Jump to content
Goodbye Jesus

*warning Newb*mathematics Irrelevant To God's Existence *warning Newb*


JamesG

Recommended Posts

I just read the original topic.I always assumed it would be something "smart" about probabilities of life and creationism but this Wendytwitch.gif  dividing by zero and  calculating with infinity in that way breaks my heart. his arguments are like: "3*infinity=5*infinity, now divide by infinity so we get 3=5"Wendybanghead.gif

but like bhim and hihat already said, there is no point in the assumption that the theological "infinite" can be understood as some kind of mathematical measure. I wish I had been here when the Original topic started. ^^

lol...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The reason I supported some of Nat's ideas, mainly the idea that he might be on the right track, was because when I pushed calculus through divisions by zero I got models I could use for almost everything, including sorting the fuck out of language and religions.  Since I'm only a civilian scientist I haven't ever had to develop it further than I did, but as an artist it's been a source of inspiration.

 

Basically when you divide by zero, you cancel out numbers and go to constructs.  From constructs we organize.  Wash, rinse, repeat.  

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Voice, you can't divide by zero.  This means about as much as making a spherical triangle.  I think it's important to point out here that from a mathematical standpoint, Nat's arguments had no merit whatsoever.  They weren't even partly correct.  I don't see that there's anything to gain from speaking about them as if they're worthy of consideration, because they aren't.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

We don't have to talk about Nat's arguments.

 

That's why I like this operation so much, that you can take it anywhere. That's why it works to unify fields. It's like a period where you can start a new sentence to say more and develop your ideas.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

When you can take a thing anywhere it becomes about being responsible. With power comes responsibility, triangles to circles; circles to triangles; singularities to quantification, religion to order. War tools... It's what you make it.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

What we make it.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

We can, Bhim, we have to. We won't move forward otherwise.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Sorry, but I don't want to move forward with respect to Nat's argument.  That's about as productive as moving forward on a discussion about whether the earth is flat or the sky is purple.  These are arguments that simply aren't worth having.

 

Again, I must insist that Nat's arguments have no merit whatsoever.  They aren't worth my time even considering.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Bhim, I'm not referring to Nat's arguments, unless I am and don't know it. If I am, would someone please point that out. I'm talking ambiguously about when/where it might be appropriate to divide by zero, why you might do it, what you could do with it; ambiguous, like an old school Microsoft manual that tells you every amazing thing you can do with Windows while never telling you how. We're talking about the same thing, modeling reality.

I'm an artist and so my applications of this operation are sometimes less practical and more inspirational; but I can attribute my unaccredited contribution to the discovery of dark flow to working with the operation. In that case I was looking at spectra, occurrences of red shift that folded around and over other occurrences of red shift, by anywhere between 9 and 23 orders of magnitude each time. starting with ourselves as a reference point, I counted 4 times that the observable universe did this until I got to the dark flow region. I tried to take it nano as well, but didn't spend much time on that. It goes to UV when you go that way. Dividing by zero was useful at modeling these scales, or folds with single expressions, or statements, one to the next. At the time I was thinking of it as modeling breaking of the light barrier.

 

I'm trying to come up with something really cool to show you that will not only impress you, but also make you want to try it yourself. Everything I have is older, 10 years, best served on eraser board. Just ways to build structures from divisions by zero, structures that define and integrate things. It's like writing sentences with math frameworks. The operation itself usually serves as a period, and capitol letters to start the new sentences. In this format you can organize most real, imaginary, extra-dimensional things. This is what I mean by moving forward. Just doing this.

 

Have you read Dr. James Anderson's proofs? I saw them in a virtual lecture, it was maybe 20 pages. I bootlegged images of it but can't just post it up, it's copyrighted, and it helps to have his discussion, which I don't have. The proofs are legit. One section concerned computing. When he programmed a processor which originally was programmed to reject the operation, to accept and perform division by zero he was able to increase its performance significantly. I can't explain how, but he can.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I have no doubt that your mathematical models can explain a lot of things. However you still run into the problem of my original post your using math to describe something that you have constructed out of your head. It doesn't matter if god is infinite or not. If god exists as 2 in my head and I right down 1+1=2 as proof of god what have I proven?

 

Your assigning characteristics to god and working your math around it. I agree if any language could describe god it is math. However, in your circumstance all you are doing is using numbers to prove your confirmation bias by creating a god in your head and your own custom tailored mathematical models that fit the attributes you assign to it. If you are trying to say the universe is god and that math proves the universe/multiverse is god why do we even assign god to it is it even necessary? why add complexity where it does not exist?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

James, if you are talking to me, I believe you've confused me with someone else. I'm not defining God at all, or trying to, or arguing such things. Please look again at what I've done with calculations.

You are correct about obscuring the functionality of math, however, when divisions by zero are involved. You cancel out numbers when you divide by zero. I suppose many will argue that it's not math at all. Once again, I'll point to the operation's usefulness in field unification, providing intersection where mathematical and non-mathematical concepts meet.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I see where I got confused "concepts of God, appears in its framework" I read the rest of your posts with this in mind.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I would agree that division by zero is a good analogy for God. wink.png Just plain incoherent.

 

Dividing zero by zero is a good analogy for Christian apologetics. Anything goes, which is to say that nothing means anything.

 

I'm with Bhim all the way.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I would agree that division by zero is a good analogy for God. wink.png Just plain incoherent.

 

Dividing zero by zero is a good analogy for Christian apologetics. Anything goes, which is to say that nothing means anything.

 

I'm with Bhim all the way.

 

I think you got it Ricky.  lol.  Open mic.  More, please.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I would agree that division by zero is a good analogy for God. wink.png Just plain incoherent.

 

Dividing zero by zero is a good analogy for Christian apologetics. Anything goes, which is to say that nothing means anything.

 

I'm with Bhim all the way.

 

I'm glad to hear someone takes the side of reason.

 

I must say that I feel like I'm entertaining the idea of a flat earth or a pink sky. The moment anyone so much as entertains the possibility of division by zero, it suggests to me that there's not much more meaningful dialog to be had.  What are we going to do next?  Take solipsism as an initial assumption in our discussion?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'll try to find something Dr. Anderson has published to show you a practical, real-world application.  He got to it in the field of computing.  I would send you the images I bootlegged from his lecture in IM, if you care to see, which include some pages on the computing part, but only if you care to see them.  There are quite a few.  I don't want to waste the time if you would just blow it off.  I'm not sure what he has available for the public or if anyone else has published anything other than in text books in use in the UK.  They're teaching it in schools now.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

http://www.bbc.co.uk/berkshire/content/articles/2006/12/06/divide_zero_feature.shtml

 

Some actual values are shown here

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/James_Anderson_(computer_scientist)

 

And there's the number "nullity" which I've failed to mention until now.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Well Voice, respectfully I'm going to have to tell you the same thing I told Nat.  I'm not going to watch any videos or read articles that purport pseudoscience anymore than I would if they came from a Christian creationist.  I imagine you could find hundreds or even thousands of Internet articles claiming that division by zero is possible, and it would still contradict basic concepts that every mathematician knows to be true and prescribes for teaching in classrooms (we're talking grade school here).  At the end of the day, I don't have time to read all the articles you could send me, so I'm simply not going to read any of them.

 

Of course I can't stop you from believing and saying what you want, nor do I want to do so.  What I can tell you is that if you ever try to publish an article on this in any reputable mathematical journal, you will be immediately shot down by the reviewers.  That's the beauty of science: it's not a democracy, and people must necessarily agree with each other or be aware that someone is wrong.  Scientists are not closed-minded.  "Crazy" ideas like relativity and quantum mechanics have been accepted in place of conventional wisdom.  But if someone consistently submits papers with erroneous claims, they will eventually not be taken seriously, and the debate will not continue in perpetuity.  This is why I feel confident in saying that division by zero is simply not possible regardless of whatever articles or videos you ask me to consume.

 

If you have a peer-reviewed journal article that speaks to the contrary, I'm all ears and will happily recind my previous statements.  Otherwise, I'm not sure what you want me to do.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'm disappointed, but I understand.  I'm finished raving about it.  

I believe Dr. Anderson's proofs will find their way to you again by some other way, since they are being taught in grade school classrooms now, and they are gaining acceptance.  When they do find you again, please review them.  

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Voice its a mathematical law that you can not divide by zero bhim is right on this.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I understand that.

 

And actually I was mistaken before, I never did divide by zero for cosmological calcs.  I wanted to; I tried to.  What happened is I would sum up clusters of galaxies and try to find cluster cores that had broken the light barrier.  I just kept finding bigger red-shift folds that wrapped around everything I'd just summed, folds with magnitudes of their own, deeper into red than any of the individual galaxies.  From what I could log, everything remained within limits of special relativity, no breaking of the light barrier that I could prove.  Just measurements in depths of red shift magnitude.  What I saw was that galaxy clusters create their own collective pockets of red shift unique to them.  Those pockets are dynamic and intense in areas now charted as dark flow regions.  I was mapping those.  This probably isn't even the right thread to be talking about this, except that I wanted to divide by zero to do those calcs, and didn't have to.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I understand that.

 

And actually I was mistaken before, I never did divide by zero for cosmological calcs.  I wanted to; I tried to.  What happened is I would sum up clusters of galaxies and try to find cluster cores that had broken the light barrier.  I just kept finding bigger red-shift folds that wrapped around everything I'd just summed, folds with magnitudes of their own, deeper into red than any of the individual galaxies.  From what I could log, everything remained within limits of special relativity, no breaking of the light barrier that I could prove.  Just measurements in depths of red shift magnitude.  What I saw was that galaxy clusters create their own collective pockets of red shift unique to them.  Those pockets are dynamic and intense in areas now charted as dark flow regions.  I was mapping those.  This probably isn't even the right thread to be talking about this, except that I wanted to divide by zero to do those calcs, and didn't have to.

 

This makes no sense to me.

 

And if statements about galactic clusters make no sense to an astrophysicist, maybe you should consider that you are speaking nonsense? I don't say this to demean you, but pseudoscience is very harmful in this day and age, when we already have to deal with the lies of evangelical Christians concerning science.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Fair enough.  I'm an artist, Bhim, and I'm bi-polar, fucking wacked.  The whole purpose of that red shift study was so that I could learn to paint stars realistically.  Underlying I'm sure was the grand delusion that it would earn me a Nobel Prize.  How I reached that goal (painting stars realistically) probably is nonsense to astrophysicists like yourself, but it  made sense to me, it still does, and now I can paint stars realistically.  Obviously I'm not able to explain to you what I observed in any way you can understand, but when you see the paintings, I expect you will say, "hey, that guy's pretty good."  Other astronomers have been tricked by some of the paintings, they asked what kind of telescope I used.  There was one painting that I posted already, in the thread where I flew off about dark flow, where Stryper posted the maps and mentioned it, and then I posted mine right after.  I don't remember which thread it was now.  Was it the original thread Nat posted?  I did that mosaic the year I made these observations.  The "folds" I'm talking about are prisms like what you see around a camp fire, violets and white at the center, reds spanning out and shifting deeper the further they go.  The Milky Way creates its own prism, seen there if you know how to look for it.  Clusters of galaxies do the same thing, but the reds are way deeper.  You're probably not understanding what I mean by folds.

 

The next time I become overexcited and go off ranting nonsense about some phenomenon that you know more about than me, do me a favor and ask, "hey, Voice, have you seen your mental health physician today?"  It turns out this topic triggered the manic side of a manic-depressive episode which the clinic felt was serious enough to warrant an emergency consultation and an experimental med.   The depressive side of it came from somewhere else.  I do want to thank you (and James, and everyone else who just didn't say anything at all) for treating me respectfully.  That can't be easy.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

well that clears things up quite a bit voice. Sorry about having to go through an emergency consultation. I understand a bit about bi-polar smile.png some of my good friend have been bi-polar.  I am also an artist. Do you think you could link your paintings?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

By using this site, you agree to our Guidelines.