MERGED: All About Extra-Solar Planets: News, Updates and Related Topics

[THE SKULLS]

---

In fact, the very reason why science works is because of the fact that the mathematical principles, theorems and postulates remain constant throughout the universe.

Is it universally accepted standard jud? That would be ideal if kita lang living ani na universe.

But 1 + 1 = 2 jud na siya.

Sa karon.

[jalson_ent]

I'm being VERY serious, because you seem to be re confusing mathematics as having some sort of flexible property, when it's not--it's a fundamental underlying principle and cannot be changed, no matter what universe you may live in. In fact, the very reason why science works is because of the fact that the mathematical principles, theorems and postulates remain constant throughout the universe.

For instance, why do we know that faraway stars of a certain class will behave in a certain way, when we haven't even been to that star? Simple--we can observe our own sun, because it is closer to the earth, and since we know the mathematical and principles of physics and chemistry that govern the functioning of our sun, based on our observations and the calculations we have derived from observing it, it is logical that when applied to a distant star (with the same general characteristics of our sun), it is easy to predict how it will behave, because the laws of physics and math in that region of space where that star is, and the region of space nearer us, are THE SAME.

Again, ask yourself, will one stone plus another stone equal to something else other than two stones, two hundred thousands years from now? Or even two million years from now. Calm down and ponder on that thought for a moment, so you may begin to understand why mathematics is fundamental.

-RODION

Like I said..ako binisay-on ha aron makasabot ka. ang PERIODIC TABLE nato possible nga dili pareho sa ila so don't tell me about physics and chemistry that governs our sun. balikon sad nako ug sulti ha. crude pa kaayo ato mga equipments and we are still at an infancy sa atong technology. You are still thinking as someone who thinks na we are the only beings in the universe and that every principle that was ever made by man being crude beings will be adopted by the universe. ANG ATO FUNDAMENTALS SA MATHEMATICS MAO SAD NA FUNDAMENTALS SA UNIVERSE...Are you still OK?? Do you think that we humans are the most supreme beings in the universe?? PONDER on this. sure kaha ka nga naa sila algebra, calculus(differential ug integral), balancing equations, quantum physics ug unsa pa diha..Do not tell me that apples taste better than oranges if you haven't tried it..Nisulti na ka nga dili pwede himuon ug weapon ang suga. what I am saying are possibilities since you are very conclusive..mathematics, physics and chemistry are earthly terms made by crude beings. possible nga lahi ila mathematical equations..but I don't think ma-convince tika about what I am thinking. lisud pagpukaw sa usa ka tao nga nagmata..so dili na lng ko makiglalis. I will just wait for the future, it may not be soon but we will get there..Open Area 51 to the public please...heheheheehehe

For instance, why do we know that faraway stars of a certain class will behave in a certain way, when we haven't even been to that star? Simple--we can observe our own sun, because it is closer to the earth, and since we know the mathematical and principles of physics and chemistry that govern the functioning of our sun, based on our observations and the calculations we have derived from observing it, it is logical that when applied to a distant star (with the same general characteristics of our sun), it is easy to predict how it will behave, because the laws of physics and math in that region of space where that star is, and the region of space nearer us, are THE SAME.

-RODION

Are you sure? Is that the reason why they say that there is water on Mars and that Pluto is a planet? We used to think that the world is flat and that the universe revolves around us. A lot of scientist accepted the fact that what they thought about the universe was wrong when Hubble came to life. What do you think they'll say when we have a better and more powerful Hubble? Our equipments are very crude so don't be conclusive..example ha aron masabtan.. Usa ka pawnshop businessman here in the Philippines lost millions and millions of pesos because of a stone with the same qualities as a diamond pero dili d i diamond..sa ingon pa nila...Not everything that shines is Gold..so try to relate that to the topic..

[okimura]

theres no palce like home ...our very own planet called "EARTH"

[rodsky]

Are you sure? Is that the reason why they say that there is water on Mars and that Pluto is a planet? We used to think that the world is flat and that the universe revolves around us. A lot of scientist accepted the fact that what they thought about the universe was wrong when Hubble came to life. What do you think they'll say when we have a better and more powerful Hubble? Our equipments are very crude so don't be conclusive..example ha aron masabtan.. Usa ka pawnshop businessman here in the Philippines lost millions and millions of pesos because of a stone with the same qualities as a diamond pero dili d i diamond..sa ingon pa nila...Not everything that shines is Gold..so try to relate that to the topic..

Yes I'm sure. Again, please answer my question. Will one plus one still equal two in a hundred thousand years from now, or a million years from now? Do not deviate, because answering this is essential in making you understand why math is unchanging.

We are talking about mathematics as fundamental and unchanging, while you keep on using analogies that do not fit the bill when describing the nature of math. In that effect, you're the one straying off topic.

Before you start thinking grand and smug by saying that our "viewpoint" or tools, or scientific method being utilized now will change, realize that nothing I said in my past posts ever countered ANY of those points, so don't talk me down as if wala ko kasabot sa imong ginasulti--I'm here talking about math and math alone, because that was your earlier contention that math itself would be prone to change. Right. Like, tomorrow, one plus one will not equal one, by your reasoning. Pause and ponder again at that thought.

Primary numbers will always be primary numbers, and irrational numbers will always be irrational numbers, because math is fundamental. Nothing you say can change that.

-RODION

[jalson_ent]

I think THE SKULLS already answered that but you never answered the question. Is "OUR Mathematics" the fundamental standard of the universe?? sa kadaghan nako nga gi-point out, mao ra gyud na imo ikatubag, you were talking about chemistry and physics ug uban pa. mao ni ako pasabot. 1+1+1x0=??. ang computation ana, will that apply universallyand check on this link. http://www.mathematik.tu-dortmund.de...U2007/Tarp.pdf.. by the way, traveling faster than the speed of light is not basic mathematics so do not be a hypocrite. when I said in the near future, people are gonna question our mathematical principles and theories, I was referring to people like Surendrajeet Singh.

You said" because math is fundamental. Nothing you say can change that."- wala gihapon ka kasabot sa ato topic.. Earth vs the Universe ato argument..Is Math a fundamental standard sa universe? will 0 raise to the power of 0 equals 1 or 0?? based on the rules of math. indeterminate ang answer ana..mu-conflict man siya sa rules of exponential- meaning, naay inconsistency ato math...try to ponder on this: Math is a network of "conventions" mankind has accepted to make it work. It is based on rules and axioms that are the most "convenient". They may seem hard to figure out at first, but when you get down to it, the rules that we use are basically the best we can come up with to get the things done that we want to accomplish. Mankind has accepted to make it work...again...MANKIND.

[jalson_ent]

If long time ago people thought that the world was flat, then all computations about astronomy revolves around it being flat. di ba? then some people questioned it and push the boundaries and found out that the world is round. Do you think wala ma-usab ang computations sa astronomy?? People say that its not possible until the next big thing comes along and then we question how and why..Mu-agree ko na 1+1=2 but space travel is not as easy as 1+1..and to relate 1+1=2 to the the discussion of mathematical principles and theories of space travel is quite dumb and plain old stupid. IOH..

[rodsky]

If long time ago people taught that the world was flat, then all computations about atronomy revolves around it being flat. di ba? then some people questioned it and push the boundaries and found out that the world is round. Do you think wala ma-usab ang computations sa astronomy?? People say that its not possible until the next big thing comes along and then we question how and why..Mu-agree ko na 1+1=2 but space travel is not as easy as 1+1..and to relate 1+1=2 to the the discussion of mathematical principles and theories of space travel is quite dumb and plain old stupid. IOH..

You still fail to grasp the meaning of the term fundamental. To say that "...(relating) 1+1=2 to the discussion of mathematical principles and theories of space travel is quite dumb and plain old stupid..., is a clear indication of your lack of understanding of mathematical principles. Isaac Newton, in a letter to Robert Hooke in February 5, 1676, stated that:

"What Descartes did was a good step. You have added much several ways, and especially in taking the colours of thin plates into philosophical consideration. If I have seen a little further it is by standing on the shoulders of Giants."

This principle is called nanos gigantium humeris insidentes or plainly stated: "One who develops future intellectual pursuits by understanding the research and works created by notable thinkers of the past". The principle can similarly be applied to mathematics, in that you cannot begin to utilize the complex calculus described by Newton in his Philosophiæ Naturalis Principia Mathematica (which opened up an exciting new interest/drive in astrophysics during that era), without first getting a full grasp of basic mathematical concepts, and futhermore, you cannot begin to start getting a grasp of basic mathematical concepts, if you don't have a well-grounded understanding of arithmetic. Arithmetic...you know, like one plus one. If you have difficulty in grasping this relationship, the easiest way to describe it is: "You cannot build the walls and roof of the house, without first building its foundations." Foundation = fundamentals.

Again, this is perhaps the third or fourth time you've avoided the question, and we can clear all this up if you ONLY answer it: Will one plus one (which by now we know is NOT stupid, for it is fundamental in the organization and workings of more complex forms of math) STILL BE one plus one, a hundred thousand years from now, or a million years from now?

As to the question "our mathematics the fundamental standard of the universe?", again you seem to think that math is some "disposable" tool which can be discarded whenever something new arises in the future, when it is not--it is an underlying principle, and the term "our mathematics" is putting exclusivity on an otherwise fundamental and universal principle that needs no further explanation than examining actual demonstrated events, events which you can observe in nature by using sticks and stones. I'd actually believe you, if one day in the future, I place one stone beside another stone, and the result is different from "two stones".

-RODION

[jalson_ent]

hay naku. EARTH VS THE UNIVERSE..our fundamentals is the universe fundamentals??..Wala cguro ka mubasa but I think I agree na 1+1=2 is correct. I think YOU failed sa tanan nako nga gipasabot..Basics will always be the basics. Wala ko makiglalis ana.. Ang paghimo sa payag pareho ra sa paghimo ug townhouse..basics on building mana, di ba? pero if you add one floor after another, then daghan naka basehan..take this into consideration..ang carpentero sa imo payag maoy pahimo-a sa petronas towers. then you'll grasp kung unsa ako pasabot..basics will always be basics but when I said that people are gonna question our mathematical principles and theorems. I meant to say adding the next 50 floors or more..nakasabot naka?

ako binisay-on ang gipasabot ni skulls sad ha ug nako..kung usa ka ka martian or alien..ang atong math ba ang ila gamiton? will our 1 kilometer be their one kilometer? will our 1 kilo be their 1 kilo..pareho bata ug timbangan nila? pareho bata ug tape measure nila? ang atong 100km/hour pareho ba na sa ila? ang ato clock,pareho ba na sa ila? nagpadala ug tapes and CD's ang mga scientist sa usa ka probe that they sent out to space. naa morse code devices, pictures and vidoes. they even ask a lot of questions. Ours are not like theirs. mao na ila pasabot and these people are scientist. Like I said, scientist said that what they thought about the universe is wrong when Hubble came to life..

[rodsky]

I think YOU failed sa tanan nako nga gipasabot..

I'm an amateur astronomer, thus I understood every word that you said (re your "side trips" trying to lay out the different analogies you just mentioned), for I won't be able to exercise my interest fully, if I didn't understand all the things you said--but my posts were of an entirely different matter--I just wanted to drive my point and let you admit that 1+1 will always be one, considering that math is fundamental. And that being done, I am satisfied, any additions I may have in this discussion no longer serve a purpose.

Your original statement that started all this:
"Traveling faster than the speed of light maybe possible in the very long future." - jalson_ent

I already said I know and understand what you meant by this statement, but nothing you say can and will change the fact that within the context of mathematics and astrophysics, this statement (superluminal travel) is still incorrect. Again, the more proper way of stating your wish, therefore is "Traveling around the universe via shortcuts through space-time (i.e. wormholes), thus not spend thousands or millions of years to get from Point A to Point B, may be possible in the very long future". That is a more correct way of expressing this remark and is quite acceptable.

-RODION

[jalson_ent]

knowing the answer 1+1=2 does not make you a rocket scientist..