Strange

Are they "Hope Fireworks" in the sense that they are made by the Hope Firework Manufacturing Co. Inc? Or, more likely, are they fireworks to bring, or express, hope? In the latter case, one assumes they are Pandora's Fireworks...

Maybe you need to see a doctor about that lack of sensation in your extremities. It is hardly a decree; just pointing out that the definitions are different. Let's compare them: YOU: "inertia is being at rest or in uniform motion" (In other words, inertia is the state of motion or speed) DICTIONARY: "The tendency of a body at rest to remain at rest or of a body in straight line motion to stay in motion in a straight line unless acted on by an outside force; the resistance of a body to changes in momentum." (In other words, the resistance to a change in state of motion) What does 'acceleration at "light speed square"' mean? c2 is not an acceleration or even a velocity. Energy is kg x m2 / s2. Perhaps you need to study basic dimensional analysis: http://www.efm.leeds.ac.uk/CIVE/CIVE1400/Section5/dimensional_analysis.htm What is wacky is your apparent lack of basic maths/physics knowledge.

It might be if the ground pushed back more than you push on it. At it is, it pushes back with exactly the same force. Yep. That seems like a reasonable definition. (Clearly, totally different from yours.) Yes. Mass is rest mass and does not change. It is a conversion factor required because we use random wacky units like seconds, kilograms and metres.

That is not what inertia means. No, because the amount of energy needed to "resist being at rest" (i.e. to accelerate something) is not a fixed quantity; it depends on the final velocity. No, because M is the rest mass. Kinetic energy is separate from (or additional to) this.

I'm not sure that is a good analogy. Your example is equivalent to someone who knows that gravity exists, but doesn't know anything quantitative about its causes or effects. But they might study science at school and they will learn that salt is a compound of Na and Cl (they might even learn about ionic and covalent bonds). Equivalently, they will also learn about Newton's theory of gravitation. If they do not go any further in science, those will be the theories and level of understanding they are left with. (until they forget it all!) Nothing wrong with that, perfectly good enough for everyday use. If they go on to university, then they might study physical chemistry and all about electron orbitals, Pi bonds, etc. Similarly they might learn about Einstein's theory of gravity. If they are foolish, they might think these are the "truth". But they are more likely to realise that, having been taught one set of "wrong" theories at school, these new theories are likely to be "wrong" as well. They may go on and study quantum theory, and understand why bonding orbitals exist. They may go on and study (or invent) the theories that explain why Einstein's theory works. They will, of course, realise that any such deeper theory is just as "wrong" as the others.

It is still very unclear (to me) what this notation means. 1. Why is "2defindedvalues" written with no spaces? 2. Does "2 defined values" refer to the following x,x ? 3. Or are you saying that 2 is represented by the combination of two things: the "defined" value 2 combined with "x,x" ? 4. What does "1undefinedvalue" mean and how does it differ from "1definedvalue" ? 5. What does "not defined" mean? (This appears to be a problem as all the formal definitions of arithmetic I have seen start with 0 as the only defined value.) 6. How does this new notation relate to the previous "0 = (1undefinedvalue, x )" notation? 7. Does this mean that: 0v = 1undefinedvalue If so, what is the significance of that? On the number line, the "value" is represented by the position on the line: ... -3 ... -2 ... -1 ... 0 ... 1 ... 2 ... 3 ... So the value of zero seems quite clear and well defined in this representation. 8. Is your number line more like: ... -3 ... -2 ... -1 ????? 1 ... 2 ... 3 ... 9. How do you represent "space" on the number line in your system ? 10. What do "dvIL", "dsIL", "dvFL" and "dsFL" mean? 11. Then why did you start with "2 = (2defindedvalues, x,x )" which appears to be defining both "value" and "space" for the number 2 ?

"Belief" shouldn't come into it. It is a scientific theory and, currently, the one that best fits the evidence. And it is "all about growth", so it should appeal to you. You haven't said what sort of particle or where it came from. The big bang theory nicely predicts the creation of exactly the right amounts of hydrogen and helium that we see in the universe. My math suggests the distance between them is 2 x (10 Trillion squared) light years.

I think you missed my point: your definition of your new type of number is not really correct or incorrect: it is part of the definition. It is, of course, incorrect for numbers as currently defined. So how do you distinguish 0 from 1? What was wrong with the notation of representing each number by a pair of values (value,space)? Why suddenly change to lists of x's? This inconsistent and constantly changing description is what convinces me that you don't really have a clear concept. If did, you would be able to write it down clearly and consistently. And this is exactly why I wanted to formalise the definition, so that we could see that it worked in general (with variables) and not just with you picking some special cases.

Perhaps you could provide a (peer-reviewed) citation to support your claim, instead of yet another emphatic declaration. Science fiction, probably is about the right level of support for this idea.

Note that it is not a matter of this being "correct"; this is your definition of New Numbers. So for your number system it is correct by definition (as long as you can produce consistent maths based on it). It is, of course, not "correct" for numbers as we currently define and use them. What is X in this new representation? Does it mean any value? (As 'x' is usually used)

Key sentences from that video: "If we try to make a spiral arm the way a moron would it will soon wind up beyond recognition." "These spiral arms do not wind up. Ever."

That is not what it is at all. You seem to read a few buzzwords and then invent your own meanings for them. You could say it means that the more two particles are entangled, the less they can be entangled with a third particle. Which, as you can see, bears no relation to your version. So it is something you made up. As you have no evidence for this, it isn't really a hypothesis, is it. More of a WAG.

Someone in Speculations thinking that they are right and everyone else in the world is wrong? Surely not.

Please explain why you think this contradicts the big bang model. Please provide a reference that supports this claim.

I do not admit that. All I mean is that I am not able to prove it, because it is not possible to formulate a consistent definition of your idea. The problem with your attempts at algebraic notation is that, because you don't understand them you end up writing meaningless strings of symbols. And I think that is part of the problem: because this just exists as a vague half-defined notion in your head, you have convinced yourself it works. If you were to attempt to use it in reality, you would find it was very different. I guess not knowing the difference between arithmetic and mathematics?

This makes zero sense. There is, however, a correct way of dealing with units (by "correct" I mean one that works): https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dimensional_analysis I just knew that not making one step explicit would cause problems! [math]a = b [/math] [math]a + a = a + b [/math] [math]2a = (a + b) [/math] [math]2a -2b = a + b - 2b [/math] [math]2(a - b) = a + b - 2b [/math] [math]2(a - b) = a - b [/math] divide through by (a-b): [math]\frac{2(a - b)}{(a-b)} = \frac{a - b}{a-b} [/math] cancel: [math]2 = 1 [/math]

Typing (10^-35 /2)^2 x 3.1416 = into Google or Wolfram Alpha gives you the answer: http://www.wolframalpha.com/input/?i=%2810^-35+%2F2%29^2+x+3.1416+%3D = 7.854x10-71

As you have drawn it, I think: all objects and the distances between their centres will be reduced by the same amount. (Actually, I'm not certain that is completely accurate because you have introduced acceleration. So I am not sure that they do all end up with the same speed. But I should let someone more familiar with the subject comment...)

Uh, sorry. Still don't understand.

I'm not sure I understand your point.

I think it just depends what you use as a point of reference. If you measure them from their ends, then the will contract relative to that. If you measure them relative to their centres, then they will contract relative to that.

It is not that easy. The Sun doe not emit a lot in the radio spectrum and much of that is reflected by the atmosphere. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Radio_astronomy

Sarcasm. You might have heard of it. I was just pointing out the ludicrousness of your inability to master the simple process of copying and pasting a URL. As it is so simple, I can only assume you do it (or don't do it) deliberately to annoy people. Which would fit with your generally trollish approach.

And that is the problem right there. You ask people with an advanced math education, they tell you it isn't as simple as you think (and that the idea won't work) and you dismiss this based on your "opinion". I can only assume this is because you don't have a deeper knowledge of mathematics. What!! That is not a mental illness. Whatever gave you that idea !? It is just one of the many psychological biases that we are all prey to in one form or another. People trained in science and engineering are taught (or learn) to be aware of and, as far as possible, ignore these personal biases in favour of the data. The trouble is, multiple people have tried to explain why the idea will not work in so many different ways, ranging from the theoretical to the practical but you simply reject or ignore them all. It seems that you have made your mind up and nothing will change it. But that is a good question: what would persuade you that you are wrong about this? Because you were just writing meaningless "equations". I tried to formalise you descriptions in a fairly standard notation but you changed things around so they made no sense. I didn't think there was much point trying to work out what you were trying to express or trying to educate you in algebraic notation. I hoped that if you/we could express what you were trying to say in formal notation then: 1. It would be clear that your claims are inconsistent. In other words, what you say about it in one moment differs from what you say a few minutes later. I think this is because you haven't really clarified what the idea is in your won head. This is the advantage for formalising it: it forces you address any gaps or inconsistencies in the idea. 2. It would then be possible to show that your scheme leads to inconsistent or contradictory results. (I don't know this, of course, because the idea isn't formalised. But from what I have seen so far, I am fairly certain.) And I am almost certain this cannot possibly be true.

As far as I can see, this description is correct. With the following caveats: 1. The length contraction is due to (relative) velocity, not acceleration. 2. When you say "simultaneous", that can only be measured in a single frame of reference. But I think that is OK, in this case. I'm not really sure what you are asking here. You have described the situation accurately for a constant velocity. What happens under acceleration is slightly more complicated. For one thing, things are no longer simultaneous between the red blocks in S (or between the blue blocks in S'), and even from one end of a block to the other.