Page 2 of 3 FirstFirst 123 LastLast
Results 26 to 50 of 61

Thread: Misc. Unanaswerable Questions Thread

  1. #26
    § GFX-Designer § m1n05_4's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2008
    Posts
    456

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by The Editor View Post
    Heh, you don't get it... You see, the reason I ask the question is because everything is apparently limited to just below the speed of light, because at that point your mass is multiplied by infinity, and therefore you would require infinite energy. So far, so good. However, light (and all other eletromagnetic waves) is made up of photons, which have no mass at all, and 0x(infinity)=0. By E=m(v^2)/2 we end up with E=0 for any speed of a photon. Therefore a photon should not have a top speed. So, why does it? Does anyone know?

    The reason a car travelling at 60 travels at 60 is because the forces acting on it (assuming it is not accelerating) are balanced. According to F=ma, photons have no net force acting on them and can have any acceleration they want (because m=0, therefore F=0 and a=anything you want). The car case is different.
    I forgot to tell you. It produces no forces, but that doesn't mean your acceleration can be anything. A = F/m. If m = 0 > F/0 = Not defined. Therefore your acceleration is null.



  2. #27
    In Soviet Russia, Editor is protected from YOU!! The Editor's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2007
    Location
    In a timeless moment, of perfect balance.
    Posts
    15,996

    Default

    F=0 because m=0, regardless of the accelaration. And undefined does not make a value 0, it makes it an unknown with no parameters. The acceleration could be anything, even a complex number (x+iy, where x and y are real numbers and i is the square root of -1).

  3. #28
    § GFX-Designer § m1n05_4's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2008
    Posts
    456

    Default

    I didn't say its 0, I said it's null. The resultant forces of any aceleration gives 0. But that doesn't means the aceleration is going to be any value, you must concrete what is A. For that you must use A = F/M. Now... Any number divided by 0 is undefined. You could try finding limits for the function f(x)/g(x) but that i find pointless. Try making a function for A. You'll find an undefined function.

    Think about it. If A where to exist, the same principle that says that there is nothing faster than light would be broken.



  4. #29
    In Soviet Russia, Editor is protected from YOU!! The Editor's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2007
    Location
    In a timeless moment, of perfect balance.
    Posts
    15,996

    Default

    I'm fully aware that a is zero, but I still don't know why it is zero. And null means
    Quote Originally Posted by The Oxford English Dictionary
    1) having no legal or binding force; invalid.
    2) having or associated with the value zero.
    3) lacking distinctive qualities; having no positive substance or content.
    Undefined means "not clear or defined," and defined means "mark out the boundaries or limits of."

    The resultant forces for any non-zero acceleration cannot be zero for any object with a non-zero mass.

  5. #30
    § GFX-Designer § m1n05_4's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2008
    Posts
    456

    Default

    Null is an English word meaning 'nothing' or without value or consequence. It is derived from the Latin word nullus meaning 'none'.
    http://en.wikipedia.org/null

    x/0 is undefined, because 0 has no multiplicative inverse
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/0_%28number%29

    Wikipedia also gives a definition of null math concept. Why can't it be 0? If F = W; F = m*g; As have you told me, m = 0 and g = 9.81m/sē then F = 0; You even imply it

    Quote Originally Posted by The Editor View Post
    F=0 because m=0, regardless of the accelaration. And undefined does not make a value 0, it makes it an unknown with no parameters. The acceleration could be anything, even a complex number (x+iy, where x and y are real numbers and i is the square root of -1).



  6. #31
    In Soviet Russia, Editor is protected from YOU!! The Editor's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2007
    Location
    In a timeless moment, of perfect balance.
    Posts
    15,996

    Default

    Exactly. But you claimed that you didn't mean zero when you said null:
    Quote Originally Posted by m1n05_4
    I didn't say its 0, I said it's null.
    There is no reason why a zero mass accelerating cannot do so under a zero net force. However, I said that a non-zero mass accelerating cannot do so under a zero net force, which is the claim you made:
    Quote Originally Posted by m1n05_4
    The resultant forces of any acceleration gives 0.

  7. #32
    § GFX-Designer § m1n05_4's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2008
    Posts
    456

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by The Editor View Post
    Exactly. But you claimed that you didn't mean zero when you said null:


    There is no reason why a zero mass accelerating cannot do so under a zero net force. However, I said that a non-zero mass accelerating cannot do so under a zero net force, which is the claim you made:
    Yes, well I'm still claiming that it's not 0 it's null. I made a confusion about the second one I didn't read non-zero mass. The second quote was refering to your case about mass being zero, i didn't thought it would become a confusion. Anyway, the definition of null is very wide so I'll refer to it as undefined.

    a != 0;



  8. #33
    In Soviet Russia, Editor is protected from YOU!! The Editor's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2007
    Location
    In a timeless moment, of perfect balance.
    Posts
    15,996

    Default

    Do I need to quote the OED at you again? Null and zero in mathematical terms are synonymous, and null is definitely defined.

    a!=1x2x3x4x...x(a-1)xa, where a is an integer. A slightly odd fact is that a!=1 when a=0. a! never equals 0.

  9. #34
    § GFX-Designer § m1n05_4's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2008
    Posts
    456

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by The Editor View Post
    Do I need to quote the OED at you again? Null and zero in mathematical terms are synonymous, and null is definitely defined.

    a!=1x2x3x4x...x(a-1)xa, where a is an integer. A slightly odd fact is that a!=1 when a=0. a! never equals 0.
    What the heck? a!? I was making a programming statement there. != stands for FALSE ergo A != 0 means A never 0.

    And according to my quote null means none that's why I said it's a wide concept. And your quote says having or associated with 0. It doesn't say: "Synonym of 0".



  10. #35
    In Soviet Russia, Editor is protected from YOU!! The Editor's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2007
    Location
    In a timeless moment, of perfect balance.
    Posts
    15,996

    Default

    Sorry, I though you meant a factorial (a.k.a. a!) Math speak

    None = zero. That's what none means: there is a zero quantity of that object. Having or associated with zero in mathematical terms is zero, and here we are dealing with mathematics.

  11. #36
    § GFX-Designer § m1n05_4's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2008
    Posts
    456

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by The Editor View Post
    Sorry, I though you meant a factorial (a.k.a. a!) Math speak

    None = zero. That's what none means: there is a zero quantity of that object. Having or associated with zero in mathematical terms is zero, and here we are dealing with mathematics.
    Ok well, Zero = Null (If you ever said that to my programming teacher he'll cut your balls and give them to the lions [a.k.a. geeks]).

    So why are we discussing nonsenses about synonym or not?



  12. #37
    In Soviet Russia, Editor is protected from YOU!! The Editor's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2007
    Location
    In a timeless moment, of perfect balance.
    Posts
    15,996

    Default

    And if he ever claimed different to a mathematician he'd be set on fire

    Somewhere a definition was called into question, but we're past that now. So, I guess that means we return to the question "Why does light have a speed limit?"

  13. #38
    § GFX-Designer § m1n05_4's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2008
    Posts
    456

    Default

    I've already answered that in the past.



  14. #39
    In Soviet Russia, Editor is protected from YOU!! The Editor's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2007
    Location
    In a timeless moment, of perfect balance.
    Posts
    15,996

    Default

    And I've explained why those answers are not correct.

  15. #40

  16. #41
    In Soviet Russia, Editor is protected from YOU!! The Editor's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2007
    Location
    In a timeless moment, of perfect balance.
    Posts
    15,996

    Default

    That doesn't explain why c is a constant in the first place.

    Red is red because that is how our brains interpret light waves reaching our retina at that particular frequency. That is why red is red. What I don't know is why c is c, which is what I'm asking.

  17. #42
    § GFX-Designer § m1n05_4's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2008
    Posts
    456

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by The Editor View Post
    That doesn't explain why c is a constant in the first place.

    Red is red because that is how our brains interpret light waves reaching our retina at that particular frequency. That is why red is red. What I don't know is why c is c, which is what I'm asking.
    Yes it does. Read it again. Some crazy motherfucker said: "Ok... so now.. I'm going to call C the light speed." And light speed is defined as Distance divided by Time.



  18. #43
    In Soviet Russia, Editor is protected from YOU!! The Editor's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2007
    Location
    In a timeless moment, of perfect balance.
    Posts
    15,996

    Default

    But that still doesn't explain why the speed of light is a constant!

  19. #44
    § GFX-Designer § m1n05_4's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2008
    Posts
    456

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by The Editor View Post
    But that still doesn't explain why the speed of light is a constant!
    Man you could call 7.89 a constant if everybody agrees that 7.89 is a constant.

    Now... speed of light remain constant because there's no acceleration.



  20. #45
    In Soviet Russia, Editor is protected from YOU!! The Editor's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2007
    Location
    In a timeless moment, of perfect balance.
    Posts
    15,996

    Default

    7.89 is a constant by definition because it isn't a variable, independent or otherwise

    You have yet to show why there is no acceleration.

  21. #46
    § GFX-Designer § m1n05_4's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2008
    Posts
    456

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by The Editor View Post
    7.89 is a constant by definition because it isn't a variable, independent or otherwise

    You have yet to show why there is no acceleration.
    I did! A = null.

    What i was trying to said is that if you had B and you said B = 7.89 and everybody agrees that it's constant because it never changes then B becames a constant.



  22. #47
    In Soviet Russia, Editor is protected from YOU!! The Editor's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2007
    Location
    In a timeless moment, of perfect balance.
    Posts
    15,996

    Default

    In mathematical terms you just claimed a=0. In programming terms (which you seem to insist on using despite the confusion it could cause) you are stating that a is an independent complex variable.

    Because 7.89 is a constant! If we were to say that B=n where n is a complex variable, then that would be the definition of B.

  23. #48
    § GFX-Designer § m1n05_4's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2008
    Posts
    456

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by The Editor View Post
    In mathematical terms you just claimed a=0. In programming terms (which you seem to insist on using despite the confusion it could cause) you are stating that a is an independent complex variable.

    Because 7.89 is a constant! If we were to say that B=n where n is a complex variable, then that would be the definition of B.
    Nonono you are confusing the meaning of an independent number to the meaning of a constant in formulas.

    It is to call something a constant when it has been observed that it never changes. If you were to say B=N then N would be your constant which will also make B a constant.

    F = mg <---- CONSTANT IT NEVER CHANGES.

    And A is a complex variable: A = M/0 which is undefined which is complex.
    I have never said A = 0, you have.



  24. #49
    In Soviet Russia, Editor is protected from YOU!! The Editor's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2007
    Location
    In a timeless moment, of perfect balance.
    Posts
    15,996

    Default

    That doesn't explain why that constant is the speed of light. The constant itself is just that: a constant. But attributing it to the maximum speed of light is saying that said speed is constant, and now you must prove that that is true.

    You are claiming that a=0 by saying that light has a maximum speed.

  25. #50
    doleo ergo sum Pink-kitty2's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2008
    Posts
    5,080

    Default



    Well done. You just made me go onto Photobucket, bypass several annoying pop-ups, and then post this.

    Because I stopped reading halfway through, all I can say is that c is a constant because that's the way it is.
    omae wa mou shindeiru

Page 2 of 3 FirstFirst 123 LastLast

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •