Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 64 (9164 total)
4 online now:
Newest Member: ChatGPT
Post Volume: Total: 916,901 Year: 4,158/9,624 Month: 1,029/974 Week: 356/286 Day: 12/65 Hour: 0/1


EvC Forum ⇒ Science Forums ⇒ Big Bang and Cosmology ⇒

COSMOLOGY

Thread ▼ Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   COSMOLOGY
PaulK
Member
Posts: 17828
Joined: 01-10-2003
Member Rating: 2.3

Normal Thread Display
Message 47 of 159 (489311)
11-26-2008 7:30 AM 		Reply to: Message 43 by godsriddle
11-26-2008 12:49 AM

Re: Redshift caused by a priori assumption
The red shift is observed. How then, can it be the product of an "a prioi assumption" ?
This message is a reply to:
 Message 43 by godsriddle, posted 11-26-2008 12:49 AM godsriddle has not replied
  
PaulK
Member
Posts: 17828
Joined: 01-10-2003
Member Rating: 2.3

Normal Thread Display
Message 149 of 159 (490308)
12-03-2008 5:00 PM 		Reply to: Message 146 by V-Bird
12-02-2008 10:22 AM

Re: DA.
quote:
NS is infinite, it is not '0' but in reality NS is -0.0>inf<1 one"]
​
That's not a very promising start on your mathematics. Aside from your odd notation -0.0...01 (where the string of zeroes is infinite) IS equal to zero.
This message is a reply to:
 Message 146 by V-Bird, posted 12-02-2008 10:22 AM V-Bird has replied
Replies to this message:
 Message 150 by V-Bird, posted 12-03-2008 9:39 PM PaulK has replied
  
PaulK
Member
Posts: 17828
Joined: 01-10-2003
Member Rating: 2.3

Normal Thread Display
Message 151 of 159 (490368)
12-04-2008 1:52 AM 		Reply to: Message 150 by V-Bird
12-03-2008 9:39 PM

Re: DA.
It's not odd, it's just mathematically wrong. Your -0.0...1 is just a long-winded way of writing 0 - there is no difference in the value represented.
​
I'll add that it is nonsense to suggest that 0 equals any number greater than 0.
​
If your mathematics relies on either, then your mathematics is wrong.
This message is a reply to:
 Message 150 by V-Bird, posted 12-03-2008 9:39 PM V-Bird has not replied
  
PaulK
Member
Posts: 17828
Joined: 01-10-2003
Member Rating: 2.3

Normal Thread Display
Message 155 of 159 (490405)
12-04-2008 8:38 AM 		Reply to: Message 154 by DevilsAdvocate
12-04-2008 8:24 AM

Re: DA.
quote:
Do you mean 0.00000001 (not -0.0>inf<1, whatever that means???)? If so then this technically would be zero as 0.00000001 could never be reached. Someone let know if I am wrong in my assumptions.
​
Only that -0.00000001 isn't merely technically zero. It's exactly zero. Sticking the 1 on the end of the infinite string of zeroes makes no difference whatsoever.
This message is a reply to:
 Message 154 by DevilsAdvocate, posted 12-04-2008 8:24 AM DevilsAdvocate has replied
Replies to this message:
 Message 156 by DevilsAdvocate, posted 12-04-2008 9:40 AM PaulK has replied
  
PaulK
Member
Posts: 17828
Joined: 01-10-2003
Member Rating: 2.3

Normal Thread Display
Message 159 of 159 (490435)
12-04-2008 2:03 PM 		Reply to: Message 156 by DevilsAdvocate
12-04-2008 9:40 AM

Re: DA.
quote:
I see the logic in this. It is the same thing as saying that + 1 = .
​
Pretty much. -0.00000001/10 is the same as -0.00000001 for that very reason.
​
It's also exactly the same as 0.999 = 1
This message is a reply to:
 Message 156 by DevilsAdvocate, posted 12-04-2008 9:40 AM DevilsAdvocate has not replied
  
Date format: mm-dd-yyyy
Timezone: ET (US)
  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024