Finally, I've found a post by someone who doesn't believe in all this = crap. I really wish people (not you) would stop encouraging MJA and his "equal is all we need" nonsense that you get if people who do not understand mathematics attempt to try and use it.
Amen to that. It is wearing after a while, especially as it is never explained, just an idee Fixe in her head. However this is her thread
Quote:
Originally Posted by MJA
The truth of everything has been found!
At the center of all equations is =. More simple and beautiful than thought. Simply remove any uncertainty from any equation and all that remains is equal, united or one. Try it yourself. 2+2=4 > = or e=mc2 > e=m > =
MJA ... your above quote seems to be familiar with the number 2. ? And yet you have stated that the number 2 cannot be defined ?
Quote:
Originally Posted by MJA on The Philosophy Forum
I am trying to find truth in what you say of the symbol 2 , but am having some difficulty.
Perhaps you can help by answering these questions.
I hope you agree that there is no such thing as a dumb question.
1) What are the intrinsic properties of 2 ?
2) Did 2 evolve from another symbol, and will it never change again?
3) Has 2 always existed?
4) 2 is both an absolute necessary existance and a relative existance?
5) In the universe, Earthlings are the only things that uses 2 , yet you find 2 an absolute necessity?
6) Do all Earthlings need and use 2 or only some?
7) If 2 is used as an absolute symbol of external measured quantity, is measured external quantity always absolute
or probable at best? Can an absolute symbolize a nonabsolute?
9) 2 is invariable?(2=--, 2=1+1, 2=----, 2=11)
9) 2 is absolutely what?
Thanks,
= MJA
How do you re-concile this?
Pif .... Daves blog has the info - link you have been asking for. His blog is public so you can view it.
cool bananas ... greg
'Blondie says I must hate all Brunettes. I'll try, but if I can't ... I'll love them both' ... graffiti on Tavern wall, Pompeii, circa AD 70.
Perhaps you could point for me? There is a lot to wade through, and after half an hour I could not find one single mention of a 'void', let alone a link to a scientific paper that explains exactly what such a thing is. I found this though, almost immediately...
Quote:
At one time we were able to say that the universe was everything that existed. Now we need to refine this image such to say "the Cosmos represents everything that exists". Our universe is but one of many within the infinity of the Cosmos. Having stated this, let's consider some beginnings of our universe and the Genesis hypotheses.
..however, I fear that trying to justify 'big bangs' and 'genesis hypotheses' will only result in more 'voids'.
I find it very strange that people quite readily accept the idea of an Infinite Cosmos, and then attempt to justify how/when it 'started'!!? - It is just so obvious that they are not in full possession of understanding what 'infinite' necessarily means. I say this, because I do not like to think of the alternate reasons for such denials, like deliberately trying to spread mis-information to people, for example. Or, just blind defence of the ego, having set oneself up as some kind of 'authority', as another. Is this 'going too far', do you think? I recognise that such are the barriers to our understanding, and as the thread title is 'Truth not theory'...
Motivation is everything in a continuously moving existence.
pif.
People look after the things they have affection for. It is thus essential that we learn to have affection for the planet that sustains us.
"The sense of threat from every quarter of what is known as the Establishment – which is to say, of modern civilization – is not altogether a put-on or an act for many of these young folk, but an actual condition of soul. The break-off is real, and what is being bombed and blown up outside are actual symbols of interior fears." - Joseph Campbell
Finally, I've found a post by someone who doesn't believe in all this = crap. I really wish people (not you) would stop encouraging MJA and his "equal is all we need" nonsense that you get if people who do not understand mathematics attempt to try and use it.
Hi Neurtino,
Sorry your so skeptical of nature's true equality, your not the first.
I found the mathematical complexity for gravity that you prefer and have pasted it below. Perhaps you could explain this so that I and all others can understand without question, what you know to be so true. Or is it only probabability?
Jump to: navigation, search
According to the law of universal gravitation, the attractive force between two bodies is proportional to the product of their masses and inversely proportional to the square of the distance between them.
The constant of proportionality is called , the gravitational constant, the universal gravitational constant, Newton's constant, and colloquially Big G. The gravitational constant is a physical constant which appears in Newton's law of universal gravitation and in Einstein's theory of general relativity.
The gravitational constant is perhaps the most difficult physical constant to measure[citation needed]. In SI units, the 2006 CODATA recommended value of the gravitational constant is [1] Another authoritative estimate is given by the International Astronomical Union (see Standish, 1995).
In Natural units, of which Planck units are perhaps the best example, G and other physical constants such as c (the speed of light) may be set equal to 1. In galactic scales, where distances are measured in kiloparsecs, velocities in kilometers per second and masses in solar units, it is useful to express G as : When considering forces of fundamental particles, the gravitational force can appear extremely weak compared with other fundamental forces. For example, the gravitational force between an electron and proton 1 meter apart is approximately 10-67 newton, while the electromagnetic force between the same two particles still 1 meter apart is approximately 10-28 newton. Both these forces are weak when compared with the forces we are able to experience directly, but the electromagnetic force in this example is some 39 orders of magnitude (i.e. 1039) greater than the force of gravity — which is even greater than the ratio between the mass of a human and the mass of the Solar System.
PS: Simplictically gravity is a natural force of unity that mathematically looks like this:
Amen to that. It is wearing after a while, especially as it is never explained, just an idee Fixe in her head. However this is her thread
MJA ... your above quote seems to be familiar with the number 2. ? And yet you have stated that the number 2 cannot be defined ?
How do you re-concile this?
cool bananas ... greg
Hi G,
Its cool that you found my quote on the Philosophy Forum.
You know that my work on the unity of equality is the truest definition of what I do. This week that same Philosophy Forum has censored me from futher publication for as they define my work as: pseudophilosophy, which I think means false truth. Equal is a false truth? So much for equations. Not even Socrates could define truth, yet they can define false truth? Oh well, onward and upward!
With regard to the symbol 2, it is certainly a symbol. But if that symbol is used to define the measure of nature, measure has been truly found to be uncertain or probable at best. Thus 2 in an equation of nature's measure would be uncertain or only probable too.
With all due respect, I think it may have to do with your conclusion not being supported by your premises, MJA.
The equal sign is only meaningful when there are things on both sides, like 1000 m = 1 km. Otherwise, the equal sign, alone, is equal to what you have on either side.
I think, though, you might be referring to a scalable relationship, like 1 km = 2 km when 1 km is compared to .5 km; .5 km = 2.5 km when .5 km is compared to .1 km.
Sorry your so skeptical of nature's true equality, your not the first.
I found the mathematical complexity for gravity that you prefer and have pasted it below. Perhaps you could explain this so that I and all others can understand without question, what you know to be so true. Or is it only probabability?
Jump to: navigation, search
According to the law of universal gravitation, the attractive force between two bodies is proportional to the product of their masses and inversely proportional to the square of the distance between them.
The constant of proportionality is called , the gravitational constant, the universal gravitational constant, Newton's constant, and colloquially Big G. The gravitational constant is a physical constant which appears in Newton's law of universal gravitation and in Einstein's theory of general relativity.
The gravitational constant is perhaps the most difficult physical constant to measure[citation needed]. In SI units, the 2006 CODATA recommended value of the gravitational constant is [1] Another authoritative estimate is given by the International Astronomical Union (see Standish, 1995).
In Natural units, of which Planck units are perhaps the best example, G and other physical constants such as c (the speed of light) may be set equal to 1. In galactic scales, where distances are measured in kiloparsecs, velocities in kilometers per second and masses in solar units, it is useful to express G as : When considering forces of fundamental particles, the gravitational force can appear extremely weak compared with other fundamental forces. For example, the gravitational force between an electron and proton 1 meter apart is approximately 10-67 newton, while the electromagnetic force between the same two particles still 1 meter apart is approximately 10-28 newton. Both these forces are weak when compared with the forces we are able to experience directly, but the electromagnetic force in this example is some 39 orders of magnitude (i.e. 1039) greater than the force of gravity — which is even greater than the ratio between the mass of a human and the mass of the Solar System.
PS: Simplictically gravity is a natural force of unity that mathematically looks like this:
=
Firstly, my name is neutralino. Neutrinos definitely exist, whereas I may not.
Ok, so youve quoted Newtons law of gravitation. What don't you understand?
With all due respect, I think it may have to do with your conclusion not being supported by your premises, MJA.
The equal sign is only meaningful when there are things on both sides, like 1000 m = 1 km. Otherwise, the equal sign, alone, is equal to what you have on either side.
I think, though, you might be referring to a scalable relationship, like 1 km = 2 km when 1 km is compared to .5 km; .5 km = 2.5 km when .5 km is compared to .1 km.
Hi Nobody,
I am quite certain that nature's truth, either mathematically in the form of =, or empirically in the experience form of equality, has the absolute power to stand alone.
Originally Posted by N0B0DY Ain't nothin simpler than everything in motion in a void.
Quote:
Originally posted by N0B0DYRe: Truth not Theory
"I define "void" as non-existent, btw."
I define somebody pretending to be 'nobody' as contradictory, by the way. Ain't nothin simpler than no contradiction. We call it 'Truth'.
pif.
People look after the things they have affection for. It is thus essential that we learn to have affection for the planet that sustains us.
"The sense of threat from every quarter of what is known as the Establishment – which is to say, of modern civilization – is not altogether a put-on or an act for many of these young folk, but an actual condition of soul. The break-off is real, and what is being bombed and blown up outside are actual symbols of interior fears." - Joseph Campbell
Can an absolute symbolize a nonabsolute?
, the gravitational constant, the universal gravitational constant, Newton's constant, and colloquially Big G. The gravitational constant is a 
Another authoritative estimate is given by the 
When considering forces of 
Re: Truth not Theory -
10-31-2007, 01:10 PM
Linear Mode
