Naked Science Forum
On the Lighter Side => New Theories => Topic started by: guest39538 on 04/11/2017 14:34:33

In science we use a lot of measurements. To me a measurement is something that starts at a 0 point and is measured by an extension of 0 to a specific value such as 1.
example 0......1
Now 1 can have different values such as mm, cm, meters, seconds, etc.
So we could imply that 1 is infinite in its possible values relative to the sign we give it.
1=∞
We measure time, but when considering this do we actually measure time at all? Do we not count time passing?
example 1.......0
An invert count rather than a measurement?

Now 1 can have different values such as mm, cm, meters, seconds, etc.
So we could imply that 1 is infinite in its possible values relative to the sign we give it.
Non sequitur.

Non sequitur
Then your logic is truly flawed, hello stranger :D
Answer this one question.
How far can we extend 1 from 0 ?
Logically infinitely

[ Invalid Attachment ]

Measurement is a practical action with "quantitative thing".
Example: Choose an absolute length such as the length of a new pencil, and represent its length in number 1
We check how many times this length reaches the height of a person, and we get 8.5 for example
This is a process of measuring height.
You can measure only 5 things quantitatively.
Length, area, volume, time and energy.
The measuring device of time is pendulum, and energy is a simple spring steel.
There is no need to measure space and volume, so there are only 3 measuring devices in the world.

Then your logic is truly flawed,
From the man who just said
1 is infinite
Well, I have news for you. 1 is definitely finite not least, because it's less than 2.

The device called "angle meter" reveals a ratio number.
Angle of 52 degrees, this ratio number 0.1444....
The device called "angle meter" is not a measuring device.
The device called the "balance beam" is not a measuring device.
You can measure only "quantitative things"
There are only "5 quantitative things"

How far can we extend 1 from 0 ?
You avoided the question like normal .
How far can we extend 1 from 0 ?

How far can we extend 1 from 0 ?
That question doesn't make sense. One is an absolute value. It is already at a fixed numerical distance from zero. You might as well be asking, "How far can we extend 1 meter from 0 meters?" The answer is in the question. Perhaps you meant to ask, "How many numbers exist between 1 and 0?"

How far can we extend 1 from 0 ?
You avoided the question like normal .
How far can we extend 1 from 0 ?
If you extend 1 it stops being 1.

How far can we extend 1 from 0 ?
You avoided the question like normal .
How far can we extend 1 from 0 ?
If you extend 1 it stops being 1.
Incorrect, we can have 1mm , 1cm, 1m, 1 mile, that is extended but still 1. 1 is a boundary but the boundary is limitless.

How far can we extend 1 from 0 ?
That question doesn't make sense. One is an absolute value. It is already at a fixed numerical distance from zero. You might as well be asking, "How far can we extend 1 meter from 0 meters?" The answer is in the question. Perhaps you meant to ask, "How many numbers exist between 1 and 0?"
No I meant what I said, how far can we extend 1 from 0. 1 is not a constant , it is a variable by the defined sign given such as mm or cm,

No I meant what I said, how far can we extend 1 from 0.
Not any further than it already is.
1 is not a constant , it is a variable by the defined sign given such as mm or cm
1 as a number is itself unitless. 1 has an absolute value so it is a constant. The variable is in the units you are using to describe the measurement.
If you think 1 equals infinity, then that would make 2 infinity as well, because 1+1 is 2. If you continue to do this with all of the numbers you completely destroy any meaning to mathematics.

No I meant what I said, how far can we extend 1 from 0.
Not any further than it already is.
1 is not a constant , it is a variable by the defined sign given such as mm or cm
1 as a number is itself unitless. 1 has an absolute value so it is a constant. The variable is in the units you are using to describe the measurement.
If you think 1 equals infinity, then that would make 2 infinity as well, because 1+1 is 2. If you continue to do this with all of the numbers you completely destroy any meaning to mathematics.
2=1
1=1/2 of 2 but 2 would still equal 1.
I do not think you have what it takes to understand this, your mind is so limited to boundaries and not understanding an expanding boundary.

2=1
1=1/2 of 2 but 2 would still equal 1.
I do not think you have what it takes to understand this, your mind is so limited to boundaries and not understanding an expanding boundary.
If 2=1, I guess you'd be just as happy if you discovered that there was only one shoe in a shoe box that your purchased as you would be if there were two. You wouldn't complain or go get a refund or anything. Having one shoe is exactly the same as having two shoes, right? ::)

Having one shoe is exactly the same as having two shoes, right?
Not at all , 1 shoe would be half of the set.

Not at all , 1 shoe would be half of the set.
Then 2 does not equal 1.

Not at all , 1 shoe would be half of the set.
Then 2 does not equal 1.
Yes it does, you are thinking objects and names of quantities. You are not thinking about the relationship of numbers and the universe.
Look at this sequence.
0123
Then look at the below sequence
01
In the above sequence 1 and 2 are fractions of 3 but the below sequence is equal to the top sequence but without the fractions .
1 marks a boundary the same as 3 marks marks the same boundary.
1=3
I understand this is new to you so don't expect you to understand it right a way.
1/3=0.333333 of 1
3=1
ok?

To measure "relative length" should select "absolute length" as the thickness of an A4 sheet.
The absolute length selected, represent with the absolute quantity of 1 (1 = 1)
According to this choice, the relative length of a new pencil is 2000
Every amount that appears in reality is absolute and is only equal to itself.
A4 sheet thickness = to its own thickness
Length of pencil = length of itself
Only after selecting and measuring does a relative length appear.

Yes it does
Then one shoe is the same as two shoes. You can't have it both ways.
you are thinking objects and names of quantities. You are not thinking about the relationship of numbers and the universe.
They're the same thing. If they are not, then you are saying that sometimes 1 does not equal 1 while at the same time saying that 1 somehow equals 2.
Look at this sequence.
0123
Then look at the below sequence
01
In the above sequence 1 and 2 are fractions of 3 but the below sequence is equal to the top sequence but without the fractions .
1 marks a boundary the same as 3 marks marks the same boundary.
1=3
Nonsequitur.
I understand this is new to you so don't expect you to understand it right a way.
Because it's wrong.
1/3=0.333333 of 1
3=1
ok?
No, not okay. It's wrong. If scientists used your "math" to try to calculate how much fuel and oxidizer would be necessary to put into a given rocket design, do you think the rocket would work? I should say not. If your math cannot be used in a calculation, then it's useless and pointless.

Yes it does
Then one shoe is the same as two shoes. You can't have it both ways.
you are thinking objects and names of quantities. You are not thinking about the relationship of numbers and the universe.
They're the same thing. If they are not, then you are saying that sometimes 1 does not equal 1 while at the same time saying that 1 somehow equals 2.
Look at this sequence.
0123
Then look at the below sequence
01
In the above sequence 1 and 2 are fractions of 3 but the below sequence is equal to the top sequence but without the fractions .
1 marks a boundary the same as 3 marks marks the same boundary.
1=3
Nonsequitur.
I understand this is new to you so don't expect you to understand it right a way.
Because it's wrong.
1/3=0.333333 of 1
3=1
ok?
No, not okay. It's wrong. If scientists used your "math" to try to calculate how much fuel and oxidizer would be necessary to put into a given rocket design, do you think the rocket would work? I should say not. If your math cannot be used in a calculation, then it's useless and pointless.
No you just don't understand, it is not wrong in the context I am using it, measuring the nothing of space. Try to understand that an amount of nothings add up to something in the form of spacial volume. You are really struggling to imagine a 0 point aren't you?

No you just don't understand, it is not wrong in the context I am using it, measuring the nothing of space. Try to understand that an amount of nothings add up to something in the form of spacial volume. You are really struggling to imagine a 0 point aren't you?
I have no trouble with it. A point, by definition, is zerodimensional. It has no spacial volume. It has no size.

No you just don't understand, it is not wrong in the context I am using it, measuring the nothing of space. Try to understand that an amount of nothings add up to something in the form of spacial volume. You are really struggling to imagine a 0 point aren't you?
I have no trouble with it. A point, by definition, is zerodimensional. It has no spacial volume. It has no size.
No a point is 2 dimensional and has a size, a 0 point has no size and is 0 dimensional unless we expand it by using 0³.
Adding xyz into the frame giving a volume of 1.

No a point is 2 dimensional and has a size, a 0 point has no size and is 0 dimensional
I guess you didn't do your research of what the term actually means: https://www.mathopenref.com/point.html (https://www.mathopenref.com/point.html)
This dot may have a diameter of, say, 0.2mm, but a point has no size. No matter how far you zoomed in, it would still have no width. Since a point is a place, not a thing, it has no dimensions.
unless we expand it by using 0³.
If you "expand" a point then it is no longer a point.
Adding xyz into the frame giving a volume of 1.
1 what? 1 liter? 1 cubic millimeter? Volume is always expressed in units.

If you "expand" a point then it is no longer a point.
Ok I got what you saying about a point and a dot, I consider a point is the center of a dot .
Imagine a hoop surrounding a point , except the hoop is a sphere . So your dot I want as a sphere,

1 what? 1 liter? 1 cubic millimeter? Volume is always expressed in units.
1 length of nothing (space)

Ok I got what you saying about a point and a dot, I consider a point is the center of a dot .
Imagine a hoop surrounding a point , except the hoop is a sphere . So your dot I want as a sphere,
So you're talking about a tiny sphere, not a point?
1 length of nothing (space)
Length? I thought you said volume? Anyway, since when is "nothing" a unit of measurement? How would I convert one of your "nothings" into an existing measure of length, like a millimeter? What conversion ratio would I use to do the calculation?

Length? I thought you said volume? Anyway, since when is "nothing" a unit of measurement? How would I convert one of your "nothings" into an existing measure of length, like a millimeter? What conversion ratio would I use to do the calculation?
I would have to measure it first then do the conversion, I need super flat surfaces and a couple of lasers, and would need to make a jig also to precise specifications.
So you're talking about a tiny sphere, not a point?
A tiny sphere or cube for ease around a point.
0³
Could the mods please merge this thread with 0³ thread ?

@Thebox you are thinking of scalar comparisons.
https://www.grc.nasa.gov/www/k12/airplane/ratio.html

Question. How large is an infinite number of infinitesimals?

I would have to measure it first then do the conversion, I need super flat surfaces and a couple of lasers, and would need to make a jig also to precise specifications.
How do you measure the size of a "nothing"? What is it that the lasers are measuring?
A tiny sphere or cube for ease around a point.
Then you are no longer talking about a point. A point is not a tiny sphere or cube. A point has no size whatsoever. It has no volume whatsoever.

How do you measure the size of a "nothing"? What is it that the lasers are measuring?
Hoe do you measure nothing? You put nothing next to nothing to make something, i.e a length.
The lasers are just for positioning two beams that are parallel 1 mm apart. The inner edge of each beam the start and finish position.

How do you measure the size of a "nothing"? What is it that the lasers are measuring?
Hoe do you measure nothing? You put nothing next to nothing to make something, i.e a length.
Which would depend entirely upon how closely you decide to put those "nothings" next to each other (if such a concept of putting nothing next to nothing even makes sense).
The lasers are just for positioning two beams that are parallel 1 mm apart. The inner edge of each beam the start and finish position.
How is that going to help you measure it?

A line is constructed of line segments rather than points.
The line has a real length and shape (straight, round, crooked)
The point has no length, no space, and no shape.
The gold element is made up of gold particles.
The carbon element is built from carbon particles
You will not find "in a thing" but only himself.
You will not find "inside a line" but only tiny bits of line.
That's the whole story

Which would depend entirely upon how closely you decide to put those "nothings" next to each other (if such a concept of putting nothing next to nothing even makes sense).
Imagine it this way, overlaying dots so the points are next to each other. Each dot will be offset by 1 point to the left or to the right.

Imagine it this way, overlaying dots so the points are next to each other. Each dot will be offset by 1 point to the left or to the right.
Given that points have no width, they wouldn't be offset at all.

To go back a few posts.
1 is a boundary. 2 is a bigger boundary. So 1 cannot be infinite because we can define and operate on something bigger according to the normal rules of arithmetic.
Measurement involves a number (1, 2, 48.935....) and a quantity (inch, year, moron..). Measuring is the comparison of the numbers associated with two objects having the same quantity.

Can I have 48.935 morons please? How much is that?

Question. How large is an infinite number of infinitesimals?
:D Infinite Jef, I think you understand
Added In the beginning there was nothing, an infinite dimensions of nothing.

To go back a few posts.
1 is a boundary. 2 is a bigger boundary. So 1 cannot be infinite because we can define and operate on something bigger according to the normal rules of arithmetic.
Measurement involves a number (1, 2, 48.935....) and a quantity (inch, year, moron..). Measuring is the comparison of the numbers associated with two objects having the same quantity.
Not true, spacetime does not involve any objects.