michel123456

That was very profound. After a night of thinking, I realised my system is not self organized. I mean even number 1 may be the result of operations. 0,5+0,5=1 for example. And 0,5 is also the result of operations, ad infinitum. So the system must be set on a decided basis (say basis 1) in order to initiate. it is even more complicated than I thought. You are more advanced than me to answer. Thank you for the nonholonomics.

Hm. yes. But now that this thread is under the religion forum, the OP has no ability to respond. Something is going wrong IMHO. I completely disagree with the OP, but with all my respect, I find the situation creepy. I am out of this thread.

Good for you. But if you want to talk about surface & coins, why do you use a balloon which is 3D, and not use a stretched surface? It is better to remain in 2D all along. Take your wife's panties, put coins on it and stretch. Your students will be enjoyed to help you stretching in all directions at the same time, especially if you are a female and got your panties off for the sake of science.

Isn't it exactly what we are observing? Choose an empty part of the night sky, turn your telescope, and wait. What will be the result on the photographic plate? Something like the Hubble Deep Field "The HDF is at the centre of this image of one degree of sky. The Moon as seen from Earth would fill roughly one quarter of this image." from Wiki. At the end darkness is caused by our inability to see, not by the lack of astral objects.

In the fight between image and text, image always win. If you show a balloon expanding into a black square, the people watching will see a balloon exapnding inside a black square. Point. You can add all the text you want after that explaining that blah blah blah, the image is there. I should have stated I hate this kind of animations. They are doing more harm than anything. P.S. your link is better, but IMHO the problems are still there.

A-ny-thing. I have my favorites but there may be interesting stuff in the most unexpected subjects. However, my rule is No Rule, so there are exceptions. Now that i am thinking about a little more, not a-ny-thing...damned I just contraticted myself.

That is the reason why I dislike animations with balloon analogies like the one posted by stringjunky above (no offense intended): it shows a center.

This thread is very confusing.

All remarks are fine. then as it looks out, mathematics are not emergent. Mathematics are a construct where humans define the fundamental operations. which means that at any time one can build another system based on other fundamentals. Another example is the = sign, which is called "equal", but IMHO should be called "equivalent". Because by definition one thing cannot be "equal" to anything else than itself. "equivalent" should mean that you can replace one side of the = by the other without further bothering (that's what mathematicians do), but not that both sides are "the same" by nature. For example 1+1 = 2 should mean "you can use 1+1 instead of 2 in further mathematical operation", but 1+1 is a dynamic organization where "someone use an operator" while 2 is a static result Which is different from 2=1+1 where 2 is a static entity made of divisible parts while 1+1 is the result of a complex dynamic analysis of the entity distributed in parts that one collates together in order to get an exact equivalent result, based on the concept that the original entity is indeed divisible in smaller parts. The premise being that operations read from left to right like western conventional text) All of which are not reflected in the commutative 1+1=2 Exactly.

That's the reason why Yoseph disappeared from this thread. You shut down his mouth. It is not a "bureaucracy", it is totally unfair IMHO. Even the worst murderer has the right to express himself. "Please don't try to circumvent the rules we've created" you must be kidding. Who ever told you people out of here agree with your rules. They don't.

Population of Human Kind is growing constantly. So if we consider reincarnation, we must admit that a few amount of souls are transmitted to more people, that after dying you will be reincarnated in 1,2 bodies (if it happens quickly). The other scenario would be that there are not enough souls at disposal and that from time to time a desesperate child is born with a soul made from scratch. That's me.

I have read this paradox article at least 20 times, but now that i read it in this Forum, it suddenly comes to my mind that it may be more subtle. If I light a candle 5 cm from my eyes, it will blind me. If I light a billion candles 10 kilometers away, I doubt they will. There must be another relation adding to the simple geometric description above.

Mathematics look like naturally emergent from reality. 1+1=2, it is an evidence. I just wanted to throw an idea where 1+1 is not exactly equal to 2. The concept is the following: When stating 1+1=2, we have made an operation, called sum, in which the operator (the + sign) although "operating", has no value. I mean the result (2) has no inscription of the past operations being done in order to obtain its value. Trying to explain: 2 can be the result of a very simple calculation, or the result of an incredible 20 volumes 30000 pages calculations. There is no "memory" in number 2 showing if it has been picked randomly from the number line or if it is the result of an elaborated reasoning, showing how much energy needed to obtain the 2 result. But that can be fixed. The idea is to give a value to each operation and implement the result with an annotation that keeps track of history. If the fundamental mathematical operation is sum, we could give to the + sign a fundamental value that should be noted with the result. Something like 1+1=2(+), showing that number 2 is the result of a single summation. Following this idea 1+1+1=3(++). Of course there is a notation issue. To make things even more complicated, one could state that each number could be taken only once from the line number. For example 1+1 would not be allowed because number 1 has been taken twice (really, how is it allowed to duplicate numbers and use them at will?) To make 1+1, we should first "create" another 1 by operating other numbers, for example 3-2=1(-) Following the above: 1 +1(-)=2(+-) in order to keep track of the history. Which is certainly wrong because how could number 3 & 4 exist in the first place? Number 3 could come from 1+2(+-)=3(++-) and number 4 from... damned...its getting complicated. (Edit: after reading my post I wonder if it even works! Maybe with a set of 2 numbers) At the end, one could insert the concept that all the operating values (++++++++++++-------------) of a simple operation gets converted in regular number and added to the result as if the operators were an energetic value able under certain circumstances to be converted in the massive result depending on the field of calculation. I wonder if it could be more complicated.

Emphasis mine. from wiki photon "Since photons contribute to the stress-energy tensor, they exert a gravitational attraction on other objects, according to the theory of general relativity. Conversely, photons are themselves affected by gravity; their normally straight trajectories may be bent by warped spacetime, as in gravitational lensing, and their frequencies may be lowered by moving to a higher gravitational potential, as in the Pound-Rebka experiment. However, these effects are not specific to photons; exactly the same effects would be predicted for classical electromagnetic waves.[85]"

Thanks. Either I never learned that or I forgot it .

But it exerts gravitational attraction & is affected by gravity, exactly as if it had mass. Can we then state that mass is a property of matter?

But that happens in air too. Air is also a medium, like water. I never heard that measuring weight in normal conditions should involve a factor of buoyancy, as small as it is.

Answer from the Sphinx... A photon has mass (no rest mass but never at rest): is photon considered as matter?

By 1D I mean it is a moving point.

Do you mean an electron is a 1D object?

Ok, today with a clearer mind: Taking a simple scale exactly balancing 3kgs of silver on one side, 3 kgs of gold on the other side. Immersing the whole system in water, we will see the gold part going down, and the silver up. Because 3 kgs of silver take more volume than 3kgs of gold, when immersing, the Archimedes principle states that silver will move more water than gold and vertical push will be more important on silver than gold. The result is gold sinking. That's it?

(from Swansont post #14) (from Swansont post #23) Even after Swanson's post #14, there is a confusion IMHO between matter & mass, beying used several times the one after the other in many posts. Or i am the one confused. Clarification needed.

What about the reverse?

I suppose you mean "under the prism of the Big bang Theory". A theoretical infinite Universe in space and in time would produce an infinite observable universe as well. the facts are: 1. the BBT states that the Universe had a beginning (roughly speaking) in our past. 2. the observable universe lies totally in our past. 3. the speed of light is finite. Statements 1 2 & 3 combined produce a finite observable universe in agreement with observation, though with a salt of tautology.