New Paradox for the "Principles of Physics".

1234567890
Visitor

21 years 7 months ago #5846 by 1234567890

Replied by 1234567890 on topic Reply from

<BLOCKQUOTE id=quote>quote:<hr height=1 noshade id=quote>

"Eternal" means never created. Let's look at it from a numbers perspective. Basically we have 3 sets of numbers, the set of all positive numbers, the set of all negative numbers, and the 0 set. The "0" set always exists, it doesn't need to be created, it is always there. The other two sets are created. If you take from one you need to add it to the other, right? Okay, if all you have is the "0" set and you "create" the "set of posistive numbers" you need to get those numbers from somewhere so you "Create" the "set of negative numbers" in order to "barrow" the numbers needed to make the other set.

Like math, you don't just pull numbers from the air(or other places), they need to come from somewhere and if you need to barrow one that's fine just remember to put it back where you got it. Once you put all the numbers back, what are you left with? But how? Where did it come from? "0" is not "non-existence" because it exists. "0" is simply a lack of something which, is different from "non-existence". I think this is what Tom was trying to discribe as "essence" but I can't speak for him.

Patrick
<hr height=1 noshade id=quote></BLOCKQUOTE id=quote>

I don't regard 0 as a fundamental number. No, you can generate the number line from any number. There doesn't even have to be a relationship between any numbers. We give them relationship. The numbers came from intelligent beings. And we ourselves are an arrangement of "stuff". So, the number line can exist only through the existence of a certain arrangement of "stuff".
So the number line can be considered a property of a certain conformation of some "stuff".

Electrons having a negative charge and having so much mass are also properties. We can also imagine these properties as the result of some special arrangement of some "stuff". Ad infinitum.

So, I think we are all arguing basically the same thing but using different words. I think our universe is ever evolving and not static. New properties come into and out of existence. I just consider properties, or rules, more descriptive of the universe than the words "substance", "energy", "forms" or whatever.

Please Log in or Create an account to join the conversation.

1234567890
Visitor

21 years 7 months ago #5784 by 1234567890

Replied by 1234567890 on topic Reply from

In the final analysis, I think all our ideas are pretty much alike. We are just disagreeing on some definitions and basically the details of what consists of a form change.

So, I've about ran out of breath on this topic. Good luck y'all.

Please Log in or Create an account to join the conversation.

tvanflandern
Topic Author
Offline
Platinum Member

21 years 7 months ago #5428 by tvanflandern

Replied by tvanflandern on topic Reply from Tom Van Flandern

<BLOCKQUOTE id=quote>quote:<hr height=1 noshade id=quote><BLOCKQUOTE id=quote>quote:<hr height=1 noshade id=quote><BLOCKQUOTE id=quote>quote:<hr height=1 noshade id=quote>[123...]: Imagine an infinite cloth that is cut into infinite pieces of different shapes. Who cut this cloth? Did theses shapes spontaneously form from the cloth?<hr height=1 noshade id=quote></BLOCKQUOTE id=quote>
[tvf]: Such a thing is impossible in MM, so unless you give me a situation where it might be possible, I have a hard time answering any of your questions that have this as a premise. In MM, no material, tangible form can ever be infinite. All forms (material, tangible things) are finite and temporary. And the finite cannot become infinite.<hr height=1 noshade id=quote></BLOCKQUOTE id=quote>
[123...]: "Such a thing is impossible"? Well this is what you have been saying of substance. Are you now agreeing that "substance" is not a "tangible thing" of which something came be made from, under your definition of substance? So, how are these forms generated? By magic?<hr height=1 noshade id=quote></BLOCKQUOTE id=quote>

Just use the integer analogy, and you will see how everything I'm saying about forms and substance parallels true statements about individial integers and the set of all integers.

A collection of finite things (integers; forms) can be infinite (set of all integers; substance). But reversing the process and dividing the infinite sets into an infinite number of finite pieces would require an infinite number of operations, which is impossible.

And we agreed last time not to use the expression "made from" because it is ambiguous. Substance is not a tangible thing, but is a collection of an infinite number of tangible things (forms). Those forms come from substance, just as integers come from the set of all integers. (That is not a statement about how they originated, but only a statement of membership in a set.) But those forms are made out of other forms. So forms are generated by earlier forms, ad infinitum.

<BLOCKQUOTE id=quote>quote:<hr height=1 noshade id=quote>Also, you have never shown that the finite cannot become infinite and yet you continue to use that argument and as if it really refuted my analogy of the cloth. You basically asserted that the finite cannot become infinite- that's your argument right there. Whenever someone tried to dispute it, you tell them to go read up on infinities.<hr height=1 noshade id=quote></BLOCKQUOTE id=quote>

The argument that the finite cannot become infinite is simple. Anything finite added to anything finite is still finite. So no matter how many things we add together, as long as there is just a finite number of them, we still have a finite thing.

<BLOCKQUOTE id=quote>quote:<hr height=1 noshade id=quote>It is also impossible for any of us to have observed eternity but you use the idea in your model. You use infinities all the time in your model, even though you often caution others for using math concepts to represent reality.<hr height=1 noshade id=quote></BLOCKQUOTE id=quote>

Infinities can be used to describe reality. But they are not material or tangible. So one cannot do actual operations on an infinite set in reality, but only conceptually.

<BLOCKQUOTE id=quote>quote:<hr height=1 noshade id=quote>I tried to make an analogy with the cloth- obviously I am not suggesting such a cloth is real, but if you have no problems with using analogies and concepts in the MM model and your own arguments, you shouldn't have any problem when other people make analogies using concepts.<hr height=1 noshade id=quote></BLOCKQUOTE id=quote>

However, you began speaking of infinite operations on an infinite set. Finite beings have no access to infinity other than as a concept. You even asked "who cut the cloth?" and "did the cuts make forms?" as if it were possible to do these things in physical reality and not just as concepts.

<BLOCKQUOTE id=quote>quote:<hr height=1 noshade id=quote>What troubles me the most is that you continue to straddle the fence and obfuscate in your usage of the word "substance". You use it to mean the collection of forms in some posts, and when the occasion necessitates, you regard substance as a "stuff" from which forms are made. Substance cannot morph between the two definitions. It either means the collection of all forms or it means a "stuff" that forms are made from, not both.<hr height=1 noshade id=quote></BLOCKQUOTE id=quote>

Revert to the analogy with integers, and use only "comes from" in place of "made from". Then:
* substance is the collection of all forms --> the "set of all integers" is the collection of all individual integers
* Forms come from substance --> integers come from the "set of all integers"

There is no morphing. Substance is the superset in both cases. You must be thinking of substance as a subset of forms in the latter definition, something that forms are "made out of"; but that is not the intended meaning. If you say "superset" to yourself every time you read "substance", I think you will find the confusion vanishes. -|Tom|-

Please Log in or Create an account to join the conversation.

tvanflandern
Topic Author
Offline
Platinum Member

21 years 7 months ago #5429 by tvanflandern

Replied by tvanflandern on topic Reply from Tom Van Flandern

<BLOCKQUOTE id=quote>quote:<hr height=1 noshade id=quote>[mechanic]: From what I'm able to know the gap between stars and planets is a few orders of magnitude. Going 20 orders of magnitude down from elysons to gravitons is a huge, really huge gap. I think anyone proposing such a gap should provide a justification why it is necessary and also provide justification why gravity couldn't be achieved with particles of higher size.<hr height=1 noshade id=quote></BLOCKQUOTE id=quote>

Eddington, in his "large numbers hypothesis", notes that many of the constants of physics clustered around certain values spaced at roughly 20 orders-of-magnitude intervals. So there is nothing surprising about the size of the gap.

The known constraints on all properties of gravitons were derived in Slabinski's article in Pushing Gravity, which provides the justification you requested. In a few words, if gravitons were not that small and fast, one would get a contradiction with observations. Either they would be insufficient to produce a force as strong as gravity, or they would produce too much heat and vaporize bodies, or they would start to produce detectable drag and slow bodies to a stop by friction.

<BLOCKQUOTE id=quote>quote:<hr height=1 noshade id=quote>This is what I'm getting into TVF: If there is a mechanism for gravity operating on scales gapping the rest of our existence by 20 orders of magnitude and such a mechanism is the only possible to achieve the task then we are talking about a theory that promotes Intelligent Design (a term used by Creationists).<hr height=1 noshade id=quote></BLOCKQUOTE id=quote>

I see this as merely expressing that different sizes of bodies have different degrees of stability in the environment where collisions with bodies of other sizes are ongoing. At some scales, forces are entropic and at other scales they are anti-entropic. On average, the entropy (order/disorder) of the universe is conserved.

<BLOCKQUOTE id=quote>quote:<hr height=1 noshade id=quote>I guess anyone who argues scale is infinite must provide justification for a choice between discrete and continuous space. In the MM, is the infinity continuous or discrete? (for example integers are discrete but real numbers are continuous, as I see it)<hr height=1 noshade id=quote></BLOCKQUOTE id=quote>

In MM, the five infinities (3 of space plus time and scale) are all continuous. -|Tom|-

Please Log in or Create an account to join the conversation.

rbibb
Offline
Junior Member

21 years 7 months ago #5468 by rbibb

Replied by rbibb on topic Reply from Ron Bibb

Dr. Tom,

<BLOCKQUOTE id=quote>quote:<hr height=1 noshade id=quote>...as long as there is just a finite number of them, we still have a finite thing.<hr height=1 noshade id=quote></BLOCKQUOTE id=quote>
If the "stuff" that makes the "things" can't come into existence and can't leave existence then isn't there a fixed(finite) amount of the "stuff" that makes the "things"?

<BLOCKQUOTE id=quote>quote:<hr height=1 noshade id=quote>Substance is not a tangible thing, but is a collection of an infinite number of tangible things (forms). <hr height=1 noshade id=quote></BLOCKQUOTE id=quote>
Here is where I think you are adding confusion for us common folk. My definition of substance, which I get from the dictionary, is:
That which has mass and occupies space; matter.
A material of a particular kind or constitution.

I understand that the dictionary is just one version but I would think that it is a pretty common, standard, version. Dr. Tom is now trying to define substance as "not a tangible thing".

Dr.Tom, would you please shed a little light on these two points?

This is a quote from Patrick:
"123.. there is no such thing as "nothing", it does not exist, it can not exist, I will be happy to debate that. "

If I have it right, you seem to be claiming that "everything" is just a big ball of "energy". Well then, what is beyond this "energy"?

Just learning!
Magoo

Please Log in or Create an account to join the conversation.

tvanflandern
Topic Author
Offline
Platinum Member

21 years 7 months ago #5469 by tvanflandern

Replied by tvanflandern on topic Reply from Tom Van Flandern

<BLOCKQUOTE id=quote>quote:<hr height=1 noshade id=quote>{Patrick]: I see that my statements and claims have been IGNORED and are NOT being disputed.<hr height=1 noshade id=quote></BLOCKQUOTE id=quote>

Other than a claim that I got some idea from you, I don't understand much of what you have written lately. I don't even understand what it is that I supposedly got from you. Here is a quote from your last message to me: "it doesn't matter if you have 'everything' (mass) or you have 'nothing' (energy) because they are one in the same thing." I can't comment on what makes no sense to me. If someone else understands, perhaps they can translate for me?

As for the Meta Model, it was published in Dark Matter, Missing Planets and New Comets in 1993. With one exception irrelevant to this discussion (having to do with scattering vs. absorption of gravitons), it has not been modified since then.

<BLOCKQUOTE id=quote>quote:<hr height=1 noshade id=quote>As I said earlier, it's fine if you want to TAKE/BARROW from one set but just remember where you got it.<hr height=1 noshade id=quote></BLOCKQUOTE id=quote>

I neither recognize nor understand whatever it is that has you concerned. So it is hard for me to picture that I have borrowed something from you. But because I don't know the meaning of what you wrote, I can neither confirm nor deny that what I said bears any similarity to something you said. I can only say with certainty that I did not get it from you. To the extent anything is similar, it was an independent discovery by minds that express themselves quite differently. -|Tom|-

Please Log in or Create an account to join the conversation.

Time to create page: 0.410 seconds