conway

so gluons have their own field, is this the "speculated" case of gravitons? what is the value of the higgs field if not close to zero? I think I see what you mean by "sort of"....please correct me if I am wrong, that is all particles are waves with their lowest intensity being the "state of particle". Is it then correct to say that a given wave is the given field, but the field is not necessary the given wave?

Thank you for helping me do my research. I will read I ask some more questions as to why "sort of". mmmh...the links do not appear to be working?

Am I correct in the following statements on particles. 1. It is that an electron is a particle that behaves like a wave in certain instants within it's "orbit" of the nuclei. 2. A particle in the state of superposition is a wave that in certain instants behaves like a particle, in more than one place. 3. A photon is a wave that at certain instants behaves like a particle in one place at one time. I am short of "nuts and bolts" education in this regard (equations), I can only pose question in philosophical forms, my apologies.

You got to be kidding me! I didn't hi jack anything. I keep both statements short. Does this mean I can't talk about multiplication at all? Just because I mentioned it in my thread. Screw this site im done dancing with these bs moderators.

see "relative mathematics" in speculation thread.

I am of the opinion that it is the "length of all definable points (countable)". Therefore the "length" once the limit has reached "undefined value" is then zero. That is the nature of zero is undefined value not the absence of value. Thus the continuum.

It is my opinion that zero is the ONLY reference point. But it then requires that zero exist in varying amounts. I offer a speculation for this. It is then that zero is (undefined value + defined space). If then we further define the "defined space" of zero, then we literally have varying amounts of zero. Of which one can say after X-infinitesimal has been reached on the approach to zero, then the observer will institute a new zero. That is 0-1 as opposed to 01, which is the first 0 on the other side of X-infinite. It is then that numbers are restarted with 1. Varying amounts of zero. For further information see Relative Mathematics in speculation. This only works supposing that the space of "information" is infinitesimally small. Which I think a safe supposing. As well as noting that it is only from our perspective or 00 that the "space" of information is "small".

I thought about comparing the worlds of solar bonds and atomic structure for a while. But I lost it once I started studying QM atomic structure. Tall order. Maybe a varying "point of reference" in molecular perspective could help describe the change in bonds between these atoms that your talking about. I don't know enough of chemistry or QM atomic structure to go any further however.

Information does not exist without a medium. It then posses empirical qualities through extension of the empirical medium. The symbol of any given number has a physical space, likewise it contains an inherent amount of information that represents that space to an observer.

Do you purpose an alternative? I would think if one existed it would be in how we define the philosophy of a "bond". What really is the difference between sharing and stealing? If an ionic bond is one in which both nuclei "steal" electrons. If a covalent bond is one in which both nuclei "share" electrons. What is the philosophical difference between these "bonds" quantum and classically speaking?

I am curious as to an update on this matter. Black body phenomenon? Imperfections in material, and or device?

I accept and appreciate the forums conclusions on this matter.

It could be that I am one of these plp. "law of superposition", "law of entanglement", "law of the observer"....double slit experiment. This is almost the collection of my QM education. I do accept them as truths. Then if I make other philosophical assertions on the premise that these are true. It then does not mean that I am unfavorably using QM to my "social" advantage despite having no degree therein. Whether my assertions are wrong on right is a another matter. But I would presume that even scientist make "philosophical assertions" based on their own findings. Even though I suppose this is contradictory to being a scientist. I would think one could do both. One just needs to be ready to change their viewpoint when obvious contradictions arise.

I prefer to take the word used for nothing quite literally. That is "nothing" does not exist. Since it does not exist something does.

Is it then that this equation requires all things to have space? Including particles?

My apologies for the mistake on my part. It is then that the multiplicative identity property is kept....but it is the multiplicative property of zero, otherwise the zero product property that is not kept. I shall try to slow down. Also to say that the additive identity of 0 and the additive inverse of 0 * a are both kept. The entire list actually. If then a=1, then the additive identity , and the additive inverse axioms requires that (a) be defined as value and (a) be defined as space in a very specific fashion. ((0 + 0)(s) * A(v)) + -(0v * As )) = 0s * Av + -(0v * As) = A These are the "fifth" and "sixth" steps correct? Thank you Uncool, I must now add to the original idea that which symbol is labeled as space in which symbol is labeled as value, must be done so in accordance with all given axioms. I must add that I stated as an axiom that in division, value must be labeled first while space is labeled second. If then this would affect these above property's let me know. I have yet to see this is the case however. Actually I propose the following During the process of the "order of operations", Multiplication within parenthesis are solved in such fashion as which the order of the symbols value and space is adjusted according to all given axioms relative to the equation. If then axioms are not relevant to the equation, value is labeled first and space is labeled second.

Through extension I must also drop multiplicative identity property of zero. But I know of no other axioms affecting this. If this is not the case please let me know. How do you wish that I prove it carefully. Will listing a copy of all given axioms in the articles be sufficient? Associative of addition and multiplication. Commutative of addition and multiplication. Additive identity of zero but NOT multiplicative identity of zero. Additive and Multiplicative inverses Distributive. It may be because the article is a wiki article, but I should think it helps my argument. See how, again, it only says division by zero is not allowed. Then offers a link as to why. The link stating that it is not "done" simply because of the multiplicative identity property of zero. Which again is an axiom. It exist as it is with out proof of why it is. So if there are no other reason's (other that Multiplicative Identity Property of Zero), then I have ground to continue the debate.

I will do so and post a list of the results. This will take me time. Until then. If (x) is representing only a space then there never was any "thing" to recover from x0=0. If (x) is a value then it is possible to recover it from x0. According to Relative Mathematics we do have an inverse to multiplication by zero. /0 is the inverse. Funny thing is........ is that this is so for anything other than zero. I will give you that under current axioms /0 cannot obey the "standard rules of numbers". Change the axioms, change how it obeys. (a(b+c) = (ab + ac)=( a(as value only)* b(as space only) + a(as value only) * c(as space only) ) = ( (b+c)+(b+c)+(b+c)....in as many quantities as in the space on a) I have read both articles on "Fields" and "Rings." It is stated in both cases that division by zero is not allowed. I can keep all given axioms except for this one, in both field and rings. There is a link to another article in "Fields" but not in "Rings" addressing division by zero. It is stated.... " As there is no number which, multiplied by zero gives a, " Apparently a man named George Berkeley has something more to say as to "why". I am going to see if it's anything new to me. I have offered that there is a number (representing only space, or only value), when multiplied by zero equals "a". While still assuming (a) does not equal 0. Or that is ( 1 does not equal 0). Which we talked about and I was refereeing that it did, but this was really only from a philosophical view point to help get my view point across. That is to say 1 and 0 are more alike than they are different(both have 1 single defined space, both have 1 single value, only one value is defined and one is undefined)...but still not equivalent. I am digressing. We can then ask why the axiom "multiplicative identity property of zero" exists. But that is axiomatic. This also is an axiom I would have to change. So then Only two axioms change the rest are kept.

Thank you, and ok. a*(b+c) If then b and c are added, per rules of order of operations, then we can assume we have a new number Z. a*z If then (a) is the value, then (z) is the space. It is then that (a) is placed additionally into all spaces of (z). Then all values are added in all spaces. If you prefer the distributive method. a*(b + c). If then b and c are actual numbers (that is the given symbols represents both value and space), then the symbol (a), is representing space only. so then assuming a=3 ((b+c)+(b+c)+(b+c)).........(the space of 3) If (a) were 2... ((b+c)+(b+c))......(the space of 2) So then in each of the last two examples it is that I have two numbers (b+c) that are placed into the space of (a) Then added.

My apologies for not being more specific. S and V are not variables in any sense. S is space. V is value. All numbers used in + and - , have all V's and S' combined in the numbers themselves. This is to say one can not add 1v and 1v. both v's require an s to be added or subtracted. If I may quote my original paper again. "It is the case in multiplication and division, that neither number given is an actual number. Not in the fashion that both symbols contains both value and space. It is that one symbol is representing a value, and that one symbol is representing a space." This aside, following the rules of the order of operations, no eqution then is altered from its current answer. Even in regards to * and / by zero. As I have shown in the post regarding the commutative prorperty. It is only that with RM, there is an additional answer to any eqution regarding * and / by zero. Relativity. To be more spcefic (a(v) * 0(s) = a) (a(s) * 0(v) = 0) (0(v) * a(s) = 0) (0(s) * a(v) = a)

The commutative property still exists. Where the number is in the equation does not matter. What does matter is what number is labeled as value, and what number is labeled as space. For example. ( 2(v) * 1(s) = 2) (2(s) * 1(v) = 2) (1(v) * 2(s) = 2) (1(s) * 2(v) = 2) a/a is still a. if then a ( a as a value) is / by (a as a space) the a/a=a. The only equations that change at all are * and / by zero. Therefore the only axioms that change are zero, and * and /. Of course I have added axioms about the nature of numbers themselves. Where as this is very enlightening. Albeit one mans enlightenment, may not be another's. Studiot I do not know the number of axioms in regards to addition or subtraction. I assume you know, therefore the need of it for your benefit is purely flame. What does it matter the number. If you know of one that contradicts me let me know. I will try to be patient and learn from you. I tell you this as a curtsey, what's to stop me from looking up the number of axioms and posting them all, authors included. My ego is not so bad as that. What I do know is the definition of axiom, it is a self evident truth. I do not contest any axiom of + and - . I have stated nothing to my knowledge that would affect + and -. If I have please let me know.

There are specific reasons why (A * 0 = A ) while the inverse (0 * A = 0).

I do not see how any of the equations you posted fail to have an answer. 1/2 * 0 = 1/2 (1/2 * 0)-1 = (1/2)-1 0 + 2/0 = 2

I have defined specifically what I mean by zero. It is (undefined value and defined space). All axioms in mathematics in relation to addition and subtraction stay the same. Axioms for multiplication and division change. As stated. 1 = 0 is true. In space, and in value. But it is only that 1 posses a single defined value, where as zero posses a single undefined value. I can not apply this to equations with graphs and the like. I would have to do it by hand and or reprogram a computer to change the nature of zero itself. As well as multiplication and division. A is a real number. If then A divided by zero is A. and assuming the computer knows this..... no field or ring will have issue.

If you would read the original post sir. It is that the space of zero is equivalent to the space of 1, where as zero has a undefined value, and were as 1 has a single defined value. Multiplication and Division being actions of value's placed into spaces