Just because you, Alphanumeric, give a lengthy explanation means Jack Sh*t if it is not open to discussion. If you feel you can simply state stuff with out the need to support it in a clear and rational way you simply prove you are as sick and psychotic as your posting history clearly demonstrates.
Please can you pack it in with this revisionist nonsensical view of things you seem to be having.
I'm more than happy to discuss special relativity or the role of zero in mathematics. However, I do have some pretty simple expectations about the people I'm discussing such things with if it is going to be worth doing. I expect them to be able to engage in honest discussion. You have shown you won't do that. You just complained I supposedly state things without support, which is laughably hypocritical of you. You haven't provided a single iota of evidence for your complaints about zero and special relativity, even when asked to justify them by several people. On the other hand I explained to you the role of zero within mathematics and its definitions, showing that your take on things was flawed.
If failing to provide support and evidence for ones case makes one, to quote you, 'sick an psychotic' then I'm afraid you're the one with the problem. The fact you're going to such ridiculous hyperbola only makes it more obvious you cannot present a case for your claims. I might well post in an abrassive manner, talking down to a fair few people and calling them, with some justification, dishonest or ignorant but that doesn't make me 'sick and psychotic'.
All your issues have been refuted and waiting for further discussion... eh?
Again with the revisionist memory.
So tell me how mathematics operates, with out supporting your claims again and you will get the same response... nonsense, call to authority [ your own - which is most bizzare] and "please try again"
I explained to you the definition of zero within basic arithmetic, which addressed your complaints about whether the zero we start with is the same as the one we end with. You couldn't retort any of that. You couldn't even engage in discussion on it, despite it being a thing directly addressing things you'd said. Instead we have you making 'challenges' which are completely dishonest and little more than a smokescreen to hid your inability to support your case.
And I haven't made an argument from authority. An argument from authority would be "I have a degree in maths and a PhD in physics which covers a special relativity based construct. I assert your claims about special relativity are false. Case closed". I didn't do that, I explained what zero is in mathematics and you failed to respond.
Your intention is to frustrate discussion ona topic that goes beyond your mental portfolio and therefore threatens it's foundation.
I'm wondering if you really believe what you're saying or you're just putting up a front. I've shown a working grasp of the relevant areas of mathematics and physics, while you've had to be corrected on numerous false things you've asserted. You have also shown you don't have a working understanding on this stuff. As such the person with the lacking 'mental portfolio' is you.
As for 'threatening its foundations' such a comment, once again, says more about you than you may realise. You seem to think that if I don't understand something then I view it as threatening my understanding of things I do understand. Not in the slightest. I don't know or understand 99.999% of maths or physics but that doesn't mean I think not understanding something undermines my 'mental portfolio'. I don't understand Spanish but that doesn't threaten my understanding of English. In fact I'm certain I have a much better grasp of just how little I know than any hack here because I have some handle on just how deep the rabbit hole goes, while hacks don't realise just how much stuff there is in even a tiny corner of mathematics or physics. You for instance don't realise just how much mathematical machinery and logical construction there is underneath even the most basic of things such as simple arithmetic. Hence you think you're made some terribly insightful complaint about zero and relativity which people like myself view as threatening. I know you want to think you're 'threatening' the 'mental portfolio' of people like myself but you aren't. When I'm not on this forum you don't even enter my mind. Pointing out your mistakes and your hypocrisy is something I do for fun and once I walk away from my computer I don't give you a second thought.
so what, this is only one onlne forum, there are others that enjoy more intelligent and rational discussion than this one...
Feel free to go find one. I'm confident if you raise this on other forums which have competent mathematicians on they'll have a similarly negative view of your claims.
Why should I take your word for anything?
Why do you expect your word to be taken as gospel?
Where did I say I should be taken as gospel? I explained to you the definition of zero within basic arithmetic, giving specific details. Now, if you had been intellectually honest you'd have already found out what the construction and properties of zero are within arithmetic before starting threads like this. If you'd done that you'd know what I said was entirely accurate. If you'd put in the time and effort to gain a working understanding of arithmetic and relativity you'd know what I said was accurate. If you're unsure about some of the terminology or logic I've given you can go and find relevant reading material using Google or your local library. Since this is not an academic forum I don't consider it appropriate to give lengthy references when explaining things, I expect those people who are sufficiently interested to have the capability to use well known search facilities. If you want a specific source/reference for something, such as the proof of uniqueness of zero within a number system like the Reals, then you could ask. Instead you ignored it and tried to move on to something else so as to avoid facing up to an explanation of your mistakes and misunderstandings. I have nothing to hide in regards to the mathematics I've explained to you, it's all out in the public domain for you to explore yourself. The basic properties and construction of zero in simple number systems are covered in 1st year lecture courses, many of which you can find lecture notes for easily.
If you lack the self drive to find such information yourself and you'd rather change the subject than ask me for further information then that's your problem. But you didn't ask, you just tried to ignore it and now you claim laughable things like I'm trying to make an argument from authority or I'm unable to support my claims. That's rich coming from you. You've made claims about your 'zero point theory' which are utterly without basis, like its connections to pyramids. And it isn't just me you've failed to provide justification to, you failed with James and przyk in this thread and Pete in another. In some instances your claims aren't just unsupported, they're demonstrably wrong. Waving your arms and making up qualitative nonsense is one thing but you make the mistake of talking about mathematics and relativity, which are quantitative constructs and things you have no working understanding of, hence why your assertions about them are refutable. You've made assertions about the role of zero, the properties of zero, about how values appear
everywhere in mathematics, how everything in mathematics is relative to some zero, how every single maths teacher would agree with you. All of those have been refuted. And rather than discussing them and accepting correction you assert that me offering opinion to przyk amounts to 'sick and psychotic' behaviour, attempting to control him and shut down discussion on this matter. If you'd been able to discuss things like the basic definition of zero then we could have had a discussion. Instead every time someone else has said something quantitative and precise you'd had to change the subject because it's beyond your ability to discuss such things.
You have obviously stated you see no merit in the enquiry.
There is always merit in asking questions
provided you're willing to listen to the answers. You obviously already have a view on things and you're wanting people to confirm it, everything else is ignored. Hence why I told you your challenges are dishonest and vapid, since you will undoubtedly ignore anything and everything presented to you which doesn't align with your preconceived view. No one with a reasonable amount of honesty would think it is a good idea to have as a referee for a 'challenge' someone who has a bias for one side over the other. That's why in international football games the referee is never from one of the two competing countries.
Zero is a lot more than a mere number in all fields of intellectual endeavour. To make zero in such a fundamental way relative has significant implications on all fields and not just mathematics.
You make assertions about a specific construction of zero within mathematics based on some qualitative view from outside mathematics. Whether a tax accountant views 'zero' in his books with some additional meaning is irrelevant to the formal construction of zero within arithmetic. You don't grasp the notion of abstract concepts properly, you cannot separate out a concept from an application and embellishment of that concept. And you've had claims about the role of zero in mathematics retorted. You
know you don't have a working understanding of the sort of mathematics I've been talking about (else you'd not ask the 'Why should I take your words as gospel?', you'd already know) so why you make blanket assertions I have no idea. Are you aware of your hypocrisy in complaining we supposedly make unsupported assertions?
relativity is a theory supposedly describing the realty of observation.
It is a real world theory that is not mere abstraction and it has implications in that real world beynd mere abstracion.
To consider time to be relative is not a simply a mathematical process but a signifcant issue regarding actual universal structure.
Don't mistake the map for the place. Physics is about associating structures within abstract constructions with observed phenomena. The abstract constructs are mathematical in form, where 'zero' is entirely abstract and without physical meaning or embellishment. As such trying to make statements about mathematics using physical arguments is flawed, the process is the other way. It's possible to write down any number of mathematical constructs with no physical meaning, some of them including the concept of zero. No amount of "In reality ....." assertions will have any relevance to the zero of those constructs and the same is true about the zero in the mathematical construct which we associate to relativistic phenomena.
This is an important and perhaps subtle issue but unfortunately you haven't grasped it, partly due to your lack of any working understanding in it.
I might add this is a science forum and a place to enter into discussions. It is not a peer review exercise, it is not a place to lodge a formal thesis for peer review. There is no qualification needed to be a member.
It is merely a place to entertain discussion about all sorts of things. Discussion you have indicated is beneath your self confessed and unprovable skill levels.
I like how you constantly change the goal posts. When you think we haven't supported our case you make all sorts of complaints about arguments from authority and having 'sick and psychotic' posting histories but then it's okay for you to not present any justification and there's no need to go formal and act like it is peer review, which would require giving references/citations.
One rule for us, one rule for you?
Simply put when moving away from Newtonian space to Minkowski/Einstein space the notion of absolute zero [ absolute rest] is now considered a nul concept. It iis unfortnately necessary to utilise what you have considerd a null concept to show absolute zero as a nul concept. eh? We are actually referring to the real universe here and not some construct in a mathematicians head.
Zero, even when used in physical models, is a concept, it always resides in someone's head, mathematician or not. You're making concepts for their application, mistaking the map for the place. A
concept is
conceptual, it has no physical reality. I've already explained how the connection between conceptual mathematical construct and physical phenomena works, shame you don't grasp it.
What has been said is correct but behind all of that is still the key validator for all mathematics and that is absolute zero.
An assertion you not only haven't justified but which I've given counter examples to. Your only attempt at a retort was to show you didn't understand the concepts or notation and could only just make more assertions. That's pretty much all you can do. You make poorly constructed assertions on subjects you don't understand, are provided with counter examples and then just ignore them because you don't understand. You failing to understand something doesn't make it invalid as a response to your assertions. We could have discussed category theory further, seeing as you keep complaining there's no proper discussion of the subject at hand, but unfortunately you demonstrated you are incapable of doing that yet you had no problem with just making some mistaken assertion about it, as if you grasped it enough to do such a thing, and then change the subject.
I'm more than happy to explain to you again how zero arises in arithmetic, its absence in some areas of mathematics, its uniqueness within a specific number system and the difference between an abstract mathematical construct and the natural phenomena physicists associate such constructs to. All I ask if you demonstrate a little effort and honesty in the discussion, rather than the almost trolling levels of hypocrisy and misrepresentation you're currently engaged in. I've got nothing to hide in regards to this stuff and I can be as detailed as required and provide as many references as is reasonably necessary. But you've got to be willing to accept correction when it's demonstrated you're mistaken. You know you don't have any mathematics or physics knowledge pertinent to this stuff so to make assertions about them as if you do I'll view as deliberate deception.
