More on Infinity

Tom,

In the past you have stated that the MM universe consists of everything that exists and in that respect what you have said might prevail in terms of conservation; however, it appears that our physics are linked to less than all that exists. That is our universe is but a small volume in the overall creation. The difference here is in defining what is the universe. To me it would be only that region to which we have a physical connection.

I am speaking about the Chiral Condensate from which virtual particles appear and vanish. If they exist in another dimension or form that is detached from our physics then in our physical universe momentum is not conserved and that goes to the accelerating expansion of the universe (as most referred to it), if you include creation outside the normal frame of reference as being the universe then perhaps momentum is conserved.

This is not a statement but food for thought.


Mac

Thank you Dr. Van Flandern. Sorry for the bad English. I try much. My intention is not to have conflict with anyone but to help clarify a lot of misconception about Zeno's paradox. My thesis is about 40 Zeno's paradoxes in total about several things including motion.

Gamow's solution is known as a "naive" solution. The paradox is not about motion already in progress where an infinite series converges such as 1+1/2+1/4+.... This is not Zeno's paradox Dr. Van Flandern. Gamow does not understand the paradox. The problem is that if distance is infinite divisible there are infinite "check points" to pass and the real series is not Gamow's but 1+1+1+...+1+... and this is infinite sum then motion is impossible in first place. This is Meno's paradox. Gamow's solution is offered to pupils to make then confortable about physics and mathematics. Philosophers are not comfortable people, they should not be confortable with naive solutions like Gamow.

The problem now as solved by other mathmatician and philosopher like Weierstrass already assume motion is possible and this is not Zeno's paradox as motion cannot account for a solution to motion in a valid logical argument and used as a premise against Zeno.

I like to say that Zeno's paradoxes are against Pythagorean and Euclidean conception of space-time. We know Einstein studied Zeno and the studium paradox is about Lorentz invariance. It is funny some people use Zeno's paradox to support Anaxagora's Plurality and Pythogorean space-time. They do so because they do not understand the paradox and read people like Gamow.

I think I made very clear what I say. Your answer was appreciated and I hope mine will be too. Thank you and sorry for the trouble.

quote:
___________________________________________________________________________
...some people use Zeno's paradox to support Anaxagora's Plurality and Pythogorean space-time. They do so because they do not understand the paradox...
___________________________________________________________________________

Here is an oxymoron. One cannot understand a true "paradox." Else it ceases to be a paradox.

Understanding a paradox is not an Oxymoron schema. Using a paradox in a context outside its domain is an Oxymoron schema. What you propose is called a "sophism". Sophism approach to paradox is typical. Zeno's paradoxes are very well understood in Philosophy and science circles. Even Twin Paradox is understood what it means. I hope you know Knowledge Argument by Jackson. It is very well understood what it means. What it is not understood is which premise is invalid. If an invalidation of a premise can be shown, the paradox is not a paradox any more. This what makes a paradox valid is the inability to disprove its premises in concrete and universally accepted way.

I hope this helps you to understand why your statement is wrong.

Enrico

enrico,

This coincides with my view and that is we should take "paradoxes" in general to mean "flaws" in our theories and understanding of reality and should therefore be reluctant to place to much trust and emphasis in such theories as being reality.

In contrats the Relativity Bible thumpers tend to dig in and take the position that if you disagree with Relativity yu don't understand physics and that reality is full of paradoxes.

A wholly unscientific position to take.

<BLOCKQUOTE id=quote><font size=2 face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id=quote>quote:<hr height=1 noshade id=quote>[Enrico]The problem is that if distance is infinite divisible there are infinite "check points" to pass and the real series is not Gamow's but 1+1+1+...+1+... and this is infinite sum then motion is impossible in first place.<hr height=1 noshade id=quote></BLOCKQUOTE id=quote></font id=quote><font face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" size=2 id=quote>The real problem is that, before you can write the "1+1+1+...+1+..." thingie, you must define the "1", the "+", the "check points", and the most important thing here - the Time itself.
E.g. how does the "1+1+1+...+1+..." relate to time? It really can happen consequently, still in exactly zero time span; or in parallel with/without mutual causality, or in a recurring time loop, or non-causally altogether, or always in the past, or outside of time completely, or at different time scale impenetrable to "us", etc, etc... All those questions can be asked even before you define the rest of the expression.

So we could talk on your phylosophical issues, but not before we agree on premises.
Thus far, I find that you gravely misuse the terminology, and it's not about your English...