1 + 1 = 2

[DarkDragon]

A succinct answer for DarkDragon: a human being can imagine, in his head, the quaternion mechanism. But the octonion mechanism is impossible to imagine in the head. Rare people achieve this on paper. But it is really the computer tool that makes it possible to affirm the existence of these more complex algebraic generations.

I know, I meant to be kidding. Still, you could always visualize a 2d projection of a higher dimensional space, even if the informative gain from it is negligible.

[Psychophanta]

Someones states that there are some 'infinites' which are bigger than other ones 'infinites'.
So, following that, then there are 'trues' which are bigger than other 'trues'.
For example this true:

1+1 = 1+1

is bigger than

1+1 = 2

[Olli]

I am not sure for that...

The symbolic tells us this :

Code: Select all

0 = 0
0 = 0 + 0
1 = 1 + 0
1 = 0 + 1
; if we do not stop here (to pass from binary to decimal)
2 = 1 + 1
3 = 1 + 1 + 1
4 = 1 + 1 + 1 + 1
5 = 1 + 1 + 1 + 1 + 1
6 = 1 + 1 + 1 + 1 + 1 + 1
7 = 1 + 1 + 1 + 1 + 1 + 1 + 1
8 = 1 + 1 + 1 + 1 + 1 + 1 + 1 + 1
9 = 1 + 1 + 1 + 1 + 1 + 1 + 1 + 1 + 1

You could be right if all the arithmetic rules are made only on the binary convention, and if the others symbols (from 2 to 9) are defined after the whole basic rules.

But we can do not stop before '2', define all the symbolic before, and get the whole arithmetic after this first definition.

That is why I understand this possible hierarchy, but the symbolic can pass "above" without problem... About this subject, we could maybe start an infinite debate ! (Is datas symbolic stronger than converting symbolic).


About symbolic, piero put on the head of subject a demonstration page. And we are poor, not to having the unicode equivalent ! (set theory)

[Piero]

About symbolic, piero put on the head of subject a demonstration page. And we are poor, not to having the unicode equivalent ! (set theory)

You seem to ignore that those pompous "academics", trying to demonstrate math is "incontrovertible", were devastated by Gödel, and that a similar story had happened in ancient Greece with √2

You have no idea of how much me and Buddha are ROFL about math now

[Olli]

I am not sure, what you are saying about.

For example, in statistic, you multiply two values to operate a AND logical function between the two variables storing these values.
Idem for the OR logical function between two statistical variables which have been added.

If an integer is a non-derivable result of a function treating a floating point value, then why not consider that these two types of data, represent the physical units of two far concepts :
- quantum physic for integers
- relativity for floats

Also, in math, it could exist some rules to graduate a problem of derivability.

So, even if it looks like a pump, just a A & B logical function could be interpreted by a very big math demonstration which respect a strong rules map. And, make links between quantum physic and relativity, by the way.

[Piero]

"Babylonians used Pythagorean theorem 1,000 years before it was 'invented' in ancient Greece"

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BG-E6WJNeEE

Me and Buddha:

[Olli]

I apologize Piero. 49 minutes it is too long... But I thank you for your expressions without the words, which give me regrets to translate.

Do not worry, I am gone by the same way, until the time shows me I have not it anymore, some time.

[Piero]

49 minutes it is too long...

Hey Olli,
1st of all, please forgive my bad jokes in bad English

Watch that documentary if you can; you seem interested in quantum physic and relativity, and many of their "mysteries" would be easily explained if we live in a simulation…

At least, try watch the part about the many double-slit experiments… (circa time 24:00)

[Olli]

I doubt about this concept.

Imagine an empty and black universe.
Lets take two grains of sand. And place them into two far places.
This gives a distance d

Whatever the distance, it seems not to exist a distance limit for that these two grains touch themselves a future day.

Each atom dies a day, by disintegration. So, these two grains, loosing there own mass, accelerate the one against the other one.

So, the limit is not in the link of the gravitation which attracts them, the one against the other one.

But the limit which exists is in the maximal age of an atom. Passed this maximal age, we cannot have an evidence of a future collision, because, passed over a distance, the two grains are transformed themselves to light (or other electromagnetic wave), before they could collide.

An other limit characteristic is the temperature of these grains. More they are hot, more they contain particles in movement.

So these movements prevent the gravitation from act to attract the two grains the one against the other.

Now, all that is imaginable in a perfectly freed space-time, what it is not the way of our universe, where everything globally seems to take some distance.

We have dark holes, whom the limit age is far higher than an atom.

So, even if we have not accurate limits of distance to place two grains of sand to be sure they collides in the future, we however know that two dark holes have a very bigger limit of distance to get a future collision.

Plus, a dark hole is very cold, because it "eats" all energy. Its internal energy is symetric, as a gyroscope.

Whatever the intantaneous character of the gravitation, the two objects are linked, even if the distance is very far higher than the size of the universe, as a beautiful and infinite road which enters and exits in the kitchen.

Note : I neglect the concept of mass here.

[Piero]

gravitation which attracts them

Did you know that the VAST majority of the Universe (more than 90%) is a total mystery (dark energy, dark matter…)?
Even gravity is a big mystery, despite it SEEMS to be a well-known "phenomenon"…

…at least officially…

[Olli]

As I already said in an older subject, I do not think there is dark matter, neither dark energy. We are able to see a beer bubble in a distance of 8000 kilometers. But we are not able to see an atom, a fortiori, in a distance of 1 000 000 000 000 000 000 kilometers (milky way constant form).

Any atoms are born every day in the far space, without cinetic link with the star which created them (star -> neutrinos, then neutrinos -> atoms). So the galaxies are more and more "solid" as an invisible cement, due to the new atoms which have no cinetic link with the stars which created them.

This is not from a fire wave, which leaves the star.
This is not even a molecul.
This is not a cloud.

This is an atom, a non complete atom. From our star, the sun, billions of neutrinos go through our bodies, for a very, very long travel before to be transformed to particles, or anti-particles.

The neutrino does not keep the cinetic link, as a cloud, a solid, a fluid or a molecul even (or an atom core).
However, there is link : the center of gravity.

Without respect of the scales, if a star starts to shine in Paris and goes in Berlin to die, the center of the gravity of the whole mass created by the omnidirectionnal flow of neutrinos is between Paris and Berlin : near Aachen.

That stays my opinion about dark matter : it does not exist. We just have not the technology to observe particles which are so far...

[Olli]

About the dark energy, I consider it does not exist also.

I think again it is a very big dark hole in which we are born, and in which we will disapear.

It is hypothetic also. There is maybe no very big dark hole. And maybe our universe is not born from two very big dark holes entered in collision.

Or maybe our universe is well born from such a collision, but we are not caught inside the event horizon. And maybe we are free ! And maybe "dark matter" and "dark energy" have the same origin, the neutrinos, but not in the same astro-physical period.

Let's imagine the sun and the earth alone in the universe...
The sun has a radioactive core which transforms hydrogen to helium mainly.
The sun shines : rays and neutrinos.

There are neutrinos which go through our planet. This creates a "anti-shadow" because "behind" the earth, there are neutrinos which have been "excited" by the earth. So, the neutrinos which have gone through the earth, and have been excited by the earth, will be transformed to particle (or, randomly anti-particles) earlier than others neutrinos.

This "anti-shadow' is a spiral. So its center of gravity is the sun.

But, if the earth stops, step by step, turning around the sun. Then this "anti-shadow" is not a spiral anymore. The "anti-shadow" become a cones. And, in this way future, the center of gravity of all the mass created by the flow of neutrinos, this center goes far, more and more, from the sun.

So this mass attracts the sun which accelerates, more and more !

That is one other of my humble opinions about the "dark energy" that I cannot imagine existing...

(but I stay mainly on the presence of a very dark hole)

[Psychophanta]

About the dark energy, I consider it does not exist also...

Extraordinary simple explanation article:
https://www.scirp.org/journal/paperinfo ... rid=108774

[Olli]

I doubt about this document, psychophanta, because the Earth is not the center of the universe...

[Psychophanta]

@Olli
What are you talking about?
Mhhh!
There is a link to a video which helps a lot, at the end of the document; indeed, understanding the video is enough to not to need to read de paper.