MI collisions

tvanflandern
Offline
Platinum Member

20 years 1 month ago #11426 by tvanflandern

Replied by tvanflandern on topic Reply from Tom Van Flandern

<blockquote id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote">Originally posted by north
 however from the larger scales,the vibrations would be positive. for the vibrations would work themselves down to the smaller scales.<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote">If we were part of a large-scale vibration affecting all the galaxies in the Local Group, we would not notice because no significant change occurs during the lifetime of our entire species.

<blockquote id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote">vibrations (collisions) in larger scales would set them off.<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote">Possible, but definitely not necessary. A rock thrown into a pond, or a finger bending a tuning fork, are examples of vibrations being initiated by a single collision on a larger scale, with no corresponding vibration on any larger scale.

In overview, vibration is a particular type of motion on a particular scale, and does not need to have recognizable counterparts on larger or smaller scales.

<blockquote id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote">also there should be an infinity of cause and effect.<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote">Every effect is a change and therefore a cause of something else. But cause-effect does not translate well across scales because significant change occurs too fast on smaller scales and too slow on larger scales. -|Tom|-

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

north
Offline
Platinum Member

20 years 1 month ago #11427 by north

Replied by north on topic Reply from

<blockquote id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote">vibrations (collisions) in larger scales would set them off.<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote">Possible, but definitely not necessary. A rock thrown into a pond, or a finger bending a tuning fork, are examples of vibrations being initiated by a single collision on a larger scale, with no corresponding vibration on any larger scale.
______________________________________________________________________

but that would be a negative which you do not allow.(backwards)

In overview, vibration is a particular type of motion on a particular scale, and does not need to have recognizable counterparts on larger or smaller scales.
-Tom
_____________________________________________________________________

so what does it manifest as?(my goodness is this an anything goes,(hypothetiacl) situation?

also there should be an infinity of cause and effect.<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote">Every effect is a change and therefore a cause of something else. But cause-effect does not translate well across scales because significant change occurs too fast on smaller scales and too slow on larger scales. -|Tom|

Tom

speed is your defence?(strange),so what then is it, if not cause-effect? this is getting stranger and stranger as we go deeper.

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

tvanflandern
Offline
Platinum Member

20 years 1 month ago #11428 by tvanflandern

Replied by tvanflandern on topic Reply from Tom Van Flandern

<blockquote id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote">Originally posted by north
 <blockquote id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote">[tvf]: If we were part of a large-scale vibration affecting all the galaxies in the Local Group, we would not notice because no significant change occurs during the lifetime of our entire species.<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote">come now Tom time line is no argument for it could just as easly happen in our time, you can't keep arguing that in our time certain things wouldn't happen, i just don't buy it.<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote">??? I didn't say that. I said the vibration happens so slowly that we could not perceive it as happening even over millions of years. Do you understand that change on a cosmological scale is virtually imperceptible to us? And correspondingly, that change on atomic scales is so fast that entire quantum worlds (perhaps even civilizations) form, evolve, decay, and explode during a time interval in which change on our scale is negligible?

<blockquote id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"><blockquote id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote">[tvf]: A rock thrown into a pond, or a finger bending a tuning fork, are examples of vibrations being initiated by a single collision on a larger scale, with no corresponding vibration on any larger scale.<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote">but that would be a negative which you do not allow. (backwards)<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote">??? I do not understand you. What is a "negative"? In what sense are my examples "negatives"? Whatever did I say that led you to believe that the common sense examples I gave are not allowed?

<blockquote id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"><blockquote id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote">[tvf]: In overview, vibration is a particular type of motion on a particular scale, and does not need to have recognizable counterparts on larger or smaller scales.<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote">so what does it manifest as? (my goodness is this an anything goes, (hypothetical) situation?<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote">??? Again, I don't understand the question. I said vibration exists only on a particular scale -- not on larger or smaller scale -- and you asked what it does manifest as. It manifests as a vibration on a particular scale. It does not show up on other scales much larger or much smaller. Where is the ambiguity in that?

<blockquote id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"><blockquote id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote">[tvf]: Every effect is a change and therefore a cause of something else. But cause-effect does not translate well across scales because significant change occurs too fast on smaller scales and too slow on larger scales.<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote">speed is your defence? (strange), so what then is it, if not cause-effect?<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote">??? The vibration doesn't exist on larger or smaller scales, and what doesn't exist cannot be cause-effect. Again, I don't know what I said that confused you. But we are obviously not on the same page.

<blockquote id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote">this is getting stranger and stranger as we go deeper.<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote">The conversation got derailed somewhere, and we are no longer understanding each other. Your questions make no sense to me because they seem to use the opposite of what I said as premises to challenge what I said.

Can any other readers help me understand the questions, so I can at least attempt a sensible answer? -|Tom|-

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

north
Offline
Platinum Member

20 years 1 month ago #11826 by north

Replied by north on topic Reply from

<blockquote id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote">Originally posted by tvanflandern
 <blockquote id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote">Originally posted by north
 <blockquote id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote">[tvf]: If we were part of a large-scale vibration affecting all the galaxies in the Local Group, we would not notice because no significant change occurs during the lifetime of our entire species.<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote">come now Tom time line is no argument for it could just as easly happen in our time, you can't keep arguing that in our time certain things wouldn't happen, i just don't buy it.<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote">??? I didn't say that. I said the vibration happens so slowly that we could not perceive it as happening even over millions of years. Do you understand that change on a cosmological scale is virtually imperceptible to us? And correspondingly, that change on atomic scales is so fast that entire quantum worlds (perhaps even civilizations) form, evolve, decay, and explode during a time interval in which change on our scale is negligible?
_____________________________________________________________________

so your saying that vibration because of collision(within a certain scale) can move forward and backwards in our scale and time?

<blockquote id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"><blockquote id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote">[tvf]: In overview, vibration is a particular type of motion on a particular scale, and does not need to have recognizable counterparts on larger or smaller scales.<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote">so what does it manifest as? (my goodness is this an anything goes, (hypothetical) situation?<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote">??? Again, I don't understand the question. I said vibration exists only on a particular scale -- not on larger or smaller scale -- and you asked what it does manifest as. It manifests as a vibration on a particular scale. It does not show up on other scales much larger or much smaller. Where is the ambiguity in that?
_____________________________________________________________________

but the problem is the proximity of infinity of scale.is is 1mm or 100,000mm from our reality of scale.for the closer to our scale the more of the effect other scales will have.therefore the wavelength of the vibration will be detectable,therefore will interfer with our scale.

<blockquote id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"><blockquote id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote">[tvf]: Every effect is a change and therefore a cause of something else. But cause-effect does not translate well across scales because significant change occurs too fast on smaller scales and too slow on larger scales.<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote">speed is your defence? (strange), so what then is it, if not cause-effect?<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote">??? The vibration doesn't exist on larger or smaller scales, and what doesn't exist cannot be cause-effect. Again, I don't know what I said that confused you. But we are obviously not on the same page.
___________________________________________________________________

vibration is a relative thing Tom you can't just dismiss it out of hand,because you think so,prove it with out a doubt.

but Tom the equivalent of(cause-effect) must exist, otherwise really why not? i mean the argument can go that i think that it does, you think not not,and how would anyone know for sure who's right?

also are you saying there is no sound at all on either side of our scale? is this not a relative perspective?

if i'm missing something here i also welcome input from others!!

<blockquote id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote">this is getting stranger and stranger as we go deeper.<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote">The conversation got derailed somewhere, and we are no longer understanding each other. Your questions make no sense to me because they seem to use the opposite of what I said as premises to challenge what I said.

Can any other readers help me understand the questions, so I can at least attempt a sensible answer? -|Tom|-
<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote">

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

Larry Burford
Offline
Platinum Member

20 years 1 month ago #11429 by Larry Burford

Replied by Larry Burford on topic Reply from Larry Burford

[tvf] "Can any other readers help me understand the questions ... "

Probably not. But try this WAG - at one point in his ... post ... I get a vague impression that he is saying:

Suppose that our scale is "1.000 meter".

Then he (? says/asks ?) can a vibration at the "0.999 meter" scale (? be detected/influence ?) things at our scale.

North? Am I getting warm?
LB

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

north
Offline
Platinum Member

20 years 1 month ago #11644 by north

Replied by north on topic Reply from

<blockquote id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote">Originally posted by Larry Burford
 [tvf] "Can any other readers help me understand the questions ... "

Probably not. But try this WAG - at one point in his ... post ... I get a vague impression that he is saying:

Suppose that our scale is "1.000 meter".

Then he (? says/asks ?) can a vibration at the "0.999 meter" scale (? be detected/influence ?) things at our scale.

North? Am I getting warm?
LB
<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote">
____________________________________________________________________

Larry

proximity,as in well, proximity!! what more can i say,really.(oops i almost forgot, as well 360 degrees(3D)). gett'in there by the way.

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

Time to create page: 0.365 seconds