Well, you can say that again
forum
Why I cannot divide by 0
posted
Total Posts
203
Since we are talking about food I will contribute to this thread by staying on topic, I ate a hodog from a new, and the only one Ikea. It totaly was not worth it
Where is Siberia????????????????????iSlodinx wrote:
OH SHIT ANOTHER SERBIAN GUY
IN UR ANAL SHIT U DUMB FUCKuuuu wrote:
Where is Siberia????????????????????iSlodinx wrote:
OH SHIT ANOTHER SERBIAN GUY
yeah, ikea's hotdogs are shituuuu wrote:
I ate a hodog from a new, and the only one Ikea. It totaly was not worth it
it's your only option when there's nothing better
well look who's back
no
Uni did lock the QUALITY THREAD but not this one. smh.
because this thread is the real quality thread_SkyFall wrote:
Uni did lock the QUALITY THREAD but not this one. smh.
I am still waiting Blitzfrog to counter me
Let's see what happens. If something actually happens.abraker wrote:
I am still waiting Blitzfrog to counter me
The title should be changed to "Why I cannot divide by Blitzfrog"
i nagged blitz about it he says he'll write one up this week
I believe that as much as I believe he will give the geometry solution he oweskai99 wrote:
i nagged blitz about it he says he'll write one up this week
my god that's so old how are you still remembering thisabraker wrote:
I believe that as much as I believe he will give the geometry solution he oweskai99 wrote:
i nagged blitz about it he says he'll write one up this week
noiSlodinx wrote:
yesM3ATL0V3R wrote:
no
I remember everything but anything before I was 4, details of everyday common routines, sequence of any type of things, factual information I don't actively use, and my actions or thoughts just before another thought invades my mindkai99 wrote:
my god that's so old how are you still remembering this
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. 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^2abraker wrote:
That said, because of the impossible observations of the matter at and beyond the event horizon, we need to rely on such mathematics and possible interpretations. Such interpretations can be then tested via simulations and studied to determine whether there are any effects that may imply the denial or validity of interpretation. So to say that is not what happens inside a blackhole is might be right or wrong, but we do not know, so I would avoid stating that as an absolute fact.
Given this fact, the only reason why time and space would be swapped is to preserve causality (s).
What is there to stop me, in a black hole, to say that causality is reversed?
Honestly I cannot argue with you at this point because 1)This is beyond the scope of my knowledge and 2)I do not believe physics has answers to this either
Yes, in shortabraker wrote:
That is somewhat correct, but so to speak, the wavelength gets longer.
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.abraker wrote:
Yes, it's all relative. You are passing through the EM field faster or slower, causing you to move through the oscillations faster or slower, causing the photon have the effects described.
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. 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.abraker wrote:
Now that we have self corrected ourselves that space redshifts the photon and the photon doesn't stretch on its own, the point of the first paragraph is to establish that the space in a black hole is ever collapsing, and therefore infinitely redshifts any photon that falls into it into the sub-infra range. However, this is not time dependent from an outside observer. It has no meaning to an outside observer other than the wave still exists in there, hense mass, just redshifted beyond proportions. To an inside stationary observer, the wave's oscillations would pass as space stretches it.
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.
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. 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.
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.abraker wrote:
Just say that it that the sum of all quantum probabilities need to be 1.0 or else there is a problem. It ensures that the information related to the wavefunction exists somewhere in the universe and is not destroyed.
The first part of the sentence is scientifically inaccurate, and strictly speaking, wrongabraker wrote:
All of the mass will need to be converted to energy in form of waves as this happens. And just to be clear, it's not the speed at which the matter falls in that rips it in such way, but the acceleration of space stretching that does.
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.
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.
This part gets to string theory, which is beyond my knowledge. But either way, this is basically saying that the information stored by any fermion is being preserved at the event horizon, and never enters the blackhole.abraker wrote:
The particle-waves get redshifted inwards by ever accelerating stretching of space toward a direction, but it gets stretched from the event horizon and never leaves it.
Rather big difference between describing and actual realityabraker wrote:
Even Hawking described it as the result of "virtual pairs of particles". See: https://projecteuclid.org/download/pdf_ ... 1103899181 page 202
To quote:As the mass of the black hole decreased, the area of the event horizon would
have to go down, thus violating the law that, classically, the area cannot decrease
[7, 12]. This violation must, presumably, be caused by a flux of negative energy
across the event horizon which balances the positive energy flux emitted to
infinity. One might picture this negative energy flux in the following way. Just
outside the event horizon there will be virtual pairs of particles, one with negative
energy and one with positive energy. The negative particle is in a region which
is classically forbidden but it can tunnel through the event horizon to the region
inside the black hole where the Killing vector which represents time translations
is spacelike. In this region the particle can exist as a real particle with a timelike
momentum vector even though its energy relative to infinity as measured by the
time translation Killing vector is negative. The other particle of the pair, having
a positive energy, can escape to infinity where it constitutes a part of the thermal
emission described above. The probability of the negative energy particle tunnelling
through the horizon is governed by the surface gravity K since this quantity
measures the gradient of the magnitude of the Killing vector or, in other words,
how fast the Killing vector is becoming spacelike.
Check aboveabraker wrote:
Fields are still subject to spacetime inside a blackhole, but like I said the role reverses - time becomes space and space becomes time.
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 graphabraker wrote:
First, look up the Penrose Diagram. It's pointless to think of space in a blackhole in terms of a Cartesian plane. Second, yea nothing is "attracted" in a blackhole. Nothing is "attracted" in everyday spaetime either. The sun doesn't attract the planets, the sun bends spacetime which planets follow. That said, there is energy inside the blackhole bending spacetime, causing it to stretch in, causing more stretching of spacetime, stretching it, and so on.
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.abraker wrote:
But you are thinking about it as an external observer where a centre of attraction does exist. As an internal observer, the center of attraction is the future of the wave. Space and time reversed, so whatever the centre was, it is the future, and what ever the future was, it is the space the wave gets redshifted throughout.
abraker wrote:
Yes that's what I am trying to say, there is a "singularity" for which everything is moving towards, but it keep moving towards that point indefinitely. Not a deleted sequence, but infinitely redshifted. Imagine the wave's frequency being 10^-100000000000 HZ but less and less as time goes on. Whatever portion we can say has such frequency is the portion just starting to cross the even horizon. It still exists, but not as anything recognizable.
Check above^^^^^^^^^^^abraker wrote:
But what is making it redshifted if not the sucking effect of the warped spacetime? It crossed the event horizon because where else would that information flow to? It needs to follow the curved spacetime regardless of whether we can see what becomes of it where nothing escapes or not.
I'm confused.abraker wrote:
As we observe the particle get redshifted towards blackness and time slows to a near halt, it becomes "stuck" on the event horizon.
Neither is that correct, it is just the path which light follows. The constant speed straight line from the light's frames of referenceabraker wrote:
Yes. I am trying to avoid the term "stretching wave" and using the terms "stretched spacetime" and "redshifting".
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.abraker wrote:
The universe is never empty due to quantum fluctuations. When dark energy causes spacetime expansion to accelerate above a certain rate, just like near a black hole, the virtual particles would separate into matter-antimatter pairs. This would ignite the universe in a spectacular heat death akin to the big bang.
Baby my ass don't liesilmarilen wrote:
You're talking out of your ass
Just saying, this works when I replace 0 with infinity as wellabraker wrote:
M3ATL0V3R wrote:
So by following this trend if you divide by zero you either get positive infinity or negative infinity depending on whether you approach zero using negative or positive numbers. However is it possible to have negative zero and positive zero? Are they not the same thing?
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.
YOU LIAR, YOU KNEW WHERE WHO MY MOM ISabraker wrote:
I remember everything but anything before I was 4, details of everyday common routines, sequence of any type of things, factual information I don't actively use, and my actions or thoughts just before another thought invades my mindkai99 wrote:
my god that's so old how are you still remembering this
YOU KNEW WHERE I WAS ALL THIS TIME
SCREW YOU IN THE BLACKHOLE DAD
Also, for you proof, I was working on it. It just takes too long to construct all those things perfectly to actually visualise things and I cbb computing it. I'll do it within 3 months
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.
HOLY SHIT THAT JUST BLEW MY MIND
also my life has been a lie
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
e.g
1 cat plus 1 cat = 2 cats
1 dog plus 1 dog = 2 dogs
dog = cat
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
But rather 0/0 is infinity/infinity
(Which is nonsense btw)
Look at it this way:
infinity x 1 = infinity
Dividing both sides by infinity
So 1 = infinity/infinity
And using same logic:
infinity x 2 = infinity
2 = infinity/infinity
Similarly:
0 x 1 = 0
0 x 2 = 0
So 1 = 0/0
And 2 = 0/0
So I can say 1 = 0/0 = infinity/infinity
And 2 = 0/0 = infinity/infinity
And thereby I can say 0/0 = infinity/infinity
Using cats and dogs for example
If cat + 1 = 0
And Dog + 1 = 0
Then Cat + 1 = Dog + 1
Which means Cat = Dog