Which is precisely why physicists HATE singularities. There shouldn't BE a big fat double-helix looking back at you when considering gravity and mass...and yet all the calculations for all the physics we as humans understand all break down once you get within a certain distance of a singularity.OrokuSaki said:
What would you call it, if not a trick? What word denotes exactly what that piece of maths is? I don't know. It's not relevant anyway. And that age was plucked out of the air too.burningdragoon said:
It's one of those falsehoods you tell so that people don't get confused when you start going into Set Theory, Game Theory and d2x/dy2. Aleph sets are cardinality of infinite sets, so they don't naturally occur.Lukeje said:
From what I can tell, the terminology has changed somewhat. My Maths training was back in the early 90s; pre-Windows 3.1. We had the three bar equals as equivalent, but it seems the approximation (curved upper bar) has taken over. (BODMAS to us was Brackets Over, not Brackets Operand)
I think your terminology is very confused. The cardinality (i.e. number of elements in the set) is aleph[sub]1[/sub]. And please stop using buzzwords that have nothing to do with the topic at hand (i.e. game theory and the reference to calculus); they do nothing but muddy your posts in irrelevance.The_root_of_all_evil said:
Again, that has nothing to do with the topic at hand.
This is gibberish.
Then stop reading. I've tried to explain, but your rudeness - once again - seems to overide your critical thinking.Lukeje said:
Well I guess I was more speaking towards the "designed" part of what you said not so much the "trick" part. Or rather, 0.9 repeating being equal to 1 is not a trick on it's own, but it is being presented as such. Like 'tricking' people by saying a tomato is a fruit even though it is used more like a vegetable. Or something I dunno.someonehairy-ish said:
So I think I have a limited understanding here, you're saying that the gravity of the black hole is only infinite in the center, and that it somehow becomes weaker the farther away from it you are?randomsix said:
Ahhh ok I see what you mean. I meant 'trick' more in the sense of... a bike trick or something? A trick in the sense of a minor feat, rather than trick in the sense of intentionally mislead.burningdragoon said:
Personally I'd like to consider this topic as a "sense of humor check". And while a varying degree of a lack of sense of humor has been displayed by various people taking my OP and the title of this topic too seriously, it seems as though one person has gone so far as to threaten me with an admin report. So we'll see if I get to hang around or if I might be taking a leave of absence here in a bit...though this being my first offense, maybe they'll just stick me on probation if the charges stick.
I believe you are confusing gravity with mass, when you should be considering the gravitational field. The gravitational field is described by the equation M/(R^2). Consider any nonzero value for the mass M.OrokuSaki said:
I'm not, I simply had to assume that that was what you meant by finite and infinite. If you'd said infinitely recurring decimals, that would be a different matter. But the "infinitely" is superfluous, as "recurring decimal" means the same thing. Anyway, whatever they are, you can still multiply them to your heart's content.The_root_of_all_evil said:
A recurring decimal is not an approximation, is rational and can therefore be drawn on a number line just like any other rational number. It's got nothing to do with infinity.
1. undefined
It's also got nothing to do with asymptotes or limits.
Interesting, let us try that again.RJ 17 said:
Heh, I feel sorry for your ignorance. I spend a lot of my time building equipment to send a high energy radiation beam at a target with the express intent of CREATING an electron/positron pair. Ever heard of E=mc[sup]2[/sup]? Yeah you can use energy to create Matter.RJ 17 said:
Last time I checked, CONVERTING energy into matter wasn't "creating matter". The phrase "creating matter" implies that you just wave a magic wand and *POOF!* out pops some matter. Of course E = MC[sup]2[/sup] proves that energy can be converted into matter and vice-versa, however you cannot take nothing and from that nothing create something. Hence the phrase: "Matter cannot be created nor destroyed." You can convert matter into energy, but you're not "destroying" it.cookyy2k said:
Not quite. That's more wave-particle duality and the electron only pretends to be in many places at once. Tricky little things. Take your eyes off them for a moment and they're bouncing off walls.RJ 17 said:
