The Conservapedia: If Wiki is too scientific for your simple religious mind.

[Rbstr]

http://www.conservapedia.com/

one must only post family friendly articles that are 100***37; true!
BCE/CE date notation is wrong and all must be BC/AD to properly show christianity's influence on the word.
All spellings must be in the proper americanized form, no liberals spewing euro-biased Colour here!

Notable articles include:

Iraq

A Middle-Eastern country, invaded in 2003 and currently occupied by a U.S.-led coalition.
or
Germany

A country in central Europe that was blamed for both World Wars as it claimed to be the dominate race of mankind.
(those are both the whole article)

It also contains great nuggets of conservative wisdom, such as this from the article on Karl Popper, showing us that thinking about how things could be better is a waste of timePopper proposed applying his theory of falsification to proposals in ethics and politics. Popper's approach even has merit in debunking claims that "if only ..." something happened, then everything would be better. "If only I were a wealthy man, then ...." There is no way to falsify such claims even if they were false, so there is no point in wasting any time thinking about them.

And this here making sure we all remember that Native Americans really were a backward savage race. And that the wheel is for more than just your pickup truck. Inventions: We can thank Mesopotamia (probably Ur) for inventing the wheel in about 3500 B.C., which is the single greatest invention of all time. It is used for much more than transportation. The wheel is essential to manufacturing and even pre-digital watches. No American civilization had the wheel until the Europeans brought it to them.

[Lartnev]

This is a joke surely? :huh:

[Derfud]

I wanted to write an article about Conservacrab, the first openly homophobic pok***233;mon. Unfortunately they dont have free editing and registration of a new account is disabled. So much for the wiki part.

[Hamma]

:rofl: :rofl:

Yea that kinda defeats the purpose of the wiki hahaha

[Derfud]

For reference to conservacrab: http://www.oldeenglish.org/podcast/pokemon-day

[Rbstr]

I can't tell if it's a joke or not. There's a quite large # of articles there.

The one on jesus either got vandalized or is proof that it's a joke.

EDIT: Get a load of this page, I stumbled on it as a scource in one of the articles.
http://www.answersingenesis.org/
That's scary to me. It's so legitimate!

[Lartnev]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Conservapedia Surprised to find an article on it at Wikipedia :lol:

[Hamma]

Interesting.

[Electrofreak]

lol, silly conservatives.

[Jaged]

http://www.conservapedia.com/Dinosaur

Wow... just wow.

[Hamma]

I can't handle reading that garbage, makes me angry. :lol:

[Electrofreak]

http://www.conservapedia.com/Dinosaur

Wow... just wow.

:huh:

I can't handle reading that garbage, makes me angry. :lol:

I concur.

[Disconnecting]

http://www.conservapedia.com/Evolution

Oh lawd. Is dat some evolution in my conservapedia?

[Electrofreak]

http://www.conservapedia.com/Evolution

Oh lawd. Is dat some evolution in my conservapedia?

lmao. I love how the first reason they give to try to discredit the Theory of Evolution is that there isn't sufficient fossil evidence of transitionary (or partly evolved) life. In fact, they go on to say that in the past 140 years, archaeologists have provided almost no evidence.

So... neanderthal remains such as the ice man, Lucy, creatures like the archaeopterix (sp), the fossilized crocodiles and turtles with obvious evolutionary differences from any of todays species, mammoths, sabre toothed cats etc etc... they call that all insufficient evidence?! Hell I'm no archaeologist or paleontologist by a long shot but I've been to enough museums to see plenty of transitionary fossils to support evolution. What do they need, a species that has been so kind as to leave us a new set of fossilized remains on a yearly basis for a couple million years?

Wow. Simply astonishing the amount of denial involved. And that was just the first paragraph. I can't wait to see what other bullshit they've got.

DISCLAIMER - This is not meant to become a debate over the theory of evolution. My point here is that this conservapedia blatantly disregards mountains (literally) of evidence through fossils that have been dug up out of the ground, this is tangible evidence that anyone is free to see for themselves, and by way of counter-arguement have no tangible evidence to provide at all. In fact, no evidence for their viewpoint is given at all. If this is an encyclopedia, it should provide fact and statistics to support their claim. Instead, a general statement is being made which is false in the hope that the reader will believe and rule out this theory. No evidence is being provided to support this statement and this is what angers me so.

[Baneblade]

That whole site is a misnomer.

[Rbstr]

There is so much talkign about not being able to falsify it.

But how the hell could you ever falsify "God did it."?

Also sobe, misnomer, how so? It's an encyclopedia writen using (ultra)conservative 'fact'; hence conservapedia.

[Hamma]

Yea technically it is working as intended. :lol:

[Infernus]

Most of the article on evolution is quoted from various other sources and peiced together and a way that best fits the conservative view of evolution.

With a minor bit of the author's opinion tossed in.

[Electrofreak]

Most of the article on evolution is quoted from various other sources and peiced together and a way that best fits the conservative view of evolution.

With a minor bit of the author's opinion tossed in.

The problem is that the authors opinion is blatant falsification. There exists thousands of examples of fossils that show stages of evolution. Most major museums will have fossilized species on display that are obvious precursors to modern animals, and often have an undeniable progression in changing characteristics from fossil to fossil.

But, if you hold your hands over your ears and hum loud enough, anyone can deny that this evidence exists and continue believing what they've been taught.

I'm willing to bet there are a lot more archaeologists and paleontologists that believe in the theory of evolution than creationism. Is this due to creationists not wanting to dig in the dirt for fear of what they will find or is it because those that do find the evidence irrefutable?

In any case, I've seen some articles by creationists that make a much better case against the theory of evolution than the fools at conservapedia.

[Baneblade]

The error is in linking Conservatism to Religion. They are not any more mutually inclusive than Liberalism is to Atheism.

[Electrofreak]

The error is in linking Conservatism to Religion. They are not any more mutually inclusive than Liberalism is to Atheism.

I'll agree with this, despite my being a Liberal Atheist. :p

[Baneblade]

I'll agree with this, despite my being a Liberal Atheist. :p

I'm Conservative mostly, but I'm certainly not religious...not even a little bit.

Not exactly Athiest however, I'm just not convinced either 'side' is right on the issue.

[Derfud]

I'm convinced that creationism is a crock of shit. I am not convinced that there is no god though.

[Electrofreak]

I do believe that there are things that happen that science cannot explain... yet.

Like the incredibly real dream I had the night my grandmother died. In the dream I was searching for her in an apartment building and found her in a hidden room. The room was round, pure white, and had my grandmother in a rocking chair in the exact center, crying softly. When I asked her what was wrong she just looked at me with tears in her eyes and the dream ended.

I went downstairs and immediately told my parents about the dream, since it had been such a powerful dream and definitely bothered me. They just stared at me and then explained that they were just about to tell me that she'd passed away in the night...

Its crap like that that has me convinced that there are forces at work we have no comprehension of. I don't believe its a deity or even anything supernatural... its just something we haven't hit on yet.

[Disconnecting]

Now that I've had more time to kill......
http://www.bobvila.com/wwwboard/messages/92399.html

Why isn't this in conservapedia? Now I need to find the audio file to prove it belongs.

[Infernus]

Careful there Electro, you almost sound un-Christian there...

Thats a capital offense in these United States of Christ. For we are one nation, under and extremely Christian God.

[Jaged]

Careful there Electro, you almost sound un-Christian there...

Thats a capital offense in these United States of Christ. For we are one nation, under and extremely Christian God.

Im having trouble connecting your sarcasm to any real life events that you could be mocking.

[Infernus]

Im having trouble connecting your sarcasm to any real life events that you could be mocking.

http://www.quibbles-n-bits.com/archives/bomber/kkk.gif

http://www.washingtoncountyrepublicans.com/Republican%20Logo.gif

http://thinkprogress.org/wp-content/uploads/2006/08/robertson.jpg

http://www.spinandstir.com/51pm3m.jpg

http://www.syti.net/Kiosque/Images/DickCheyney_mechantTGP.jpg

http://en.epochtimes.com/news_images/2005-10-2-george-bush.jpg

DOVER, Pa. - When talk at the high school here turns to evolution, biology teachers have to make time for Charles Darwin as well as his detractors.

With a vote last month, the school board in rural south-central Pennsylvania community is believed to have become the first in the nation to mandate the teaching of �intelligent design,� which holds that the universe is so complex that it must have been created by an unspecified higher power.

Critics call the change in the ninth-grade biology curriculum a veiled attempt to require public schoolchildren to learn creationism, a biblical-based view that credits the origin of species to God. Schools typically teach evolution, the theory that Earth is billions of years old and that life forms developed over millions of years.


Pick one, any one of them, and I'll make however many connections you need.

[Hamma]

:lol: That article Ridiculous.

[Peacemaker]

Infernus hits Conservative Assholes perfectly, wrecking for 50304528395823958329859234852347582479128143275891 28049828375824501238482758274921319824871 Damage.

[Ait'al]

Maybe the native americans didn't use the wheel. So what. That is atleast interesting to think about. Who else would have brought that up. Depending on what you are trying to study that could bring up alot of interesting areas to go into. If you were studying native american culture or other aspect of their cultures. To say they went how many thousands of years and never apprently seemed like they needed the wheel. Or some of them did(assuming that is the case) is something interesting and a reason to start studying something. So it is perfectly useful information.

And just to derail this. Why is the argument of what to teach in science class about evolution. When was it ever scientific? It's one things to bring it up, like any other theory, but the nature of a theory is that it is a theory. So why not do what we should do about the theories of gravity and teach them as unknown information. As is we don't know why it happens, or even if what we call it has anything to do with reality, or if it technicaly exists (We know things fall as we define it with langauge. But we don not know the reason or interaction that makes it happen. Unless I am mistaken. Which could easily be the case!!). So This whole thing is a mistake, and is wrong simply because they are zealots and teach any theory as being scientific and not teaching it in perspective. Problem solved. Stop letting "evolutionist" teach science since they are outwordly biased and hence unscientific. That subtle lv of biasedness makes you dangerously unscientific and stupid. So we just go back reconstruct info on real life. The fact taht we don't know. And start teaching why people think things stop trying to say wether they are right or wrong since it goes against the point of science and leave it all alone after that. Isn't the point of science classes in highschool just to introduce you to science as a whole. Not to indoctrinate into any specifific beleif about specific theories or wether they are right or wrong? So whose correct then?

[Rbstr]

Continuing the proud tradition of making no sence.

[Ait'al]

Which part? And I haven't slept much in 3 or 4 days from the flu.

[Baneblade]

I doubt that will go far in convincing him that you have a point.

[Infernus]

Theories of gravitation.


You mean:
I AM NOT A "THEORY" YOU SHMUCK!!

[Lartnev]

As far as I can tell, Ait'al is arguing that since the Theory of Evolution is a theory it shouldn't be taught in school as a certainty. I'm not sure what that has to do with anything but one answer is that a lot of science is taught as certainty to make it easier for children/students to understand.... no doubt makes it easier to mark too ;)

[Infernus]

So, by the same logic... Ait'al is arguing that the foundations of the sciences shouldn't be taught.

Pythagorean Theorem?

a^2 + b^2 = c^2

so this is a theorem, that in every test case so far has proven true.

By destroying that you basically annihilate trigonometry and calculus, like totally. Sin, Cos, Tan would no longer work properly; derivatives would be hard as fuck, I won't even touch on integrals.

[Rbstr]

Inf is completely correct. Even math is based upon theory, especially calculus, which is integral(pardon that pun, wow) to basically all of our understanding of physical mechanics.

1+1=2 is not truth, it may for all we know add to 6 tomorrow at 5:03 am.
We teach is that way because there is the entirety of the human existence backs up that equation.

If it ever were to not equal 2 then we'd have to change that.

The same goes for evolution and against ID "theory." Evolution is essentially the backbone of modern biological study, and has a large body of evidence. evidence against it is very scarce, and the theories of evolution account for the perceived inconsistencies. If you could show that evolution was completely off base with real hard observable evidence, we'd throw it out.

ID has no evidence, and no way to prove that it is false. That makes it completely unsuited to any kind of scientific education.

[Lartnev]

First of all, I did say my interpretation of Ait'al's reply was "not taught as certainty" rather than "not taught at all".

Secondly I think maths would be a seperate thing all together anyway. Mathematics is based on logic and so 1+1=2 will always hold because we have defined it so. However the sticky point is whether that holds true in the physical world. Maths can be taught with certainty, physical mechanics technically can't. But we don't really care that there's a infinitesimal chance that it might not hold true tomorrow at 5.03am and so we might as well teach it as fact (at least until tomorrow at 5.03am ;)).

The theory of evolution is different because it is based on the interpretation of available evidence. As Rbstr says, one day we might find evidence which changes the understanding of evolution, but it's only a possibility.

In short I can see Ait'al's point but I think life's too short to teach it to the masses in any other way.

P.S. How did we ever get onto this deep philosophical discussion anyhow!?

[Ait'al]

So, by the same logic... Ait'al is arguing that the foundations of the sciences shouldn't be taught.

Pythagorean Theorem?

a^2 + b^2 = c^2

so this is a theorem, that in every test case so far has proven true.

By destroying that you basically annihilate trigonometry and calculus, like totally. Sin, Cos, Tan would no longer work properly; derivatives would be hard as fuck, I won't even touch on integrals.


Phythagorean theorem isn't science. It is mathematics. And the basis of science is, In an immensly oversimplified veiw. a general logic to figure things out and a way of thinking(AKA how to properly look for answers about something withough letting your own stupidity get in the way. And what it takes to not let it get in the way.). Not threories. Thats my point. It the idea of thinking scientifically or the general ideas of science not the ideas that people try to come up with trying to be scientific that matter as far as teaching science. Unless you are deciding to add specific theories as part of the lesson to show examples. At which point they need to be objective and let them be theories. If you restric yourself and say you must follow evolution it is not very scientific. From the perspective of science. What if evolution is wrong. That's more objectionable science. And if it is to complicated to be able to be able to prove or disprove as part of a science high school class just do like htey used to and just present it as it's intended points are and show that it is not the only veiw from a true scientific perspective and how it can really be invalid. That would be a true scientific lesson. A very good one since that to most people is the major theory.

And part of my point is it wasn't taught this way that long ago anyway. It was taught more objectivly anyway. Or it was understood how to. Atleast for some period of time.

And my point is if you can't come up with more theories to show the different things involved in science then you shouldn't teach it. And that involves more than just the big ones. You should be able to throw in more modern examples that show both sides that are good and thought out. That doesn't mean they are ones violently paced against each other but htat have some show of merrit that make different parts of each other not possible to show some aspects of thinking scientifically in a calm objective way without trying to prove one thing or another. Because evolution is a bit of a big idea or a much smaller one to include so much in is as to not be able to have different feilds of science taught or even studied without it in mind. So if science is still healthy there ought to be good theories out there still. There were when I was a younger so there should still be now. That would be alot better.

And 1+1 will not eqaul 6 because math is like language. It is given definition. We don't look for it. theoretical science is throwing ideas and possibly numbers at things to try to find answers(If i'm not mistaken). That is different from hard science also. Which is a vey important fact in talks about evolution. And there are more sides to it than Creation and evolution(to bring up another broader point.). I don't even know how people define creationism. It was never more than peoples personal veiws or ideas to see if things worked out personally from a scientific objective. Which people do anyway with theories. so Creationism isn't from it's true standpoint anything to do with evolution with is a specific theory from over 100+ years ago. Which always got to me because how can you scientificlly have a grudge between "ideas" and say you are objective? One not being an idea to boot.(I mean grudge from the standpoint of what a grudge is because it is not what happens in science when ideas or the research behind ideas starts to naturally go against each other. Or seem to.)

On top of it, evolution is a specific theory. Creationism is not. There is no reason for them to have ever been in the same argument. It's just stupid for arguments and like that to, in people minds, validly exist. It just shows the lv of understanding of people out there who are having the arguments and supposadly holding them up. I sure hope it's not the scientist actually discusing those sorts of things. Goes back to alot of argument about having scientfic debate in the open public and its danger.

[Rbstr]

math IS a science. Most of it is based upon things that mathematicians call theorems: theories. They are supported by large bodies of evidence, and so we teach them.

Evolution is not a specific theory, it is a large set of theories all of which are both falsifiable and are supported by a body of evidence.

It is proper science, and just like the audbau principle in chemistry and general relativity in physics it should be taught, because as far as we can tell scientifically it holds true.

[Lartnev]

Which always got to me because how can you scientificlly have a grudge between "ideas" and say you are objective?

Because scientists like to think they're right and that makes everyone else wrong and inferior by process of elimination. Just look at the whole mess between String theorists and Supergravity theorists! ;)

[Infernus]

Phythagorean theorem isn't science. It is mathematics. And the basis of science is, In an immensly oversimplified veiw. a general logic to figure things out and a way of thinking(AKA how to properly look for answers about something withough letting your own stupidity get in the way. And what it takes to not let it get in the way.). Not threories.

You've never taken an actual science course then...

Lets say, for sake of argument the classical sciences are broken up into 3 rough categories.

1- Chemistry
2- Mechanics
3- Electricity and Magnetism

From these other sciences are derived (example: Chemistry -> Biochemistry -> Biology. Mechanics -> Motion -> Gravitation. E and M -> Nuclear Physics, etc.)

But in all cases those sciences are based on mathmatical theory in one respect or another. Chemistry deals a lot in the hand of logarithms, Mechanics a lot in differential calculus and trigonometry, and E and M a lot in integral calculus.

Now, lets look at the pythagorian theroem (which you so astutely declared was math, not science).

Pythagorias said that in the case of a right triangle, the sum of the squares of the two perpendicular sides is equal to the square of the hypotenuse.

A^2+B^2=C^2

This general basis led to what would eventually become the Laws of Sines and Cosines, but that is besides the point, the pythagorian theorem is still a critical part of mechanics.

The most basic example:

A force of 25N is applied to a mass M in the positive x direction. A wind with a force of 5N blows constantly in the positive Y direction. Find the resultant force. Assume the surface is frictionless.

25^2+5^2=C^2

C=resultant force.

CASE IN POINT: SCIENCE IS APPLIED MATH!

Every problem in physics I is math, the physics is simply the arrangement of the objects, to actually solve the problem is all calculus.

Any math is theory and representation.

In every case so far 1+1 has equaled 2 and apples+oranges has equaled bananas. But what happens when apples+oranges=grapefruit. Which, in theory, is very possible. To set a strict bound of "right" and "wrong" or "true" and "false" to anything in the world of mathematics would be the single worst thing for the math world.

Take for example a case in ohio in either the 80s or 90s. A lawmaker wanted to limit Pi to the value of 3.14, because the concept of Pi was "too hard for the children to understand". But Pi is not 3.14, it is commonly rounded off as such. Pi is the ratio of a circle's circumference to it's diameter in euclidian geometry. To limit Pi at 3.14 means that a shitload of measurments will be just rough guestimates, and thats all they'll ever be. And as Pi is defined as larger and larger, that guestimate gets rougher and rougher.


Basically what I'm trying to say, is that we have to teach certain theories as law, and they have to be known to be built upon. And what effectively your logic is saying is that no theory should be taught because it is a theory. Try to explain math as defined? MATH IS DEFINED AS HUMAN TESTING HAS PROVEN. Math can change, math will change, what it represents might not necessarily change, but if what we see as 1 is added to itself and equals what we see as 6, then 1+1 sure as hell in that case will equal 6 and the mathematical determination of what we see as 2 will have to change.

[Ait'al]

I just always thought of math as more of a definition. You have something and call it one for the sake of simplicity or just ability to use it for anything ike counting. All math afterwords is still that same thing as defining something as a number. Like words are set to ideas or concepts math is set to other things. Therefore not a science. It is a simple notational system. Literally. And it can never find out anything because it can never be put to something that isn't already there. It can be used to check things like in anything else like accounting but I have never veiwed it as a science. You can use it to help figure things out by mathematically checking things if it is capable of helping you figure something out. But that is not really the science behind what you doing. Even if in the science you are doing you, atleast in, I'm guessing, someones mind, are doing nothing but math to figure it out. It is really just the tool you are using in the science. You are just using it mentally. You still have to apply it and use it in every way or it means nothing. So it really isn't science. Or atleast that is more how I veiw it, I think.

Like you said with physics. It is alot of math. But the math is ajust a counting of stuff. A number system. You are still using your mind to understand the physical object and what it is doing. Studying it as it is in real life. (Or that is the hope.) AKA Science. The math is just being used to count things. It is a system. Physics is the study of protons and neutrons or other things depending on what you are looking at. YOu are simply counting them in the process. The study of them is actaully more complicated. That counting is math. The study and trying to understand is the science. You just chose to use math in the process. You can study any science without math. Physics or otherwise.

[Rbstr]

But the "system" of math, to use your words, is mostly not known for certain.

We don't know that the Pythagorean theorem will work in every single possible case. We assume it does because of the body of evidence. In that respect science is Identical to math.

Even words and language, as you tried to show as evidence, are not 100***37; defined. Someone with a dictionary specific understanding of english is going to have a hard time understanding alot of conversations.

[Ait'al]

Yea but I still think science has to strictly be the study of something. Making formulas wouldn't be math. I think studying math and giving the study of it a name could be considered science. I don't think the using of something counts as a science though.

And Phythagareoms theorom will always work. Becuase like a shape. It is a predefined thing. So yes it will always work. It is in a way like a hypothetical situation. It can not be altered to not work. It cannot be made not to work. Like any algebraic expression or basic programing situation. Except in programing you have a sub langueage and things to mess it up. The basic principle if it could be as defined in math would always work. If math didn't work taht way computers could not work. And programing would be an imposibilty. It will not work out logically. There are some things you can figure out to work or not work. It was probably known well enough I even learned it in school at some point.

As is it is a definition of a situation within a predefined situation. So it will not cease to work. How can you get it to not work. It is only the mathimatical eqaution for a triangles lower side. YOu can already check all possible numerical situations. Which ones wouldn't work outside of the inability of our number system to define something properly or not being able to get a calculator that can hold enough numbers if that even ever happens with it. Either way I think it is still to practical to be that kind of study. It's more like engineering. It's not a science. It must by nature be applicable If I'm not mistaken. If that is the fine line. I'm pretty sure there is something that defines it as seperate from a science. The only problem with pythagareoms theorom would be the decimal system wouldnt it?

[Infernus]

And Phythagareoms theory will always work. Becuase like a shape. It is a predefined thing. So yes it will always work. It is in a way like a hypothetical situation. It can not be altered to not work. It cannot be made not to work. Like any algebraic expression or basic programing situation. Except in programing you have a sub langueage and things to mess it up. The basic principle if it could be as defined in math would always work. If math didn't work taht way computers could not work. And programing would be an imposibilty. It will not work out logically. There are some things you can figure out to work or not work.

NO! NO! NO!

Pythagorean theorem will not always work AS FAR AS WE KNOW! And that is the point.

What is to say it will always work? The fact that you think it will? Pythagorean theorem has NOT been proven.

Kepler's Laws have been proven, they always apply. We have not yet encountered a case where pythagorian theorem has been proven wrong, but that doesn't mean anything in the grand scheme of things. In any science a Law is undisputably true... at the moment pythagorian's is, but only at the moment.

There are many things in algebra that can be made to not work... Newton's method takes a major crap if your initial input value is off, it will find the tangent line NO WHERE near where you are looking for one. L'Hopitals rule should always work, but in certain cases it doesn't apply...

...and have you ever dealt with imaginary numbers? Of course, by your standards I guess they don't exist.

What are you exactly? You can't be a mathematician or a physicist, you'd be strung up by your colleagues for even making some of the suggestions that you're making. A chemist maybe, because they make and break rules like they're nothing.

The basic principle of math is to attempt to explain things in our phyisical world using numerical representation. As our understanding develops, our calculations change.

I think studying math and giving the study of it a name could be considered science.

You mean, mathematics.

[Ait'al]

Won't it always work in the confines of whole numbers?

I'm not a scientist.Edit: I just liked studying math alot in school. (which again is not a science. Mathematics would be a science if mathematic refers to it's study. The applied part would not be science. Which is what I refer to as math. That may be where we are getting hung up.)

And more recently I had this idea that is is our base system that causes problems in math not the fact that is exists. (not saying it's for inteligent reasons but I never bothered really thinking it out.)

And another reason is the fact that you can simply change the system to a different number set. So in that way math is just a system. . Or atleast from the standpoint of how many digits we use. Our number system does create it's own issues. Or atleast it creates them in distinct places. If you change to a 12 based system you still have the same problems though with say .33333333333inf but you don't get them in same place I think.(probably because the system is still fundamentally the same no matter how many digits you use.) So I don't know. Maybe there is some underlining same situation no matter what. But maybe our number system can't count it properly. Or no system can. I have no idea. I think that is just some stupid thing I wondered about playing with numbers when I was trying to familiarize myself with ram or something at different points or whatever I was doing. Take 6 and 7 based systems and run the numbers. So I wondered what was the connection between our system and what is happening in math. Besides it's obvious relivants.(just a stupid thing I never looked at enough. So, I don't never really had the chance to figure it out. And I can't remember hearing any thing that touched the issue.)

BTW I thought this because I wondered if it had to do with the lack of numbers in it. Or was that just the decimal system that runs into that. (I stopped doing this stuff along time ago so I don't remember it as well anymore.)

So what can cause pythagoreoms theorom to not work. I think I studiesd situations like the other ones you mentioned once and I think I remember the problem with the other ones was just not thinking it out properly in small ways. I used to go over that sort of thing alot in school. It's just been along time and I don't remember any of it too specifically.

I still think the other formulas that wouldn't work would be from just being to broad or not well thought out enough. the only thing that should be wrong with math should be the people doing it. Not the hard stuff. Which is why it's study would be more of a slight stupidity issues in some cases than a hard science if you get my drift.

[Infernus]

Won't it always work in the confines of whole numbers?

We don't know.

EDIT: Wait, I'm confused by what you mean.

There aren't many whole numbers when you sum their squares that equals another whole number.

1^2 + 1^2 = C^2

sqrt(2) = decimal

2^2 + 2^2 = C^2

sqrt(8) = decimal

3^2 + 2^2 = C^2

sqrt(13) = decimal

[Ait'al]

In a situation like that can't you just use the base 10 number to tell if it will work though.

There are alot of math situation where you can becuase any higher numbers a a reapeating of it an it should still always logically work. Or something like that. There would a difference in how it can screw up based on the mathematics you are using. Only certain problems can come up if you use multiplication practically.(That would be in checking some kinds of equations)

Though it is simpler because it is an addition of an addition. So I think it doesn't have as many of them. Division has more problems if I'm not mistaken. So wouldnt the mulitplicatin make it alot simpler or even likely imposible to work. It is harder for a pure adition based anything to ever screw up. Or more correctly impossible except for extreme stupidity on an idividuals part. And mulitiplication is just doubled addition from one perspective. So isn't it impossible.

The theorom is pure multiplication checking. So where could it screw up. addition is always absolutely knowable. So so is pure simple multiplication. I don't think it can be wrong. It would just be a matter of figurig out the logic of what exist in the eqaution and figureing if there is anything else logically in it that can go wrong then. IN this case in the fact it is checking something. But in this case pure multiplication. So....

Checking it against division or other backwords maths could seem to say it might be possible. But if you think about it as purly forwards math. Can anything about it ever be impossible besides human stupidy and saying a wrong number. Which is where I throw in the decimal system. IT at is core is different. It is the whole number system divided by 10 at it's base in a way. So it screws things up a bit I think. I forget. But the only thing that can screw up understanding that is pure stupidity. Like me not being able to remember what the decimal system does at it's core. We mad ethe damn thing it's only our stupidy stopping us form understanding it. Very literally. We thought it out to make the sytem work. We really do cease to understand it out of stupidity. You understood it when you first learned it. That is why you can potentially enter into a discussion about it when you were first introduced to the math. You just cease to keep thinking it out even though your brain literally did the work and understood what you are now trying to think out in a way the last time you did math with it. Or even when you first learned it. And I'm very very familiar with that aspect of math. I'm just not htinking them out literally as much right now again. But I know why I don't know it. And what I'm doing to screw it up. It is the same with everyone else. And mathameticians now a days. I think it's a modern trend.

That just brought alot of memories back.

Off topic a little.

And to add something I beleive we are realistically becoming dumber by the day. I think this was not a hard issue many years ago because It was not a contraversy because we simply figured it out. We simply knew then because we could stil figure it out. Point in case. Watch sesame street. (this is not neccaserily that good of a point depending on your standpoint but bear with me) If you see the vids with the kids from the 80s, they were very bright and inteligent looking doing what ever they were doing. The new ones on the other had are almost, like us, dumb as posts. Very little brain activity. So, yea, I think these issues are arriving and have been for a good 10 15 years (atleast from what I practically know) because we are litterally becoming more stupid on average, from our ways of life. Or to put it more accuratly, something equivilant to morals and activities or something that is making us too stupid to simply figure it out anymore. Maybe odd but I thought it always seemed like that was the problem for the last 15 years as these kept becoming issues. (If not what is causing it if it is happening)

And, sorry, long post again. And more importantly I've brought us all way off topic. Unless this of course is in the conservapedia. 8) Probably is though. 8p And on top of it that last paragraph just obliterated my entire point. Unless I'm right possbily. That just used to be something I wondered as things went this way. I swear it was understood. But it is math so that can be figured out. 8)

Sorry. "This" post is so weird because I just had a bunch of flashbacks about the stuff. I'm still sort of proccessing it a bit. Trying to remember it all and figure out how I came to stuff again. I get a little weird when I do that.

And another interesting fact about the number system thing. I think part of it is we ahve a systme where 10 is 10 times the number 1 and 100 ten times that. So it is even going up. It has some affect on it. Other systems like english or japanese burst into 4 0 number etc after 100 if I'm not mistaken. It is a practical situation when you run into certain decimal situations. But that should still not affect addition situations. All numbers are the same even if you don't go buy the symbol, "number" used to represent them. The core value is the same so what would mess it up. It would just have a differnt notational value. (from a different meaning for notational. I think?!) 10,000 as apposed to 1,0000. Same value. So same mathematical result. With addition or multiplication atleast. It can always be translated. (not saying division can't. I'm not thinkiing that far right now.)... Edit: but because we have the same ammount evenly we keep running into certain things more predicatably. as you mulitply with decimals. Or if you compare the decimal to it's whole digit opposite value. AKA .1 is 10 when you think about how the numbers spread in multiplications placement as you go from 1-10 to 1-100 and the differents between 100 and 1,000 as far as expanding them into a new area of the number system. AKA 10-100 if you are relooking at a math eqaution from an equal but different set of numbers mathematcially. We can uniquely do that in our number sytem if I'm not mistaken. Because we go up even by multiplications in of 100. The other thing was just that I was looking at where things like .3333inf keep poping up if you do it in different systems. LIke a 6 based system when multiplying or something turns up in the numbers 2 4 6 or something when doing something I can't remember 8p Where nomraly you get it from from dividing certain number between 1 and 10. It was stupid but it was fun. It was something about the fact that 3 and 6 when looked at are the numbers for.3333333..... and .666666... When you took it in some other number ssytem. None 10 based with even intervals maybe. It poped up in the even numbers 2 and 4 maybe. In another it was in something lik 5 and 7. I can't remember. Those are probably not the right numbers. But it was fun to see how the same math anomoly moved around when you changed the math system. I can't remember how it worked. But you simply just have to do the math to get .333 or .666 and do basic math in another system untill you get the same perfectly repeating number again. I think it was the same amount of them in the same way. it was like it was still .333 and .666 how it poped up or smoething but it was in the representative spot of like 2 and 4. The even numbers. I didn't include .999 form some reason though. There was some reason .99 was not relevant. It must have had to do with not using numbers that were like 3x3. 6 was only 2and 3. But not sqaured. It don't know. I wish I could remember, but it was cool to do. Myabe it had to do with how you could not get .9999 in the same way. This situation only existed or something wiht .33333 and .66666 For some reason and I could find the same unique situation in different numbers systems and compare them and how they worked. I think I did a 6 7 with atleast 10ours 11and like12 with maybe some other larger number doing basic math things from ours to get that number.( I heard something about babylonians using a 6 based system and something about the romans system and I was comparing them realistically or trying to see what it was like to use hypothecal system based on having differnt amount of numbers in the base. IE a hypothetical system with symbols repeating from 1-9 or 1-6 or 1-7 then or before using larger ones than ours that do like 1-12 too see how it affected using the math.) Edit: It could have had to do with the the fractions 1/3 and 2/3. or .33 and .666. They were easy to find from some perspective in another system when you looked at what they were in the math system of 10. in another system they appeared or something where 2 and 4 were. (like I said it was stupid) It was just funny it was where the two so big whole numbers were in our system were. Basicaly the first two spuared numbers were the impossible infinant ones in another system. But that is because our systme is based on even numbers partly. though it does not continue relivants because after the number 10 it does not work untill it logically repeats itself where it does in the confines of 1-10 or wherever it can pop up.(because 10 is a derivative of 5 10 defines the restof the system) If it was an 8 based system it would dominant I think. Or a 16 based system actually. Not sure. 8 is 2.2.2 but 16 is 2.4.2 or 4.4 or 2.2.2.2. Maybe it is important it is not a sqaure of the sqaure to contintue it as teh dominant force because 16 would make 4 more important. Or would it?! I don't know. No 2 would still be dominant because it is only doubled 2.2.2 or 8 bieing the point of the 8 based system. 16 would only spread out the occurances of stuff by 2 since it would have to weight twice as long or something to reocure. But that would be pretty stupid to study.

OK. Where were we? And did I hit any points with that any of the earlier stuff? I think I lost where I was a bit in that. I half got to where I meant to, but then I think I lost it all.

[Rayder]

(5^9^4^8^9^7^9^9^9)^2 + (3^5^5^5^9^4^8^4)^2 = C^2

Solve it. Now.

[Hamma]

23

[Peacemaker]

http://tbn0.google.com/images?q=tbn:Qfz9OpfhQJxouM:http://www.chinadaily.com.cn/english/doc/2005-04/25/xin_2604022510440652258525.jpg