the changing speed of light. dad, this thread is for you

[sinan90]

The point is that 2+2 can never not equal four.

Depends on the base system.

 

[Tammisto]

Depends on the base system.

Indeed. Allso if memory serves me correctly, 2+2 actualy equals 3.99999(9)

 

[sinan90]

Indeed. Allso if memory serves me correctly, 2+2 actualy equals 3.99999(9)

3.999999... = 4 so 2+2 = both 3.9 recurring and 4.

 

[dad]

Depends on the base system.

I thought someone might bring up something like that.

 

[thaumaturgy]

I thought someone might bring up something like that.

So, do tell, how many other base systems will 2+2 not equal 4?

Do you you know what base system 2+2 = 11 is in?

Do you know what base system 2+2 = 10 is in?

(This is a fun math exercise!)

 

[dad]

Perhaps you need to explain what a "formula for light" is? Is that something to do with baby milk?

The phrase was used in context of a different state universe, and the differing speeds of two star's light.

No. It is a behaviour. It describes the behaviour of the function 1/x as x approaches zero. The behaviour being, precisely, that for any number you pick, no matter how large, you can always get 1/x to be bigger than that number by picking x close enough to zero.

That might be what you call infinity. Baby math.

I do know what it is - I've just described one definition, right there.

Well, that is one in bowl definition, I suppose. Hardly something that holds the full concept and meaning of infinity.

i = (-1)^(1/2), actually.
The problem is, dad, that numbers aren't in our universe. Numbers aren't anywhere. You can't change numbers by changing the universe.

Numbers represent stuff in our temporal universe. I kid you not.

Maths is maths.

And concepts represented in a higher state is higher math.

So the only way to get an infinite real number is by changing the definition. But the definition is not something in the universe. It is an abstract construct.

A different universe is of course abstract from a temporal one.

And you would kn-- oh, yeah, once again, you see - you wouldn't.

How would you kn--?

The point is that 2+2 can never not equal four.

Good. Who says it can?? Simple math applies in heaven as well.

 

[dad]

You have never shown any evidence that standard archeological dates are off by the thousands of years you need them to be off for your mythology to be correct.

Yes, any modest look into the topic will uncover a reliance on same state past decay dating assumptions as the foundation of the dates. Which is balderdash.

What a statement to come from a guy who says there was no gravity before the flood,

Likely not as we now know it.

talks about time running backwards,

Speculation, not a position.

posted a thread on the earth not rotating and expects to spend eternity in a city of transparent gold

Bible 101.

boiking Marilyn Monroe and other famous beauties

I had said something more like going to a concert. But, since I admit that there is sex in heaven, far as I know, some childish poster figures that boinking is the name of the game there.

and says that Elvis may be residing in the moon.

If New Jerusalem was in there. But I also pointed out that the moon was a bit too small for that, as we know the dimensions of it. Unless the city was to grow over the millennium, of course. But, that aside, the astronauts experienced a strong spiritual impact there. In some cases profoundly changing their lives. So, some sort of spiritual accomodation there is very likely.

You have nothing but wild ideas and have never backed up any of them.

The bible, and limits of science are backing aplenty.

No wonder some people still think you are an "evolutionist" trying to make YEC look silly. Whether you are trying or not you are certainly succeeding.

I haven't heard that many bible believers claim that. Ever wonder why??? As far as the confused folks, why, I don't care if they get things muddled. long as they start to think about what they were spoon fed all their lives.

 

[dad]

So, do tell, how many other base systems will 2+2 not equal 4?

Do you you know what base system 2+2 = 11 is in?

Do you know what base system 2+2 = 10 is in?

(This is a fun math exercise!)

I will tell you this. 2 and 2 is four. Wasting time on in bowl mental gymnastics aside from that isn't of any value. One might as well ride the horsie.

 

[SmurfsRcool]

I hate to be pushy about this dad but can I pretty pretty please with sugar on top have that definition?

 

[thaumaturgy]

I will tell you this. 2 and 2 is four. Wasting time on in bowl mental gymnastics aside from that isn't of any value. One might as well ride the horsie.

That was kinda mean of me. I knew you wouldn't know. I just wanted to see if you might.

Let me explain to you how it works!

Since in any given "Base" system the number of the base doesn't show up except as a "10" then any base in which 4 isn't represented can only be bases 4,3,2,1! But neither base 2 nor base 1 can have the number "2", so it's on in base 3 and base 4 that 2+2 can equal something other than 4.

So 4 doesn't show up as a "number" until you get to base 5!

In base 4, we have the digit "2", so 2+2 = 10 (because 4 is shown by the number 10 in base 4!)

In base 3, 2+2 = 11.

The fun thing about bases can be seen here. The right most digit is the base raised to the power of zero, so it can either be 0 or 1. In the case of base 3 the leftmost digit is the base raised to the power 1, so 11 is really 3 + 1 = 4 (in base 10).

Isn't that fun? (If anyone wants to cover fractional bases, that'd be neat as well!)

Remember way back in post #304 where you said:

I thought someone might bring up something like that.

So I just thought I'd teach you some more fun math stuff that related to the conversation.


(Don't get mad and post funny pictures to insult me, I am teaching you math you probably haven't seen before. In most regular tracks in school they cover bases in elementary school, but you might have forgotten or maybe when you were tracked off into the other classes they didn't cover this stuff. Isn't it interesting? And mental gymnastics is how smart people get smart. They exercise their brain and learn new and interesting things. It makes the better people and more fun to talk to!)

 

[NailsII]

I had said something more like going to a concert. But, since I admit that there is sex in heaven, far as I know, some childish poster figures that boinking is the name of the game there.

but this speculation would be against your beliefs, because it's not in the bible and it would be sex that doesn't lead to reproduction - this is of course one of your reasons for hating gay sex, but I don't see the same venom.....
God hates sex, that much is pretty clear - so he only allows married couples who want to have children the pleasure. So I would propose that your 'new' bodies you guys will recieve in heaven come without genitals.

 

[FishFace]

The phrase was used in context of a different state universe, and the differing speeds of two star's light.

Great. But a formula gives you either a quantity or a vector. Or, in rather esoteric cases, some other mathematical object. However, light is not a mathematical object.

That might be what you call infinity. Baby math.

Sorry to disappoint you dad, but that's only what every single mathematician on the planet will tell you. And in this case, that does indicate the truth of the matter because it's a matter of definition. Sure, when you say the word "infinity" you might mean what we mean when we say the word "monkey," or anything else, but that would be pretty foolish.
In English, infinity has a few well defined meanings, one of them being a behaviour (of which 1/x as x approaches 0 is an example), another being a size. A number is not one of those definitions though.

It is a common mistake for young children and people who have no mathematical knowledge (like you) to think infinity is a number (as in your favourite phrase, "to infinity, and beyond" - contradicting the very meaning of infinity.)

Well, that is one in bowl definition, I suppose. Hardly something that holds the full concept and meaning of infinity.

Meaning is determined by how people use a word. That means I don't actually have to pay any attention to your opinion on this, since it is uninformed and pretty much useless.

Numbers represent stuff in our temporal universe. I kid you not.

They sure do! But when that stuff changes, nothing about the numbers changes. If I have one apple, and a put an apple next to it, there wasn't some object of "one"ness that changed into an object of "two"ness.
Numbers are abstract concepts, not objects in the world.

And concepts represented in a higher state is higher math.

Higher maths is just maths you study higher up the education system I'm afraid. Since you don't appeared to have studied (or at any rate, remembered) any maths at all, you wouldn't know what that was about.

A different universe is of course abstract from a temporal one.

Uh, no. Abstract is not a comparative word - 'A' cannot be abstract from 'B.'

How would you kn--?

A maths student is kind of expected to know some maths.

Good. Who says it can?? Simple math applies in heaven as well.

Great. But all of maths is based on simple maths. That's what's so beautiful about maths. For example, the whole numbers, 0, 1 and so on can be defined completely in terms of sets, where a set is a collection of objects with a notion of size. In order to do this, We state that, intuitively, there is a set of no objects at all, called the empty set. We represent this as follows: {}. Then we say that:
0={}
1={0}={{}}
2={0,1}={{},{{}}}
And so on. In this manner, we can build up the whole of number theory purely on these kinds of simple ideas. That's what maths is about - you build the complex stuff out of simple stuff so that you are absolutely certain of the truth of it all.

So if simple maths works in your alternative universe, then complex maths does as well.

 

[Patashu]

The base of a number doesn't actually change its value, though, just it's representation. 100(base2) = 11(base3) = 10(base4) = 4(base5+).

 

[BrainHertz]

The point is that 2+2 can never not equal four.

There are actually perfectly good systems in which that isn't true; I can think of quite conventional systems in which 2 + 2 = 0. GF(256) would do...


Ok, I guess I'd better run and hide now... :o

 

[Jadis40]

Actually, Supernova 1987A didn't just turn on; if we looked at that spot in the sky before then we would have seen a star. No supernova blinking into existance. So dad's completely wrong there, we didn't just see the light from it in 1987, 1987 was only when the post-supernova light reached us.

Right, I'm seriously wondering if dad has any understanding at all of stellar evolution and what caused Supernova 1987A to explode in in the first place. I took a class in astronomy in both high school and college. All the claims that dad has made up to this point aren't based in reality at all, especially his claim that the earth stands still. I thought that was settled centuries ago where it was firmly established that we live in a heliocentric solar system, as are all of the extrasolar planetary systems which have been discovered since 1995. The sun, any sun, is the center...there's no variation in that.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Protostar
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stellar_evolution
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Astronomical_spectroscopy
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stellar_nucleosynthesis

 

[Mumbo]

But, if light was non uniform in speed, and the new state came, why, it would then be uniform, would it not?

yes, but it wouldn't appear uniform because it predates your state change. thus far, you've agreed that the distant universe is a window of sorts to your past state. you can't have it both ways.

Well, if you knew a bit about it, why you might realize that mounting a bible case against the concept is pretty well near impossible, far as I can tell.

i'm not saying that your theories are impossible, just that they're wacky even by creationist standards

Wild ideas don't interest me

i'm picking up something on the ironimeter, whatever it is it's huge

what interests me is facts

it's getting closer

and evidence

CLOSER

and bible basis

whew it's gone

Monks arguing over how many angels can fit on the head of a pin, or philosophers arguing over how many singularities can fir on the head of a pin I find silly, and time wasting.

philosophy is more complicated than you give it credit for! you can even work in some facts and logic if you like

 

[tanzanos]

DAD is probably the only evolutionist who believes in evolution in the same way as if it were a religion.
I say that DAD is the biggest enemy of creationists and YECs. He is our nuclear weapon so to speak. However I recommend we let him loose to wreak havoc in the Creationist camp.

ALL HAIL DAD

 

[Mumbo]

Right, I'm seriously wondering if dad has any understanding at all of stellar evolution and what caused Supernova 1987A to explode in in the first place. I took a class in astronomy in both high school and college. All the claims that dad has made up to this point aren't based in reality at all, especially his claim that the earth stands still. I thought that was settled centuries ago where it was firmly established that we live in a heliocentric solar system, as are all of the extrasolar planetary systems which have been discovered since 1995. The sun, any sun, is the center...there's no variation in that.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Protostar
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stellar_evolution
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Astronomical_spectroscopy
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stellar_nucleosynthesis

you're not very familiar with dad, are you

 

[dad]

I hate to be pushy about this dad but can I pretty pretty please with sugar on top have that definition?

I think you are the one that asked what a deceiver was? If so, I am not a dictionary, you tell us???? I usually think of it in terms of this.

1Jo 2:22 -Who is a liar but he that denieth that Jesus is the Christ? He is antichrist, that denieth the Father and the Son.

 

[dad]

That was kinda mean of me. I knew you wouldn't know. I just wanted to see if you might.

I could either google it, or waste 10 years in school figuring that sort of thing out. But, since I find it a waste of time to get headaches over temporal bx math of no importance, why bother? But, as always you like to try to present yourself as clever, and leaned, and above us mere mortals.

Let me explain to you how it works!

Since in any given "Base" system the number of the base doesn't show up except as a "10" then any base in which 4 isn't represented can only be bases 4,3,2,1! But neither base 2 nor base 1 can have the number "2", so it's on in base 3 and base 4 that 2+2 can equal something other than 4.

Can you explain how any of that matters in the least to anyone??

So 4 doesn't show up as a "number" until you get to base 5!

In base 4, we have the digit "2", so 2+2 = 10 (because 4 is shown by the number 10 in base 4!)

In base 3, 2+2 = 11.

The fun thing about bases can be seen here. The right most digit is the base raised to the power of zero, so it can either be 0 or 1. In the case of base 3 the leftmost digit is the base raised to the power 1, so 11 is really 3 + 1 = 4 (in base 10).

Isn't that fun? (If anyone wants to cover fractional bases, that'd be neat as well!)

Remember way back in post #304 where you said:



So I just thought I'd teach you some more fun math stuff that related to the conversation.

Ah, so it was not about me, or the topic, but as usual, about you, and showing, you think how smart you are. OK.

(Don't get mad and post funny pictures to insult me, I am teaching you math you probably haven't seen before. In most regular tracks in school they cover bases in elementary school, but you might have forgotten or maybe when you were tracked off into the other classes they didn't cover this stuff. Isn't it interesting?

No. No more than a recently used outhouse, why??

And mental gymnastics is how smart people get smart.

I see. That's what you think. That's how people spin their wheels, and run round the soon to pass away box.

They exercise their brain and learn new and interesting things. It makes the better people and more fun to talk to!)

Actually, I would say it makes them conceited, condescending pussheads, but, hey, what do I know??