Recent content by originalpckelly

  1. O

    I think I can make 2+2 = 5, it's so cool! Possible proof offered:

    You're right. I think this is a math equivalent of singularity. Does that help your brain not hurt? Maybe some booze would help. :cheers: I ask you, can you prove it wrong? Can you not just 1+3/1+3 and reduce that down to 1/1, then 1? Then if that's true, there's nothing stopping the reverse...
  2. O

    I think I can make 2+2 = 5, it's so cool! Possible proof offered:

    If you only think of bi-symmetry, 2+2 = 5, simply does not make sense. If you think of tri-symmetry, what I hypothesize is the real symmetry of the universe, then it makes sense. ;) An expression by itself, is just a fraction, self/self or self/1. It's the basic rules of fractions. Well, just...
  3. O

    OK, so here's the anti-matter thing, just by itself.

    You raise an interesting question by your statement, one which made smoke come out of my ears. Perhaps what you're saying is not exactly true. This is just wild speculation, and it wouldn't be totally accurate, but what is a vacuum after all? Of course, that's not entirely true, as I...
  4. O

    OK, so here's the anti-matter thing, just by itself.

    There are two or three possibilities here, ones even the morons like me can get: 1. The universe is a closed system, and there must be a necessary conservation of everything. (0 = universe - universe.) 2. What we observe as the universe is not a closed system, and that is either due to...
  5. O

    OK, so here's the anti-matter thing, just by itself.

    Anyone who claims to break symmetry is simply not logical. It is simple idea, something is equal to itself. If you sincerely want to dispute that, be my guest. It's a matter of simple logic. Of course, what am I to expect from people who think they can even come close to a theory of everything...
  6. O

    OK, so here's the anti-matter thing, just by itself.

    I completely agree with you, but Urwumpe this is simple math. What is another name for spin? Inherent angular momentum, IIRC. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Spin_(physics) So let's think about this. If you don't have something spinning the other way, have you found the thing that conserves...
  7. O

    OK, so here's the anti-matter thing, just by itself.

    I think it's pretty obvious that I'm using a mirror as a tool to explain various types of symmetry. To those of us with common sense, we'll think the universe is conserved and if it is, then there should be conservation in everything (equal and opposites for everything.) To those of us who think...
  8. O

    OK, so here's the anti-matter thing, just by itself.

    Perhaps it's not that way for the universe. If you look in a mirror and watch an egg break, it will still look like like an egg just broke. I know if I go break an egg in a mirror, it's not going to magically look like it came back together. That's because the motion in the breaking of the egg...
  9. O

    OK, so here's the anti-matter thing, just by itself.

    If you run time in reverse, will an electron's spin be the same? Perhaps there are particles for whom we cannot observe their real anti-spin versions in forward time, because the only anti-spin is the time reversed version? If you put a clock in a mirror, it should look like it's going in...
  10. O

    OK, so here's the anti-matter thing, just by itself.

    I've heard about that too. It's the Kaon thing. Perhaps the equal and opposite thing happens for anti-matter scientists? If you have a clock in the mirror, it's going to look like it's going the opposite direction. Like time is going in reverse. This idiot will suggest that's what happens...
  11. O

    OK, so here's the anti-matter thing, just by itself.

    Out of phase, if I get that term right. I've been doing music for the last few years, and you can take something out of phase, and it's like making an equal and opposite of it. In my music program, it's described in terms of degrees (with 180* being out of phase), but it's probably possible to...
  12. O

    OK, so here's the anti-matter thing, just by itself.

    1. I apologize for being a jerk. 2. Ignore everything else I said, except for this, I'm not finished thinking about the other stuff. Why aren't we made of anti-matter? Something doesn't seem right about that. For every action there is an equal and opposite reaction, right? Why not for every...
  13. O

    The answer to everything in the universe is 0, not 42.

    It does, that's the point. We're having a discussion about relativity, that's a Lorentz transformation, it means everything to relativity. You obviously have no clue what that is, or what that means in this context. Get a clue dude. Just ask the other posters. Just read this part...
  14. O

    The answer to everything in the universe is 0, not 42.

    That's the point. If you think about it on a graph, time v. distance, you can find the acceleration by shading in squares for the meters and seconds. To find acceleration, take the maximum value and draw a line back to the y-axis. The complimentary area is the acceleration over time. A...
  15. O

    The answer to everything in the universe is 0, not 42.

    Is anything really ever not moving? You just don't think it's moving, but that's compared to your frame of reference. I seem to remember this planet rotates pretty quickly. You can't say anything is stationary. Just stationary in relation to one another. This is what I'm talking about. Look at...
See more
Back
Top