Creation ex nihilo

I agree Larry that Skarp is just playing the "devils advocate" here and most certainly does understand infinity. I also agree that "the real question is how to take advantage" of this discussion as a "learning opportunity." By some strange coincidence I woke up this morning thinking about large scale interactions and when I saw this post I just had to respond.

As stated by JR the confusion between understanding "finite scales" and how they interact with "infinities" is the primary question in this thread.


The "false" logic that exists today in "Big Bang" astrophysics is based on wrong premises about our Universe. That is why we have such distorted views creating unknown dark matter as a repulsive force creating the "un-accountable extra momentum" of galactic motion. Whereas, an infinite multiple scale Universe answers the question as to power exchange from CG field collapse from "higher scales" into "our scale" creating focal points of mass fluctuations and accounts for the extra momentum of galactic motion. The field exchange from our Multiple Scale Universe is so great that no doubt the speed of motion approaches infinity.

Our existing ruler of relativity a measurement of our scale, "The speed of Light" is out of touch with the actual multiple scale motion of Universe.

I think every one has something to contribute, and I have often reflected back at Tom's posts in our discussions. Like Larry said, there is a learning opportunity here.

John

Tom: You're not going to dodge this one with the clarity of a fine crystal ... are you?

<blockquote id="quote"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"><i>Originally posted by jrich</i>
<br />The key is that as you move towards the wall, you are crossing a finite number of distance intervals at each scale but doing so over the entire infinite range of scales <b>simultaneously</b>.JR<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">jr, yes I understand that if we (could?) change scales it would always be possible to move halfway in that smaller Lilliputian (sp?) scale, on to infinity. Plus, as long as we can concieve of something we can build a mathematical model around it, just like a physicist can find any particle he's looking for, but the whole thing is so counterintuitive, I find it all hard to believe that really represents physical reality. And I can't imagine how anyone could ever prove it.

I forgot where I saw it, but it may have been in one of Gamow's books (it may have even been "One, Two, Three, Infinity"), there was a little cartoon diagram (Gamow likes cartoon diagrams)where a guy is looking through a telescope pointed up towards space, and he sees the little curly hair on the back of his head. Somehow I always found that easier to visualize than infinite size at ever changing scale.

rd

<blockquote id="quote"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"><i>Originally posted by Skarp</i>
<br />We are talking about a complete infinity, and not a finite one like you keep describing. You can always have a particle that can be cut in half, because you can't do it infinitely, but if you should happen to do it infinitely, you will end up with nothing left to cut.<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">You are not making any sense. Just as you cannot iteratively add the series 1 + 1/2 + 1/4 ... to the final sum of 2, you cannot iteratively divide particles infinitely and ever stop doing so. You will never have nothing left to divide, even after infinite divisions just as you will never find the last term in the series. That is what infinite means. But just as the number 2 is finite even though it is infinitely divisible, so too the finite particle.
<blockquote id="quote"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote">Meta Model says it's been done, it has always been a done deal. So my expectation is (nothing) at all by way of the Meta Model<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote"> What you are failing or refusing to grasp is that the MM particle has not been constructed in a series of infinite steps. It has simply always been composed(adj.) of an infinite number of smaller things.

JR

<blockquote id="quote"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"><i>Originally posted by jrich</i>
<br />Larry, Skarp is interpreting Tom's use of the word <i>composed</i> as a verb as though the infinite universe has been constructed. We understand that Tom was using the word as an adjective: <i>made up of individual elements</i>. His confusion follows from his belief that real infinities cannot exist because they cannot be counted. What he fails to realize is that the uncountability of infinities precludes only their <b>creation</b>, not their <b>existence</b>. But since he cannot fathom existence without creation this distinction is lost to him.

JR<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote"> You are misinterpreting my understanding of infinity. I'm giving Meta Model the benifit of the doubt, and playing that game, which leads me to nothing. My mind is pefectly capable of imagining the Meta Model. Apparently I took it farther than your imagination was willing to go.

<blockquote id="quote"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote">You are not making any sense. Just as you cannot iteratively add the series 1 + 1/2 + 1/4 ... to the final sum of 2, you cannot iteratively divide particles infinitely and ever stop doing so. You will never have nothing left to divide, even after infinite divisions just as you will never find the last term in the series. That is what infinite means. But just as the number 2 is finite even though it is infinitely divisible, so too the finite particle.<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">So I take it that you agree to disagree with Tom then, as he states.

{I’m crossing a street of width 2. I first cross half way, then half the remaining way, and so on forever. The corresponding series in a one-to-one correspondence with my steps is 1 + 1/2 + 1/4 + 1/8 + …, which sums to exactly 2, the width of the street. There are an infinite number of steps or intervals, yet a finite sum, and I can in fact cross the street.}

This is the same type of analogy by which we reach a zero distance to travel, when that infinity of steps is complete.

<blockquote id="quote"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote">What you are failing or refusing to grasp is that the MM particle has not been constructed in a series of infinite steps. It has simply always been composed(adj.) of an infinite number of smaller things.<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">
Apparently you haven't been reading my post's, because that is one of my main points toward a composition of nothing.