Re: Zero ain't nothing!

Tom, listen. On purely philosophical grounds you may have a
case. Just like Immanuel Kant has/did with/in his works:
"Kritik der Reinen Vernunft" & "Kritik der Transzendentalen Vernunft".
I trust you have read or studied his English versions, since it
appears now that you are beginning to talk like Kant, with whose
philosophical depths PLUS 3 dollars you can buy 1 cup of coffee
at Starbucks. --- At the very best you'll end up with your latest
outpourings to become an inverse Einstein Dingleberry plus with
Syphilis like in Kant's case.
Stick with and polish your standard railings about the physics
in your $10K tutorial per download and stand by the philosophy
of your Hitlerian Adoration. Adolf called that kind and type of
your current ejaculation "überspitzte Juden physik".... ahahaha...
and your are excreting that very type now with splendid élan....
Thanks for the laughs, Tom... ahahaha... ahahahanson

"Tom Potter" <tdp1001@xxxxxxxxx> wrote in message
news:451b1196$0$19727$88260bb3@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx

"hanson" <hanson@xxxxxxxxx> wrote in message
news:B7bSg.2991$Kw1.1347@xxxxxxxxxxx
Your initial notion (N) may have some merit.
But then with your "(P) or not to (P)" you (P)issed
onto yourself...all the way into your "infinity".
Thanks for the laughs, Tom.
ahahaha... ahahahanson


"Tom Potter" <tdp1001@xxxxxxxxx> wrote in message
news:4519193f$0$19713$88260bb3@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Zero is a bad concept,
and creates several problems in logic, math and physics.
1. It implies that "nothing" exists.
There cannot be a zero amount of "something" as this would be "nothing",
and there cannot be a non-zero amount of "nothing", as this would be
"something".
"Nothing" cannot be "something".
In other words, (zero * something) does not equal (N * nothing).
2. The erroneous concept of infinity is implied from zero.
(1 / zero) does not equal (infinity)
There is no physical evidence for infinity.
3. Zero is also responsible for the faulty concept of the "excluded
middle". The "excluded middle" is expressed symbolically as:
not( P and not(P))
This implies that a thing ( P) and its' opposite ( not(P)) cannot exist
in the same time-space.
Not only does P and not(P) exist in the same time-space object,
it is, in fact, the essence of physics.
Not(P) is commonly taken to be "nothing" or the set of all things other
than P, rather than the opposite of P as it must be in order to properly
integrate logic and reality. The assumption that not(P) = zero is what
leads to the erroneous concept of the "excluded middle".
Physical reality indicates that not(P) must be defined as the opposite
of
P, and that "nothing" be treated as a point of perception about which
orthogonal dichotomies arise, and that the sets of "things" other than P
must be treated as "things" which exist apart from P and do not sum
algebraically with, nor exist orthogonally to P.
The most fundamental property is the cycle (P),
and its' opposite is a counterclockwise P or not(P).
A distorted cycle does not exist as a fundamental unit ( thing),
as such a situation would give rise to other more fundamental cycles,
rather than define a fundamental thing (i.e. Fourier series).
The "excluded middle" exists in Nature
and is light or energy, or more correctly,
a time squared property that I call activity.

[Tom]
As hanson points out:
To "(P) or not to (P)"
that is the question.
As I indicated
"Not(P) is commonly taken to be "nothing" or the set of all things other
than P, rather than the opposite of P as it must be in order to properly
integrate logic and reality."
electron + positron = energy
zero fermions.
plus energy.
Zero fermions (Things) ain't nothing.
You can't get zero things without energy.
Tom Potter



.

Relevant Pages

  • Re: Zero aint nothing!
    ... and creates several problems in logic, math and physics. ... The erroneous concept of infinity is implied from zero. ... rather than the opposite of P as it must be in order to properly ... The "excluded middle" exists in Nature ...
    (sci.physics)
  • Zero aint nothing!
    ... and creates several problems in logic, math and physics. ... It implies that "nothing" exists. ... The erroneous concept of infinity is implied from zero. ... rather than the opposite of P as it must be in order to properly ...
    (sci.physics)
  • Re: People driven insane by physics
    ... > I've heard of people being driven insane by thinking too ... > much about physics and the philosophy of physics. ... Oh nooo, just the opposite. ...
    (sci.physics)
  • Re: My definition of force!!!
    ... >> say that the net force is nonzero whenever any force is acting on ... but it states that forces can combine to provide a zero net ... and yet there is no energy expended. ... >> You realize, of course, that you are denying Newtonian physics? ...
    (sci.physics)
  • Re: My definition of force!!!
    ... >> say that the net force is nonzero whenever any force is acting on ... but it states that forces can combine to provide a zero net ... and yet there is no energy expended. ... >> You realize, of course, that you are denying Newtonian physics? ...
    (sci.physics.relativity)
Loading