Calling all Great Minds: The Theory of Everything

Great Debates
621

ah.

so your “new” “theory” is neither new nor useful.

seems you’re presenting nothing of necessity or significance.

thank you for clarifying your uselessness. the candor and honesty is refreshing.

now if you would be so kind as to address your deliberate dishonesty about the math,the varying “significance” of the math which you seem unable to decide upon, and why you’ve been intentionally misleading about “making **history **in a new math-thread.”

why are you being dishonest about all the math aspect?

please see post above showing your clear conflicting own words. YOU OWN WORDS that step all over each other.
and explain.

thanks.

622

It appears that you are the one who is confused about infinity.
from wikipedia:

If something does not have a limit, it cannot be reached. It does not matter if it is countable, uncountable, fits easily or not into another infinity, or can be used in calculus as a helpful tool. Trying to say that “ooo infinity is complicated” looks like hand waving to me. Saying " It takes 42 minutes to cross infinity at the “default” speed." proves without a doubt to me that you have no idea what I’m talking about. You cannot cross infinity. We are physical beings living in a physical universe. Infinity is not a physical concept. You can play with it in mathematics to solve equations, but you can’t physically do anything with it. If you don’t like this, find another term, because this one sure as heck doesn’t fit.

I did not give you a nebulous concept of infinity, I clearly defined it in a way that is clear and understandable. You however have been extremely cryptic about what you mean by infinity, and what criteria an “infinity” must have to be classified as such.

You have completely avoided my point entirely. I clearly showed you that your method of interpreting “the path to the result” was not necessary. I’m not necessarily disagreeing that the notation can hold more information than simply the relationships between the positions of numbers, but i don’t find it to be at all useful to do so.

When we are looking at a two mathematical equations, and you claim that they are not the same, it is interpreted as you claiming they are not mathematical equivalencies. If you don’t like this I suggest you come up with a better way to explain yourself, because people’s minds are not going to change on this issue.

“But if you refuse to consider the idea how can I argue” you ask.

From the fact that all we know about the universe is successfully computed using math as we understand it, you are going to have to try a heck of a lot harder to convince us that your method is superior. This means examples.

Coming to this board which contains the greatest collection of intelligence I have ever encountered on the internet, and claiming that WE are the ones who don’t understand math seems a little bit arrogant to me. If you truly believe that the rest of the world is doing math completely wrong then you need to provide some extremely convincing evidence, because it’s working just fine for us.

ETA: You spend a lot of time complaining about how woeful our understanding of math is, and extremely little time trying to explain what the correct way to do it is. If you do have some groundbreaking and revolutionary new way of doing math I for one would love to read it.

623

OMG. You really don’t get it, do you?

The spaceships survive the inversion BECAUSE they were designed for the INside of the sun. This means that each side is 42 lights year across, and 42-(-42) encompasses the INside and the OUTside of all of space/sun.

If they had designed the spaceships with 42+42 then the spaceships would not have survived the inversion.

Bottom line: NASA got lucky.

624

When come back bring pi.

625

I do appreciate the civil dopers on here trying to dam the dykes ignorance but before we go forth any further, I just want to requote the recap I posted on the previous page of how the flow of discourse has unfolded.

Anthem: I’ve got this theory that changes everything. Our physical theory inverts itself at the asteroid belt (later amended to outer space).
us: Can you be more specific to the point/line/plane of inversion?
Anthem: 42 light-minutes from the sun
us: why?
Anthem: it’s the distance from the sun to jupiter, among other reasons.
us: it actually isn’t exactly 42, and varies based on tilt, where it is in its orbit, etc
Anthem: well that’s just an approximate average time
us: so the boundary is constantly changing?
Anthem: maybe. yes. yes it is. but the 42 is just a shortcut. the real math is much more complex.
us: and what of the non-gaseous objects past the gas giants like pluto?
Anthem: there’s another inversion point past the gas giants
us: but pluto’s orbit actually brings it closer to the sun than neptune for brief periods. and what about comets?
Anthem: ::no response::
us: and what do you mean by an inversion point at outer space?
Anthem: space is so different than here on earth
us: there’s a lot of places different than here on earth. are there inversions there too?
Anthem: not so completely different as outer space and earth. heat, sound, movement are all different
us: that’s mostly a product of the vacuum which we can easily replicate on earth with no effects of this inversion
Anthem: it’s just so different
us: but why can’t we observe it in manmade vacuums? plus there’s people who are in space RIGHT NOW and they haven’t observed it either
Anthem: that’s because we can’t observe it. it exists in a dimension we can’t perceive.
us: if we can’t observe it, how is this a theory? plus didn’t you say it did exist? that gas giants and blah blah blah?
Anthem: it is different. the heat, sound, etc.
us: we just told you that those things can be explained mostly be the lack of an atmosphere.
Anthem: did you say you wanted math? here’s a strawman based on my seemingly lack of understanding of negative numbers. 1-(-1) actually goes to negative infinity and skips its way back to 2.
us: No. that’s not how negative numbers work. here’s an analogy to help you better understand.
Anthem: Ah but what you don’t realize is that when somebody “walks” down a number line you can either watch him walk or hear him walk. If you listen, you can see that I’m still correct.
us: No. You missed the point. Nobody is actually watching someone walk down the number line. It’s only an analogy used to teach you how negative numbers work.
Anthem: That’s the point. Your analogy completely falls apart because you just can’t comprehend the 4th dimension.
us: Well not really. Simultaneously though, tell me more about the inversion? About how reality inverts itself in outer space? Why do astronauts and cosmonauts stay grounded in reality?
Anthem: Because they’re protected by their equipment.
us: Well their equipment was designed by scientists that do not acknowledge your theory. That equipment is built because of current laws - laws that don’t assume an inversion. That seems to subvert your entire premise rather concretely.

and so on.

So really it’s easy to see how Anthem’s not so much as debating but dodging questions to draw out the conversation as long as possible.

What say you, Anthem? Have I misrepresented any of your points, or how you have handled discourse thus far in this thread?

626

I do appreciate the civil dopers on here trying to dam the dykes ignorance but before we go forth any further, I just want to requote the recap I posted on the previous page of how the flow of discourse has unfolded.

Anthem: I’ve got this theory that changes everything. Our physical theory inverts itself at the asteroid belt (later amended to outer space).
us: Can you be more specific to the point/line/plane of inversion?
Anthem: 42 light-minutes from the sun
us: why?
Anthem: it’s the distance from the sun to jupiter, among other reasons.
us: it actually isn’t exactly 42, and varies based on tilt, where it is in its orbit, etc
Anthem: well that’s just an approximate average time
us: so the boundary is constantly changing?
Anthem: maybe. yes. yes it is. but the 42 is just a shortcut. the real math is much more complex.
us: and what of the non-gaseous objects past the gas giants like pluto?
Anthem: there’s another inversion point past the gas giants
us: but pluto’s orbit actually brings it closer to the sun than neptune for brief periods. and what about comets?
Anthem: ::no response::
us: and what do you mean by an inversion point at outer space?
Anthem: space is so different than here on earth
us: there’s a lot of places different than here on earth. are there inversions there too?
Anthem: not so completely different as outer space and earth. heat, sound, movement are all different
us: that’s mostly a product of the vacuum which we can easily replicate on earth with no effects of this inversion
Anthem: it’s just so different
us: but why can’t we observe it in manmade vacuums? plus there’s people who are in space RIGHT NOW and they haven’t observed it either
Anthem: that’s because we can’t observe it. it exists in a dimension we can’t perceive.
us: if we can’t observe it, how is this a theory? plus didn’t you say it did exist? that gas giants and blah blah blah?
Anthem: it is different. the heat, sound, etc.
us: we just told you that those things can be explained mostly be the lack of an atmosphere.
Anthem: did you say you wanted math? here’s a strawman based on my seemingly lack of understanding of negative numbers. 1-(-1) actually goes to negative infinity and skips its way back to 2.
us: No. that’s not how negative numbers work. here’s an analogy to help you better understand.
Anthem: Ah but what you don’t realize is that when somebody “walks” down a number line you can either watch him walk or hear him walk. If you listen, you can see that I’m still correct.
us: No. You missed the point. Nobody is actually watching someone walk down the number line. It’s only an analogy used to teach you how negative numbers work.
Anthem: That’s the point. Your analogy completely falls apart because you just can’t comprehend the 4th dimension. Gosh your math skills stink. You don’t now your infinities from your pi’s.
us: I don’t think so. Our math is pretty solid. It just seems like you’re throwing around generalizations of things…
Anthem: Numbers are meaningless in the real world. For instance, take the number pi. You can’t even write it down! You can’t measure it precisely and you certainly can’t get a circle whose circumference is exactly 1.
us: Not really. Just because a number is irrational doesn’t mean there isn’t a real world equivalent. As for a circle with circumference 1? That’s pretty easy. You take a piece of string that’s 1 meter long and then loop it into a circle. That’s a circle whose perimeter has nothing to do with pi. Pi is just a ratio between circumference and diameter. There really isn’t anything mystical about it.
Anthem: Your math is so pathetic and ill-defined. You keep asking for more and yet you can’t handle what you’ve got. I’ve shown you the 2+1 and 3-1, and 4-2 and 1-(-1) so much that inversion should be intuitive at this point.
us: well not really. And back to space inversion, why don’t astronauts and cosmonauts experience this inversion when they’re in space?
Anthem: Because they’re protected by their equipment. That hubble telescope is a giant mass of steel and titanium. And without space suits? People would die in a heartbeat.
us: Well, yes we know that. However, their equipment was designed by scientists that do not acknowledge your theory. That equipment is built because of current laws - laws that don’t assume an inversion. That seems to subvert your entire premise rather concretely.

and so on.

So really it’s easy to see how Anthem’s not so much as debating but dodging questions to draw out the conversation as long as possible.

What say you, Anthem? Have I misrepresented any of your points, or how you have handled discourse thus far in this thread?

added the pi discussion. if mods can delete the previous one. i tried to edit but timed out.

627

Why don’t you give me a couple of examples of what a clever 8th grader can mathematically do with ease, and I’ll tell you how far off the pace I am?

628

i mean no disrespect–but it seems as if you jump into some threads acting a little more adversarial than what is required.

i assure you, in this case, your objection is born of a lack of context (which i will explain in verbose nerditity in a sec. SORRY IN ADVANCE).

we are trying to legitimately fight ignorance in this thread. we have someone here who is willfully peddling it as “higher-understanding,” and at least one impressionable young fellow has been swayed. we are failing as Dopers if we just let it run amok. we are not “bashing” someone as a mob; we are meeting a challenge–a gauntlet thrown by a really condescending reality-jumper (who set the tone of this debate himself to “not entirely civil.”)

see my post 607. Anthem says the "only relevant math"in this thread is 1-(-1)≠1+1 and that 2+1≠4-1 (which is bunk).
LET ME BE CLEAR–
he is saying 3≠3.
he is saying 2 does not always equal 2.
he is saying “it depends how you got there,” implying math is an actual physical *journey *that allows for “magical inversions of physics.”

he says the “2” that 1-(-1) “arrives” at (again, through physically traveling through more-or-less adversity) is “in a different category of size.”
what’s worse than his claim that one 3 is more deserving of evaluation of scale than the next is the fact he is saying anyone who doesn’t understand that is dumb.
now…
*you *said in post 604 something about how you don’t have a grasp on the math in this thread.

what **zoid **is saying is the math in this thread is basic, 6th grader clever/8th grader embarrassing. it’s literally 2+1 and 4-1, both equally 3–but the very arrogant, condescending time-lord is claiming the 3s are different than each other because magic.

none of this is a jab at you. not *this *post, not zoid’s. what we are collectively saying is this **Anthem **character is trying to magic-up extremely simple math that even a kid could understand…into something self-serving and convoluted to intentionally obfuscate the fact his theory is wrong and useless.

–not to mention it is needless even by is own account.

he is taking simple, 6th/8th grader math and pretending it is somehow interpretable. “dude this>3 is different than that>3. this three had a much rougher time because the math went over rockier terrain to get there. it traveled FURTHER.” he is injecting a philosophical allegory into extraordinarily simple math, all as a crutch…as a stilt to nonsense.

so, please do not take the adversarial stance. you are clearly a smart enough guy; don’t take things personally.
this only further muddles the worst thread in the history of the internet. this thing is a nightmare to begin with…seriously. it’s spawning new diseases.

ANTHEM!:
please address Pancake’s post. his observation is humorous but very thought-out and seems fairly accurate of what has transpired. he put enough work into writing it that i think he deserves to be addressed, if you so kindly would, please.

and maybe if you have time, at some point, you can be accountable for your dishonest and incongruous statements in my previous post.

i don’t even care about nitpicking your flaws nor do i care about the inaccuracies/accuracies in the theory; i feel it more important to address the fact you say utterly empty, contradictory things with great insistence upon yourself and seem to think you don’t ever have to be accountable for such big-talk. where is your math that will make history?

please and thank you, when you find the time.

629

If you’re travelling via expressions that are equal to one another, then the journey was the same…because you were standing still the whole time.

630

I suspect he was referring to this exchange.

Not that it makes his point valid, because although his first claim(of pi being incalculable) was marginally defensible(in the sense that pi is an irrational number with no finite value in base 10 notation), the sloppy conflation of definable and calculable by both himself and MDKSquared is the real pin he hangs the claim of our collective failure to understand enough math to criticize him upon.

Nothing in this post is intended as an endorsement of anything Anthem (0) has theorized about our universe. Some less than rigorous rhetoric on the part of some of his critics does not invalidate their larger point of his misuse of mathematics, or validate his claim that his critics do not understand enough math for their criticism to be sound.

Enjoy,
Steven

631

It’s wordplay. Saying “Oh it’s about definable vs. calculable” is just more semantic wiggling. Pi is precisely calculable, and that’s not an inaccurate statement. Just because we could write out numbers forever in base 10 doesn’t mean it’s not “precisely calculable” or that it’s only something we can “define.”

Again, changing the system doesn’t change what we’re actually talking about, here. Let’s say I operate in base pi. Then pi is exactly represented by 10, and we don’t have to write out anything more. This seems like a cheap shot, and yet you’re not at all surprised when I tell you that in base 10 you can precisely define the number 1 or 2 even though you’d be writing an infinite number of zeroes if you wanted to define it to the same level of rigor. “Oh, but we don’t need to write out that many zeroes because the zeroes repeat. Pi’s don’t!” That’s only because you are using a base that necessarily warrants it, and you’re talking about some finite-time process of outputting individual digits and using this as an inaccurate definition of things that isn’t at all supported in the mathematical community.

The “less than rigorous rhetoric” is entirely coming from the side of guys like Anthem. It’s people who use their misunderstanding of math/real analysis/physics/logic/etc to justify nonsense.

632

Am I right in saying that Anthem thinks that these things aren’t observable to normal humans in this timeline because all of these things are in some unobservable 4th dimension? And that to view this, you have to see physics (or lack there-of) through his super-complicated kaleidoscope of ins and outs? And obviously we don’t get what he’s saying cause we’re just not seeing it maaannnn

Is that about right?

633

I agree it’s wordplay. Pi is precisely calculable, if you chose the right calculation framework. But without assuming additional mathematics knowledge on the part of a reader, the most common thing known about pi is that it goes on forever. Trying to frame the discussion in the bounds of common mathematical knowledge means staying away from irrational number bases. I chose not to resort to using base pi to refute Anthem(0)'s statement because I want my comment to be accessible to as large an audience as possible. I’m not trying to confuse anyone trying to follow along with this thread. I figure that’s Anthem(0)'s job.

Enjoy,
Steven

634

That may be one conclusion resultant of his convoluted thought path but he originally posited that the kaleidoscope of ins and outs was observable as through his claims that the outer gas giants are physical inversions of the interior terrestrial planets.

Also the physical, observable difference in the inversion of inside the atmosphere and outside the atmosphere.

Furthermore the 4th dimension is physically spatial and represented as the 1 dimensional radially outward pointing distance.

Either way, it’s all bunk and I think he’s tuckered himself out on this one and won’t be heard of ever again.

635

I wonder if he has found a fresh place to peddle his bunk?

636

I personally was waiting with baited breath for the math thread. Not that I could solve any of it but to watch it be destroyed but the people on this board who can. I also have a few friends who would have been highly entertained. I suspect it would have been like watching a slow motion car wreck. Too bad.

Capt

637

Double post

638

I think I’ve worked it out. See, Anthem kept telling us that this was all the relevant math:
2 + 1

…and nobody could figure it out, right? Well, I got really drunk over the holidays and pondered the mysteries of this thread. In the midst of my overfed, inebriated haze a light came on: A rounding error!!
So with no further ado, I give you the Refined Theory of EVERYTHING:

[spoiler]2 + 1.0

(for 1 ≠ 1.0)[/spoiler]

639

My mind just warped into a five dimensional hypercube. Thank you, Job, for clearing that up.

(Yo hablo ingles, asi traducir tu nombre)

640

[QUOTE=pancakes3]
Either way, it’s all bunk and I think he’s tuckered himself out on this one and won’t be heard of ever again.
[/QUOTE]
He’ll be in his bunk.