Just stupid! The things people believe!

[olicon]

Awww, no one's biting. Usually when you say that on the Internet someone comes along and says "No way! Their differnt numbers! OMG!!!!!!11" Oh well. Maybe Australia's just more civil. How ironic.

EDIT: By the way, it is not a theory, it is a theorem. Math deals with universal truths.

Why are saying Australia is more civil, this sight caters to a pretty global audiance, and I think the actual magizine is based in North America. This sight just seems to attract more intellectual people.

If you want to really drive people crazy try and explain either wave-paritcal duality, or that the speed of light in a vacume is constant no matter how fast you moving and that time will warp to keep it that way, aka the basic premise for special relativity.

Hmm? It's a theorem? If so, then please point me to it so I can reeducate myself and also be able to point others to it as well.
By the way, have you ever heard of the guy who proved that all mathematical methods (not even theorem--that is based on what we considered is mathematical theorems/conjectures/methods/ASSUMPTIONS cannot be formally proven and hence not the "universal truth"? That one, I can look up for you. (Might take a while though. My prof was the one that mentioned it).

 

[Fire Daemon]

the probability that something like the Law of Gravity is wrong is so negligibly small that it would be more likely for everyone on Earth to suddenly become completely and incurably insane.

How exactly do you work that out?

I find it hard to believe that people believe that fossils and other similar remains are hoaxs carried out by scientists to fuel their scientific arguments. I just don't think that anyone has the ability to plant fake dinosaur remains in the ground.

 

[Ultrajoe]

Best Pickup line ever.

Don't be an asymptote... lets touch.

 

[SeaCalMaster]

the probability that something like the Law of Gravity is wrong is so negligibly small that it would be more likely for everyone on Earth to suddenly become completely and incurably insane.

How exactly do you work that out?

Basic probability statistics. Basically, it all has to do with normal distributions. Admittedly, because of the data involved, the calculations rely on approximations, but the difference is quite a large one.

 

[Ultrajoe]

Awww, no one's biting. Usually when you say that on the Internet someone comes along and says "No way! Their differnt numbers! OMG!!!!!!11" Oh well. Maybe Australia's just more civil. How ironic.

EDIT: By the way, it is not a theory, it is a theorem. Math deals with universal truths.

Why are saying Australia is more civil, this sight caters to a pretty global audiance, and I think the actual magizine is based in North America. This sight just seems to attract more intellectual people.

If you want to really drive people crazy try and explain either wave-paritcal duality, or that the speed of light in a vacume is constant no matter how fast you moving and that time will warp to keep it that way, aka the basic premise for special relativity.

I always thought it was Australian based.

But i could be wrong, and i often am.

I find all science a bit weird, but i have faith that its only a little wacky as we have ways to go before we really understand the universe.

 

[chaostheory]

Oh noes, more 0.9bar = 1 again?
Mathematically speaking, it's not. Practically speaking, it is.
Bringing infinitesimal and calculus only allow you to throw out something if it IS zero. That is, math works a bit like circular logic (just like a lot of physics)--that is, you allow something to go to 0 or infinity because that produce the expected result, not because it is true. If you want to stick with calculus though, try looking up "asymptotes". Now do a 1/n, where n->infinity. There you go, something that is infinitely close to 0, and yet is not 0.

I set up a new co-ordinate plane with .9bar as my x-axis essentially making it become zero which then defines 1 as an infinite number of zeros followed by a 1 or one over infinity. Since zero equalls 1 over infinity, at least in the pratical sense, when I redifine my x-axis .9bar equalls 1. A lot of my habits for solving calculus problems come from working on physics problems, so my answers are normally on the pratical side and my methodology can be much difrent from standard mathamatics.

 

[chaostheory]

the probability that something like the Law of Gravity is wrong is so negligibly small that it would be more likely for everyone on Earth to suddenly become completely and incurably insane.

How exactly do you work that out?

Basic probability statistics. Basically, it all has to do with normal distributions. Admittedly, because of the data involved, the calculations rely on approximations, but the difference is quite a large one.

Actually Newton's Universal Law of Gravity is wrong, our current theory of gravity is genral relativity. Newton's Universal Law of Gravity fails to incorperate light and assumes all changes in gravity will effect everything instantaniously rather than spreading out from the point of origen at the speed od light. We do still use it in our calculations because the mathamatics behnd it are easier to solve than genral relativity and they are close enough to the actual numbers to be practical for almost any given aplication.

 

[olicon]

Oh noes, more 0.9bar = 1 again?
Mathematically speaking, it's not. Practically speaking, it is.
Bringing infinitesimal and calculus only allow you to throw out something if it IS zero. That is, math works a bit like circular logic (just like a lot of physics)--that is, you allow something to go to 0 or infinity because that produce the expected result, not because it is true. If you want to stick with calculus though, try looking up "asymptotes". Now do a 1/n, where n->infinity. There you go, something that is infinitely close to 0, and yet is not 0.

I set up a new co-ordinate plane with .9bar as my x-axis essentially making it become zero which then defines 1 as an infinite number of zeros followed by a 1 or one over infinity. Since zero equalls 1 over infinity, at least in the pratical sense, when I redifine my x-axis .9bar equalls 1. A lot of my habits for solving calculus problems come from working on physics problems, so my answers are normally on the pratical side and my methodology can be much difrent from standard mathamatics.

I too, am a Physics student. But that is why you MUST know where estimating begins. (Moreso if you are an engineer). In Physics class, we go so far as saying 2 order of magnitude between friends. Know what that means? It means you can be off by 100 times, but we'll consider it perfectly OK, since your estimate is practical enough.

If you have any mathematical analysis classes, you would know that drawing with a dotted line means entirely different thing than a solid line. It's the same difference between at least/most (never hitting the value) and equal to or greater/less than. In fact, they're so different, they invent an entirely different symbol to represent it, no?

If you are not satisfied, I'll invoke the epsilon prove for you. Pick a number--.9bar, as far as you can. I'll always be able to pick a number that is between your number and 1, thus proving that .9bar is NOT 1.

 

[SeaCalMaster]

the probability that something like the Law of Gravity is wrong is so negligibly small that it would be more likely for everyone on Earth to suddenly become completely and incurably insane.

How exactly do you work that out?

Basic probability statistics. Basically, it all has to do with normal distributions. Admittedly, because of the data involved, the calculations rely on approximations, but the difference is quite a large one.

Actually, Newton's Universal Law of Gravity is wrong; our current theory of gravity is general relativity. Newton's Universal Law of Gravity fails to incorporate light and assumes all changes in gravity will effect everything instantaneously rather than spreading out from the point of origin at the speed of light. We do still use it in our calculations because the mathematics behind it are easier to solve than general relativity and they are close enough to the actual numbers to be practical for almost any given application.

I know. When I referred to the Law of Gravity, I meant the concept in general and not Newton's laws in particular.

 

[fat american]

They actually banned a Looney Tunes episode called "Duck Dodgers" because it implied that Nuclear weapons could destroy the world.
Political correctness, and all.

Did you know just 20 nuclear warheads exploding in a close time-frame can kill the entire human race? Its very believable in my opinion. not from them exploding but the debris thrown up in the air unless its air-burst could block out the sun, killing the plants. which in turns fills the world with the dangerous gases we spew from respiration. And oxygen would then be sucked up with no exchange for more.

There's enough nukes in the base in my town to destroy the world more then once then since we're getting updated ones. They have NO LESS than 16 in them (the actual amount is classified but still).

Edit:Realized what I was saying was a bit confusing but each missile has a warhead and each warhead has more than 16 nuclear explosives. That means we have enough to destroy a country with one missile because each nuclear explosive seperates when the missile is in orbit and they all hit seperate targets.

Edit:I can't believe it's still civilized. I mentioned in page one that this was an intelligent discussion and no flaming was going on yet but on page five it's still civilized. Even when it turned into a religious debate everyone was still civilized about everyting. Man I love the escapist.

 

[SeaCalMaster]

If you are not satisfied, I'll invoke the epsilon prove for you. Pick a number--.9bar, as far as you can. I'll always be able to pick a number that is between your number and 1, thus proving that .9bar is NOT 1.

I'm a math student, and it is equal to 1. Sorry.
The problem with your statement is that you're assuming that the process stops somewhere. If there is a terminal nine, then you can find a number that is between .9bar and 1. However, if there is no terminal nine, then the difference between the two numbers becomes zero and the two numbers are equal. There are a lot of different proofs of this; the best one involves sigma notation. I'll post one if you really want it.

 

[Tiut]

Awww, no one's biting. Usually when you say that on the Internet someone comes along and says "No way! Their differnt numbers! OMG!!!!!!11" Oh well. Maybe Australia's just more civil. How ironic.

EDIT: By the way, it is not a theory, it is a theorem. Math deals with universal truths.

I was going to try that, but seeing as how this topic has become very serious business, I decided against it.

Theory? Theorem? You stoopid! They r same thing! STFU, n00b!

 

[fat american]

It seems that some people think global warning is what's up for debate. Whether or not it's happening has been proven, every scientist agrees the temperature has gone up. What's up for debate is what's causing it and if we have something to do with it. I'm a fan of it's just a normal cycle and an ice age is what's next since we're over due for one. I don't think it's a bad idea to stop polluting I just don't think it's the cause of global warming.

 

[Ultrajoe]

It seems that some people think global warning is what's up for debate. Whether or not it's happening has been proven, every scientist agrees the temperature has gone up. What's up for debate is what's causing it and if we have something to do with it. I'm a fan of it's just a normal cycle and an ice age is what's next since we're over due for one. I don't think it's a bad idea to stop polluting I just don't think it's the cause of global warming.

i agree with this man.

natural cycle has a lot more going for it then the concept of our actions disrupting something as colossal as the planet.

 

[PurpleRain]

It seems that some people think global warning is what's up for debate. Whether or not it's happening has been proven, every scientist agrees the temperature has gone up. What's up for debate is what's causing it and if we have something to do with it. I'm a fan of it's just a normal cycle and an ice age is what's next since we're over due for one. I don't think it's a bad idea to stop polluting I just don't think it's the cause of global warming.

i agree with this man.

natural cycle has a lot more going for it then the concept of our actions disrupting something as colossal as the planet.

What other animal produces a massive amount of carbon gases other then humans? With that said, it's been proven that thoses gases have an effect on the atmosphere. Also, if you believe in the entire natural cycle thing, isn't this next one coming around a bit faster then the previous? Where did Occam put his razor?

 

[Kikosemmek]

I believe Sherlock Holmes (or someone like that) said it best, "From the astrologer we got the astronomer, from the alchemist we got the chemist. Magics of yesterday are the sciences of today." (paraphrased)

When I consider this, it seems quite incorrect. Ancient civilizations which anthropomorphized or romanticized the movement of celestial bodies had also been studying them. If anything, I'd say that astronomy and astrology in this case went hand-in-hand, or that astronomy predated astrology. Studying numerous astrological legends, one can easily make a connection between an astrological figure and its corresponding celestial body, where the astrological record would usually closely follow astronomical observation of said body.

Before alchemy there was chemistry. Chemistry can be observed in the human record as the first purification and casting of iron into steel; herbal medicine; extracting silicon from sand to produce glass or to use while smelting various tools, making them more flexible; early-day napalm (Greek fire); Chinese fireworks. Chemistry was a practical science before alchemy was really at its peak, as a legend in Medieval Europe claiming knowledge of how to convert base metals into gold, concoct a youth-drink or some magical cure.

No, it was alchemy that was inspired by chemistry, if you ask me.

I believe it to be a trend that humans would adopt practical, scientifically sound methods of technology first, and then philosophize or attempt to explain a phenomenon with stories or hypotheses, both ordinary and supernatural. It is only during the scientific movement that I ever learned that humans stopped running their mouths, spinning bullshit to explain everything around them. It is science to exclude the supernatural and claim that nothing is illogical or inexplicable.

About .9bar: .9999...-ad infinitum equals 1, but not if it does not equal to infinity.

That is, something infinitely close to one is by literal definition equal to one. Theoretically, nothing exists which is immeasurable. If anything is infinitely close to something, it is that thing. No one can pick a number between .9999...-ad infinitum and 1, because no one can measure, conceive, or imagine such a small number that is infinitely small, characterizing that difference between the aforementioned number forms.

They are practically and literally the same thing. It is not illogical to say that we can calculate the value of pi to whatever decimal place that is sufficient, but it seems we may never be able to calculate it to the infinite decimal place, though our methods and accuracy of measurement would improve on and on.

Science (and mathematics is a science) is about accuracy and precision, not about exactness.

 

[FangsFirst]

You know what? I think this thread needs more arguments. So, without further ado,

0.999.... (i.e. stretching off into infinity) is exactly equal to 1.

Discuss.

1/3= .3333 (ad infinitum)
2/3= .6666 (ad infinitum)

.3333etc + .6666etc = .9999etc.
1/3 + 2/3 = 1
.999etc = 1
QED!

 

[Ultrajoe]

It seems that some people think global warning is what's up for debate. Whether or not it's happening has been proven, every scientist agrees the temperature has gone up. What's up for debate is what's causing it and if we have something to do with it. I'm a fan of it's just a normal cycle and an ice age is what's next since we're over due for one. I don't think it's a bad idea to stop polluting I just don't think it's the cause of global warming.

i agree with this man.

natural cycle has a lot more going for it then the concept of our actions disrupting something as colossal as the planet.

What other animal produces a massive amount of carbon gases other then humans? With that said, it's been proven that thoses gases have an effect on the atmosphere. Also, if you believe in the entire natural cycle thing, isn't this next one coming around a bit faster then the previous? Where did Occam put his razor?

no, we are overdue for an upheaval of our climate, and as such, what goes up must come down... so to speak, the speed of the change is influenced by the amount of time it has been put off.

 

[PurpleRain]

It seems that some people think global warning is what's up for debate. Whether or not it's happening has been proven, every scientist agrees the temperature has gone up. What's up for debate is what's causing it and if we have something to do with it. I'm a fan of it's just a normal cycle and an ice age is what's next since we're over due for one. I don't think it's a bad idea to stop polluting I just don't think it's the cause of global warming.

i agree with this man.

natural cycle has a lot more going for it then the concept of our actions disrupting something as colossal as the planet.

What other animal produces a massive amount of carbon gases other then humans? With that said, it's been proven that thoses gases have an effect on the atmosphere. Also, if you believe in the entire natural cycle thing, isn't this next one coming around a bit faster then the previous? Where did Occam put his razor?

no, we are overdue for an upheaval of our climate, and as such, what goes up must come down... so to speak, the speed of the change is influenced by the amount of time it has been put off.

Hmm, I haven't read to far into this so I'll take your word. You still have to agree that it is scary the amount of pollution that's damaging this world. Even things like deforestation and overpopulation has ongoing and deadly effects. As humans, we started it, I think we should change at least attempt to fix it regardless of the future predictions.

 

[Ultrajoe]

It seems that some people think global warning is what's up for debate. Whether or not it's happening has been proven, every scientist agrees the temperature has gone up. What's up for debate is what's causing it and if we have something to do with it. I'm a fan of it's just a normal cycle and an ice age is what's next since we're over due for one. I don't think it's a bad idea to stop polluting I just don't think it's the cause of global warming.

i agree with this man.

natural cycle has a lot more going for it then the concept of our actions disrupting something as colossal as the planet.

What other animal produces a massive amount of carbon gases other then humans? With that said, it's been proven that thoses gases have an effect on the atmosphere. Also, if you believe in the entire natural cycle thing, isn't this next one coming around a bit faster then the previous? Where did Occam put his razor?

no, we are overdue for an upheaval of our climate, and as such, what goes up must come down... so to speak, the speed of the change is influenced by the amount of time it has been put off.

Hmm, I haven't read to far into this so I'll take your word. You still have to agree that it is scary the amount of pollution that's damaging this world. Even things like deforestation and overpopulation has ongoing and deadly effects. As humans, we started it, I think we should change at least attempt to fix it regardless of the future predictions.

oh i agree, i think we should lower emissions no matter what the outcome, stop logging and preserve the planet, we need to do something about global warming for sure.

I just don't think we are the cause, but in either case we need to be the solution.