Big Bang Busted in Science Classes for High Schools

"John Zinni" wrote...
in message ...

"Painius" wrote in message
...

Not an attack, John, just an observation...

There are some instances where 1+1= something other than 2.
And these are valid examples where 1+1=2 does not "hold."

Well I don't know about that, but under the assumption that we are using
"1+1" as an analogy for "other things" it will never be the case that
"1+1=2" and "1+1=/=2" both hold in the same self consistent system.

hmm... well, there is always "1+1=10" in the binary system, so this
is a clear case where 1+1=/=2. Until, of course, you make the
comparison between binary and decimal --

10 base2 = 2 base10
so
1+1 *does* equal 2 at the same time that it does not.

Therefore, in the same self consistent system where translations
are necessary between the digital and the analog, the computer
and the human, as it were, both equations "hold."

And we are all "Big Picture" people, aren't we John? After all,
one molecule of H2O would go unnoticed by us, while an ocean
is hard to miss.

As much as i respect your ideas, your posts do sometimes
indicate that you have a difficult time seeing the forest for the
trees. And this post of yours tells me why...

I would argue that Bill (and maybe you to a certain extent) are completely
ignoring the trees.

You'll have to explain this to me, John. I can see where someone
like you, who does not have any use for "forests" and who only
focuses upon a tree or two can be said to be ignoring the forest.

What i cannot see is how anyone who goes after the big picture,
the "forest" if you will, can be said to be ignoring the "trees." The
trees after all *are* the forest, n'est-ce pas?

While Bill and i are saying, "John, you can't see the forest for the
trees," *you* seem to be turning the classic words around and
saying, "Painius, you and Bill can't see the trees for the forest."

Personally, i think part of the problem is that we appear to be
climbing different trees in the same forest.

happy days and...
starry starry nights!

Painius

Painius wrote:
"John Zinni" wrote...
in message ...

"Painius" wrote in message
...

Not an attack, John, just an observation...

There are some instances where 1+1= something other than 2.
And these are valid examples where 1+1=2 does not "hold."

Well I don't know about that, but under the assumption that we are using
"1+1" as an analogy for "other things" it will never be the case that
"1+1=2" and "1+1=/=2" both hold in the same self consistent system.


hmm... well, there is always "1+1=10" in the binary system, so this
is a clear case where 1+1=/=2. Until, of course, you make the
comparison between binary and decimal --

10 base2 = 2 base10
so
1+1 *does* equal 2 at the same time that it does not.

Therefore, in the same self consistent system where translations
are necessary between the digital and the analog, the computer
and the human, as it were, both equations "hold."

You'r thinking too traditionally like traditional mathematics you learn
from primary school to like even some of university, you have to think
as mathematics as the more generic form. The simplest is boolean logic,
yes, but any other number system coming from that will give some
extended expected results.

For example.

True/False:
T and T = T
T and F = F
T OR F = T
F OR F = F

This is your basic logic right?
actually this is a subset of a more generic logic, you see it when you
study fuzzy.

And is actually the MIN operation while OR is actually a MAX operation.
One adds both sets together, the other finds commenalities between
those set even at infinite scale.

Think of the basic operations as the basic SET theory operations,
A intersection B that is your basic AND operation.

Now your Conjection is your basic OR operation, that constitutes to a
MAX in universal logic, but an OR in boolean logic. When you think of
it it makes sense, OR is usually more frequently 0 than AND for equally
distributed random inputs.

When you start analyzing stuff like "the universe", it can help to maby
use the more generic operations than just saying "1 + 1 = 2" must hold.
it should actually say "A intersect B = C" where C is the intersection
of all elements.

For those who don't know fuzzy, let me ask you this.

Is the sky blue? you would say Yes. But then i could ask "Your windows
XP taskbar is also blue?" you would say "Yes", but then i can ask "Which
one is closer to a truer blue". You could make a curve going in
"percents" if you will that says "I am 80% sure that the taskbar is
blue, but the sky is only light blue so i will put 20%". In fuzzy
logic, a paradox is simply marked as a value of 0.5 (is equally true and
false), while in traditional logic you don't have a specified value for
paradoxes, making them a bit hard to solve .

You draw these sets and make your own set operations on them, use
inference engines (I like Dr. Kiszka's inference engine, since he was my
prof in this hehe) and voila you can have a fuzzy control system very
easily. PLUS because of the nature of fuzzy logic, you can process the
data in parallel. Meaning you don't need to know the answer of one
operation to complete a dependant operation.

This makes it ideal for systems that must process an enormous amount of
data at a time. There is an error but with 1 month of light training in
fuzzy controles, you will be able to do a 2 input 5 output control
system quite easily, no transfer functions, nothing.
Its pretty cool But it depends on the more generic form of
mathematics, the "Abstract" mathematics if you will. Traditional logic
is a special case of fuzzy logic.

Anyway just thought you should know since you were finegraining the
universe to one operation, why not finegrain further




And we are all "Big Picture" people, aren't we John? After all,
one molecule of H2O would go unnoticed by us, while an ocean
is hard to miss.

As much as i respect your ideas, your posts do sometimes
indicate that you have a difficult time seeing the forest for the
trees. And this post of yours tells me why...

I would argue that Bill (and maybe you to a certain extent) are completely
ignoring the trees.


You'll have to explain this to me, John. I can see where someone
like you, who does not have any use for "forests" and who only
focuses upon a tree or two can be said to be ignoring the forest.

What i cannot see is how anyone who goes after the big picture,
the "forest" if you will, can be said to be ignoring the "trees." The
trees after all *are* the forest, n'est-ce pas?

While Bill and i are saying, "John, you can't see the forest for the
trees," *you* seem to be turning the classic words around and
saying, "Painius, you and Bill can't see the trees for the forest."

Personally, i think part of the problem is that we appear to be
climbing different trees in the same forest.

happy days and...
starry starry nights!

Painius

"Painius" wrote in message
...

hmm... well, there is always "1+1=10" in the binary system, so this
is a clear case where 1+1=/=2. Until, of course, you make the
comparison between binary and decimal --

10 base2 = 2 base10
so
1+1 *does* equal 2 at the same time that it does not.

Therefore, in the same self consistent system where translations
are necessary between the digital and the analog, the computer
and the human, as it were, both equations "hold."

Is this supposed to be clever???

"John Zinni" wrote...
in message ...

"Painius" wrote in message
...

hmm... well, there is always "1+1=10" in the binary system, so this
is a clear case where 1+1=/=2. Until, of course, you make the
comparison between binary and decimal --

10 base2 = 2 base10
so
1+1 *does* equal 2 at the same time that it does not.

Therefore, in the same self consistent system where translations
are necessary between the digital and the analog, the computer
and the human, as it were, both equations "hold."

Is this supposed to be clever???

Actually no... the opposite in fact. I saw it as "so obvious" that you
simply must have missed it.

happy days and...
starry starry nights!

--
Stardust in the solar wind...
all that is or ever been.
all we see and all we sin...
stardust in the solar wind.

Paine Ellsworth

From Painius to JB:

Actually no... the opposite in fact. I saw
it as "so obvious" that you simply must
have missed it.

JB is not too swift on interpreting the obvious.g oc

"Yoyoma_2" wrote...
in message news:SK5gc.150408$oR5.71392@pd7tw3no...

Painius wrote:

"John Zinni" wrote...
in message ...

"Painius" wrote in message
...

Not an attack, John, just an observation...

There are some instances where 1+1= something other than 2.
And these are valid examples where 1+1=2 does not "hold."

Well I don't know about that, but under the assumption that we are using
"1+1" as an analogy for "other things" it will never be the case that
"1+1=2" and "1+1=/=2" both hold in the same self consistent system.

hmm... well, there is always "1+1=10" in the binary system, so this
is a clear case where 1+1=/=2. Until, of course, you make the
comparison between binary and decimal --

10 base2 = 2 base10
so
1+1 *does* equal 2 at the same time that it does not.

Therefore, in the same self consistent system where translations
are necessary between the digital and the analog, the computer
and the human, as it were, both equations "hold."

You'r thinking too traditionally like traditional mathematics you learn
from primary school to like even some of university, you have to think
as mathematics as the more generic form. The simplest is boolean logic,
yes, but any other number system coming from that will give some
extended expected results.

For example.

True/False:
T and T = T
T and F = F
T OR F = T
F OR F = F

This is your basic logic right?
actually this is a subset of a more generic logic, you see it when you
study fuzzy.

And is actually the MIN operation while OR is actually a MAX operation.
One adds both sets together, the other finds commenalities between
those set even at infinite scale.

Think of the basic operations as the basic SET theory operations,
A intersection B that is your basic AND operation.

Now your Conjection is your basic OR operation, that constitutes to a
MAX in universal logic, but an OR in boolean logic. When you think of
it it makes sense, OR is usually more frequently 0 than AND for equally
distributed random inputs.

When you start analyzing stuff like "the universe", it can help to maby
use the more generic operations than just saying "1 + 1 = 2" must hold.
it should actually say "A intersect B = C" where C is the intersection
of all elements.

For those who don't know fuzzy, let me ask you this.

Is the sky blue? you would say Yes. But then i could ask "Your windows
XP taskbar is also blue?" you would say "Yes", but then i can ask "Which
one is closer to a truer blue". You could make a curve going in
"percents" if you will that says "I am 80% sure that the taskbar is
blue, but the sky is only light blue so i will put 20%". In fuzzy
logic, a paradox is simply marked as a value of 0.5 (is equally true and
false), while in traditional logic you don't have a specified value for
paradoxes, making them a bit hard to solve .

You draw these sets and make your own set operations on them, use
inference engines (I like Dr. Kiszka's inference engine, since he was my
prof in this hehe) and voila you can have a fuzzy control system very
easily. PLUS because of the nature of fuzzy logic, you can process the
data in parallel. Meaning you don't need to know the answer of one
operation to complete a dependant operation.

This makes it ideal for systems that must process an enormous amount of
data at a time. There is an error but with 1 month of light training in
fuzzy controles, you will be able to do a 2 input 5 output control
system quite easily, no transfer functions, nothing.
Its pretty cool But it depends on the more generic form of
mathematics, the "Abstract" mathematics if you will. Traditional logic
is a special case of fuzzy logic.

Anyway just thought you should know since you were finegraining the
universe to one operation, why not finegrain further

Interesting treatment, Yoyoma. I'm not sure we're ready to go
further into "finegraining the universe" yet. Right now we are
just trying to discover if there indeed *is* one operation, one
universal force, that *drives* the "forces" that our science has
observed up to today.

Trying to determine if the strong nuclear force, the weak
nuclear force, electromagnetic force and gravitational force are
actually "forces," or if they just *appear* to be forces, and are
in reality just "effects" of one universal force.

Science today must be tempered by data received empirically,
that is, by observation, experience and experiment. That's the
beauty of the internet and most specifically UseNet science
newsgroups. Dozens of minds getting together in a spirit of
harmony g (yes, even flaming each other such as do Herb
and David, Bill and John and others can have its moments
where new and exciting ideas evolve) can and will have a
dramatic effect on the direction in which science goes in the
near future.

happy days and...
starry starry nights!

--
Freedom! free to see
All the stars, all the cosmos
For what it really is--
It is Free!

Paine Ellsworth

"Odysseus" wrote...
in message ...

Painius wrote:

Sounds as if you tend to think of space as being made of
something rather than being nothing. What do *you* think
space is?

To paraphrase a famous remark about time, it's what keeps everything
from being in the same place.

--
Odysseus

LOL... must be this one --

Time exists so everything doesn't happen at once.
Space exists so everything doesn't happen to you.
Anonymous

Following are some more of my favorites...

Put your hand on a hot stove for a minute, and it
seems like an hour. Sit with a pretty girl for an hour,
and it seems like a minute. *That's* relativity.
Einstein

A seminar on Time Travel will be held two weeks ago.

Life's Tragedy is that we get old too soon and wise
too late. Benjamin Franklin

The time you enjoy wasting is not wasted time.
Bertrand Russell

I went on a diet, swore off drinking and heavy
eating, and in fourteen days I lost two weeks.
Joe E. Lewis

and some more...

http://www.chemistrycoach.com/time.htm

happy days and...
starry starry nights!

--
Freedom! free to see
All the stars, all the cosmos
For what it really is--
It is Free!

Paine Ellsworth

"Yoyoma_2" wrote...
in message news:6nVfc.141154$Ig.64758@pd7tw2no...

Painius wrote:

"Odysseus" wrote...
in message ...

Painius wrote:

Whenever i think this small, i remember back when long ago i read
about how there is sooo much space between a nucleus and its
accompanying electrons. And sooo much space between atoms,
and how "ghostly" reality seems to be. And i try and try, but i can't
even *imagine* what this "space" is they're talking about. When i
was a kid i just thought it was "air." But *that* can't be.

So what is it? Nothing? (...and what the heck is *that*?)

g see what you get for boggling my meager mind?

Even Einstein found the idea of "action at a distance" to be
"spooky". Even more counterintuitive (to my at-least-as-meagre mind,
at least) is the notion of space being quantized into 'bits of
nothing' of finite size.

"Space between a nucleus and electrons"? Your making it seem like an
electron is a particle going around, its not. Its a wave guided by
pilot waves, it has a most probable location, but its not guaranteed and
is all probabilistic.

Also you are talking about such a vast area, but remember in finite
structure that the nucleus has an EM field, the electron has an EM field
(because of its movement) and the elctrons with eachother have an EM
field. Its not as "empty" as you think.

Yoyoma, i'm not saying that i think space is "empty." I'm
saying that i think space is "something" (instead of just
"nothing"). An analogy might be like sharks swimming and
revolving around a human skindiver in the sea. I'm asking
what is it between the diver and the sharks?

I realize that QM is not cut and dried and electrons are not
believed to be like little billiard balls. A young learner such
as yourself might have some fascinating ideas as to whether
or not space is just a void nothing... or a very energetic
something.

happy days and...
starry starry nights!

--
Planets, stars and nebulae
Hold attention in the sky--
Lay in hay and squint your eye,
Lose your youth in moaning sigh
& find the truth in every lie!

Paine Ellsworth

Painius wrote:
"Yoyoma_2" wrote...
in message news:SK5gc.150408$oR5.71392@pd7tw3no...

Painius wrote:

"John Zinni" wrote...
in message ...


"Painius" wrote in message
...


Interesting treatment, Yoyoma. I'm not sure we're ready to go
further into "finegraining the universe" yet. Right now we are
just trying to discover if there indeed *is* one operation, one
universal force, that *drives* the "forces" that our science has
observed up to today.
Trying to determine if the strong nuclear force, the weak
nuclear force, electromagnetic force and gravitational force are
actually "forces," or if they just *appear* to be forces, and are
in reality just "effects" of one universal force.

I don't know, though it could seem plausible that there is one force
that guides all other forces. In the first moments of the big bank
there was one "superforce" then it was said that it split off into
gravitation and "electroWeak", then merged out the four forces we know
today.

It could have been that the superforce was actually what you are trying
to observe, and only the "Effects" could be seen as the universe matured.

We recently discoverd the pilot wave fenomenae (actually recently is
what 1930's? lol) and seeing them interract in the complex domain to
form wave groups (like the "beats" you hear tuning a musical
instrument). Those wave groups form the square root of the probability
distribution of matter. You have to do |Y|² to get the complex out and
finally be observable.

Now thats interesting fenomenae, it directly affects our universe but is
not within the real or observable domain.

Are you suggesting that this superforce could be outside or inside
spacetime? If you are suggesting that there are more forces outside
spacetime that guide our universe i have to agree. Divine and religion
aside, why is EM so strong and gravitation so weak? What if EM was weak
and gravitation was strong, then everything would be roughly in the
same place and we wouldn't have friction so we could go through
anything. I don't know too much about nuclear physics but from what i
understand gluons transmit the strong force, weakons transmits the weak.
The weak and strong also act in very short distances while gravidation
and EM can act at very large distances. Quite intreguing phenomenae.
One could say that the superforce fine-grain effects are only observed
at small distances?

Also there are phonons to take care of in this treatments. They are the
particles that transmit vibrational energy (before they though it was
just sound, hense the word phone-on).

Now you have here what, Protons, gravitrons, weakons gluons. If you can
prove a force that is able to spontaneously create and radiate these
particles, you got yourself a theory.

Electric fields and Magnetism are alwaise perpendicular. Though it is
just said i haven't seen any proof why that is so, i hear its just a
"property of matter". The presence of a superforce could explain why it
is perpendicular.

Also the presence of a superforce could explain entropy, the tendency
for the universe to get more and more random. Now entropy is measured in
Joules/Kelvin or "m²kg/s²K" so its also a "property of matter" the way i
see it. Convolute your phonons into that and you got yourself entropy.
You could be going somewhere with this. But i theorize that this
force would not be in the spacetime or "real" domain.

Anyway before we can go into that we gotta prove that the gravitron
exists. It should exist, it must exist. But if we the gravitron isn't
transmitted like photons or gluons or weakons, then we got ourselves a
problem.






Science today must be tempered by data received empirically,
that is, by observation, experience and experiment. That's the
beauty of the internet and most specifically UseNet science
newsgroups. Dozens of minds getting together in a spirit of
harmony g (yes, even flaming each other such as do Herb
and David, Bill and John and others can have its moments
where new and exciting ideas evolve) can and will have a
dramatic effect on the direction in which science goes in the
near future.

happy days and...
starry starry nights!

From Painius:

Dozens of minds getting together in a
spirit of harmony g (yes, even flaming
each other.... can have its moments
where new and exciting ideas evolve)
can and will have a dramatic effect on
the direction in which science goes in the near future.

Heh. The adherents of the VSP need not worry. Their cherished
para-dijjum is indelibly ensconced and will remain so for the
foreseeable future. oc