1

Technology, Science & Alt Science / Re: What is a woman?

« on: April 09, 2023, 01:59:26 PM »

A man who feels that he is actually female but transformed into the wrong body if changed himself into his desired gender via surgery then the said person was female before her surgery too - Treatable.

The said man remains male even if changed his body medically/surgically – Nontreatable. He may feel more women due to body changes but he still can’t deny the fact of his sex (male) therefore his struggle of identifying himself is increasing, not decreasing.

IMPOV - The campaign of "lgbtqia+" should be stopped forthwith as PERSONIFICATION has nothing to do with reality. It just creates social disorder when a female says she is a male and takes the male share either in inheritance (in some cultures e.g. in Islamic inheritance) or in something else. It’s a social destruction, not a social construction. Another example is the use of female washrooms by transgender women in prisons. Im not sure if one heard about the rape cases.

As said I’m not a medical professional. Expression and behavior either voluntary or involuntary can’t change one’s true identity in classifying oneself as either true male or true female set by the nature. Here there is a problem with individuals, not with society in accepting the universal truth of two genders/sex (male or female). Accepting universal truth doesn't require voting as well.

Therefore, I would say these biological genders other than male and female are just DISEASE = DIS + EASE and indirectly DISORDER or abnormalities in humans.

If a government can promote a body positivity movement for curvy models then I don’t see any problem in treating gender issues via promoting sex (either male or female) positivity movement instead of increasing the bipolarity of a sick person as anything in b/t male or female should be considered a disability either permanent (non-treatable) or temporary (treatable).

Similarly, it is said the heart of a person is the first organ that is made before the brain or the rest of the body in the womb. According to medical science, the size of the heart of a male is always greater than the size of a female therefore brain shouldn’t be the decision-maker when one identifies oneself as the size of the heart of a human also matters apart from XX or XY.

However, it is just a matter of my concept that may be wrong due to a lack of knowledge.

2

Technology, Science & Alt Science / What is a woman?

« on: April 09, 2023, 06:12:15 AM »

Below is the answer to the above which is a very common question on the internet

Ans -  A person who is not a man - Right?

Reasons:

A man has XY chromosomes while a woman has XX. This means a man can be a woman due to the presence of X in XY but a woman can’t be a man due to the lack of Y in XX.

A man can be pregnant but a woman can’t make a man pregnant.

No onslaught but didn't God create Eve from the ribs of Adam but not vice versa

So shouldn't all transgenders be considered as Men if they have a Y chromosome?

FYI: I just have a very basic knowledge of biology.

3

Flat Earth General / Re: Is the Heliocentric Model correct?

« on: April 08, 2023, 03:31:31 AM »

EEK, I think you are kinda talking about the Roche limit. The earth is far enough away from the sun that its own gravity is stronger than the forces induced by varying orbital velocities throughout its diameter.

No, I'm not talking about Roche limit.

No doubt time required for the tracing of the curve above and below the circle of illumination is the same but it is the distance traveled per time of travel that is different.

This leads to differences in "1-1 mapping" of an instant of time and ultimately slippage. Slippage during the night means slippage during the day as well. This means maximum slippage of time occurs at Midnight and minimum at Noon which is never noticed in practice. Please refer to the diagram of Arc 1 and Arc 2 mentioned earlier.

I think it would be easy to note the said if both evening and morning are traced at the same time and then see them in combination.

Imagine a snapshot of Earth (top view) in its real orbit at any instant “t”, the magnitude of the night and day on Earth would be the same therefore If you disagree with the aforementioned forced slippage then can I ask what causes the magnitude of the night (Geometry) more than the magnitude of the day (Geometry) in 24 hours as well in one whole year if traced as shown earlier.

There must be reasons which I don’t know.

4

Flat Earth General / Re: Is the Heliocentric Model correct?

« on: April 07, 2023, 04:38:30 AM »

It’s true that I made a mistake of jumping but the HC model still seems wrong as the orbital velocity of “N” relative to the sun starts increasing till it turns into midnight and then begins to decrease till ”N” becomes noon again at a different position in the space.

Let's draw concentric circles from the center of the sun. Since we are dealing with Earth therefore we will consider all those circles that pass through the Earth only in its orbit. These circles represent the contours of orbital velocities.

This means orbital velocity on any point on the circumference of one circle is the same but differs from any other point if lies on the circumference of another circle.

The opposite of
“N” is “Midnight”
“N + 1” is “Midnight + 1”
“N + 2”  is “Midnight + 2”
“N + 3” is “Midnight + 3”
And so on

Similarly, the opposite of
Evening is Morning
Evening + 1 is Morning + 1
Evening + 2 is Morning + 2
Evening + 3 is Morning + 3 
Evening + 4  is Morning + 4
And so on 

All the aforementioned points that are opposite to each other have different orbital velocities except evening and morning points that lie on the same circle have the same orbital velocity relative to the sun.

The following can be observed if a curve of solar N to N is traced.

The length of the curve above the concentric circle on which evening and morning lie is greater than the length of the curve below the foregoing circle. OR

The length of the curve within the night zone is greater than the length of the curve within the day zone.

And we know differences in orbital velocities are the reasons for all the above.

It clearly indicates “N” spent more time in the nighttime and less in the daytime. More time during nighttime means the occurrence of slippage N which is more during the night while less time during daytime.

Time passes instantly just like a snap. Even if an instant of time is considered an infinitesimal duration instead of a snap then still both the above slippages (nighttime and daytime) must equal in magnitude if the HC model is correct.

It’s not difficult to comprehend all the above but I hope I have explained things clearly enough to understand.

5

Flat Earth General / Re: Is the Heliocentric Model correct?

« on: March 29, 2023, 07:54:01 PM »

The math is correct.

Completion of the First Quarter of a solar day of 24 hours
A 90-degree rotation + (1 minute to reach point B in daylight = t₁).

Completion of the Second Quarter of a solar day of 24 hours
A 90-degree rotation + (1 minute to reach point M in a nightlight = t₂).

Completion of the Third Quarter of a solar day of 24 hours
A 90-degree rotation + (1 minute to reach point A in a nightlight = t₃).

Completion of the Fourth Quarter of a solar day of 24 hours
A 90-degree rotation + (1 minute to reach point N in daylight = t₄).

This gives a total of a 360-degree rotation and 4 minutes to reach point N. The detail of the later part is as follow.

Let T = the aforesaid 4 minutes

T = t₁ + t₂ + t₃ + t₄

The detail of t₁, t₂, t₃, and t₄ are shown above.

Duration of N in daylight (first and fourth quarters) = t₁ + t₄ = 1 + 1 = 2 min
Duration of N in nightlight (second and third quarters) = t₂ + t₃ = 1 + 1 = 2 min


Now watch the following video when the earth completed its 360 degrees rotations i.e. from 1:05 to 1:25



Doesn’t that extra one degree of rotation of N on earth in its orbit take about T = 4 minutes in full daylight in the above video from 1:05 to 1:25?

Duration of N in T (= 4 min) should be 2 min in daylight and 2 min in nightlight as explained above the link instead of the whole T = 4 min in daylight (in the above video from 1:05 to 1:25).

The HC model maker made the same jump that I did in the previous post as you told me. Both axial and orbital motion of the earth occurs simultaneously.

6

Flat Earth General / Re: Is the Heliocentric Model correct?

« on: March 29, 2023, 09:12:48 AM »

A 90 degree rotation + 1 minute to reach point B.
A 90 degree rotation + 1 minute to reach point M.
A 90 degree rotation + 1 minute to reach point A.
A 90 degree rotation + 1 minute to reach point N.
This gives a total of a 360 degree rotation and 4 minutes to reach point N.

I know 4 more minutes are needed in daylight for noon to occur again after 360 degrees rotation of the earth but my question is about the total staying of “N” in the preceding 4 more minutes which should be 2 minutes in daylight (equally in the first and fourth quarter of a solar day) and 2 minutes in nightlight (equally in the second and third quarter of a solar day), not all the said 4 more minutes in daylight.

7

Flat Earth General / Re: Is the Heliocentric Model correct?

« on: March 28, 2023, 12:27:48 PM »

Your reasoning would only work if Earth rotated on the spot for 1 sidereal day, and then jumped forward in its orbit.
Instead, it is a smooth process, with it rotating as it orbits.

A similar jump can be seen in the model as well.

By merely starting our analysis 12 hours later, you flip which side gets the extra day and which gets the extra night.
This clearly can't work.
It should matter where your analysis starts, you should get the same result.

I asked the same question in the model.

How come noon "N" is lagged by 4 minutes in the sunshine after the completion of 360 degrees rotation of the earth while orbiting the sun when N has already completed its quota of 6 hours in the sunshine and 12 hours in the nighttime in the first three quarters? Shouldn’t it be 1 minute in the sunshine?

Below is the full detail.

Let ANBM be morning, noon, evening, and midnight respectively.

After the completion of one solar day (24 hours).
Each of the above points gets 12 hours a day and 12 hours a night time.

After the completion of one axial or 360 degrees rotation of the earth while orbiting the sun.
Each of the points is lagged by 4 minutes.

After the completion of 6 hours of a solar day
N becomes B – N stays in the sunshine for 6 hours
B becomes M – B stays in the nighttime for 6 hours
M becomes A – M stays in the nighttime for 6 hours and
A becomes N – A stays in the sunshine for 6 hours

After the completion of 90 degrees of rotation of the earth.
N is lagged by 1 minute in the sunshine to become B
B is lagged by 1 minute in the nighttime to become M
M is lagged by 1 minute in the nighttime to become A
A is lagged by 1 minute in the sunshine to become N

After the completion of half solar day (12 hours)
A becomes B and vice versa
A stays in the sunshine for 12 hours. B also stays in night time for 12 hours.

N becomes M and vice versa
N stays for 6 hours in the sunshine and 6 hours in the nighttime. B also stays for 6 hours in the nighttime and 6 hours in the daytime.

After the completion of 180 degrees of rotation of the earth.
N is lagged by 2 minutes in the nighttime to become M – N has already spent 6 hours of its quota in its first quarter in the sunshine so how come N is lagged by 2 minutes in the nighttime to become M. Shouldn’t it be 1 minute?

B is lagged by 2 minutes in the nighttime to become A - B has already spent 6 hours of its quota in its first quarter in the nighttime so how come B is lagged by 2 minutes in the nighttime? Shouldn’t it be 1 minute?

M is lagged by 2 minutes in the sunshine to become N -  M has already spent 6 hours of its quota in its first quarter in the nighttime so how come M is lagged by 2 minutes in the sunshine? Shouldn’t it be 1 minute?

A is lagged by 2 minutes in the sunshine to become B - A has already spent 6 hours of its quota in its first quarter in the sunshine so how come A is lagged by 2 minutes in the sunshine? Shouldn’t it be 1 minute?

After the completion of ¾ of the solar day (18 hours)
N becomes A, N stays in the sunshine for 6 hours and stays in the night for 12 hours
B becomes N, B stays in the nighttime for 12 hours and stays in the sunshine for 6 hours
M becomes B, M stays in the nighttime for 6 hours and stays in the sunshine for 12 hours
A becomes M, A stays in the sunshine for 12 hours and stays in the nighttime for 6 hours

After the completion of 240 degrees rotation of the earth.
N is lagged by 3 minutes in the nighttime to become A – Here N has already completed its quota of 6 hours in the sunshine and 6 hours of nighttime in its first two quarters so how come N is lagged by 3 minutes in the nighttime? Shouldn’t be it 1 minute?

B is lagged by 3 minutes in the sunshine to become N – Here B has already completed its quota of 6 hours in nighttime and 6 hours in the sunshine in its first two quarters so how B is lagged by 3 minutes in the sunshine. Shouldn’t be it 1 minute?

M is lagged by 3 minutes in the sunshine to become A – Here M has already completed its quota of 6 hours in nighttime and 6 hours in the sunshine in its first two quarters so how come M is lagged by 3 minutes in the sunshine? Shouldn’t it be 1 minute?

A is lagged by 3 minutes in the nighttime to become M – Here A has already completed its quota of 6 hours in the sunshine and 6 hours of nighttime in its first two quarters so how come A is lagged by 3 minutes in the nighttime? Shouldn’t it be 1 minute?

After the completion of one solar day = 24 hours,
N becomes N – N stays 12 hours in the sunshine and 12 hours in the nighttime
B becomes B – B stays 12 hours in the sunshine and 12 hours in the nighttime
M becomes M – M stays 12 hours in the sunshine and 12 hours in the nighttime
A becomes A – A stays 12 hours in the sunshine and 12 hours in the nighttime

After the completion of 360 degrees rotation of the earth.

N is lagged by 4 minutes in the sunshine to become N – Here N has already completed its quota of 6 hours in the sunshine and 12 hours in the nighttime in the first three quarters so how come N is lagged by 4 minutes in the sunshine? Shouldn’t be it 1 minute?

B is lagged by 4 minutes in the sunshine to become B – Here B has already completed its quota of 12 hours in nighttime and 6 hours of its quota in the sunshine in the first three quarters so how come B is lagged by 4 minutes in the sunshine? Shouldn’t be it 1 minute?

M is lagged by 4 minutes in the nighttime to become M – Here M has already completed its quota of 6 hours in nighttime and 12 hours in the sunshine in the first three quarters so how come M is lagged by 4 minutes in the nighttime? Shouldn’t it be 1 minute?

A is lagged by 4 minutes in the nighttime to become A – Here A has already completed its quota of 12 hours in the sunshine and 6 hours in the nighttime in the first three quarters so how come A is lagged by 4 minutes in the nighttime? Shouldn’t it be 1 minute?

8

Flat Earth General / Re: Is the Heliocentric Model correct?

« on: March 28, 2023, 03:15:34 AM »

Half of the face of the earth receives 4 minutes of extra sunshine - (warm) while
Half of the face of the earth receives 4 minutes of extra no sunshine - (cool)

The two opposite temperatures on the two faces of the earth should have long-term effects on the globe.

Why?

Repeat the above process again for N to N or M to M for the next noon or anti-noon.

Both N and M receive an equal amount of day and night time after the next 360 degrees of rotation of the earth. Since both N and M are yet to occur therefore the solar system forces the earth again to rotate one more degree and revolve around the sun for N or M to occur. This takes again 4 extra minutes.

9

Flat Earth General / Re: Is the Heliocentric Model correct?

« on: March 28, 2023, 02:47:10 AM »

The earth has two motions i.e. axial and orbital. Axial rotation takes roughly 23 minutes and 56 minutes. OR 23 * 60 + 60 = 1380 + 60 = 1440 minutes.

Pause the video @ 00:51 when the Redline represents the noon time on earth. Let this point be N and M be its corresponding anti-noon.



Case #1

Imagine the earth rotates about its axis but not orbits the sun

After the completion of one axial or 360 degrees rotation of the earth – “Noon to Noon rotation”

The face of the earth gets an equal amount of daytime and nighttime. This means N and M spend

720 minutes in the daytime* and
720 minutes in night times*.

* = 1440/2 minutes = 720 minutes

Days and nights are in equal magnitude i.e. 720 minutes each at all times.

Case #2

When the earth has both axial and orbital motion.

After the completion of one axial or 360 degrees rotation of the earth – Video from 00:51 to 1:18 – This is not noon to noon rotation.

Here at this stage,

The two faces of the earth gets an equal amount of daytime and nighttime. This means N and M spend

720 minutes in the daytime* and
720 minutes in night times*.

* = (1440/2 minutes = 720 minutes)

But N and M have yet to reach their original position or to occur again. Orbital motion is the reason for the delay.

For N or M to occur again in case #2 the solar system forces the earth to rotate one more degree as well as revolve around the sun. This takes roughly 4 minutes.  This means

N spends roughly 4 extra minutes in the sunshine.
M spends roughly 4 extra minutes in no sunshine (directly).

So total

Daytime on N = 724 minutes and 
Night time on N = 720 minutes

Here is the crux for all

Daytime on M = 720 minutes and 
Nighttime on M = 724 minutes

“Noon to Noon rotation”  in the video would be 00:18 to 1:25

We get roughly

4 minutes extra sunshine on N - [OR - 4 minutes less nighttime on N]
4 minutes extra nighttime on M - [OR - 4 minutes less sunshine on M]

if we repeat the same process for the next “N to N rotation”  or "M to M rotation" in case #2 and so on.

You made me confused multiple times not only in this post but also in another post too. I know you wouldn’t agree but I wouldn’t be confused anymore.

All the above is quite right unless I missed something or understood it wrongly.
 
Half of the face of the earth receives 4 minutes of extra sunshine - (warm) while
Half of the face of the earth receives 4 minutes of extra no sunshine - (cool)

The two opposite temperatures on the two faces of the earth should have long-term effects on the globe.

10

Flat Earth General / Re: Is the Heliocentric Model correct?

« on: March 21, 2023, 10:16:49 AM »

Here is another way

The magnitude of the Day and Night on earth are the same but I would suggest equating the length of the equator from 0 to 24 hrs in the following link.



@ 00:52

Follow the redline as soon as the earth starts to rotate and revolve around the sun for day and night.

At about 00:58,

Redline stays more in the sunshine than at night due to delay in the evening.

@ 1:04

Earth has completed has one rotation of 360 degrees in its orbit.

Redline has already spent its time equally in day and night but no noon yet. For noon to occur earth has to rotate one more degree (i.e. redline has to face the sun) which would take 4 minutes.

I believe I have explained things clearly enough to puzzle out

11

Flat Earth General / Re: Is the Heliocentric Model correct?

« on: March 20, 2023, 01:31:11 AM »

EEK, I really have just one question:
Are you claiming that the scenario of one ball spinning around its own axis while rotating around a bigger ball that glows and illuminates the smaller ball is impossible? Or are you claiming that this scenario does not describe our solar system?

Do you have any problem understanding all the above?

Yes. Hence the question.

EEK, any chance you can help me out here?

Here is how we get 4 minutes extra sunshine when the earth has to revolve each and every instant around the sun. IN SIMPLE WORDS

Let ABCD represent morning, noon, and evening and anti-noon on the aforementioned equatorial surface of the earth.

During the axial and orbital motion of the earth around the sun,

After the completion of 24 hours

First half cycle (12 hours)

“A” becomes “C” but delays by 2 minutes.

Second half cycle (12 hours)

“A” which became “C” in the aforesaid first half cycle becomes “A” again but 2 minutes early.

The same can be applied to BCD or any arbitrary point if chosen in the same line.

It is just because the earth has to revolve each and every moment around the sun.

No extra light shines on the face of the model globe if not only rotates about its axis but also moves parallel to the straight tube light (light source).

12

Technology, Science & Alt Science / Re: 2Q: Is “Zero” really a number – Is “Point” really dimensionless??

« on: March 16, 2023, 06:15:40 AM »

I am surprised that a flat earther shows some affinity to math. How do you reconcile the fact that RE can describe almost all observations mathematically and FE can't? (Sorry for the off-topic, I am just genuinely curious.)

Do you have any proof or evidence that the earth is round other than the pictures from a fake moon landing?

https://www.youtube.com/shorts/GylH0Ixn_vA

And yet we can't decide if zero is a number or not

Quote
Isn’t 0 divided by 1 or any other number except zero an infinite process?

Let 0 be the dividend and 1 divisor

Step #1

When 1 (divisor) is multiplied by 0 (quotient) we get 0 and write it below 0 (dividend).  We get 0 (Remainder) when 0 is subtracted from 0 (dividend).

Literally the rule of this type of division is that you stop when the remainder is 0. So you are done after step #1. Otherwise all other divisions would repeat infinitely as well, because also there at some point you get 0 as the remainder, where according to your logic you would have to continue dividing.

That’s what I’m trying to convince zero is not a number because further calculation (+, -, x, /) is not required when we deal with 0. 

For example

1 + 0, 1 – 0, 0 + 0, 0 * 0, 0 / 0, 0 ^ 0, 0 (0) etc.

See below, if zero is a number then one has to keep on calculating ((+, -, x, /).

But what if I have 12 apples to share with 4 people? Well then each gets 3, and that gives us our 12 apples, so how many are left over? 0.
This is a simple example of where 0 is a number.

If the latter, you should have
(0.000000000000000000001)/0.000000000000000000001= 1

But you can also have:
(0.000000000000000000002)/0.000000000000000000001= 2

Limits of tend to 0 don’t work as long as there is a number at last or before zeros.  0 or 0 to the power 0 can’t give us a number.

Quote from: E E K on March 15, 2023, 11:06:39 AM
1*0^0 = 1 or zero which may represent a line or nothing

Why 1 or zero?
Either you have 1^(0^0), which has 0^0, which can be undefined or equal to 1 depending on context;
or you have (1^0)^0 = 1.
At no point does it become 0.

If  0^0 = 1, then 1*0^0 = 1*1 = 1
If  0^0 = 0, then 1*0^0 = 1*0 = 0

Quote from: E E K on Today at 10:59:54 AM
I said they have to follow the rules i.e. if the bases on LHS and RHS are equal then their powers should be equal on both sides.

That 'rule' does not exist. You are making it up.

Were you a hooky player when attended school?

4 ^x = 64

4^x = 4^3

Same bases on both sides as 4 = 4 so their powers must be the same or equal. Hence, x = 3

So we do have a problem with 1 ^ 0 and 1 ^1 as both = 1

1 ^ 0 = 1
1 ^ 1 = 1

This means  1 ^ 0 = 1 ^1

As basses on both sides are equal therefore their powers must be equal to each other i.e  0 =1

This means 1 ^ 0, 1 ^1, 1 ^2, 1 ^ 3 ….etc. are not =1

13

Technology, Science & Alt Science / Re: Solution to Aristotle's wheel paradox

« on: March 16, 2023, 05:51:36 AM »

But again, that doesn't explain how the inner circle travels a longer distance.

All the concentric circles travel S= 2 * Pi * Radius of the outer circle

Let the ratio of the radii of the outer and inner circle is R=6r

An arc of all the concentric (if drawn) would help in calculating the number of points in outer and inner circles for the same period of time.

This means 6 points of the outer circle lie well below the 1 point of the inner circle –

Time required for the tangential contact of 1 point of the inner circle = Time required for the tangential contact of 6 points of the outer circle

Let the above said required time be t

The time required for the tangential contact 1 point of an outer circle will be = t/6

In the end, both circles travel the same distance in the same period of time.

Doesn’t the center of the circle which slips all the way traces a straight line if yes then the trochoid traced by the inner circle would be a combination of rotation (part of the trochoid) and slip (part of a straight line)

And again, it is 1 point, which maps to 1 point.

Your this concept is wrong.

Similarly, a wheel can’t roll when its center slip – common sense.

14

Technology, Science & Alt Science / Re: Solution to Aristotle's wheel paradox

« on: March 15, 2023, 02:13:53 PM »

You made me confuse. All concentric circles roll 2*pi*R in time t but it just the touching period of each concentric circle on the tangent line is different.

As R=2r therefore on a tangent line,

The touching period of one point of the inner circle and the two consecutive points (below the preceding point of the inner circle) of the outer circle will be the same t.

15

Technology, Science & Alt Science / Re: Solution to Aristotle's wheel paradox

« on: March 15, 2023, 11:06:39 AM »

We see for the outer point, it is going vertical at the point of contact, but for the inner circle, it is still going sideways.

Sorry to say but don’t be fooled by these fancy animations. Both curves should be different if the inner circle is slipped. 

The curve traced by the outer circle is correct but no slippage is noticed in the curve traced by the inner circle. The curve for the inner circle should be a combination of rotation and slippage all the way in one rotation.

Each time the inner circle slipped, “r” should trace an outward straight line (protruded one) from the curve traced by the rotation.

Slip requires a firm surface which can’t be found in the above concept.

Since the tangent line is well far below the inner circle of radius “r” therefore for simplicity, we have to transfer the imaginary tangential line for every concentric circle.

The following is just a piece of cake for a person like you.

ON A TANGENT LINE,

The touching period of “a point” of an outer circle is small as compared to the touching period of “a point” of an inner circle

16

Technology, Science & Alt Science / Re: 2Q: Is “Zero” really a number – Is “Point” really dimensionless??

« on: March 15, 2023, 10:59:54 AM »

Notice how far you have gone from claiming 0 isn't a number?

1^0=1=1^1
The bases of RHS and LHS are the same therefore their powers must be equal to each other

1^5=1=1^100.
Does that mean 5=100?

No, because they have to follow the rules.

So if you accept that 5 is not 100, then that means 1^a=1^b does not mean a=b, so 1^0=1^1 does NOT mean 1=0.

i.e. you have objected to your own claim.

I said they have to follow the rules i.e. if the bases on LHS and RHS are equal then their powers should be equal on both sides.

1^0*1^0*1^0 = 1*1*1=1^3 = This is a cube.
1^0*1^0*1^0  = 1 ^0+0+0 = 1^ 000 = 1^0=1 so can this 1 = 1^3 as mentioned above


1^0*1^0 = 1*1=1^2 = This is a square

1*0^0 = 1 or zero which may represent a line or nothing

It is said 1^3 = 1^2 = 1^0 is equal to 1 but in the real world a 1^3 is a cube, not a square (1^2) or 1^0  and vice versa

This means there is a problem with 1 to the power of anything and the same is applied to zero to the power of anything.

Isn’t 0 divided by 1 or any other number except zero an infinite process? 

Let 0 be the dividend and 1 divisor

Step #1

When 1 (divisor) is multiplied by 0 (quotient) we get 0 and write it below 0 (dividend).  We get 0 (Remainder) when 0 is subtracted from 0 (dividend).

Repeat the same process again for Remainder and Remainders  …. 

Quote from: JackBlack on Today at 01:15:32 AM
0/0 is undefined.

Not necessarily.

(0.000000000000000000001)^0.000000000000000000001= 0.999999…..

The more we put zeros before 1, the more we get close to zero on LHS and 1 on RHS

17

Technology, Science & Alt Science / Re: Solution to Aristotle's wheel paradox

« on: March 14, 2023, 11:00:28 PM »

I know you will never agree but the concept of the slippage of the inner circle is wrong. The aforementioned time factor is true.
 
Think of a bicycle at rest if its front wheel lifted it up from the ground.

Each concentric circle of the wheel rotates if the wheel is rotated by hand. No slippage of any of the concentric circles occurs.

Draw imaginary tangent lines (parallel to the ground) to all concentric circles of the wheel. 

Draw two lines originating from the center of the wheel at any angle theta. They will produce an imaginary arc on each imaginary concentric circle.

For any period of time t.

The greater the radius of the concentric circle of the wheel the greater the number of points touching the aforementioned tangent line and vice versa. This shows inner circles take more time than outer circles.

The above-said though experiment can be done via pulling/pushing the tangent line to the wheel while the wheel is staionary

For the centre, there is no rotation, it is just slipping.

if the center doesn't rotate then the whole wheel will slip

18

Technology, Science & Alt Science / Re: 2Q: Is “Zero” really a number – Is “Point” really dimensionless??

« on: March 14, 2023, 10:54:38 PM »

1^0=1=1^1

The bases of RHS and LHS are the same therefore their powers must be equal to each other

1^5=1=1^100.
Does that mean 5=100?

No, because they have to follow the rules.

It is said 1^3 = 1^2 = 1^0 is equal to 1 but in the real world a cube is not a square or 1^0  and vice versa

So there is a problem with 1 to the power of anything and doesn’t it apply to the following as well?

1*0^000=1*0^00= 1*0^0

1^0.1^0.1^0 = 1^0.1^0 = 1*0^0

Square root means the side of a square
Cube root means the side of a cube
And so on.

S0 1^0 represents only one side – one-dimensional thing or nothing at all

0^0, no object of geometric and no side as well – zero-dimensional thing
 
Each # is divided and multiplied by 1 so would this condition be applied to in writing lone 0 = (1) 0/1 too?

Similarly, 0/0 = 0^1.0^(-1)/? - What should be written in the denominator when 0 goes to the numerator because 0/0 is not equal to 1?

19

Technology, Science & Alt Science / Re: Solution to Aristotle's wheel paradox

« on: March 14, 2023, 01:37:44 AM »

Sorry for missing this before. Don't normally come to this forum.

Ultimately, your "solution", is just a restatement of the problem.

Why is the tangential contact period longer for the inner circle?

The circumference of the circle becomes smaller as we go inward to the center of the wheel. Three things are involved in the paradox.

1-   Distance
2-   Time
3-   Velocity (Forward)

1 and 3 are the same for all circles so definitely 2 needs adjustment in the formula of  “Velocity = Distance / Time” if we know the ratio of the radius of the outer circle and inner circle. For example, if the foregoing ratio is 1:2 then

Velocity for the outer circle = s/t

Velocity for the inner circle = s/2t

20

Technology, Science & Alt Science / Re: 2Q: Is “Zero” really a number – Is “Point” really dimensionless??

« on: March 14, 2023, 01:35:45 AM »

So I'm not the only one

It is said anything to the power zero (0) is equal to 1. Say

1^0=1, we also know 1^1=1^1=1. This means

1^0=1=1^1

The bases of RHS and LHS are the same therefore their powers must be equal to each other

So does the above mean 0=1?

Similarly,

0^0 = 1^1 = 1

The above is also wrong because neither the bases on both sides are the same nor are their powers

Moreover,

It is said anything multiplied by zero = 0

Thus 1x0 = 0, This is only possible if the powers of 1 and 0 are the same i.e. 1

For any real #

1 times x = x

For Example, 3^3 = 3x3x3 OR

1x3^3 = 1 times 3x3x3
1x3^2 = 1 times 3x3
1x3^1 = 1 times 3

On LHS, the power of 1 is 1 and the power of 3 is 1,2, and 3 respectively so all the above multiplications are possible. But

1x3^0 =  1 times zero 3 = 1 (Isn't 1 times zero 3 = 0)

On LHS, the power of 1 is 1 while the power of 3 is zero so is the above multiplication possible? And the same is applied to the following 

1x0^000= 1 time 0x0x0
1x0^00= 1 time 0x0
1x0^0= 1 time no zero or zero zero


BTW - what is the difference between zero and no zero

Zero = Zero because zero is a number

So if zero is a number then

No zero means No number

Unless No zero is superfluous but it doesn’t seem

21

Technology, Science & Alt Science / Re: 2Q: Is “Zero” really a number – Is “Point” really dimensionless??

« on: March 12, 2023, 12:47:02 AM »

Below is the double standard unknowingly

•   Zero is considered a number
•   When zeros are added then zero is not a number. Adding three numbers (zeros) = ( 0+0+0 = 0)

For addition to occur, there must exist something to be added.
We can’t think of an addition if there is nothing to be added.

Adding 2 apples on a table and 2 apples on a desk gives a total of 4 apples if put all in a basket.

No more apples on the table and desk mean no more addition. This means it would be insane to keep adding zero apples on the table and zero apples on the desk which would lead us to infinite addition. Here we stop the process of addition when zero is left/remainder. Here zero means the end of something.

The same analogy is applied to division. Dividing 2 by 2 gives an answer of 1 with zero remainder.

No more reminders or zero remainder means no more division. Were zero a number then we would have to continue diving the zero remainder by 2 which would lead us to infinite division. Here we stop division when we get zero remainders. Again, here zero means the end of something. We never say that the answer is 2/2 is undefined or infinity.

Similarly, zero/x where x is any number. We stop division when we get zero remainders. We can keep countless divisions in this case too but we stop because it's useless and no need because we know zero means the end of something.

But in the case of  x/zero where x is any number we keep continuing division and say either the answer is infinity or undefined.

We never say it's wrong to divide by zero. 

So isn’t “saying 0 is its own additive inverse and is the identity operator for addition” wrong?

Isn’t it dual standard?

22

Technology, Science & Alt Science / Re: 2Q: Is “Zero” really a number – Is “Point” really dimensionless??

« on: March 11, 2023, 08:09:53 PM »

1 to 9 are all numbers

2 is two which is a number
22 (combination of 2 and 2) is twenty-two also a number –) 22 is not 2
222 (combination of 2, 2, and 2) is two hundred and twenty-two also a number –) 222 is not 2

Etc. Similarly,

0 is zero which is a number – agreed for the sake of argument
00 (combination of 0 and 0) is ?? which is also a number –) 00 is not 0 just like 22 is not 2
000 (combination of 0,0 and 0) is ?? which is also a number–) 000 is not 0 just like 222 is not 2


2 - 2 = one 2 – one 2 = 0
zero (0) means nothing/zilch or no tangible thing left

x - x = one x – one x = 0
here x can represent any tangible thing

23

Technology, Science & Alt Science / Re: 2Q: Is “Zero” really a number – Is “Point” really dimensionless??

« on: March 11, 2023, 12:44:12 PM »

So my question is how would you write the aforementioned 3 zero digitally [like 4 (a digit) in case 2 + 2 ] while adding three zeros?

When you write 4, how do you know it is 2+2 and not 3+1? (Answer is: you don't, both 2+2 and 3+1 give the same 4, same as 0+0+0 gives the same 0 as just 0.

2 + 2 = one 2 + one 2 = add 2 two (one + one) times = 4
3 + 1 = one 3 + one 1 = add one 3 with one 1 = 3 + 1 = 4
5 + 2 + 3 = on 5 + one 2 + one  3 = add one 5, one 2 and one 3 = 10

0 + 0 + 0 = one 0 + one 0 + one 0 = add zero three (one + one + one) times = For this we don’t have any expression in digits

Sorry Jack I was just helping Kami. Hope you will not be offended

24

Technology, Science & Alt Science / Solution to Aristotle's wheel paradox

« on: March 10, 2023, 10:34:00 PM »

Here is my solution to Aristotle's wheel paradox.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aristotle%27s_wheel_paradox

IMPOV - Time is the reason in Aristotle's wheel paradox. The tangential period of contact time of the inner circle is more than the tangential contact time of the outer circle. Each point of the inner circle stays longer on the line than each of the outer circles. The duration of the contact of each point of the outer circle is shorter than the duration of each inner circle on the line.

Let theta be the angle that produces arc A1 and arc A2 on the inner and outer circles of the aforementioned paradox respectively. The length of A1=2A2. There is an infinite number of points on each arc but for simplicity, we assume the number of points on A1=2A2. Let L and L’ (L=L’) be the lines produced by the aforesaid two circles upon one rotation/ roll. There is an infinite number of points on L as well which is equal to the circumference of the outer circle. For simplicity

At Rest: One point of the inner circle touches one point of L ‘ and one point of the outer circle lies/touches one point of L.

When the wheel is rolling: Depending upon the speed of rolling, if one point of A1 takes t seconds to stay on one point of the L then one point of A2 takes t/2 seconds to stay on that point during rolling. Or if the Meeting time of one point of A1 with one point of L is t second then the meeting time of A2 with one point of L will be t/2 seconds. So if the total number of points on the inner circle is = P, then The total number of points on the outer circle will be = 2P= total number of points on L Each point of P and 2P must touch/meet its respective point of L in one complete rotation/roll. So if the total time taken by each point of 2P is t seconds to stay/touch with its respective point on L then total the time taken by each point of P will be 2t seconds to touch its respective point on L”=L

I hope I have explained things clearly enough to understand.


Is anyone who disagrees with the above if yes then reasons, please?

25

Technology, Science & Alt Science / Re: 2Q: Is “Zero” really a number – Is “Point” really dimensionless??

« on: March 10, 2023, 10:26:39 PM »

1 + 1 + 1 = each 1 has 1 coefficient so after adding 1 three times we get = 3, not 111
2 + 2 + 2 = each 2 has 1 coefficient so after adding 2 three times we get = 6, not 222
5 + 5 + 5 =  each 5 has 1 coefficient so after adding 5 three times we get = 5, not 555

0 + 0 + 0 = each 0 has 1 coefficient so after adding 0 three times we get = ? (it's not just 0), not 000

For example:

1 + 1 + 1 = 3, not 111
2 + 2 + 2 = 6, not 222
5 + 5 + 5 = 15, not 555
0 + 0 + 0 = 0, not 000

It's quite simple really.

Each of the above addition except for the addition of zeros can be expressed digitally. The addition of following zeroes don’t have an expression in digits

0 + 0 + 0 = each 0 has 1 coefficient so after adding 0 three times we get = 3 zero, not 000

Neither the answer is zero (0) nor 30 as 30 is thirty. 

So my question is how would you write the aforementioned 3 zero digitally [like 4 (a digit) in case 2 + 2 ] while adding three zeros?

26

Technology, Science & Alt Science / Re: 2Q: Is “Zero” really a number – Is “Point” really dimensionless??

« on: March 09, 2023, 07:48:30 PM »

Quote from: E E K on March 08, 2023, 01:38:36 PM
Again were 0 a number it should have a coefficient and power i.e. 0+0+0+0+0 = 50

This is just pure nonsense.

I knew its incorrect. That’s what I was trying to convince how come zero is a number when it can neither be added nor subtracted (no additive inverse)? Multiplication comes after addition.

Thus all questions where zero is added, subtracted, divided, or multiplied are wrong questions.

0 has 1 coefficient and 1 power just like any other number

For example
1 has 1 coefficient and 1 power, 2 has 1 coefficient and 1 power, 5 has 1 coefficient and 1 power, and so on

1 + 1 + 1 = each 1 has 1 coefficient so after adding 1 three times we get = 3, not 111
2 + 2 + 2 = each 2 has 1 coefficient so after adding 2 three times we get = 6, not 222
5 + 5 + 5 =  each 5 has 1 coefficient so after adding 5 three times we get = 5, not 555

0 + 0 + 0 = each 0 has 1 coefficient so after adding 0 three times we get = ? (it's not just 0), not 000

27

Technology, Science & Alt Science / Re: Question About The Universal Law of Gravitation?

« on: March 08, 2023, 01:38:36 PM »

Here are two scenarios inside a shell
 
1-   The equation of g= GM/d^2

If d needs the adjustment then d=h-r, where h is the distance originating from the center of mass and r is the radius of the shell. If h = r then either g is undefined or infinity but if h is less than r, we can still have g inside a shell

2-   Since flat earth can also have “g” on all sides therefore inside wall of the shell can also have “g” which can attract things toward it. The change in the thickness of the partial (half, quarter, etc.) walls of the shell can also change the symmetry of the spherical shell.  So canceling gravity forces on a particle inside the shell is not always the case as the net gravitational force will be towards the wall which has greater mass due to its greater thickness.

So which one of the above is true?

Similarly, both unequal masses of the pan balance fall at the same rate toward the ground but the pan balance is lopsided due to the net gravitational force.

I don’t understand why the same is not true in the aforementioned unsymmetrically shell and when the moon is in between the earth and sun when they are in line.

Would the two unequal masses of a pan balance have them fall at the rate if dropped the wholw pan balance from a height h?  initially, both the said masses are at h. I think we should try it.

28

Technology, Science & Alt Science / Re: 2Q: Is “Zero” really a number – Is “Point” really dimensionless??

« on: March 08, 2023, 01:09:29 PM »

Quote from: E E K on March 07, 2023, 07:43:18 PM
Sorry again, my bad

I mean 0+0+0+0+0 = 0 OR  50

Each zero has a coefficient of 1 and a power of 1 so can the preceding coefficients or powers be added like in others numbers we can add if zero belongs to the category of numbers?
It would have been better to have an example with 50.

But here is one:
10+10+10+10+10=50.
Here we have the number 10, with coefficients and powers to get to 50.

I don't see how there is any issue for 0 here.

As said earlier, I in 10 means, 1 row or set of 0 to 9 is completed and 0 in 10 means another set of 0 to 9 is started

Therefore 10+10+10+10+10=50
5 in 50 means 5 sets of 0 to 9 are completed and 0 in 50 means the 6th set of 0 to 9 will be started

Again were 0 a number it should have a coefficient and power i.e. 0+0+0+0+0 = 50 but it doesn’t belong to the category of number because 0+0+0+0+0 is not = 50

Quote from: E E K on March 07, 2023, 07:43:18 PM
The numbers 1,2,3… are just symbols. 1 represents anything it could be any item in counting something. If the item is perceptible or ever observed before in counting then 1 is not imaginary anymore and becomes ta
ngible.

You started off well.
1 is just a symbol. It is not tangible.
It is a concept.
When you have 1 object, you cannot touch the 1, you touch the object.
It is the object which is tangible, not the concept of 1.

How about the following

1 to 9 numbers/symbol represent tangible or real things while 0 symbol represent nontangible things

Quote from: E E K on March 07, 2023, 07:43:18 PM
We can calculate velocity from the graph if we know either the unit of time (instant) or the unit of length. Again the geometric size of the point matter. If the geometric size of a point on a graph is 2.456566777…. is then it would be smaller if the size is 2.4 it would be bigger.

Again, a point has no size.
You can calculate velocity from 2 points on the graph. 2 points separated by some time and some distance.
And the distance can be 0, giving a velocity of 0.

Quote from: E E K on March 07, 2023, 07:43:18 PM
By instant, I mean a unit of time it could be any number 2 or 2.44455

So by instant you mean not an instant and instead a short period of time?

Both length and time can be divided into equal parts

So we have a span from 0 to 1 or 2 to 3 and so on but the start and end are fixed or exact and in b/t them is countless division.

29

Technology, Science & Alt Science / Re: 2Q: Is “Zero” really a number – Is “Point” really dimensionless??

« on: March 07, 2023, 07:43:18 PM »

Sorry again, my bad

I mean 0+0+0+0+0 = 0 OR  50

Each zero has a coefficient of 1 and a power of 1 so can the preceding coefficients or powers be added like in others numbers we can add if zero belongs to the category of numbers? 

Pi or 1/3 has a division problem but we can divide a pizza among three geometrically.

The numbers 1,2,3… are just symbols. 1 represents anything it could be any item in counting something. If the item is perceptible or ever observed before in counting then 1 is not imaginary anymore and becomes tangible. Zero or 0 which represents nothing is always imaginary as "nothing" can be observable which it represents. it depends on how one keeps the size of the point.

Minus one or plus one just represents debt and credit.

A point is a tangible number (unit of time or length)
A point is not tangible, and has no unit of length or time.

We can calculate velocity from the graph if we know either the unit of time (instant) or the unit of length. Again the geometric size of the point matter. If the geometric size of a point on a graph is 2.456566777…. is then it would be smaller if the size is 2.4 it would be bigger.

By instant, I mean a unit of time it could be any number 2 or 2.44455

30

Technology, Science & Alt Science / Re: 2Q: Is “Zero” really a number – Is “Point” really dimensionless??

« on: March 07, 2023, 09:13:19 AM »

Can zero has a base and power? I mean 0 which has 1 base and 1 power

Your question is unclear.
Can 1?
Can 0.5?
Can -1?

What do you mean by a base and a power?

Sorry I meant coefficient, not base. Nothing is represented by a symbol 0 which has 1 coefficient and 1 power just like any number say 5 which has 1 coefficient and 1 power. That’s why I asked if zero were a number, can we add five zeros (can we write five zero like 50 which is actually fifty) to 7 zero (70 which is actually seventy) or 5 zero to the power 5 i.e. 50^5 (it's not fifty to the power five)

The span of time or length has its start and end but in b/t them are the countless instants and units of length. So it depends on which unit of time or unit of length is of interest. An option is very wide.

Do you think non-zero numbers exist tangibly?

Hat off, yes

0 apple for 0 person is a wrong concept. Zero (0) is not even a single thing. It just represents the start of something or represents nothing in math. it's just a word.

It isn't a word.
It is a number, a number that represents nothing.

Numbers are actually symbols that represent tangible items/things. So, in your case, it can be said zero is a non-tangible number. (zero is just an imaginary thing which we call nothing  represented symbol 0)

A point is a tangible number (unit of time or length) while a path followed by the tangible number of the function may be a true definition of a line.