The Final Theory

[CrimsonWolf]

Yep. Two things:

• It says very clearly that the side that's less dense expands faster: In real life, the *opposite* is true. How do you explain that?
  
• It says that expansion is linear rather than geometric. I know that Expansion says that inertia is an illusion, and that motions in elemental particles cause it, but objects pressure against one another is expressed as "meters per second per second" not "meters per second". As a result, the "observed inertia" would have to be increasing geometrically, and if inertia did so, we would observe *all* objects moving *perpendicular* to the radial lines from the center of a mass moving at accelerated rates, which of course we don't.

Actually when I plug your numbers into a spreadsheet, they don't come out the same at all, so maybe you want to expand on what you've posted here.

 

You sound like a smart guy. I think you can explain the theory just fine. I realize that the book does posit that all assumptions made by Newton and Einstein are wrong, but it still has to match observations. Where the numerous assumptions in the book insist that those observations are "illusions" then they become issues that are part of what we are discussing here, and saying "you would understand that if you read the book," only makes it look like you are hiding behind assumptions that are false: you need to bring these into your argument, because its not just the results that are weak, its the assumptions too!

 

Cheers,

Buffy

 

Well following the book's logic (which is not mine by the way) if you pushed on a object say like a shopping for example here is what happens. As you push on the handle, and apply force by way of chemical reactions that power your muscles and cause them to contract or extend you created kinetic motion. The motion is carried through your hands and into the handle. Your atoms moved by the motion push into the handles atoms. The push comes from the bouncing electrons, which started with chemical reactions that resulted in electrons around atom being compressed, they bounce more vigorously pushing the nucleus in the opposite direction which in turn pushes opposite bouncing electrons of shell toward another atomic nucleus. If the reaction is continuously applied, this results in chain reaction of atoms knocking into each other toward a direction opposite of the applied force (opposite reaction). The atoms in the cart resist being moved of coarse (inertia) but eventually give way if the applied force is great enough. The wheels on the bottom make it easier for the cart to give to motion as well. This implies the kinetic motion spreads outward from the starting point in manner similar to cone or somewhat like inverse square law. Main key here is it takes time to for the object to be moved. Some objects collective mass (atoms) push back more than the force when compressed (pushed on). Like a man trying to push a large bolder.

 

How is that example?

 

To answer your question. In real life expansion usually involves a objects structure being stretched into larger amount of space. Where the theory is talking about a object getting bigger with no relative change to the objects size (compared to other objects at least), and no stretching of any kind. Sort of like each object is a vacuum sucking sucking up all the space around it. :lol:

 

They idea here is that all the objects keep the same proportions when increasing size. Like a planet and a moon is 1/3rd it's size would still be 1 : 1/3 ratio if getting bigger no matter the passing of time. This happens because distance here is described as space between atoms or objects made of atoms. The space inside the atom is independent and cannot be measured according to the theory. That is why the size of atoms does not matter for expansion, nor does it's radius. The atom is mostly empty structure that has electrons in the outer shell (highest bounce) that expand the overall atom by a small amount of roughly a millionth each second. The only difference between atoms is their mass and amount of electrons in the shell.

 

Another concept here is that center of mass and not the geometric center is the direction it expands from. We are talking about the amount of atoms from the center of mass to the objects edge. The distance basically. The second planet in my example has less gravity on dense side because the distance from center of mass is 1,000km as compared to the 9,000km of the opposite side. The dense side is misleading statement. What I was illustrating was that the point of highest density starts 1,000km from one edge and 9,000km on the other, it's off center. The expansion would look weird if you could see it. As you once mentioned sort of egg like!

You asked by about the

 

If you want Buffy I can demonstrate how I got the numbers, it was pretty straight forward using the atomic expansion equation.

[ldsoftwaresteve]

Buffy:

It says very clearly that the side that's less dense expands faster: In real life, the *opposite* is true. How do you explain that?

I assume you mean that CrimsonWolf's math says that or could be interpreted to mean that. I don't agree with the conclusion, however.

First, assume for the sake of consideration, that expansion is what's happening. The structure of the moon isn't changing. It's maintaining its shape. One part does not expand faster than the other. The issue is inertial, inertia being that property of an object that resists a change in position. You have at least the following events taking place: expansion of all particles throughout the structure, and you have the bonds between all of the particles contained in the structure maintaining the structure. If the inertail effect of the expansion (more space getting taken by the less dense side) is less than the bonds maintaining the structure, the structure will remain intact.

It says that expansion is linear rather than geometric. I know that Expansion says that inertia is an illusion, and that motions in elemental particles cause it, but objects pressure against one another is expressed as "meters per second per second" not "meters per second". As a result, the "observed inertia" would have to be increasing geometrically, and if inertia did so, we would observe *all* objects moving *perpendicular* to the radial lines from the center of a mass moving at accellerated rates, which of course we don't.

I guess I don't understand how you got the impression that inertia was an illusion. The nasty thing about expansion is the idea that we cannot directly perceive it. I suppose in that sense it's illusory. What really perplexes me here is the time you've spent trying to extract information from people who have paid the paltry few dollars (you can buy it used you know) and actually read the book. I'm not a stupid man. I'd be willing to bet that you pull down a pretty hefty salary. If you've spent more than 1 hour contemplating, arguing, reading, composing responses, etc., you've already invested far more than it costs. If you're actually interested in the ideas why not buy the book and read the author's descriptions of the things we're talking about? I guarantee he understands it better than any of us do.

Since you don't want to do that, I fail to understand your motivation here.

[CrimsonWolf]

So Buffy if your still around would you like to see the how I did the math? Or have you figured it out yourself?

 

To everyone else out there I am beginning to form geometric and motion experiment for ExT version of orbits. I should be able to express it mathematically in data or equation as well as on grid paper (my favorite to use). Need tinker a bit first. Wish I could think of away to get pictures here.:( :(

[jonorr]

Wow, this fellow echoed my exact sentiments about amazons treatment of this book:

http://www.physics.buffalo.edu/~bapowell/amazon.html

[ldsoftwaresteve]

Jonorr:

Wow, this fellow echoed my exact sentiments about amazons treatment of this book:

Read the book first. There is no way you were able to identify the rest of the book from the contents of the first chapter, unless of course your vast understanding of physics has provided you with intelligence beyond that of mortal man.

And perhaps the reason amazon won't let you post a review of the book is that you haven't read it. How stupid can you be?

And one other thing about the removal of the negative responses to the book on amazon: According to one of the posters, the negative posts we placed on amazon after the posters were paid to post them by someone else. They were false posts.

Have you been paid to post a negative response too?

[CraigD]

Wow, this fellow echoed my exact sentiments about amazons treatment of this book:

http://www.physics.buffalo.edu/~bapowell/amazon.html

It’s wise to remember that Amazon is in the business of selling books (and other stuff). The reviews they post are selected to encourage people to buy the book, just as a television commercial is crafted to encourage you to buy the advertised product.

 

I’m actually surprised that Amazon post as many negative or neutral product reviews as they do, though, I suppose, this policy is effective because it suggest to readers that the reviews are impartial, and not censored.

 

PS: Welcome to hypography, jonorr

[jonorr]

There is no way you were able to identify the rest of the book from the contents of the first chapter...

 

Actually, it is possible to identify how bad the book is by the contents of the first chapter.

 

Say the first chapter of a book contained wild claims like 1+1=5, and grade school teachers everywhere brainwashed their students to think 1+1=2 because they wanted to hide their own misunderstanding of addition. The author promises me a new understanding of the mathematics if I buy and read the rest of the book. It sounds like a good offer, and theoretically I could hold my disbelief until I'd finished the book. But that would be stupid.

 

This is exactly the way McCutcheon's book is and it is almost unbelievable to me that you can not see that.

 

Have you been paid to post a negative response too?

 

No. I am just disgusted by the way McCutcheon so clearly lies to, misleads, and rips people off. The reason I posted here in the first place is because I didn't have the faith that Amazon would show my post (it seems my suspicion is vindicated). I'm certainly glad that this Free forum is here, although probably few if anyone ever read my post. Hopefully Mr. Powell and Mr. Ruske will have more success.

 

Also, I didn't see that anyone was paid to post negative responses. Where did you read that?

 

By the way, how can you be such an ardent supporter of McCutcheon when you even admit you can't support the theory? All you seem to say is "you haven't read the whole book, so you don't know" and "just give the book a try I have faith in it." The focus of your posts is ostensibly to convince people to buy the book. Are you being paid to promote his book on this forum?

 

I have already tried on this thread to give a clear example where McCutcheon's theory was not in agreement with reality. But the discussion in the following link is even better because it contains responses from McCutcheon himself, and shows that he can not defend his own work. McCutcheon's theory is not a viable alternative to Standard Theory because it can't describe planetary orbits. (by the way Stephen, is that you in the discussion? Software guy, devoted supporter of McCutcheon, doesn't like arguments, sure seems like you)

http://homepage.mac.com/ruske/ruske/finaltheory.html

[CraigD]

Also, I didn't see that anyone was paid to post negative responses. Where did you read that?

I’m also unable to find any reference to this.

 

However, I was personally offered money, in the early 1990s, to write a negative review of a book on magnet therapy. My prospective employer was not an opponent of the book, but the author, who had been encouraged by the publisher and given a budget to gather such a review. The author, a personal friend, recalled that I was facile in using Big Science Words, and asked me to write the most vitriolic scientific debunking of magnet therapy I could. She explained that she and her publisher would sign the review with an invented college Science professor identity, to give it greater authority, and that it would be included in the books inset pages!

 

According to my friend, a negative review from the “mainstream scientific establishment” actually promotes a book with her target readership.

 

Strange are the ways of marketing.

 

While I failed to find any, my search for “paid negative reviews” turned up the 10/10/05 New York Times story ”Amazon in Cross-Fire of Battling Reviewers”, wherein it is revealed that Amazon got in trouble for censoring comments cautioning people not to follow the advice of a book encouraging people not to pay their US federal income taxes. It’s a wild story.

[ldsoftwaresteve]

Jonorr:

By the way, how can you be such an ardent supporter of McCutcheon when you even admit you can't support the theory? All you seem to say is "you haven't read the whole book, so you don't know" and "just give the book a try I have faith in it." The focus of your posts is ostensibly to convince people to buy the book. Are you being paid to promote his book on this forum?

lol, no. But I guess you have a point. I'm disgusted with people bashing it without reading it. And you fall into that category. By all means, spend some more time bashing it. But I'd really like you to bash it after actually reading it. I consider it dishonest of you to assume you understand what his premise is without reading it. Because you don't know what it is if all you read was chapter 1.

 

McCutcheon has a fundamental idea that is truly different and actually does allow him to make the claims he makes, but you didn't read the rest of the book so you wouldn't know that. If his basic premise is correct, then his conclusions are also correct or stand a good chance of being correct.

 

Please tell me what his basic premise is.

 

I'm trying to find where I read that about paid posters and I can't. I'll keep looking and post it when I find it.

[CraigD]

Because you don't know what it [“The Final Theory”] is if all you read was chapter 1.

I think most would agree that the practice of advertising a book with a free excerpt is a good one. One assumes when reading such an excerpt that it is representative of the entire book, possibly the best of it.

 

Unfortunately for mathematical physics enthusiasts, I believe the quirkiness of “The Final Theory” extends to the selection of excerpt – the offered free first chapter fails, I believe, to encourage most science enthusiasts to purchase and read the rest of the book. Instead, it appears to target a readership composed of people suspicious of mainstream science, via techniques including several I outline in post #102. These technique appears effective, and the target readership large, enough to result in “The Final Theory” placing 21st as of this moment on Amazon’s “general physics” top sellers list – if not the “top science bestseller” that thefinaltheory.com claims, respectable sales, besting the efforts of major publishers books such as general physics #22 “Physics for Dummies” http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/0764554336/ref=pd_ts_b_22/103-4655908-3096630.

 

IMHO, this is unfortunate, because, even if incorrect, the ideas McCutcheon appears (from posts appearing in this thread) to explore in his book, particularly the idea of explaining gravity as the expansion of all matter, are interesting. By framing them as a battleground for a war between scientific orthodox and heretics, the author and some of his supporters discourage many who would otherwise be interested in them as a purely hypothetical exploration.

[Erasmus00]

Because you don't know what it is if all you read was chapter 1.

 

I think the point he was trying to make was that the first chapter is so loaded with fallacies, conceptual errors, and falsehoods that if this is the ground that McCutcheon builds on, its not possibly solid enough to hold up the rest of the book.

-Will

[jonorr]

I have long wondered "Where do numbers come from?" "How is the Tarski paradox even possible?" "Why do we need complicated things like Hilbert Spaces and Quarternions?" Do we truly understand numbers? What about the fact that there is no obvious source of numbers? Should we really believe that numbers come from our mind? Why is it that mathematics has so many crazy theorems that don't seem to be related at all?

 

And what about practical applications of numbers? If we try to save money, supposedly all that savings will add up to a lot of money, but we never feel like we have a lot of money.

 

We can't be sure we even understand if we are are using the right algebras to deal with numbers, because we haven't properly identified what numbers are. The new theory I am about to discuss shows why the former algebraic treatment of numbers hasn't led to a true understanding of numbers.

 

But first I am going to illustrate some of the problems with modern theories involving numbers.

 

Calculus is undoubtedly one of the most universally accepted branches in all of mathematics. But it actually contains many unexplained mysteries and mathematically impossible claims. Such problems should prevent any new theory from becoming widley accepted, leaving it only with the status of a proposal or hypothesis. But the lack of a better way of finding the area under curves has meant that it has largely escpaed such scrutiny.

 

The biggest problem is that the way Newton went about finding the area under a curve lacked a proper physical explanation. In fact it violates the laws of addition. This point will be clearly illustrated, beginning with the reminder of one of the most fundamental and unbreakable laws of mathematics: 0 + 0 = 0. According to this law, it doesn't matter how much you add zero to itself, the answer is still zero.

 

In order to find the area under a curve, Standard Calculus theory tells us that we can find the area under a curve by dividing the area under the curve into small little bits and adding them all up, and taking the limit as the size of those bits goes to zero. But when the size of those bits goes to zero, we are essentially adding up lots of little zeroes, and so the end result should be zero!

 

This discussion naturally makes one wonder why Calculus doesn't raise intense mathematical concern and investigation. Why is calculus simply accepted and its mysteries left uninvestigated? Some might say that this is being questioned in for example the study of transfinite numbers. But we will find out later that this doesn't help either.

 

The mystery is further deepened when we realize that not only is there no way to find the area under a curve, there is no soure of numbers at all! How do these numbers get under the curve to be added up in the first place?

 

The reason these serious law violations are tolerated is because when algebra and calculus are taught it is usually accompanied by further instruction on a concept known as "not dividing by zero." Although it will be found shortly that this is a fatally flawed explanation that gives a false sense of closure on these issues. So all "properly" educated mathematicians have been forced to learn logical techniques that have worked for generations to explain the problems with Calculus. This leads to the curious fact while on the one hand Calculus is widely accepted by mathematicians, on the other hand many mathematicians spend time thinking about transfinite numbers and the well ordering principle.

 

Not dividing by zero can be a useful tool in analyzing algebraic problems, but there are serious problems when it is used beyond its intent. Consider the situation where you have zero marbles, and you want to divide them into groups of zero marbles. Obviously once you've done this you still have zero marbles, so the result of division is you have exactly one group of zero marbles. However, applying the "not dividing by zero" rule tells you that you can't even divide zero by zero. Clearly this is an error. And as it turns out, you can actually divide other numbers by zero as well.

 

Now I am going to prove something that was available to mathematicians even in Al-Khwarizmi's time, but some how went unnoticed.

 

Let x and y be equal, non-zero quantities

x = y

Add x to both sides

2x = x + y

Take 2y from both sides

2x - 2y = x - y

Factorise

2(x - y) = x - y

Divide out (x - y)

2 = 1.

 

This amazing result shows that 2=1, and by subtracting one from each side we have the even more amazing 1 = 0! With this in mind it is immediately obvious why dividing by zero is acceptable, because it's really the same thing as dividing by 1.

But just to be sure this is ok, let's test it out. Remember earlier when I talked about dividing zero marbles into zero marbles? Well since we now know that 0 = 1, lets plug this in and see what we get.

 

0/0 = 1/1 = 1

 

Amazing, we've verified our earlier observation! This also explains the common phenomena of not feeling like we have any money. No matter how much money we save, each of our 1 dollars is really equal to zero dollars, so we really don't have any money! It also fulfills the promise of simplifying things like calculus. The reason adding up all those little bits of zero under the curve added up to something non-zero was because all of those zeros were really equal to 1. Our little theory is certainly showing promise. And notice, it is based on a simple proof involving easily understood algebraic manipulation of numbers, and further more we verified it using nothing more than our intuition about money and calculus.

 

Despite all of the preceding discussion however suggesting that numbers are not ruled by Standard mathematical logic, there can still be some compelling illusions that appear to support regular number theory. Such as the fact that if you go to the store and try to buy things with zero dollars, the store clerks will probably laugh and try to demand real money from you. But this is easily explained by the fact that they are indoctrinated into an illusory world involving numbers that don't really exist.

 

The traditional conception of numbers is a very compelling and intuitive idea, but it is rife with problems. The traditional conception is a model that allows you to buy things from merchants and it can be very useful. But things become very problematic and mysterious when the traditional model of numbers is taken as the literal reality.

 

Before you can start applying this concept in real life, you need to have a full grasp of what numbers really are and where they came from. The reason traditional mathematics was so revolutionary when it was proposed is that it was thought to have finally provided an understanding of numbers, something mankind has always wondered about. But if traditional numbers are not a viable means of explaining things like where numbers come from then what is?

 

The answer to this question provides a real clear explanation for what numbers really are and what they are good for. It explains how you can go into a store and buy stuff with no money, and it even shows you how, if you want, you can steal money directly from God. This answer is in the next chapter of my book.

 

If you still aren't convinced here are some excerpts of reviews by people who have already read my book: "After I saw how clear-cut and unmistakable the errors of mathematics were, I had to read this book just to see what other ideas were created by a mind capable of breaking past the limitations of mathematics. Since I read The Final Number Theory, I haven't been able to stop contemplating the implications and abilities of the new theory. "

 

"The Final Number Theory is an absolutely awe-inspiring and gutsy rethink of everything we believe we know about numbers. With undeniable logic the book exposes and solves so many paradoxes and mysteries, finally debunking today's increasingly bizarre and misguided mathematics."

 

"At the worst, a 'must have' handbook for the mathematics teacher. At the best, an interesting conjecture and another way of looking at things which will, hopefully, help to unravel a mathematics woefully in need of new thinking. Hmmm, I wonder what Neumann would say ..."

 

"Having read this, I feel like a person who is on acid walking among those who are not on acid."

 

You can't just make this stuff up.

 

The book is only $20 for a beautifully bound hard copy. Buy it now!

[arkain101]

0/0 = 1/1 = 1

 

I am a complete amateur at math. But I do make an observation.

 

Zero is not really a number. It is not a value. It is a shape that represents the empty space that would otherwise be in an equation. You could replace 0 with the drawing of infinity (sideways 8) and say, this is the represents what we must call a non-value. Either infinite or nothing, both are the same.

 

Zero is not the same as having a number such as fifty that has a similar shape in its symbol "50".

 

In my opinion zero is not properly represented with the symbol of a zero. It should not actually be represented in the classifcation of what we call a number or digit symbol, which of course are 1,2,3,4,5,6,7,8,9, and decimal place representation 0 which is not "zero" but instead is and should be called decimal place in base ten math(right? i think that is base 10.. lol) and as far as I know in basic math, in the symbol of this kind of number representation they (the only nine numbers/symbols of value) are the symbols of value. But zero is not a number of value and is not a number but on the contrary a word or symbol for lack there of .

BTW, I have a question. What is this symbol type called that uses 12456789? We have what we call english, metric, standard, french etc.. but what is this type of numerology? if that is the correct phrase.

 

I am curious what some of you think on this.

 

0/0 is as much the same as saying gasdfasd/gasdfasd. It is not a value and is not a number in the sense of which 1-9 are numbers / symbols.

 

We should find a new way of representing the symbol of nothing/zero.

[ldsoftwaresteve]

Erasmus:

I think the point he was trying to make was that the first chapter is so loaded with fallacies, conceptual errors, and falsehoods that if this is the ground that McCutcheon builds on, its not possibly solid enough to hold up the rest of the book.

It remains to be seen if they are fallacies will. If McCutcheon's basic premise is correct, then you are wrong.

 

I don't know if it is correct. I do know that it makes as much sense to me, more actually, than the stuff you think is correct. And I will follow my understanding since that is all I have to work with.

 

All McCutcheon has done is take Einstein's accelerating elevator literally and seen where it goes. Please consider that it might be relative to the viewer's perspective. Einstein's warped space time might just be McCutcheon's expansion. I think the two are simply different perspectives on the same thing. I think McCutcheon addresses the cause, Einstein the effect.

 

The other thing McCutcheon has shown is that our perceptions of reality might not really reflect what is happening underneath, and I think this is the real reason there is so much animosity toward his theory. If he is correct, our clay feet are not standing on such solid ground and we need to modify THAT understanding as well.

 

As depressing as the truth might sometimes be, still, it's all we've got to work with. Time will bring us closer to the truth.

 

CraigD: I always appreciate your comments. And I agree that McCutcheon's approach using attacks was perhaps the most painful one. I wonder if it was the best one. Still, it is getting discussion going. :(

 

Jonorr: You seem to be quite sharp. Consider spending a little less of your obviously valuable time attacking thread content and more of it reading the book. I'll send you mine. But perhaps you just want to slice and dice poor little uneducated fools like me?

[CraigD]

…

x = y

Add x to both sides

2x = x + y

Take 2y from both sides

2x - 2y = x - y

Factorise

2(x - y) = x - y

Divide out (x - y)

2 = 1.

… 1 = 0 …

0/0 = 1/1 = 1

Brilliant parody, jonorr! I was half asleep when I read it, somehow failed to grasp the title, and was mentally preparing a scathing debunking of your “math” until I got to

No matter how much money we save, each of our 1 dollars is really equal to zero dollars, so we really don't have any money!

and realized you weren’t serious!

 

You should keep your day job, however – the audience for math parody is, regrettably, a small one.

"Having read this, I feel like a person who is on acid walking among those who are not on acid."

[CraigD]

Zero is not really a number.

To most mathematicians, since at least 600 BC or so, zero is really a number in many useful number systems.

 

What zero is not is a ordinal number – a number useful for selecting elements in an ordered sequence. Thus, it’s mathematically unconventional (though not uncommon, especially since the advent of computer languages) to use terms like “zeroth place” (not to be confused with terms like “the base-to-the-zeroth position” in a numeral)

 

Zero is a cardinal number – a number useful for describing how many elements are in a sequence, collection, set, etc. Thus, we commonly refer to a collection as having zero elements – though in common language the word “no” is more usual, as in “there are no eggs left in the basket”.

 

In most number systems, “zero” is a special number (eg: the “additive identity”, a number that can be added to any number without changing it). Also, in most number systems, there is only one number zero, but many non-zero numbers. Still, zero is considered a number.

 

The usual place to start in gaining an understanding of the modern idea of the concept of “a number” are the Peano postulates.

 

BTW, I have a question. What is this symbol type called that uses 12456789? We have what we call english, metric, standard, french etc.. but what is this type of numerology? if that is the correct phrase.

The characters, or symbols, used to represent numbers, are usually called “numerals”. It’s conventional to use the word numeral to refer both to a single character or a sequence of many characters in the singular – eg: “’7’ is a numeral”, “’120.25’ is a numeral”. The particular style of numeral that “0”, “1”, “2”, “3”, “4”, “5”, “6”, “7”, “8”, and “9” are is commonly called ”Arabic”, though it’s more historically accurate to call them “European”, as the actual marks (conventionally called “glyphs”) made by 4th century BC Arabs (who didn’t commonly have a “0” glyph until the 9th century AD or so) were quite unlike we’re accustom to using. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Glyphs_used_with_the_Hindu-Arabic_numeral_system has examples of many different glyphs used in base-ten (decimal) numerals.

 

“Numerology”, though seemingly a sensible term meaning “the study of numerals”, is so associated with occult divination techniques (most of which add individual characters until a single one remains, eg: 1960 -> 1+9+6+0 = 16 -> 1+7 = 8) that most mathematicians and Science historians avoid using it.

[arkain101]

To most mathematicians, since at least 600 BC or so, zero is really a number in many useful number systems.

 

What zero is not is a ordinal number – a number useful for selecting elements in an ordered sequence. Thus, it’s mathematically unconventional (though not uncommon, especially since the advent of computer languages) to use terms like “zeroth place” (not to be confused with terms like “the base-to-the-zeroth position” in a numeral)

 

Zero is a cardinal number – a number useful for describing how many elements are in a sequence, collection, set, etc. Thus, we commonly refer to a collection as having zero elements – though in common language the word “no” is more usual, as in “there are no eggs left in the basket”.

 

In most number systems, “zero” is a special number (eg: the “additive identity”, a number that can be added to any number without changing it). Also, in most number systems, there is only one number zero, but many non-zero numbers. Still, zero is considered a number.

 

The usual place to start in gaining an understanding of the modern idea of the concept of “a number” are the Peano postulates.

 

It may sound ignorant and ambitious of me, but I dissagree with what mathamaticians have to say.

Stating the obvious.

Zero is nothing. No thing (no quantity, no limit, just as infinity).

"Z-e-r-o" is not a number but a word.

"0" is the symbol for the word zero but although it seems to have the shape and relation to other numbers like 2,3,4.. etc, it is not a number and could be replaced with a dash - or what have you.

 

The meaning of zero I can understand can be thought of as number that represents lack there of things. But this is in my opinion a mistake.

 

though in common language the word “no” is more usual, as in “there are no eggs left in the basket”.

This seems to clarify my point. We can accept the use of the word no and zero as one of the same because each are not numbers but descriptors of that which is not there, or that which can not be 'numbered' or quanitied.

 

0 (pernounced zero) is used in a few too many places of math wouldnt you agree?

It is in for example numbers to show a decimal place. ex, 50 , fifty.

It is thought of as a number.

It IS a symbol (that is not a number) that represents lack of number.

and more i can imagine.

 

To make sure we are on the same page. We can say 6 (the visual reading of the symbol) is a number and/or 6 is a symbol that represents a number of quantity, that which one can count but is not a number, and is 1 or One symbol.

 

So as for zero, or 0. It is not a number. It is a symbol though. One symbol. It is not something that can be counted to, since one would not even consider to count all that is NOT there, as you would be there forever or just for a second before realising you can not.

 

The symbol of 0, that which is between 1 and -1. or 1 and 0.99, could be and should be re-written as something else as it not a number but a symbol that says, with this we refer to blank, or nothing, so as to know the 'nothing' is there to be dealt with.