Measuring sun's true direction

It does seem as though claiming infinity is similar to invoking a God. How can you prove infinity? Actually, that's a good point perhaps it should be its own thread. How can you prove these claims of infinity you make Dr. VanFlandern? I thought infinity only exists in math and I have heard you say over and over that physics is about the real physical proofs and not the proofs of mathematics alone.

Who can count higher...
A: says 1
B: says 2
A: ...3
B: ...Infinity!

Well..., "B" didn't count to infinity, he just <u>claimed</u> infinity which is completely different then proving. "B" is kind of saying: "Ha Ha, I won, I won! Now shut-up because you can't beat me."

Actually, I can't see how "B" could count to infinity since if he did it would not be infinity. So... How could "B" have won the arguement without providing proof? Huh...I guess he couldn't.

Just learning!
Magoo

<BLOCKQUOTE id=quote><font size=2 face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id=quote>quote:<hr height=1 noshade id=quote>Actually, that's a good point perhaps it should be its own thread.<hr height=1 noshade id=quote></BLOCKQUOTE id=quote></font id=quote><font face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" size=2 id=quote>

Ask yourself: "Does this have anything to do with the topic you are reading, in this case 'Measuring sun's true direction'"? If not, go to the bottom of the page and click "start new topic". It's easy.

If the new topic attracts no comments, take that as an indication of low interest. Or try to formulate your question/comment differently.

I recommend you do that with this question. Then "edit" your original message here, copy all the text (for example, click in the text and press CTRL-A, then CTRL-C), then go to the new topic and post a message, using CTRL-V to paste your old text. Then we can continue there. If I move the message for you, it will appear to have been posted by me, not you. If you do that, then I'll move my own message also so the new topic will be complete.

<BLOCKQUOTE id=quote><font size=2 face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id=quote>quote:<hr height=1 noshade id=quote>It does seem as though claiming infinity is similar to invoking a God. How can you prove infinity? How can you prove these claims of infinity you make Dr. VanFlandern? I thought infinity only exists in math and I have heard you say over and over that physics is about the real physical proofs and not the proofs of mathematics alone.<hr height=1 noshade id=quote></BLOCKQUOTE id=quote></font id=quote><font face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" size=2 id=quote>

That's a good question, Magoo. In MM, everything that exists must be finite in all five dimensions. It must have finite extent in all three dimensions of space; it must have a finite existence in time (a beginning and an end); and it must have a finite range in scale (the large and the small). So there is nothing infinite or "God-like" about real, physical entities.

By contrast, the five dimensions themselves are necessarily infinite in MM. But dimensions aren't real, physical objects. They are mathematical concepts that we use to measure the universe. If you follow the reasoning behind the MM from first principles, you will see the chain of reasoning that concludes that there can be no end to a mathematical line extending out into space; there can be no end in time when all motion ceases, or conversely no initial time when motion began; and no limits to scale, with everything being infinitely divisible and infinitely assembleable. If it were otherwise, Zeno's paradoxes would lead us to a contradiction, and we would have to conclude that our reality was artificial, as in a Star Trek holodeck program.

Infinity is a weighty issue. I recommend chapter one of <i>Dark Matter, Missing Planets and New Comets</i> as background. I also highly recommend Gamow's famous book of a half-century ago, "One, two, three ... infinity". -|Tom|-

Thanks Dr. VanFlandern, I'll move the thread shortly but I just have one quick question.
You just said:
"By contrast, the five dimensions themselves are necessarily infinite in MM. <b><u>But dimensions aren't real, physical objects.</b></u>"

Am I reading this right, in the MM infinity is necessary in order to validate the model itself but otherwise infinity can't validate physical objects including dimentions since dimentions aren't real?

Just learning!
Magoo

<BLOCKQUOTE id=quote><font size=2 face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id=quote>quote:<hr height=1 noshade id=quote>Am I reading this right, in the MM infinity is necessary in order to validate the model itself but otherwise infinity can't validate physical objects including dimentions since dimentions aren't real?<hr height=1 noshade id=quote></BLOCKQUOTE id=quote></font id=quote><font face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" size=2 id=quote>

Infinity doesn't "validate" anything. It comes out of deductive reasoning as a logical consequence. To greatly oversimplify, if space has a boundary, what would be beyond? If time (change) could come to an end, where would everything go? Where would the motions of things (their momentum) go? There are nine Zeno paradoxes. Studying those leads to insights into the nature of space, time, and matter. There appears to be but one way to resolve the paradoxes without creating new ones. -|Tom|-

You said:
"But dimensions aren't real, physical objects. They are mathematical concepts that we use to measure the universe."

So how can you justify using the imaginary(non-real) to validate the physically real?

Example,
(Dr. VanFlandern)"with everything being infinitely divisible and infinitely assembleable" (by everything, I'm assuming everything physical)

Doesn't this violate the rule that the finite cannot become infinite?

You chastised Mark and said how he needs to go and learn about units but here it seems as though you try to validate physical(real) units with non-physical(non-real) measurment units. It seems that you are trying to claim, at least by the MM, that space, time, and scale are
non-physical dimentions and therefore can be infinite. But, as you said above: "everything that exists must be finite in all five dimensions", so... is space physical or non-physical?(this question cannot go unanswered)

It seems as though you might want to think about your answer because this could be your paradox. If you say space is non-physical then you would be saying that the physical exists within non-physical space. If you say space is physical then you would contradict yourself by saying space is infinite.


(Dr. VanFlandern)"To greatly oversimplify, if space has a boundary, what would be beyond? If time (change) could come to an end, where would everything go? Where would the motions of things (their momentum) go?"

Why does something need to be "beyond"? What is beyond the center of the earth?




Just learning!
Magoo

<BLOCKQUOTE id=quote><font size=2 face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id=quote>quote:<hr height=1 noshade id=quote>
As a first approximation, Jupiter pulls both Sun and Earth off to one side of the so-called "barycenter" (an unseen stationary point), causing Earth and Sun to circle one another in the short term (yearly) but to circle the barycenter in the long term (12 years or more). -|Tom|-
<hr height=1 noshade id=quote></BLOCKQUOTE id=quote></font id=quote><font face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" size=2 id=quote>

Interesting -- might this account also for the 12-year solar storm cycle?

As to radar "soundings" of other inner planets to find the sun's true direction and gravity's speed, what does the observational evidence give as the number for this speed? The number which stands out in my mind is 2 x 10^10 TSOL. Or does my number apply only to binary pulsars (and other stellar binaries?). In other words, is the speed of gravity, or SOG (I distrust the term 'cg' which is an abortive confusion) constant and independent of mass, or not? -- Rick Wilson