I don't understand Zero or Negative Numbers - Teach Me the Basics

[Klaplunk]

- If the universe was expanding everything would be moving away from each other.

- Clocks are wrong, I've explained: 4, 8, 12, 16

- Everything is composed of opposites existing within opposites. It takes one to literally look in the mirror to realise this.

 

You apply false evidence to your claims. Since when was my other thread debated? It was avoided, blocked and suppressed. Let's not tell porky pies now young man.

Edited July 26, 2010 by Klaplunk

[insane_alien]

that was nowhere close to being an explanation.

 

please, explain it properly.

[Klaplunk]

I've already explained this on four other boards today - I really can't be bothered to again. If you want to actually give it time and consider it as something more than just Pseudo-science, please visit www.cubicao.com. Although they explain it a bit more advanced and confusing than I do. I explain it in it's simplest form.

[insane_alien]

oh ffs now you're just trolling.

Edited July 26, 2010 by insane_alien

[DJBruce]

- If the universe was expanding everything would be moving away from each other.[/Quote]

 

Wrong, on small scales gravitational, nuclear, and other forces overcome the expansion of the universe. If however you look at objects on large scales you will in fact see that they are moving apart due to universal expansion. Your argument here is basically I can't see it therefore it must not exist.

 

I will turn your attention to other posts in this forum specificallySpyman's:

 

Galaxies, stars systems and large bodies are held together by gravity. Tiny bodies, atoms and molecules are held together by nuclear forces. In a Newtonian view of space expansion, I think there has to be something that brings the objects apart and this something will have to struggle with the forces holding things together. The force that seems to expand space gets stronger with greater distance, while gravity gets weaker when the distance increases and on very small scales the nuclear forces are dominant.

 

With the understanding that Earths gravity is not able to continue to shrink the Earth because of the dominant nuclear forces on small scales, it is very reasonable to conclude that the expanding force is not able to swell the Earth either because on this scale it is also countered by their stronger forces and gravity on top of that as well.

 

 

On very very large scales even gravity gets so weak that the force expanding space gets the upper hand and can start to inrease the size between galaxies. But on the scales of galaxies and down to nuclear particles the expanding force are dominated by the other forces. This does not mean that small objects don't swell due to expansion, I think that it is considered that they do, but the measurable expansion in space takes place over tremendous vast distances while the distances on atomic level is infinitesimal puny.

 

The force expanding space should of course be acting inside matter too, slightly increasing the distance between particles, but on this scale the nuclear forces are large compared to the expanding force which is dwindling down to a vanishingly tiny level. The particles are held inside matter at a certain distance due to balance of forces and when adding the expanding force, it is offsetting this distance a tiny bit, this offset only causes the nuclear forces between the particles to rebalance with a slightly larger distance.

 

Bound systems only expands until they reach a slightly larger size where the forces that holds them together counter and stop the expansion. So bound systems don't continue to expand but they are a tiny bit larger due to the expanding force, this tiny bit is so teeny-weeny that it is not measureable and esteemed unimportant.

 

"A cosmological constant has the effect of a repulsive force between objects which is proportional (not inversely proportional) to distance. Unlike inertia it actively "pulls" on objects which have clumped together under the influence of gravity, and even on individual atoms. However this does not cause the objects to grow steadily or to disintegrate; unless they are very weakly bound, they will simply settle into an equilibrium state which is slightly (undetectably) larger than it would otherwise have been."

http://en.wikipedia....ansion_of_space

 

 

Here is a good link I think you should read: MISCONCEPTIONS ABOUT THE BIG BANG

 

- Clocks are wrong, I've explained: 4, 8, 12, 16

 

No you haven't explained this. You just keep saying it should, and not responding to questions people ask you about it.

 

You apply false evidence to your claims. Since when was my other thread debated? It was avoided, blocked and suppressed. Let's not tell porky pies now young man.

 

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

 

I've already explained this on four other boards today - I really can't be bothered to again. If you want to actually give it time and consider it as something more than just Pseudo-science, please visit www.cubicao.com. Although they explain it a bit more advanced and confusing than I do. I explain it in it's simplest form.

 

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:

 

Metasites that track crackpot sites often say this [time cube] is the number one nutty site.

 

And some quotes directly from the site:

 

Time Cube debunks god lies. Evil people deny Time Cube. Educators are flat-out liars. Evil media hides Time Cube. -1 x -1=+1 is stupid and evil. Word worship equatesto evil. Bible induces a barren Earth. Evil 1 day Bible killschildr

 

YOU can't handle Cubic Time, Cubic Life or Cubic Truth - for inside of Time Cube equates the most magnificent Symmetry of opposites existing within the universe - for every corner has an equal opposite corner, every 2 corners has an equal opposite 2 corners, every tri-corner has an equal opposite tri-corner and every 4 corners has an equal opposite 4 corners. No human or god can utter such powerful ineffable opposite Cubic Truth. God is singularity. Evil singularity dooms Opposite Creation.

Edited July 26, 2010 by DJBruce

[Klaplunk]

You used the exact same quotes as last time. Those quotes are from www.timecube.com, so wrong there kiddo. I've explained fully why the clocks should be 4, 8, 12, 16. I'm starting to believe you're one of those 'evil educators that block/suppress the truth'. Luckilly there are other boards, with people who agree with this. It will go viral, so your evil intentions will come back round and kick you in the butt.

 

Let me guess, now I'm schizofrenic? Lowl, you guys need to experience life more. You believe you're intelligent because your mind is so clouded with word that you ignore basic truths in life.

 

"Why something rather than nothing?" This is a fundamental philosophical question. But when Gene Ray analysed it, he invoked the Principle of Opposites.

 

Opposites are required for there to be "something". First, however, let's consider that other concept—the concept of "nothing". Let's think about a singularity.

 

A singularity is nothing. It's zero. It's a single, solitary point. There's no existence outside of it—you can't go in or out.

 

Depiction of a singularity. A singularity is a single-point, a point-of-zero, and it represents nonexistence.

 

It's a state of nonexistence. So now, let's move one step higher, and travel from "nothing" to "something". Let's add another point...

 

Another point has been introduced. Now there are two points.

 

...and, let's assume that these two points aren't just two separate singularities, but that you can jump between them.

 

Now, let's draw a line that passes through the two points:

 

A line has been drawn between the two points.

 

This is the first level of existence. It allows you to move back and forth between a fixed series of points. (It can be simplified to a perceived continuum. However, in reality, it is not infinitely subdivisible, due to the disproof of infinity).

 

Continuing, let's consider a single point on the line. This point shall divide the line in half.

 

A single point on a line, dividing the line in half.

 

Add in a line segment—that is, the line between two points.

 

A line segment has now been added to the diagram, and stands separately from the halved line.

 

Add arrows from each of those two points, extending inwards along the line segment. Now add arrows outwards from the point that halves the initial line.

 

The line segment extends inwards from its two end-points. Conversely, the two halves of the line extend outwards from the halving-point.

 

We see a harmonic correlation. Both the line segment and the halved line possess a set of two diametrically opposed arrows.

 

A harmonic correlation is evident: the two inwards directions from the ends of the line segment are harmonic to the two outwards directions extending along each of the halves of the halved line.

 

But what if we do something like this?...

 

A doubling of the initial harmonic configuration, introducing greater complexity to the geometry

 

Nope, there's nothing special here, because we can simplify it down to a mere doubling of the initial harmonic configuration.

 

This, then, is the principle of opposites. Two opposite halves, and two opposite terminal points of the line segment.

 

It's a principle of linear opposites. They are static linear opposites—for they must always be diametrically opposed. If you try to rotate them, they violate the constraints imposed by the line of which they're part. They move beyond the first level of existence.

 

We can't rotate those points out of the line, otherwise they would transcend the first level of existence, and enter the second or third.

 

You could move them back and forth, and change their antipodal magnitude. But the fact remains unchanged that they are diametrically opposed. They still remain static opposites.

 

An illustration of antipodal magnitude: that is to say, the distance between the opposite antipodes.

 

You could move them together, and cause them to converge into a single point. Their antipodal magnitude would then be zero.

 

But of course, this would regress them from the first level of existence to the lowest level. They would become a single point—that is to say, a singularity.

 

Thus, we have established a principle of equal opposites; equal antipodes. (They are equal in that they are interchangeable—for instance, one could just as well refer to the North Pole as the "South Pole", and vice versa, being that "north" and "south" are mere arbitrary names.)

 

They are equal, they are static, and they are linear. And to the question, "Why something rather than nothing", they are the simplest answer, for they are the first step beyond nonexistence. They are the lowest level of "something"; the lowest level of existence.

 

This established, proof proceeds:

-From cubicao.com; without pictures.

[DJBruce]

You used the exact same quotes as last time. Those quotes are from www.timecube.com, so wrong there kiddo.

 

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.

 

I've explained fully why the clocks should be 4, 8, 12, 16.

No you haven't you just keep saying you have. There is a difference between doing and saying one has done.

 

I'm starting to believe you're one of those 'evil educators that block/suppress the truth'. Luckilly there are other boards, with people who agree with this. It will go viral, so your evil intentions will come back round and kick you in the butt.

 

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.

[Klaplunk]

You're ignorance doesn't anger me... It saddens me.

 

You are dumb bruce. You take the word of a magazine rather than an eye-witness account from over 6billion people. I'm sorry to say it but you need to find help.

[insane_alien]

really, quit your trolling. you're not fooling anyone.

[Klaplunk]

It's an expected reply to someone who denies blatent truth. I'm not trolling, my motives are to teach you the truth. You ignore it.

[DJBruce]

You're ignorance doesn't anger me... It saddens me.

 

You are dumb bruce. You take the word of a magazine rather than an eye-witness account from over 6billion people. I'm sorry to say it but you need to find help.

 

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?

[Klaplunk]

You assess me like you assess the mice you disect in your labs. Your assessment is wrong. Those other boards I attend are also science boards - the difference is those boards aren't patrolled by evil educators.

 

 

Logic scared you off? I don't see you replying so fast once logic is applied to my claims.

[DJBruce]

Why must it be 4, 8, 12, 16?

 

It might make more sense to go:

 

[math] 0, \frac{-\pi}{2}, -\pi, \frac{-3\pi}{2}[/math]

Edited July 26, 2010 by DJBruce

[Klaplunk]

No it wouldn't. It has 4 quadrents. Do I really need to split the cirlce even further? Pi is using oneist/cubeless technology - perfect example of why you're argument is invalid.

[DJBruce]

But my method makes use of radian angle measures, while yours just uses the fact that a circle can be divided into fourths. The point is that it is completely arbitrary, and your method makes no more sense than mine.

 

Again Ad hom. arguments do nothing for your point.

Edited July 26, 2010 by DJBruce

[Klaplunk]

You defy truth and apply academa; that's pseudoscience lol.

 

 

 

I'm outtie. I don't want to cause trouble, + there are people who actually want to learn on other boards.

[John Cuthber]

OK, Klaplunk,

I will accept your view on the product of two negative numbers, but on one condition.

You start a bank and lend me money; that way you will have to pay me interest.

Otherwise, stop trolling.

[Cap'n Refsmmat]

Klaplunk, please familiarize yourself with rule 8 of the ScienceForums.Net Rules. Also rule 1.a.

 

This is not a lecture hall for you to teach us the "truth." This is a discussion forum. If you are not willing to have an open discussion of your ideas, or if you'd like to keep calling other members "dumb," you should go elsewhere.

[Phi for All]

I've already explained this on four other boards today - I really can't be bothered to again.

This should tell you something. If you can't explain this concept to the satisfaction of five discussion forums, a wise person might start to wonder if the problem lies with concept.

 

Since the title of this thread is "I don't understand Zero or Negative Numbers - Teach Me the Basics", yet the OP has shown no intent to learn, this thread is closed. Kaplunk, feel free to open another thread with the title, "I don't understand Zero or Negative Numbers And Have No Wish To Learn - But I Have An Idea About Them That I Want To Lecture You On". Then anyone show wishes to respond does so at their own risk.