[Lloyd Gillespie]

Nobody, it all comes down to how much accuracy you need. Your surely not going to fly a rocket to Pluto, with the inaccuracy of .999.

Lloyd

Originally Posted by N0B0DY

I agree, Lloyd, but mathematicians don't agree with each other and I wanted to know if there is presently a leaning to one side or the other.

Some of the arguments are as follows:

"In mathematics, the recurring decimal 0.999… , denotes a real number equal to 1. In other words, "0.999…" represents the same number as the symbol "1". The equality has long been accepted by professional mathematicians and taught in textbooks. Various proofs of this identity have been formulated with varying rigour, preferred development of the real numbers, background assumptions, historical context, and target audience."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/.999

[N0B0DY]

The problem is that some mathematicians claim they are the same number - no inaccuracy, but absolutely the same.

Synonymously, there are some folks who equate the infinite and absolute. I thought you were one of them, but apparently I am mistaken.

The implications are such that the relative functioning of the universe can be equated as a whole in motion. Whereas if they are not the same, then relativity remains to be illusory, and the static absolute cannot be broken up into literal relative velocities.

[Lloyd Gillespie]

Originally Posted by N0B0DY

The problem is that some mathematicians claim they are the same number - no inaccuracy, but absolutely the same.

Synonymously, there are some folks who equate the infinite and absolute. I thought you were one of them, but apparently I am mistaken.[No, you are correct.]

The implications are such that the relative functioning of the universe can be equated as a whole in motion. Whereas if they are not the same, then relativity remains to be illusory, and the static absolute cannot be broken up into literal relative velocities.

I already posted my best response and lost it. I'll try again. The whole problem comes down to the one/1, and for over two years, my Buddhist friend and I tried to resolve this most complex of problems, and failed. Let us try.

If we reduce our investigations to the one/1 universal fundamental substance, first, and not include any other ideas to enter, we may get to the bottom of our semantics/linguistic mis-interpretations, for the mechanics of one/1 is the hugest hurdle to overcome. First, let's look at what we both mean by the unmoving mover. You say it can't be and I say it can, because I see it in my a-priori logic, and can show it with probability decay math, if projected far enough into the future, to understand the universe's one dynamics of unmoving and moving. 1.The whole infinite unbounded finiteness, by any definition possible, must be "everything___the all". If the whole be the everything FS, it is all unmoving, because it fills all semantical and linguistic definition possible, therefore, it is overall unmoving, by its very definition of having no definitional outside other, whether one wants to include more universes within or not, its overall virtual container of the infinite absolute, is unmoving in its space, as it is all of space, though this container's innards, is the finite unbounded moving, and by this very definition moves the unmoving infinite absolute container of no real container, but only within. 2.The everything I mean, may be in your mind, be the virtual nothing container of no container, you are referring to. You would have to continue the difinition characteristics, from your perspective, at this most deep of motion dynamics. I see no conflict in the unmoving moving dynamics of the whole one/1 universe.

Maybe this will help resolve your mathematical investigations, also. As to me, they are nothing but sematical and linguistic understandings, meanings and ideas of "everything" and "nothing", and nothing being impossible of meaning, existance or reality. When we eliminate nothing, as having no true definition, as all is filled with the fundamental moving unmoving substance, we are left with truly defining "everything___the only true all one/1, which is truly many infinitesimally, density dependent, parts of the one total universe, capable of all scientifically described motions, and the one extra of pass through abilities, such as gamma rays___super-fast-photons? No...? This I state as fusing and defusing photon abilities, in order to build all the universe's other particles___real photonic matter, even at the infinitesimally smallest densities, or frequencies. And the frequencies, once evolved, control the entire dynamic evolution, as a universal clock, turning randomness into uniformity." Much more complex, but you have the physics knowledge to fill in the pieces...

Lloyd

[MJA]

Originally Posted by Lloyd Gillespie

MJA, your metaphysics belongs to the psychological laws of self, and physics belongs to the laws of science, and the two are only unitable under the physical laws of all___The ultimate truth system of multiple law systems.

Lloyd

Hi Lloyd,


In response, I will say the flaws of science is its imperfect laws of science, which is the same as the imperfect laws of measure, created by an imperfect man, to find perfection, certainty, or truth, and order, in a world deamed frightening, and unknown.
The flaw of science is measure itself. Be it the imperfect constant of C as a rigid body, or reference; or the sub atomic world of imperfect probability. The laws are the flaws!

To unite mankind and reality, philosophy and physics, thought annd reality, yin and yang, truth and nature, is to remove those uncertainties of science, of laws, of theories, of religions, of faiths, of self, of imperfect giants, and see the truth of intuitive clearity, of unclouded, unconfined, unmeasured, nature, through the eyes of simplictic freedom. Only then will you know the truth. Not theories built on the foundation of other imperfect theories, and other theories, but truth built on a single foundation called truth. Start over, start again, start with truth. From there comes TOE. Start with Equal!

=
MJA

[Lloyd Gillespie]

All I see is equal madness, in your reply.

Originally Posted by MJA

Hi Lloyd,


In response, I will say the flaws of science is its imperfect laws of science, which is the same as the imperfect laws of measure, created by an imperfect man, to find perfection, certainty, or truth, and order, in a world deamed frightening, and unknown.
The flaw of science is measure itself. Be it the imperfect constant of C as a rigid body, or reference; or the sub atomic world of imperfect probability. The laws are the flaws!

To unite mankind and reality, philosophy and physics, thought annd reality, yin and yang, truth and nature, is to remove those uncertainties of science, of laws, of theories, of religions, of faiths, of self, of imperfect giants, and see the truth of intuitive clearity, of unclouded, unconfined, unmeasured, nature, through the eyes of simplictic freedom. Only then will you know the truth. Not theories built on the foundation of other imperfect theories, and other theories, but truth built on a single foundation called truth. Start over, start again, start with truth. From there comes TOE. Start with Equal!

=
MJA

[MJA]

The absolute truth of equality unites everything, and your response Lloyd of nothing does absolutely nothing.

=
MJA

[Lloyd Gillespie]

Originally Posted by MJA

The absolute truth of equality unites everything, and your response Lloyd of nothing does absolutely nothing.

=
MJA

Just as everyone has tried to tell you MJA, give equal rights to all animals and plants, and we all starve. Equality has absolutely no meaning to survival of species___Something must die for something else to live. I'll take the natural species inequality___Thank-you, just the same...

Lloyd

p.s.
My wife stated this fallacy of equality, over thirty years ago...

[MJA]

Originally Posted by Lloyd Gillespie

Just as everyone has tried to tell you MJA, give equal rights to all animals and plants, and we all starve. Equality has absolutely no meaning to survival of species___Something must die for something else to live. I'll take the natural species inequality___Thank-you, just the same...

Lloyd

p.s.
My wife stated this fallacy of equality, over thirty years ago...

You find the inequitable effects of mankind's killing of the planet Earth natural or correct?
You'll "take the natural species inequality"?
If we kill the planet, we kill ourselves; and that Lloyd, is the simple equality, truth, or justice, of it all.

=
MJA
PS: Should have listened to your wife. (Did I just say that?)

[Lloyd Gillespie]

Like almost always MJA, there's no talking truth with you, as you always avoid other's truths for your own falsehoods. Anyone can use dis-connected logics to counter another's point, but truth must exist in mutual respect of context. BTW, humanity hasn't the capacity, with all its nuclear-bio-chemical-madness, to kill the planet. Just as the Shuar Indians, say; "Ha...Ha...Ha..., Ol' mother nature will shake you off, like a dog shaking of fleas, before you can harm her."

Originally Posted by MJA

You find the inequitable effects of mankind's killing of the planet Earth natural or correct?
You'll "take the natural species inequality"?
If we kill the planet, we kill ourselves; and that Lloyd, is the simple equality, truth, or justice, of it all.

=
MJA
PS: Should have listened to your wife. (Did I just say that?)

[MJA]

Originally Posted by Lloyd Gillespie

Like almost always MJA, there's no talking truth with you, as you always avoid other's truths for your own falsehoods. Anyone can use dis-connected logics to counter another's point, but truth must exist in mutual respect of context. BTW, humanity hasn't the capacity, with all its nuclear-bio-chemical-madness, to kill the planet. Just as the Shuar Indians, say; "Ha...Ha...Ha..., Ol' mother nature will shake you off, like a dog shaking of fleas, before you can harm her."

Hello Lloyd,

Ignoring the devastatingly destructive impact or human effects on this planet Earth is the absolute true definition of ignorance.
Denial is a symptom of something much much worse.
Believing nature will shake us off like fleas is not correct, because we are nature.
We have to fix it ourselves, before it is to late.

=
MJA