EquisDeXD

infinite accuracy = exact value. I'm fairly sure that if you can use a summation formula to get an infinitely accurate integral, even though not every function may have a direct summation formula, there's plenty of mathematical expressions that do. It matches my memory and it matches what ajb said, I don't get why you think an infinitely accurate integral is impossible all of a sudden, you already said it occurs but rarely, so if it does occur, why not just be done with that? What are you even arguing for? I already said multiple times that I don't care if it occurs rarely.

I'm not really sure what your saying, but Hitler didn't kill them because he believed it was some practical purpose for the human race, he just used Jews and Gays and Gypsies as scapegoats to take power.

I think you need more scientific evidence, because if gravity is powerful enough to surpass the strong force, what exactly do we have left over? We have no evidence that quarks break down into any other particle, and supposedly a singularity is infinitely dense, and furthermore a gluon field is something that each individual quark has, and the exchange of gluons occurs between quarks, and I don't know if there's any evidence to support that the exchange of gluons stops after a certain point. We can create degenerate matter here on Earth, but I still haven't heard of what your saying, and we most certainly don't know enough about the composition of a singularity to be able to apply conventional physics to it. And then, light particles aren't completely physical objects, they can't implode in on themselves. You can reflect them and create interference, stretch or shrink their frequency or stretch or shrink their wavelength, but implode doesn't have a meaning in wave mechanics.

Yeah they do, they cause interference patterns.

But that's not even a grammar problem, that's just you not being clear with what your saying. Where did I ask you to find a function that had an integral of 25/3? I hope you didn't waste a lot of time doing that because I certainly didn't ask that, all I did was point out that I've seen a perfectly accurate number as the value of an integral.

I don't think you guys are getting it, I'm not asking for the evidence of the atomic explosion, I already know there's a chance it could possibly be something else, but I want to know is that if it was, what could have caused it, because it definitely wasn't a nuclear weapon.

You just contradicted yourself, and as I said not only do I NOT CARE if it occurs rarely, but I've seen someone do it right infront of me, concluding at the integral of some arbitrary function I asked about was exactly 25/3

No, it's definitely 0. The probability of any particular element being picked in an infinite set is 0, but if you pick something there has to be something that you pick up. Like if I have a probability of hitting a particular point on a scoreboard with a dart, a point is a one dimensional object and occupies no area, so the chances of hitting a specific point are 0, but there's an infinite number of 1 dimensional points that can fit into a 2D area, and when I throw a dart it has to hit one of them regardless, this is where the term "almost surely" comes from.

Well it didn't give specifically what type of radiation there was, scientists and camera men investigated it on foot without any suits so I would expect it was mostly alpha decay, but assuming it was that type of explosion because there was higher levels of radiation as well as the same type of byproduct as an atomic explosion, what other explanations?

I think that the main drive for Dawkins' theory is that through evolution, usually selfish processes survive, and after billions of years that there would have to only be selfish genes that survived this far, which is an arbitrary term anyway because chemicals and mechanisms have no opinions of themselves being selfish or altruistic. But I still do not see evidence that everything is in some way determined to act or be only selfish, especially considering there is no evidence that there exists such a mechanism to determine those factors as well as that quantum mechanical evidence shows that events are not causally connected because every result is a random outcome. In evolution, it's logical that a system that happens to be able to preserve itself in a particular environment will be able to survive that environment, but that's about the extent of it, there's nothing putting the cap on what mutations can possibly happen.

Even if an infinitely dense object could take the shape of a ring, how could you get past it? Wouldn't the gravity be too strong to get away from it? You'd be stuck inside it anyway.

The sun expanding would essentially just increase the amount of solar radiation Earth received, but the sun might get big enough that Earth would get trapped in it's corona, so Earth would have to move away somewhat which it's already doing on it's own right now, but then if you set up a shield, that would definitely decrease the amount of solar radiation. But after that, when the sun actually begins shedding its outer layers, that won't be enough, the plasma will be too strong, and you'd need enough energy to actually move Earth all the way to the Kuiper belt, and I don't know where you could harness that kind of energy. But, there's a good chance we'll figure out how to live on other planets before this, it's still a ways away.

Well, if there isn't enough of that uranium isotope to occur in nature, how else could an atomic explosion appear to have happened? Are there any other substances capable of making that kind of explosion? Or what about uranium in an ore? There's definitively tectonic activity in India, couldn't a uranium ore deposit have been compressed so much that there existed the critical density of that uranium isotope to cause that explosion?

It does make a difference because I'm not trying to say I know more than the human race, saying that you know there is more matter than there is observable matter is essentially saying that, and furthermore I don't see how you could have any evidence for that unless you have some super secret telescope that can look infinitely deep into the universe. But your statements have no scientific grounds. "We exist because we are here" is also just a tautology, it's meaningless. How do you know nothing can't do that? How on Earth could you possibly no that nothing can't have something come about in it unless you were around to witness that when there was nothing, that nothing started to exist? Which by the way is a paradox, because if you were around, there wouldn't be nothing. You keep making all these assumptions that have no scientific evidence. Probability isn't really a physical thing, so I don't think it's bounded by physical laws themselves. In fact, there exists a probability for all sorts of any type of matter ever imaginable right now all around you, but the matter of which has probability doesn't exist because it's probability of being in any spacial coordinates is equal 0.

How can I dismiss answers when there aren't any? How does saying "infinitely accurate integrals occur rarely" in any way shape or form answer the question "how do I find an infinite accurate integral?"? I doubt you even read this thread given you said that.

Can you just stop posting? Because you STILL HAVEN"T ANSWERED IT!!. Furthermore, no, I don't know what you don't get about "never ending" or "endless". You can have different cardinal infinities, but no matter what, endless=endless, there are endless numbers between 1 and 0 and endless numbers between 1-100 no matter how you want to put it, it doesn't matter if I can count "1,2,3..." because I will never actually count to the number infinity, because its not an actual value you can attain. I can go ".01, .001, .0001..." which still goes on never endingly between 1 and 0 OR 1 and 100. But the rules are different for an infinite set because infinity isn't a real number, you sort of have to bend the original rules to fit it in. It's no different than how grad students are taught the way to figure out the relative speed of two objects simply by adding the speeds or subtracting the speeds from an object at rest, but in reality there's plenty of circumstances where that same concept doesn't work.

I feel like your talking about calculus more than measure theory, because in measure theory you normally have some kind of cardinal infinity as the magnitude of a of an infinite set.

Except there's not much evidence for that, your disagreeing not only with most of the religious community, but the scientific community, there is concise evidence that there was in fact a point in time at which the observable universe was formed, if we had it your way we would never have had the theory of the big bang. Saying that "it exists because we are here" also doesn't make much sense because by out current physics there is no way humans could exist in the state they currently do without there being a previous state of the matter that comprises them.

But see, despite all this pointless bickering, you STILL are somehow incapable of answering the original topic question. I honestly don't give an s word if it comes up only rarely if that's somehow the case. Your right that logically there are different types of infinity, such as different cardinal numbers, but infinite is still infinite, it's still not something you can count to, there are infinity functions to get infinitely accurate integrals and infinity functions to get non accurate integrals, infinity=infinity, so I don't see how you can say it's "more rare". Also, sqrt(2) is an exact number, because your not approximating, so if I have an end result where the area under the curve with limits extending to irrational numbers can be noted as the square root of whatever number, that's fine by me, because the square root of two is itself exactly the square root of two even if we can't perfectly count it. http://en.wikipedia....i/Almost_surely

So on Earth, there wasn't a chance of it, but what about a meteor, meteors have been around for billions of years, if there was a high enough energy could the reaction be triggered? I'm not talking about weaponizing uranium and making it efficient, the kinetic energy that the meteor delivers can be well over whatever energy the atomic explosion itself releases, so given that, can an exceptionally large amount energy such as from a meteor trigger a reaction with uranium isotopes from space?

I'm not sure exactly what your having a problem with. The rate at which events pass is relative, but the fabric of space-time as a thing is a constant that occupies all of the known universe,

Physically, no, physical connection,, but behaviorally, there is that sort of fractal like pattern you see in nature, and it extends to more than just humanity. If you think of cells, they are composites of various chemicals working together to comprise a single thing, some chemicals able to comprise the cell more than others, then you have cells which comprise different chemicals that work together to create different tissues which work to create different organs in different animals which work to create a body and then a species. In a way, both altruism and selfishness extend to such ends that the behavior of any single part in the system is a prerequisite for an action in the larger part of the system.

Actually, that's exactly what infinite means, there are in infinite number of functions to find the exact integral of, infinity is larger than any actual number, so I don't think they are really too rare. I would think as a math expert that you wouldn't mistake infinity for being a real number and following normal algebra. Even if you try and fit infinite elements into a single set, the probability of any particular element being picked is 0.

How can we possibly test survival off world without doing something off-world? NASA is planning on sending actual people to Mars in less than 50 years, they need to know if we can find enough water and usable resources on Mars as well as testing equipment in it's environment in order to know if people can actually survive on it. They want to do this for the moon too since the moon has helium 3 which is a more efficient fuel in nuclear reactors, which we never would have found out without paying NASA or someone to go discover it.

Well if there's infinite functions then that means there's technically an infinite number of cases where infinitely accurate integrals are possible.