New Paradox for the "Principles of Physics".

1234567890
Visitor

21 years 8 months ago #5416 by 1234567890

Replied by 1234567890 on topic Reply from

<BLOCKQUOTE id=quote>quote:<hr height=1 noshade id=quote>
<BLOCKQUOTE id=quote>quote:<hr height=1 noshade id=quote>(123...)I think Dr. Flandern equates the word essence with substance so your definitions for the symbolic 0, 1 and -1 are different than his.<hr height=1 noshade id=quote></BLOCKQUOTE id=quote>
From what I have read "His" own definitions are different than "his own definitions".

<BLOCKQUOTE id=quote>quote:<hr height=1 noshade id=quote>(123...)If you define them to be the same, don't be surprised to find no difference in them. <hr height=1 noshade id=quote></BLOCKQUOTE id=quote>
EXACTLY CORRECT! See, I knew you had a good grasp on it. If E=mc^2 then what is the difference between "Energy" and "Mass" besides their properties?

<BLOCKQUOTE id=quote>quote:<hr height=1 noshade id=quote>(123...)I'm not very clear on your theory as you explain it here. It seems that you are merely reitierating Einstein's Energy mass equivalence.<hr height=1 noshade id=quote></BLOCKQUOTE id=quote>
Einstein said that mass is equal to energy and vice versa but he didn't say that "EVERYTHING", including space itself, is made of "ENERGY", from "Energy".
"Energy is all that Exists"
"Energy is Eternal".
"Everything that exists is made of Energy FROM Energy".
"Existence is Eternal".

So you see, it doesn't matter if you have "Everything"(mass) or you have "Nothing"(energy) because they are one in the same thing.

Patrick<img src=icon_smile.gif border=0 align=middle>
<hr height=1 noshade id=quote></BLOCKQUOTE id=quote>

Hi,

now your idea and Dr. Flandern's seem more alike, when you put it this way. So, what came before "energy"?

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

Jim
Offline
Platinum Member

21 years 8 months ago #5417 by Jim

Replied by Jim on topic Reply from

It is good to see Patrick is back and well.

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

tvanflandern
Topic Author
Offline
Platinum Member

21 years 8 months ago #5419 by tvanflandern

Replied by tvanflandern on topic Reply from Tom Van Flandern

<BLOCKQUOTE id=quote>quote:<hr height=1 noshade id=quote>[mechanic]: In the MM is the infinite universe:
(a) countable? (like the set of natural numbers)
(b) non countable or a higher order of infinity?
(c) a transinfite set? (like powers of infinite sets)<hr height=1 noshade id=quote></BLOCKQUOTE id=quote>

The forms that are the material, tangible things in the universe are certainly countable like the set of real numbers.

<BLOCKQUOTE id=quote>quote:<hr height=1 noshade id=quote>I wonder what's the justification for postulating a particle, the graviton, which is many order of magnitudes smaller than everything we know to exist. Is there anything in between and what? If the uniberse is infinite and isotropic, a big gap in forms must be justified. We can all notice that rocks have various shapes and sizes but there can be no gap in size, all sizes can be found. For TVF: what is the gap between the smallest known particle and the graviton in terms of size and mass?<hr height=1 noshade id=quote></BLOCKQUOTE id=quote>

Forms tend to multiply at certain levels of scale. Galaxies come in a great variety of sizes, but are distinctly different from (i.e., have no mass-continuous connection to) stars. There is another size/mass gap between stars and planets that is only sparsely occupied. And so on. Quantum particles are the smallest we can presently observe. According to theory, a few orders of magnitude below that scale we will find elysons, and another 20 orders of magnitude below that we will come to gravitons, etc., to the infinitely small.

<BLOCKQUOTE id=quote>quote:<hr height=1 noshade id=quote>The reason I'm asking this question is because I'm curious why a model assuming a continuous existence would need a discontinuity to justify particular cause and effects, specifically gravity. It appears like a contradiction from a philosophical viewpoint.<hr height=1 noshade id=quote></BLOCKQUOTE id=quote>

No discontinuity. However, certain scales seem to make stable forms, while other scales make unstable (short-lived) forms. So our experiments tend to be dominated by the stable ones because there are so many more of them. -|Tom|-

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

tvanflandern
Topic Author
Offline
Platinum Member

21 years 8 months ago #5420 by tvanflandern

Replied by tvanflandern on topic Reply from Tom Van Flandern

<BLOCKQUOTE id=quote>quote:<hr height=1 noshade id=quote>[123...]: Imagine an infinite cloth that is cut into infinite pieces of different shapes. Who cut this cloth? Did theses shapes spontaneously form from the cloth?<hr height=1 noshade id=quote></BLOCKQUOTE id=quote>

Such a thing is impossible in MM, so unless you give me a situation where it might be possible, I have a hard time answering any of your questions that have this as a premise. In MM, no material, tangible form can ever be infinite. All forms (material, tangible things) are finite and temporary. And the finite cannot become infinite. -|Tom|-

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

1234567890
Visitor

21 years 8 months ago #5456 by 1234567890

Replied by 1234567890 on topic Reply from

<BLOCKQUOTE id=quote>quote:<hr height=1 noshade id=quote>
<BLOCKQUOTE id=quote>quote:<hr height=1 noshade id=quote>[123...]: Imagine an infinite cloth that is cut into infinite pieces of different shapes. Who cut this cloth? Did theses shapes spontaneously form from the cloth?<hr height=1 noshade id=quote></BLOCKQUOTE id=quote>

Such a thing is impossible in MM, so unless you give me a situation where it might be possible, I have a hard time answering any of your questions that have this as a premise. In MM, no material, tangible form can ever be infinite. All forms (material, tangible things) are finite and temporary. And the finite cannot become infinite. -|Tom|-
<hr height=1 noshade id=quote></BLOCKQUOTE id=quote>

"Such a thing is impossible"? Well this is what you have been saying of substance. Are you now agreeing that "substance" is not a "tangible thing" of which something came be made from, under your definition of substance?

So, how are these forms generated? By magic?

Also, you have never showned that the finite cannot become infinite and yet you continue to use that argument and as if it really refuted my analogy of the cloth. You basically asserted that the finite cannot become infinite- that's your argument right there. Whenever someone tried to dispute it, you tell them to go read up on infinities.

Right. Like the mathematicians themselves agree on this issue.

[/quote]

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

1234567890
Visitor

21 years 8 months ago #5457 by 1234567890

Replied by 1234567890 on topic Reply from

<BLOCKQUOTE id=quote>quote:<hr height=1 noshade id=quote>
<BLOCKQUOTE id=quote>quote:<hr height=1 noshade id=quote>[123...]: Imagine an infinite cloth that is cut into infinite pieces of different shapes. Who cut this cloth? Did theses shapes spontaneously form from the cloth?<hr height=1 noshade id=quote></BLOCKQUOTE id=quote>

Such a thing is impossible in MM, so unless you give me a situation where it might be possible, I have a hard time answering any of your questions that have this as a premise. In MM, no material, tangible form can ever be infinite. All forms (material, tangible things) are finite and temporary. And the finite cannot become infinite. -|Tom|-

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

It is also impossible for any of us to have observed eternity but you use the idea in your model. You use infinities all the time in your model, even though you often caution others for using math concepts to represent reality.

I tried to make an analogy with the cloth- obviously I am not suggesting such a cloth is real, but if you have no problems with using analogies and concepts in the MM model and your own arguments, you shouldn't have any problem when other people make analogies using concepts.

What troubles me the most is that you continue to straddle the fence and obfuscate in your usage of the word substance. You use it to mean the collection of forms in some posts, and when the occassion necessitates, you regard substance as a "stuff" from which forms are made.

Substance cannot morph between the two definitions. It either means the collection of all forms or it means a "stuff" that forms are made from, not both. And I also find it very ironical that you would object to my "infinite cloth" analogy when it was an attempt to merge the two definitions you use interchangeably for substance.

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

Time to create page: 0.393 seconds