Mathematical Masturbation

Tempted to post some off topic material in the Building Forums....... Want to talk about football, your neighbor's dog or exchange friendly barbs with other members?? Start your conversations here!!!

Moderators: Sometimewoodworker, MGV12, BKKBILL

Re: Mathematical Masturbation

Postby MGV12 » Mon Jan 13, 2014 10:38 am

It would appear that you might do better concentrating on the second word of your title Sirineou ... at least you can prove to yourself it's existence :lol:

This will be too long for fredlk to read but hey! <Requested correction: "This will be too long for fredlk for him to be bothered to read" - :) - mod>

Mathematicians say that math can prove anything ... but can it prove itself?

Let's masticate on that a little ............... it's appropriate in both cases as it does involve a [numerically-challenging] number of balls in a bag 8)

Is Math True?
Posted on January 18, 2009

MATHEMATICS is often thought to be universally and unassailably true. I have even heard it argued that God, omnipotent though He may be, could not make math false even if He was impulsive enough to try it. Can mathematicians actually prove that math is true? If they cannot, does the fact that math is so useful in solving real world problems provide evidence of its truth? And, if mathematics is not true, then does that imply that conclusions drawn from it are faulty or suspect? These are some of the questions that I will try to address.

The first attempt we might make to prove that mathematics is true is to consider real world situations where mathematical equations seem to appear. Some examples are:

• If I have three red balls in a bag and add two more, the bag will then contain five red balls.

• If I am on a train traveling at three miles per hour and throw a ball at two miles per hour (measured with respect to the train) then the ball will be traveling at five miles per hour with respect to the ground.

•If I had three dollars worth of goods yesterday and borrow two dollars worth of goods from you today then I have five dollars worth of goods in my possession.

Each of these three situations seem to imply the equation 3+2=5, but do they actually prove that the equation 3+2=5 is true? One problem with drawing conclusions about mathematics from these examples is that the number ’3′ is not the same as ‘three balls’ or ‘three hours’ or ‘three dollars’, and the operator ‘+’ is not the same as grouping together balls or combining velocities or aggregating wealth. It is true that 3+2=5 is typically an excellent model for each of these situations, but nonetheless the equation is not precisely equivalent to these situations. It is also true that when we group balls together (by, in this case, placing them in a bag) the procedure generally behaves as though we are performing addition. But now suppose that the objects we are grouping together are made of packed sand, or some other delicate substance. In this case, when we add new objects to our bag they will sometimes fracture and split into multiple objects, and occasionally multiple objects will even fuse together into a single object. The addition operator ‘+’ no longer models this situation well because when we place a new object in the bag it does not always increase the number of objects contained in the bag by one.

It is not terribly difficult to annihilate the relationship between the equation 3+2=5 and the other real world situations given above. For example, Einstein’s theory of relativity tells us (in contradiction to the more intuitive but less accurate equations of Newtonian mechanics) that when a person on a train which is moving three miles per hour (with respect to the ground) throws a ball at two miles per hour (with respect to the train), then the speed of the ball with respect to the ground is actually very slightly less than 5 miles per hour, not equal to 5 miles per hour. What’s more, if I had three dollars worth of goods yesterday and then borrow two dollars worth of goods from you today, the total number of dollars worth of goods that I have possession of will not necessarily be five dollars if the value of my original goods changed between yesterday and today (as can happen in real economic markets). What these examples show us is that the only reason to say that grouping balls or combining velocities or aggregating wealth encapsulates the idea of mathematical addition is because most of the time the addition operator ‘+’ provides a good model for these scenarios. We can no more conclude that 3+2=5 is a true statement simply because putting two balls into a bag that already has three balls generally produces a bag with five balls, then we can conclude that 3+2=5 is false simply because velocities have been proven not to add. In other words, while real world situations can motivate the equations of mathematics and provide justifications for applying them, they cannot prove that those equations are actually true.

We have stared at equations like 3+2=5 so many times in our lives that it can be difficult to consider them with fresh eyes in order to ask ourselves what it really is that they are saying. Clearly ’3′, ‘+’ , ’2′, ‘=’ and ’5′ are not objects in the physical universe. You can go to the zoo and see three bears, or see the numeral ’3′ printed on a sign, or perform arithmetic on paper using the symbol ’3′, but nowhere in the universe can you find the actual (metaphysical) number ’3′. This is hardly surprising, since ’3′ is a concept or idea, not a physical thing. But this line of thought implies that 3+2=5 is a statement about the relationship among the concepts ’3′, ’2′, and ’5′, and not a statement about physical entities that actually exist.

But how do we define the word “true” when it comes to relations among abstract concepts? One possible approach is to say that statements about abstract concepts are true if they follows as logical consequence of the definitions of the concepts themselves. This leads us to ask whether 3+2=5 and all other mathematical statements are simply true by definition as a consequence of our chosen definitions for ’3′, ‘+’, ’2′, ‘=’, ’5′ and the other mathematical objects. Unfortunately, this question cannot be answered without further qualification. To begin with, what do we mean by “mathematical objects”, and how do we choose to define concepts such as ’3′? Various authors have attempted to define mathematics by developing lists of axioms (which are simply assumed to be true) and then proving that the basic mathematical objects (e.g. integers) and theorems (e.g. a+b = b+a) follow from these axioms. Unfortunately, there are a variety of different ways that math can be axiomatized (i.e. built up from basic axioms). Some approaches use sets as the most basic objects (as is done in what is probably the most popular axiomatization, Zermelo-Fraenkel set theory), while others use Category Theory to provide the basic building blocks, and still other theories attempt to axiomatize only small portions of math, such as Euclid’s Axioms of planar geometry, Hilbert’s axiomatization of Euclidean Geometry and the Peano axioms for arithmetic. What is even worse (when it comes to deciding what is true) than having so many conflicting viewpoints for constructing math is that the axioms of these viewpoints are themselves not provably true. If you are willing to assume the axioms of math are “true” (whatever that means), then all of the resulting theorems that can be derived from those axioms are also true, but the axioms themselves must simply be accepted without proof in order for this process to work. As a matter of fact, if we could prove that the axioms were true then they would be called “theorems” and not “axioms”!

As convoluted as this discussion has become, matters get still murkier. Even those mathematicians who agree to rely on a single basic axiomatization (such as Zermelo-Fraenkel set theory) sometimes cannot agree on whether certain extra axioms (such as the continuum hypothesis, which concerns itself with the existence of sets of certain infinite sizes, or the axiom of choice which pertains to being able to select one element from each element of a set of sets) should be added or left out. And to top that off, mathematics (as defined by whichever axiomatization you like) has not even been proven to be consistent, meaning that no one has been able to mathematically demonstrate that the axioms of any single axiomatization do not contradict each other. In fact, Gödel’s 2nd incompleteness theorem shows that if mathematics is in fact consistent then it will not be possible to use math to prove that no inconsistencies exist!

In conclusion: numbers and other mathematical objects are simply concepts, and not things that are actually observable in the universe, so we cannot say that statements like 3+2=5 are true in the same way that we can say that the statement “massive objects exert forces on other massive objects” is true. We might like to think that mathematical statements are true by definition, but this idea is complicated by the fact that there is more than one way to axiomatize mathematics, and therefore more than one definition that we might choose in order to define numbers, operators and other mathematical objects. But even if there were truly only one way to axiomatize math, the axioms themselves would still not be provably true (they would only be assumed to be true), and hence it would hardly seem fair to then conclude that mathematical theorems are “true” in some objective and universal sense. These problems are compounded by the fact that we cannot prove that our commonly accepted mathematical axioms do not contradict each other, leading to a still deeper level on which to question the truth of mathematical statements. In the end, while it hardly seems fair to say that math is false, it also does not not seem fair to conclude that math is true. Math is probably neither “true” nor “false” in the usual sense of those words, though it does undeniably provide extraordinarily useful models for making predictions about what will happen in our physical universe. This will perhaps seem less surprising if we remember that mathematics was not originally developed from the ground up using axioms, but rather piece by piece in order to find solutions to problems that appear in the real world (like those related to calculating the size of plots of land, counting money, measuring roads, tracking the movements of the stars, understanding heat flow in cannons, etc.). Hence, mathematical definitions were chosen by humans to model physical reality so that we could make useful predictions, not to encapsulate metaphysical truth, so really, why should we expect math to be true?

http://www.clockbackward.com/2009/01/18/is-math-true/

“Some days I am an optimistic pessimist ... other days I am a pessimistic optimist”
User avatar
MGV12
 
Posts: 5349
Joined: Wed Jan 23, 2008 4:23 pm
Location: Chiang Mai

Re: Mathematical Masturbation

Postby Roger Ramjet » Mon Jan 13, 2014 11:39 am

Whilst we are on the subject, has anyone any idea where people would go if gravity ceased, would they go out from earth north south east or west and because the earth's atmosphere is 15 lbs per square inch how far would we travel before we exploded.
The man who talked about 3 balls in a bag is wrong, he has three balls and one bag, if he adds two more balls he has five balls and one bag that's 3b + 1b + 2b = 6b
User avatar
Roger Ramjet
 
Posts: 5250
Joined: Tue Apr 27, 2010 12:55 pm

Re: Mathematical Masturbation

Postby MGV12 » Mon Jan 13, 2014 12:23 pm

Roger Ramjet wrote:Whilst we are on the subject, has anyone any idea where people would go if gravity ceased, would they go out from earth north south east or west and because the earth's atmosphere is 15 lbs per square inch how far would we travel before we exploded.


Down the pub :) Oh sorry ... as the earth would no longer exist I guess the pub probably wouldn't either :oops:


Roger Ramjet wrote:The man who talked about 3 balls in a bag is wrong, he has three balls and one bag, if he adds two more balls he has five balls and one bag that's 3b + 1b + 2b = 6b


Frivolous mood today huh? :roll:

“Some days I am an optimistic pessimist ... other days I am a pessimistic optimist”
User avatar
MGV12
 
Posts: 5349
Joined: Wed Jan 23, 2008 4:23 pm
Location: Chiang Mai

Re: Mathematical Masturbation

Postby thailazer » Mon Jan 13, 2014 5:16 pm

Gee, you guys. And I thought I was boring for using Zolatarev's Approximations for solving quadratic equations just for fun.
thailazer
 
Posts: 650
Joined: Sun Jun 26, 2011 9:55 am

Re: Mathematical Masturbation

Postby MGV12 » Mon Jan 13, 2014 6:42 pm

thailazer wrote:Gee, you guys. And I thought I was boring for using Zolatarev's Approximations for solving quadratic equations just for fun.


There was I just about to get the OP really excited with these http://nargaque.com/2011/10/05/10-mind- ... equations/ and you put forward the perfectly plausible theory that the entire subject may be boring. As you might have kicked this whole thing off by merely thinking about Zolatarev's Approximations I would now be inclined to resist that temptation .... however:

We cannot turn the clock back nor can we undo the harm caused,
but we have the power to determine the future and to ensure that what happened never happens again.

Paul Kagame

“Some days I am an optimistic pessimist ... other days I am a pessimistic optimist”
User avatar
MGV12
 
Posts: 5349
Joined: Wed Jan 23, 2008 4:23 pm
Location: Chiang Mai

Re: Mathematical Masturbation

Postby MGV12 » Mon Jan 13, 2014 7:28 pm

Wake up Sirineou ... it's your thread man ... get a grip as it's running away from you at a geometric progression.

When you start a thread like this you can't afford to even blink :shock: let alone sleep.

“Some days I am an optimistic pessimist ... other days I am a pessimistic optimist”
User avatar
MGV12
 
Posts: 5349
Joined: Wed Jan 23, 2008 4:23 pm
Location: Chiang Mai

Re: Mathematical Masturbation

Postby BKKBILL » Mon Jan 13, 2014 7:44 pm

thailazer wrote:Gee, you guys. And I thought I was boring for using Zolatarev's Approximations for solving quadratic equations just for fun.


Love it. :mrgreen: goes to show you can't judge a topic by it's heading, or it that a heading by it's topic.
It's not who you know, it's whom you know.
User avatar
BKKBILL
 
Posts: 2941
Joined: Tue May 26, 2009 10:05 pm
Location: Mae Taeng, Chiang Mai

Re: Mathematical Masturbation

Postby thailazer » Mon Jan 13, 2014 7:57 pm

BKKBILL wrote:
thailazer wrote:Gee, you guys. And I thought I was boring for using Zolatarev's Approximations for solving quadratic equations just for fun.


Love it. :mrgreen: goes to show you can't judge a topic by it's heading, or it that a heading by it's topic.


As Lord Kelvin once said, "If you can not describe the worth of your work with numbers, it is of a meager and unsatisfactory kind" or something like that!
thailazer
 
Posts: 650
Joined: Sun Jun 26, 2011 9:55 am

Re: Mathematical Masturbation

Postby sirineou » Mon Jan 13, 2014 9:05 pm

BKKBILL wrote:Sirineou thanks for noticing goodness just post a numerical signature and now I have a headache . How about this little problem. :mrgreen:

The stock oddity
Some folks get a thrill from playing the market. Maybe you are one of them. Sometimes you win. Sometimes you lose but those are the risks of the game. 
What's the oddity? 

Winning and losing aren't as simple as you think.

Let's say you invest $10 in the market and you make a 10 percent return. You now have $11. Now, let's say you lose 10 percent. Out of $11, that's $1.10 leaving you with $9.90 which means you are down ten cents on the deal. You gained the same percentage as you lost yet you came out behind. 

Well, you might speculate it has to do with the order of the transaction. After all, the 10 percent you lost was bigger than the 10 percent you gained because you were already up on the deal. That means reversing the order should have the opposite effect. Right? 

Start with $10. Now lose 10 percent first. You have nine dollars. Then gain ten percent. That's 90 cents leaving you with...$9.90.

Yep. You lost money again.

Strange as it may seem, a gain and a loss of the exact same percentage will always leave you with less cash - regardless of the order in which they occur.

Percentages are like averages, inherently unfair
For instance, both me and Shaquille O'neal are an average of 6.5 ft tall :D
Or
Bill Gates and me are worth an average of 36 billion dollars :D :D :D
I talk to my self because I am the only one who will listen
User avatar
sirineou
 
Posts: 1133
Joined: Wed Jun 03, 2009 9:30 am
Location: USA/Thailand, khon Kaen

Re: Mathematical Masturbation

Postby BKKBILL » Mon Jan 13, 2014 9:32 pm

sirineou wrote:Percentages are like averages, inherently unfair
For instance, both me and Shaquille O'neal are an average of 6.5 ft tall :D
Or
Bill Gates and me are worth an average of 36 billion dollars :D :D :D


Well now your just pushing it 6.5 indeed and as you well know half the people in the world are above average. :mrgreen:
Last edited by BKKBILL on Mon Jan 13, 2014 9:42 pm, edited 1 time in total.
It's not who you know, it's whom you know.
User avatar
BKKBILL
 
Posts: 2941
Joined: Tue May 26, 2009 10:05 pm
Location: Mae Taeng, Chiang Mai

Re: Mathematical Masturbation

Postby sirineou » Mon Jan 13, 2014 9:39 pm

MGV12 wrote:Wake up Sirineou ... it's your thread man ... get a grip as it's running away from you at a geometric progression.

When you start a thread like this you can't afford to even blink :shock: let alone sleep.

Unfortunately, sleep I must, got together yesterday with a couple of friends.
Do any of you know of the following Poem?
One tequila
two tequila
three tequila
Floor!!! :oops:

So any way , as to Rogers gravity and ball situation
if gravity ceased to exist, where you go would be the least of your problems, you can stay where you are because everything else around you is going places, especially your balls in the bag :lol:

Now assuming gravity intact , You can not assign the same symbol to different entities,Balls and Bag can not both be B . So Balls would need to be Big B (very big B if they were my balls :lol:) and bag would need to be small b

Now while sporting a hungover , I will try to decipher MGV's hieroglyphics and read his very, very, very long post, if no one ever hears from me again you all know what happened.
Image
I talk to my self because I am the only one who will listen
User avatar
sirineou
 
Posts: 1133
Joined: Wed Jun 03, 2009 9:30 am
Location: USA/Thailand, khon Kaen

Re: Mathematical Masturbation

Postby sirineou » Mon Jan 13, 2014 10:10 pm

MGV12 wrote:It would appear that you might do better concentrating on the second word of your title Sirineou ... at least you can prove to yourself it's existence :lol:

This will be too long for fredlk to read but hey! <Requested correction: "This will be too long for fredlk for him to be bothered to read" - :) - mod>

Mathematicians say that math can prove anything ... but can it prove itself?

Let's masticate on that a little ............... it's appropriate in both cases as it does involve a [numerically-challenging] number of balls in a bag 8)

Is Math True?
Posted on January 18, 2009

MATHEMATICS is often thought to be universally and unassailably true. I have even heard it argued that God, omnipotent though He may be, could not make math false even if He was impulsive enough to try it. Can mathematicians actually prove that math is true? If they cannot, does the fact that math is so useful in solving real world problems provide evidence of its truth? And, if mathematics is not true, then does that imply that conclusions drawn from it are faulty or suspect? These are some of the questions that I will try to address.

The first attempt we might make to prove that mathematics is true is to consider real world situations where mathematical equations seem to appear. Some examples are:

• If I have three red balls in a bag and add two more, the bag will then contain five red balls.

• If I am on a train traveling at three miles per hour and throw a ball at two miles per hour (measured with respect to the train) then the ball will be traveling at five miles per hour with respect to the ground.

•If I had three dollars worth of goods yesterday and borrow two dollars worth of goods from you today then I have five dollars worth of goods in my possession.

Each of these three situations seem to imply the equation 3+2=5, but do they actually prove that the equation 3+2=5 is true? One problem with drawing conclusions about mathematics from these examples is that the number ’3′ is not the same as ‘three balls’ or ‘three hours’ or ‘three dollars’, and the operator ‘+’ is not the same as grouping together balls or combining velocities or aggregating wealth. It is true that 3+2=5 is typically an excellent model for each of these situations, but nonetheless the equation is not precisely equivalent to these situations. It is also true that when we group balls together (by, in this case, placing them in a bag) the procedure generally behaves as though we are performing addition. But now suppose that the objects we are grouping together are made of packed sand, or some other delicate substance. In this case, when we add new objects to our bag they will sometimes fracture and split into multiple objects, and occasionally multiple objects will even fuse together into a single object. The addition operator ‘+’ no longer models this situation well because when we place a new object in the bag it does not always increase the number of objects contained in the bag by one.

It is not terribly difficult to annihilate the relationship between the equation 3+2=5 and the other real world situations given above. For example, Einstein’s theory of relativity tells us (in contradiction to the more intuitive but less accurate equations of Newtonian mechanics) that when a person on a train which is moving three miles per hour (with respect to the ground) throws a ball at two miles per hour (with respect to the train), then the speed of the ball with respect to the ground is actually very slightly less than 5 miles per hour, not equal to 5 miles per hour. What’s more, if I had three dollars worth of goods yesterday and then borrow two dollars worth of goods from you today, the total number of dollars worth of goods that I have possession of will not necessarily be five dollars if the value of my original goods changed between yesterday and today (as can happen in real economic markets). What these examples show us is that the only reason to say that grouping balls or combining velocities or aggregating wealth encapsulates the idea of mathematical addition is because most of the time the addition operator ‘+’ provides a good model for these scenarios. We can no more conclude that 3+2=5 is a true statement simply because putting two balls into a bag that already has three balls generally produces a bag with five balls, then we can conclude that 3+2=5 is false simply because velocities have been proven not to add. In other words, while real world situations can motivate the equations of mathematics and provide justifications for applying them, they cannot prove that those equations are actually true.

We have stared at equations like 3+2=5 so many times in our lives that it can be difficult to consider them with fresh eyes in order to ask ourselves what it really is that they are saying. Clearly ’3′, ‘+’ , ’2′, ‘=’ and ’5′ are not objects in the physical universe. You can go to the zoo and see three bears, or see the numeral ’3′ printed on a sign, or perform arithmetic on paper using the symbol ’3′, but nowhere in the universe can you find the actual (metaphysical) number ’3′. This is hardly surprising, since ’3′ is a concept or idea, not a physical thing. But this line of thought implies that 3+2=5 is a statement about the relationship among the concepts ’3′, ’2′, and ’5′, and not a statement about physical entities that actually exist.

But how do we define the word “true” when it comes to relations among abstract concepts? One possible approach is to say that statements about abstract concepts are true if they follows as logical consequence of the definitions of the concepts themselves. This leads us to ask whether 3+2=5 and all other mathematical statements are simply true by definition as a consequence of our chosen definitions for ’3′, ‘+’, ’2′, ‘=’, ’5′ and the other mathematical objects. Unfortunately, this question cannot be answered without further qualification. To begin with, what do we mean by “mathematical objects”, and how do we choose to define concepts such as ’3′? Various authors have attempted to define mathematics by developing lists of axioms (which are simply assumed to be true) and then proving that the basic mathematical objects (e.g. integers) and theorems (e.g. a+b = b+a) follow from these axioms. Unfortunately, there are a variety of different ways that math can be axiomatized (i.e. built up from basic axioms). Some approaches use sets as the most basic objects (as is done in what is probably the most popular axiomatization, Zermelo-Fraenkel set theory), while others use Category Theory to provide the basic building blocks, and still other theories attempt to axiomatize only small portions of math, such as Euclid’s Axioms of planar geometry, Hilbert’s axiomatization of Euclidean Geometry and the Peano axioms for arithmetic. What is even worse (when it comes to deciding what is true) than having so many conflicting viewpoints for constructing math is that the axioms of these viewpoints are themselves not provably true. If you are willing to assume the axioms of math are “true” (whatever that means), then all of the resulting theorems that can be derived from those axioms are also true, but the axioms themselves must simply be accepted without proof in order for this process to work. As a matter of fact, if we could prove that the axioms were true then they would be called “theorems” and not “axioms”!

As convoluted as this discussion has become, matters get still murkier. Even those mathematicians who agree to rely on a single basic axiomatization (such as Zermelo-Fraenkel set theory) sometimes cannot agree on whether certain extra axioms (such as the continuum hypothesis, which concerns itself with the existence of sets of certain infinite sizes, or the axiom of choice which pertains to being able to select one element from each element of a set of sets) should be added or left out. And to top that off, mathematics (as defined by whichever axiomatization you like) has not even been proven to be consistent, meaning that no one has been able to mathematically demonstrate that the axioms of any single axiomatization do not contradict each other. In fact, Gödel’s 2nd incompleteness theorem shows that if mathematics is in fact consistent then it will not be possible to use math to prove that no inconsistencies exist!

In conclusion: numbers and other mathematical objects are simply concepts, and not things that are actually observable in the universe, so we cannot say that statements like 3+2=5 are true in the same way that we can say that the statement “massive objects exert forces on other massive objects” is true. We might like to think that mathematical statements are true by definition, but this idea is complicated by the fact that there is more than one way to axiomatize mathematics, and therefore more than one definition that we might choose in order to define numbers, operators and other mathematical objects. But even if there were truly only one way to axiomatize math, the axioms themselves would still not be provably true (they would only be assumed to be true), and hence it would hardly seem fair to then conclude that mathematical theorems are “true” in some objective and universal sense. These problems are compounded by the fact that we cannot prove that our commonly accepted mathematical axioms do not contradict each other, leading to a still deeper level on which to question the truth of mathematical statements. In the end, while it hardly seems fair to say that math is false, it also does not not seem fair to conclude that math is true. Math is probably neither “true” nor “false” in the usual sense of those words, though it does undeniably provide extraordinarily useful models for making predictions about what will happen in our physical universe. This will perhaps seem less surprising if we remember that mathematics was not originally developed from the ground up using axioms, but rather piece by piece in order to find solutions to problems that appear in the real world (like those related to calculating the size of plots of land, counting money, measuring roads, tracking the movements of the stars, understanding heat flow in cannons, etc.). Hence, mathematical definitions were chosen by humans to model physical reality so that we could make useful predictions, not to encapsulate metaphysical truth, so really, why should we expect math to be true?

http://www.clockbackward.com/2009/01/18/is-math-true/

A very long article to describe a very simple proposition,
First, Math is neither true or false, math is neither,
Math is the relationship of bits of information
If the information is wrong, or incomplete the the relationships will be incorrect.

So,
• If I have three red balls in a bag and add two more, the bag will then contain five red balls.
incomplete information, are the two additional bals also red?

• If I am on a train traveling at three miles per hour and throw a ball at two miles per hour (measured with respect to the train) then the ball will be traveling at five miles per hour with respect to the ground.
incomplete information.This problem requires vector addition, balls thrown contain magnitude but not direction, the outcome depends not only on the force but at the direction the force was applied at.

Here is an additional problem if the train was traveling at the speed of light, and you throw these balls forward, What speed will they be traveling at?

•If I had three dollars worth of goods yesterday and borrow two dollars worth of goods from you today then I have five dollars worth of goods in my possession.
Again, incomplete information. we are being told how many goods you had yesterday, but we don't know how many goods you have today before you borrowed the additional goods, or even the worth of goods today as opposed to yesterday

Given sufficient information if such information is correlated correctly the result is indisputable.
It can not help but be.
I talk to my self because I am the only one who will listen
User avatar
sirineou
 
Posts: 1133
Joined: Wed Jun 03, 2009 9:30 am
Location: USA/Thailand, khon Kaen

Re: Mathematical Masturbation

Postby Roger Ramjet » Tue Jan 14, 2014 3:33 am

sirineou wrote:Here is an additional problem if the train was traveling at the speed of light, and you throw these balls forward, What speed will they be traveling at?

That is not a good example, because they would be in a confined space relevant to the interior of the train and therefore travel at the speed they were thrown at but with different force.
A better example would be shining a torch out the window of thw train.
You have two constants there but then you can't use maths: The laws of physics are the same wherever you are.
This means that an experiment carried out in a moving train will give the same results as when it is performed in a lab. Furthermore, if there were no windows on the train and it was moving at a constant speed, there is no experiment that you could do to see whether or not it was actually moving.
The speed of light is the same for everyone. The speed of light being the same wherever you are might not seem strange, but think about how we normally experience speeds. A ball thrown on a moving train will have a greater speed than a ball thrown with the same force by someone standing on the platform. This is because the speed of the train is added to that of the ball to give its total speed. But this isn't the case with light. If you measure the speed of the light produced by torches on a moving train and a stationary platform, you will get the same speed - the speed of the train doesn't matter. When you measure the speed of light it doesn't matter if you are moving or stationary, or if the source of the light is moving - the speed is always the same: 300,000,000 metres per second.
User avatar
Roger Ramjet
 
Posts: 5250
Joined: Tue Apr 27, 2010 12:55 pm

Re: Mathematical Masturbation

Postby MGV12 » Tue Jan 14, 2014 9:10 am

Roger Ramjet wrote:The speed of light is the same for everyone.


Oh no! It's that Einstein chap with his theories again "The speed of light is the same for everyone." ... what did he know! :roll: :P :wink: :lol: :lol: :lol:

Was Einstein wrong? Speed of light appears to have been broken

Posted September 23, 2011 - 16:28 by Emma Woollacott

European scientists believe they've observed subatomic particles traveling faster than the speed of light - something that Einstein's theory of relativity says should be impossible.

"The potential impact on science is too large to draw immediate conclusions or attempt physics interpretations," says OPERA spokesperson Antonio Ereditato of the University of Bern.

The OPERA experiment, housed at Gran Sasso in Italy, observes the passage of neutrinos from CERN, about 500 miles away. And, based on the observation of over 15,000 neutrino events, the team says the neutrinos are arriving sooner than they should - about 20 parts per million faster than the speed of light.

The team is very, very cautious - after all, Einstein's theories have been challenged many times before, and never overturned.

"This result comes as a complete surprise," says Ereditato. "After many months of studies and cross checks we have not found any instrumental effect that could explain the result of the measurement."

The scientists say they're confident their measurements are accurate. The 730km travel path has been measured with an uncertainlty of just 20cm, and the time of flight of the neutrinos should be accurate to within less than 10 nanoseconds, thanks to advanced GPS systems and atomic clocks.

The time response of all elements of the CNGS beam line and of the OPERA detector has also been measured with great precision, they say.

While the result's been replicated many times at Gran Sasso itself, it needs repeating elsewhere before scientists can be certain it's the real thing.

"If this measurement is confirmed, it might change our view of physics, but we need to be sure that there are no other, more mundane, explanations," says CERN Research Director Sergio Bertolucci. "That will require independent measurements."

It's possible that the US's Fermilab could carry out the experiments, although its measuring systems aren't as accurate as CERN's.

Read more at http://www.tgdaily.com/general-sciences ... mf8H8GB.99

Clever bloke that Einstein but the trouble is when someone gets a few things right folk tend to believe everything they say is right: [including many who post on fora!] :lol:

http://sciencefocus.com/feature/physics ... -got-wrong

http://www.philosophical-investigations ... _got_Wrong

“Some days I am an optimistic pessimist ... other days I am a pessimistic optimist”
User avatar
MGV12
 
Posts: 5349
Joined: Wed Jan 23, 2008 4:23 pm
Location: Chiang Mai

Re: Mathematical Masturbation

Postby sirineou » Tue Jan 14, 2014 9:51 am

MGV12 wrote:Was Einstein wrong? Speed of light appears to have been broken[/size][/b]
Posted September 23, 2011 - 16:28 by Emma Woollacott


What did Prez. Clinton say regarding dated internet articles during his Gettysburg address? :mrgreen:
especially on a fast moving field such as particle physics.where three years could be alifetime

January 13, 2014
The Huffington Post
Faster-Than-Light Neutrinos? CERN Scientists Say No, Refuting Earlier Finding
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/03/16/faster-than-light-neutrinos-cern_n_1353973.html
Neutrino 'faster than light' scientist resigns
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-17560379

Neutrino Subatomic Particles Don't Travel Faster Than Light--Einstein Was Right, Physicists Say
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/06/09/neutrinos-subatomic-particles-light-physicists_n_1582666.html

Sirineou wins Nobel price for contributions to this post
http://www.its-on-the-internet-so-it-must-be-right.com :lol:
I talk to my self because I am the only one who will listen
User avatar
sirineou
 
Posts: 1133
Joined: Wed Jun 03, 2009 9:30 am
Location: USA/Thailand, khon Kaen

PreviousNext

Return to Friendly Banter

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: Bing [Bot] and 1 guest