The Instigator
way12go
Pro (for)
Losing
0 Points
The Contender
RoyLatham
Con (against)
Winning
35 Points

Fundamental theory of existence.

Do you like this debate?NoYes+0
Add this debate to Google Add this debate to Delicious Add this debate to FaceBook Add this debate to Digg  
Vote Here
Pro Tied Con
Who did you agree with before the debate?
Who did you agree with after the debate?
Who had better conduct?
Who had better spelling and grammar?
Who made more convincing arguments?
Who used the most reliable sources?
Reasons for your voting decision
1,000 Characters Remaining
The voting period for this debate does not end.
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 9/14/2009 Category: Science
Updated: 7 years ago Status: Voting Period
Viewed: 1,623 times Debate No: 9491
Debate Rounds (5)
Comments (14)
Votes (5)

 

way12go

Pro

Fundamental Theory Of Existence.
Let us consider x, y and z as any three numbers. If we take an equation such that x / y = z then x = y * z. 4 / 0 is said to be infinity. If 4 / 0 is equal to infinity, 4 / 0 = infinity then 4 = 0 * infinity, that is 4 = 0 but 4 is not equal to 0 therefore 4 / 0 is not equal to infinity. What is infinity? Infinity means not finite. If infinity means not finite then infinity can not be a number. Therefore infinity is not a number. When we divide a finite number with another finite number we get a finite answer but not infinity. Therefore any finite number divided by any finite number is equal to some finite number. For example 4 divided by 4 is equal to 1. The numerator is 4 which is a finite number. The denominator is 4 which is again a finite number. Now 4 / 4 is equal to 1 and once again 1 is a finite number. Therefore the result of dividing a finite number with another finite number is also a finite number. 4 / 0 is sometimes said to be undefined or not defined. If it is so then let us define it. We already know that 4 / 0 should give us a finite number. 0 / 4 means we are dividing the numerator 0 with the denominator 4. Zero means nothing. Dividing 0 with 4 means dividing nothing into 4 parts, it means we are not dividing anything. Therefore 0 in the numerator means we have nothing to divide. What does 4 in the denominator mean? 4 in the denominator means we are dividing the numerator into 4 parts that is we are converting the numerator into 4 parts. Now that we know what denominator means we will discuss 4 / 0. 0 in the denominator means dividing the numerator that is 4 into zero parts. Mind you, 0 in the denominator does not mean we are not dividing. Zero in the denominator actually means we are converting the numerator into zero parts. If we can divide the numerator into zero parts then each part is equal to zero. But sum of zeroes does not give us 4. Therefore 4 can not be divided by 0. In fact numerator can not be divided by 0. Therefore 0 can not exist as denominator. It is true that the numerator can not be divided into zero parts and it is also true that sum of zeroes does not give anything but zero. If we take Y = 1 / X ( Y = 1 / X is Rectangular Hyperbola ) then we get different values for both X and Y that are other than zero. The values of X and Y are never equal to zero and that means that the curves never intersect the X - axis and Y - axis. Therefore
1. Zero can not exist as denominator.
The fact that the numerator can not be divided into zero parts means anything that exists can not be destroyed into nothingness. And the fact that sum of zeroes gives us zero alone means anything that does not exist can not be given existence out of nothingness. Therefore
2. Anything can not be created out of nothingness, only change of form is possible and change is everywhere.
3. Anything can not be destroyed into nothingness, only change of form is possible and change is everywhere. Once again we need to know what infinite means. What does infinite mean? Infinite means not finite and not finite means unlimited. By now we know that creation and destruction are impossible. If creation is impossible then there is no other way new things can add up to the World that already exists. If new things can not add up to the World then there is no way anything that exists in this World can be infinite. Space can not be infinite. Therefore
4. Existence of anything can not be infinite.
Numbers are infinite but number of apples ( existence ) can not be infinite. Now, we know that creation and destruction are impossible and we also know that the existence of anything can not be infinite. We are part of the world we live in. In our world existence of anything can not be infinite. That is Space, Mass, Energy, Density, Gravity, Force,... etc; can not be infinite. Also, in our World creation and destruction are impossible. Creation is impossible means no new things can add up to the World that already exists and it also means what already exists can not come out of creation. Creation is impossible, creation is completely ruled out. We also know that destruction of the World is impossible. Space is timeless. Therefore
5. There is no beginning and an end to the existence of the World.
According to the fourth postulate space can not be infinite and according to the fifth postulate space is timeless.
We know what an equation means. An equation is a law of equity. If creation and destruction are possible then all laws have to fail. In a World where creation and destruction are possible laws can not exist, only Chaos exists. We know what infinity means. Infinity means not finite and it means infinity is something that is unlimited, something that is ever increasing. Positive infinity is ever increasing and negative infinity is ever decreasing. It is said that, infinity + 2 is equal to infinity, then 2 = infinity - infinity which implies 2 = 0 which is wrong, also 2 times infinity is equal to infinity and that implies 2 = 1 and 2 = 0 which is once again wrong. What is wrong with the above equations? Infinity is the answer. Infinity means unlimited and it can not be used in equations. If creation is possible, equations will fail. Therefore
6. There are finite absolute laws.
E = M C2 has another side to it. E stands for the energy of the electromagnetic radiation, M is the intrinsic mass of the electromagnetic radiation and C is the velocity of the electromagnetic radiation. Any ordinary body can be moved and therefore its velocity is relative at constant gravity. Electromagnetic radiation travels on its own, it can not be moved like any ordinary body by moving the source of the electromagnetic radiation. Therefore velocity of electromagnetic radiation is observed to be constant at constant gravity. When there is considerable change in gravity there is change in velocity of the electromagnetic radiation. Therefore velocity of electromagnetic radiation is relative to change in gravity.
We know that... Energy is equal to the product of mass and square of the velocity of light.
E = M C2
F = M g
E = ( F/g ) C2
7. Velocity of light is relative.
Everything is well defined in three dimensions. Space too is three dimensional. String Theory claims more than three dimensions. Time is an imaginary dimension. Existence of anything short of three dimensions is impossible since anything that exists can not be destroyed into nothingness. If more than three dimensions can exist, they have to exist everywhere and always. Since anything can not be created out of nothingness more than three dimensions can not be given existence out of nothingness. Therefore String Theory can not be true.
8. There are three dimensions and three dimensions only.
Therefore anything short of three dimensions and more than three dimensions is impossible. Time is an imaginary dimension. Time Travel is impossible since Time is an imaginary dimension.
9. Time Travel can not exist.
There are no infinite parallel Worlds with infinite parallel changes and we can not Time Travel. Time Travel is meaningless.
10. Tan 90 can not exist.
If two angles are 90 degrees then it is not a triangle. If any angle is equal to zero then it is not a triangle.Please visit the below website.

http://www.grc.nasa.gov...

The sum of all the angles of a triangle is 180 degrees. No two angles can be 90 degrees. Also no single angle can be zero. Tan 90 can not exist. If Sin 0 exists it means two sides are overlapping (without any angle between them) and it means that it is a straight line. We live in a three dimensional World where everything is three dimensional and three dimensions only. We neglect the third dimension for our convenience. Sometimes we neglect two dimensions and continue studying as if everything is occurring as a single dimension.In a right angle triangle one angle is 90 degrees and the sum of the other two angles is 90 degrees. The sum
RoyLatham

Con

Pro provided no resolution for the debate. I assume that the resolution is "Assertions (1) through (10) as provided by Pro are true." Pro has the burden of proof to establish that they are true.

1. "Zero can not exist as denominator." Pro provided the example 4/0 in which 4 is the numerator and 0 is the denominator. Therefore 0 can exist as the denominator. The meaning or value of 4/0 depends upon the mathematical context in which it is proposed. It may be undefined. However, what it means is irrelevant to 0 being the denominator. In other words, having zero as the denominator exists and poses a legitimate question.

2. "Anything can not be created out of nothingness..." Current physical theory is to the contrary. As the universe expands, more vacuum is created and with the created vacuum s dark energy. The dark energy is detectable by its gravitational pull. This explains why the universe is expanding at an accelerating rate. The increased mass at the edges is pulling it outwards. http://en.wikipedia.org... It's too soon to proclaim that the spontaneous creation of dark energy is certain, but it is the leading theory explaining the observed data. Pro's contention is therefore not proved.

Separately, the theory of quantum fluctuation supposes that matter can be created spontaneously. It is contrary to Pro's supposition and has not been disproved. http://universe-review.ca...

3. Pro asserts "Anything can not be destroyed into nothingness" but offers no proof. Quantum fluctuation also allows matter to vanish. http://en.wikipedia.org... As to permanent macroscopic vanishing, it seems unlikely, but few physicists would claim it impossible. Since quantum fluctuation is one theory for the origin of the universe, a contrary event might theoretically cause its demise.

Pro is equivocating over the meaning of "infinity." Infinity as a mathematical concept is not the same as infinity in the sense of distance or time or other physical quantities. Therefore, nothing follows from arguments about mathematical infinity.

4. The assertion "Existence of anything can not be infinite." does not follow from previous premises even if they were proven, which they are not. In fact, if it was true that nothing could be created or destroyed, as Pro claims, then something would exist forever.

5. "There is no beginning and an end to the existence of the World." Current cosmology supposes that time began with the Big Bang. "This is perhaps the most crucial and most difficult aspect of the big bang theory. The notion that the physical Universe came into existence with time and not in time has a long history, dating back to St Augustine in the fifth century. But it took Einstein's theory of relativity to give the idea scientific respectability. The key feature of the theory of relativity is that space and time are part of the physical Universe, and not merely an unexplained background arena in which the Universe happens. Hence the origin of the physical Universe must involve the origin of space and time too." http://www.fortunecity.com...

6. "There are finite absolute laws." Pro's argument that follows is unrelated to the assertion. Moreover, what is means for a law to be finite and absolute is left undefined. Since the assertion is undefined, Pro's contention is at best unproved.

7. "Velocity of light is relative." This is proven false by Einstein's Special Theory of Relativity. "The Principle of Invariant Light Speed – Light in vacuum propagates with the speed c (a fixed constant) in terms of any system of inertial coordinates, regardless of the state of motion of the light source" http://en.wikipedia.org...

General Relativity holds that gravity curves space, but that the speed of light is still constant. thus light may take longer to travel from A to B under a gravitational field, but that's because the space is curve so the distance is greater.

8. "There are three dimensions and three dimensions only." Every accepted modern theory holds that time is a legitimate fourth dimension, and not an imaginary one. "Special relativity reveals that c is not just the velocity of a certain phenomenon, namely the propagation of electromagnetic radiation (light)—but rather a fundamental feature of the way space and time are unified as spacetime." Until Pro proves Einstein was wrong, the theory stands.

No modern physicist rejects String Theory on the grounds that there cannot be more than three dimensions. String Theory and it's successor Membrane Theory are still unproved, but the concept of extra dimensions is now well established as plausible. Therefore Pro has not proved his claim that they are false.

9. "Time Travel can not exist." Pro bases his assertion on his false claim that time is an imaginary dimension. However, it being imaginary would seem to increase the likelihood of time, not decrease it. If it is "imaginary" then some reality could overcome it. Moreover, while causality provides a paradoxical situation in which a person traveling back in time kills his grandfather, which would have prevented him from ever existing to make the travel, it has been theorized that the paradox can be resolved by spinning off alternate universes. Beyond that, time travel might exist in terms of allowing past events to be witnessed, but not affected.

10. "Tan 90 can not exist." Who cares? But anyway, it exists as the mathematical concept of infinity, which can be applied in certain circumstances. For example, 1/(Tan 90) = 0 is useful.

Pro has made a list of assumptions. Some of them have more truth than others, such as mathematical infinity being in some sense undefined. Some are definitely false, like the speed of light being relative and time being an "imaginary" dimension. Other assertions, like String Theory being false might someday be proven true, but at this point Pro has clearly not met his burden of Pro in asserting they are not true just because they cannot be true. Pro hopes to deny a great deal of modern physic by nothing more than flat unproven assertions that are contradicted both by physical evidence and useful theory.

The resolution is negated.
Debate Round No. 1
way12go

Pro

way12go forfeited this round.
RoyLatham

Con

Pro poses a five round debate having ten subtopics, then forfeits. Interesting.

Arguments are continued.
Debate Round No. 2
way12go

Pro

way12go forfeited this round.
RoyLatham

Con

Pro: Don't post on a debate site if you are unwilling or unable to debate.

Arguments are continued.
Debate Round No. 3
way12go

Pro

way12go forfeited this round.
RoyLatham

Con

Arguments are continued.
Debate Round No. 4
way12go

Pro

way12go forfeited this round.
RoyLatham

Con

Pro make a series of ten assertions, with no proof offered for assertions 2, 3, 4, 5, 7, 8, and 9. Assertions 7 and 8 are definitely false, and I have provided the appropriate references. Assertion one had a formulation error, which I pointed out. Most of the rest of the assertions are contrary to current theories of physics, so while they are not provably false, they do not meet he burden of proof required to affirm any conceivable resolution depending upon them.

Pro proposed a five round debate, then defaulted in every round after the first. That is bad conduct.
Debate Round No. 5
14 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Posted by RoyLatham 7 years ago
RoyLatham
Freeman, I took the debate because it generated a number of legitimate comments from ddo members. The challenge was to make some of the mess understandable. I thought I could clarify some of the points of interest. I was hoping that Pro would participate, which would help.
Posted by Freeman 7 years ago
Freeman
Roy, why did you take this debate? It's one of the most disorganized series of random claims that I have ever seen.
Posted by mongeese 7 years ago
mongeese
Infinity is a very important mathematical concept. It's where we got Euler's number, e.
Posted by Cody_Franklin 7 years ago
Cody_Franklin
I believe that this is a "Let's debate the legitimacy of this theory" debate.
Posted by Xer 7 years ago
Xer
What's the resolution? How is this a debate?
Posted by Cerebral_Narcissist 7 years ago
Cerebral_Narcissist
This does not appear to even be a debate...
Posted by Puck 7 years ago
Puck
"it can not be used in mathematics"

Yar it can, just not the specific infinity you talk about. It refers more to exponential sets, and some infinities are larger than others. ;)
Posted by HghDnsty 7 years ago
HghDnsty
Infinity is a concept. In mathmatics, without expressing the concept of infinity we would have to think of everything as finite and we'd only be seeing one side of the coin. Numbers are human symbols of expression for concepts that our minds can understand. As such, the symbol for infinity is indeed a number.

Thought about differently, there are an infinite amount of number between 1 and 2...i.e. 1.1, 1.11, 1.2...etc (infinity). Understanding the concept of infinity as a number, humans can interject any possible number into the mix and be correct. If the concept of infinity didn't exist, we may not comprehend that you can put any fraction / number in between two numbers forever.

People need to scale to comprehend. Otherwise, you could never even start to comprehend the size of our earth, the solar system, the galaxy, other galaxies or the Universe. It's a point of reference, the other side of the coin, opposite from finite but still a number in concept.

This would be my con to your debate but I'm forgoing the debate because of the number of rounds, I don't see the value of going five full rounds on debating whether 1) numbers are human concepts and 2) those concepts are represented by symbols.

Cheerio,
HghDnsty
Posted by way12go 7 years ago
way12go
Infinity is not a number. Infinite is the opposite of finite and it ( infinity ) means unlimited and it can not be used in mathematics and people all over the World have been making this big mistake for a long long time...
Posted by way12go 7 years ago
way12go
Infinity is not a number. Infinite is the opposite of finite and it ( infinity ) means unlimited and it can not be used in mathematics and people all over the World have been making this big mistake for a long long time...
5 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 5 records.
Vote Placed by jewgirl 5 years ago
jewgirl
way12goRoyLathamTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:-Vote Checkmark-1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:-Vote Checkmark-1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:-Vote Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:07 
Reasons for voting decision: Ther ought be some penalty for this behavior. It seems pro cut and pasted something he didnt understand. As is evident from the fact that A) His first Round got cut off mid sentence, bec. it was too long. B)once responded too he couldnt ans. If you look at his record the same thing happened again.
Vote Placed by Gamester333 7 years ago
Gamester333
way12goRoyLathamTied
Agreed with before the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Agreed with after the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Who had better conduct:-Vote Checkmark-1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:-Vote Checkmark-1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:-Vote Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:07 
Vote Placed by wonderwoman 7 years ago
wonderwoman
way12goRoyLathamTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Who had better conduct:-Vote Checkmark-1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:-Vote Checkmark-1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:-Vote Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:07 
Vote Placed by Nails 7 years ago
Nails
way12goRoyLathamTied
Agreed with before the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Agreed with after the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Who had better conduct:-Vote Checkmark-1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:-Vote Checkmark-1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:-Vote Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:07 
Vote Placed by RoyLatham 7 years ago
RoyLatham
way12goRoyLathamTied
Agreed with before the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Agreed with after the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Who had better conduct:-Vote Checkmark-1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:-Vote Checkmark-1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:-Vote Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:07