Meaning of time

[AnonymousRevival]

Yes, but the point I'm trying to explain is that there really is no need for a crude use of language. (I know this is kind of a rough time to say this and I apologize for that.)

[OldTrees]

Yes, but the point I'm trying to explain is that there really is no need for a crude use of language. (I know this is kind of a rough time to say this and I apologize for that.)

Ok. I usually do not consider the work jerk to be crude. Rather more of a euphemism itself.

[Mathematistic]

The person Mathematistic was referring to was not trolling or flaming but was bullying via obfuscation for the sake of winning an argument. Aka winning an argument by sounding smart despite having a bad argument.

Can't agree more.

[AnonymousRevival]

Well, like I said "A wise person speaks because he has something to say, but a fool speaks for the purpose of saying something."

[hell7fire1]

Ok,this opposite thing is an odd idea to me,
I just want to say this...
proton=1 plus charge
electron=1 minus charge
neutron= 0 charges

According to your assumptions,everything should have an opposite,right?
I can easily agree that a proton is opposite to a neutron.+ and - cancel each other out.
However,I do not know what can be the opposite to a neutron(here I exclude the possibilities of an  anti-neutron/dark-neutron because I do not specifically mean neutrons here,my concentration is on the charges,they are the simplest examples of "canceling out")
0 can be said to be both plus and minus,and therefor neither plus nor minus may be its opposite.

The main flaw I notice is that:
-You assume that 0 is void,0 cannot exist,and so does not have an opposite/does not need to have an opposite in order to support your argument.

However, mathematics can easily prove that 0 exists.

Further more,if you agree that 0 exists,you are required to give it an opposite that makes sense, and if you fail to do so,you will have to agree that certain things do not have opposites,thus your assumption that everything requires an opposite is proven wrong.

But if you do know a valid opposite to 0, I'd love to see what it is.

PS:
0 is a very important number,without the 0 mathematics would be chaotic and formulas would probably cease to exist.
You see,whenever you do NOT write down a number in maths,you are representing 0.

[ARTHANASIOS]

Ok,this opposite thing is an odd idea to me,
I just want to say this...
proton=1 plus charge
electron=1 minus charge
neutron= 0 charges

According to your assumptions,everything should have an opposite,right?
I can easily agree that a proton is opposite to a neutron.+ and - cancel each other out.
However,I do not know what can be the opposite to a neutron(here I exclude the possibilities of an  anti-neutron/dark-neutron because I do not specifically mean neutrons here,my concentration is on the charges,they are the simplest examples of "canceling out")
0 can be said to be both plus and minus,and therefor neither plus nor minus may be its opposite.

The main flaw I notice is that:
-You assume that 0 is void,0 cannot exist,and so does not have an opposite/does not need to have an opposite in order to support your argument.

However, mathematics can easily prove that 0 exists.

Further more,if you agree that 0 exists,you are required to give it an opposite that makes sense, and if you fail to do so,you will have to agree that certain things do not have opposites,thus your assumption that everything requires an opposite is proven wrong.

But if you do know a valid opposite to 0, I'd love to see what it is.

PS:
0 is a very important number,without the 0 mathematics would be chaotic and formulas would probably cease to exist.
You see,whenever you do NOT write down a number in maths,you are representing 0.

Two things:
1st) Numbers don't really exists in the universe, they're just a human invention. So, 0 doesn't exists in the nature, it is just a human invention.
2nd) 0 actually has an opposite, and it is itself. The opposite of +0 is -0 and both are equal to 0.

[OldTrees]

1st) Numbers don't really exists in the universe, they're just a human invention. So, 0 doesn't exists in the nature, it is just a human invention.

Your argument:
1) Numbers are just a human invention
2) Things that are just humans inventions are not real
3) Numbers are not real

Premise 2 is debated in metaphysics (the philosophy subdivision that deals with questions like "What is being?").

[ARTHANASIOS]

1st) Numbers don't really exists in the universe, they're just a human invention. So, 0 doesn't exists in the nature, it is just a human invention.

Your argument:
1) Numbers are just a human invention
2) Things that are just humans inventions are not real
3) Numbers are not real

Premise 2 is debated in metaphysics (the philosophy subdivision that deals with questions like "What is being?").

Actually, the science of mathematics itself agrees that numbers don't really exist, but we just use them to count and describe things. That's why numbers has not any true definition, you can't really explain in deep analysis what a 'number' is...

[AnonymousRevival]

Ok,this opposite thing is an odd idea to me,
I just want to say this...
proton=1 plus charge
electron=1 minus charge
neutron= 0 charges

According to your assumptions,everything should have an opposite,right?
I can easily agree that a proton is opposite to a neutron.+ and - cancel each other out.
However,I do not know what can be the opposite to a neutron(here I exclude the possibilities of an  anti-neutron/dark-neutron because I do not specifically mean neutrons here,my concentration is on the charges,they are the simplest examples of "canceling out")
0 can be said to be both plus and minus,and therefor neither plus nor minus may be its opposite.

The main flaw I notice is that:
-You assume that 0 is void,0 cannot exist,and so does not have an opposite/does not need to have an opposite in order to support your argument.

However, mathematics can easily prove that 0 exists.

Further more,if you agree that 0 exists,you are required to give it an opposite that makes sense, and if you fail to do so,you will have to agree that certain things do not have opposites,thus your assumption that everything requires an opposite is proven wrong.

But if you do know a valid opposite to 0, I'd love to see what it is.

PS:
0 is a very important number,without the 0 mathematics would be chaotic and formulas would probably cease to exist.
You see,whenever you do NOT write down a number in maths,you are representing 0.

The baryon charges of a neutron and anti neutron are opposite.

If that is not convincing enough, think of it this way:

A neutron is made out of a proton and an electron

And anti neutron is made out of a positron and an antiproton, so therefore, the baryon charges are opposite.

[hell7fire1]

Yeap,this topic is still active,and also,

philosophical question:how exactly do you define real?

[AnonymousRevival]

Philosophy section please.

[OldTrees]

1st) Numbers don't really exists in the universe, they're just a human invention. So, 0 doesn't exists in the nature, it is just a human invention.

Your argument:
1) Numbers are just a human invention
2) Things that are just humans inventions are not real
3) Numbers are not real

Premise 2 is debated in metaphysics (the philosophy subdivision that deals with questions like "What is being?").

Actually, the science of mathematics itself agrees that numbers don't really exist, but we just use them to count and describe things. That's why numbers has not any true definition, you can't really explain in deep analysis what a 'number' is...

1) Source?
2) Being an expert on how numbers behave does not make one an expert on whether concepts exist or not. Or whether relations exist.