DJBruce

Ad hominems do nothing to prove your point. You can think whatever you like of me I could care less. I would however like to cation you on attacking others, and using logical fallacies as both of which are against the forum rules. Just out of curiosity what is the 6 billion people referencing?

WRONG!! Those quotes were directly from the site you linked to. Regardless of where they originated the creators of the site you linked to found the apropos in order to make their point. Ergo your site has absolutely no credibility, and should not be considered on a science site. No you haven't you just keep saying you have. There is a difference between doing and saying one has done. I am one of those people who believes in what can be proven to him, and what he finds to make logical sense. Neither of which is what your ideas are. Yep there are other boards. Ones which do not require one to support their statements with well thought out and logical arguments. However, this is a science forum, so we do require this of the members.

No you haven't explained this. You just keep saying it should, and not responding to questions people ask you about it. We debated your idea here. Yes the topic was avoided. YOU avoided an response, which questioned your ideas, and simply continued to post the same stuff over and over again without responding to other peoples responses. Merged post follows: Consecutive Posts Merged That site has already been shown to be completely unreliable as a source. Since it is just full of crackpotiness. Just as a reminder: In an article from PC Magazine: And some quotes directly from the site:

PROOF! May I please have some proof of any of these claims? Just a quick few things I notice: One mean solar day according to its definition is 24 hours long. We have proof the universe is expanding. Wasn't your cube view of the universe already debated and closed on this forum? How do you know the universe is infinite? Please give me some empirical evidence of this. No zero represents [math] 0*10^0[/math], which often has a applied meaning of nothingness. No real idea whats going on here. WHY?? You have not explained why this must be like this. You simply keep stating it is. I worship do worship numbers, but on a certain level the development of zero was much more important than the development of 1. You have explained or proved nothing. You simply keep making these assertions, without backing them up.

Here is an article discussing the discovery of microneedles.

Fair enough I will stop questioning you about what you believe, and let you believe whatever you want regardless of whether I view it as right or wrong. Just remember beliefs are not science, and this is a science forum. So unless you wish to have people debate your believes I would avoid posting them.

Ummm, I hate to brake it to you, but the statement, " to me the [sic] mathmatics we're educated are wrong" is in fact an opinion. Care to show any of your proof, and by proof I mean a well thought out, precise, logical, and complete mathematical idea. Also what makes you think that the mathematical system which has been created by the work of millions of the smartest people every to live over thousands of years is wrong? I am fairly certain that: A) not all of your assertions are true, over proven. B) That your statement is not a valid logical form of an argument. Wrong if you are using A as the unit for apples and you do: [math] 1A * 1A= 1(A * A)= 1A^{2}[/math] First, no apples would be represented by 0A not -1A. So your analogy makes no sense. Secondly according to correct conventional mathematics: [math]-1A * -1A= -1 * -1 * A^2=1A^2[/math] [math] (-1)^3=-1 * -1 * -1= -1[/math] I would like to ask if you don't believe in this mathematical system how does yours resolve this problem?

Mathematics is mathematics regardless of the context. Just like 0 divided by anything other than zero is 0 regardless of the name it is given.

Regardless of who said those quotes they were found on the site you linked to, and as such reflect upon the sites credibility -or lack there of. I tried, and all I saw was a bunch of gibberish supported by phony science and junk logic. I have never called myself a scientist. What truths am I ignoring? I have seen nothing from you that I can consider a truth, only bald assertions and accusations. I would say the idiot is the one babbling non-sense, but I am not sure if we agree who that might be. Sorry if you don't like the fact that I won't except your assertions on face value and am asking you to prove your claims. However, I don't see this as being lazy and ignorant. If I was lazy I would not respond to your post, and if I was ignorant I would accept what you say without questioning it. Neither of which I have done. It seems to me that you have been the one playing word games Klaplunk, not the other member of this thread.

Yes, yes I do believe a negative times a negative yields a positive. You say that say if it is a bad thing, but it is the generally accepted convention. If you wish to know why this is here. However, that is completely outside the point of this thread, and the only reason you brought it up was to use it as an ad hom.

It was discussed in one of his threads, and another one, which he hijacked and was then separated by a mod: - "Isn't Everything Literally 2 Things?" - "Satanic Rants Against Science"

In this case there is nothing unethical about caring out a legal military exercise. Especially when you consider the fact that the North Korean military has proven to be very inept when it comes to building and launching a nuclear missile. If anything about this indecent is unethical it would be North Korea's threats, and any response they might have.

I hear you, but all I hear is a bunch of incoherent fallacious gibberish. The site you linked to has no credibility what so ever, and is not science based in the least. Here are some of the gems I pulled from that website: Oh and as further proof that this site is complete crackpot gibberish, in an article from PC Magazine: What was the point of the picture of the Mona Lisa? Or was it just another random pointless non-seqiutur. Also why do you only pick and choose what points you respond to? If your theory is correct, which it is obvious that it is not, then you must be able to respond to all the questions and critiques of it.

Zero divided by any number other than 0 is 0, end of story. I have no idea what this little diagram is supposed to represent. Who ever said zero was the end of anything. If you consider the set of real numbers the {-6,-5.-e, -1, 0, 1, 2...}.

Sorry if I misunderstood your post as one trying to prove the existence of God. My mind must have gotten on that track from some of the other posts in this thread.

I am sorry to hear that such a thing has occurred, but I would like to point out what Blike and Swansont said:

Nice video, with lots of beautiful pictures and an excellent sound track. That being said, I do not really see that as being proof of God's existence. Granted for me personally, I view it was a demonstration of nature acting in accordance with the why God made it. However, I will readily admit that I do not have proof of this view, nor, does this video provide it.

We did not misinterpretation Euler's Identity, you are just making random, and incoherent substitutions that have no mathematical basis. As for relativity, it has been tested and validate in numerous experiments so I doubt we have misunderstood his theorem.

What does Euler's formula have anything to do with your discussion about God? And why are you making ridiculous substitutions for commonly described symbols? As I've said before you can't arbitrarily make a set of rules, and say that this proves or shows some sort of deep pattern. [math] e^{i\pi}+1=0\neq\pi[/math] So your given is completely wrong. Also your syntax is poor since the "E" in Einstein's theorem stands for energy not the natural base [math] e[/math] Also I am not sure what you are trying to point out by using random equations. Also if you are working with relativity you should probably use the correct formula: [math] E^2-p^2c^2=m^2c^4[/math] I feel like we've already had the discussion on whether you have perfect halves. You do not have two genetically opposite halves, or and inside and an outside. You cannot look backwards. You only ever look forwards with respect to your head, and just rotate your body and or face. Aside from the fact that virtually all your statements are false how does with help you disprove science and prove God?

I am not really sure what your paint collage of pictures and apparent non-sequiturs are getting at. Would you care to be a little less obtuse and more precise and straight forward.

According to the Bureau of Labor Statistics it appears as if of all the engineering specialties that Biomedical will experience the largest growth, 72%. However civil engineering will have the most job openings in the near future, and other fields will experience significant growth as well, environmental 31% and petroleum 18%. As for electrical and aerospace engineers, electrical engineering will be fairly stagnate only growing by 1% and aerospace will grow by 10%. Note I am not sure if this data is strictly for the United States job market or if it includes the entire world. That being said I would not necessarily choose what career I would go into based strictly on the employable of the field. You are more than likely going to spend a majority of your life doing what you choose so you should try and pick something that you enjoy. Are you in the US? I ask this because generally when you go to an engineering college you do not pick your specialty until the end of your second year, and generally during the first two years you are required to take courses that will give you a taste of the many different types of engineering. So if I were you I would not make my decision right now. I would go to college and try many different fields, and then eventually select the field, which you enjoy the most.

In my opinion, you might have already lost this one. However, if you are interested in trying to win her back man up and make a strong confident proposal to her about going on a date. Running around the bush does not work when trying to date. However, be prepared if you seek out a date make sure you are willing to give the time and energy needed to be in a successful relationship. That being said you might have missed the window where she is interested her with your in decision and contemplation. In the future I would recommend that you be a little more spontaneous with things, and not read to much into small things. Also asking for help from the internet is generally not the best place to seek relationship help.

You can define division as being the inverse of multiplication. Meaning that given three numbers, [math](a\in R,b\neq0,c\in R)[/math] If [math]\left(a\right) \left(b\right)=c[/math] then [math]a=\frac{c}{b}[/math] If you let [math]c=0[/math] as in the case you are proving you get: [math]a=\frac{0}{b}[/math] meaning that [math]\left(a\right)\left(b\right)=0[/math] Since [math]b\neq0[/math], then [math]a=0[/math]. Therefore for all numbers a and b expect when b equals 0: [math]\frac{0}{b}=0[/math]. So you can divide 0, but not by how you do it. Also as other people pointed out your proof is really full of errors.

My judgment is based on my personal experience, I will admit I have no proof of this statement and did not intend to imply as such. However as for my experience I do not notice major and numerous errors in their reports, and most of the small things are corrected quickly, and they generally cover most if not all the topics that I might be interested in hearing.