i hope they both die
wtfjmvgsmijdgijmEinstein wrote:
Just saying, this works when I replace 0 with infinity as wellabraker wrote:
infinity x 1 = infinity
infinity x 2 = infinity
Infinity x 1 = Infinity x 2
Funny enough, dividing both sides by infinity results in weird stuff
Either way, I propose there is no such thing as 0. In fact, all our lives we have been dealing with infinitesimal.
Blitzfrog wrote:
Just saying, this works when I replace 0 with infinity as well
infinity x 1 = infinity
infinity x 2 = infinity
Infinity x 1 = Infinity x 2
Funny enough, dividing both sides by infinity results in weird stuff
Either way, I propose there is no such thing as 0. In fact, all our lives we have been dealing with infinitesimal.
Actually a better example would be two different mathematical functions that have the same results within a certain rangeM3ATL0V3R wrote:
Actually on second thought just because they have the same properties mathematically doesn't mean they are the same thing
e.g
1 cat plus 1 cat = 2 cats
1 dog plus 1 dog = 2 dogs
dog = cat
What this is implying isn't 0 = infinityM3ATL0V3R wrote:
Blitzfrog wrote:
Just saying, this works when I replace 0 with infinity as well
infinity x 1 = infinity
infinity x 2 = infinity
Infinity x 1 = Infinity x 2
Funny enough, dividing both sides by infinity results in weird stuff
Either way, I propose there is no such thing as 0. In fact, all our lives we have been dealing with infinitesimal.Actually a better example would be two different mathematical functions that have the same results within a certain rangeM3ATL0V3R wrote:
Actually on second thought just because they have the same properties mathematically doesn't mean they are the same thing
e.g
1 cat plus 1 cat = 2 cats
1 dog plus 1 dog = 2 dogs
dog = cat
Yes and also cat/cat is dog/dog or any other thing for that matterBlitzfrog wrote:
What this is implying isn't 0 = infinity
But rather 0/0 is infinity/infinity
Calculus uses the idea of infinitesimal to avoid dividing by 0.M3ATL0V3R wrote:
Are you not saying that 1/infinity = 0?
Because if you are then I disagree because even though you have divided up something an infinite amount of times there is still something there even though it is indescribably small.
Or maybe nothingness can never actually exists in the universe and therefore zero is only something that can be imagined?
I have no idea how you got cat/cat and dog/dogM3ATL0V3R wrote:
Are you not saying that 1/infinity = 0?
Because if you are then I disagree because even though you have divided up something an infinite amount of times there is still something there even though it is indescribably small.
Or maybe nothingness can never actually exists in the universe and therefore zero is only something that can be imagined?Yes and also cat/cat and dog/dog and 1 + 1 = 2?Blitzfrog wrote:
What this is implying isn't 0 = infinity
But rather 0/0 is infinity/infinity
Ok I get it now you were not saying 1/infinity = zeroBlitzfrog wrote:
Calculus uses the idea of infinitesimal to avoid dividing by 0.
First off, 1/infinity doesn't mean a thing. It's like saying 1/0, it's invalid.
However, in calculus, we avoided 1/0 by looking at the value x approaches in the equation 1/x as x approaches 0. Well, it looks like it gets larger and larger to no ends. So we can say that 1/x approaches infinity as x approaches 0. (This is just a sneaky way of saying 1/0 is infinity)This is just our way to getting around the 1/0 error, like abraker has shown before to be invalid.
Similarly, we can say that:
As x approaches infinity, what does 1/x approach? Well it gets smaller and smaller and tends to 0
So it's 0
You were saying 0/0 = 1 and infinity/infinity = 1Blitzfrog wrote:
I have no idea how you got cat/cat and dog/dog
Hahahahaha mathematical implication of invalidity and vanilla-forward-style'd causality. Dear, if you are trying to kill me with laughter, you have succeeded. Please do say more without explaining whatever you said implies to what and how.Blitzfrog wrote:
Right, and mathematically it also implies it's invalid. I would like to point out that this is only true if causality was still vanilla-forward-style'd
Yes to preserve causality, correct. But unless I am misinterpreting the abbreviation of a common metric unit of measurement, why the heck measure it in centimeters and not meters?Blitzfrog wrote:
Another fact: You measure time in cm already (light cm) given the formula of space-time interval in special relativity => ds^2 = dx^2 + dz^2 + dy^2 −dt^2
Given this fact, the only reason why time and space would be swapped is to preserve causality (s).
Not stopping you, keep on going.Blitzfrog wrote:
What is there to stop me, in a black hole, to say that causality is reversed?
ohBlitzfrog wrote:
Honestly I cannot argue with you at this point because 1)This is beyond the scope of my knowledge
If yet to be developed physics doesn't have answers, then what does?Blitzfrog wrote:
and 2)I do not believe physics has answers to this either
You forgot to look up the context of that statement. The context was in reversed spacetime. Yes, what you said hold true in non reversed causality. In reversed causality, where space and time reverses, it is you who needs to move through space to be subject to time. Hence, the passing through the EM field.Blitzfrog wrote:
You're not passing through the EM field. It can easily be explained using special relativity. Imagine light as individual photons in this case, traveling in a wave path. Now as you move away from it, the time between each photons hitting your retina increases. (Because relative to you, each photon is slowing down. Kinda like running in the rain, you get more rain in your face when you run towards the rain than if you run backwards) Frequency is exactly that: Wave crests per time. The time between each wave crest hitting you will increase as you move faster away from it.
Planets? You mean the gassy and rocky worlds that we first started detecting as recent as 1992? Not using the remnants of the plasma from 300,000 years after the Big Bang we now recognize as the CMB, galaxies created 700 million years after the Big Bang pictured in the HXDF, and the GOODS? Tell me more!Blitzfrog wrote:
As I just said, space does not stretch photons. The reason the expansion of the universe is linked with redshifting is because we figured out and calculated the expansion of the universe based on the redshifting of planets.
So... Mars is moving away from us. Gotcha.Blitzfrog wrote:
It's not that space "stretching" the photons/light. It is that we see redshifts everywhere, therefore we conclude planets are moving away from us. Rewind the redshift and we get a big bang.
The spaghettifying process is due to ever collapsing space, or some analogy of it, no?Blitzfrog wrote:
Now space within the black hole isn't ever collapsing. To an external observer, anywhere inside the event horizon is strictly the same in all properties. To an internal observer - I would assume it would be the normal, spaghettifying process. (You might see Serraionga in there) Although I do not know, and I doubt we will find out anytime sooner.
Basically what I mean to say.Blitzfrog wrote:
Now I know what you mean by "infinitely redshifting". It's not that light is getting "stretched to infinity", but rather think of it like this. Due to the distortion of spacetime, the geodesics of spacetime within a blackhole means light has to travel and infinite distance to reach us (Or for that matter, anywhere outside of the event horizon), therefore an infinite red-shift.
I meant to say "energy". Energy has no mass. My mistake.Blitzfrog wrote:
Now the "mass" of the blackhole, like I said, does not exist. It is of no use to refer to blackholes as a massive object. There is no time, no space in there.
Rather, it is a collection of event, hence the name event horizon.That's like saying a building is a collection of builds, hence the name building. You can't justify a name for what it is much like you can't justify Greenland and Iceland for what they are. Even if something is named "black hole", you can't justify that it is black because it is named "black hole". You can only justify it is named "black hole" because it is black. Bad argument is bad.
Makes sense.Blitzfrog wrote:
Now think of the entire universe as a whole sum. The sum of all quantum probability (which is the quantum states of any fermions) must be one. This means disaster if even a single one is destroyed. I've never seen a total of 90% in probability before.
Matter matter matter >.<) Why I said mass I have no ideaBlitzfrog wrote:
The first part of the sentence is scientifically inaccurate, and strictly speaking, wrong
You cannot convert mass to energy, in fact, there is no such thing as mass. Mass is not an intrinsic property of the universe - Energy is. Mass is a property that energy exhibit. It's the same as inertia and mass. You cannot convert inertia to mass, it's a property of mass. When Einstein wrote e^2 = (mc^2)^2 + (pc)^2, (or the familiar e=mc^2 when there is no momentum), it was this idea that made him so famous. In fact, you can read his paper here. In short, all the mass you have been "weighing" your entire life was the total amount of kinetic and potential energies of your fermions. This is also the reason why at atomic levels, some molecules as a whole weighs less than its individual parts.
I'll ignore the mass part since I meant matter/energy. Now the light would be stretched by the curvature of space inside a black hole, though in slightly different circumstances than the last light trying to escape from a black hole. The last light trying to escape from a black hole is light emitted from a super heated object falling into the black hole. The light past the event horizon from a moving internal observer appears to be stretched more and more towards the singularity from its source due to the constant increase of curvature in spacetime as you traveling to that point. Though let me correct myself on the stationary observer. If you remain stationary, somehow, then you are no longer moving at or greater than the speed of light in the black hole. You would be subject to usual causality with non reversed spacetime. I am not sure what the formulas would work out to, but there is reason to believe that the light would be close to what it originally was if the redshift due to curvature of space at whatever spot you decide to stop at and the rate of collapse balance out. If they don't balance out, then there is something more going on in the blackhole that we don't know about.Blitzfrog wrote:
As to your light problem: If truly it was space, collapsing light, making it redshifted, it could also mean that if in fact an observer was able to remain stationary momentarily in blackholes, he would see incredibly high frequency light to the point of infinity as the light is being collapsed into him. And by your criteria, mean infinite mass which we obviously know is impossible.
Then you tell me what is a virtual particle and why it is not the same thing that splits into matter and antimatter near the event horizon of a black hole.Blitzfrog wrote:
Rather big difference between describing and actual reality
Check aboveBlitzfrog wrote:
Check above
Wait. Why is it with the addition of blackholes, it exceeds beyond the penrose diagram, and why is it not really mathematically correct to just work outside of the penrose diagram?Blitzfrog wrote:
I was describing it. Also, penrose diagram is just convenient due to having a permanent light at x=y. Problem about this is, with the addition of blackholes, it exceeds beyond the graph, and it is not really mathematically correct to just work outside of graphs. We often describe blackholes using the traditional x y z graph
Hence why it is just travel in some direction from the sourceBlitzfrog wrote:
Centre of attraction always exists in the warping of spacetime. It is just the most "warped" place, which to the internal observer, yes, is the singularity. But once he crosses the blackhole, mathematically speaking, there is no particular spacetime he can assign a singularity to.
Check above^^^^^^^^^^^Blitzfrog wrote:
Check above^^^^^^^^^^^
It's a condition to which a photon outside the event horizon at plank distance. It might as well be considered to be stuck thereBlitzfrog wrote:
I'm confused.
Yes light follows a straight path which we can see curved due to curvature of spacetime. Effectively, we see the light being curved by spacetime though it is not. Is it politically correct to say we "see the curvature of spacetime" instead?Blitzfrog wrote:
Neither is that correct, it is just the path which light follows. The constant speed straight line from the light's frames of reference
Ok no mass we established that. There are two things all things that fall into the black hole have: Energy and momentum. Guess what happens to energy and momentum beyond the event horizon? Well since space, the thing that allows energy, and time, the thing that allows momentum get reversed, so do the components.Blitzfrog wrote:
It is a mathematical model, a prescribed reality. There is no mass within the blackhole because given by Einstein's equation, the total energy accounts to 0. Nothing was in the black hole nor will ever be. It's an ideal blackhole, eternal and stationary. Now this is a mathematical model, like you said, should be considered when describing any reality. Which means blackholes in reality don't have mass.
Blitzfrog wrote:
Just saying, this works when I replace 0 with infinity as well
infinity x 1 = infinity
infinity x 2 = infinity
Infinity x 1 = Infinity x 2
Funny enough, dividing both sides by infinity results in weird stuff
Either way, I propose there is no such thing as 0. In fact, all our lives we have been dealing with infinitesimal.
Sorry, who your mom is falls under factual information I told myself a long time ago and long since forgotten.Blitzfrog wrote:
YOU LIAR, YOU KNEW WHERE WHO MY MOM IS
YOU KNEW WHERE I WAS ALL THIS TIME
SCREW YOU IN THE BLACKHOLE DAD
Chocolate spaghetti? What even is that shit.iSlodinx wrote:
ok i go eat chocolate spaghetti
ask serrai thats his idea xD_SkyFall wrote:
Chocolate spaghetti? What even is that shit.iSlodinx wrote:
ok i go eat chocolate spaghetti
Oh, I see. That's.. uh.. fine, I guess.iSlodinx wrote:
ask serrai thats his idea xD
You cheeky little liar, I never said such a thing.iSlodinx wrote:
ask serrai thats his idea xD_SkyFall wrote:
Chocolate spaghetti? What even is that shit.
plot twist.Serraionga wrote:
You cheeky little liar, I never said such a thing.
I will join only if it's "pasta alla carbonara".iSlodinx wrote:
and yeah make sure to make it so tasty and i will eat chocolate spaghetti with u serrai ^-^
Yes and that too [:_SkyFall wrote:
I will join only if it's "pasta alla carbonara".iSlodinx wrote:
and yeah make sure to make it so tasty and i will eat chocolate spaghetti with u serrai ^-^
Then count me in.iSlodinx wrote:
Yes and that too [:
This guys knows.M3ATL0V3R wrote:
Chocolate spaghetti is not real spaghetti
It is chocolate is disguise do not be fooled by its spaghetti shape
True spaghetti goodness does not need an overly sweet coating
to much chocolate inside me xD jkRyoid wrote:
Chocolate spaghett?
This is getting weirder and weirder
well, you can say that againiSlodinx wrote:
to much chocolate inside me xD jkRyoid wrote:
Chocolate spaghett?
This is getting weirder and weirder
Serraoinga approves.Ryoid wrote:
I prefer normal spaghetti with bolognese sauce tho
Best regards,_SkyFall wrote:
Serraoinga
Γ(0)/0silmarilen wrote:
Now what is (-1)! ?