Hey Marushchx. Welcome! The only "observation" I disagree with in your post was "evolution." Has anyone actually observed evolution? They would have to live for thousands of years... I agree we see the world in opposites. Male\female. They are two opposites. However we have two arms/two legs (four limbs,) two eyes/ears, but only one head. We do however have five fingers on each hand. Incidentally an argument for evolution is "opposible thumbs." However such an argument works against evolution. If we observe the palms of our hands, the right thumb acts as an x-axis of a graph while the four fingers form a y-axis...
Maybe from an external reference point. From your own frame of reference, travelling at the speed of light will get you to the moon in zero time. Unless you are positing that traveling at twice the speed of light will get you to the moon, in your own frame of reference, faster than that? No, it really isn't a perpetual motion machine. It is a question and answer, two sides to a balance, an indication of equivalence. Nothing more. As a question that equation is asking "what do you get if you divide 1 by 1/2?" and the answer is 2. As a balance or an indication of equivalence it merely states that 1 divided by 1/2 is equivalent to 2. Your understanding of what the maths is doing is atrocious. If you divide 1 gallon by 1/10 you get 10 1/10ths of a gallon, not 10 gallons. There is no creation of additional gallons anywhere. The maths here is simply telling you how many times 1/10 goes into 1. Why on earth would you think otherwise? And each person would get a 1/1000th share of the food (assuming there were 1,000 people). That's not the miracle, Wellwisher. The claimed miracle (if I remember the story) is that after the picnic, after everyone had eaten, the scraps of food collected at the ended filled several baskets... I.e. More than the original food that was initially divided If you really think dividing X by 1/1000 means you suddenly gain 999 additional X then you need to revisit your understanding of maths, before you make a further fool of yourself. No it can't. It can no more be used to perform a miracle than the English language can.
When you solve an equation like 1/(1/10)= , the answer is 10. Ten is the number that carries over and will be used in the completing the rest of the formula. You do not carry over 1/10 or anything that you are describing. I understand your description but this is not what happens when you solve equations. I am looking at this in an applied way. When you solve the Lorentz formula below, your explanation is not used. You end up with a multiplier. Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image! Beyond that, how would divide an apple by a fraction in the real world? If I divide an apple by 2; (1/2), I get two pieces each with 1/2 the original apple. Divide by 2 allows me to cut the apple all the way through. But how can you divide an apple, by only cutting 1/10 the way through? How can you then get 10 apples or even ten pieces? This operation does not reflect extrapolated logic or practical reality and therefore is subjective and imaginary. This is an artifact of written language defining the language of math. I am not saying this does not work out in the end, but there is a disconnect with practical reality in terms of the mechanics.
Yes you are so correct You get 10 but the 10 you get are 1/10ths Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!
You don't cut 1/10 of the way though You guestimate 1/10th and cut a piece off that size Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!
Yes, because maths in that regard is merely stating equivalence of dimensionless quantities. There is no physical operation being carried out. All you are saying is that 1 divided by 1/10 is equivalent to 10. When you actually apply operators in maths you do so to both sides of the equation. When you start with X = Y if you want to divide X by 2 then you need to divide Y by the same, otherwise the equivalence breaks down. If you want to work out what 1/(1/10) is then you would start by stating 1/(1/10) = X You then apply the same operators to left and right hand side. In this case you multiply both sides by (1/10) to get 1 = X/10 You then multiply both sides by 10 to get 10 = X And thus you have solved. No, you are mixing up the pure mathematical operations with regard dimensionless numbers with similar sounding activities in reality. A dimensionless and non-physical quantity, yes. This is simply your mixing of mathematical operations with physical activity. But mathematics is not subjective. In maths if you divide 1 by 1/10 you will always get 10. Because 1/(1/10) is always equivalent to 10. Your entire mess here seems simply due to you, for whatever reason, equating mathematical operations with physical actions and then complaining that what works in maths might not be possible in reality. They are different. Of course there is! One is applied to dimensionless numbers, the other restricted to what is physically possible. Neither is miraculous. Neither is weird or strange or anything other than simply being different realms. Your efforts to highlight an issue with the lack of consistency between those realms seems nothing but confusion of thought on your part.
Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image! Have you checked for the key in your back? Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image! I think your being wound up Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!
Yes, "bad math" can be used to "promise" anything. It's quite another thing if application of "bad math" can deliver on that promise But "good math" predicted the Higgs Boson and when we tested it, the applied "good math" delivered on its promise and did indeed reveal the "existence" of the Higgs Boson.
You can divide by ten by using the same formula computers do: in twos. You halve, halve, and halve again. This is why computers are so fast: they work in twos. Not just twos: double and double again, and so on...
MI thinks you are all over complicating the situation. One is always equal to something and we can't quite understand the equal sign.
Hi again. I have not forgotten the equals sign. Sometimes there is equality, sometimes not. Regardless a wrong answer is still an answer. Computers are good at predicting the future: whenever a game or program ends the score is always accurate... ☺ "Crash it. Crash it hard."-Adam, The rules of engagement. Incidentally the rules of engagement are, "Do not fire until fired upon."-The Admiral, Top Gun. If the world followed these rules we would have peace. Whoever throws the first punch, or whoever strikes first, is in the wrong. Striking in return is self-defence. "She tried to explode the computer factory but she got shot and arrested."-John Connor, Terminator Two. The process for computers predicting the future is as follows: A=0 B=Input C=A+B-A Print C The object is to differ c and b. The game can be played with matches and match-boxes. ☺
