Re: Division by Zero in Nature, and Decomposition of Time.

From: Bill Hobba (bhobba_at_rubbish.net.au)
Date: 01/04/05 

Date: Tue, 04 Jan 2005 02:08:08 GMT

"Lefty" <Ye@h.Right> wrote in message
news:cGlCd.20406$3m6.18325@attbi_s51...
>
> "robert j. kolker" <nowhere@nowhere.net> wrote in message
> news:33sf9oF43nedfU2@individual.net...
> >
> >
> > Lefty wrote:
> >
> > >
> > > Oh yeah, the two are very different. I try to emphasize the
relativeness
> of
> > > this, but this thread has gotten pretty heated already and so the
> content
> > > seems to be disintegrating a little here and there.
> >
> > Then let me cool it off for you.
> >
> > 1. Division is the inverse of multiplication.
> >
> > 2. The division you are talking about is an operation in an algebraic
> > structure known as a field.
> >
> > 3. Division by 0 is forbidden in a field, for if it were permitted then
> > 1 = 0, and we can't have that.
> >
> > Zero division has absolutely nothing to do with physical processes
> > whatsoever. It is purely a mathematical issue.
> >
> > 4. You do not know fuckall about mathematics.
> >
> > Are we cool, now?
> >
> > Bob Kolker
>
>
> Wow ! I guess I'd better quit then - eh ?
>
> You're gonna have to do a little better than that Bob. I need a real
reason,
> not just angry talk.

As others have commented when you are given a real reason (and Bobs response
is a real reason whether you believe it or not) you simply claim it is not
valid or irrelevant. As I have posted recently - spit paints stew - prove
me wrong. It does not matter what you say you simply can not prove spit
paints stew wrong. Of course from your posts it is obvious you will not see
the point - which is why I mention it. I know for a fact not everyone who
posts on sci.physics.relativity is as silly as you and detailing your
tactics for all to see is about the best that can be done.

>
> I always thought that real scientists had rather open minds to things
unless
> there was a good reason to believe that something is wrong.
>

Spit paints stew - prove me wrong I dare you. I have $20.00 in front of me
if you can prove me wrong - how about it? Since you can't prove me wrong
then obviously spit paints stew.

>
> I did _not_ actually suggest that anyone should divide by zero, or that it
> can happen, but rather that it cannot. So, you have completely
> misinterpreted some very plain English, and you have not pointed otu why
> this idea would be so incorrect.

I have carefully read what you have written. You said - 'You would also be
seeing ratios which are equivalent to 1/0. This cant happen, because
division by zero is impossible.' That division by zero is impossible is a
mathematical issue having no physical relevance whatever. To apply such to
a physical situation you need to show that is corresponds to an actual
experiment. You have not detailed any actual experiment it apples to -
simply some semantic rubbish about constructing an infinite clock from the
universe. But even that you do not analyze properly eg the movement of the
hands of such a clock could not propagate faster than light hence for a
finite unverse it is possible they will not trace out any movement thus,
according to your logic, we have a frequency of zero and hence that is
impossible as well. But of course any sensible person knows such is simply
semantic nonsense in exactly the same category as spit paints stew ie
gibberish devoid of any relevance whatever.

>
> If it's wrong, then there should be a reason, but you have'nt given one.
> What I am proposing is not a question of pure mathematics, but physics.
So -
> where is your physical justification that this is wrong ?

The justification is it should be related to an actual experiment that can
in principle be performed and predicts something. Constructing a clock from
the entire universe is not something that can be performed in principle (it
is like Mach's principle that inertial forces are the result of the rest of
the universe accelerating -picking up the universe is not something we can
in principle do so it is really rather a mystical principle - although one
we can not disprove either) - and even if it could it in no way affects time
recorded by say an atomic clock. Of course you will not accept the argument
above - you claim your arguments have not been refuted. And in the end I
can not force you to accept anything. All I and others can do can do is
present their arguments and let others be the judge. Which is the intent of
my spit paints stew comment - to ensure people who are reading this
understand the exact tactic you are using.

>
> I'm starting to think that if you say something, then the safest thing
would
> be to believe the opposite !

The trouble is you do not think.

Bill

Loading