IT

jatslo · Mar 2, 2005

E = MC ² represents an unproven theory that demonstrates that energy and mass are equal when infinite mass is multiplied by C ². The fact that this particular metaphor exhibits theoretical properties still, just goes to show that humanity still cannot accurately measure the true speed of light. For example, let us say that E is representative of infinite energy, and that M is representative of infinite mass. How can the speed of light be anything but infinite speed? The fact of the matter; we will never know. Like science is the place between science fiction, and logic, where mathematics is tool. How can E = MC ² be a tool when part of the E = MC ² equation represents science fiction. For example, science fiction plus science fiction equals more science fiction, but because Albert Einstein’s E = MC ² equation is mostly right, then any science fiction that imamates from E = MC ² must also be mostly right. I would like to go on the record, and state that the cosmic speed limit is, in fact, infinite speed. I can substantiate this theory with Isaac Newton’s Law of Gravity, where Newton suggests that, if God were to instantly pluck the Earth’s Sun from the Milky Way, the Earth will immediately leave orbit, and Albert Einstein’s E = MC ². Einstein suggests that E = MC ² will delay the Earth’s reaction to the absence of The Earth’s Sun. The fact of the matter suggests that Einstein’s E = MC ² places limitations, whereas Newton’s Law does not. For this reason, I would also like to go on the record, and state that E = MC ² represents humanities point in space-time, and E = MC ² is not representative of points in space-time that are of greater mass the Earth’s Solar System. For example, E = MC ² will not apply to a region of lowered pressure, that is so great, that humanity refers to these points as black holes. I was having a discussion with some individuals regarding the definition of infinity, in which I stated that “–Infinity + Infinity = 0”, whereas my

jatslo · Mar 2, 2005

-infinity + infinity = IT

kmarinas86 · Mar 2, 2005

http://uplink.space.com/dosearch.php?Cat=&Forum=All_Forums&Words=multiverse%20theory&Match=Entire%20Phrase&Searchpage=0&Limit=50&Old=allposts

larper · Mar 2, 2005

<blockquote>In reply to:<hr />E = MC ² represents an unproven theory that demonstrates that energy and mass are equal when infinite mass is multiplied by C ².<hr /></blockquote> Your first sentence is in error. I stopped reading after that. Take a class. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> Vote Libertarian </div>

qzzq · Mar 2, 2005

jatslo, I honestly don't know where to start. I think you've written the first post ever where I don't agree with a single sentence. Bravo! As for IT...it usually comes dressed as a clown. <img src="/images/icons/crazy.gif" /> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> *** </div>

yevaud · Mar 2, 2005

Ignore him. He's [ad-hominum deleted] and also [ad-hominum deleted]. Not to mention [ad-hominum deleted], and his science knowledge is [ad-hominum deleted]. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> Differential Diagnosis: "I am both amused and annoyed that you think I should be less stubborn than you are." </div>

qzzq · Mar 2, 2005

Something tells me you don't like him. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> *** </div>

yevaud · Mar 2, 2005

He has the scientific abilities of a handball. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> Differential Diagnosis: "I am both amused and annoyed that you think I should be less stubborn than you are." </div>

jatslo · Mar 2, 2005

I just banged it out, sort of a rough, rough draft. Sorry I messed up Einstein's equation so soon.

kmarinas86 · Mar 2, 2005

..

.......

.....

....

.......

..

........

.

........

.

.......

..

......

...

....

.....

...

......

..

.......

.

........

.

........

.

........

..

.......

.....

....

.......

..

........

.

........

.

.......

..

......

...

....

.....

...

......

..

.......

.

........

.

........

.

........

/safety_wrapper>

glutomoto · Mar 3, 2005

Hi kmarinas86, Nice phi phenomena. <img src="/images/icons/smile.gif" /> Perception Links <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>

jatslo · Mar 3, 2005

I did not realize you had so many unification and perception threads to your credit. Great Job! ---Jatslo

newtonian · Mar 3, 2005

jatslo - Sorry some here were hostile to your post. You made many errors in your post, as others have pointed out. However you brought up many interesting points. I will ignore some of the errors temporarily for the sake of brevity. Are you a scientologist (sp?)? Yes, relativity is a theory. It works quite well locally. It does not explain acceleration of expansion of our universe. Some feel that this is caused by gravity leaking in from other dimensions as in string theory, that other dimensions are the source of gravity, and that this is also the source of acceleration of expansion. That greatly complicates Einstein's space-time which in turn complicated Newton's simpler description of gravity. Infinity is often misunderstood by many. Few realize that there are many types of infinity with their own intrinsic definitions. Infinities can also involve different units so that adding infinity + infinity cannot be done accurately without first addressing the ratios of the different units. The same is true of multiplying or dividing infinities. This can be very complex and beyond current mathematicians to solve, or it could be so simple a child with basic math could solve it. It all depends on the specific infinities involved and their respective definitions. For a simple example: Our universe will expand for an infinity of future time that can be expressed in different units, i.e. infinity with a specific definition and using a specific unit. Simply, our universe will expand a positive (+) infinity of seconds, call this infinity A. Our universe will expand a positive infinity of minutes, call this infinity B. Now divide infinity A by infinity B. The result is 60. Very simple math. The need to accurately define a specific infinity and to accurately state its math ratio to some other number including possibly another specific infinity is obvious i

yevaud · Mar 3, 2005

Newtonian: It's not so much that "some of us are hostile to his ideas." So far, either he comes up with ideas that are so far out there to not even be metaphysics, or he just cut and pastes someone's articles - and then gets them dead wrong. Saiph and I both tried to speak reason to him and he just kept getting stranger. That's all. Done, peaked, cooked, fried. Fini. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> Differential Diagnosis: "I am both amused and annoyed that you think I should be less stubborn than you are." </div>

jatslo · Mar 3, 2005

No, I am not a scientologist. I am suggesting that we utilize scientology or something like it to focus the world on one point in space-time. “How did we get here? “And” How can we stay here?” Humanity will eventually return to “IT”, and it does not have to be this way. I know how to stop “IT”. For our children’s sake, lets just do it! I will not succumb to “The KINGS of STRIFE”, I simply shrug their remarks away; however, I can also beat most of them at their own game, for I have mastered STRIFE, just like I have mastered INFINITY. --- Jatslo

newtonian · Mar 3, 2005

jatslo - Why do you suggest we utilize scientology? The Bible explains how we got here and how we can stay here. The former is simple, Jehovah created our universe, our earth and life on it, including the original human pair, Adam and Eve. However, we personally got there because of our parents sexual union. It depends on how far back you go in the scientific chain of cause and effect and which details you zero in on. The latter, how we can stay here, is somewhat complex, but here is one simple example: The Bible warns that our Creator will bring to ruin those ruining the earth - at Revelation 11:18. We must therefore stop ruining the earth if we want to stay here on earth. I assume by here you mean on planet earth? Who are the kings of strife to which you refer, and why do you so capitalize the letters? Satan and his demons are the kings of strife - I do encourage you not to succumb to them. Or are you alluding to posters here who have persecuted you for your ideas posted? If you have mastered infinity, then please respond to my post concerning infinities.

yevaud · Mar 3, 2005

Not persecution...exasperation. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> Differential Diagnosis: "I am both amused and annoyed that you think I should be less stubborn than you are." </div>

Saiph · Mar 3, 2005

I think I'll just work on the first paragraph: <blockquote>In reply to:<hr />E = MC ² represents an unproven theory that demonstrates that energy and mass are equal when infinite mass is multiplied by C ². <hr /></blockquote> False. E = MC ² is an empirically and analytically confirmed expression that demonstrates that matter can be converted into energy, much the same way ice can be converted into liquid water. <blockquote>In reply to:<hr />The fact that this particular metaphor exhibits theoretical properties still, just goes to show that humanity still cannot accurately measure the true speed of light. <hr /></blockquote> We've told you before, there are many, many ways of accurately measuring the speed of light to a very high precision. <blockquote>In reply to:<hr />For example, let us say that E is representative of infinite energy, and that M is representative of infinite mass. How can the speed of light be anything but infinite speed? <hr /></blockquote> Well, it's simple. Infinity*x where "x" is any number you wish, still equals infinity. So if E is infinity, and M is infinity, the speed of light can be any number you like, finite or infinite. Now, the fact is E is not infinity, it is a finite number, as is mass. This equation says that you can take any finite mass and multiply by the speed of light squared. This will give you the amount of energy that can be liberated by converting the mass to energy. This is the basis of nuclear fusion and fission, where 4 hydrogen atoms combine to create a helium atom. The helium atom has a smaller mass than the sum of the 4 hydrogens used to create it. If you take the difference in mass (basically the mass "lost") and run it through E = MC ², you get precisely the amount of energy liberated by the process. <blockquote>In reply to</blockquote> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> --------------------SaiphMOD@gmail.com -------------------"This is my Timey Wimey Detector. Goes "bing" when there's stuff. It also fries eggs at 30 paces, wether you want it to or not actually. I've learned to stay away from hens: It's not pretty when they blow" -- The Tenth Doctor, "Blink" </div>

heyscottie · Mar 3, 2005

Wow. I guess I'll have to start looking for a new career -- now that the speed of light is infinite, there's no way I can make GPS work! That's too bad, really. It'll be a shame when my kids start starving to death due to my inability to work as a GPS engineer, but it's all in the name of the inevitable march of science. Thank you, jastlo, for alerting me to these facts, so I can at least start getting my resumes out to local Burger Kings before the rest of the GPS engineers around here do. There will certainly be no call for our current services anymore! Scott

jatslo · Mar 3, 2005

How much time is left? ---Jatslo

jatslo · Mar 3, 2005

Tell yours kids that everything is going to be okay. You can control the speed ;o) --- Jatslo, AKA Scott

jatslo · Mar 3, 2005

Well, it's simple. Infinity*x where "x" is any number you wish, still equals infinity. So if E is infinity, and M is infinity, the speed of light can be any number you like, finite of infinite. Yes, including Infinity ;o) I am glad we cleared that up.

Saiph · Mar 3, 2005

except you state that C must have an infinite value, which isn't true. And if it is infinite, having a finite mass can be transformed into an infinite amount of energy, which is not observed. A finite amount of mass is observed to transform into a finite amount of energy, thus C must be finite. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> --------------------SaiphMOD@gmail.com -------------------"This is my Timey Wimey Detector. Goes "bing" when there's stuff. It also fries eggs at 30 paces, wether you want it to or not actually. I've learned to stay away from hens: It's not pretty when they blow" -- The Tenth Doctor, "Blink" </div>

jatslo · Mar 3, 2005

That depends on the size of the mass, I said infinite mass*infinite speed = infinte energy, because (infinte speed)(infinite speed) = {infinte speed} This is what you said, except I think you stated energy as finite or something. ---Jatslo

Saiph · Mar 3, 2005

right, which is a huge restriction, and dictated by observation. If energy is finite, both mass and "c" must be of finite size. And they are all observed to be finite. So suppose all you want. If you assume otherwise (that any one of those quantities is infinite) then your result will not be relevant to reality. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> --------------------SaiphMOD@gmail.com -------------------"This is my Timey Wimey Detector. Goes "bing" when there's stuff. It also fries eggs at 30 paces, wether you want it to or not actually. I've learned to stay away from hens: It's not pretty when they blow" -- The Tenth Doctor, "Blink" </div>

IT

jatslo

Guest

jatslo

Guest

kmarinas86

Guest

larper

Guest

qzzq

Guest

yevaud

Guest

qzzq

Guest

yevaud

Guest

jatslo

Guest

kmarinas86

Guest

glutomoto

Guest

jatslo

Guest

newtonian

Guest

yevaud

Guest

jatslo

Guest

newtonian

Guest

yevaud

Guest

Saiph

Guest

heyscottie

Guest

jatslo

Guest

jatslo

Guest

jatslo

Guest

Saiph

Guest

jatslo

Guest

Saiph

Guest

Similar threads

TRENDING THREADS

Latest posts

Moderators online

Share this page