SRT and the use of relative zero?

hmmm....
you still miss the fundamental logic, for even logic to be true and valid, absolute zero is the universal reference.
eg. "for if something is illogical it makes NO [zero] sense"

Of course if one wishes to launch a contraversial subject that implicates such a massive field of intellectual endeavour one must allow for a long "teething" period.

As far as your contras please provide an example of any set, group , or category usage that doesnot require zero implied or other wise to determine it's validity, partial validity or falacy and I will donate the 200 USD to a worthwhile charity. In fact I will extend the offer by adding if you prove me right I will donate $300 USD to a worthy charity...

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

Try this: Any value regardless of usage requires zero for that value even in abstract, to be able to be qualified or quantified or even dequalified or dequantified.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

as I said even in abstraction zero is needed for that abstraction to have any value what so ever, other wise all abstraction would be gibberish and totally useless to the writer of that abstraction.

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

all symbols have value due simply to their existance, ignoring the value "greater than zero" placed upon them.
in the diagram above...
X >0
f >0
Y and Z are >0
the lines/arrows connecting them are >0
if this where not the case you would have a blank image with nothing on it.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

So... the offer that stands currently is:

If any one can prove that zero is not an implied universal reference frame for all mathematics,

a) I will donate $200 usd to a worthy registered and licensed charity of my choice. [Salvation Army Red shield appeal]

And...
b) If any one can prove me correct in a way that is or would be acceptable by mainstream peer review,
I will donate $300 usd to a worthy registered and licensed charity of my choice. [Salvation Army Red shield appeal]

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

Offer expires and payments made [if any] 21/12/2012
Limited to registered members of sciforums.com only...
All proofs must be posted for public preview.
The amounts awarded must be more than would other wise be donated by myself.


now that's gotta be greater than zero....[chuckle]
hmmm... money well spent....
[facebook: 24/08/2012]

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

I think the above statements are biased and uniformed.

I do not want to dig through my library right now, but some time ago I read a book by a linguistic anthropologist, who spent over 20 years working with a remote Amazon tribe. His task was to learn their language. Though they had been known by the western world for over two hundred years, no one outside the tribe spoke their language and their culture and life style remained much as it had when the Portuguese missionaries first discovered them.

As I remember it they had no word for zero or even "none". They lived their lives now. What was or is, is what was before them. They had words for one, two and many. There were many other unique things about them, too numerous to mention in a post like this, but I feel it is fairly certain they were capable of reason and thinking logically, knowing where to fish and hunt etc. and they had no concept of zero.

Many of those we would consider primitive were and are capable of logic, without the concept of zero.

Send your check to save the whales...

 

thanks for your post,
the questions that comes to mind are:
Is it necessary for an individual to be cognizant of zero [ nothingness ] [unconsciousness] etc to not be in a relative relationship with zero?


Do the tribes people you mention, need to even know language in verbal form to communicate at the level they wish to communicate [ re: body language only]?
Do they know what death is? If so is this not the same as knowing zero?
Maybe they would use mathematics more if they did have a concept of zero?
How does this relate to what a "bull ant" knows of zero? and does it change the reality of zero underpinning value whether consciously or not.?

I'd love to ......but my bank manager needs a better contra than that....

 

so the offer can be copied and emailed etc

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

 

Take the frame of reference of light for example, if we calculate the spacetime dialation of this frame with the proper time or tau, you end up getting t'=0. t' means t prime that is the value of time measured in this frame of reference. Now say that you want to calculate the value of t'', another frame of reference using this value t'=0. Well, it would just so happen that since t'=0 that every other value in this frame would then be equal to zero. So then every value in t'', that is related to a value in t' would then equal zero or be undefined. So then you could never find any relavent data from a frame of reference that is contracted to zero mathmatically. So what do we do? Slap an uncertainty principle on it because mathmatics fails to deal with zero classically. There seems to be no direct mathmatical causality between these two frames of references, if there was, everything would be zeo or undefined, so then the events are truely random and can only be determined by statistical probability! That is my theory anyways, and helps me believe in quantum mechanics as a real accurate description of reality. All it takes is accepting that spacetime contraction is actually spacetime contraction.

 

Still failing to realise you don't grasp such concepts. As with the "Ask an accountant about zero!" thing you are adding things which are not necessary. Formal logic doesn't have to involve zero. Formal logic plus other things can include zero, ie basic arithmetic. You're not working on a sufficiently fundamental level, you're assuming things which are not true across the board. But you don't realise this because you have no experience with proper logic or mathematics.

One must also provide evidence and be willing to accept correction. If One demonstrates One doesn't know the meaning of words or is so intellectually lazy One can't read a single paragraph then One isn't presenting a sufficient case.

False. You mention 'value' as if its something endemic to all mathematical constructs. It isn't. If you knew what a category is then you'd know this. Arithmetic, basic simple arithmetic, is actually an enormously elaborate construct. Godel's work on incompleteness demonstrated results about any mathematical construct sufficient to describe arithmetic, yet there are many mathematical constructs which don't fall under the remit of his theorems as they do not have any notion of numbers within them.

'Value' isn't something which is a necessary part of mathematics. All of the mathematics you know involves numbers but mathematics is so much more than that.

None of the objects you reference, X,Y,Z,f,g necessarily have values. They do not represent numbers. You've shown you don't know what a category is, you've shown you make assertions about things you don't understand and you've shown you cannot present a case for your claims. You've also shown you cannot retort my example. So when will that charity get the money? Or was that just an empty gesture? Was it like Kent Hovind's "I'll give $250,000 to anyone who can prove evolution" and then he goes on to list things unrelated to evolution he demands people address and moves the goal posts whenever someone addresses them. You admit you don't even read things said to you and you've shown you don't understand those things you do read, such as the wiki page on category theory, so you are incapable of judging what anyone says to you. As such, your challenge is dishonest and vapid.

I'm sorry you don't know how much there is beyond the very limited intellectual horizon you have. Really, I find the general lack of mathematical knowledge and understanding in many people deeply dismaying, particularly when anyone in the Western World is surrounded by technology, the fruits of intellectual and scientific endeavours which make copious use of mathematics. Unfortunately you've shown you will not even learn when someone explains your mistakes to you or gives explicit counter examples.

Perhaps that is why you're going on about your ZPT nonsense. Having a mid-life crisis and need to bolster yourself a bit? And what better way than convincing yourself you're uncovering secrets of the universe and flummoxing all of mathematics! Too bad you have nothing to show for it by post after post which has been corrected by others. Or is it something else?

Anyone reading the thread will see how I've provided examples, walked you through definitions you've gotten wrong, explained your mistakes and all you can do is assert things without evidence and pose dishonest challenges you are the judge of but which you are incapable of judging. Come on, do you think anyone is going to take you seriously? You have an opinion that the challenge cannot be met and since you're the judge you can make sure it isn't! Just like Kent Hovind. And just like Kent Hovind, even if you didn't have a reason to move the goal posts you are practically innumerate so you're unfit to be the judge on those grounds too.

I pity you. Must be awful having such small horizons.

 

In a sense you are quite correct if I am reading you well enough......
If the Hyper surface of the present was in fact t=0 duration therefore the equivalent for a light particle/wave movent through time or as time, then at any given t=0 duration the universe fails to exist. It is only when t=>0 duration [ acka eternity] that the universe exists.
The image below shows this a little more clearly:

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

where by if t= absolute zero [ no duration ] then +X + (-)X = absolute zero. Nothing exists. [Entropy is instantaneously resolved to zero existance]
alternatively:
+x + (-)x + (t=>0) = 0 + (t=>0 duration)

therefore one can conclude that if 't' has a greater duration than zero the universe can exist. [entropy spread out for eternity]
and 'absolute rest' therefore is impossible in an existant universe.

From what I gather from my research time, (t) is rarely considered as a figure for potential duration. It is most often used as a zero point on a gradient of duration.

However be that as it may absolute zero is always the reference frame for anything of value greater than absolute zero.....abstraction or not, imaginary or not, delusion or not, etc etc...

The uncertainty principle is in fact mathematics way of dealing with the reality of absolute zero [ absolute rest ] being non-existant. and requiring momentum or (t=>0) for that zero point to be useful. Just another application of mathematics...
So when you reduce down to the Planck unit the mass in question can be existant. [due to it's constant momentum (t=>0 duration)]
ZPT takes that reduction further than an arbitary Planck unit and on to the infinitesimal to reveal why the uncertainty principle is necesssary due to the attraction paradox of absolute zero.
Empirical evidence

 

so ...uhm what are you trying to say, that you don't like me is that it? or that you have no refutation of the logic presented ..is that it? [I think it is both; you don't like me because you can offer zero refutation of the logic presented]

shall not bother with the rest of the post....as it is always the same thing... no actual refutation just mere call to authority and slander. A smoke screen to hide your impotence.

For anything to exist it must have a 'value' of some sort, reagardless of what that value may be. ANY value greater than zero is existant and only existant as a value relative to zero.
an example:

Zero Value:






wait for it.....







ok...


Some Value:




.......here it comes


x



there done...

have I made my uhm... point?

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

 

@ Alphanumeric,
a test of logic....

1] If the universe is infinite in size [has no boundaries]

Where would you determine the center of gravity of that Universe to be?

2] If Time is eternal what moment would be the central moment of time? [where the past has the same duration as the future]

 

I would think that "absolute rest" would be when any object is in constant motion. For instance, any object in constant motion can assume that it is at rest. But, I have read that this could greatly effect the behaivor of subatomic particles. Like a photon at rest could not exist, as there is a difference between rest mass and the mass it would have if it was traveling the speed of light. But, then what if there is nothing? Can nothing assume it is at rest? Can it assume that it is traveling at 55mph? Could it assume that it is traveling at the speed of light? Yes, it can do all of these things because there is nothing relative to it in order to measure its velocity relative to. Nothing could travel at infinity plus one relative to nothing and it wouldn't make a bit of difference, or even a combination of all these speeds at the same time. If there is nothing for it to be relative too, then it can be anything.

 

a contradiction in terms yes?

but only to itself.... this is not absolute rest which requires universality to be involved.

I feel you need to research what "absolute rest" is defined as and compare that to the other variations to the word "rest". Clarify for yourself to minimise confusion.

 

@ Alphanumeric,
a test of logic....[more a test of Egocenticism actually]

1] If the universe is infinite in size [has no boundaries]

Where would you determine the center of gravity of that Universe to be?

2] If Time is eternal:

What moment would be the central moment of time? [where the past has the same duration as the future]

*Note: the answer to question 2 provides the clue to the answer for question 1.

 

Do you think other people can't read my posts? Do you think if you don't respond to them then they aren't visible to other people? I gave an explicit example of how you've been wrong in your assertions about mathematics. You couldn't retort. Hell, you admitted to not even reading it. Saying "I didn't read your post" while also saying "You haven't addressed what I said" is self contradiction. I repeatedly gave the example of category theory, you then demonstrated you didn't know the meaning of the things you made claims about within category theory.

Now you're making up your own definitions. You don't know the maths so you just make stuff up. Even saying 'greater than zero' illustrates how narrow your mind is, since you cannot fathom mathematical constructs where 'greater than' is meaningless.

You've demonstrated you're incapable of honest discussion. That $200 offer is utterly disingenuous.

It has no centre. Not that such a thing represents a problem to cosmological models. And please don't pretend you can do tests of logic, you've shown you haven't a clue about it. You've also shown you're willing to make up your own meaning of words so you can deceive people and do little play on words.

There is no centre. You're obviously asking such things in order to try to make some point. I'm absolutely certain you'll just end up showing how little you grasp of mathematics and logic. If you grasp it you'd realise how daft such questions even are. But you've shown you're willing to make claims about mathematics knowing nothing about it.

So you'll tell others to research what terminology means but it's okay for you to make claims about areas of mathematics you know nothing about, to make up your own definitions for things you don't understand and to not bother finding anything out about relevant concepts? Wow, talk about blatant, staggering hypocrisy. Clearly you have no problem with just making things up when you don't understand something. I'm sure it makes life a lot easier, why bother to put in effort to learn something when you can not bother and just lie about it instead!

Your actions in regard to your $200 challenge have extreme parallels with Kent Hovind, both in terms of how you're judging it when you're not impartial and also how you have absolutely no understanding of the subject at hand to even form a coherent, accurate challenge statement. No rational person can be so clearly self contradicting and hypocritical and not be aware of it. You know you haven't got much, if any, mathematical knowledge yet you make carte blanche claims about all mathematics. I still hope this is all some elaborate charade on your part, to see how 'in your face' dishonest and wrong you can be before you get banned for trolling or something of that ilk.

 

I know what absolute rest is, the confusion is how a zero point determines this. But, I would have to agree there is no such thing as absolute rest in classical terms. The point I was trying to make is that any object can say that it is at rest that is in constant motion and this can be seen to be universal. So even though there is not one true frame of reference that is at rest, absolute rest, there are many frames that can be shown to be at rest. It seems like you are saying that nothing can assume that it is at rest and be correct about the universal motions of other bodies.

 

so you still agree with your own definition or not?

or have you amended it since my post to something else eh?

 

I think people if they bother to read this thread can work out for themselves the level of logic presented by you as a part of your support for your own position...
and I have not used the words "'you haven't addressed what I said" any where as far as I can recall... I simply said that your post was "not worth reading" and I said this due to the ad hominem and assinine content.
As I stated "value to your audience= 0"

so whose definition do you want to use? and you claim I am narow minded.... [chuckle]

Only because you can offer no refutation. A sore loser who's only recourse is to slander and defame... "deliberately dishonest" [ to quote your own words ] to the extreme.
The offer is:

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

and is quite clearly "If any one can prove me correct that will lead to peer review by mainstream science" I will donate $300 USD to the Salvos.
The $200 is for people such as you who are seeking to refute the irrefutable.
I CAN offer this award simply because I know you can't possibly win it as the logic is utterly compelling. [which is what upsets you as there is no defense available and the Salvos should get an easy $300]
Just like the 5 year old offer of $500 USD for any one that can show a photon to exist other than just by it's effect.
remember this little fellow:

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

or do you wish me to remind you again about how you can not deal with questions that threaten your syndicated defence of the indefensible.

So in summary Mr Alphanumeric,
there are two prizes being offered.
one, regarding the issue of zero being a universal frame of reference for all mathematics including SRT. $200 if proved wrong, $300 if proved right.
and,
two, $500 offerred for evidence that supports the reality of the photon beyond merely it's effect.

and there is potential for another prize to be offered...[yep a number three]
For any one who can determine whether the universe is expanding or contracting in metric using information that is current and not ancient historical sometimes billion year old evidence. The actual wording of this challenge has yet to be worked out.
But it is to show simply that science must always keep in mind it's own belief in the photon if it wishes to remain relevant as a method.

I might add that even if the higgs boson was discovered by that 8 billion Euro investment I would simply ask: "Does that particle or boson or thingo have a center of gravity?" [ and refer again to Zero Point Theory ]

 

Now as to your answers to the questions of logic.

Wrong. Try again but think this time, if you can, beyond your vitriolic thoughts..... and the serious conditioning you must have suffered.

Wrong. Try again but think this time, if you can, beyond your vitriolic thoughts.....and the serious conditioning you must have suffered.

......reminds me of the following video:

[video=youtube;KZeiSKnhOBc]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KZeiSKnhOBc[/video]
please ignore if you can the political reference at the end of the video. [ as it is not relevant ]

eh I know enough to be bloody dangerous...

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

both of the questions of logic require very basic mathematics.
As does the question about absolute zero being a universal frame of reference for ALL mathematics.

There is a famous book titled: "All I needed to know, I learned in kindergarten" by Rogert Fulghum [http://www.robertfulghum.com/]
and I can thoroughly recommend it as a read....

 

Nope, absolute rest would be the same as saying that something in constant motion is the object in the system that is actually at rest. So then if there is no absolute rest, because like you say, everything has to be in motion. Then nothing could ever be simply at rest. There is no absolute rest because any object in a system in constant motion can say that it is at rest. It doesn't make values become wrong because the particular state of rest is said to be at absolute rest, they are equal in value and indistiguishable from each other. In other words, there is no absolute rest because anything traveling at a constant speed is equally valid in saying that it is at rest. Other than that, there is no difference between absolute rest and simply rest, and if any object can't be at rest then it goes against everything in relativity because then you can no longer say that their idea of rest is equally valid or the absolute rest.