Be your self, no matter what they say!

[deda]

Those that follow my posts are well awear of how serious are my objections to the traditional physics. They must at some point question them self: How can the traditional physics be wrong despite all the progress mankind makes?
The answer is simple:
I can put A + B = RESULT
They can put A + B + ERROR = RESULT + ERROR
Two ways make true claim but RESULT <> RESULT + ERROR
The point is:
Be your self as long as you don't contradict your self!

[ahrkron]

A + B + ERROR = RESULT + ERROR

Sure, but experiment (i.e., nature) will only agree with either RESULT or RESULT+ERROR.

[pnaj]

Deda ... sorry mate ... your objection to traditional physics has crossed over into maths.

Before you can write ...

A + B = RESULT
A + B + ERROR = RESULT + ERROR

... you must define what type of entities A, B, RESULT and ERROR are and what '+' and '=' mean.

Otherwise, it's just gibberish.

[deda]

A, B, Result & Error are quantities of same quality.
'+' is the standard math operator for addition
'=' is again standard sign for equality.

[matt grime]

And now you've got to define quality, and explain why you are allowed to use the 'standard math operation for addition' on things like that. You might have a useful shorthanc for creating a picture of your opinion (though it is not clear to most of us I'd suggest), but it's not rigorous, is it?

[Njorl]

About being yourself, if you are a serial killer, hitman (any kind of murderer really), rapist, pedophile, telemarketer etc., please stop being yourself immediately.

Njorl

[pnaj]

Following on frm Matt Grime's comment ...

If you want to use '+' and '=' as the 'standard math operators' then the quantities you are considering must be a subset of the complex numbers. So, let's look at your arguments again, but not using 'handy' words that sort of look like they may contradict themselves in English:

Let A, B and D be complex and C = A + B.
Then, A + B + D = C + D.

So, C <> C + D, but if and only if D <> 0. If D = 0, then D = C + D !!

Where's the contradiction?

Your trouble is with trying to make Maths out of English. Why you feel the need to find such holes in maths or physics, I have no idea, but you'd use your time much better if you learnt the rules of the game first.

Paul.

[Michael D. Sewell]

Those that follow my posts are well awear of how serious are my objections to the traditional physics.

Maybe I haven't been paying attention, but as far as I know, I have never
witnessed a single event on this planet that didn't square with "traditional physics". Therefore, I must object to your objections.