[neutralino]

Originally Posted by purveyor of knowledge Ok well thanks again Neutralino for the questions. I don't know if you side with devleweing or what, or if you say I'm a crank or crackpot though i have no idea what EITHER of those words mean and personally I think they mean something else than you say they mean, but really it doesn't matter because only me is the one who do actual experiments with electromagnetism and do practical science not this armchair bullshit. So side with whoever you want it doesn't matter because in the end we are all one human race and nothing divides us friend. And the only way we will learn anything is by doing ACTUAL experiments including magnetic monopole and weather control which you think is impossible but then again, they thought that about 1/0 too didn't they?

Weather control isn't necessarily impossible, but I don't want to feed you anything else, so I'll leave my comment at that.

Now i will attempt to answer your question which I appreciate because you seem to be a math guru and I am a math guru too plus a genious who scored %99 for math on the ACT test. You seem like a skeptic but one who is open minded so you are a genius too in my book. Only a skeptic can be a skeptic of skeptics.

It doesn't bother me what score you got on any test that you might quote at me. I am not a genius. Granted, I may be quite good at maths, but that is only from years of learning: something that many people think is unnecessary. They think that they can just overlook mathematics, and come up with their own rules, without ever understanding the basics.

That having been said, defining 1/0 does not change division it just means you are taken one particularly magnanimous and beautiful value to be not divided at all. divided by zero=divided by nothing=not divided at all=fully unified. Do you see this?

Statements like this put you in the category I have identified above. You have to realise that on defining a number system in which 1=2 you are breaking all known laws of mathematics. This, in itself is not a problem; you can create any number system you like. The problem comes when you try and derive, using your new number system, results using standard mathematical operations. For example, I could define mathematics such that the operation of multiplication is not commutative. However, I can then not go on to use any commutative laws of multiplication in any derivations in any theory I may come up with.

Do you see this? Do you see why you have to build this new mathematics up from the very beginning, and derive any mathematics you wish to use before you even think about your theory. If not, then I'm afraid you are not the "math guru" that you think you are.

[purveyor of knowledge]

Yes Neutralino, I have rebuilt the math system. If everything is all one thing that is not divided by anything, as in unified field you know, then it seems to demonstrate that everything is possible. So what is your question?

[dleviwing]

Originally Posted by neutralino Do you see this? Do you see why you have to build this new mathematics up from the very beginning, and derive any mathematics you wish to use before you even think about your theory. If not, then I'm afraid you are not the "math guru" that you think you are.

neutralino;
I see you’ve met our self proclaimed genius. He is the smartest individual on the planet earth; just ask him. The rules of mathematics and science do not apply to him. Take care; he may decide to strike you with lightning.

[purveyor of knowledge]

Dear dleviwing,

I have no quarrel with you good sir knight. It was Silly Sally who said I was a genius, not I. And every time you ban a fellow, all the people want that one to come back.

Neutralino is an honorable skeptic. He is not being closed minded. Remember, a skeptic must also be skeptical of skeptics themselves. That is the route which I call mutual apprehension, and it is just one of many you will find on this here quest.

If you do so wish to try and make fun of another, perhaps you would like to stand up and tell everybody what will happen when two points in the universe, separated by a mere planck distance, begin expanding away from eachother at faster than TSOL. Perhaps you will come to the conclusion that positive infinity and negative infinity must touch eachother from opposite sides of the looking glass, as our mathematics system suggests were we to define that which only our minds has decided is undefined. Perhaps you would like to tell us this in the new thread which Robert has started for this months topic. So far we are missing you there.

Be well, and always hold everything to be defined under the light, and indivisible in your sight. And always remember that indivisible means the same thing as divided by nothing.

And for the future there is much hope and we are all forward looking, so someone like yourself could do some actual experiments. Arm-waving and armchair physics is one route I have found. But it is one route of many, and of the other routes there is just experimentation. You being a skeptic, why don't you try and replicate some of the experiments I have shown to everyone. All the information is free and for the quick dissemination to all, so take up your glue and your razor blade and find out for yourself what has been, or can be done.

You know that is the importance of a theory. To do experimentation afterwards.

sincerely,
POK

[dleviwing]

POK;
neutralino is just pointing out the same thing I told you long ago; you do not have the knowledge or experience in the physical sciences nor in mathematics; thus your 1/0 is simply foolish nonsense to those of us who have the formalized education. I like your self confidence but I find it misplaced when you feel you can simply rewrite the rules of mathematic and science. To justify such actions you must know the current status of these disciplines; you clearly don’t. How can you be the “purveyor of knowledge” and act like the “purveyor of ignorance”? You have all the signs of being nothing more than a mischievous little boy testing the tolerance levels of his parents. You are however amusing and entertaining!
I know you have the ability to better yourself; why don’t you do it?

[purveyor of knowledge]

Dear Dleviwing,

I appreciate your comments and please won't you help me to better myself as you say. It is your contention that I cannot just go about giving the undivided value in math a definition and thus try to change everything we have ever thought or believed because I have not fully demonstrated my mastery or understanding of the current knowledges and conventions of science and mathematics.

It is for this reason only, that you say I am not well versed in the current understandings, that I shall informatively point out again that I scored a %99 for math on the ACT, and I am studying physics, and everything. It is not for bragging rights that I do this, merely to show people that I seem to be already going the route that you are suggesting I go and believe you me it is no trouble for me and I already understand it quite well. There is nothing that I cannot understand and the same goes for you, even though you may not have scored as highly as me on this arbitrary test known as the ACT. And even though you are not published in a major peer review and I am, I know these are meaningless accolades.

If you would truly like to get down to the nitty gritty and discuss why or why not a magnanimous, complete, and undivided value can or cannot be defined I think you have only to try me. You may find I am every bit as competent to have such a discussion/argument as you could dream, but have not yet dared to. You will find that whether or not there is a definition to the undivided value is tantamount to asking whether or not there is meaning for reason, and for life itself.

For example, one such as you, and such as myself, who knows that to a certain perspective there can be no "undivided value" because it would imply that negative infinity and positive infinity would have to meet at a point, should also be able to understand that maybe this is not impossible after all. In fact, the amazing and world-view changing possibility of just such a thing is what will lead one readily to the final conclusion, of what will happen after the "Big Rip," as Robert Caldwell of Darmouth University calls it. And this is that conclusion dleviwing: the universe will reverse when the two points in space separated by a planck distance begin expanding away from eachother at greater than TSOL. Now how can that prediction be made without an understanding of both quantum mechanics, general relativity, and 1/0?

I entreat good sir, please, ask me anything about Math or Physics and you can test my knowledge about how much I really do or do not know. Perhaps you can teach me more. But you have not volunteered to test this yet, so how do you know I am not fully ready and indeed accurate for stepping out and defining the heretofor undefined, absolute greatest value, which is none other than that amount which is the total amount of living energy that continually provides for and sustains the unified field through it's expansion process. Imagine it.

Is there nothing about the number 1/0 that is known to others that is not known to me? Tell me dleviwing, what is it about 1/0 that I do not know? Also tell me dleviwing, why must the absolute greatest value in mathematics and in morality be undefined? Is it because it shows us that everything is possible, for we are not yet ready to understand or believe this? Think about it for real dear sir knight.

I am glad that you get a kick out of my posts, and indeed I try to write them in sufficient style so as to be entertaining, as well as enlightening. I am hear to teach you all what I have learned, and to learn from you, but also in the hopes that it will be fun as well. So don't worry about lightning strikes dear friend. Why don't you go out and build one yourself and you'll see that I'm not lying. Huh?

Or, why don't you explain to me what 1/0 is. Let us test your knowledge why don't we?

all in good fun and in the hopes we will all come to a greater understanding of eachother and of this thing we call everything,

is that not the power of a theory?
pok

[neutralino]

Originally Posted by purveyor of knowledge It is for this reason only, that you say I am not well versed in the current understandings, that I shall informatively point out again that I scored a %99 for math on the ACT, and I am studying physics, and everything.

I know your post wasn't addressed to me, but I just wanted to quickly comment on this quote. The mere fact that you are throwing around some score that you got on some test (which means nothing to me, since I've never heard of it) and you say that you are studying "physics and everything" tells me that this is most probably a lie. If you were such a "genius" then you would not need to tell me what you study, or what you got in some test: I would be able to tell it from your posts. However, your posts only tell me that you lack a grasp of fundamental mathematics, without which you will not go very far. Try taking a course on elementary number theory, and then come back and discuss your "1/0" theory.

[purveyor of knowledge]

Dude I already know all about number theory. So stop putting off the inevitable and lets discuss it. I'm not lying to you about anything.

[N0B0DY]

1/0 can't equal everything, POK, because everything (one undivided) multiplied by zero would have to equal 1, but it doesn't.

Whereas, 0/0=anything, something, everything, nothing, etc., so there is no need for a number to represent everything because the absolute center, 0/0, is already representative of it by carrying throughout any and all relative measurements.

[dleviwing]

Originally Posted by purveyor of knowledge I'm not lying to you about anything.

YES YOU ARE POK!