Universal Constant -Science and philosophy collide

how is zero the opposite to anything?
please explain?

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

theoretically you can...I proved it in a thread not so long ago....

using infinitesimals in a certain way can show the absense of something....absolute zero / nothingness.

it also relates directly to the time duration of the HSP in Special relativity. [ between the light cones past and present.] that duration being zero.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

Thinking,
I shall post the questions I asked Bishadi:

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

do you remember what E=mc2 shared? That if we take an atom and break it up, you may have 2 left over parts that weight less than the single whole part and E=mc2 defined the amount of energy released. (light)

It shared that mass is basically just light (electromagnetic radiation). (mass= energy (light) affixed in time)

Ever heard of the term entanglement.

It is a property of em in which to split a light wave at 1300nm into two 650nm, them 2 will be entangled no matter where they are from each other.

adjust one side of the 2 and the other is affected. (this is a item i have researched extremely well and you use the term 'inertia' for this)

Casimir shared that to have 2 mirrored plates facing each other... energy bouncing back and forth will create a potential of attraction between the plates. Basically just like creating and maintaining a potential. (it is why the moon faces the earth on ONE side)

So sit down...................... cuz the reality is, entangled energy between mass is the force this whole taco stand is trying to figure out: gravity itself. (no particle mitigates gravity)

(inertia is the wrong word) the property is entanglement....

they don't... 2LoT is a joke............think of them as old 'guidelines'

....but gibb energy transfer alone break the back of that in 2 second (life abuses entropy)

planck is a joke......... imposed entropy (direction of time/energy flow) as well remove the ability of shared systems to combine by the incorporation of angular momentum; requires a particle frame. (cannot include shared energy state)

h......... is wrong............c is wrong............ the hadron is a joke (15billion dollar waste of money and resources; even hawkings knows that)

The electron is simply a portion of an atom 'isolated' but not constituent as an separate unit of mass. (it is like taking a cup of water from the bath tub)

an atom is much close to schroadinger than bohr............

this is all i have worked on for decades............. i don't 'practice' when it comes to the sciences.

currently we in a philosophical section addressing 'zero' and it seems you asking questions from magazine articles rather than doing the actual homework.

anyone who has actually played with gravity and and particle constants knows better (they don't mix)............ gravity is for the large and don't play well in the particle game

all because 'they' have no idea what gravity is.

but now you do

here is a list of

publications......http://www.weizmann.ac.il/chemphys/gershon/rand_scat.html

..... why listen to me

i state that anyone can see for themselves if they know how to read and be absolutely honest with themselves.

 

And how do you think entanglement works?
with out zero space or zero distance?

 

one could say that the entire universe is entangled including all it's matter and life via the one constant...and what constant is the only one that makes sense with out exceptions?

 

of course if you are using the wrong law then it wont apply universally will it?
Find the right law and you will find it has universal application.

 

it is

what constant? http://physics.nist.gov/cgi-bin/cuu/Value?hbcmevf|search_for=nonsi_in!

do you even know how math is used?

you constantly focused on a constant without any consistancy to your own thread

 

it is

have you ever worked through a system?

not just talking about viral for Dirac ? http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/1953PhRv...92..481M

or perhaps feshback for phase transitions of BEC ?

http://www.iop.org/EJ/abstract/0953-2048/22/1/014004


Maybe looked at how neurons convey resonance (em/light) across membranes?

http://www.sciencedirect.com/scienc...serid=10&md5=5166bd5981d97e74990421334db40888

so please, your getting REAL eductional material........

your zero thread is dead, and i shared why.............

put the information in the bank, because it will be the most solid investment you ever have.

 

You know Bushadi,
your incredible knowledge of rubbish is amazing!

You will note that the Planck constant has a variation or error where as the gravitational constant is exact or error free.
So quoting your abundance of crap is not going to aid your cause in this thread.

This thread is devoted to the logical arguement that zero is the only universal constant that can be applied both philosophically and scientifically.

How does Planck apply to metaphysics or ontology?

How does quoting an error variation support Planck as a constant?

I wonder my self whether you understand the topic at all!

Maybe it is because it threatens all your hard work and all that crappy knowledge that you have stored in your head.

 

Besides which Planck is not a constant it is only a theory that is proposed to suggest a constant, that btw happens to be "inconstant" as it has an error margin.

utter crapolla....
The universe determines what a constant is and not man's imagination.
and it offers no solution to universal entanglement of all matter [ including the matter that makes up the human form]

 

and whats more...

what is smaller than a planck length? or infinitesimal?


you guessed it!

 

sorry but you are the one running this thread all over the place and it seems i am just backing up the claims, while answering the questions

problem is you do not know how the concepts you are talking about applies

Here we go again as you have no idea what you are saying.

do you not know how dark matter and dark energy was created?

perhaps if you realized the current gravity ignorance does not mathematically match up with what they see in the universe and that is why the dark junk was 'created'.........basically.. to fix the errors

here this is basic wiki to read what i am saying http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Galaxy_rotation_curve

..

and you went tangent as my opinion was shared, but you started rambling terms and concepts you apparently do not comprehend the applicability, mathematically or experimentally.

just like this question.............you are all over the board and have no idea what you are saying

i don't walk the planck

that is what ruined today's physics

and them questions you keep pushing are almost all using h.......... (plancks constant)

there is an EXACT reason why planck was wrong

here is a copy of his 1901 paper........... perhaps read it

http://www.chemteam.info/Chem-History/Planck-1901/Planck-1901.html


he bound the qubit to entropy.......... he practically created the particle game you keep monkey businessing around in...........

and don't even comprehend how they all apply...........

:shrug:

 

Bishadi,
I am not interested in the "barrow" or "dogma" that you are attempting to push at this forum.

I am only interested in getting genuine discussion about the issues presented.

Re-read the OP with out your agenda in mind and maybe we can actually have that discussion.

My main forte is human beahviour and psychology. And what I see when I read your posts [ not just in this thread I might add] is obvious to me.

Attempting to flood the forum with pseudo knowledge unfortunately doesn't work for me...as most of that knowledge is badly premised to begin with.


If discussing the possibility of zero being a universal constant thus responsible for "universal entanglement", threatens your belief system so violently I suggest you deal with it as best you can.

And btw of course dark matter and dark energy or what ever you want to call them were created to cover up our mistaken belief in our own egos.

What was it 98% of mass is some how missing!...by golly what a fraud!

 

oooops

seems you went a little deeper than you could handle

and using numbers was doing that?

what beliefs?

it was sharing how stupid your 'gravity .... no errors' .....psuedo science was a joke

it's supposed to be in the 70's arena........... but again..... you put your foot in your mouth as it was you trying to pin down a constant, both with a zero, then gravity............. and all you have done is shared why you don't comprehend any of it..............you give up when you have to actually apply yourself and 'think' :bawl:

sorry about all that........

xero......... mmmm constant.... mmmm ug....

 

well as they say "put your money where your mouth is"
show another constant that could be better than zero that could possibly entangle an entire universe including consciousness?

 

"In the beginning before time there was absolutely nothing and in the end, after time has run out, again there will be absolutely nothing, yet between the past and the future whilst time is present there is always absolutely nothing."

So absolutely nothing, zero is ever present, it is only time [change] that grants the illusion of substance.

If you could observe the universe with out seeing the future arrive and the past created you would see absolutely nothing. [ aka unconsciousness ]

 

the tangible realities i pointed out earlier in my FIRST post......

There is no going to point B without an A. There is no empty space anywhere in existence between 2 points. (a vacuum is impossible)

now you have to prove me wrong otherwise..... you have NO argument except within your own mind. :bugeye:

the first number was what? ONE

all existence is ONE .............

(all) mass, energy and time (combined)......... is that 'existence' itself.

"i am, therefor i exist'......... that is where to start. Realizing that when your eyes opened up, you exist.

you are trying to pin down that there is a void, an empty beginning point............. and that can never be proved because no void has or can exist. ie... ask yourself.. what started the Big bang?

a ONE

 

well maybe you can prove how clever you are by showing how distance exists without time?

using the currently held space/time paradigm?

 

Or what is the time duration of the present moment [ Hyper surface of the present - HSP]
if t=0 what does d = ?