Scientists detect the ringing of a newborn black hole for the first time

black hole
Credit: CC0 Public Domain

If Albert Einstein's theory of general relativity holds true, then a black hole, born from the cosmically quaking collisions of two massive black holes, should itself "ring" in the aftermath, producing gravitational waves much like a struck bell reverbates sound waves. Einstein predicted that the particular pitch and decay of these gravitational waves should be a direct signature of the newly formed black hole's mass and spin.

Now, physicists from MIT and elsewhere have "heard" the ringing of an infant black hole for the first time, and found that the pattern of this ringing does, in fact, predict the black hole's mass and spin—more evidence that Einstein was right all along.

The findings, published today in Physical Review Letters, also favor the idea that lack any sort of "hair"—a metaphor referring to the idea that black holes, according to Einstein's theory, should exhibit just three observable properties: mass, spin, and electric charge. All other characteristics, which the physicist John Wheeler termed "hair," should be swallowed up by the black hole itself, and would therefore be unobservable.

The team's findings today support the idea that black holes are, in fact, hairless. The researchers were able to identify the pattern of a black hole's ringing, and, using Einstein's equations, calculated the mass and spin that the black hole should have, given its ringing pattern. These calculations matched measurements of the black hole's mass and spin made previously by others.

If the team's calculations deviated significantly from the measurements, it would have suggested that the black hole's ringing encodes properties other than mass, spin, and electric charge—tantalizing evidence of physics beyond what Einstein's theory can explain. But as it turns out, the black hole's ringing pattern is a direct signature of its mass and spin, giving support to the notion that black holes are bald-faced giants, lacking any extraneous, hair-like properties.

"We all expect general relativity to be correct, but this is the first time we have confirmed it in this way," says the study's lead author, Maximiliano Isi, a NASA Einstein Fellow in MIT's Kavli Institute for Astrophysics and Space Research. "This is the first experimental measurement that succeeds in directly testing the no-hair theorem. It doesn't mean black holes couldn't have hair. It means the picture of black holes with no hair lives for one more day."

A chirp, decoded

On Sept. 9, 2015, scientists made the first-ever detection of gravitational waves—infinitesimal ripples in space-time, emanating from distant, violent cosmic phenomena. The detection, named GW150914, was made by LIGO, the Laser Interferometer Gravitational-wave Observatory. Once scientists cleared away the noise and zoomed in on the signal, they observed a waveform that quickly crescendoed before fading away. When they translated the signal into sound, they heard something resembling a "chirp."

Scientists determined that the gravitational waves were set off by the rapid inspiraling of two . The peak of the signal—the loudest part of the chirp—linked to the very moment when the black holes collided, merging into a single, new black hole. While this infant black hole likely gave off gravitational waves of its own, its signature ringing, physicists assumed, would be too faint to decipher amid the clamor of the initial collision.

This simulation shows how a black hole merger would appear to our eyes if we could somehow travel in a spaceship for a closer look. It was created by solving equations from Albert Einstein's general theory of relativity using LIGO data from the event called GW150914. Credit: SXS, the Simulating eXtreme Spacetimes (SXS) project

Isi and his colleagues, however, found a way to extract the black hole's reverberation from the moments immediately after the signal's peak. In previous work led by Isi's co-author, Matthew Giesler, the team showed through simulations that such a signal, and particularly the portion right after the peak, contains "overtones"—a family of loud, short-lived tones. When they reanalyzed the signal, taking overtones into account, the researchers discovered that they could successfully isolate a ringing pattern that was specific to a newly formed black hole.

In the team's new paper, the researchers applied this technique to actual data from the GW150914 detection, concentrating on the last few milliseconds of the signal, immediately following the chirp's peak. Taking into account the signal's overtones, they were able to discern a ringing coming from the new, infant black hole. Specifically, they identified two distinct tones, each with a pitch and decay rate that they were able to measure.

"We detect an overall gravitational wave signal that's made up of multiple frequencies, which fade away at different rates, like the different pitches that make up a sound," Isi says. "Each frequency or tone corresponds to a vibrational frequency of the new black hole."

Listening beyond Einstein

Einstein's predicts that the pitch and decay of a black hole's should be a direct product of its mass and spin. That is, a black hole of a given mass and spin can only produce tones of a certain pitch and decay. As a test of Einstein's theory, the team used the equations of general relativity to calculate the newly formed black hole's mass and spin, given the pitch and decay of the two tones they detected.

They found their calculations matched with measurements of the black hole's mass and spin previously made by others. Isi says the results demonstrate that researchers can, in fact, use the very loudest, most detectable parts of a gravitational wave signal to discern a new black hole's ringing, where before, scientists assumed that this ringing could only be detected within the much fainter end of the gravitational wave signal, and only with much more sensitive instruments than what currently exist.

"This is exciting for the community because it shows these kinds of studies are possible now, not in 20 years," Isi says.

As LIGO improves its resolution, and more sensitive instruments come online in the future, researchers will be able to use the group's methods to "hear" the ringing of other newly born black holes. And if they happen to pick up tones that don't quite match up with Einstein's predictions, that could be an even more exciting prospect.

"In the future, we'll have better detectors on Earth and in space, and will be able to see not just two, but tens of modes, and pin down their properties precisely," Isi says. "If these are not black holes as Einstein predicts, if they are more exotic objects like wormholes or boson stars, they may not ring in the same way, and we'll have a chance of seeing them."


Explore further

Shedding light on black holes

More information: Testing the no-hair theorem with GW150914, arXiv:1905.00869 [gr-qc] arxiv.org/abs/1905.00869
Journal information: Physical Review Letters

Citation: Scientists detect the ringing of a newborn black hole for the first time (2019, September 11) retrieved 18 September 2019 from https://phys.org/news/2019-09-scientists-newborn-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.
9681 shares

Feedback to editors

User comments

Sep 11, 2019
Gravity seems to act and propagate exactly like EM radiation. Does gravity exhibit wave particle duality?

RNP
Sep 11, 2019
Wow! LIGO science has just stepped up another gear! It is without doubt exceeding all expectations.

This is a must-read paper; https://arxiv.org...0869.pdf .

Sep 11, 2019
There are passages in that article that I couldn't read without imagining......................................

https://media1.te...=5550772

Sep 11, 2019
Einstein's theory of general relativity predicts that the pitch and decay of a black hole's gravitational waves should be a direct product of its mass and spin.
......black holes are in fact never mentioned in either Special or General Relativity. The author Jennifer Chu needs to update her facts.

Sep 11, 2019
Einstein's theory of general relativity predicts that the pitch and decay of a black hole's gravitational waves should be a direct product of its mass and spin.
......black holes are in fact never mentioned in either Special or General Relativity. The author Jennifer Chu needs to update her facts.

The operative being "predicts"...

Sep 11, 2019
When it becomes predict is '.."produce!"..' so introduce is!.. it that is is is dictionarizing a thing by indicative dictations. You cannot stop dreamers and dream followers! And also intiguers and conspiracy initiators.

Sep 11, 2019
@Benni
It's a solution to Einstein's field equations. So that solutions predicts...
You cant figure that out?

Sep 11, 2019
@jimmybobber
(P1) What is this text all about?
Hi,
The article indirectly suggests that somebody does very frighteningly talk about Einstein.. lurking in the darks antagonizing the idol stance of him about to get it iddled down. That is the whole duality in-of the blackhole fact and the audio fact.
Audio as by frequency and as a result in resolution factor has nothing to do with blackholes or stars. They literally by technique are talking about tapes/audio recordings of speeches. What prediction is there over there and what hinting or preconfiguring are there over there in dictionaries.
If the matter in the theory that Einstein asserts is that the speed of photons only patternize and execute mass to turn into energy (..?.. just by speeding it up!!??).. there had to be only one type of energy at all!
..
Some say/think: conspire to aspire as conscience is collective in lectures by Scientology..

Good bye.

Sep 11, 2019
@jimmybobber
(P2) A specification mostly ommited about light:

Radiation is an event of radial movements of subatomic particles and these movements are considered and accepted as types of light(s). How will you re-speed something already in the light speed of its own.. again into it's own light speed.. moving it all away.. though.. there is no linear movement of particles of light(s) but the particularly being mentioned speed of a photon is about it's linear movement speed.. and.. in radial and radiation reality of its own already has no particular or constant speed at all.. even it be linearly considered or helesonically.

Sep 11, 2019
Nah. That baby black hole is crying, because it is hungry.

Sep 11, 2019
@Benni
It's a solution to Einstein's field equations. So that solutions predicts...
You cant figure that out?


The General Relativity field equations are fairly complex, rarely are they computed to an exact solution because of this complexity.
The relevant equation dealing with black holes was the first equation to actually be solved, being one of the simpler ones, so to speak.
And indeed the solution predicted many things, the ringdown frequencies being one of them.
So far, all tested observations have proved themselves perfectly in line with the field equations.

As a side note, gravitational waves do travel at lightspeed, but they are a completely different type of massless particle and do not behave as photons, not at all. They are modeled as linear with the same charge at each end. What they actually consist of is unknown, but the math is consistent with a monopole, unlike electric charge or magnets.

Sep 11, 2019
It doesn't mean black holes couldn't have hair. It means the picture of black holes with no hair lives for one more day.

Or, it is hairless, being a newborn.

Sep 11, 2019
This comment has been removed by a moderator.

Sep 11, 2019
@Benni
It's a solution to Einstein's field equations. So that solutions predicts...
You cant figure that out?
.......I don't need to, Einstein has already done the math:

Albert Einstein- Oct 1939

On a Stationary System With Spherical Symmetry Consisting of Many Gravitating Masses
Author(s): Albert Einstein Reviewed work(s): Source: The Annals of Mathematics, Second Series, Vol. 40, No. 4 (Oct., 1939), pp. 922-936 Published by: Annals of Mathematics Stable URL:

http://www.cscamm...hild.pdf

In Einstein's conclusions he states:

"The essential result of this investigation is a clear understanding as to why the "Schwarzschild singularities" do not exist in physical reality."

Sep 11, 2019
@Benni and?
We know General Relativity isn't a complete description of reality. It does not factor in quantum mechanics.
Most logical people realize there is no such singularity.
Why are you so hung up on it?

Sep 11, 2019
Gravity seems to act and propagate exactly like EM radiation. Does gravity exhibit wave particle duality?
Gravity is thought to have particles, called gravitons, but it's so weak that they are so small that no one has ever detected one. And, of course, that's part of the reason we don't have a quantum gravity theory.

Sep 11, 2019
@Benni and?
We know General Relativity isn't a complete description of reality. It does not factor in quantum mechanics.
Most logical people realize there is no such singularity.
Why are you so hung up on it?
....because Pop-Cosmology fantasy won't let it go, just like you don't.

Hey, we know you would NEVER deny the Schwarzschild Radii, therefore you believe SINGULARITIES exist in spite of:

https://pdfs.sema...d089.pdf

......but you don't believe a word or an equation of this.

Sep 11, 2019
Wow! LIGO science has just stepped up another gear! It is without doubt exceeding all expectations.

This is a must-read paper; https://arxiv.org...0869.pdf .
The really interesting thing is that the expected nonlinear effects during the initial coalescence-ringdown phases appear not to have occurred. This implies that higher-order terms in the Einstein equations don't make as much of a contribution as expected.

Sep 11, 2019
@Benni
Time for bed dude.
You are the one fixated on the "singularity"

Sep 12, 2019
"Singularity" means the math solution goes to infinity.
Infinity is not a number, therefore the math is incorrect when it concludes a singularity. Einstein stated this plainly, singularities do not represent reality.
Black Holes are not singularities and the event horizons are not only real, they can be measured.
The confusion is semantics. The math leads to an unreal singularity, but describes very real black holes and event horizons along the way to the singularity.
.
The math for electrons is the same, it concludes electrons are infinitely dense singularities.
They are not but we use the math as it is correct right up to the point it goes infinite.
Electrons are just as real as black holes and the math is equal.

Sep 12, 2019
@Benni
Time for bed dude.
You are the one fixated on the "singularity"

What does jimmybobber and the singularity, have in common?

Both are infinitely dense.

Sep 12, 2019
@Benni
Time for bed dude.
You are the one fixated on the "singularity"

What does jimmybobber and the singularity, have in common?

Both are infinitely dense.


Pot. Kettle. Black.

Sep 12, 2019
""Singularity" means the math solution goes to infinity.
Infinity is not a number, therefore the math is incorrect when it concludes a singularity. Einstein stated this plainly, singularities do not represent reality.
Black Holes are not singularities and the event horizons are not only real, they can be measured.
The confusion is semantics. The math leads to an unreal singularity, but describes very real black holes and event horizons along the way to the singularity.
.
The math for electrons is the same, it concludes electrons are infinitely dense singularities.
They are not but we use the math as it is correct right up to the point it goes infinite.
Electrons are just as real as black holes and the math is equal."

Thank you etherair. Well said.

Sep 12, 2019
Black Holes are not singularities and the event horizons are not only real, they can be measured.
The confusion is semantics
.......jimbo & the ether guy would do well to read the definition of a BH from their favorite textbook, here it is:

https://en.wikipe...ack_hole

"Singularity
Main article: Gravitational singularity
At the center of a black hole, as described by general relativity, may lie a gravitational singularity, a region where the spacetime curvature (gravity) becomes infinite. For a non-rotating black hole, this region takes the shape of a single point and for a rotating black hole, it is smeared out to form a ring singularity that lies in the plane of rotation.[89] In both cases, the singular region has zero volume. It can also be shown that the singular region contains all the mass of the black hole solution.The singular region can thus be thought of as having infinite density."


Sep 12, 2019
What are singularities? Do they exist in nature?

https://www.askam...-nature/

Sep 12, 2019
@Benni please read Castro's link.

Sep 12, 2019
@Benni

may lie a gravitational singularity,

The key word in this sentence is, "may". Obtuse much?

Sep 12, 2019
@Benni

It would do you good to actually understand what the definition of "singularity" is.
https://en.wikipe...ematics)

The function y = 1/x has a singularity at x=0. The function is undefined there.

Coulomb's Law at r = 0 is undefined as well. Where r is the scalar distance between the two charges. I don't see you complaining about the "infinite" force between two charges. Why is that?

It's as simple as that Benni.


Sep 12, 2019
That s=c/r equation is a beautiful illustration of a theoretical singularity that doesn't exist in nature, however, the equation is still accurate and predictive. It's laid out in such a simple and elegant way, that even a young child could understand. Unfortunately for Algernon (Benni), this is still likely a bit out of reach.

Sep 12, 2019
Gravity is a law of motion. For all gravity there exists elasticity, modulation, and reverberation.

What is the mathematic proof of general relativity? A sound wave is not gravity in itself. There is also an issue of Time in the universe atomic seconds are not a measurement of time while general relativity always requires an algebra method of removing Pi to move from theory not experimentation to confirm general results.

"If Albert Einstein's theory of general relativity holds true, then a black hole, born from the cosmically quaking collisions of two massive black holes, should itself "ring" in the aftermath, producing gravitational waves much like a struck bell reverbates sound waves."
Mass is not a constant in this experiment and is also unknown for the two black holes.

A black hold does not bend time it displaces a trajectory across the universe. Einstein's theory is mathematically doomed to forever be generally correct. Almost good enough, almost science law.

Sep 12, 2019
@Benni

It would do you good to actually understand what the definition of "singularity" is.
https://en.wikipe...ematics)

The function y = 1/x has a singularity at x=0. The function is undefined there.

Coulomb's Law at r = 0 is undefined as well. Where r is the scalar distance between the two charges. I don't see you complaining about the "infinite" force between two charges. Why is that?

It's as simple as that Benni.
......you bet, better labeled as Pop-Cosmology mathematical psycho-babble.

Sep 12, 2019
@Benni
What does 1/0 equal?

Sep 12, 2019
Divide a number. The answer times divisor equals the original number,i.e. fourteen divided by two equals seven. Seven times two equals 14, very basic.
So, by extension, 14 divided by zero equals infinity?? Zero times infinity equals zero, not fourteen.
That is exactly the problem when math creates a singularity, they do not exist, period.
The math works just fine right up until zero becomes the divisor, distance, energies, charges, these are all correctly depicted until the zero shows up.
Quantum mechanics puts all energy and charges in discrete units that do not merge with infinity. The equations have multiples of one for all units, keeping zero out of the equation.
The operations are the same except the measured units are never less than one, this is a method of keeping it real and not dividing by zero.
The "gravitron" particle is needed, a discrete particle that would eliminate dividing by zero and would give accurate predictions rather than an infinitely dense pretend body.

Sep 12, 2019
@Benni
What does 1/0 equal?

The lower limit of jimmybobber's stupidity.

Sep 12, 2019
@Benni
What does 1/0 equal?
.....psycho-babble

Sep 12, 2019
I knew he couldn't solve differential equations. That's all psycho-babble too.

Sep 12, 2019
......you bet, better labeled as Pop-Cosmology mathematical psycho-babble.


According to a scientifically illiterate janitor.

Sep 12, 2019
Gravity is a form of motion.

Sep 12, 2019
The observation is at 3.6 sigma (and a 90 % credence model) but a) it is a joint mode and overtone observation and b) it is testing a theory instead of being an ad hoc detection, so I guess the usual 5 sigma limit can be obviated.

In any case they will see improvements with more of these analyses, so I hope they will jump at it!

Wow! LIGO science has just stepped up another gear! It is without doubt exceeding all expectations.

This is a must-read paper; https://arxiv.org...0869.pdf .
The really interesting thing is that the expected nonlinear effects during the initial coalescence-ringdown phases appear not to have occurred. This implies that higher-order terms in the Einstein equations don't make as much of a contribution as expected.


Yes, that is the reason they could do the observation. I am not too surprised, an analysis of the black hole image had the linearized GR solution being similarly decent right up to the "photon ring".

Sep 12, 2019
the math is consistent with a monopole, unlike electric charge or magnets.


So let's be careful here. The distant wave can be modeled classically, and its source behaves as a quadrupole - it is the smallest n-pole source a classical general relativistic field can have. It is when the field is quantized that gravitons appear, and they are as elementary (isolated) charges in general monopoles.

Sep 12, 2019
it's so weak that they are so small that no one has ever detected one. And, of course, that's part of the reason we don't have a quantum gravity theory.


Well, we do, but physicists tend to dislike that fact. There is nothing wrong with simply quantizing gravity, in fact the theory is the best quantum field theory in the sense that the other fields break down before Planck energies. (Either known as for electroweak force and so standard particles, or suspected as for strong force and inflation.) The problem for physicists is that it is boring, it does not predict parameter values or spacetime - hence the quest for "[another, "complete"] quantum gravity". But it works, as far as can be seen, and pass peer review [ https://golem.ph....639.html ; http://www.schola...d_theory ].

Sep 12, 2019
The math for electrons is the same, it concludes electrons are infinitely dense singularities.
They are not but we use the math as it is correct right up to the point it goes infinite.


What happens with the unfulfilled quest for [more] quantum gravity theories sort of happens with "singularities" . They are often mentioned despite being physically meaningless. The hope was that they would pin parameters to "complete" spacetime - the old idea of a "Theory Of Everything".

The singularities of particles are (arguably) handled by quantum field theory. The electron is a somewhat delocalized ripple in the electron field. Conversely the field shields the force potential from going to infinity by having virtual electron field fluctuations appear as another charge try to get close to the electron. (But the electron field couples to the EM field, so it is even more ripples/particles, fluctuations/virtual "particles" involved than in the not-so-naive field picture I described. I hear.)

Sep 12, 2019
@Benni
What does 1/0 equal?
.....psycho-babble


What?

Sep 12, 2019
@Benni
What does 1/0 equal?
.....psycho-babble


What?
......now you're beginning to get it.

Sep 12, 2019
The observation is at 3.6 sigma (and a 90 % credence model) but a) it is a joint mode and overtone observation and b) it is testing a theory instead of being an ad hoc detection, so I guess the usual 5 sigma limit can be obviated.
.....any value of sigma should be ruled out.

You still don't comprehend the obvious, that nothing of infinite value can exist on a finite stellar mass, that gravity & density are MASS DEPENDENT not fantasy dependent as found in your little convoluted narrative.

Sep 12, 2019
The observation is at 3.6 sigma (and a 90 % credence model) but a) it is a joint mode and overtone observation and b) it is testing a theory instead of being an ad hoc detection, so I guess the usual 5 sigma limit can be obviated.
.....any value of sigma should be ruled out.

You still don't comprehend the obvious, that nothing of infinite value can exist on a finite stellar mass, that gravity & density are MASS DEPENDENT not fantasy dependent as found in your little convoluted narrative.


Lol. It'd be easier to teach QM to a gerbil, than try to make Benni understand science!

Sep 12, 2019
@Benni

Dude you can't even conceptualize 1/0.

It is not defined. Has no solution. It's not a number.


Sep 12, 2019
@Benni

Dude you can't even conceptualize 1/0.

It is not defined. Has no solution. It's not a number.
.....it's Pop-Cosmology psycho-babble no matter what YOU want to say about it.

Sep 12, 2019
@Benni

Dude you can't even conceptualize 1/0.

It is not defined. Has no solution. It's not a number.
.....it's Pop-Cosmology psycho-babble no matter what YOU want to say about it.


Translation; "I'm crap at maths as well as science, so I haven't got a clue what you are talking about."

Sep 12, 2019
Benni claims he can solve differential equations but can't tell us what 1/0 is.

Sep 12, 2019
I asked Benni: "What does 1/0 equal?"

Benni responded ".....psycho-babble"


Sep 12, 2019
Benni what does 1/0 + 1 = ?


Sep 13, 2019
.....it's Pop-Cosmology psycho-babble no matter what YOU want to say about it.


The equation 1/0 is not pop-cosmology, it's addressed in texts over 1000 years old. What a moron.

Sep 13, 2019
OK, I'm amused, anyone else?
1/0 is called infinity. Take that infinity and divide it by the number of particles in the known universe (about 10^160, ten followed by 160 zeros).
Now, what is the percentage of infinity that all the particles (protons, neutrons, photons, neutrinos, etc.) comprise?
Zero percent, infinity is not a number so no matter how big the real number the answer is still zero percent of infinity. A math concept only, on a par with Unicorns circling over virgin women, the virtue may be real but the Unicorn is not.

The analogy may be bad, but calling infinity a number is worse.

Sep 13, 2019
"K, I'm amused, anyone else?"
Yeah me...……..to.

My grievance with General relativity is its basic mathematics. Pi needs to be removed from both sides of the equation and it is not listed.

Another grievance is space-time is not a thing space like Earth has time zones. Time itself is multi-dimensional, a portion of time can be scaled up or down to fit in a space. It is that basic
None of this having anything to do with the importance of the observation and documentation of the colliding black holes.

Sep 13, 2019
What does 1/0 equal?
In a learner time the mathematical argument would be resolved with an answer = 1. However, It is unclear mathematically when looking at a analog clock should a linear clock have a second before the minute and hour as dictated by the calculus and geometry that links time to space.

That's funny, I once spent 2 hours afterschool talking to my 7th grade math teacher about my answer to that question. Again. In basic language the zero is one position that is different in scale.

": For every two numbers which includes 1 zero there exists scale."


Sep 13, 2019
@John_C_yPi
What does 1/0 equal?
In a learner time the mathematical argument would be resolved with an answer = 1
erm... whut?

.

.

@etherair
OK, I'm amused, anyone else?
1/0 is called infinity.
do ya mind providing links and references to some peer-reviewed sources for this?
thanks

Sep 13, 2019
@Benni

Dude you can't even conceptualize 1/0.

It is not defined. Has no solution. It's not a number.

Actually...
One divided by zero is simply - One.
You've performed no operation.
By contrast, divide zero by one.
Zero... :-)

Sep 13, 2019
Its undefined Whyd. Try googling "graph 1/x"
Can't believe I even have to suggest that.

Sep 13, 2019
Here's another demonstration. Another way to talk about division is to look at 4/2. The answer to 4/2=? is, how many times must I multiply 2 to get 4? It gets the right answer: 2.

So, 1/0=? means, how many times must I multiply 0 to get 1? This also gets the right answer: it doesn't matter how many times I multiply 0, I will never get 1.

Math matters.

Sep 13, 2019
@ Captain Stumpy

The calculus used to formulate time as distance can be used as an additional mathematic argument 1/0 =1 just like 0/1 =0. We use math to place the zero inside the number 1. The analog clock does not have a Zero it is presumed equal to the number one.
Again, the basic proof to formulate is.

For all two numbers which include a zero there exists scale. 1/0 is a physical mathematic position. Zero is the start between a series of equal numbers that describe two directions. All Negative numbers – Zero, plus Zero – All positive numbers.

It is a foundation for arguing on behalf of mathematic laws of motion, as gravity is a law of motion. It is a direction created by series of energy. Energy and mass are both placed in motion, that motion is labeled gravity.

Sep 14, 2019
Here's another demonstration. Another way to talk about division is to look at 4/2. The answer to 4/2=? is, how many times must I multiply 2 to get 4? It gets the right answer: 2.

So, 1/0=? means, how many times must I multiply 0 to get 1? This also gets the right answer: it doesn't matter how many times I multiply 0, I will never get 1.

Math matters.

In math, you can't multiply zero....


Sep 14, 2019
Nope. Multiplying anything by zero gives zero. It's only dividing by zero that gives undefined results.

Sep 14, 2019
Einstein was illogical! His theory is complete nonsense! How can any PhD accept this $hit?

Sep 14, 2019

@Whydening Gyre

Math matters.
In math, you can't multiply zero....

In math zero does not exist. Yet, it is labeled first as the end position of whole numbers making it a product of motion. Forever binding math with laws of motion.

Sep 14, 2019
@Hyperfuzzy
The theory is not a numeric rational state so cannot make the transition from theory to mathematic law with a precision. Though nonsense, by this I would say handicapper by Einstein's obsession with Pi, it creates a relative constant state mathematically.

Sep 14, 2019
https://en.wikipe...lication

"Property of 0
Any number multiplied by 0 is 0. This is known as the zero property of multiplication:
x ⋅ 0 = 0"

"Inverse element
Every number x, except 0, has a multiplicative inverse, 1/x , such that x ⋅ ( 1 /x ) = 1"

@John_C_yPi
Please list your mathematical properties for the Zero Property and the Inverse Element.
You seem to use a different set of mathematical laws. In your mathematics zero doesn't exist.
Please enlighten us.


Sep 14, 2019
@John_C_yPi
The analog clock does not have a Zero it is presumed equal to the number one
irrelevant and nonsensical

Links and references?
nowhere have I ever seen that zero = one, even in clockmaking and/or manufacturing

See also: @jimmybobber above

Sep 14, 2019
@jimmybobber

Any number multiplied by zero is not multiplied at all.

In my math hardly, no in all math zero does not exist.
Nonlinear and linear functions use graphs of represented space that start as zero. Zero is equal to not counting, not dividing, not multiplying, adding and not subtracting at all. There is nothing that could be multiplied it does not exist there is no equation that is created when placing a non-real number numerical like zero as part of equation of multiplication it is like Pi. Any number multiplied by zero is not multiplied at all. It is not the fact it does not have an answer it is simply never done.

Wikipedia Multiplication along with other math cites place zero as a real number and it is not real. It is how math ties to law of motion only.

The first mathematical property of zero is ten the second property is hundred.

Sep 14, 2019
@jimmybober

The unspoken statement of mathematics that Einstein made in General Relativity was. He favored Pi so much he had not going to ever set and run mathematic tests to remove it form algebra equations.

Sep 14, 2019
@Captain Stumpy

Yeah getting that a lot irrelevant and nonsensical.

Nowhere have you ever seen that zero = one even in clockmaking and/or manufacturing.
First Clock making is not the calculus behind time s clock is a display that is the simply the way show any results translated so they are easiest to share and use.

Second: Not understanding what you see in mathematical function does not mean it is not there in a complete equation. On all analog clocks there is/was a 12: then a 01, Whereas on the Theory of general relativity it is not till we look at the more complete field equation.

https://en.wikipe...quations

https://www.monte...nal.html

Sep 15, 2019
@Captain Stumpy
@jimmybober

Another place to observe a manipulation of zero is in the magnetic compass in which it is replaced with the number one. Though an argument can be made that a position of zero is filled by the number three-hundred, sixty. Again, the calculus in time mathematic formulation use a 12, or 24.

I would also like to apologize for the earlier typing mistakes in both posts.
So back to focus on linear and nonlinear equations, there the number zero replaced in the equation by mathematic addition of describing the one place in an area of space. It is the one origin which maintains the principle of curve yet is not a requirement of the equations themselves.
Now we can both agree to simply overlook these results and say that zero does not equal one. In mathematics the agreement does not mean the result is not presented.


Sep 15, 2019
Einstein's theory does not account that Time is a measurement of space itself as a mathematic principle of natural number. Time is math measurement of distance to aid astronomy and travel requiring scientific calibration to be transferable in scale to motion. The law of motion in our debate discussion is created only by mathematics. Not physics as is presumed most often then confirmed with the address of atomic clock, and such interpretations as the Nano second.

Decimal numerals do not allow an exact representation for all real numbers, e.g. for the real number π. Nevertheless,

https://en.wikipe.../Decimal

I would like to tie this comment off to the video of the black holes merge by saying the mathematics in time zones created by this event are priceless in the establishment of space travel. I could not begin to explain but would start by saying the magnetic compass does not exist in the vast universe and black holes provide time without light present.


Sep 15, 2019
Gravity seems to act and propagate exactly like EM radiation. Does gravity exhibit wave particle duality?


Well...except there is no wave/particle duality.

Sep 15, 2019
@jimmybobber
Please list your mathematical properties for the Zero Property and the Inverse Element.
You seem to use a different set of mathematical laws. In your mathematics zero doesn't exist.
Please enlighten us.

Basically its easiest explained by just saying time does not have a zero.

Sep 16, 2019
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Multiplication

"Property of 0
Any number multiplied by 0 is 0. This is known as the zero property of multiplication:
x ⋅ 0 = 0"

"Inverse element
Every number x, except 0, has a multiplicative inverse, 1/x , such that x ⋅ ( 1 /x ) = 1"

@John_C_yPi
Please list your mathematical properties for the Zero Property and the Inverse Element.
You seem to use a different set of mathematical laws. In your mathematics zero doesn't exist.
Please enlighten us.



Are issue simply becomes algebra and calculous equation. Any citing becomes general physic extermination that can be shared. The reason for this is that a high expectation of cost can not be used to obstruct mathematical sense and reason. and it is not necessary as I agree in basics idea not as complete fact.
Zero is like Pi an irrational number. -1 is not natural.

Sep 16, 2019
@John_C_yPi
First Clock making is not the calculus behind time s clock is a display that is the simply the way show any results translated so they are easiest to share and use
I would also like to apologize for the earlier typing mistakes in both posts
the first sentence didn't make sense
try this: www.grammarly.com

Second: Not understanding what you see in mathematical function does not mean it is not there in a complete equation
actually, I am awaiting your explanation and references explaining this:
The analog clock does not have a Zero it is presumed equal to the number one
while you're at it, explain this
Another place to observe a manipulation of zero is in the magnetic compass
leaving out a digit isn't the same thing as manipulation of zero
How many times have you seen zero on a rule?
does it's exclusion mean there is no zero in distance measurement?

teach us all and include references so we can validate

thanks in advance

Sep 16, 2019
According to general relativity, any black hole can be described in full by three properties: its mass, its spin, and its electrical charge. In practice, this boils down to the first two, because we do not expect black holes to accumulate charge.

All other information about a black hole, like the properties of the objects that have fallen into it, is not observable from beyond the event horizon. This extra information is called "hair" and so the theorem is known as the no-hair theorem is known as the no-hair theorem.

https://skondor.c...ymptoms/

Sep 16, 2019
@Captain Stumpy

Thank you for responding. Yeah sorry I can be all over the place when writing.

First your all doomed I am a horrid teacher of mathematics. It is a was a necessary hobby. Its going to take a few days to put the info together on how a compass and clock or bound mathematically by sextant.
As for these questions:
How many times have you seen zero on a rule?
does it's exclusion mean there is no zero in distance measurement?
Have you see a 12?


Sep 17, 2019
@John_C_yPi
Yeah sorry I can be all over the place when writing
http://www.grammarly.com
Have you see a 12?
considering I have a 36-inch rule and I've worked with both a longer and shorter rule, then I can honestly answer yes to this unless we're talking about a rule less than 12 inches

my micrometre, Digital and Dial callipers all have zero but not a 12 (inches) simply because they don't go to 12 (inches), so the nonexistence of 12 inches on any of the three types used in precision measurement doesn't in any way mean 12 inches doesn't exist

This is the primary reason I requested your answer to the "analog clock does not have a Zero" comment
I can be all over the place when writing

First your all doomed I am a horrid teacher of mathematics
hence my suggestion to download Grammarly and request for reference material

Sep 17, 2019
@ Captian Stumpy

The reason any analog clock has no zero is distance. It is the same reason zero is not a natural or rational number. That simple.

The idea that multiplication and division cannot produce a result on a non-existing number is not the issue. A problem is there is nothing to be divided or multiplied, to ask to do so is not rational. Theoretical will always be a mathematic practice of linear motion. Always and forever.

First what is time.
Time is a sequence of numbers that are calculated with the use of magnetic compass, a sextant, a earth horizon real or artificial, and motion. Time.
https://www.merri.../sextant
Sextant - an instrument used to determine the position of a ship or airplane by measuring the positions of the stars and sun Noon specifically : 12 o'clock at midday
https://www.merri...ary/noon
What star is used the sun. What mathematic equivalent is used 90 degrees to a position on earth to be call 12: noon

Sep 17, 2019
@John

What is 2(x-y) when x = 1 and y = 1
Better yet just solve 1-1 =

You are essentially saying the Additive Inverse Property you are using looks like this

for the set of all x, such that x is an element of the real numbers, x - x is not defined.

That's fine. You can invent any mathematical properties you wish. The question is whether they are useful in proving anything.

You are confusing mathematics with philosophy.


Sep 17, 2019
@John

Using your logic that

x - x = is not defined

then

x != x

which is absurd.

That's saying

1 != 1

Sep 17, 2019
@John
The reason ...That simple
methinks, as @jimmybobber notes, that "You are confusing mathematics with philosophy."
Sextant - an instrument used to determine the position of a ship or airplane by measuring the positions of the stars and sun
A sextant uses and has zero
See for yourself:
https://www.harbo...6547.jpg


Sep 17, 2019
@John

Using your logic that

x - x = is not defined

then

x != x

which is absurd.

That's saying

1 != 1


You are not using my logic, you are using a share logic that is wrong to attempt to prove a point made not reasonable.

My answer is: X - X = (< .1_) zero is not linear.

Sep 17, 2019
@John
The reason ...That simple
methinks, as @jimmybobber notes, that "You are confusing mathematics with philosophy."
Sextant - an instrument used to determine the position of a ship or airplane by measuring the positions of the stars and sun
A sextant uses and has zero
See for yourself:
https://www.harbo...6547.jpg



lol ………….The sextant does not need to have a zero so the relevance is pointless. A complete class on teaching using on a sextant is not necessary. The sextant is a tool that is used in conjunction with magnetic compass, natural or artificial horizon, time clock, and motion to measure a fixed distance pre determined. The clock stores the calculation of 90 degrees as the number 12:

Sep 17, 2019
@john
The sextant does not need to have a zero so the relevance is pointless
then why did you bring up the sextant and its use in measuring time?

It's your argument, so you're *literally* saying you're making a pointless argument to argue that zero doesn't exist
You are not using my logic, you are using a share logic that is wrong to attempt to prove a point made not reasonable
1- you can't actually argue that you're using logic, considering the above

2- his argument is not only correct, it's also continuously used in STEM

that makes his logic functional, reasonable, consistent and experimentally validated, whereas we've not actually seen any validation from you other than links to merriam-webster

an attitudinal statement, what you've brought, is not the same thing as a scientific argument from evidence, let alone a fact (this may help: http://wp.auburn....opinion/ )


Sep 17, 2019
@John

"My answer is: X - X = (< .1_) zero is not linear."

OK then

X - X = (< .1_)

X - X + X = (<.1_) + X

X = (<.1_) + X
which is absurd
because it means
X != X

what does
1 - 1 =
2 - 2 =
2 - 1 =
3 - 1 =
3 - 2 =
3 - 3 =

Sep 17, 2019
@John_C_yPi

The numeral '0' (zero) is merely the STARTING POINT, whether of Distance or an Event or Action or in mathematical equations. There are those who consider the numeral 0 as the equivalent of the numeral 1, but they are rare.
Also, there was no 'year zero' (year 0).

By the way, welcome to Phys.org. I hope you enjoy your stay. My advice is to never, ever give your personal or business information to anyone in this site, or they may use it against you.

19 hours ago
@Forum.

There's a crucial difference between abstract axiomatic mathematical constructs/arguments, and concrete directly confirmable axiomatic constructs using maths language to convey the real situation re hierarchy/location and superposed/transition states.

The latter is readily observed via circular geometric subdivision of a clock face into 'hour' segments; which effectively involves superposition of a START and END location for the full circular sweep around the dial which every 12 hours indicates BOTH the END of the sweep (12 O'clock position) AND SIMULTANEOUSLY the START of the sweep for next cycle.

Hence 'ZERO' is a DUALITY 'superposition state' effectively constituting a DIFFERENTIATION INDICATOR (value/state of TRANSITION/SUPERPOSITION) between ONE CYCLE (as for a 12-hour-clock dial) or for indicating the analogous transition/superposition state separating the ( + ) DIRECTION from the ( - ) DIRECTION (as for infinitely extended NUMBER LINE construct).

Cheers. :)

19 hours ago
ps: Not to mention that in arithmetic constructs the 'zero' can be used to indicate a NULL VALUE POSITION on whatever 'string' system is used to represent a value in that arithmetic construct (be it binary, decimal or other).

Anyway, please be aware of, acquaint yourselves with, all the subtle nuances surrounding the 'zero' and 'nothing' and 'empty' etc concepts/labels as used in various contexts and constructs. Good luck and enjoy your further discussions. :)

ps: In my previous post: "...between ONE CYCLE..." should have been "...between ONE CYCLE AND THE NEXT...". Apologies for the typo. :)

19 hours ago
@RealityCheck

You could have just said:

zero is used as both a number and a digit.


18 hours ago
@jimmybobber.
You could have just said: zero is used as both a number and a digit.
No way, mate; that would not only have been too simplistic but misleading but also outright erroneous as well. Read again what I wrote. Especially where 'zero' is a transitional/superpositional indicator: in which context/reality it is DEFINITELY NOT a 'number' or a 'digit'...but a TOOL in itself above and beyond the abstract axiomatic mathematical treatments which would have it be a number/digit just because that mathematical construct is INCAPABLE of handling/treating the zero concept in the manner I pointed out was the case in REAL contexts/constructs, not just abstract axiomatic constructs. Please take your time to think about it more deeply and read more widely on all the facets of the 'zero' etc concepts. Enjoy your further reading/understanding of this most uniquely special transition/superposition 'zero' property/purpose/effect in concrete reality constructs. :)

18 hours ago
@RealityCheck

What is your definition of a "transitional/superpositional indicator" ?

Better yet, what definition of superposition are you using to apply to your argument?

What's the definition of "duality" that you are using for zero?

In your clock example you are simply describing Modular Arithmetic.

On the number line zero is not in a state of negative or positive. It's neither.

Is "superpositional" even a word?

In all of your examples zero is either being used as a number or a digit.

Stop hiding in the word salad and come out and play.

And please stop pontificating and trying to win arguments through obfuscation.


17 hours ago
@jimmybobber.

I'm disappointed in you, mate. Semantic games are no substitute for honest comprehension of the contextual meaning. Superpositional, in that context, is just another form of superposition (like 'superposed' is in other contexts). And I used the 'superpositional' form advisedly; to distinguish it from the 'congruent' of the abstract Modulo Arithmetic construct. The point is that whatever abstract maths/arithmetic treatments of zero there are, the reality is that zero is also a 'superpositional' or transitional INDICATOR in real effective terms, and not just an abstract number/digit. I already gave you basic examples of why that abstract 'zero' treatment/definition etc is not sufficient to convey the reality involved in real contexts. The fact you still see 'word salad' is indicative of the fact you are fully immersed in abstractions while missing the reality import of the zero term. You are free to keep to abstractions; I prefer to extend mathematics to reality. :)

17 hours ago
@ Captain Stumpy
Then why did you bring up the sextant and its use in measuring time?
Because it is needed to measure time, it is a tool of connection and alignment. Time is a distance around a compass in a direction other than magnetic North with South. In the simplest explanation. Galileo and Newton both loved astronomy and not just mathematics, math was a tool to log the stars and this work was outlast their mathematics.
https://en.wikipe..._Galilei
https://en.wikipe...c_Newton
(Can I argue I am using logic) no fixed equation to be blunt. This would direct the questions path to the mathematic proof used to fix the equation. Before I give that away however when reading jimmy bobbers linear equation. X != X the absurd is any goal to resolve X as anything but a number less than 1/10th. What I did was hold Zero in a numeric faction. 1/10th = 0.10 correct? I then can go on to write a mathematic proof using the way zero is hidden by its irrational state.

17 hours ago
@RealityCheck

You just tossed your word salad.


17 hours ago
https://mathbitsn...ofs.html
His argument is not only correct, it is also continuously used in Science, Technology, Engineering, and Mathematics.
@Jimmybobber
My mathematic grievance with you is summed up this easily.
1-1 =……, 2-2 = ,3-3 = , 4-4 =
I can write zero, make a 0, or not answer at all and they are correct.

17 hours ago
@John

You realize if you refuse to answer what 1-1 = then you can't say 1 = 1


17 hours ago
@John

Good luck this Autumn apple picking. If you pick 10 apples but decide you don't want any. They may still charge you for (<.1) apples.


17 hours ago
@Surveleillance_Egg_Unit
Thank you for the welcome.
I do not consider a year a form of time. I use it, I understand it. Its not time and therefore we are dependent on square law to expand on time zones.
By the way I'm just here doing time……………….lol
In math there are two kinds of people.
Those who put a hole in the boat and give you a cup. Those who are in a boat with a hole and hand you a cup. Neither type person takes well to just stepping on the hole and telling them to row faster.
https://www.thefr....com/row
There is nothing like algebra to make a person feel they are put on earth to move a ship with a oars. Thanks for the advice.

16 hours ago
@jimmybobber.
You just tossed your word salad.
hehehe. Very droll. :)

However, if you ever decide to come down to reality, you might consider this: the mathematical 'point' is defined as 'zero dimensional' by the current abstract-axiomatic mathematics. The trouble is that 'a zero dimensional point' is at root merely a PHILOSOPHICAL NOTION, and NOT a real meaningful 'thing' in concrete reality OR current abstract mathematical constructs. See where your 'jokes and insults' keep you unaware of that and many other facts about the zero term? Especially they keep you ignorant of the problems with current mathematical constructs/treatments which 'output' UNDEFINED and NONSENSE 'results'. Not good for anyone needing to complete the reality-based theory of the universal physics phenomena set, is it?

Jimmy, there are some matters which are so deep/subtle, and so crucial to advancing both the cosmological science and the mathematical constructs, that jokes/insults cannot elucidate. :)

16 hours ago
@RealityCheck

Nobody with any intelligence believes a zero dimensional point exists. It's a mathematical construct that is useful to make predictions. It doesn't represent reality.

So what's your point?


16 hours ago
@Surveleillance_Egg_Unit
Thank you for the welcome.
I do not consider a year a form of time. I use it, I understand it. Its not time and therefore we are dependent on square law to expand on time zones.
By the way I'm just here doing time……………….lol
In math there are two kinds of people.
Those who put a hole in the boat and give you a cup. Those who are in a boat with a hole and hand you a cup. Neither type person takes well to just stepping on the hole and telling them to row faster.
https://www.thefr....com/row
There is nothing like algebra to make a person feel they are put on earth to move a ship with a oars. Thanks for the advice.
........just wait till you wade into the arguments about whether Spacetime Curvature CAUSES gravity or if gravity causes spacetime curvature. Einstein was real clear about it, but there's a Pop-Cosmology group-think here that spends a lot of time talking about General & Special Relativity but have never read it.

16 hours ago
@jimmybobber.
Nobody with any intelligence believes a zero dimensional point exists. It's a mathematical construct that is useful to make predictions....
It's not a matter of 'belief', but a matter of a philosophical/metaphysical concept/term/definition 'zero dimensional point' being part of an abstract mathematical construct which along with all the other 'unreal' zero concepts/treatments output UNDEFINED and/or NONSENSE 'results' which make that mathematics incapable of modelling the actual UNIVERSAL PHYSICAL REALITY...hence the impasse with the mainstream ToE modelling/conceptual efforts using the incapable current mathematical abstractions based equations/arguments etc which 'blow up' into infinities and/or other undefined/nonsensical answers/descriptions/models. If you still fail to grasp the enormity of the problems posed by the current definition/treatments of zero via purely abstract-axiomatic mathematical constructs/argument then I will Ieave you to your jokes/insults. :)

16 hours ago
@RealityCheck

Your word salad:

"It's not a matter of 'belief', but a matter of a philosophical/metaphysical concept/term/definition 'zero dimensional point' being part of an abstract mathematical construct which along with all the other 'unreal' zero concepts/treatments output UNDEFINED and/or NONSENSE 'results' which make that mathematics incapable of modelling the actual UNIVERSAL PHYSICAL REALITY...hence the impasse with the mainstream ToE modelling/conceptual efforts using the incapable current mathematical abstractions based equations/arguments etc which 'blow up' into infinities and/or other undefined/nonsensical answers/descriptions/models. If you still fail to grasp the enormity of the problems posed by the current definition/treatments of zero via purely abstract-axiomatic mathematical constructs/argument then I will Ieave you to your jokes/insults. :)"

You need a time out.


16 hours ago
@jimmybobber.
Your word salad:

"It's not a matter of 'belief', but a matter of a philosophical/metaphysical concept/term/definition 'zero dimensional point' being part of an abstract mathematical construct which along with all the other 'unreal' zero concepts/treatments output UNDEFINED and/or NONSENSE 'results' which make that mathematics incapable of modelling the actual UNIVERSAL PHYSICAL REALITY...hence the impasse with the mainstream ToE modelling/conceptual efforts using the incapable current mathematical abstractions based equations/arguments etc which 'blow up' into infinities and/or other undefined/nonsensical answers/descriptions/models. If you still fail to grasp the enormity of the problems posed by the current definition/treatments of zero via purely abstract-axiomatic mathematical constructs/argument then I will Ieave you to your jokes/insults. :)"

You need a time out.

Keeping to that 'need' motif: you need practice in deep thinking/comprehension, mate. :)

16 hours ago
No, @RC. You need a timeout. So you can deal with the physical because your metaphysical contradicts fact.

You ever gonna tell us how that BLUE CAR can do what it obviously can?

16 hours ago
@Da Schneib.
No, @RC. You need a timeout. So you can deal with the physical because your metaphysical contradicts fact.

You ever gonna tell us how that BLUE CAR can do what it obviously can?
Your opinion is noted. Pity your counter-arguments have been either missing or inadequate to the 'task' you apparently think you have 'accomplished' by jokes/insults instead of rational and genuine science/logics discourse. Never mind, mate. Stay safe. :)

16 hours ago
@RealitySalad

good job.

16 hours ago
@jimmybobber.
@RealitySalad

good job.
Pity.

16 hours ago
Yes a pity you haven't added anything musically to this conversation.
A waste.

16 hours ago
@john
so what you're saying by your post is that you can't provide actual validatable evidence since you're not actually linking anything and you're still not making sense (or logic)
got it. thanks
Because it is needed to measure time, it is a tool of connection and alignment
no, it is not needed to measure time
you can measure time with a tree in the day or just observing stars at night
What I did was...
make a pointless argument that doesn't actually validate your claims
I then can go on to write a mathematic proof
where is this peer-reviewed proof and its subsequent validation?
links and references please
https://mathbitsn...ofs.html
nowhere in that link is any of your argument validated

an attitudinal statement, what you've made above, is not the same thing as a scientific argument from evidence, let alone a fact

you really should read this: http://wp.auburn....opinion/

16 hours ago
@jimmybobber.
Yes a pity you haven't added anything musically to this conversation.
A waste.
"musically"? Mate, you're in the wrong room. The Music Room is down the hall, third door on the right. Keep the noise down please. :)

16 hours ago
The right room.
Harmony dude.
You add dissonance.

15 hours ago
@jimmybobber.
The right room.
Harmony dude.
You add dissonance.
How can logic and science discourse based on facts be considered "dissonance"? Unless of course it has upset someone's 'ignorance is bliss' state of 'Abstractions Nirvana'. Never mind, mate, just ignore it all and pretend 'it never happened', and you'll soon be back to being as happy as a Hippy called Larry wearing rose coloured glasses....duuude! :)

15 hours ago
Yes it has upset your "ignorant" state.
I'm glad you admit it.

I appreciate that you admit that.

You do realize that all sounds can be described as infinite combinations of sin waves?

15 hours ago
@jimmybobber.
Yes it has upset your "ignorant" state.
I'm glad you admit it.

I appreciate that you admit that.
Do you realise that your 'comeback' is a non-sequitur? It's not me who characterised the discussion as "dissonance", it was you; meaning you were the one that was upset by the facts, not me. Try again. :)

You do realize that all sounds can be described as infinite combinations of sin waves?
And what does that tell you? :)

15 hours ago
@RealityCheck

You win.

I can't compete against the person that says:

"Hence 'ZERO' is a DUALITY 'superposition state' effectively constituting a DIFFERENTIATION INDICATOR (value/state of TRANSITION/SUPERPOSITION) between ONE CYCLE (as for a 12-hour-clock dial) or for indicating the analogous transition/superposition state separating the ( + ) DIRECTION from the ( - ) DIRECTION (as for infinitely extended NUMBER LINE construct).
"

You win.


15 hours ago
There is no non se·qui·tur that can dig you out of that hole.

15 hours ago
@jimmybobber.
@RealityCheck

You win.

I can't compete against the person that says:

"Hence 'ZERO' is a DUALITY 'superposition state' effectively constituting a DIFFERENTIATION INDICATOR (value/state of TRANSITION/SUPERPOSITION) between ONE CYCLE (as for a 12-hour-clock dial) or for indicating the analogous transition/superposition state separating the ( + ) DIRECTION from the ( - ) DIRECTION (as for infinitely extended NUMBER LINE construct).
"

You win.

Jokes and sarcastic responses are not valid substitutes for practise of deep thinking and deep comprehension. You need such practise badly, mate. Eschew the jokes/insults/sarcasm tactics/posts; and start seriously practising deep thinking and comprehending re things which have been explained to you that you may not have understood because your faculties seemed so readily distracted by your musical and jocular tendencies. Good luck. :)

15 hours ago
@RealityCheck

You are correct.

I apologize for not "deep thinking" and "deep comprehension".

Btw where was the joke. All I did was quote you:

"Hence 'ZERO' is a DUALITY 'superposition state' effectively constituting a DIFFERENTIATION INDICATOR (value/state of TRANSITION/SUPERPOSITION) between ONE CYCLE (as for a 12-hour-clock dial) or for indicating the analogous transition/superposition state separating the ( + ) DIRECTION from the ( - ) DIRECTION (as for infinitely extended NUMBER LINE construct)."


15 hours ago
@jimmybobber.
There is no non se·qui·tur that can dig you out of that hole.
You're still posting non-sequiturs, mate. Bad habit. See to it, asap. :)

@RealityCheck

You are correct.

I apologize for not "deep thinking" and "deep comprehension".

Btw where was the joke. All I did was quote you:

"Hence 'ZERO' is a DUALITY 'superposition state' effectively constituting a DIFFERENTIATION INDICATOR (value/state of TRANSITION/SUPERPOSITION) between ONE CYCLE (as for a 12-hour-clock dial) or for indicating the analogous transition/superposition state separating the ( + ) DIRECTION from the ( - ) DIRECTION (as for infinitely extended NUMBER LINE construct)."

You were, and are still, 'the joke' in the context of our exchange so far, mate. Not good. See to it, asap. :)

15 hours ago
I'm fine being the "the joke"
Are you?


14 hours ago
@jimmybobber.
I'm fine being the "the joke"
Are you?
Are you seeking 'safety in numbers' from your self-created 'joke' status, mate? If so, sorry, I don't just blithely 'go with the herd', especially not 'joke' herds. Move along; maybe you'll have better luck with your next interlocutor. :)

14 hours ago
RealityCheck quote:

"Hence 'ZERO' is a DUALITY 'superposition state' effectively constituting a DIFFERENTIATION INDICATOR (value/state of TRANSITION/SUPERPOSITION) between ONE CYCLE (as for a 12-hour-clock dial) or for indicating the analogous transition/superposition state separating the ( + ) DIRECTION from the ( - ) DIRECTION (as for infinitely extended NUMBER LINE construct)."

We all have our stupid moments but that takes the cake.


14 hours ago
No RealityCheck.

I'm actually fine being a joke. Make fun of me all you want.

We all have our stupid moments but that takes the cake.


14 hours ago
@jimmybobber.
RealityCheck quote:

"Hence 'ZERO' is a DUALITY 'superposition state' effectively constituting a DIFFERENTIATION INDICATOR (value/state of TRANSITION/SUPERPOSITION) between ONE CYCLE (as for a 12-hour-clock dial) or for indicating the analogous transition/superposition state separating the ( + ) DIRECTION from the ( - ) DIRECTION (as for infinitely extended NUMBER LINE construct)."

We all have our stupid moments but that takes the cake.

How predictable: 'joke' status individuals/herds using out-of-context quotes to make even worse 'jokes' (of themselves). Bad move. See to it, mate. :)

No RealityCheck. I'm actually fine being a joke. Make fun of me all you want. We all have our stupid moments but that takes the cake.
Your making fun of yourself, mate. I'm just highlighting it for the readers. And the "cake" seems to have been self-administered to your face so far. Drop the cake and move on, mate. Good luck. :)

14 hours ago
Dude your posts are so long.
Is this not a quote from you?
Is it really out of context? Seriously?

"Hence 'ZERO' is a DUALITY 'superposition state' effectively constituting a DIFFERENTIATION INDICATOR (value/state of TRANSITION/SUPERPOSITION) between ONE CYCLE (as for a 12-hour-clock dial) or for indicating the analogous transition/superposition state separating the ( + ) DIRECTION from the ( - ) DIRECTION (as for infinitely extended NUMBER LINE construct)."


14 hours ago
@RealityCheck

You are a fraud. Go ahead and publish

"Hence 'ZERO' is a DUALITY 'superposition state' effectively constituting a DIFFERENTIATION INDICATOR (value/state of TRANSITION/SUPERPOSITION) between ONE CYCLE (as for a 12-hour-clock dial) or for indicating the analogous transition/superposition state separating the ( + ) DIRECTION from the ( - ) DIRECTION (as for infinitely extended NUMBER LINE construct)."

See how far that gets you.
Moron.


14 hours ago
@jimmybobber.
Dude your posts are so long.
Is this not a quote from you?
Is it really out of context? Seriously?

"Hence 'ZERO' is a DUALITY 'superposition state' effectively constituting a DIFFERENTIATION INDICATOR (value/state of TRANSITION/SUPERPOSITION) between ONE CYCLE (as for a 12-hour-clock dial) or for indicating the analogous transition/superposition state separating the ( + ) DIRECTION from the ( - ) DIRECTION (as for infinitely extended NUMBER LINE construct).
The very FIRST WORD "Hence" implies following from preceding contextual discussion points. That you miss even the most straightforward indicators of wider context means that you are in no fit state at present to pursue any taxing discussion involving actual facts, science and logic contextual information. Maybe 'musical comedy' is your 'forte', mate; you certainly show a 'talent' for making 'a comical noise' of yourself so far. Maybe reality and objective discourse is not your 'thing', hey? Good luck. :)

14 hours ago
Hence away RealityCheck.

14 hours ago
@jimmybobber.
@RealityCheck

You are a fraud. Go ahead and publish

"Hence 'ZERO' is a DUALITY 'superposition state' effectively constituting a DIFFERENTIATION INDICATOR (value/state of TRANSITION/SUPERPOSITION) between ONE CYCLE (as for a 12-hour-clock dial) or for indicating the analogous transition/superposition state separating the ( + ) DIRECTION from the ( - ) DIRECTION (as for infinitely extended NUMBER LINE construct)."

See how far that gets you.
Moron.

The problem for you is that I will be publishing this and other things as part of the complete reality-based theory of the universal physics which is already conceptually finalised and only awaiting my finalising my reality-axiomatics based mathematical construct with which to model the already completed theory. The reason I had to tackle the mathematical construct is because current mathematical constructs are compromised/incapable of modelling the complete reality due to 'unreal' axioms/concepts. Duude! :)

14 hours ago
@jimmybobber.
Hence away RealityCheck.
Is that your 'joke' way of admitting you missed the import of the "hence" beginning the paragraph you quoted, mate? If so, I suppose that's as good an admission/apology as one can expect given your self-avowed 'joke' status, hey? Never mind; your apology is accepted. Thanks. :)

14 hours ago
That's great RealityCheck.

I look forward to:

"The Complete Realty-Based Theory of the Universal Physics which is already conceptually finalised and only awaiting my finalising the reality-axiomatics based mathematical construct with which to model the already completed theory"

I cannot wait to read it.


14 hours ago
I am not joking. I really want to read it.

14 hours ago
@jimmybobber.
That's great RealityCheck.

I look forward to:

"The Complete Realty-Based Theory of the Universal Physics which is already conceptually finalised and only awaiting my finalising the reality-axiomatics based mathematical construct with which to model the already completed theory"

I cannot wait to read it.

Seriously, though, no hard feelings this end. Your posts have elicited much amusement this end, and the chuckles have done wonders for the blood pressure. Thanks for that. Good luck in your future discussions and scientific endeavours, mate. Cheers...and g'night from this end. :)

I am not joking. I really want to read it.
I believe you. G'night again, mate. :)

5 hours ago
@Benni

My weight in is simple, gravity is a law of motion. Spacetime is a word created by two synonyms. To simplify the mathematic argument for all of us. A timeclock is/was a nonmagnetic mechanical compass that runs vertical to the magnetic compasses horizontal plain of North & South.


5 hours ago
@RealityCheck

I'm interested in your reality-axiomatics based mathematical construct for the simple reason it would be a really fun exercise to try to create theorems from your axioms.

I'm curious how you define these axioms of algebra:

Reflexive Axiom
Symmetric Axiom
Transitive Axiom
Additive Axiom
Multiplicative Axiom

Or even take a step back and just define axioms for the natural numbers (the Peano axioms) starting with:

1. 0 is a natural number. (@John dislikes this one)
2. For every natural number x, x = x. That is, equality is reflexive. (@John This is where his logic breaks down because he doesn't define 0 as a number)
...


3 hours ago
@jimmybobber
I'm interested in your reality-axiomatics based mathematical construct for the simple reason it would be a really fun exercise to try to create theorems from your axioms
erm... are you sure?

have you not read rc's website?
http://earthlingclub.com

good luck and enjoy

1 hour ago
@jimmybobber
Okay first zero is said to be a whole number. Therefore, is not subject to rule of natural number I screw up enough of my own mathematics I don't need not take the blame for anyone else's when possible.
https://www.mathg.../numbers
John_C_yPi as a mathematic principle this means I treats zero as a fraction, logically this is what I would try to prove, it does not become natural number until fractions are included to all-natural numbers. Therefore is in basic a concept of motion in math, it is part of a much larger abstract of law of motion pertaining to numbers. Motion is not restricted to physics it is shared with mathematics.
Zero is a Known origin in linear mathematics. Algebra. This is only a realistic idea to which agreement can be made. Reason. When test with natural numbers by those who are qualified to do so should be performed in a way that is not fixed for its answer.

1 hour ago
@John
You may want to look up the definitions of

Whole Number
Natural Number
Integer
Rational Number


Please sign in to add a comment. Registration is free, and takes less than a minute. Read more