Anonymous 10-27-2010 Someone posted this question at BAUT. The question is whether 0.999… (that is, the number represented by an infinite stream of the digit 9 after the decimal point) is exactly equal to one. Not close, not good enough for government work, but exact.

Kicklabuka 8-21-2015 Sigma is quite commutative. When there’s a lot of independent chores, you do them in your own order.

Anonymous 8-21-2015 You are in a lot of confusion here,

You are actually talking about the sequence 0.9,0.99,0.999,0.9999,…

The terms in the sequence approach the value 1, with each term being different.That’s completely different to the number 0.999… itself that is equal to 1.

Anonymous 8-21-2015 Sigma is not commutative. Commutativity fails for conditionally convergent series. (See Riemann Series Theorem — from Wolfram MathWorld). It is commutative for absolutely convergent series though (that’s easy to prove).

All literal decimal numbers are equivalent to an absolutely convergent series. So you can sum the “terms” in any order you wish.

Kicklabuka 8-21-2015 I was actually talking about the sum of the series, 0.0009 + 0.9 + 0.009 + 0.09 + …

Anonymous Then write it as a sum not as a number.

Kicklabuka 8-21-2015 0.999… is a process, not a number. In fact, it is a different number every time you look at it, more and more on the verge of the number 1. There’s a long thread dedicated to it.

Anonymous 8-21-2015 0.999… is not a process but a result of a process, which is a number.

Its the same number every time I look at it, that number being 1.

Anonymous 8-21-2015 It’s a number, a rational number which is equal to 1 every time you look at it from every angle.

Kicklabuka 8-21-2015 You’re assuming it’s already been summed up.

Anonymous 8-21-2015 Numbers do not need to be processed, they are. As a result of definitions. We describe their properties and what they do.

0.999… is a decimal number with unending decimals. Thus a RATIONAL number. A process may reach that number but you don’t need one to create it.

Anonymous 8-21-2015 Are you claiming all numbers are summed up each time you use them ?

Kicklabuka 8-21-2015 Now you’re talking about measurement. Yes, common core. You read the large graduations, then add or subtract to the nearest small graduation, then estimate the last placeholder between the smallest graduation. That is the process of a sum.

Anonymous 8-21-2015 0.999… is a number. A number does not have to be a sum.

Kicklabuka 8-21-2015 If you intend to write any portion of it, you have to pick which decimal to display first.

Anonymous 8-21-2015 That portion is just another number.

Kicklabuka 8-21-2015 Yes, as opposed to a process. Each term of that process is a number. Each time you look at a group of numbers, it’s a number. Collectively it’s the verge of 1, but it takes a closed session in time to be a number.

Anonymous 8-21-2015 No, numbers requires nothing of the sort. No process at all required. To describe 0.999… You need:

The sets N and Q and decimal representation.

The definition: A rational number in decimal representation has an ending decimal pattern or an unending repeating decimal pattern.

This can be PROVEN using long division.Now you can use the 10x process to PROVE

0.999… = 1.

Kicklabuka 8-21-2015 So a process (division), whose end is closed in time, is your proof that another process (0.999…) is not closed into a number every time you read it? Each reading into a number fails to capture the whole process. 0.999… is not a number. It is made up of never enough of them. Since we don’t have forever, we close in time.

Anonymous 8-21-2015 It is not closed in time this is a misconception. You have to distinguish between logical and physical processes.

“An infinite task can be performed if there are no logical obstacles.”

If you do the long division 1/3 it doesn’t take long to realise that the result is unending decimals, so you can use logic to complete it to 0.333…

Kicklabuka 8-21-2015 The logical obstacle is that the neverending story is full of make believe. You either close a process in time, or you close it by finishing the nth term as a function of time.

Anonymous And again numbers are NOT processes

Kicklabuka 8-21-2015 Yes, saying a process is a number is a mistake. Processes are composed of numbers, but go on notwithstanding. Although, I’ve been drinking and don’t read books.

Anonymous 8-21-2015 Let me recommend a good book to bring you into modern mathematics :

Oxford university press

Discrete mathematics

Norman L BiggsThis is an excellent book, covering the foundation of the modern system of numbers. This is what we use in the real world…read it.

Then we can discuss make beliefs .

kicklabuka 8-21-2015 I could refute myself if I began to read. I see. Anyway, I don’t need permission from a math book to make statements about numbers.

Anonymous 8-21-2015 Agreed, but you should state that your position is different from that of the main stream since that is what is discussed. In that case it’s all well. If you claim it to be blunt facts you will just appear ignorant. And being able to change ones position is an excellent charactistic.

Kicklabuka 8-21-2015 I don’t know any better. I look forward to the knowledge I can acquire from you, hopefully not a whole book at a time.

Anonymous 8-21-2015 you know a lot of post in these threads can be considered garbage. But it has forced me to go back to my books and that has an enjoyable experience. If you are truly interested, get a few, you won’t regret it.

Anonymous 8-21-2015 0.999… is not a process. It can be considered to be the output or result of a completed infinite process.

0.999… is a constant, it is not changing with time (say).

Kicklabuka 8-21-2015 OK, how long does it take to write out, to the point where you stop writing and it doesn’t change further in time.

Anonymous 8-21-2015 No 0.999… is a number in itself and not a process.

Kicklabuka 8-21-2015 a number is either the closure of a process in time, or a closure by finishing the nth term as a function of time.

Anonymous 8-21-2015 You just made that up. Please provide a link to a reputable site, even Wiki (as that’s got good math stuff).

Kicklabuka 8-21-2015 How could I possibly have experts who agree with me and had websites built in the nine hours I was passed out? Writing a number takes time. What’s there to reinforce? if you didn’t believe it by myself, why would you suddenly believe it when someone else agrees?

Anonymous What’s the time it takes to write (the decimal representation of) a number got to do with the nature of the abstract idea of a number.

We’re not talking about the written string “0.999…” or how we could create it, we are talking about the value that that string represents. We are talking about the number 1.

Kicklabuka 8-21-2015 All I’m saying is numbers are made up of processes. Whether it’s measuring a value, or writing it down. 0.999… is a process with no end. It only becomes a number when it is closed. 0.999… doesn’t represent a value until it is stopped. It approaches one its whole life. We can only hope to approach the number, to converge on it, not represent it.

Anonymous 8-21-2015 No the result of such process may be a number. The number itself is not.

Anonymous 8-21-2015 What process is the number 1?

Kicklabuka 8-21-2015 It’s a short 45° line to the top, then a straight down line to the base, which is itself a short line horizontally. This is a process to arrive at the number 1.

Anonymous 8-21-2015 For the purpose of argument, I’ll accept that 0.999… is the result of a completed process. The process has stopped. It took 0 time to run – in fact it executed outside of time.

Kicklabuka 8-21-2015 Do you have it written on a rubber stamp? Even then, you’d have to get the thing wet and move your arm before you could turn in any completed drawing. How big is this stamp?

Anonymous 8-21-2015 What has that got to do with the abstract idea of the number 1?

Anonymous 8-21-2015 The intermediate results can be written as the sequence: 0.9, 0.99, 0.999, … The sequence I approaching 0.999… as you move from left to write. 0.999… is the limit of that sequence.

Further (9+1)*0.999… = 9.999…

wrong. you get one less decimal to keep the n significant digits. You’re actually rounding that last bit already.

=> 9*0.999… + 0.999… = 9 + 0.999…

^wrong. 9*0.999 + 0.999 = 9 + 0.990

=> 9*0.999… = 9

=> 0.999… = 1

^wrong. 9*0.999 + 0.009 = 9

0.999 + 0.001 = 1

Anonymous 8-21-2015 Are you saying that 1 is approaching 1?

Kicklabuka 8-21-2015 Only while it’s being formulated.

What is √2 = 1.414… approaching?

Kicklabuka 8-21-2015 1.414… is a process that approaches the activity of root 2. The two processes are equal, but only one can be written. The process can stop anytime you like, but as soon as you do, they are not equal.

Anonymous 8-21-2015 Root 2 is not a process, it’s a number. 1.414… is just an indication of the decimal representation of root 2. A number is not it’s decimal representation as a string of digits. A number doesn’t have a length.

Kicklabuka 8-21-2015 They reoccur, but in the process of mulitplication on step 1, you’re left with n-1 significant digits. 0.999 has three. 9*0.999 = 9.99, which is three as well, but with one less decimal. Infinity minus one is not still infinity, but at least infinity minus one does still approach infinity. It’s just slightly less significant.

Anonymous 8-21-2015 I haven’t seen enough of your posts to know if you’re pulling my leg or not.

Kicklabuka 8-21-2015 I might be having a little fun at your expense.

Anonymous 8-21-2015 Tell me more about the creation of 1.

Kicklabuka 8-21-2015 Well you see, in Switzerland they use a cursive lower case “L” to write the one. It’s a continuous process so I imagine they’re neutral on the whole thing.

Anonymous How about 2.

Kicklabuka 8-21-2015 I write it with a loop, that makes sure to cross the original line so it doesn’t look partial.

Anonymous 8-21-2015 It’s not at my expense. I can’t recall what your other posts are like. Someone new here would think that your are an idiot based on the last few.

Anonymous 8-21-2015 No wonder you need time.

Anonymous 8-21-2015 infinity – 1 = infinity

We can demonstrate this with a simple bijection between the sets:

A = {2,3,4,5,6,….} and B = {1,2,3,4,5,6,…}The bijection being: 2<->1, 3<->2, 4<->3,….

The point is that 10 * 0.999…. = 9.999… has the same amount of 9’s after the decimal point as does 0.999…

Kicklabuka 8-21-2015 Infinity and infinity minus one enter a foot race. Who gets to the finish line first?

Anonymous Depends, no runner gets exactly the same time in every race.

Either of them could finish first, although since neither has legs, I don’t think there would be a winner.

Time doesn’t start when each runner goes, it starts when the gun went off.

Anonymous None of them will reach the finish line.

I understand. It’s quite a long race, but before you shut off your tv, somebody’s in the lead. l’Hopital describes that in analyzing differentiation convergence.

Anonymous I think I might be able to answer the question better if its posed mathematically instead of as a sports question.

Say you have x^2 and x^3. As x goes to infinity, x^3 leads greater than 1. They both converge on infinity, but you can differentiate in order to see the leader. 2x and 3x^2 approach infinity, with 2x trailing. Analyze 2 and 6x as x goes to infinity. 2 doesn’t move a muscle and 6x pulls away into infinity. It got there first.

Differentiation can describe the whole race. As it approached, x^3 pulled away from x^2 at a speed of 6x. If you don’t believe in infinity, then you can stop and measure whenever you like after it’s greater than one, and you have your leader.

Anonymous Okay but you were talking about infinity and infinity – 1 in a race.

They are numbers, not functions.

Kicklabuka 8-21-2015 Infinity minus one is a function. We are looking for convergence as n-1 goes to infinity. So n, and n-1 are both functions. I don’t know what a bijection is. My guess is when a plane pilot ejects with his copilot? I’m way out of my league.

John Gabriel A bijection is nothing remarkable. It short it is a pairing or correspondence between the elements of any set with a subset of the Natural numbers. In fact, most idiots in mythmatics don’t understand what is a bijection. In truth, Cantor discovered a bijection because he realised that ALL the elements of the set of natural numbers have ‘names’. In other words, they can be identified distinctly by their radix representation which is the name. See my 5 part series on Cantor.

The nutjobs colin-java and seib simply learn the rules. They have ZERO understanding. So because the set of natural numbers has distinct objects, we say it is countable and any set that can be indexed by the natural numbers is also countable. The mythological set of real numbers can not be counted for two reasons: they don’t exist and therefore can also not be indexed. However, our delusional Cantor believed they could be identified by decimal strings. This is a false too because non-terminating radix representation is a symptom of fractions that can’t be represented in a given base.

In truth, even the natural numbers are not countable because they cannot ALL be listed. I was under the impression they were because of Cantor’s paring function, but Prof. Mueckenheim (mathematics lecturer in Bavaria (Augsburg University), Germany) convinced me that no set is countable.

Anonymous Infinitesimals aren’t real numbers,

Sirjection! (a respectful protest)

(9+1)*0.999…9 = 9.999…0

9*0.999…9 + 0.999…9 = 9 + 0.999…0

9*0.999…9 + 0.000…9 = 9

0.999…9 + 0.000…1 = 1

so, 0.999…9 =/= 1

Anonymous 5-29-2016 Here’s a diagram of John Gabriel’s characterization of the derivative (using Analytic Geometry):

explaining what is wrong with John’s definition of slope:

When one takes the “derivative” of a straight line y = Ax + c, one eliminates the “c”, (so that dy/dx = A) which is essentially the constant component in the “rise” dimension. Including the component “m” in the “run” dimension is the same as including it in the “x”, which means that the equation of the “line” is given by “y = A(x) + m + c”; since A is a constant, where “m” is along the “run” axis .

Note that x, y, m, and c are “lengths” defined by the origin at (0,0)

Taking the “derivative” of this then becomes dy/dx = y’ = A, which is only consistent with that of a straight line if m = 0 as well as c, since it eliminates the similar component in the “run”, so the “triangle” formed by the “run”, “rise”, and secant line shrinks similarly as the limit is taken in the definition of the derivative…. so that the rate of change (A) remains consistent with the definition of derivative in the limit as the secant line approaches the tangent at the point in question (x) ….

Jon Gabriel is wrong because he simply does not understand Analytic Geometry and the equation of a straight line in two-dimensions; the flat Cartesian coordinate system.

“Stretching” the x or y axis by including m (or c) removes the similarity of the shrinking triangles over the “infinitesimal” range in which the coordinates are Cartesian, and the space “gauge” is changed. In physics, this means that space-time is no longer “inertial” (the speed of light changes). Einstein interpreted this as a gravitational effect.

there is much confusion in thinking that space-time applies to Special Relativistic inertial frames. If c is a constant, them either changing xv or tv causes a change in , but does not change the underlying coordinate system so that v and c are still well defined. This means that the space-time coordinate system is unchanged for c considered a universal constant; all velocity world lines remain straight. In QFT, this means that rest masses are preserved in indistinguishable particles, which means that coordinate systems really do not apply once is established.

The coordinate “stretching” occurs in GTR (i.e., “curvature”) in which constant v/c ()) no longer obtains, and is replaced by Christoffel symbols (covariant differentiation), which are “acceleration” due to this “stretching”, and are dependent on the change in the underlying geometry as curved manifolds.

So the question relating to John’s mistake (the “stretching” of the x axis due to m) is actually deep. The conventional definition of derivative implies the constancy of c , and deviation from it implies either god, gravity, or at least something different from electromagnetism (photons) …

That is why h->0 (i.e., m = 0, n -> 0) is the foundation of classical physics up until GTR, in which the analysis includes “generalized coordinates” in space-time, and not just Lagrangian coordinates (inertial frames)..

(and why if the universe is expanding, god (I.e., the stuff you don’t know about. The secular call it “dark” energy/matter) … (and some of them – well, me anyway – say that this stuff is light-on-light interaction over vast distances, since it is not Dopper (in the case of Red Shift, but a change in the energy of light as photons, not “waves” (i.e., h)))….

TRUST me …

Kicklabuka 5-29-2016 So there’s lines (curves) connecting the overlapping triangles and that is time dependent? Then john has something to say. Thanks for teaching me that analysis.

Anonymous 5-29-2016No, it is not that John has anything to say (that is correct) , but that many others have said much, much more (correctly), for a very,very long time….

Differential Geometry

Kicklabuka 5-29-2016 Thanks again. It makes me want to talk to professor john Gabriel again.

Anonymous 5-24-2016: From the point of view of abstract algebra, division by 0 makes no sense because does not exist in .

Anonymous 5-25-2016: It is not that it doesn’t exist, but that x’ = 0 = x/y , for x,y = 0 can’t be defined as the midpoint (at x = 0) of all possible lengths x in the binary pair (x,y) which defines the Cartesian coordinate system (division is only a partially binary operation)

For multiplication x’ =x*0, x can have any value whatever, so it is x’ that is undefined except as the midpoint x’ = 0 of all possible lengths x on the the number line.

But it may be that your perspective is axiomatic, mine is geometric – but it is geometry that is essential to the definition and interpretation of the derivative.

Anonymous 5-24-2016: Still Greek to me. Can someone else interpret this?

Anonymous 5-25-2016 “In three-dimensional space, the dot product contrasts with the cross product of two vectors, which produces a pseudovector as the result. The dot product is directly related to the cosine of the angle between two vectors in Euclidean space of any number of dimensions”

Kicklabuka 5-25-2016 Zero is so important that it requires three equations in three dimensions just to point it out. Try looking at it in one dimension as you circle it and then tell me zero is null.

Anonymous 5-25-2016 What do you mean? Are you saying three dimensions are needed to explain the concept of zero and its properties?

Kicklabuka 5-26-2016 First, where is zero? Second, is it still there? Third, what is happening there? That’s five dimensions.

Anonymous 5-25-2016 If someone else can see what the issue is here that I’m not getting, please let me know (since apparently I’m ignorant of analytic geometry). The formula (f(x+n)-f(x-m))/(m+n) calculates slope just fine using a secant line. Don’t you see that this formula comes from calculating delta y and delta x between the points (x+n,f(x+n)) and (x-m,f(x-m))?

Kicklabuka 5-26-2016 That’s assuming you know y as a function of x. When all we really have are data points, defining the curve to arrive at the slope isn’t so easy…or so accurate. Accuracy matters at high speeds, if you’re looking at math from an engineering point of view. Consider the curve of an electron flying around a nucleus. Very fast. Nothing but data points and fragments of information.

Anonymous 5-26-2016 So quantum mechanics is all there is, unless god is involved…

Ow! I just got a neutrino in my eye…

Kicklabuka 5-26-2016 Religion isn’t required if you think like an electron. God is there as a moral compass when people don’t have one. Electrons are very differential about the matter. Hehe.

Anonymous 5-26-2016 Where and when are zero? Now, those words can indeed be strung together into a sentence in the English language, but is it a meaningful question? Does it conceivably have an answer?

Kicklabuka 5-26-2016 Where is at x=0, y=0, z=0, when is at t=T, and what’s happening is a matter of perception. Anonymous thinks undefined is happening, while I posit zero is differential–a long boring equation relating x,y,z,t that reduces to zero carefully so as not to be nullified.

Anonymous 5-26-2016 For zero as the midpoint of all possible lengths (distances) (x + (- x)) = 0 in [R], the concept of [+-infinity] does not apply, since it doesn’t represent a unique length.

Therefore, it cannot not a member of the set [R]

Anonymous 5-26-2016 “undefined is happening”, “zero is a differential”, and “nullified”.

I have no idea what those phrases/words mean in the way you’re trying to use them.

Kicklabuka 5-26-2016 Anonymous said something like 0/0 is undefined or impossible as a null set. I don’t know what he said. I’m saying you don’t have to ever solve 0/0 because zero has properties that are comparable to the other axes.

Kicklabuka 5-27-2016 I still hold out hope that a tangent line can be drawn from delta x and delta y without resorting to zero.

Anonymous 5-28-2016 Invariants (conserved quantities (states) defined without limits) are the subject of Quantum Mechanics and Linear Algebra. That, too, has been studied rather intensively over the last century or so ….

Anonymous 5-29-2016 For local QFT, h = h0; letting h->0 gives non-quantum physics (light has no mass – there is only the “wow” of light, but not the “ow” (sunburn)); changing h gives GTR in terms of quantum gravity if you believe some of the other assumptions.. like planets, stars, and galaxies have deBroglie wavelengths

Kicklabuka 5-29-2016 That’s not right. The speed of light is not constant because given the same intensity, different wavelengths follow longer or shorter paths in a unit traverse.

Anonymous 5-29-2016 Whatever a “unit traverse” means to you (the basis of a linear dimension/degree of freedom?) …. classical GTR doesn’t include the concept of wavelength. (If it does, then red shift assume the photon exists for the complete diameter of the Universe (including looking behind you). In other words, it assumes the universe has the radius r = ct, and furthermore exists between the plates of Maxwell’s conceptual capacitor modelling displacement current (Einstein’s “separation” in the Minkowski metric) (“a “brane”) powered by an AC current from “somewhere, sometime”.

There are many other issues as well (is the Universe “breathing”?..

Kicklabuka 5-29-2016 What range of frequencies does the human brain operate? That would determine if the universe has one to breathe. Or do astronomers consider the complexity like mitochondria in a cell?

Anonymous 5-29-2016 What do you mean? Frequency of what versus time?

Kicklabuka 5-29-2016 The ear interprets pitches of sound, resonating at different wavelengths and loudness. The eyes interpret light at different brightness, wavelength, location. Operating frequencies of the brain, in what wavelengths do neurons travel?

Anonymous 5-29-2016 They don’t… but we can talk about the voltages of electricity that move between them…

Kicklabuka 5-29-2016 Are you suggesting the voltage changes in a wavelike pattern over time? Like pumping an extended slinky?

Anonymous 5-29-2016 Yes, it is modeled that way but that is not the same thing as saying that the neurons move. The neurons do not move in order to relay signals and any movement of the neurons relative to your surroundings is based on your body movements and is unrelated to the electrical processes of thought (Other than thinking, “I am going to move over here.”)

Kicklabuka 5-29-2016 I misspoke. I meant the signal moved, not the neuron. But speed of thought is probably affected when walking across the room at light speed, which is the overall goal if we ever want to travel outside near earth orbit.

Anonymous 5-29-2016 Relative to you, light still moves at “c” as shown in Theory of Relativity.

So the speed of the signal would be “c” (because it is an electrical impulse) minus the resistance of the matter within your brain cells. Relative to you, “c” is still “c” and there would be no effect of the speed of signal.

And this gets interesting because relative to a distant galaxy you are moving at the nth degree of “c” and to a more distant galaxies perspective, you are moving faster than “c.”

This is because the expansion of space time is cumulative and the speed limit of “c” is a property of spacetime itself; meaning that spacetime itself is not limited by “c.”

Anything within spacetime is limited to “c” or under but Spacetime can move at any speed at all.

In this case, we can say we are already moving at near “c”, at “c” or faster than “c” from one relative point of vie and yet, from our relative perspective, we still see signals and gravity and EM radiation propagate at “c.”

Anonymous 5-29-2016 Are you asking what the maximum number of spikes a neuron could fire in a second? If so, that’s just , which is probably 1 kHz because the refractory period is on the order of single milliseconds. That is, if you stick an electrode into a typical neuron, the maximum rate of firing you’d expect to see would be at most in the kHz order of magnitude, probably much less for physiological stimuli.

However, there’s all sorts of encoding in sensory organs and in the brain. The ear is a nice example because information about amplitude of a stimulus is encoded by firing rate of neurons and frequency is encoded by the location of the neuron in the cochlea (that spiral-shaped hollowing-out of bone in the inner ear). Higher frequency sound causes firing of hair cells at the beginning of the spiral whereas lower frequency causes firing deeper into the spiral. That is, frequency information gets spatially encoded.

Mathematically, I think one is justified in saying that the ear takes a sort of Fourier transform of a stimulus, where that mix of frequencies causes firing in different locations in the tube of the cochlea at varying amplitudes. Then numerous regions of the brain, especially the auditory cortex and perhaps some thalamic nuclei have to take that information about the “spectrum” and invert the Fourier transform to give a representation of what the original stimulus is like.

Anonymous 5-27-2016 Could sound and light waves cancel each other out given the right conditions.

Anonymous 5-27-2016 Sound waves and light waves are different kinds of waves.

Light is electromagnetic radiation which propagates in a manner like a wave and also behaves in similar manner to particles.

EM radiation needs no medium other than SpaceTime itself.

Sound waves are a vibration moving through a medium, such as air, sheetrock, stone, water and the like.

The waves of sound will not interact with waves of light under any conditions.Now, light (photons) can interact with a medium that a sound wave is traveling through. The difference is negligible and the human ear would never notice the difference… So while a light wave won’t interact with a sound wave, the pitch of the sound can be changed (ever so slightly) if photons excite the molecules in the medium.

Kicklabuka 5-29-2016 What about vibrating light? A hot coal spit out of a fire, sizzling in the air. The heat caused both the glowing as well as the energy required for the chemical reaction to produce the sound energy.

Anonymous 5-29-2016 The light emitted is not the same action as the sound emitted. Photons will not vibrate. The vibration of the physical object as heated gasses escape the coal results in the popping sound. This can be made without emitting light.

Similarly, you can heat an object to emit light, but no sound.

Kicklabuka 5-29-2016 I get that the energy could be either, but that doesn’t mean one or the other. The same energy in a firework is responsible for both the light and sound. It doesn’t make sense for seperate energy sources in the same chemical reaction.

Anonymous 5-29-2016 Not separate sources, separate results.

Kicklabuka 5-29-2016 put a home theatre speaker facing up, and drop some pebbles on the cone; then shine a light and pump up the bass. The electrons in the rocks’ atomic structure bounce with the music, while orbiting each nucleus and between atoms in the rocks’ structure. Are you telling me the electrons are doing seperate things? They’re doing the combined result of sound and light.

Anonymous 5-29-2016 Works well with oil and water, too. Or… a plasticy fluid using corn starch but hey…

No they aren’t. They atomic lattice of the rock will vibrate and if you add enough energy, the electrons might vibrate. If you add photons (Light) individual electrons will bump up into a higher energy state– But only to immediately emit a photon and drop back down one energy state. That interaction is separate from the speaker.

You can get the same result as far as how much the pebbles bounce without shining hardly any light on the experiment (Get some N.O.D.’s to view it).

Kicklabuka 5-29-2016 Height (location) of the emission is combined dependent on light and sound. It’s ignored because it is barely relevant due to the differences in speeds. Technically it is the motion of the speaker, not the propagation of the sound that is comparable to the light emission. Thanks for the thought exercise. It’s something to think about.

Anonymous 5-29-2016 Why do you think light is involved?

Kicklabuka 5-29-2016 You said it yourself. The electron jumps to a higher energy level, if only there is a release of a photon from the atom. That electron jump has te same verb as the whole rock jump, so they are both changes of location, and should be considered together. How else are we to watch the rocks jump on the cone if we can’t interpret the light reflecting off them?

Anonymous 5-29-2016 But the question is whether or not shining light on an object causes any kind of meaningful vibration. You added vibration from a speaker cone and then suggested that light interacting with matter was what was related to the vibration.

As far as the electron – it’s ‘Change in location’ is not at the same frequency nor magnitude of the bouncing of the rock in the speaker cone

Kicklabuka 5-29-2016 What else do we see as rocks reflect the flashlight, other than photons hitting the atom and ricocheting off the nucleus. Whether the electron bounces from a flashlight was my assumption, but I didn’t consider the photons originated outside the atom and were reflected.

Anonymous 5-29-2016 Or absorbed and re-emitted.

The photons don’t reflect off of the nucleus, they encounter the electron cloud, first.

Kicklabuka 5-29-2016 Let’s say the rocks are glowing rather than a light shined on them. Yes, our eye sees the change in location from the slow moving speaker, while our eye also sees the electrons jumping and falling.

Anonymous 5-29-2016 Let’s remove the pebbles and replace them with something like an automated tennis ball launcher.

As the Ball launcher bounces on a trampoline, you also program it to launch tennis balls at seeming random times.

As the pebble (tennis ball launcher) bounces, it is also emitting photons (Ejaculating tennis balls) at intervals. Visualizing it that way, with bouncing and ejaculation, maybe you will see a little better that the electrons (Tennis balls) are not “jumping up and down.” Rather, they are emitted in straight line trajectories from the emitter (Pebble or Ball launcher) at points within the emitters motion.

Kicklabuka 5-29-2016 *I know we don’t have electron microscope vision, but just because these movements happen at different rates and displacements doesn’t change the fact that they are both displacements and speeds in the same coordinate space.*

Kicklabuka 5-29-2016 How do radio transmissions (an electromagnetic light), get turned into music?

Anonymous 5-29-2016 The changing frequencies are received and translated into an electical signal that matches the frequencies. That signal is then relayed to a servo or motor that pumps a diaphragm. That diaphragm vibrating is what makes the sound.

Kicklabuka 5-29-2016 Is there rubbing like a cricket’s legs, or disruption of the stagnant air next to the cone?

Anonymous 5-29-2016 Disruption of air. The speaker cone pumps or pushes air.

Kicklabuka 5-29-2016 So the atoms in the air bounce off each other the whole way to my ear, and then bounce into my cochlea in waves?

Anonymous 5-29-2016 Yes.

Kicklabuka 5-29-2016 So sound is based on trajectories of atoms and light is based on absorption, emitting, and/or reflection of the same atoms. So light and sound are both related.

Anonymous 5-29-2016 I’m not seeing how they are related in the manner you are suggesting.

Sound is more Macroscopic and Light is more Q.M.

Kicklabuka 5-29-2016 A high enough frequency of sound waves in just the right signature should be able to obscure light itself–bouncing the nucleus at te same speed the atom is trying to emit a photon.

Anonymous 5-29-2016 A strong enough sound could create a mirage effect. But That’s not as far as to say it obscures it.

Kicklabuka 5-29-2016 There would have to be a sphere of speakers with the object inside. That way, each speaker could fire in time to land at the moment the photon would be reflected or released–bouncing the nucleus away while the photon remains stationary. Some speaker each time, slow as sound and far ahead of every atoms responses at quantum speeds. I guess I don’t see sound as a cloaking measure, if only cause the invisible object would be surrounded by visible apparatus.

Anonymous 5-29-2016 Cosmology is GTR for people who want to call the “All Encompassing Wow” the Big Bang instead of god…

(well, ok, there is also Zen).

Kicklabuka 5-29-2016 I’m on the side of stationary galaxies until we can watch for changes. The late Halton Arp said there are 17 galaxies that are connected along a line. He also said highly redshifted quasars are too close to much lower redshifted galaxies not to be associated with them.

Anonymous 5-29-2016 Halton Arp’s ideas have been subject to much greater testing since the 1960’s, following advances in technology including, Sloan, the use of telescopes launched into Space such as Hubble and James Webb.

Kicklabuka 5-29-2016 That’s very exciting. Do these telescopes have spectrum analyzers to capture changes in time, or is it just single wavelength filter pictures?

Anonymous 5-29-2016 Spectroscopy is a key component to modern astronomy.

Kicklabuka 5-29-2016 I was told galaxies don’t change their signature over long periods of time. Does “modern” astronomy detect minor quick changes in the spectrum? Or do they just compare the “colors” of a galaxy using single wavelength ranged filters?

Anonymous 5-29-2016 This is closer to the mark but not quite accurate either. Many galaxies are too distant for us to register minor quick changes, excluding Supernova. Neither are single wavelength filters used or colors compared. Analysis of galactic structures is almost always divided among teams and a team will have multiple projects going at any given time. A thorough analysis will include visual observation, spectroscopy, radio astronomy and is used to determine chemical composition, temperature, density, mass, distance and luminosity.

Galaxies are also minutely examined with individual stars targeted for spectroscopic analysis.

Spectroscopy can be divided into:

Radio Spectroscopy

Visual or Optical spectroscopy and

X-Ray spectroscopy

Kicklabuka 5-29-2016 I am not satisfied cause redshift isn’t an accurate tool for distance, given Arp’s quasars. Furthermore, the densities can’t be correct because they exclude electromagetic effects. Do you know more about the instruments on the telescopes? I think what’s needed is spectrum intensity verses wavelength, as a function of time, regardless of noticeable changes. Then drawn as a single line embedding intensities of all wavelengths on top of each other, as a function of time, even if it is static. Is this what astronomy teams are doing to obtain those measurements of luminosity? Or intelligence?

Anonymous 5-29-2016 Halton Arp published his objections back in the mid 1960’s. This is not to say we were inept back then by any means, but that was also 50 years ago. Do you think it is valid to rely on such outdated information?

Kicklabuka 5-29-2016 Maybe measurements got better with telescopes and arrays, but fifty years later and he died using the same type of instrument, having the same objections.

“X-Ray map of the syfert/quasar PG1211+143. The x-Ray BSO to the west was confirmed as a quasar by cooperative effort between Beijing observatory and Indian astrophysics institute in Pune. Solid line shows this pair of quasars coincides with line of radio sources which would be conventionally accepted as having been ejected.” -Halton Arp, 1998

Anonymous 5-29-2016 Was he referencing others work?

Kicklabuka 5-29-2016 Halton Arp interpreted the work of the Chinese observatory and Indian institute by noticing the three celestial objects were in line.

Anonymous 5-29-2016 Why would “electromagentic effects” be relevant to density?

Kicklabuka 5-29-2016 If you drop a magnet on top of another magnet, the first one speeds up or flips over beyond gravity, but also based on the inertial mass of the magnet.

Anonymous 5-29-2016 On the scale of galaxies…Magnetism has little sway. It’s powerful, for more powerful than the force of gravity in principle… but when at the scale of galaxies, the net gravitational force greatly overwhelms almost everything else.

Kicklabuka 5-29-2016 I don’t think black holes have to be supermassive to generate the energy to hold stars together.

Anonymous 5-29-2016 Black holes have no real impact on holding a galaxy together…

Kicklabuka 5-29-2016 If black holes aren’t holding galaxies together, how do you explain the centrality of them?

Anonymous 5-29-2016 Black Holes were discounted long ago as the culprit. Currently, it is unknown what accounts for the extra mass in galaxies that keeps them from flying apart.

But Dark Matter is the leading hypothesis and it has some strong support

Anonymous 5-29-2016 What are you looking for specifically?

Common instrumentation includes interferometers, spectrometers, infrared imaging, coronographs, spectroheliographs, spectrohelioscopes and photometers. Spectroscopy is a diverse and complex field of its own.

And remember more than one telescope is often used. Many different arrays collaborate and compare observations and results.

can you clarify what you mean by “all wavelengths?”

Do you mean within a specific observed galaxy? Or total given wavelength (Or distance)?

Kicklabuka 5-29-2016 I’m only interested in spectrometers and spectrum analyzers. Can Infrared be measured using spectrometers? What’s infrared imaging if not a compilation of intensities at infrared wavelengths?

Anonymous 5-29-2016 astronomers often prefer to use a more sensitive method in the infrared with specialized instruments for that purpose. Infrared is also partof Radio Astronomy, bear in mind.

Kicklabuka 5-29-2016 Observed wavelength spikes add together to make a comprehensive complex curve exhibiting each of them simultaneously. For example, when road workers are repaving the roadway, they first dig down the old pavement. When we drive on that, it’s very bumpy. That vibrates in wavelengths on the shock absorbers. If they are paving over a hill, the hill is another wavelength compared to sea level, just like the shock absorbers could be compared to sea level while going up and down hills that are ready to pave.

Anonymous 5-29-2016 how much variation do you think there is and what would that variation tell you?

Kicklabuka 5-29-2016 Distance at warp speeds. Rotational speeds of individual stars.

Anonymous 5-29-2016 Warp speed? What?

Kicklabuka 5-29-2016 Distance is wrong because redshift is not an accurate measure of distance. There are more variables because quasars.

Anonymous 5-29-2016 Ah… I see now. You are suggesting that Redshift marks an inaccurate estimation of mean galaxy distances. “Red Shift Riddles”

Anonymous 5-29-2016 since there are no hills in space… Are you talking about comparing the observed wavelengths of a celestial object against the CMB?

Kicklabuka 5-29-2016 I was referring to the various wavelength spikes in the same location on a galaxy, but also the in-between us and them.

Anonymous 5-29-2016 What significance is that?

Kicklabuka 5-29-2016 Wavelength spikes in the same location probably relate.

Anonymous 5-29-2016 Part of what threw me may be you including “Or intelligence” in your question…

Kicklabuka 5-29-2016 The search for extra terrestrial intelligence, SETI. How do we know a galaxy has intelligent life if we don’t know what they’re saying?

Anonymous 5-29-2016 I really do not think we have any means currently of detecting any sign of E.T. intelligence in another galaxy. It MIGHT be possible if they were a class three civilization that was extremely energetic but even then, it’s pushing it and still beyond out current technology. We would not receive any intelligible signals from their Television stations.

Like our own broadcast signals of Earth networks- it’s thoroughly unrecognizable and degraded before it leaves the Solar System. We can rest assured that the only way E.T. will be exposed to “I Love Lucy” is if they visit us.

In order to receive a signal that is intelligible, it would need to be very powerful and directed right at us, probably deliberately.

Think: Aracebo transmission.

Todays SETI analyses consist of looking for signals of that magnitude. But we are nowhere near being able to detect standard alien behavior at any reasonable distance within our own Milky Way, much less beyond it.

Kicklabuka 5-29-2016 Degraded to us maybe, but not to someone who can filter out the cosmic microwave background noise, and amplify their instruments. Think of a football game where dishes are used to listen to football tackles.

I was thinking et could amplify their sun’a luminosity in a certain pattern, like a pulsar but more fine tuned. The star we can see.

Anonymous 5-31-2016 Are you just referring to light using jargon, like how one might drink dihydrogen monoxide (perhaps some ethanol in your case)?

Kicklabuka 5-31-2016 I’m trying to describe light from the spectrum as a function of protons neutrons and electrons. Easier said than done cause the spectrum is generally thought of as waves in two dimensions (amplitude, constant wavelength in time), not four (3d particle space and changes in time).

A breathalyzer would not allow me to drive.

Anonymous 5-30-2016 (link) Reading your posts; I am, at times, unsure if English is your first language or if Earth is your first planet.

Anonymous 6-8-2016 Either way we need to confirm that these are cauchy in our norm, fairly simple.

If the geometry fits on a page, it’s Cauchy because every portion converges to an endpoint. If a function is sinusoidal it’s Cauchy because its extremes are contained.

Anonymous 6-14-2016 Is that meant as a proof? We aren’t dealing with geometry here.

What equation in a coordinate system is not drawn geometrically? Mathematical functions don’t get to exist if it can’t be physically drawn.

Anonymous 6-14-2016 Nigh all of them and your statement is incorrect. Most cannot be drawn for various reasons. It makes no sense in most cases to speak of geometry so that is why it’s a bad tool to come with.

sin^2 + cos^2 = 1

e^ix=cosx + i sinx

euler

“The most remarkable formula in mathematics”–Richard Feynman

Anonymous 6-13-2016 wavelength, which measured is a quantum effect, unless light has no mass, which is simply not true except subjectively, where the “speed” of light is instantaneous,

Kicklabuka 6-14-2016 There is no such thing as “quantum effects” since quantum mechanics have no basis in understanding, only predicting.

Anonymous 6-13-2016 the final result is the initial signal at the source plus the integrated interaction with the medium over the intervening distance(s)…

Kicklabuka 6-14-2016 Not quite. The initial signal should also be integrated so there is a smooth transition between source and receiver.

Anonymous 6-13-2016 Sorry, cosmologists, but a local field point is all you get,

Kicklabuka 6-14-2016 You’re not thinking fourth dimensionally. Each point is integrated together, like pixels on a television. You don’t say to Sony, one pixel is all you got.

Anonymous 6-13-2016 Sorry, cosmologists, but a local field point is all you get, except for tracing your fingers over a local focal plane (an intergalactic photograph) so you can “go faster than light” between galaxies for Einstein rings (integrated photon interaction “spin” laterally), or watching the colors change (interactive photon “spin” directly toward us) or some local combination of the two at the “lens” …

Kicklabuka 6-16-2016 The cosmic microwave background radiation can get filtered out comparing a light to dark.

Anonymous 6-13-2016 In short, cosmology is a fools’ errand;

Kicklabuka 6-14-2016 It’s a wonder we even have telescopes. Or space shuttles. While we are throwing out everything galactic, why not ignore science altogether. That will surely keep the speed of light instantaneous. Except for the fact that it comes in waves, which have to, what’s the action word I’m looking for, “wave”. How is that instantaneous? I’m imagining the queen trying to shake her hand in the air fast enough to satisfy Einstein.

Cosmology offers a lot more: Electricity and temperature modulation.

Anonymous 6-13-2016 the above thread are merely lines of my possible thought, and not meant to be definitive…

Kicklabuka 6-14-2016 Thankfully you provide insights into what physicists have to work with, although I find the tools altogether insufficient.

Anonymous 6-14-2016 You didn’t fully understand what I said (or “field point”, for that matter, which ultimately means the observation of a single observer – i.e., a single sensor), but I’ll soldier on….

How many observations does a single observer get to make at a time?

Anonymous 6-16-2016 For a distant galaxy, one photon at a time. Think about how “big” a photon is (whatever that means) compared to the size of the universe….

Temperature is a measurement based on macroscopic observations at our local position (one observer, one observation at a time, independent, since one cannot detect phase changes for individual photons after collapse of the wavefunction (i.e., detection)…)

We need more than one observation at a time. The background radiation compared to the central black hole, compared to points on the light source for starters. And at a minimum of two moments compared to each other at half year intervals. But that’s not all. Galaxies within a redshift have to be compared by size and intensity for each of those multiple measurements. One incoming line isn’t going to tell us enough all at once.

Anonymous 6-14-201 I do need some equations to respond further.

Moore’s Law

^equation

6-16-2016 WTF does Moore’s law have to do with this (even if there is no equation in that link)….

Galaxies are the best at temperature modulation of electricity. So Moore’s law applies to cosmology as a high limit.

∙Add a Comment at electromass.com∙

│ Home │ Politics │