) "be doing better" after all, mate! :)


Non, if I was doing any better I would probably be feeling guilty. All is good in the world of Ira-Skippy.

Jun 27, 2016
There is no point in arguing with the psycho, but let me exorcise one apparently contagious fruit of Benni's deranged brains. A point is not one but zero dimensional. A line is one-dimensional.


Thanks for the correction. I've read Flatland and I should know that. I'm not the fool for no reason.

Jun 27, 2016
Hi TransmissionDump. :)

The 'point' concept is a purely Philosophical Abstraction concept, not a Physical Reality concept. This can be easily noted by the fact that there can not be a ZERO-dimensional 'object' or 'thing' in reality energy-space. Wikipedia will explain the origins of that philosophical 'point' concept in maths/geometry:

https://en.wikipe...able=yes

There have been efforts (including my present one for my Reality-Physics based ToE) to do maths without this obviously faulty 'point' concept because conventional point concept makes conventional maths (such as that used in General Relativity extrapolations to r=o) 'point' break down; as it 'gives' an UN-physical "singularity" condition which cannot exist in reality.

RC,
I almost gave you a 5 on this, because you started out correctly.
What followed and finished only made it all about you, so I said "Meh"...

Jun 27, 2016
Hi Uncle Ira. :)
Non, if I was doing any better I would probably be feeling guilty. All is good in the world of Ira-Skippy.
All is "good" in the "Uncle Ira bot-voting-idiot-on-a-science-site" world? Ok, if you say so. :)

Jun 27, 2016
Hi Enthusiastic Fool. :)
There is no point in arguing with the psycho, but let me exorcise one apparently contagious fruit of Benni's deranged brains. A point is not one but zero dimensional. A line is one-dimensional.


Thanks for the correction. I've read Flatland and I should know that. I'm not the fool for no reason.
Now that someone else has pointed out the '0-dimensionality' of the 'point' concept (thus making it a purely abstract mathematical/philosophical 'notion') you may understand what I have been pointing out for so long now (as in my above posts to TransmissionDump). Cheers. :)

Jun 27, 2016
Hi Whyde. :)
point' concept is a purely Philosophical Abstraction concept, not a Physical Reality concept. This can be easily noted by the fact that there can not be a ZERO-dimensional 'object' or 'thing' in reality energy-space. Wikipedia will explain the origins of that philosophical 'point' concept in maths/geometry: https://en.wikipe...able=yes There have been efforts (including my present one for my Reality-Physics based ToE) to do maths without this obviously faulty 'point' concept because conventional point concept makes conventional maths (such as that used in General Relativity extrapolations to r=o) 'point' break down; as it 'gives' an UN-physical "singularity" condition which cannot exist in reality.
I almost gave you a 5 on this, because you started out correctly. What followed and finished only made it all about you, so I said "Meh"...
How is noting latest effort at no-point maths etc "all about" me? :)

Jun 27, 2016
Hi Phys1. :)
Hi TransmissionDump. :) The 'point' concept is a purely Philosophical Abstraction concept, not a Physical Reality concept. This can be easily noted by the fact that there can not be a ZERO-dimensional 'object' or 'thing' in reality energy-space. Wikipedia will explain the origins of that philosophical 'point' concept in maths/geometry: https://en.wikipe...able=yes There have been efforts (including my present one for my Reality-Physics based ToE) ...
Wanker.
So, I point out exactly what wiki indicates mathematical theorists already know full well, and your response is "wanker"? Do you respond thus every time someone points out (for YOUR benefit) something you didn't know or misunderstood before, mate? Drop that emotional attitude and listen objectively and understand impartially, like a real scientists not some 'precious' social media ego-tripping cheap shot troll. Wise up quick, Phys1. :)

Jun 27, 2016
Enthusiastic Fool 4.6 /5 (9) Jun 25, 2016
^ More evidence Benni hasn't a clue. Ask for DEs for years, gets DEs, asks for pictures of black holes...

Arguing with Benni is like playing chess with a pigeon. You can make all the right moves but the pigeon is going to shit all over the board, knock over the pieces, and strut around like it's victorious. Benni, like the pigeon, doesn't know or understand the game.


Spot on. Actually, really thinking about it, I think I'd like to step in pigeon droppings rather than have to encounter benni's pseudosentience.

Jun 27, 2016
Hi Phys1. :)
How dare you explain here that a point is a "Philosophical Abstraction concept". Anyone with secondary school mathematical background knows from some 2500 year old Greek...
Please don't let your 'emotional involvement' and ego cloud your reasoning faculties and your understanding objectivity, mate. Calm down. :)

At one time, wiki entry for 'point' (since expanded/elaborated), explicitly pointed out that it was a NOTION of philosophical origins.

That Euclid made a 'definitional' description (Intersecting One-dimensional Lines concepts), changed nothing. It was NOT 'wrong' in the self-consistent AXIOMATIC MATHEMATICAL construct, it was an ABSTRACT notion OF that construct....hence continued to BE a philosophical (not real physical) NOTION in essence.

Consider: IF lines have ONLY 1 dimension, then they have NO WIDTH (ie, also philosophical/maths ABSTRACT NOTIONS; not real possibilities/states in physical universe energy-space context/process).

Relax. :)

Jun 27, 2016
@ Really-Skippy. How you are again Cher? It's me again with a question, hope you don't mind.

How much stuffs can your point hold in it? You got me confused on the physical universe energy-space thing. Is that about philosophy or physics?

Jun 27, 2016
]How is noting latest effort at no-point maths etc "all about" me? :)

How is " like my current ToE." (that no one has ever seen) NOT about you?

Jun 27, 2016
Hi Uncle Ira. :)
@Really-Skippy. How you are again Cher? It's me again with a question, hope you don't mind.

How much stuffs can your point hold in it? You got me confused on the physical universe energy-space thing. Is that about philosophy or physics?
I don't mind, mate. It's a sensible question, better than some of your 'preferred' posters here have posed on this aspect! Anyhow, it's NOT 'my' point concept, it's the current longstanding conventional maths/philo abstract 'zero-dimensional point' notion/definition.

Similarly, un-real abstract math/philo status for conventional '0' concept (as explained to TransmissionDump earlier).

In 'my' Reality-based ToE and its indicated energy-space Maths/Physics entities/processes and concepts, there is obviously NO '0' OR 'point' concept, as these are UN-real (as explained), and would lead to 'singularities', undefined/un-physical 'states' like in current conventional maths/theory. So 'my' ToE avoids such. Cheers. :)

Jun 27, 2016
@ Really-Skippy. How you are again Cher? It's me again with a question, hope you don't mind.

How much stuffs can your point hold in it? You got me confused on the physical universe energy-space thing. Is that about philosophy or physics?

I'll take this one -
"Points" don't hold stuff. They are only a useful math marker. RC only sees them as "philosophical".

Jun 27, 2016
So, @RC, how do you deal with whole numbers in "no point math?"

A whole number is a point, in view of the existence of the real numbers. 1 is one, not "some number between .999999999 and 1.000000001." 1 + 1 = 2, not "some number between 1.999999999 and 2.0000000001."

I also want to know what "1.00000000001 apples" means.

Just askin'.

Jun 27, 2016
Well I can do the Euclid-Skippy's plane geometry, and his spherical geometry too. I was wondering if you was talking about his "points" that don't have a size. Or the physics type of point that is used to explain something. The physics type of point is real enough or else all the equations would not match up with the things they are looking at and explaining.

So how much stuffs can you put into the un-physical energy-space points like you are talking about? I think what I am asking, is the whole universe an energy-space un-physical point, or are they just numbers for an "address" like Euclid-Skippy's (and Descartes's too) points that don't really have anything in them because they don't have any size?

Jun 27, 2016
So, @RC, how do you deal with whole numbers in "no point math?"

A whole number is a point, in view of the existence of the real numbers. 1 is one, not "some number between .999999999 and 1.000000001." 1 + 1 = 2, not "some number between 1.999999999 and 2.0000000001."
That's where he is confusing me too I think. I think he is mixing up the address points that don't have any size and the physics type of points that are used to cypher out complicated concepts.

I also want to know what "1.00000000001 apples" means.
It means an ant got some apple stuck on his foot and rubbed it off on the next apple he walked across.


Jun 27, 2016
Hi Whyde. :)
]How is noting latest effort at no-point maths etc "all about" me? :)

How is " like my current ToE." (that no one has ever seen) NOT about you?
Now you nit-pick to criticize/characterize thus a mere passing reference as to why/wherein that latest effort at no-point maths is being implemented? How much do 'style' and 'personal' factors do youaffect your reading/understanding the substance? By the sound of your earlier "Meh...", it reads as if you'd prefer to remain ignorant just because you took a dislike to style/person. Was that what you intended to convey? Because that's what it did convey. If you are not here for the science news/discussion/info/understandings, then you are here for the "funs" and "politics" and general anti-science "tactics" and personality feuds etc? That's what it seems from your posts above. Just discuss/listen irrespective of 'person' etc. Treat the logics/merits objectively argued (and ignore when such not posted). Cheers. :)

Jun 27, 2016
So, @RC, how do you deal with whole numbers in "no point math?"

A whole number is a point, in view of the existence of the real numbers. 1 is one, not "some number between .999999999 and 1.000000001." 1 + 1 = 2, not "some number between 1.999999999 and 2.0000000001."

I also want to know what "1.00000000001 apples" means.

Just askin'.

1 apple with juice from another apple on it...

Jun 27, 2016
Hi Whyde. :)
]How is noting latest effort at no-point maths etc "all about" me? :)

How is " like my current ToE." (that no one has ever seen) NOT about you?
Now you nit-pick to criticize/characterize thus a mere passing reference as to why/wherein that latest effort at no-point maths is being implemented? How much do 'style' and 'personal' factors do youaffect your reading/understanding the substance? By the sound of your earlier "Meh...", it reads as if you'd prefer to remain ignorant just because you took a dislike to style/person.

Quit trying to take ownership of common knowledge...
Again, I don't dislike you.

Jun 27, 2016
Hi Da Schneib (and Uncle Ira). Thank you for the polite enquiries/exchange. :)

That's the very point (a pun) I am trying to get across to you both (and other readers). It is the conventional maths practice which CONFLATES the philosophical abstraction/notion with a real physical 'thing' or 'possible state' in effective energy-space real terms/consequences!

Consider the concept of ONE 'thing'. Then consider the concept of ANY 'thing' which may be arbitrarily mathematically DIVIDED into other ONE 'things'. Its all philosophy and abstract AXIOMATIC construct concepts and manipulations/rules definitions etc etc. That's why there are maths/philosophical 'things' that have NO COUNTERPARTS in physical reality possibilities. Any honest mathematician will admit that to you (ask any String Theory 'mathematical-physicist' Speculator!).

See the inculcated assumptions which lead you to equate' ONE 'maths apple' is somehow AS REAL as THE 'physics apple' complexity/constituents? :)

Jun 27, 2016
Quit trying to take ownership of common knowledge...
He's not, he's making stuff up.

Again, I don't dislike you.
I do. Self-righteous bullsh*tters generally affect me like that.

Jun 27, 2016
It is the conventional maths practice which CONFLATES the philosophical abstraction/notion with a real physical 'thing' or 'possible state' in effective energy-space real terms/consequences!
This is silliness. One apple is one apple. You can't just make up your own math. It's gotta be based on something. Just coming along and denying geometry (not to mention arithmetic) without something that actually works to take its place is ludicrous, if not insane.

You're posing again, @RC.

Jun 27, 2016
That's the very point (a pun) I am trying to get across to you both (and other readers). It is the conventional maths practice which CONFLATES the philosophical abstraction/notion with a real physical 'thing' or 'possible state' in effective energy-space real terms/consequences!


Okayeei, then. We all on the same page then. You were confused about they/them/us and points. Nobody ever really confused them for being anything more than a way to explain concepts and principles. Nobody ever claimed that a point has stuffs in him, only that considering them sometimes as real things is a good way of cyphering out some stuffs.

You got the points mixed up with the singularity things, that is what they argue about that probably might not or maybe is real.

Jun 27, 2016
Hi Whyde. :)
Quit trying to take ownership of common knowledge...
Again, I don't dislike you.
How am I "trying to take ownership of common knowledge"? Do you say that to all who explain the known science/maths info I am trying to REMIND some people of so that they can understand more than they currently think they understand (and so they misunderstand less thereafter)? I have tried to explain to some, but they are not listening to that common knowledge (question: how "common" can it be; if they don't know it but should?) :)

When you "Meh..." for reasons of 'style' etc of the 'person' telling you something you didn't know, then what is a reader supposed to think, other than that you 'dislike' the person/source/style etc; and so do not read properly because of your 'taste' in those factors? In science one should be objective and impartial and tolerant, and discussion should be kept free of such irrelevant 'personal taste' biases/distractions to understanding. Cheers. :)

Jun 27, 2016
@ Really-Skippy. I still would like to hear about this new math you made to do physics with and does not use the points in him. Is it better than Euclid-Skippy's or Descartes-Skippy's? Or that other guy that made some math that Einstein-Skippy used for his spacetime stuffs? It's a Rsomething-Skippy. (That is math I can not do, but I can do the Euclid-Skippy's math.)

How does your thing stack up against theirs?

Jun 27, 2016
Hi Da Schneib (and Whyde if you're reading this). :)
Quit trying to take ownership of common knowledge...
He's not, he's making stuff up.
How many times have you 'defaulted' to that tactic in the [ast....and come a cropper when you realized you were wrong and I correct all along and was not "making stuff up" after all? Too many times. Will you ever learn, that is fast becoming "the conundrum of the age!" here at PO. Stop posing; listen and learn voluntarily instead of having to have your nose rubbed into the info you MISSED or are still unaware of while you're still 'getting up to speed'. :)

Again, I don't dislike you.
I do. Self-righteous bullsh*tters generally affect me like that.
See Whyde? Only a non-scientist and a 'social media' poser brings that attitude to SCIENCE discussions. Not conducive (in fact detrimental) to objectivity/impartiality and proper reading/understanding. Hence his animosity and tactics etc etc. Not good. :((

Jun 27, 2016
No math, @RC. Just a bunch of posing.

Everybody can see it.

Jun 27, 2016
HI Da Schneib. :)
This is silliness. One apple is one apple. You can't just make up your own math. It's gotta be based on something. Just coming along and denying geometry (not to mention arithmetic)...
I am not "denying" anything. I pointed out what YOU are apparently in-denial OF, insofar as the BASIS of conventional maths goes. How you can keep in denial against obvious KNOWN facts about this aspect is a subject for future study. :)
You're posing again, @RC.
No math, @RC. Just a bunch of posing. Everybody can see it.
What is wrong with your comprehension faculties, mate? Everyone ELSE can see that this is addressing the NOTIONS, AXIOMS and REPERCUSSIONS OF the mathematical construct ITSELF. I already pointed out, as every mathematician knows, those repercussions/problems, ie: Singularities; Undefineds; unphysical absurdities. Period.

What more need be said? This is not the discussion for extended REHASHING of ALL maths 'examples' which output 'absurdities'. :)

Jun 27, 2016
Bring the math, @RC.

You got nothing but a bunch of posing.

Here is your New Clue™: a point is a postulate of geometry.

Jun 27, 2016
Hi Uncle Ira. :)
Okayeei, then. We all on the same page then. You were confused about they/them/us and points. Nobody ever really confused them for being anything more than a way to explain concepts and principles. Nobody ever claimed that a point has stuffs in him, only that considering them sometimes as real things is a good way of cyphering out some stuffs. You got the points mixed up with the singularity things, that is what they argue about that probably might not or maybe is real.
Not at all. You missed the connection. The two issues are inextricably linked, Ira. It is the conventional maths basis using '0' and 'point' in the maths/physics equations/theory which results in said 'absurdities' like singularities etc. :)

So it isn't ME conflating and confused, but conventional mathematicians and theorists using said '0' entity, and 'non-dimensional point' and 'one dimensional line' concepts which do NOT EXIST in real universal process/entity PHYSICAL states. :)

Jun 27, 2016
It is the conventional maths basis using '0' and 'point' in the maths/physics equations/theory which results in said 'absurdities' like singularities etc.
LOL, @RC doesn't "believe in" zero.

@RC, I currently have zero oranges. There aren't any in the house.

You are an idiot, or else you are insane.

You also obviously have not the slightest idea what a postulate is. Which means you know, wait for it, zero about mathematics. Snicker.

Jun 27, 2016
Hi again Uncle Ira. :)
@ Really-Skippy. I still would like to hear about this new math you made to do physics with and does not use the points in him. Is it better than Euclid-Skippy's or Descartes-Skippy's? Or that other guy that made some math that Einstein-Skippy used for his spacetime stuffs? It's a Rsomething-Skippy. (That is math I can not do, but I can do the Euclid-Skippy's math.)

How does your thing stack up against theirs?
I can only divulge general info about my Reality-based Maths work to date (which is one of the reasons why my ToE publication has been delayed, waiting for completing this reality-maths project...which has TWO parallel 'strands' going: one strand specifically for my ToE explanations/concepts; the other strand for the general conventional mathematics itself as impacted by the reality-based rework of same). I am not at liberty to say more, mate. All in good time and completion. Thanks for your polite queries anyway, mate. Cheers. :)

Jun 27, 2016
I can only divulge general info about my Reality-based Maths work
Because it doesn't have any zeroes in it.

ROFL

Jun 27, 2016
So it isn't ME conflating and confused, but conventional mathematicians and theorists using said '0' entity, and 'non-dimensional point' and 'one dimensional line' concepts which do NOT EXIST in real universal process/entity PHYSICAL states. :)


If you say so. The conventional math is working just fine right now. Even with the zero too.

Now if you got something you think is better then show us it. Yours only adds up to ZERO until you let somebody see how it stacks up against conventional math. Telling us you got it but not letting anybody see it is not very much more useful than me having ZERO dollars in the bank.

Is it going to be like your book about toes? We perish before you publish?

Jun 27, 2016
What I wanna know is, if an individual does not believe in zero, what's the difference between 1 and 1,000,000,000,000?

ROFL

That's gotta be a classic, I gotta tell the Cap'n about it. This one definitely goes on the list for him to remind @RC of on a regular basis.

Jun 27, 2016
Hi Da Schneib. :)
Here is your New Clue™: a point is a postulate of geometry.
A postulate in a maths construct; not a postulate in physical real universal energy-space context. Have you figured out the difference between maths/philosophy and physically real concepts yet?

It is the conventional maths basis using '0' and 'point' in the maths/physics equations/theory which results in said 'absurdities' like singularities etc.
LOL, @RC doesn't "believe in" zero.
IT is either a 'placeholder' symbol in 'arithmetical string' system; or it is an abstract notion postulated in geometry construct. At no stage is there a real 'no thing' in physical existence.

@RC, I currently have zero oranges. There aren't any in the house.
Metaphysical analytical construct. The ABSENCE of 'oranges' is NOT THERE as a real 'thing' in itself. Only as an ABSENCE of the REAL thing.

PS: You intertwining metaphysics/physics, and don't even realize it; and you accuse Noumenon! :)

Jun 27, 2016
@ Really-Skippy. Your toes and maths stuffs are starting to remind me of a black hole, nothing can get out. How long you been putting off showing us the toes book? Is that how long we are supposed to wait on the cyphering too?

Jun 27, 2016
Now we know what's wrong with @RC: his computer only has 1s in it, no 0s, he doesn't "believe in" them!

ROFL

Jun 27, 2016
Hi Da Schneib (and Whyde if you're reading this). :)
What I wanna know is, if an individual does not believe in zero, what's the difference between 1 and 1,000,000,000,000? ROFL That's gotta be a classic, I gotta tell the Cap'n about it. This one definitely goes on the list for him to remind @RC of on a regular basis.
See? You default to insult, ridicule etc instead of proper understanding of what is being explained for YOUR benefit. This explains why you are so SLOW in learning. Your ego, point-scoring 'tactics' are more important than facts you should have known already if you're as 'correct' as you think yourself to be (even though record proves otherwise). Conventional Number Theory abstract/constructs are based on AXIOMS which may give useful results; UNTIL they BREAK DOWN; producing singularities, undefined and unphysical absurdities. That is already KNOWN. Your example of 1 compared to any larger number 'exists' in abstract analytical, not REAL 'thing' itself. :)

Jun 27, 2016
Metaphysical analytical construct.
No, it's not; my house has zero oranges in it. I could go to the store and buy some anytime I want, but last shopping trip I didn't and before that I ate them all. That's about as physical as it gets. Whether I bought oranges last shopping trip isn't metaphysics.

proper understanding of what is being explained
I have a proper understanding that anyone who explains they don't "believe in" zero is either a fool or insane.

You are an idiot. Or else a psychotic. And at this point I can't imagine caring which.

Jun 27, 2016
HI Da Schneib. :)
Now we know what's wrong with @RC: his computer only has 1s in it, no 0s, he doesn't "believe in" them!

ROFL
You continue in ignorance. The '1' exist as 'occurrence' in real physical system; the '0' does NOT exist itself, it is only an ABSENCE of the '1' occurrence of physical state.

If you still don't understand this straightforward logical/effective difference; then you are not cut out for deep thinking on any subject in mathematics, cosmology or philosophy (which maths is currently effectively based; but you never knew that and still don't get after it has been explained to you where even wiki/mathematicians acknowledge it). When are you going to read and understand properly; instead of continued schoolyarding and grandstanding from your ignorance, mate? If you don't know or understand, then keep your big mouth and insults under control, mate. Not doing so has been the cause of much 'egg on face' before now, Da Schneib. Time to wise up, mate. :)

Jun 27, 2016
the '0' does NOT exist itself, it is only an ABSENCE of the '1' occurrence of physical state.
Absence is a state.

You are in a state too; the only question is whether it's the state of idiocy or the state of insanity. They are degenerate in your case.

Jun 27, 2016
Hi Uncle Ira. :)

Before you again get impatient etc, consider how long people had to wait for Newton, Darwin, Einstein etc to finish the complete manuscript and theory and publication. Did you think work of such huge scope and comprehensiveness is done in a few years? It takes decades. And no amount of 'sideline' taunts and impatient commentary from those who have never done such expansive work can rush things. Only deliberate, thorough and complete ToE will make it out from my project. And don't forget, it is one af a few such wide scope projects of mine. So you will just have to wait like everybody had to wait for Newton, Darwin Einstein. It is the modern scourge of science that publish-or-perish/other monetary/glory motivations, engender blizzard of flawed science/piecemeal irrelevances in so called work/papers built into the literature; making problem of flawed work ever more inevitable.

PS: Arithmetic works; but conventional 'higher maths' BREAKS, as explained. :)

Jun 27, 2016
Arithmetic works; but conventional 'higher maths' BREAKS
They're based on the same things.

Tell us, where does it "break?" Trig? Algebra? How about, "where you stop being able to understand it?"

Jun 27, 2016
Hi Da Schneib. :)
the '0' does NOT exist itself, it is only an ABSENCE of the '1' occurrence of physical state.
Absence is a state.

You are in a state too; the only question is whether it's the state of idiocy or the state of insanity. They are degenerate in your case.
Absence is a NON-EVENT. Presence is an EVENT. If you can't tell the difference in physical reality and maths/philosophical terms, then it's no use trying to get through your 'filter'.

PS: I never thought I'd be saying this, but: At this point (philosophical) with Da Schneib and his defaulting to tactics instead of understanding, it is becoming all too shockingly clear that Uncle Ira is more understanding of the concepts explained than Da Schneib has proved to be. Yep, you heard it here first, folks....Uncle Ira understand better than Da Schneib! What is happening" Is the world about to end or something?!


Jun 27, 2016
Hi Uncle Ira. :)

Before you again get impatient etc, consider how long people had to wait for Newton, Darwin, Einstein etc to finish the complete manuscript and theory and publication.


Well Newton was probably smarter than you so it probably doesn't count that he had his calculus, and three laws, his optiks all sowed up and finished by the time he was 35, and he waited a whole lot later than nine years old to get started.

And Einstein-Skippy was probably smarter than you too, because he got all his relativity stuffs finished before he 30. And he did not start when he was nine years old either.

I don't know about Darwin, he took a long time so maybe is like you. One out of three is not to bad.


Jun 27, 2016
HI Da Schneib. :)
Arithmetic works; but conventional 'higher maths' BREAKS
They're based on the same things.
Exactly what I have tried to tell you. The '0' and 'point' etc philosophical notions pervade maths/at=rithmetic. But it's how it's APPLIED that proves its usefulness. hence....
Tell us, where does it "break?" Trig? Algebra? How about, "where you stop being able to understand it?"
Where it is applied to GR etc and it breaks down...as YOU have already observed to others before now. Unless you are denying that too now?

Mate, get a grip of your ego and stop useless cheap shots which demonstrate both your ignorance and denial of known facts re maths/philosophy etc as applied IN maths/theory to date which break down as already known. So, can you resist kneejerking again, mate? Let's see....

Jun 27, 2016
Arithmetic works; but conventional 'higher maths' BREAKS
They're based on the same things.

Tell us, where does it "break?" Trig? Algebra? How about, "where you stop being able to understand it?"


The one vote was a mistake I make. Sorry about that, you can give me a one to make up for him.

Jun 27, 2016
Absence is a NON-EVENT.
This is just plain flat wrong. Absence is just as much of an event as presence is. It's got a location, and a time: there were no electrons at point x at time t. And it can be highly significant, for example in an interference experiment. Without absence AND presence, there would be no interference fringes. For another example, in animal behavior. If no animals eat a particular fruit, there is a reason; maybe its poisonous, maybe it's protected by ants, but there's a reason for the absence of animals eating it. Absence is just as significant as presence.

Not only don't you know anything about math, you don't know anything about science either.

Jun 27, 2016
@ Really-Skippy. I will have to fool around with you later, I have a couple of things I need to attend to so they won't become a problem. Your maths and cyphering will go a lot faster if you didn't waste so much time fooling around with us idiots/nit-wits/troll/bots here on the physorg.

Jun 27, 2016
The one vote was a mistake I make. Sorry about that, you can give me a one to make up for him.
Bah, unlike him I don't particularly care, I won't die. But thanks for telling me, you're as honest as the day is long! Which is why I like you. ;)

Jun 27, 2016
Hi Uncle Ira. :)
Before you again get impatient etc, consider how long people had to wait for Newton, Darwin, Einstein etc to finish the complete manuscript and theory and publication.
Well Newton was probably smarter than you so it probably doesn't count that he had his calculus, and three laws, his optiks all sowed up and finished by the time he was 35, and he waited a whole lot later than nine years old to get started. And Einstein-Skippy was probably smarter than you too, because he got all his relativity stuffs finished before he 30. And he did not start when he was nine years old either. I don't know about Darwin, he took a long time so maybe is like you. One out of three is not to bad.
Life is different for different folks history/situations. Newton was exclusively involved with his work, I wasn't. He was self-funded/wealthy and belonged to a Society/Group that helped with his thoughts/experiments. I have been strictly lone, independent, not wealthy. :)

Jun 27, 2016
Hi Da Schneib. :)
The one vote was a mistake I make. Sorry about that, you can give me a one to make up for him.
Bah, unlike him I don't particularly care, I won't die. But thanks for telling me, you're as honest as the day is long! Which is why I like you. ;)
IN case you hadn't noticed (which is a habit with you by now), I do not care for ratings per se either; as you can see by the fact I don't play in the ratings page nor do I care what I am given by posters who do listen/understand objectively. My only objection so far has been when BOT-voters and trolls skew the METRICS of a SCIENCE discussion site; which activity is anti-science. Period. :)

PS: The fact you don't seem to care about metrics skewing on a science discussion site is just more self-damning confirmation of what you admitted before: You are no scientist. Period. :)

Jun 27, 2016
Here's another place absence was important:

Edward Jenner noticed that smallpox was absent in people who milked cows. They all got something called "cow pox" instead, and the ones who'd had it were immune to smallpox.

As a result he invented the vaccine.

Now tell me that absence is not an event again.

Idiot.

Jun 27, 2016
Hi Da Schneib. :)
Here's another place absence was important:

Edward Jenner noticed that smallpox was absent in people who milked cows. They all got something called "cow pox" instead, and the ones who'd had it were immune to smallpox.

As a result he invented the vaccine.

Now tell me that absence is not an event again.

Idiot.
Mate, what does it take to get through your pre-conceived notion that metaphysics notions are physically real states?

To give you the clue: Please point (pun again) to where the ABSENCE of smallpox EXISTS in the real physical energy-space universal process?

Do you see it now?

That absence 'exists' ONLY within an ANALYTICAL CONSTRUCT, not in reality energy-space where you can point (there it is again) to and say: There it is; a NON-EVENT!

Can you try and see the huge effective difference between presence and absence in REAL TERMS not metaphysical/maths analytical construct terms? Try, mate. Don't kneejerk again. Try. :)

Jun 27, 2016
metaphysics notions are physically real states
Absence isn't a metaphysical notion.

When are you going to get over your psychosis?

Jun 27, 2016
Hi Da Shneib. :)
metaphysics notions are physically real states
Absence isn't a metaphysical notion.

When are you going to get over your psychosis?
As soon as you answer that (clue for you) question I posed in my last post to you above. Then when we have seen your answer (or your failure to answer) we can all oberve who is suffering from "psychosis".

PS: The forum will note that you insulted me in your previous post, and I replied without insult and politely and patiently asking a crucial question which goes to the heart of the matter.

PPS: The ball is in your court, Da Schneib. No more insults please. Thanks. :)

Jun 27, 2016
It's not an insult.

It's an observation based on evidence.

Sorry, man, anybody who "doesn't believe in" zero is psychotic.

Jun 27, 2016
Oh, and noticed you didn't ever respond to how math suddenly becomes "wrong" when they start using trig.

Jun 27, 2016
Hi Da Schneib. :)
It's not an insult.

It's an observation based on evidence.
That 'evidence' is 'in your own mind' not in the recorded facts; which clearly show you did not answer that crucial question which would settle the matter once and for all for all objective observers of this exchange on this issue.

Sorry, man, anybody who "doesn't believe in" zero is psychotic.
It's not belief or not. It's the different reality physics and philosophical/metaphysics 'use' validity of '0' depending on contexts which I already explained to you.

Oh, and noticed you didn't ever respond to how math suddenly becomes "wrong" when they start using trig.
It is ok until it goes wrong by giving 'singularities, undefined and unphysical 'absurdities; which any competent and knowledgeable mathematical physicist can tell you about at length. You ignore what is already known maths/physics explanation re this, but you keep sounding so 'proud'. Amazing. Learn, mate. :)

Jun 28, 2016
not in the recorded facts
You said you don't believe in trig and you don't believe in zero.

You're psychotic. That's what they say when someone has delusions.

Jun 28, 2016
Hi Da Schneib. :)

Why misrepresent like that? Where did I reject trig or don't believe in zero? :)

I explained the contextual use of zero as either a 'balance state' between existing opposing forces etc; or as a placeholder in an arithmenic 'string' system etc etc. I only point out that '0' dos not exist as a real physical entity because in such a notion it is like in an analytical 'absence' state ONLY within the construct of that abstract analytical construct.

Now please answer my question re your example:
Edward Jenner noticed that smallpox was absent in people who milked cows. ...

Now tell me that absence is not an event again.
My question:
Please point to where the ABSENCE of smallpox EXISTS in the real physical energy-space universal process?
Please answer. :)

PS: The 'importance' in context of exampled 'observational/analytical construct' not questioned; but 'absence' concept, of 'zero' being treated as a 'presence' of existent 'physical state', is. :)

Jun 28, 2016
It's not belief or not. It's the different reality physics and philosophical/metaphysics 'use' validity of '0' depending on contexts which I already explained to you.

We interupt this regularly scheduled discussion of SgrA* with NOTHING: The Science of Emptiness (John Hockenberry hosts Frank Wilczek, John Barrow, Paul Davies, and George Ellis)

Now back to Reality(Check).

RC, your comments are literary synonymic wonders of thesaurusified proportions.

Jun 28, 2016
I mean, if you're just going to lie about what you said, I don't see any further point.

Jun 28, 2016
The FORUM will NOTE:

- Da Schneib repeatedly fails to answer the crucial question in context of Da Schneib's own example; the answer to which crucial question would have settled the matter once and for all for all objective observers.

- Instead, Da Schneib responds with insults in lieu of fair answers to fair questions. By doing so, and by the rules of fair science debates, Da Schneib effectively admits to being in error.

- Thank you Da Schneib. Thank you Forum. :)

Jun 28, 2016
Hi Protoplasmix. :)
RC, your comments are literary synonymic wonders of thesaurusified proportions.
It's the formal English Language lessons started as a migrant child and continuing into adulthood. Everyone has a different style of expression. The complexity and depth of the subject matter makes explaining to you and others not as 'up to speed' with the science/logic a difficult tightrope to walk, between too-simplistic and too esoteric. The middle way is always the best when not everyone is au fait with the depth/breadth of the subject matter in question. Maybe you should try parsing and understanding rather than ridiculing the style and missing the substance? Just a suggestion, mate. Your choice what you do with info presented in a style you aren't happy with. No skin off my nose if you do or don't take that suggestion on board. Meanwhile, I'm the one who is correct and up to speed and more, and you et al are still trying to get up to speed while missing things. :(

Jun 28, 2016
See, this is really simple.

No points, no trig. Here's why: Either way you do trig, whether graphs or triangles, you need points.

No zero, no trig. Here's why: What is the cosine of zero?

In fact, no zero, no algebra. I'll leave it as an exercise for anyone who cares to figure out why.

Jun 28, 2016
It's the formal English Language lessons started as a migrant child and continuing into adulthood
I see. If I recall, there was a chap here recently whose elocution of the English Language was perfect when he said you were a "dotty codger." But I think perhaps the question most on everyone's mind at this point, RC, is what in the name of all that's right and proper happened with your formal Maths and Physics lessons?

Jun 28, 2016
Hi Da Scheib. :)
See, this is really simple. No points, no trig. Here's why: Either way you do trig, whether graphs or triangles, you need points. No zero, no trig. Here's why: What is the cosine of zero? In fact, no zero, no algebra......
Mate, ask all your mates: What is the meaning of the phrase..
The Map is NOT the Territory"
When they've explained and got its meaning through your preconceived conflations/confusions, come back and realize that what you are describing above is the Analytical Construct (Map), not any real physical Location or Entity or Process or Property (Territory) in the real physical energy-space context. Ok?

Now to unfinished business re your earlier argument/example:
Edward Jenner noticed that smallpox was absent in people who milked cows. ...

Now tell me that absence is not an event again.
My question:
Please point to where the ABSENCE of smallpox EXISTS in the real physical energy-space universal process?
Please answer. :)

Jun 28, 2016
Hi Phys1. :)

It's not *me* posting cheap shots from emotion/ego based prejudices/kneejerking. :)

Let's all concentrate on subject long, calmly enough to actually communicate...

Recall Euclid's derivation/definition of 'point' is as intersection between 1-dim (length only) lines. So by his own 'method' the point must have *at least* 2-dim because the 'lengths' of the 'lines' produce a 'cross' (x) at intersection, and the 'center' must possess *at minimum* infinitesimals of the two lines' 'length' dimensions.

Ok so far? :)

So, closer logical examination reveals that even in the 'analytical construct' (the Map), there is actually *no*, repeat no, '0' or 'point' Location/Entity etc!

And so neither is there in energy-space (the Territory) physical reality, a '0-dim point'.

In reality, *all* possible radials (infinite number of radial infinitesimals?) go *through" a 'center location'.

Logically, Effectively, a BALANCED 'OMNI-dimensioned' SCALAR.

That's Reality. :)

Jun 28, 2016
Hi protoplasmix. :)
But I think perhaps the question most on everyone's mind at this point, RC, is what in the name of all that's right and proper happened with your formal Maths and Physics lessons?
Mate, read my responses to Da Schneib and Phys1 above; then you will realize I updated and upskilled and reworked the 'formal' Un-real (the Map) Maths and Physics 'lessons' to actually Reflect The Reality (the Territory).

While others have been going on as if everything was ok and the map was the territory. No wonder conventional math/theory was never completed despite centuries and uncountable intellectual effort based on faulty logics/maths assumptions/theory.

Anyhow, that should give you a hint as to just how wide-ranging is the scope and depth of my Reality-based maths/physics ToE project to date, mate.

Good luck in your (hopefully) good and fruitful 'reality', Proto, everyone! :)

Jun 28, 2016
What is the meaning of the phrase..

The Map is NOT the Territory"
What's that got to do with whether zeroes and points exist?

You're changing the subject again, @RC. And every time you do that, it means you're trying to bullsh*t us again.

what you are describing above is the Analytical Construct (Map), not any real physical Location or Entity or Process or Property (Territory) in the real physical energy-space context.
Trig worked fine to get the British Navy to Australia. Seems to work fine to get British Airways there, too. Are you claiming Australia isn't a real physical Location, whatever that means?

Please point to where the ABSENCE of smallpox EXISTS in the real physical energy-space universal process?
Asked and answered. In the women who were immune to smallpox. This is duh.

Jun 28, 2016
Besides, the whole argument about the map not being the territory is footless. The question is whether it accurately represents the territory, and the way you find that out is by experimenting.

For example, get out the maps and plot your course to Australia, then get out there in a boat and do it. If you wind up in Australia, the maps (and your plotting) were accurate. Simple as that.

Why do people who bullsh*t about physics forget about experiments and blather on and on about how it's "all theoretical?" Is it because experiments show whether the theory is correct or not, and they don't want to admit it? Looks that way. Look at @RC blathering about where the absence of smallpox virus is; it's in the experiment. Duh umm.

Jun 28, 2016
@ Phys1, Protoplasmix, Forum.

I appeal to your sense of fairness and objectivity as observers of my exchange so far with Da Schneib; wherein he is:

- evading answering that crucial question, the answer to which would get my point across;

- using strawmen, mischaracterization and personal insults in blustering tactics to evade;

- still not realizing that 'abstract' location in analytical construct is not THE location 'property'.

It's been explained to him in many ways. I even posed the question to his own argument/example so as to bring home to him the difference between map abstraction and territory realities.

If he is allowed to evade and avoid answering that crucial question, then what 'value', in abstraction or reality, is his continued 'tactics' to evade proper science/logics debate protocols?

I ask you (as I have done more than once now) to politely request Da Schneib to answer the crucial question put to him re his argument/example re ABSENCE 'state' etc.

Jun 28, 2016
@ Phys1, Protoplasmix, Forum.
How you are Cher. I guess I am the Forum you are talking about, eh? I am good, thanks for asking.

I appeal to your sense of fairness and objectivity as observers of my exchange so far with Da Schneib; wherein he is:
Yeah, I been observing that so far. Not much different than all the exchanges you have here with the other peoples. It's about as fair and objectionable as most of your exchanges.

I ask you (as I have done more than once now) to politely request Da Schneib to answer the crucial question put to him re his own argument/example re ABSENCE 'state' etc.


I thought he did. Why you think if he won't give the answer you want when you ask, he is going to give the answer you want if anybody else ask him to? If he don't want to answer, that is his right not to do it. I seen you turn down the chance to answer thousands of questions peoples ask you all the time. Fair is fair.

Jun 28, 2016
Hi Uncle Ira. :)

If you "thought he did" answer the relevant question, can you extract his answer from his post and repost it for all to see for themselves where he "answered" it? Thanks.

In case you have no idea what was the original question or the context, here it is again:
Now please answer my question re your example:

Edward Jenner noticed that smallpox was absent in people who milked cows. ...

Now tell me that absence is not an event again.

My question:

Please point to where the ABSENCE of smallpox EXISTS in the real physical energy-space universal process?

Please answer. :)


Thanks, Uncle Ira. :)

Jun 28, 2016
Hi Uncle Ira. :)

If you "thought he did" answer the relevant question, can you extract his answer from his post and repost it for all to see for themselves where he "answered" it? Thanks.


I'll try my best but I am just the idiot nit-wit, remember?

Please point to where the ABSENCE of smallpox EXISTS in the real physical energy-space universal process?


Okeeyi I will help.

metaphysics notions are physically real states


Absence isn't a metaphysical notion.
That is his answer. Like your apples and oranges before,,, He's trying to say you are not on the same page and probably won't get on the same page if your track record is anything to go by.

I think you are just mad because somehow you think his answer don't apply to your gobbledygook thing "the real physical energy-space" which don't mean anything to anybody because you are trying perish before you publish and nobody knows about it yet.

Jun 28, 2016
@RC, there's no evasion. Jenner tested for the absence of smallpox in these women, and found it, and from that he was able to substantiate his theory by experiment- that is, prove it using real physical phenomena- and create the first vaccine. And the absence of smallpox in those women was the key finding.

You just don't get the relationship of experiment and theory, that's your problem not mine. You also have little or no knowledge of formal mathematics, and that also is your problem not mine.

Get over yourself.

Jun 28, 2016
Hi Uncle Ira. :)
I'll try my best but I am just the idiot nit-wit, remember?
I remember. In recognition of that fact, it is obviously necessary to focus your attention more acutely.
Here it is again in its essentials...

Da Scheib's argument/example went as follows:
Edward Jenner noticed that smallpox was absent in people who milked cows. ...

Now tell me that absence is not an event again.


My question, to help him also focus on the essentials, went as follows:
Please point to where the ABSENCE of smallpox EXISTS in the real physical energy-space universal process?


Please then extract the relevant answer from Da Schneib's latest responses to THAT contextual exchange/question. You can do it if you focus, mate! Focus. Thanks, Uncle Ira. :)

Jun 28, 2016
I answered your question, @RC, and I notice you're not quoting that answer.

Here's the quote:

Please point to where the ABSENCE of smallpox EXISTS in the real physical energy-space universal process

In the women who were immune to smallpox.


You're lying again, @RC.

Jun 28, 2016
Hi Uncle Ira. :)
How you are again Cher? I am still good.

Da Scheib's argument/example went as follows:
I am the idiot nit-wit, but I am not stupid. All that stuffs are already written up there

Please then extract the relevant answer from Da Schneib's latest responses to THAT contextual exchange/question.
I did my best up there in my last postum. If that is not good enough for you then you got to find somebody else to help you. Because this leading into a situation that will have me speaking for Da Schneib-Skippy and I am not qualified to do that. Actually nobody is because peoples should speak for them selfs in my opinion..

You can do it if you focus, mate! Focus.
Do it your self Really-Skippy, it's your conversation about space-energy physical stuffs. I don't even know what that means.

Thanks, Uncle Ira. :)
You are welcome Cher. Now try to Do Better for your self and the humans and the scientists without my help on this one.

Jun 28, 2016
Hi Da Scheib. :)
there's no evasion. Jenner tested for the absence of smallpox in these women, and found it, and from that he was able to substantiate his theory by experiment- that is, prove it using real physical phenomena- and create the first vaccine. And the absence of smallpox in those women was the key finding.

You just don't get the relationship of experiment and theory, that's your problem not mine. You also have little or no knowledge of formal mathematics, and that also is your problem not mine.

Get over yourself.
My diverse research projects included HISTORIES. Now stop unnecessary redirecting.

The ORIGINAL ISSUE was/is YOU brought that argument/example up (see, Phys1, it's sometimes necessary to 'capitalize' for 'certain' posters) to support YOUR claim that 'NON-events' actually 'exist' other than in abstract analytical construct (the Map).

So I asked you to point to said 'NON-event' in Reality energy-space context (the Territory).

So, can you? :)

Jun 28, 2016
Hi Da Schneib. :)
I answered your question, @RC, and I notice you're not quoting that answer.

Here's the quote:

Please point to where the ABSENCE of smallpox EXISTS in the real physical energy-space universal process

In the women who were immune to smallpox.
I asked you to point to the real energy-space context where a NON-event actually 'exists' in Reality physics (the Territory); not if it exists in the doctor's abstract statistical observational/analytical construct (the Map, which I already pointed out is the ONLY place a NON-event CAN 'exist').

Did you understand?

Hence you have still to support your original claim, by actually pointing to a NON-event 'existing' in any context other than abstract observational/analytical construct.

That you can't point to NON-events 'existing' in Reality energy-space process, then you must concede.

Your logic would 'see' the WHOLE UNIVERSAL PROCESS as 'smallpox' NON-event except in those cases suffering it. See?

Jun 28, 2016
I asked you to point to the real energy-space context where a NON-event actually 'exists' in Reality physics (the Territory); not if it exists in the doctor's abstract statistical observational/analytical construct (the Map, which I already pointed out is the ONLY place a NON-event CAN 'exist').
And I pointed out exactly where in reality it exists: in the women who couldn't get smallpox.

There's nothing abstract about a woman who can't get smallpox. She's right there, you can talk to her, you can sit down and have dinner with her. She's not a "map." She's not a statistical abstraction. She's as real as you are and probably smarter.

Stop with the bullsh*t, @RC. It's not gonna work.

Jun 28, 2016
Been away for a while, seems to have turned into an epic discussion on the finer points of a point.

Jun 28, 2016
Hi Da Schneib. :)
I asked you to point to the real energy-space context where a NON-event actually 'exists' in Reality physics (the Territory); not if it exists in the doctor's abstract statistical observational/analytical construct (the Map, which I already pointed out is the ONLY place a NON-event CAN 'exist').
And I pointed out exactly where in reality it exists: in the women who couldn't get smallpox. There's nothing abstract about a woman who can't get smallpox. She's right there, you can talk to her, you can sit down and have dinner with her. She's not a "map." She's not a statistical abstraction. She's as real as you are and probably smarter.
No, she is the REAL physical context where the EVENT of 'smallpox' does NOT occur.

It's a subtle/crucial distinction:

Abstract analytical construct 'treats' smallpox presences AND absences as 'data points'. In Reality context they are NOT on same level of actual 'existence' as a 'thing' in energy-space process. :)

Jun 28, 2016
That you can't point to NON-events 'existing' in Reality energy-space process, then you must concede.
[points at Schrodinger's alive dead cat]
You lose, buckwheat. No spookiness in Reality energy-space makes Jack a dull theorist... or something like that.

Jun 28, 2016
No, she is the REAL physical context where the EVENT of 'smallpox' does NOT occur.
Right, when everyone else gets it. Remember the whole "germ theory" thing? You know, those little teeny viruses you can only see with an electron microscope? If those get in your body you get sick unless you're immune.

See, that's the whole point. Which you completely missed because you don't "believe in" zero.

Abstract analytical construct 'treats' smallpox presences AND absences as 'data points'. In Reality context they are NOT on same level of actual 'existence' as a 'thing' in energy-space process.
Maybe you forgot how this all works.

Immunity is, wait for it, presence of antibodies. But it's a presence you can't see unless you have an electron microscope to understand how they attack viruses.

Jenner didn't have an electron microscope, but he figured out antibodies anyway.

Think about that a little while and maybe you'll figure it out.

Jun 28, 2016
Abstract analytical construct 'treats' smallpox presences AND absences as 'data points'. In Reality context they are NOT on same level of actual 'existence' as a 'thing' in energy-space process. :)

What WAS (albeit minutely) there, were adapted immune cells containing info on what viral entities to "attack"....
Edit - Dangnabit, the Schneib beat me to it.......:-)

Jun 28, 2016
Hi Da Schneib. :)

What the hell are you going on about now? All that is microbiological facts. What does it have to to with the question of '0' and 'point' supposedly 'existing' in reality or not etc as per original context we started in?

RE-Focus.

Now, have you understood why neither '0' nor 'point' (as explained above in my post to Phys1) can exist in real physical terms....but only in abstract maths/philosophical 'observational/analytical construct' terms?

That was what this was about.

Your own example re smallpox incidence and NON-incidence is only relevant to, and effectively demonstrates, MY point that ONLY 'smallpox' EVENTS exist in reality...while 'smallpox' NON-events 'exist' ONLY in abstract observational/analytical 'incidence/non-incidence' data points 'treatment' context.

Please stop these painfully irrelevant (in the original context) diversionary excursions into the microbiology details which I have known long before you. Thanks. :)

Jun 28, 2016
What does it have to to with the question of '0' and 'point' supposedly 'existing' in reality or not etc as per original context we started in?
Right, when everyone else gets it. ... See, that's the whole point. Which you completely missed because you don't "believe in" zero.


The absence of smallpox (zero smallpox) is the key to the entire discovery. It has everything to do with zero.

Points we've already dealt with. Trig, navigation, remember?

Jun 29, 2016
Hi Da Schneib. :)
The absence of smallpox (zero smallpox) is the key to the entire discovery. It has everything to do with zero.
That '0' is an ARITHMETIC LABEL to a non-event (no smallpox) in abstract analysis construct ONLY. Do you understand?
Points we've already dealt with. Trig, navigation, remember?
I already explained, maths/maps 'points' are NOT THE reality/territory 'properties' themselves. Do you understand?

Please discern the difference between the abstract observational/analytical maths construct (Map), and the real physical events context in reality (Territory).

The '0' represents a NON-event; as such it cannot exist as an Event in itself; only as DEFINED WITHIN abstract observational maths construct, as explained.

Did you understand that both incidence/NON-incidence are MERELY 'data points' in ANALYSIS constructs ONLY? At no stage does NON-event 'label' ever equal THE Event in energy-space terms?

Please read my post to Phys1 re '0'/point'. :)

Jun 29, 2016
That '0' is an ARITHMETIC LABEL to a non-event (no smallpox) in abstract analysis construct ONLY. Do you understand?
That zero is no smallpox despite exposure. Do you understand?

Jun 29, 2016
Hi Da Schneib. :)
That '0' is an ARITHMETIC LABEL to a non-event (no smallpox) in abstract analysis construct ONLY. Do you understand?
That zero is no smallpox despite exposure. Do you understand?
The 'exposure' is an event.

The 'no infection' is a non-event.

The former actually occurs in real physical terms (injection/scratch etc); while the latter is an observed 'non-event' and is treated as a data point in abstract analysis construct.

At no stage has 'non-infection' produced any 'new' (changed) condition re smallpox. The only result of non-infection (non-event) is 'no change' (ie, labeled as '0' infection data point.

Do you understand the subtle aspects involved which distinguish events from non-events in effective reality terms?

That is, an abstract arithmetical 'label' of '0' infection is not on equal 'existence' level as an extant existing 'physical thing' as an 'actual occurrence' instance of actual infection.

OK? :)

Jun 29, 2016
The 'exposure' is an event.
The 'no infection' is a non-event.

No. It was a "different result to exposure" event. Very real.
The former actually occurs in real physical terms (injection/scratch etc); while the latter is an observed 'non-event' and is treated as a data point in abstract analysis construct.

Do you have any concept of the billions of nano changes that actually occurred to produce that "data point"? (A company I worked for in the 70's, BTW...)
At no stage has 'non-infection' produced any 'new' (changed) condition re smallpox.

The only result of non-infection (non-event) is 'no change' ...

Reality - Infection occurred. Immune reaction was different.
THAT is change. And the virus itself has likely changed on a minute level, as well.
Do you understand the subtle aspects involved which distinguish events from non-events in effective reality terms?

Do YOU?

Jun 29, 2016
The 'no infection' is a non-event.
No. The "no infection" is an event too. It actually happens in real physical terms as well. Antibodies attack the virus.

But you don't need to know anything about antibodies to make use of this event, if you're not stuck in philosophy traps like considering it a "non-event."

Here's an old favorite: Sherlock Holmes notes to Inspector Gregory the "curious incident of the dog in the nighttime." Gregory says, "But the dog did nothing in the nighttime." Holmes replies, "That was the curious incident." Holmes has already solved the mystery, by noting what did not happen that should have. The tale is named "Silver Blaze." I suggest you read it.

Events that do not happen when they should have causes; they are effects. In Silver Blaze, the event was caused by the fact that there was no intruder; the dog would have barked at an intruder. Thus, everyone who claimed there was an intruder was wrong or lying.
[contd]

Jun 29, 2016
[contd]
It is not abstract in any way at all. You ignore the surrounding circumstances and thus fail to note a significant event: something that should have happened did not. You'd make a lousy doctor, @RC. Your philosophical blinders prevent you from noticing half of reality.

Jun 29, 2016
This comment has been removed by a moderator.

Jun 29, 2016
Do Androids Dream of Electric Boobs?
(Thanks to Philip K. Dick)

Jun 29, 2016
Hi Da Schneib. (and Whyde if you're reading this). :)

Firstly, it was the BINARY states of '1' and '0' (ie, Event and NON-Event) that was the essential point of whether the '0' existed in real energy-space terms as much as the '1'.

Secondly, I am 67 yrs old and just as or more well and diversely read in microbiology and all areas of human science/knowledge than you both, so you two aren't telling me anything I haven't long known already about smallpox/epidemiology/microbiology.

Thirdly, in an abstract observational/analytical construct the data points may be defined as any observation which has relevance to the analysis and meaning to the interpretational process of the human brain drawing the conclusions.

OK so far?

The discussion was re event or non-event.

The REST you two have introduced is 'peripheral' aspects'; the PROCESSES informing/leading to FINAL OUTCOME, ie: BINARY status of EVENT or NON-EVENT ('1' or '0').

Re-focus. :)

Jun 29, 2016
Hi Phys1. :)
in an abstract observational/analytical construct the data points may be defined as any observation which has relevance to the analysis and meaning to the interpretational process of the human brain drawing the conclusions.

What a waste of ones and especially zeros !
Mate, you're doing it again; letting your own misperceptions and prejudices drive cheap shot in denial kneejerk posting. Keep that up and you'll end up less a physicist and more as just another internet forum troll. Be a true physicist and curb your emotions/prejudices and kneejerking cheap shot 'ego-trip-urges'. Then you may become a true scientist. Peace. :)

Jun 29, 2016
Hi Phys1. :)
You deserve it, don't be so modest.
Do you ever treat your teachers like that when they explain scientific method and ethics/principles by which you, as a physics student, should conduct yourself in both science process and science discourse? Do you ever characterize thus lessons/explanations exhorting you to be objective, impartial and independent mind/investigator of the physical phenomena without fear or favor re source/persons involved on any 'side' of an issue? Do you ever say your teacher "deserves" your kneejerking ego-tripping cheap shot disrespect for the highest ideals/values of science and humanity which distinguishes a scientist from the chaotic and subjective self-serving individual interested only in personal glory, profit and power at all costs to objective knowledge and comprehension and due respect for brain-mind and intellect applied for the greater good and common interests of human advancement in both science and humanity?

Rethink. :)

Jun 29, 2016
Hi Da Schneib. (and Whyde if you're reading this). :)

Firstly, it was the BINARY states of '1' and '0' (ie, Event and NON-Event) that was the essential point of whether the '0' existed in real energy-space terms as much as the '1'.

"0" exists as an eventful state. A calibration point and math marker by which all other things can be measured and calculated. Pretty powerful for a "non-event"...
Is such an event even possible? We don't know - yet...

Jun 29, 2016
Hi Whyde. :)
BINARY states of '1' and '0' (ie, Event and NON-Event) that was the essential point of whether the '0' existed in real energy-space terms as much as the '1'
"0" exists as an eventful state. A calibration point and math marker by which all other things can be measured and calculated. Pretty powerful for a "non-event"..
You are conflating (as was Da Schneib) metaphysical concept of 'event' with physical concept of EVENT.

FORMER takes place/exists ONLY in abstract construct (be it philosophical, mathematical or other analytical construct).

LATTER actual EVENT of some 'thing' exists in real OBJECTIVE energy-space context whether or not one is observing/analyzing etc.

See? Overlaying an observational construct over actual events may also 'note' non-event(s) and LABEL such '0' in the analytical data set 'string' (as in BINARY string of '1's and '0's...wherein ABSENCE of '1's are "NON-events of '1' EVENTS...and so LABELED as '0's in the BINARY 'string'. :)

Jun 29, 2016
Hi Phys1. :)
I treat scientists and teachers with respect. It is pompous jerks that I treat with disdain.
With respect (really), I submit that you seem to disrespect my posts/explanations even when I'm correct re known science/logics); and even when I have been polite and straightforward with no hint of pomposity or rancor.

I also humbly submit that you have let past hasty impressions/assessments of person/source affect the manner in which you 'read' comment/info etc. As has been demonstrated only too clearly in the bicep2 case, in which certain posters 'read' the exercise/claims uncritically/favorably because it came from a 'mainstream/approved' source/persons.

That led certain posters into further 'disrespect' territory when 'reading' my observations re the flaws etc.

And so we see the 'long road to wrong impressions' which leads to personal prejudices and 'pompous' labels; while ignoring the 'correctness' of substance.

Personality/Style irrelevant in science. :)

Jun 29, 2016
The origin of a frame of reference is almost always set to (0,0,0,0) for ease of calculation. That doesn't make it an absolute frame of reference. It just makes it convenient. Converting to any other frame, whose origin is also arbitrarily set to (0,0,0,0) is simple; one just uses the Lorentz transform. Zero in one frame is not zero in another.

Zero isn't "special;" it's just another number. Only a nutjob thinks otherwise, or someone totally untrained in math and physics.

Jun 29, 2016
You might as well pick out 2 and say that doesn't exist.

It's ludicrous.

Jun 29, 2016
Hi Da Schneib. :)
The origin of a frame of reference is almost always set to (0,0,0,0) for ease of calculation. That doesn't make it an absolute frame of reference. It just makes it convenient. Converting to any other frame, whose origin is also arbitrarily set to (0,0,0,0) is simple; one just uses the Lorentz transform. Zero in one frame is not zero in another.

Zero isn't "special;" it's just another number. Only a nutjob thinks otherwise, or someone totally untrained in math and physics.
Can't you resist insulting your interlocutors? Please stop. :)

Any Mathematician will inform you '0' is NOT "just another number". And I already mentioned the extended number line is used as such. The choice of arbitrary co-ordinate system is another aspect entirely. And that aspect I also covered in my comments re "abstract observational/analytical constructs" (be they mathematical or philosophical or other abstract 'overlays' for observing and interpreting events/non-events). :)

Jun 29, 2016
Hi Da Schneib. :)
You might as well pick out 2 and say that doesn't exist.

It's ludicrous.
Please elaborate to make your point (in the original context) if you have one to make (in the original context) with that curt statement. Thanks. :)

Jun 29, 2016
You picked zero not to "believe in." You might as well pick two, it would make as much sense. Or five hundred and thirty eight point seven five seven. Perhaps five hundred and thirty eight point seven five seven doesn't exist.

In fact if you pick a point and call it "zero" I can always pick a frame in which it's five hundred and thirty eight point seven five seven. And we'll get the same results, if we transform them properly.

Do you understand?

Jun 30, 2016
Hi Da Schneib. :)
You picked zero not to "believe in." You might as well pick two, it would make as much sense....

In fact if you pick a point and call it "zero" I can always pick a frame in which it's five hundred and thirty eight point seven five seven. And we'll get the same results, if we transform them properly.

Do you understand?
Why mischaracterize my original comments/explanations as "belief". :)

I pointed out ALTERNATIVE uses/contexts for '0' in various situations/systems of abstract analysis and reality contexts. I have not expressed "belief" OR "disbelief" in '0', as that would be METAPHYSICS/PHILOSOPHY not objective description of reality as '0' is applied/understood, as explained.

You still haven't discerned the difference between physics and metaphysics/philosophy. :)

You 'choosing' arbitrary numbers/frames is exactly what I explained is ABSTRACT CONSTRUCT of observation/analysis treating both events and non-events as data points '0' or '1' etc. :)

Jun 30, 2016
Why mischaracterize my original comments/explanations as "belief".
I didn't "mischaracterize" them. You don't have any evidence, and you insist it's true.

That's a belief. It's also incorrect.

I have not expressed "belief" OR "disbelief" in '0'
It is the conventional maths basis using '0' and 'point' in the maths/physics equations/theory which results in said 'absurdities' like singularities etc.
You're lying again, @RC. This time about your own words. You just called the results of using zero "absurdities." Then you claim you now believe in zero. Either you changed your mind and won't admit it, or you lied.

Jun 30, 2016
As has been demonstrated only too clearly in the bicep2 case ...
How clear on BICEP3 are you, RealityCheck? Can you provide the forum with some background and current status? Can you give us a comparison between B2/Keck and BICEP3? If you can do that, I'll give you 5 stars for your objective prediction (and your reasoning behind it) on what BICEP3's results will be.

Jun 30, 2016
You 'choosing' arbitrary numbers/frames is exactly what I explained is ABSTRACT CONSTRUCT of observation/analysis treating both events and non-events as data points '0' or '1' etc.
OK, then how come it correctly describes reality and predicts how it will act?

Jun 30, 2016
Hi Da Schneib. :)
I didn't "mischaracterize" them. You don't have any evidence, and you insist it's true. That's a belief. It's also incorrect.
Not correct, mate. I didn't "insist it's true", I merely pointed to and explained the alternative uses/contexts according to known logics/mathematics/physics rules/applications. You didn't even know that '0' is NOT "just another number" as you just came back with.

You obviously not up to speed with the whole axiomatic/logical/domain-of-applicability aspects of mathematics and the associated logical/statistical/analytical/interpretive techniques and methods which mathematicians/physicists have had to develop in order to make their mathematics 'results' more representative of physical realities/possibilities in particular domains of modeling and understanding of what is being modeled.

It's apparent you haven't yet comprehended the full scope of the subject; hence your confusing metaphysics notions with physics concepts. :)

Jun 30, 2016
Hi Da Schneib. :)
You 'choosing' arbitrary numbers/frames is exactly what I explained is ABSTRACT CONSTRUCT of observation/analysis treating both events and non-events as data points '0' or '1' etc.
OK, then how come it correctly describes reality and predicts how it will act?
...until it doesn't. :)

Recall the mention of where maths breaks down at "singularity" conditions/results; and also is infested with "undefined' and unphysical etc absurdities if followed strictly as axiomatically formulated using the metaphysical/philosophical NOTIONS I pointed out and explained for Phys1 and your benefit?

How can you just conveniently forget all that and come back as if I haven't already explained where and how the maths does NOT "correctly describe reality and predicts how it will act"? Why, you yourself even recently told some other person how the GR breaks down below the EH and you remain on the fence re what is happening below EH. Remember that? Be consistent. :)

Jun 30, 2016
Hi Protoplasmix. :)
As has been demonstrated only too clearly in the bicep2 case ...
How clear on BICEP3 are you, RealityCheck? Can you provide the forum with some background and current status? Can you give us a comparison between B2/Keck and BICEP3? If you can do that, I'll give you 5 stars for your objective prediction (and your reasoning behind it) on what BICEP3's results will be.
I can only go into it so much before striking the limits of what I can discuss/divulge which may impact on my own ToE work/publication novel contents/results 'complete'. On that understanding (ok?) I will answer your query in another thread which you and I had relevant discussion which has not yet completed...

http://phys.org/n...ard.html

I will be over there as soon as I have finalized my present discussion with Da Schneib re '0' and 'point' concepts/uses etc.

Is that OK for the moment, Proto? See you over there as soon as I can.

Jun 30, 2016
Is that OK for the moment, Proto?
2560 detectors on the focal plane. Chilled to 0.25 K. 10x throughput. You have a little time. Not a lot. 95 GHz, RealityCheck; phased-array antennas at 95 GHz.

Jun 30, 2016
Hi Protoplasmix. :)

The timing is dependent on Da Schneib seeing/reading/understanding my posts re '0' and 'point'; and especially my last two posts to him. As you can see from the last sentences in my last post to him, I don't 'ignore' others. I DO read/recall what others are posting in discussions of interest. I trust he'll soon see what I was pointing out/explaining, was not 'beliefs'. :)

Anyhow, I don't want to get involved in another discussion unless I've finished this one; and I can only discuss re your query for so long as is reasonable given the limited time at my disposal tomorrow (my self-imposed two-week R&R break from my projects is nearly done, and I won't have time for posting/discussing when I again concentrate on my work off-line).

PS: Your specifications mentions reminds: I shall be assuming you/others can easily read off all the bicep2/3 technical/methodology details from their/Planck sites, so I will be concentrating on 'issues'. See you tomorrow! :)

Jun 30, 2016
I didn't "insist it's true",
OK, well, it's not. So, we done here?

...until it doesn't.
Don't whine; they'll figure it out. Nobody is claiming we know it all yet; in fact, we know we don't. We don't have a quantum theory of gravity yet. That just means we got more work to do.

Newton's theory is even more incomplete: it can't describe the precession of the orbit of Mercury. Doesn't stop NASA from using it to send spacecraft to the farthest reaches of the Solar System accurately.

Jun 30, 2016
How can you just conveniently forget all that and come back as if I haven't already explained where and how the maths does NOT "correctly describe reality and predicts how it will act"
Quite simply because you fail to acknowledge the difference between a theory that is incomplete and a theory that is wrong.

It's like pointing to a bare chassis of a car on the assembly line and claiming it will never work because it doesn't have an engine.

Jun 30, 2016
Hi Da Schneib. :)
OK, well, it's not. So, we done here?
So you admit to mischaracterizing my whole point and explanations in support of same based on known science/logics/maths. Thanks for being honest.
Don't whine; they'll figure it out. Nobody is claiming we know it all yet; in fact, we know we don't. We don't have a quantum theory of gravity yet. That just means we got more work to do.
Why the insult? Please resist such urges. And we 'knowing it all yet or not' wasn't the point/context, was it? It was abstract/philosophical/metaphysical NOTIONS like '0' and 'point' being THE main IMPEDIMENTS in conventional maths and physical theory 'completion', as explained; because of all the unphysical/undefined/singularity absurdities which make 'reality-representing completion' of conventional maths/theory almost impossible to accomplish as is.

Hence the motivation for my own novel from-scratch reality-based ToE/Maths work to facilitate 'completion' of both. Thanks. :)

Jun 30, 2016
Good Morning (here), Protoplasmix. :)

Now that my discussion re nature/origins/usages/problems etc with '0' and 'point' seems to have wound down and finally got across to my interlocutor(s) my original point/argument re the relevant matter, I will have time to address your above query as yesterday arranged between us. So, assuming no more contention from anyone in this thread re the above '0' and 'point' matter (now hopefully resolved amicably as above), I will within the hour be commencing my response to you in the thread I mentioned yesterday, ie:

http://phys.org/n...ard.html

See you over there soon, Proto. :)

Jun 30, 2016
Hi Phys1. :)
@RC
As Plato tried to show 25 centuries ago, all knowledge and even all observation is an abstraction of _postulated_ reality. If you accept his point, like I do, then this whole discussion is trivial.
Et tu, Phys? Mate, that is Philosophy, not science/physics. That is exactly my point re '0' and 'point', as I explained to you before was philosophical/maths abstract notions not actual real physical aspects/concepts which are the ultimate bedrock on which 'completion' of both the maths and physical theory must be built.

PS: It is ironic that you/others accused Noumenon of "bringing philosophy etc" into science/physics discussion, but NOW you try that yourself in order to 'play down' the crucial point/observation I have tried to get across to you/others about CURRENT conventional maths/physics being INFESTED from the START with philo/metaphys/abstract notions/concepts which HINDER the maths/theory 'reality-consistent-completion' possibility.

Cheers all. :)

Jun 30, 2016
So you admit to mischaracterizing my whole point
No, I just don't care. It's your claim you don't believe what you said earlier; that still stands.

It was abstract/philosophical/metaphysical NOTIONS like '0' and 'point' being THE main IMPEDIMENTS in conventional maths and physical theory 'completion',
For which you still haven't provided any evidence... and which means you still don't believe in zeroes and points, which means that you just lied, and I mischaracterized nothing.

You can't even keep track of what you're talking about. This is getting very boring.

Jun 30, 2016
So you can argue both ways.
Looks like he already is from over here. It's one of his typical stunts.

Jun 30, 2016
Hi Phys1 and Da Schneib. :)

What you two going on about now? Are you two under the impression you are telling me anything I haven't known long before you two caught up in your reading and realized I was correct all along? :)

Now you try to foist Philosop[hy IRRELEVANCES on ME, who just pointed out '0' and 'point' are philosophical 'starting' NOTIONS not reality-based axioms, concepts or 'derivations' from SCIENCE and PHYSICS and MATHS.

Natural Philosophy was a catch-all term until relatively recently; now SPECIALIZED SCIENTIFIC METHOD is what true scientists follow scrupulously (unlike you two).

And accusing ME of being all over the shop/arguing both ways, is a bit RICH coming from you two, who have ignored/evaded the original point/context: problem of philosophical notions like 'point' and '0' as EXPLAINED (not 'claimed').

It's even RICHER to accuse me of changing the subject when that's all you two have been doing to ignore/evade that problem in math/physics theory. :)

Jun 30, 2016
@RC, make up your mind. Either you believe that math doesn't work, or you don't.

Jun 30, 2016
Hi Da Schneib. :)
Either you believe that math..
There you go again, Da Schneib; mischaracterizing/making strawmen 'versions' of the discussion point/context, rather than sticking to original point context.

What has 'belief;' got to do with the reality explained as above? You are the only one implying "beliefs" is in any way relevant/determinant in scientific comprehension/explanation/reality matters.

Maybe that's your problem, DS?

You are so emotionally and egoistically 'attached' to your own 'beliefs' about '0' and 'point' concepts in conventional maths/physics constructs?

Fortunately, I don't go by 'beliefs'....I am ATHEIST. :)

I work on reason, reality as explained logically and consistently with evidence as presented re origins/causes etc SCIENTIFICALLY...NOT emotionally/egoistically like you/Phys1 seem to. :)

And it's obvious to all (except you two 'believers') that MATHS/PHYSICS theory 'breaks' when 'outputting' unphysical/singularity etc, as explained. :)

Jun 30, 2016
And it's obvious to all (except you two 'believers') that MATHS/PHYSICS theory 'breaks' when 'outputting' unphysical/singularity etc, as explained.
It's not like we say the physics for water "breaks" when water goes from being liquid to solid. It certainly isn't right to say that black holes "break" the physics of general relativity, since after one passes through a region of spacetime, the spacetime goes back to being flat, none the worse for wear, no broken physics anywhere. You might could say a symmetry present in the underlying laws of general relativity or quantum mechanics "breaks" *inside* the event horizon of a black hole, but which one(s), and in which way(s) does it break? Nevertheless, a broken symmetry isn't the same thing as a broken theory, by any stretch.

Jun 30, 2016
Sorry, a wall of text doesn't change the fact you just claimed not to believe that there's anything wrong with zero or points, and then claimed there's something wrong with zero and points, in the same post, @RC.

It's right there in black and white.

One of them has to be a lie.

This will be another of those threads @Cap'n Stumpy will keep linking over and over again where you said something really dumb.

Jul 01, 2016
The FORUM will NOTE:
the forum has formally noted:
-you (realitycheck-rc) repeatedly lie about your posts and it's content, even though it's saved/archived for all to see

-you (rc) change the subject when you're backed into a corner and have to discuss content (every time you do that, it means you're trying to bullsh*t the forum again, thus the forum has noted it)

-you (rc) have no comprehension of what DaSchneib is saying, and the medical/biological/micro-bio knowledge equivalent to a pet rock

-you (rc) don't believe in zero, math (or, apparently, 538.757 - sarc)

.

.

This will be another of those threads...
@DaSchneib
absolutely saving this one!

this is one historical moment of astounding stupidity equivalent to benji's galactic year & math fail comments, bschit's "before we can know what's in mars dirt we need to bring it to earth" or the eu "electric moon craters/D/1993 F2 breakup" !

Jul 01, 2016

Hi Protoplasmix. :)

Sorry, I had to go out (Da Schneib wasted my time with his usual dishonest/face-saving attempt 'tactics'), so I have to get back to you tomorrow on that other matter. :)

Anyhow, if maths/physics theory 'breaks', ie BREAKS DOWN or BLOWS UP etc etc, and becomes UNphysical and hence Invalid etc. :)

Mainstream mathematicians/physicists use that language to describe when some maths/physics theory/equations come up against a singularity condition (eg, at BH r = 0). Hence the problem with conventional maths/physics '0' and 'point'.

At NO stage have I said anything about spacetime ITSELF 'breaking' etc. :)

It's the MODELING construct using maths/physics '0' and 'point' that 'breaks. Can't be clearer than that.

Anything ELSE being inferred/implied by Da schneib et al is NOT MY 'claims'. Can you see what Da Schneib has just tried on, AGAIN? He just RECAST the original discussion/point/context into what HE 'wants it to mean'...and then accuses etc! Lame. :)

Jul 01, 2016
Hi Captain Stumpy. :)

Mate, shut your uncomprehending biased 'noise'. You have no clue. It's Da Schneib who has employed his well known tactics of evasion and changing the subject and strawmanning and then making scattergun accusations of 'liar' etc etc when it's he that has been doing all the evasion and lying by trying to mischaracterize etc so that he can pretend he is rght and has won etc etc.

If you were even a fraction of impartial you'de recall how many times he has tried that with me and ended up with egg on his face when proven wrong because he has no idea what the discussion/facts is/are yet opens his mouth and makes diversions etc in ignorance of what I had to TEACH him of the KNOWN science/facts.

You driveling now in biased, uncritical 'support' of your buddy, instead of understanding objectively and acting accordingly, again proves what a waste of text/time you have become here. Ignorable.

CapS, learn. Stop your lame lies/mischaracterizations. Shut it. :)

Jul 01, 2016
Hi Da Schneib.:)

You again disappoint. I had harbored hopes you would have learned not to try your old evasion/diversion/strawman/accusatory insulting tactics with me again. You again opted for such in lieu of fair, objective discourse based on known facts.

You just couldn't help it; because you apparently go by your BELIEFS instead of objective understanding/recognition of the known facts I explained and pointed out for your benefit. It's tiring having to lead you by the nose until you have caught up in your reading/understanding sufficiently to actually 'get' what is being told you. You are now officially a total waste of time and energy for anyone trying to get you into an honest and amicable discussion based on FACTS not yiur BELIEFS and strawman 'versions' of whatever it is you are 'attacking' that is not the original point/context in involved.

In future, you are ignorable even more than CapS. He is ignorant; you are ignorant 'pretender'...and lame. Bye, DS. :)

Jul 01, 2016
Hi Phys1. :)
I am completely lost.I have no idea what you are going on about.
All I can make of it, at best, is that you say that math and physics is just an abstraction of reality and not reality itself, but that is kicking in a door that has been wide open since 2500 years.
It's your own doing that you are lost, not mine. :)

I distinctly said that the USE of '0' and 'point' is the problem in maths/physics CURRENTLY.

I NEVER said maths/physics THEMSELVES in intent/nature etc are the problem.

Maths/Physics has been EVOLVING for centuries, as new needs/insights arose. Einstein had to 'invent' new concepts/terms for maths/physics too! Such is not unusual. :)

Maths and Physics, as I am NOW reworking it, will be more appropriate for reality modeling because the '0' and 'point' concepts and uses/applications will be more representative of the real physical meanings/effects rather than mere abstract philosophical concepts as in current maths/physics construct. Cheers. :)

Jul 01, 2016
So basically, this is pointless. Snicker.

Obviously @RC's "theory" should be referred to as the "pointless toe."

This is supported by the fact it has no math at all in it: without points and zeroes, there is no arithmetic, no algebra, no set theory, no geometry, no trigonometry, no calculus, no group theory, no linear algebra, no number theory, and no computation. Looks pretty pointless to me. Just sayin'.

Jul 01, 2016
So basically, this is pointless. Snicker.
@DaSchneib
ROTFLMFAO
epic - if i could give a hundred stars, you would get them!
Obviously @RC's "theory" should be referred to as the "pointless toe."
maybe it should also have "cavalry" in there somewhere since he is going to "save the day" with his "pointless toe"?

after all, you can see by the Einstein reference she thinks she will be the next big thing in physics

is it any wonder why this is perfect examples of Dunning-Kruger? (among other things)

.

.

Hi Ca...
@penguin-head
stopped there
TL;DR

baiting/flame post trolling for attention

Jul 01, 2016
@Phys1, I am left with the indelible impression that @RC's knowledge of mathematics does not extend to arithmetic. Never mind complicated stuff like algebra and trig.

I seriously doubt he's ever heard of Peano's axioms.

I mean, the first one is, "zero exists," loosely translated into colloquial English. Where do you go from the point when you deny it? Wherever it is, it ain't math, that's for certain.

Jul 01, 2016
Well, @Phys1, my conclusion was that he was trolling in the first place, and I think that trolling or insanity are the only possible conclusions. What do you say after someone confirms and denies the same statement in a single post? Gotta be one or the other.

Jul 01, 2016
Anyway, it was not Einstein but Riemann and Lobatschevski who developed curvilinear geometry, by rejecting one of Peano's axioms.
Hmmmm, I thought it was the parallel postulate that they rejected to develop Riemann geometry and and other non-Euclidean geometries. I thought that was one of Euclid's postulates of his geometry. I wasn't aware the parallel postulate was a Peano axiom.

There may be something interesting for me to learn here; please clarify!

Jul 01, 2016
Incidentally, if anyone is looking at the Wikipedia article on the Peano axioms, https://en.wikipe...o_axioms you will see the use of ∀ and ∃ in the statements of the axioms. These are called "quantifiers," and they may be interpreted as:

∃x means "There exists some number x such that..."
∀x means "All numbers x are such that..."

You will also see the symbol ∈. This is interpreted as:

x ∈ N means "The number x is an element of the set N (that is, the set of natural or counting numbers)."

The study of math based on the Peano axioms and similar and derived systems of axioms is called "number theory." It's actually quite interesting and will lead one to deep understanding of where math comes from and how it works.

Jul 02, 2016
Hi Phys1. :)

Sorry, been out to vote in Federal Election here in OZ; then did some shopping etc.

Now...

You haven't understood. Maths is an evolving construct from axioms. Since Euclid's time The Mathematics/Geometry has been evolving as the needs for more clarity/definitiveness etc arose. Hence Extended Number line/theory (to deal with Negative Numbers; then Set Theory (to deal with some unusual entities like Infinity and the Empty Set; and so on.

IF you don't understand that mathematics evolves like that, then you have no business saying I don't understand what I am talking about. :)

Anyway, I explained earlier (did you understand it?) about how closer examination of the Euclid 'definition' of point was UNphysical/Unreal. If you didn't understand that, then no wonder you are 'lost'. :)

Instead of you two (and your even more ignorant/uncomprehending 'noisemaker in support' friend) trash-talking amongst yourselves, try listening/learning. Work at it. :)

[cont...]

Jul 02, 2016
[...cont] @Phys1.

Moreover, Applied Maths is 'talilored' to suit the application/domain requirements. That is what techniques and methodologies using specific parts of the mathematics is all about. The problem in Cosmology is that the modeling 'blows up' into infinities, singularities and undefineds and assorted UNphysical absurdities. That is where MY Reality-based maths reworking is aimed. The Reality-based ToE is what determines the maths...not the other way around, as is currently the situation with physics/cosmology theory which 'blows up' logically and physically even BEFORE the maths is used to model it!

Now, if you aren't prepared to actually understand, and just prefer to snicker like schoolchildren amongst yourselves, then that's your choice. Good luck with that. :)

PS:

@ PROTOPLASMIX. I am about to commence my response to your query in the other matter. My apologies for allowing Phys1 et al to distract/waste my time. See you in the relevant thread, Proto. :)

Jul 03, 2016
Hi Phys1. :)

Good Morning (here)! Haven't had much sleep. Our Federal Election is close as expected! Been analyzing situation/likely scenarios after full vote-counts completed in few days/weeks; with especial attention to what the Independents may do if neither major party can form a majority. Turnbull's self-serving machinations failed all his goals. Interesting!

Anyhow..
Math is evolving.
Didn't I just inform YOU of that, Phys1? Do you also try to "teach your Grandmother how to suck eggs"? :)

Why do you keep echoing stuff back at me which I have known since before you were born? It's pretty amusing seeing you reading up on stuff after I pointed it out for you...and then you posting stuff which I just told you!
Observation based math? RC, you are mad.
Think before opening gob to insult, mate. Your maths/science teachers will tell you reality SHOULD inform axiom/postulates; else arbitrary/philosophical/metaphysical starts/inputs end up in GIGO absurdities. :)

Jul 07, 2016
This comment has been removed by a moderator.

Jul 07, 2016
Hi Da Schneib. :)
RarifiedCranium needs to go back to reading childrens' books. He obviously missed this one. http://www.barnes...01482044

QED: There are pre-schoolers with a better grasp of the subjects being debated than RC.
You never learn, do you bigmouthed ignoramus? You tried to tell everyone that zero "was just another number", when it's not, as I had to inform you. Now you found that out. But do you apologize for being incorrect and calling me names? No. You post another cheap shot which only makes you look even sillier. That children's book is just your speed. It even teaches you that zero is not just another number! When you finally get to the grown-up's book section, you'll find all the things I have been pointing out to you/Phys1 above. No doubt you'll then come back and try to tell me all about it...as if I wasn't the one who pointed out all those things to YOU! Learn, you bigmouthed idiot. :)

Jul 07, 2016
PS: @ Forum:

At least Phys1 did learn, and wisely kept quiet after my last post to him. But this Da Schneib idiot bigmouth just can't resist making a further fool of himself with idiot crap cheap shot insulting like his last above, which only further confirm his ego and mouth are orders of magnitude bigger than his actual correct knowledge of the matter he pretends to know about but is woefully behind in his reading/understanding of in fact. As easily seen from the exchanges in this thread; Da Schneib is a poser in many areas which he has no real comprehension of in depth but only in superficial 'skimming' level which ends up with him getting egg on his face all too often. If he spent as much energy and concentration and time on actually listening and learning what he doesn't know, he might be dangerous! As it is, poor Da Schneib is a damp squib, all fizz and cheap bluster even when he is patently in error. Soor sod. I feel sorry for him. Will he ever learn? :)

Jul 07, 2016
@ Really-Skippy. How you are Cher? I have been missing and worrying about you. They keep you locked up in the Earthman Playhouse for a few days or something? Anyhoo, glad you got away again. I am doing real good me. Tonight about the 10 o'clock I got to hit the road to meet my boat, but I got a couple of hours we can fool around.

Oh yeah, I almost forget. Cher, don't be so hard on DaSchneib-Skippy. He don't mean non harm for you. It's probably just that he can not understand you like I can not either.

Any another hoo, I am ready willing and waiting for some more of the humans and scientists sermons. We kind of run the Bicep thing into the ground the last time you were here, maybe while you were "in" the Playhouse you thought up some new ones for us.

Jul 07, 2016
PPS: @ Forum:

Recall my earlier warning about a spamming, trolling, Phishing (Identity Theft) poster who destroyed physforum? I warned that now he lost that site as a hunting ground, that same individual is starting his hunting here at PO in earnest. The individual in question started out at physforum (old Phys.Org before the split to physforum and this PO site) under the username "Dave". Then progressively under numrous socks until most recently as "Lady Elizabeth" and finally "BigusDickus".

The same "BigusDickus" recently registered here at PO after the physforum site closed.

This creepy internet criminal harvesting personal data for Spamming/Identity Theft is NOW multiplying his socks at PO. Eg, look up Join dates of:

- BigusDickus
- TrollCondensate
- DonCarloFantasia
- antiantigoracle
- KaFaraqGatri
- ElectricBoobVerses
- CockyChocachubra
- ThunderDolts.

Beware! Do NOT befriend him/let him convince you to part with personal info! He is a CRIMINAL.

Jul 07, 2016
Hi Uncle Ira. :)
@ Really-Skippy. How you are Cher? I have been missing and worrying about you. They keep you locked up in the Earthman Playhouse for a few days or something? Anyhoo, glad you got away again. I am doing real good me. Tonight about the 10 o'clock I got to hit the road to meet my boat, but I got a couple of hours we can fool around.

Oh yeah, I almost forget. Cher, don't be so hard on DaSchneib-Skippy. He don't mean non harm for you. It's probably just that he can not understand you like I can not either.
Been doing political/election stuff. We just had a Federal Election here in OZ. The situation is not yet clear, and a hung parliament is on the cards. Parties/Independents are maneuvering with view to forming stable govt. Fat chance! What with the Liberal-National-Party (and its rabid Tea Party types) being at war with each other let alone science and humanity at large!

Yeah, I do feel sorry for poor Da Schneib. He never learns. Unlike you. :)

Jul 07, 2016
PS: @ Uncle-skippy. :)

What you think about that physforum criminal who is now beginning to infest PO? You think he'll be able to fool enough suckers here to make his Phishing/Identity Theft and spamming worth his while? Poor sod. This is the only way he can earn a living; by stealing and conning people for their info/money. Must be a real sick person in his dark little room with only his professional spamming setup for company.

Anyhooo, Ira-skippy, don't give any personal info to that criminal now, hear, Ira, everyone! :)

PPS: And you thought my earlier warnings were not real. Well, there he is, large as life, under a number of socks already! Next time maybe you will stop and think that maybe I am as genuine as I have told you I am, hey? Cheers. :)

Jul 07, 2016
Been doing political/election stuff. We just had a Federal Election here in OZ.
Hope you guy wins.

The situation is not yet clear, and a hung parliament is on the cards. Parties/Independents are maneuvering with view to forming stable govt. Fat chance! What with the Liberal-National-Party (and its rabid Tea Party types) being at war with each other let alone science and humanity at large!
Yeah, from what I read about it (which is not a whole lot) you guys with Parliaments have more partied involved than we do and they do the Top-Skippy choosing. But at least the parliament type let's you do a do-over if you really hate the Skippy in there. Maybe that is wrong though, I might be confused with something else, something about being confident is not acting like a couyon or something.

He never learns.Unlike you
Well thank you for saying that but to tell you true, I think he learns a more stuffs than I do, at least the type of stuffs everybody talks about here.