The Opposing Law
jdawe
Increasing an operand brings a corresponding decrease in its opposing
operand.
or
Decreasing an operand brings a corresponding increase in its opposing
operand.
An operand can never be increased\decreased to the point where itself
or its opposing operand becomes null.
An operand is never the same as its opposing operand it is always the
complete inverse.
-Josh.
jdawe
For example:
Energy
or
Matter
are opposing operands and are always together as an operation
( mass ).
Every time a unit of energy in the mass is inverted into a unit of
matter there is a corresponding decrease in energy of the mass and a
corresponding increase in matter.
or
Every time a unit of matter in the mass is inverted into a unit of
energy there is a corresponding decrease in matter of the mass and a
corresponding increase in energy.
The energy in the mass can never be inverted into matter to the point
where there is null energy in the mass.
or
The matter in the mass can never be inverted into energy to the point
where there is null matter in the mass.
Finally,
The energy in the mass is always energy it is never the same as
matter.
or
The matter in the mass is always matter it is never the same as
energy.
-Josh.
Uncle Al
>
> For each opposing operation are 2 opposing operands.
1) Double beta decay.
2) idiot
--
Uncle Al
http://www.mazepath.com/uncleal/
(Toxic URL! Unsafe for children and most mammals)
http://www.mazepath.com/uncleal/qz4.htm
Inertial
"jdawe" <mrj...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:0be085c2-2b9c-4c3d...@b2g2000yqi.googlegroups.com...
> For each opposing operation are 2 opposing operands.
That makes no sense
> Increasing an operand brings a corresponding decrease in its opposing
> operand.
>
> or
>
> Decreasing an operand brings a corresponding increase in its opposing
> operand.
That makes no sense
> An operand can never be increased\decreased to the point where itself
> or its opposing operand becomes null.
That makes no sense
> An operand is never the same as its opposing operand it is always the
> complete inverse.
That makes no sense
All in all, yours was just another post completely devoid of sense
Exploding Nipple Crank
posting to this here newsgroups of mine unless you having
a point or question.
"jdawe" <mrj...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:0be085c2-2b9c-4c3d...@b2g2000yqi.googlegroups.com...
> increasing wha??
Ste
> "jdawe" <mrjd...@gmail.com> wrote in message
Then you're aren't very intelligent Inertial. Any fool can see that
what he is describing is an inverse relationship between two
quantities, and further stating that while the balance between these
quantities can grow very large, it can never become such that any
value is absolutely nothing.
Off the top of my head, this accurately describes the way a weighing-
scale works - the only point at which one quantity can become zero,
and the other infinite, is at the point where the weighting platforms
are vertically separated, and that is the point at which the origin of
the two quantities become indistinguishable from one another (i.e. one
cannot tell merely from looking at the angle, on which side the weight
was placed, and since the purpose of the scale is to compare the two
quantities, the function of the scale breaks down because one cannot
distinguish what was placed on the scale nor where it was placed).
Inertial
"Ste" <ste_...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:e0579ef9-ca1c-4785...@e27g2000yqd.googlegroups.com...
> On 4 Jan, 01:58, "Inertial" <relativ...@rest.com> wrote:
>> "jdawe" <mrjd...@gmail.com> wrote in message
>>
>> news:0be085c2-2b9c-4c3d...@b2g2000yqi.googlegroups.com...
>>
>> > For each opposing operation are 2 opposing operands.
>>
>> That makes no sense
>>
>> > Increasing an operand brings a corresponding decrease in its opposing
>> > operand.
>>
>> > or
>>
>> > Decreasing an operand brings a corresponding increase in its opposing
>> > operand.
>>
>> That makes no sense
>>
>> > An operand can never be increased\decreased to the point where itself
>> > or its opposing operand becomes null.
>>
>> That makes no sense
>>
>> > An operand is never the same as its opposing operand it is always the
>> > complete inverse.
>>
>> That makes no sense
>>
>> All in all, yours was just another post completely devoid of sense
>
> Then you're aren't very intelligent Inertial.
On the contrary .. I recognise his naive classifications and have given him
counter examples many times
> Any fool can see that
> what he is describing
You would be that fool then, I take it?
> is an inverse relationship between two
> quantities,
I know exactly what it is.
> and further stating that while the balance between these
> quantities can grow very large, it can never become such that any
> value is absolutely nothing.
Why does every operation require a balance between exactly two opposing
operands? And why does this need to be such that increasing one decreases
the other?
> Off the top of my head, this accurately describes the way a weighing-
> scale works -
No .. a scale remains in balance when the weights on each side are either
both increased by the same amount or both decreased by the same amount. The
opposite of his claim (that one must increase and the other decrease).
> the only point at which one quantity can become zero,
> and the other infinite, is at the point where the weighting platforms
> are vertically separated, and that is the point at which the origin of
> the two quantities become indistinguishable from one another (i.e. one
> cannot tell merely from looking at the angle, on which side the weight
> was placed, and since the purpose of the scale is to compare the two
> quantities, the function of the scale breaks down because one cannot
> distinguish what was placed on the scale nor where it was placed).
His is an overly broad and naive generalization.
Ste
> "Ste" <ste_ro...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
>
> news:e0579ef9-ca1c-4785...@e27g2000yqd.googlegroups.com...
>
>
>
>
>
> > On 4 Jan, 01:58, "Inertial" <relativ...@rest.com> wrote:
> >> "jdawe" <mrjd...@gmail.com> wrote in message
>
> >>news:0be085c2-2b9c-4c3d...@b2g2000yqi.googlegroups.com...
>
> >> > For each opposing operation are 2 opposing operands.
>
> >> That makes no sense
>
> >> > Increasing an operand brings a corresponding decrease in its opposing
> >> > operand.
>
> >> > or
>
> >> > Decreasing an operand brings a corresponding increase in its opposing
> >> > operand.
>
> >> That makes no sense
>
> >> > An operand can never be increased\decreased to the point where itself
> >> > or its opposing operand becomes null.
>
> >> That makes no sense
>
> >> > An operand is never the same as its opposing operand it is always the
> >> > complete inverse.
>
> >> That makes no sense
>
> >> All in all, yours was just another post completely devoid of sense
>
> > Then you're aren't very intelligent Inertial.
>
> On the contrary .. I recognise his naive classifications and have given him
> counter examples many times
I don't know about previous occasions, but there was nothing in this
post that was "devoid of sense".
> > Any fool can see that
> > what he is describing
>
> You would be that fool then, I take it?
I must be.
> > is an inverse relationship between two
> > quantities,
>
> I know exactly what it is.
>
> > and further stating that while the balance between these
> > quantities can grow very large, it can never become such that any
> > value is absolutely nothing.
>
> Why does every operation require a balance between exactly two opposing
> operands? And why does this need to be such that increasing one decreases
> the other?
It doesn't. I agree the world is not characterised exclusively by
inverse relationships. But clearly what is being described on this
occasion *is* an inverse relationship.
> > Off the top of my head, this accurately describes the way a weighing-
> > scale works -
>
> No .. a scale remains in balance when the weights on each side are either
> both increased by the same amount or both decreased by the same amount. The
> opposite of his claim (that one must increase and the other decrease).
Agreed. But that doesn't negate the inverse relationship of the two
sides of the scale. If you load both sides of the scale in equal
proportions, then the measurement on the scale remains the same.
> > the only point at which one quantity can become zero,
> > and the other infinite, is at the point where the weighting platforms
> > are vertically separated, and that is the point at which the origin of
> > the two quantities become indistinguishable from one another (i.e. one
> > cannot tell merely from looking at the angle, on which side the weight
> > was placed, and since the purpose of the scale is to compare the two
> > quantities, the function of the scale breaks down because one cannot
> > distinguish what was placed on the scale nor where it was placed).
>
> His is an overly broad and naive generalization.
It almost certainly is, but an "overly broad generalisation" is not a
"post completely devoid of sense".
jbriggs444
> On 4 Jan, 01:58, "Inertial" <relativ...@rest.com> wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> > "jdawe" <mrjd...@gmail.com> wrote in message
>
> >news:0be085c2-2b9c-4c3d...@b2g2000yqi.googlegroups.com...
>
> > > For each opposing operation are 2 opposing operands.
>
> > That makes no sense
>
> > > Increasing an operand brings a corresponding decrease in its opposing
> > > operand.
>
> > > or
>
> > > Decreasing an operand brings a corresponding increase in its opposing
> > > operand.
>
> > That makes no sense
>
> > > An operand can never be increased\decreased to the point where itself
> > > or its opposing operand becomes null.
>
> > That makes no sense
>
> > > An operand is never the same as its opposing operand it is always the
> > > complete inverse.
>
> > That makes no sense
>
> > All in all, yours was just another post completely devoid of sense
>
> Then you're aren't very intelligent Inertial. Any fool can see that
> what he is describing is an inverse relationship between two
> quantities, and further stating that while the balance between these
> quantities can grow very large, it can never become such that any
> value is absolutely nothing.
You can make sense out of pretty much anything if you squint hard
enough. The question is whether you're just making sense out of whole
cloth or actually distilling it from something that was originally
there.
One problem with your reading of the posting is that it implies that
there's no such thing the square root of four.
"an operand is never the same as its opposing operand"
Apply this assertion to the equation: 4 = x * y.
If we take your interpretation of OP's words then he's saying, plain
as day:
"if we have a four sided rectangular with an area of four square
inches, the width and height of the window may never be two inches
each".
> Off the top of my head, this accurately describes the way a weighing-
> scale works
You're dangerously close to posting nonsense yourself. You haven't
identified a way in which a weighing scale demonstrates a
multiplicative inverse relationship.
> - the only point at which one quantity can become zero,
> and the other infinite, is at the point where the weighting platforms
> are vertically separated,
So what you're talking about is probably an [un-]equal arm pan
balance. The quantities you want to
talk about are the weights in the respective pans. But you haven't
thought the example through. Two mistakes:
1. You haven't paid attention to what invariant you're trying to
maintain. A equal arm pan balance has two free input variables.
Nothing says that there's ANY required relationship between them.
Normally we try to maintain the invariant: "the pans balance". That's
the bit that enforces a correlation on the two variables.
I'm inclined to forgive this. It's implicit in the way we
normally use a pan balance.
2. For such a balance to balance it follows that the quantities in
the pans are directly proportional, not inversely proportional.
Ooops!
We can still make your example work. Put a fixed mass on a fixed
moment arm on the left side of the balance. Don't mess further with
that side. Put a rail on the right side of the balance extending out
horizontally. Optionally put indentations at fixed offsets on this
rail. Do not mess further with this rail. Hang a variable mass at a
variable distance on the right hand rail so that the scale balances.
Assume that the scale is left-heavy without such a mass.
The _position_ of the mass is one operand. The _weight_ of the mass
is the other operand. For the scale to balance, these two operands
will have an inversely proportional relationship.
fixed-torque[*k] = weight * distance
That's the general form of an equation expressing an inverse
proportionality. Put your two correlated variables on one side and a
constant of proportionality on the other. The constant of
proportionality may have a
contribution based on your system of units if that system is not
appropriately coherent.
> and that is the point at which the origin of
> the two quantities become indistinguishable from one another (i.e. one
> cannot tell merely from looking at the angle, on which side the weight
> was placed, and since the purpose of the scale is to compare the two
> quantities, the function of the scale breaks down because one cannot
> distinguish what was placed on the scale nor where it was placed).
Given the error above, this part is empty babbling.
Ste
Indeed. But if someone's assertions are only partially or vaguely
correct, then it shouldn't be too hard to refute it, or re-state the
argument in more accurate terms, and that would be far more productive
than vindictive rants about posts being "completely devoid of sense".
> One problem with your reading of the posting is that it implies that
> there's no such thing the square root of four.
I fail to see how that could be inferred from my post.
> "an operand is never the same as its opposing operand"
>
> Apply this assertion to the equation: 4 = x * y.
>
> If we take your interpretation of OP's words then he's saying, plain
> as day:
>
> "if we have a four sided rectangular with an area of four square
> inches, the width and height of the window may never be two inches
> each".
I think a better re-statement would be to say that, if by definition a
rectangle (as distinct from a square) always has a longer side, then
area = longer side * shorter side. Longer side = area / shorter side.
Shorter side = area / longer side.
By this logic, if area is held constant, then an increase in the
longer side must necessarily mean a reduction in the shorter side. At
the point at which longer side = shorter side, the ability to
distinguish between the sides disappears, and the shape no longer
takes the form of a rectangle (and the formula becomes meaningless/
useless).
So yes, by that logic if area is held constant, then adjacent sides of
a rectangle may never be equal.
> > - the only point at which one quantity can become zero,
> > and the other infinite, is at the point where the weighting platforms
> > are vertically separated,
>
> So what you're talking about is probably an [un-]equal arm pan
> balance.
Clearly.
> The quantities you want to
> talk about are the weights in the respective pans. But you haven't
> thought the example through.
Nor did I pretend to have done so.
> Two mistakes:
>
> 1. You haven't paid attention to what invariant you're trying to
> maintain. A equal arm pan balance has two free input variables.
> Nothing says that there's ANY required relationship between them.
> Normally we try to maintain the invariant: "the pans balance". That's
> the bit that enforces a correlation on the two variables.
The whole purpose of the scale is to express a relationship between
two weights. The scale will determine whether the weights are unequal
and (to a very limited extent) the degree of inequality. Obviously if
you know absolutely what weight is on one arm of the scale, then you
can determine absolutely what is on the other, and the inverse
relationship is used only to determine the arm to which/from which
weight should be added/removed.
> I'm inclined to forgive this. It's implicit in the way we
> normally use a pan balance.
>
> 2. For such a balance to balance it follows that the quantities in
> the pans are directly proportional, not inversely proportional.
>
> Ooops!
But a scale with 10 kilos on each arm cannot distinguish from a scale
with 1 kilo on each arm. Indeed, by the scale's measure, 10 kilos on
each arm is *equivalent* to 1 kilo on each arm. But that's because the
scale is designed to measure only relative weight - it performs its
function by reliance on the inverse relationship between the weight
placed on each side.
Inertial
But that is his claim in this and previous posts. Everything is in opposite
pairs, according to him.
> But clearly what is being described on this
> occasion *is* an inverse relationship.
In that case, all he is saying is an inverse relation is an inverse
relation. But he is saying for each operator .. whatever an 'operator' is.
>
>> > Off the top of my head, this accurately describes the way a weighing-
>> > scale works -
>>
>> No .. a scale remains in balance when the weights on each side are either
>> both increased by the same amount or both decreased by the same amount.
>> The
>> opposite of his claim (that one must increase and the other decrease).
>
> Agreed. But that doesn't negate the inverse relationship of the two
> sides of the scale. If you load both sides of the scale in equal
> proportions, then the measurement on the scale remains the same.
So its not an example of opposing forces where you must increase one and
decrease the other.
Indeed if you have increase one opposing operand, you must increase the
other as well to keep things in balance. newton knew that.
>> > the only point at which one quantity can become zero,
>> > and the other infinite, is at the point where the weighting platforms
>> > are vertically separated, and that is the point at which the origin of
>> > the two quantities become indistinguishable from one another (i.e. one
>> > cannot tell merely from looking at the angle, on which side the weight
>> > was placed, and since the purpose of the scale is to compare the two
>> > quantities, the function of the scale breaks down because one cannot
>> > distinguish what was placed on the scale nor where it was placed).
>>
>> His is an overly broad and naive generalization.
>
> It almost certainly is, but an "overly broad generalisation" is not a
> "post completely devoid of sense".
It is when what he says as an overly broad generalisation is nonsense.
jdawe
>
> - Show quoted text -
Remember, it is the Opposing Law for opposing operations therefore the
operands are always the complete opposite.
In other words think binary logic rather than algebra.
Example:
E = energy
M = matter
then you never have:
E = M
or
M = E
or in binary logic you never have:
1 = 0
or
0 = 1
-Josh.
Inertial
What would you define as an 'opposing operation'? Please give an example.
What would you define as an 'opposing operatand'? Please give an example.
> In other words think binary logic rather than algebra.
I suggest you just try thinking before you post
> Example:
>
> E = energy
>
> M = matter
>
> then you never have:
>
> E = M
Yes .. you do .. in a natural unit system
>
> or
>
> M = E
Yes .. you do .. in a natural unit system
> or in binary logic you never have:
>
> 1 = 0
>
> or
>
> 0 = 1
That's nothing to do with any reasonable notion of an 'opposing operation'
.. '=' is an equality operator, so there is nothing 'opposing' there
jdawe
>
> - Show quoted text -
I generally don't reply to aliasing ( juvenile ) posters.
When you are able to invert from an immature state to a mature state
and put your full name with what you say then I will be more than
happy to help you out.
-Josh.
Inertial
Nothing at all juvenile about keeping ones identity hidden and safe
> When you are able to invert from an immature state to a mature state
I'm already in a mature state, thanks. You ,however, are not .. neither in
your behavior, nor in your manner of thinking.
> and put your full name with what you say then I will be more than
> happy to help you out.
Then you are simply being childish and juvenile.
Clearly you are unable to answer the question, and are simply avoiding the
issues.
jbriggs444
But the assertion in play (which jdawe's next post raises to the level
of confirmed truth) is that jdawe's work product has zero sense
content.
It is easy to refute something that makes an unambiguous and incorrect
prediction.
It is difficult to refute something that cannot even be deciphered.
>
> > One problem with your reading of the posting is that it implies that
> > there's no such thing the square root of four.
>
> I fail to see how that could be inferred from my post.
Because you didn't define your terms either. You wrote "inverse
relationship" and I read "inverse proportionality" on the assumption
that you were smarter than jdawe. You might be. But not by much.
>
> > "an operand is never the same as its opposing operand"
>
> > Apply this assertion to the equation: 4 = x * y.
>
> > If we take your interpretation of OP's words then he's saying, plain
> > as day:
>
> > "if we have a four sided rectangular with an area of four square
> > inches, the width and height of the window may never be two inches
> > each".
>
> I think a better re-statement would be to say that, if by definition a
> rectangle (as distinct from a square) always has a longer side, then
> area = longer side * shorter side. Longer side = area / shorter side.
> Shorter side = area / longer side.
You have a better eye then me if you can read the distinction between
a rectangle and a sqare into jdawe's posting.
> By this logic, if area is held constant, then an increase in the
> longer side must necessarily mean a reduction in the shorter side.
Yes! Inverse proportionality.
> At
> the point at which longer side = shorter side, the ability to
> distinguish between the sides disappears, and the shape no longer
> takes the form of a rectangle (and the formula becomes meaningless/
> useless).
WRONG!
You do not lose the ability to distinguish the sides.
There is no singularity where the two sides become equal in length.
The formula continues working just fine with width > height, width =
height or with height > width.
Your poor choice of parameter names is to blame for the poor behavior
of the resulting formula.
>
> So yes, by that logic if area is held constant, then adjacent sides of
> a rectangle may never be equal.
The reason that the two adacent sides of a rectangle may never be
equal is _your_ assertion that a square is not a special case of a
rectangle.
No matter. It's only a question of definition. Use different words
if you like.
There is a such a thing as a four sided regular polygon with sides of
length 2 and an area of 4.
> > > - the only point at which one quantity can become zero,
> > > and the other infinite, is at the point where the weighting platforms
> > > are vertically separated,
>
> > So what you're talking about is probably an [un-]equal arm pan
> > balance.
>
> Clearly.
If you had written clearly I wouldn't have to guess.
>
> > The quantities you want to
> > talk about are the weights in the respective pans. But you haven't
> > thought the example through.
>
> Nor did I pretend to have done so.
>
> > Two mistakes:
>
> > 1. You haven't paid attention to what invariant you're trying to
> > maintain. A equal arm pan balance has two free input variables.
> > Nothing says that there's ANY required relationship between them.
> > Normally we try to maintain the invariant: "the pans balance". That's
> > the bit that enforces a correlation on the two variables.
>
> The whole purpose of the scale is to express a relationship between
> two weights.
Write clearly.
The purpose of a scale is to weigh things.
A balance scale does this by determining which of two weights is
greater.
> The scale will determine whether the weights are unequal
> and (to a very limited extent) the degree of inequality.
It will also tell you which of the two is greater. Pay attention to
the _direction_ the needle moves.
> Obviously if
> you know absolutely what weight is on one arm of the scale, then you
> can determine absolutely what is on the other,
Yes. This is the normal mode of operation.
> and the inverse
> relationship is used only to determine the arm to which/from which
> weight should be added/removed.
"Inverse relationship" doesn't tell you this. It doesn't tell you
which side to add weight to. We can read into the term that there
_is_ a side that will get you closer. But NOBODY has yet defined the
term "inverse relationship".
>
> > I'm inclined to forgive this. It's implicit in the way we
> > normally use a pan balance.
>
> > 2. For such a balance to balance it follows that the quantities in
> > the pans are directly proportional, not inversely proportional.
>
> > Ooops!
>
> But a scale with 10 kilos on each arm cannot distinguish from a scale
> with 1 kilo on each arm. Indeed, by the scale's measure, 10 kilos on
> each arm is *equivalent* to 1 kilo on each arm. But that's because the
> scale is designed to measure only relative weight - it performs its
> function by reliance on the inverse relationship between the weight
> placed on each side.
Brilliant. I shall alert the Nobel prize team at once. As I
understand your assertion now, it is that you can't put the reference
mass and the test mass on the same side of a balance. [Actually most
commercial scales normally operate in just such a configuration.
Maybe that call to the Nobel committee is premature]
Let me try to read as much sense as I can into your position:
"In any otherwise isolated system where an equilibrium state is
maintained in the face of two relevant inputs, those inputs must be
(in some sense) equal and opposite".
Unfortunately, it is easy to falsify that claim.
Ste
>
> > It doesn't. I agree the world is not characterised exclusively by
> > inverse relationships.
>
> But that is his claim in this and previous posts. Everything is in opposite
> pairs, according to him.
Well we can agree that he is obviously wrong.
Inertial
Yeup. Perhaps you've had the fortune of not read his many many previous
post where he list pairs of opposites, and claims that everything in the
universe is that way and it is some fundamental law.
That one CAN classify things into two sets is just because one CHOOSES to
partition things into two sets, because properties of different things can
have different values (if they don't, its a useless property), and you can
always partition a set of two or more values into two sets. That's just
logic and math.
jdawe
>
> - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -
There is no such thing as a rectangle or square.
For shape your opposing operands are:
Linear
or
Circular
Therefore,
an increase in linear shape brings about a corresponding decrease in
circular shape of the object.
or
an increase in circular shape brings about a corresponding decrease in
linear shape of the object.
-Josh.
PS:
If you base your physics on an arbitrary force universe rather than a
logical opposing universe I would respectfully advise you to seek
employment in a different field because you will waste everyones time
and money proposing ludicrous crap like I read in a magazine the other
day.
Some guy proposed a spaceship powered by dark matter as a way of
travel beyond our solar system. Of course he's reasoning for this was
that dark matter was more abundant in the universe than 'normal'
matter infact by up to 600%. Well, if it's so abundant then why hasn't
a single trace of this new physical thing 'dark matter' been found?
Surely if there is up to 600% more of this stuff than regular matter
then there would be atleast one unit of the stuff in our solar system.
Of course if you use your logical brain and realise that it is a
logically created opposing universe rather than an illogical arbritary
one then you wouldn't even bother wasting your time proposing a third
physical thing in the first place let alone searching for it.
Inertial
Oh dear .. here we go again with denial of reality. Of course there is.
> For shape your opposing operands are:
Do you even know what an operand is? Apparently not.
> Linear
>
> or
>
> Circular
>
> Therefore,
>
> an increase in linear shape brings about a corresponding decrease in
> circular shape of the object.
>
> or
>
> an increase in circular shape brings about a corresponding decrease in
> linear shape of the object.
>
> -Josh.
>
> PS:
>
> If you base your physics on an arbitrary force universe rather than a
> logical opposing universe I would respectfully advise you to seek
> employment in a different field because you will waste everyones time
> and money proposing ludicrous crap like I read in a magazine the other
> day.
The one with the ludicrous crap is yourself. . Really , you are not suited
for physics .. try philosophy where ludicrous crap is greatly admired.
Ste
>
> But the assertion in play (which jdawe's next post raises to the level
> of confirmed truth) is that jdawe's work product has zero sense
> content.
Lol.
> It is easy to refute something that makes an unambiguous and incorrect
> prediction.
>
> It is difficult to refute something that cannot even be deciphered.
Indeed.
> > > One problem with your reading of the posting is that it implies that
> > > there's no such thing the square root of four.
>
> > I fail to see how that could be inferred from my post.
>
> Because you didn't define your terms either. You wrote "inverse
> relationship" and I read "inverse proportionality" on the assumption
> that you were smarter than jdawe. You might be. But not by much.
Of course. But as I say, I'm not saying *every* concept, however
framed, is inversely proportional to everything other concept. What
I'm saying is that *many* (if not all) relationships in the physical
world are at their root depended on an inverse relationship. Length
and width, for example, can be expressed as a ratio of each other, and
an increase in both cannot be discerned except by reference to an
external measure.
In other words, you can't actually tell the difference between a
square of sides 1cm, and a square of sides 2cm, by reference only to
the properties of the square itself - to tell the difference, you have
to introduce an absolute measure, which is external to the square
itself. And even then, it is impossible to tell whether the sides of
the square grew larger, or the external measure grew smaller (and to
resolve that question, you have to refer to yet another external
measure, which itself suffers the same problem of being unable to say
whether the square's sides grew, or whether both external measures
shrank).
> > > "an operand is never the same as its opposing operand"
>
> > > Apply this assertion to the equation: 4 = x * y.
>
> > > If we take your interpretation of OP's words then he's saying, plain
> > > as day:
>
> > > "if we have a four sided rectangular with an area of four square
> > > inches, the width and height of the window may never be two inches
> > > each".
>
> > I think a better re-statement would be to say that, if by definition a
> > rectangle (as distinct from a square) always has a longer side, then
> > area = longer side * shorter side. Longer side = area / shorter side.
> > Shorter side = area / longer side.
>
> You have a better eye then me if you can read the distinction between
> a rectangle and a sqare into jdawe's posting.
Perhaps I'm actually filling in the blanks left by Jdawe. But the
point is that where something physical is described by two values an
inverse relationship, the fact is that neither value can ever become
null without the other also being null, and if both values are equal
then the values are actually indistinguishable from one another (in
other words, the relationship no longer exists - the two values become
one and the same thing).
> > At
> > the point at which longer side = shorter side, the ability to
> > distinguish between the sides disappears, and the shape no longer
> > takes the form of a rectangle (and the formula becomes meaningless/
> > useless).
>
> WRONG!
>
> You do not lose the ability to distinguish the sides.
> There is no singularity where the two sides become equal in length.
> The formula continues working just fine with width > height, width =
> height or with height > width.
>
> Your poor choice of parameter names is to blame for the poor behavior
> of the resulting formula.
The point is that you can't distinguish between the width-side and the
height-side once the values of both are made equal - they are one and
the same thing.
> > So yes, by that logic if area is held constant, then adjacent sides of
> > a rectangle may never be equal.
>
> The reason that the two adacent sides of a rectangle may never be
> equal is _your_ assertion that a square is not a special case of a
> rectangle.
Indeed. The point is that the formula for the area of a rectangle
requires a longer and a shorter side. With a square, there is no such
thing - the formula breaks down, unless you *arbitrarily* call one
side long, and one side short (even though all are in fact
indistinguishable). That's why we have a different formula for the
area of a square: length_of_a_side^2 - instead of
long_side*short_side.
> No matter. It's only a question of definition. Use different words
> if you like.
Indeed. I agree this must seem like wordplay, but it illustrates an
important principle.
> There is a such a thing as a four sided regular polygon with sides of
> length 2 and an area of 4.
Indeed.
> > > > - the only point at which one quantity can become zero,
> > > > and the other infinite, is at the point where the weighting platforms
> > > > are vertically separated,
>
> > > So what you're talking about is probably an [un-]equal arm pan
> > > balance.
>
> > Clearly.
>
> If you had written clearly I wouldn't have to guess.
Touche.
> > The scale will determine whether the weights are unequal
> > and (to a very limited extent) the degree of inequality.
>
> It will also tell you which of the two is greater. Pay attention to
> the _direction_ the needle moves.
Indeed.
> > Obviously if
> > you know absolutely what weight is on one arm of the scale, then you
> > can determine absolutely what is on the other,
>
> Yes. This is the normal mode of operation.
I know, but knowing what is one one side by an absolute measure
requires more than the scale alone. The scale can only express a
relationship. It is with information *external* to the scale that
weights can be determined by an absolute measure.
> > But a scale with 10 kilos on each arm cannot distinguish from a scale
> > with 1 kilo on each arm. Indeed, by the scale's measure, 10 kilos on
> > each arm is *equivalent* to 1 kilo on each arm. But that's because the
> > scale is designed to measure only relative weight - it performs its
> > function by reliance on the inverse relationship between the weight
> > placed on each side.
>
> Brilliant. I shall alert the Nobel prize team at once. As I
> understand your assertion now, it is that you can't put the reference
> mass and the test mass on the same side of a balance. [Actually most
> commercial scales normally operate in just such a configuration.
> Maybe that call to the Nobel committee is premature]
>
> Let me try to read as much sense as I can into your position:
>
> "In any otherwise isolated system where an equilibrium state is
> maintained in the face of two relevant inputs, those inputs must be
> (in some sense) equal and opposite".
>
> Unfortunately, it is easy to falsify that claim.
I think you're interpreting my statements insensibly now.