[Closed] Weird Theories

I am almost positive that time is not linear. I challenge any of you to prove beyond doubt that it is.

As far as I can see/observe each of us has our own timescape which changes and expands or contracts on a personal and biological level. Time does speed past and stand still.

Maybe

I challenge any of you to prove beyond doubt that it is.

Get with it! We did that already!!

Where?

You mean 'Where?' or 'When?'

Have we talked about mating a fox with a badger yet?

A fadger!

Although that sounds like it could get me a ban for swear-filter avoidance.

Sure, but if there was time, how long would it have been

Eh?

This apple is not an orange, but if it were, which way would it vote?

There wasn't time. Time does not apply to the pre-big bang situation. So why ask such things? It makes no sense.

What's 53 divided by 0?

I am almost positive that time is not linear.

Reality is subjective. Therefore time for us is indeed non-linear. Fairly basic, that 🙂

I am almost positive that time is not linear. I challenge any of you to prove beyond doubt that it is.

As far as I can see/observe each of us has our own timescape which changes and expands or contracts on a personal and biological level. Time does speed past and stand still.

Maybe

I think time is linear. But can be variable for every person. Like if 1 second is a given period of time, for some people it may pass 'quicker' or 'slower' at a nervous level relative to other people. It always seems to that person to be be 1 second though. If that makes sense at all.

Take someone who is really fast at touch typing. Compared to me who is not. If I was sat inside their head, everything would be moving much slower compared to me... they have 'more time' (relative to me) to think about where their fingers are moving etc.

This would probably explain why some people are well good at things like F1 and Red Bull Air Races etc.

I DON'T KNOW! I've just confused myself. I can't really explain this any better.

[img] [/img]

There wasn't time. Time does not apply to the pre-big bang situation. So why ask such things? It makes no sense

So... what was this 'singularity'? How did it get there? When did it get there? Has it always been there?

What's 53 divided by 0?

Oh, you can't do that. division is only a model for use with numbers

j_me - Member
Hoops' law of diminishing sanity:

The diameter of the ear ring hoop is inversely proportional to sanity.

Youre about 25 years too late for me there

have you talked about time varying with speed and distance yet/ not read the threa tbh. Technically you have a point in that we all have personal time in a sense which could be best demonstarted if you could travel at near light speed.
I think a clever cyclist gu proved that it was essentially all relative.

Theory of relativity.

Chiropractic.

A friend of mine insisted that people's behaviour was noticeably changed by the full moon.

Lunacy.

(Seriously, 's where the term comes from)

True, it does come from lunar.

There is also a reasonably famous study which showed that rates of burglary increased dramaticall around a full moon compared to a new moon. This was taken as proof that the moon affects behaviour in strange ways, until someone said "maybe burglars just find it easier when they can se what they are doing?"

Anyway, back to the god stuff. First, you tell me why every other religion is false and then I'll tell you why yours is.

[url= http://www.kadir-buxton.com/ ]this guys got some wierd theories[/url]

Anyway, back to the god stuff.

No, let's not. It's been done to death here, and it's always just idiots crowing about how superior they are. Let's move on please.

Oh, you can't do that. division is only a model for use with numbers

No it's not. Take a pie, eat some today and some tomorrow. No numbers there but you've divided by two. Numbers are a model for things, and division is a model for things that happen in the physical world. Take a pie, share it between no people, how much do they each have? It's nonsensical.

So... what was this 'singularity'? How did it get there? When did it get there? Has it always been there?

Do I look like an expert in cutting edge Big Bang theory? 🙂

So... what was this 'singularity'? How did it get there? When did it get there? Has it always been there?

It's nonsensical.

Take a pie, eat some today and some tomorrow. No numbers there but you've divided by two.

Do I look like an expert in cutting edge Big Bang theory?

dunno, post a pic

It was always not-there, then it was, then BANG! Not there any more. See? Everything else was,

hmm... the whole creationist bit sounds a lot more plausible really.

I'm not sure about the 'always not-there' bit, what does 'always' mean when there is no such thing as time?

did the big bang actually make a noise?

box is simpler than fadger but the name may have been taken.

you've only divided by 2 when you model the problem with numbers

Not so. Two is a very real concept. The word 'two' is simply our name for it.

the whole creationist bit sounds a lot more plausible really [b]to the completely uninformed layman[/b].

FTFY.

the whole creationist bit sounds a lot more plausible really to the completely uninformed layman

yeah, but it seems that no one here is anything other than that.
Are you? Can you tell me more about it?

Not so. Two is a very real concept. The word 'two' is simply our name for it.

that's all true, but as I say, you only divide by two when you start modelling

A helium nucleus had a charge of 2e long before we were around to invent the word 'two'. Scalar quantities are a fundamental aspect of reality, they are not part of our model.

it seems that no one here is anything other than that.
Are you? Can you tell me more about it?

Yes, and no respectively.

The thing is that the creation of the universe is something many people are interesting, but the science (such as it is) is pretty impenetrable to the layman. Most that I am (vaguely) aware of is about modelling how the universe expanded out of the BB at varying stages of development. However, figuring out what the BB actually was and how it happened, and what was 'before' it is a lot more esoteric..

Google might be a good place to start, then the works of people like John Gribbin or Martin Rees - although they might be out of date by now. Avoid Hawking, his books are tough going and not as interesting as the others.

Dividing by 0 = Complex infinity (Obviously)

Dividing by 0 = Complex infinity

No - the result of dividing by 0 is 'not defined' because it's nonsensical.

it seems that no one here is anything other than that.
Are you? Can you tell me more about it?

Yes, and no respectively.

So.. on the basis that no one here is anything other than an uniformed layman, including you. and that

the whole creationist bit sounds a lot more plausible really to the completely uninformed layman.

the whole creationist bit sounds a lot more plausible really to molgrips.

Right?

No - the result of dividing by 0 is 'not defined' because it's nonsensical.

because zero is not a number

A helium nucleus had a charge of 2e long before we were around to invent the word 'two'. Scalar quantities are a fundamental aspect of reality, they are not part of our model.

that doesn't conflict with what I said. Though at a tangent I would question the idea of a measure of a charge of 2e before we were around. If we used a different measurement scale we might say it had a charge of 36.89CHM

Hmm.. Zero is a real integer, just not a natural number.

integer is a whole number right? So you're saying zero is a number?

also this one

the whole creationist bit sounds a lot more plausible really to molgrips.

Right?

I didn't answer that CM - it's clearly a troll because you know I am not a creationist!

Wiki tells me that zero is indeed an integer and therefore a number.

I didn't answer that CM - it's clearly a troll because you know I am not a creationist!

Not a troll, based on what you said. when you fixed my post

Wiki tells me that zero is indeed an integer and therefore a number.

😀
Ok, but what do you think?

I can give you a number of reasons why it is not

The crystalline origin of life is a weird theory that's interesting to read about - put together by a bloke called Cairns-Smith.

The idea that inorganic minerals - rocks basically - were important in prebiotic chemistry is not controversial. The metal ions are capable of catalysing all sorts of organic bond-forming reactions. Cairns-Smith went way beyond this and postulated that clay minerals were a primitive information storage media that preceded organic genes. These inorganic genes acted as repositories for information in the clay crystal structure, which was capable of propagation in certain circumstances.
When pre-biotic synthesis of rna got up and running, a 'genetic takeover' occurred, whereby the inorganic data was transferred to the vastly more efficient organic system.

Dawkins mentioned the theory in one of his books so it has some popular exposure. It's generally seen as a very speculative idea, but respected nonetheless as a piece of original thinking.

Ok, but what do you think?

Well since the question is a mathematical one and I am not a mathematician I will defer to those who are. I am not afraid to admit that I don't know something, and I realise that given my lack of knowledge conjecture is pointless 🙂

It's generally seen as a very speculative idea, but respected nonetheless as a piece of original thinking

If only we could gain recognition for original speculative thinking.. many of us would be more famous than we are 🙂

figuring out what the BB actually was and how it happened, and what was 'before' it is a lot more esoteric..

36.89CHM

[b]Well since the question is a mathematical one and I am not a mathematician I will defer to those who are.[/b] I am not afraid to admit that I don't know something, and I realise that given my lack of knowledge conjecture is pointless

Oh that's good to know. I am a mathematician, and I've said it's not. Though wikipedia (I assume that's the wiki you refer to) link also says that a number is a mathematical object used to count and measure. Since zero cannot be used for either of those things, it fails by that definition. Agreed?

I was originally going to say that zero was the absence of numbers, but really it's the absence of quantity isn't it? In real number terms?

You can use zero for counting tho surely? Saying 'I have 0 pounds' is conceptually the same as saying 'I have 3 pounds'.. is it?

PS were you really spoiling for an argument by not telling us you were a mathematician in the first place? Fishing for me to start proclaiming things I didn't know about? 🙂

I give this thread 12 CHM charliemu[b]m[/b]gus

The singular is charliemu[b]n[/b]gu. Equivalent to the tomfoolery of one épater of les bourgeois in Imperial measures. My name is in the plural for much as Legion in the bible, we are many.

PS were you really spoiling for an argument by not telling us you were a mathematician in the first place? Fishing for me to start proclaiming things I didn't know about

No, not looking for an argument, just waiting for you to agree to accept all my proclamations of a mathematical nature. You are now my maths bitch.

You can use zero for counting tho surely?

But what have you counted?

Though wikipedia (I assume that's the wiki you refer to) link also says that a number is a mathematical object used to count and measure. Since zero cannot be used for either of those things, it fails by that definition. Agreed?

But then you can't really use a negative number to count or measure things either can you. Afterall zero apples looks very much like -1 apples when applied to the contents of a fruit bowl. That is without of course getting even more esoteric and bringing in i.

Also not a mathematician by the way, although your comment of

just waiting for you to agree to accept all my proclamations of a mathematical nature.

is an argument from authority and I'd expect better logic from a mathematician. 😉

You are now my maths bitch

Yes, master. I crave knowledge.

But what have you counted?

Depends what you are counting.

Five apples, take away two apples, take away three apples leaves no apples. Not no bananas. Context innit.

It doesn't leave nothing necessarily - there's still a fruit bowl, a kitchen etc.

But then you can't really use a negative number to count or measure things either can you

Yes you can. I give you my apple, you eat it, you not only have no apples but you owe me one. You get an apple you have to give it to me and you have none. Therefore between your fruity snack and your acquiring a new apple you have -1 apples. Debt, innit. Makes more sense when you are counting pounds in your bank account.

And you can clearly use negative numbers to MEASURE things. How cold was it by you in December last year?

0 didn't exist for hundred of years...I think it was invented by some one in india (if i am remembering the quality tv program "the history of maths")

0 was created so that traders could use it........so really 0 doesn't exist it's just something man made, because it made everything easier

0 was created so that traders could use it........so really 0 doesn't exist it's just something man made, because it made everything easier

Like all NUMBERS.

However the concept of magnitude existed before humans and numbers did.

Just read Flan O'Brien - The Third Policeman if you want to see some weird theories, things like darkness just being a secretion of black air instantaneously combusted by candles, light bulbs etc or setting up a system of mirrors so he could see himself as a baby...

Personally I like the idea of doing away with changing the clocks twice a year by determining that sunrise & sunset should always be at 6 o'clock & either shortening or lengthening the hours in between to suit. 😀

Debt, innit. Makes more sense when you are counting pounds in your bank account.

Well except that in the case you made, whether or not the number is negative depends on your persepctive. For the person borrowing and eating the "apple" they have -1 apple, however the person who lent the "apple" has +1 "apple". It's the same "apple" but from different perspectives it can be either +ve or -ve.

Teh joe lucas smoke theory of electricity

Positive ground depends upon proper circuit functioning, the transmission of negative ions by retention of the visible spectral manifestation known as "smoke". Smoke is the thing that makes electrical circuits work; we know this to be true because every time one lets the smoke out of the electrical system, it stops working. This can be verified repeatedly through empirical testing.

When, for example, the smoke escapes from an electrical component (i.e., say, a Lucas voltage regulator), it will be observed that the component stops working. The function of the wire harness is to carry the smoke from one device to another; when the wire harness "springs a leak", and lets all the smoke out of the system, nothing works afterwards. Starter motors were frowned upon in British Automobiles for some time, largely because they consume large quantities of smoke, requiring very large wires.

It has been noted that Lucas components are possibly more prone to electrical leakage than Bosch or generic Japanese electrics. Experts point out that this is because Lucas is British and all things British leak. British engines leak oil, shock absorbers, hydraulic forks and disk brakes leak fluid, British tires leak air and the British defense establishment leaks secrets...so, naturally, British electronics leak smoke.

Negative numbers dont actually exist in the real world we dont have a minus number of anything as we can't go past none. Extinction = zero Dodos
Temoerature is a scale and I doubt you would use that minus number for calculations !! Yaou would use the Kelvin scale but you know that as a physics studier.

Apologies Charlie i give my previous statement " 2 JY's"
Junkyards - SI unit of typos

For the person borrowing and eating the "apple" they have -1 apple, however the person who lent the "apple" has +1 "apple"

Exactly. -1 is still a valid quantity isn't it. They physical quantity of apples you have is -1.

Negative numbers dont actually exist in the real world

Yes they do. Electric charge can be both positive and negative, as can many other things. Negative QUANTITIES or MAGNITUDES do exist. The actual names for numbers we use are irrelevant of course.

But then you can't really use a negative number to count or measure things either can you.

You can use negative numbers to measure things

Why all the bickering?

[img] [/img]

0 is a strange beast anyway. The long and the short of it is that mathematicians pretty much get to decide on the properties of numbers, kind inventing the rules to suit them.

So CM:

Though at a tangent I would question the idea of a measure of a charge of 2e before we were around

Care to elaborate?

yeah, stuff had charge, but the quantity 2e was meaningless until we defined both those terms.

Besides, I'm a physicist, so you have to believe me.

The quantity e is not meaningless.. which is why I chose it, it's a natural unit.

Some units are not only natural but fundamental (like the planck length) not a number we've ascribed.

I see what you mean, the Helium nucleus always had a charge resulting from its 2 protons, but that is only 2e because we defined e as the charge of a proton. To say that the charge was always 2e is a bit like saying the metre existed before man, sure there were things that were a metre long. But our naming (and measuring) of these things only came after we defined our terms.

You can use negative numbers to measure things

Electric charge can be both positive and negative

EDIT: do you two never work even I am getting distracted for few minutes

In a counting system the least you can ever have is nothing

yes, but measurement is not the same as counting.

we defined e as the charge of [s]a proton[/s] an electron

Surely?

In any case e is still fundamental to chemistry and hence to lots of things. If we used a unit of f equal to 1.5e then a helium nucleus would be 1 1/3f instead of 2e. It's fundamental to the way the universe works - unlike a metre.

In a counting system the least you can ever have is nothing

No, not at all, hence the concept of debt. Just because -1 apple isn't a physical item doesn't mean it's any less valid. The same is true for physical systems, which is why we have solids with ionic bonds.

EDIT: do you two never work even I am getting distracted for few minutes

of course I do! I'm busy being a mathematician and a physicist

Charlie's job is Internet Physics and Maths liason for the University of Somewhere.

you are getting semantical with me now mmmmhhhhh

Which is nicely metaphorical for our actual conversation.

we defined e as the charge of a proton an electron
Surely?

well, then the charge of the nucleus would be -2e, but yes this is beside the point

In any case e is still fundamental to chemistry and hence to lots of things.

If we used a unit of f equal to 1.5e then a helium nucleus would be 1 1/3f instead of 2e. It's fundamental to the way the universe works - unlike a metre.

sure, but the 2e-ness of it is a human measure. The charge is fundamental but it all worked before we knew it as 2e.

I'm not sure we disagree here.

you are getting semantical

Don't start being Anti-semantic!

Fascist!!

I'm not sure we disagree here.

Probably not. If we stop arguing now before the definitive answer of whether or not we disagree has been ascertained then we will continue to both agree and disagree as two superimposed states.

What's your actual job btw?

What's your actual job btw?

Hircine access control manager.

Hircine access control manager.

You're kidding!

yeah, mainly from sub-transversal sites

can someone explain the IT crowd in joke?

Hircine means goat-like (in the same way bovine means cow-like). Kids are baby goats.

Jokes are like frogs, they die when you dissect them.

I knew that I thought it was a genuine IT job though 😳

See, Hircine access control means i keep an eye on goats which go past, and sub-transversal means i do it from under a bridge.

If I tell you that my catch phrase is "Who's that trip trapping over my bridge?" does it become funny yet?

pulls dunce cap over eyes and refuses to look anymore

I've just been reading, got caught up in the numerical significance of zero. It is interesting that it's more of a philisophical construct because you are envisaging the lack of something. Such as I have zero jaffa cakes left, which also challenges the idea of my afternoon tea. what will I have with it? I feel I am having a philisophical crises. The reality of my tea break is supported by the things that make up that time. With them gone, it's just another ponderous moment with little purpose. on no, what's the point!!