New Paradox for the "Principles of Physics".

tvanflandern
Topic Author
Offline
Platinum Member

21 years 8 months ago #5357 by tvanflandern

Replied by tvanflandern on topic Reply from Tom Van Flandern

<BLOCKQUOTE id=quote>quote:<hr height=1 noshade id=quote>[JoeW]: What's the point for me making a diversion? To divert attention away from you contradictions?<hr height=1 noshade id=quote></BLOCKQUOTE id=quote>

I did not claim you were creating a diversion, but raised it as a question. The obvious purpose, if you were creating a diversion, was to distract attention from my rebuttals to your claims of contradictions.

<BLOCKQUOTE id=quote>quote:<hr height=1 noshade id=quote>From Zeno to Eintein and to Heisenberg, the continuoum hypothesis has played a key role in the development of cosmological models.<hr height=1 noshade id=quote></BLOCKQUOTE id=quote>

This is rather amusing. I don't know when the concept of "aleph null" came along, but I doubt that any of these people had ever heard of it. Certainly, I am intimately familiar with mainstream cosmology today, the Big Bang model; and it has never mentioned the Continuum Hypothesis. Why should it? You still have offered no reason why it might be relevant.

<BLOCKQUOTE id=quote>quote:<hr height=1 noshade id=quote>Now you seem oblivious of this important fact of science but still attempting to present a cosmological model, lacking basic understanding of the central issues present in such models, which is best described by the continuoum hypothesis.<hr height=1 noshade id=quote></BLOCKQUOTE id=quote>

I have my intimate familiarity with such models, and deny your claim that the Continuum Hypothesis is a central issue. Please cite any mainstream cosmologist who has used it.

Again, of what possible relevance could it be? I'm still not seeing through this apparent "smoke-screen".

<BLOCKQUOTE id=quote>quote:<hr height=1 noshade id=quote>I won't even attempt to transform these boards into a tutorial about the continuoum hypothesis or mathematics and physics in general.<hr height=1 noshade id=quote></BLOCKQUOTE id=quote>

How convenient. You won't even attempt to say why it is relevant? The smoke is getting thicker in here. <img src=icon_smile_shock.gif border=0 align=middle>

<BLOCKQUOTE id=quote>quote:<hr height=1 noshade id=quote>[your] added axioms generate obvious contradictions.<hr height=1 noshade id=quote></BLOCKQUOTE id=quote>

"Contradictions" you have so far been unable to demonstrate. I've seen no comment on my rebuttal to your claims. You simply switched to this Continuum Hypothesis talk, pretending it is relevant and refusing to say why. Why should the level of infinity be relevant to this discussion? That is a simple, direct question that demands an equally simple and direct response.

<BLOCKQUOTE id=quote>quote:<hr height=1 noshade id=quote>So obvious that first year graduates of math can easily spot. This is why the MM cannot be accepted in mainstream science. It is not because there is an establishment conspiring against new theories. People out there are eager for something new but it has to be consistent and clean of contradictions.<hr height=1 noshade id=quote></BLOCKQUOTE id=quote>

This is entirely posturing, but is devoid of informational content. Please direct yourself to the specifics of any alleged contradiction, and my comments thereon.

<BLOCKQUOTE id=quote>quote:<hr height=1 noshade id=quote>I hope I have succeeded in pointing out the contradictions as well as their source and the basis for eliminating them. Actually, you need another axiom, science needs another axiom, nobody knowns what is that axiom (almost nobody).<hr height=1 noshade id=quote></BLOCKQUOTE id=quote>

The Continuum Hypothesis, not this discussion, needs another axiom. The C.H. is not relevant here that I can see. No contradictions have yet been demonstrated, and those claimed have been rebutted.

<BLOCKQUOTE id=quote>quote:<hr height=1 noshade id=quote>Good luck.<hr height=1 noshade id=quote></BLOCKQUOTE id=quote>

Good luck to you as well. -|Tom|-

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

Atko
Offline
Premium Member

21 years 8 months ago #5358 by Atko

Replied by Atko on topic Reply from Paul Atkinson

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

Well I'm man enough to apologize for misidentifying someone. So I do so. The "style" I'm referring to is argueing to the point of insinuating or outright saying someone is a misguided fool and then stomping out in a huff as JoeW and I believe you did at one point. I seem to recall that you weren't coming back here because you wanted to go somewhere where true scientific discourse occurs. But my memory admittedly is not as good as it once was. Many people have come and gone here and if I pulled the wrong name out of the hat I sincerely apologize.

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

No problem Jeremy - I've had a few dust-ups in the past, but never usually storm out in a huff - the peculiar nature of this type of thread is that it's like some universal strange attracter - all sorts enjoy the debate - intellectuals, pseudo-intellectuals, fire-brands, trouble-makers, lurkers, idealists - once involved, it's difficult to walk away; if you do so, whatever the reason or whatever your approach, you'd feel you were missing out, and sure enough, you just have to go back for "one last look". Btw - I'm not pidgeon-holing anyone here - as I said before, I've not really followed the meat of the debate - it's way too deep for me, but it looks like tempers and passions have flared a bit, as they usually do when the subject matter touches on the philosophical.

Tom - My two pennies worth would be to keep it going with the odd reminder when things get really heated, but with subject matter like this, emotion is going to vie with intellect, and by golly it makes for entertaining and informative reading.

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

JoeW
Offline
Senior Member

21 years 8 months ago #5359 by JoeW

Replied by JoeW on topic Reply from

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

Good luck to you as well. -|Tom|-

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

You're exhibiting a remarkable resistance in accepting well known mathemetical issues and their connection to your theory. This is a very provocative stand. In the course of history, many have proposed models with reference to infinity but were honest and brave enough to admit the difficulties and paradoxes present in them.

Of course, the CH was never stated explicitely in any postulation of a cosmological model or its rebutal effort because in scientific and philosophy circles some things are considered obvious and no names are called. But if you spend the time and you are willing to learn you will find explicit references of the CH in many places, even in the works of Dr. Al.

I will make another, final, effort to point out to you the extraordinary difficulties models incorporating infinity pose.

1. The MM models the universe
2. The universe according to the MM is infinite in ....
3. The universe includes the Meta Model, since there is nothing outside of it
4. Then, the MM must model itself
5. Then, the MM must model the model of itself
6. Then, the MM must model the model that must model the model of itself

ad absurdum

Great mathematicians have shown that any model strong enough to include reference to infinity must have an infinite number of axioms in order for it to be complete and free of contradictions.

Obviously, you are not aware of these great discoveries and why some cosmological models were swiftly abandoned are soon as these realizations were made.

Any reference to infinity introduces a higher degree of complexity and dimensionality known to pose unresolved paradoxes. Now you take the unreasonable stand that it's of no concern to you. However, one is led to believe that you're attempting to justify ignorance of the problem by claiming the problem does not exist.

The conclusion is that as long as you keep making any reference to any degree of infinity you will be subject to well known contradictions whether you like it or not. Some of these contradictions, not all by any means, were pointed out to you in many occasions during this debate but you refuse to accept them as valid. It is exactly this attitude of yours that makes any progress in the subject matter of the debate impossible.

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

1234567890
Visitor

21 years 8 months ago #5602 by 1234567890

Replied by 1234567890 on topic Reply from

<BLOCKQUOTE id=quote>quote:<hr height=1 noshade id=quote>
So yes, all forms have finite duration before they change to some other form. But their essence ("substance"), the stuff that all forms are made from, has infinite duration....

Why do we care about operations on integers or forms, or different sets of "rules", in this discussion? The point I needed was that an unbridgeable gap exists between the finite and the infinite. Then physical forms are always finite or temporary, while concepts may be infinite or eternal. -|Tom|-
<hr height=1 noshade id=quote></BLOCKQUOTE id=quote>

You defined "substance as the collection of all forms". But here you are saying that "substance is the stuff forms are made of". Is an integer made of "the collection" of all integers? What does this mean?

Also, how do forms change? How do things move? How do atoms add to give molecules? How do molecules aggregate into larger masses? All these processes require some interaction between different "stuff".

[/quote]

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

Mac
Offline
Platinum Member

21 years 8 months ago #5448 by Mac

Replied by Mac on topic Reply from Dan McCoin

Tom,

What is your explanation of "Virtual Particles" vs the 0

>(+1)+(-1) solution.?

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

tvanflandern
Topic Author
Offline
Platinum Member

21 years 8 months ago #5360 by tvanflandern

Replied by tvanflandern on topic Reply from Tom Van Flandern

<BLOCKQUOTE id=quote>quote:<hr height=1 noshade id=quote>[123...]: You defined "substance as the collection of all forms". But here you are saying that "substance is the stuff forms are made of". Is an integer made of "the collection" of all integers? What does this mean?<hr height=1 noshade id=quote></BLOCKQUOTE id=quote>

The correct analogies are these:
* substance is the collection of all forms --> the "set of all integers" is the collection of all integers.
* substance is the stuff that all forms are made from --> the "set of all integers" is the stuff that all integers come from.
I hope that clarifies the meaning.

<BLOCKQUOTE id=quote>quote:<hr height=1 noshade id=quote>Also, how do forms change? How do things move? How do atoms add to give molecules? How do molecules aggregate into larger masses? All these processes require some interaction between different "stuff".<hr height=1 noshade id=quote></BLOCKQUOTE id=quote>

* Forms change when their constituents (smaller forms) collide.
* Things move because there is no standard of rest in an infinite universe, so each form has an arbitrary motion relative to other forms, and the total of all such arbitrary motions (momentum) is preserved through all modifications of individual form motions caused by collisions.
* Atoms add to make molecules in the same way that forms at all scales can merge to make larger forms -- through the action of forces, which are caused by collisions by smaller forms. For example, the force of gravity is caused by collisions from gravitons.
* The same answer applies to molecules aggregating into larger masses. Forms at all scales collide with other forms (which constitute forces) and can merge to become larger forms, at least temporarily.

All these points will make sense to anyone who has read the introduction to the Meta Model in chapter one of Dark Matter, Missing Planets and New Comets. -|Tom|-

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

Time to create page: 0.377 seconds