Trevor Posted December 29, 2015 Share Posted December 29, 2015 I belive and have belived for a while that the square root of negitive infinity is imaginary 0 because the square root of a negituve number is imaginary. Help me understand more. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
david490811 Posted December 29, 2015 Share Posted December 29, 2015 It is implicit Trevor, the square of any negative number is complex (i + or -j(arg)). Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
seanejackson Posted January 19, 2016 Share Posted January 19, 2016 dude i have a theory for you Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
david490811 Posted January 19, 2016 Share Posted January 19, 2016 I am all ears, so to speak Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
seanejackson Posted January 19, 2016 Share Posted January 19, 2016 Throw away 2d math a find a third dimension for your calculations.Using stationary math can describe things as stationary. Even if themath describes a 3d environment its only describing its static formduring the calculation. So 2d math unless a calculation is made thevalues are also static. You cant describe an expanding universe, orand expanding 'time' with numbers that arent expanding.Sure Pi is infinite but there are only static numbers to use with it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
david490811 Posted January 19, 2016 Share Posted January 19, 2016 You can't throw out any 2d physics with out first considering the near 2d interaction of the quantum field, due to the size of any atomic or set Kaons on a Hamiltonian the field interaction is 2d as it is measured it produces 3d vector products. There is also a false assumption of a "static" form. There is no steady state approximation in a expanding Universe, The wrong conjecture is tha the number would not expand, they would intrinsically expand the causal along the transcendental Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
seanejackson Posted January 19, 2016 Share Posted January 19, 2016 Thats what im saying. Is if you use 2d math eg numbers like 1. If youuse numbers that arent expanding with the universe. When youcalculate the universe your number will be too small. Like the theoryof relativity they lost fractions of numbers due to what they thoughtwas a loss off time. But its that everything expanded except theequation Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
seanejackson Posted January 19, 2016 Share Posted January 19, 2016 If you leave a number 1 in the modern day math and come back later.Its still number 1. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
david490811 Posted January 19, 2016 Share Posted January 19, 2016 Fine, if you feel the definition suit you then that's great, there is more in the hearts in mind of men my dear Horacio, so on and so forth, take care :sun: Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Trevor Posted January 21, 2016 Author Share Posted January 21, 2016 I know this is bad but, may you please explain to me what that means Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts