New Paradox for the "Principles of Physics".

TFV: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.

From what I'm able to know th gap between stars and planets is a few orders of magnitude. Going 20 orders of magnitude down from elysons to gravitons is a huge, really huge gap. I think anyone proposing such a gap should provide a justifications why it it necessary and also provide justification why gravity couldn't be achieved with particles of higher size. If gravitons were detectable that justification would not be required of course but what's the basis for a hypothesis of the existence of such small scales and gaps?

This is what I'm getting into TVF: If there is a mechanism for gravity operating on scales gapping the rest of our existence by 20 orders of magnitude and such a mechanism is the only possible to achieve the task then we are talking about a theory that promotes Intelligent Design (a term used by Creationists).

I gues anyone who argues scale is infinite must provide justification for a choice between discrete and continuous space. In the MM, is the infinity continuous or discrete? (for example integers are discrete but real numbers are continuous, as I see it)

<BLOCKQUOTE id=quote><font size=2 face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id=quote>quote:<hr height=1 noshade id=quote>
<BLOCKQUOTE id=quote><font size=2 face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id=quote>quote:<hr height=1 noshade id=quote>(123...)So, what came before "energy"? <hr height=1 noshade id=quote></BLOCKQUOTE id=quote></font id=quote><font face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" size=2 id=quote>
Well, in <u>MY</u> version of the concept "Energy is Eternal" so nothing came before and nothing comes after.

This is where Tom is hung-up, nothing else even exists besides "Energy", or some version of "Energy", he has been stumbling on this by making reference to "substance" and "form" and saying it comes <u>from</u> "essence"(which he says "isn't a thing that exist", yet it exists as a concept). Ultimately, since "everything" is constructed from the same "Stuff" there is nothing to create and nothing to destroy because all that exists is something which CANNOT be created or destroyed.

Look at it this way,
"Energy" is the "Essence"
"Mass" is the "Substance"
"Forms"(Things) are made of "Substance"(Mass)
All "forms" and "substance" have a finite duration in their current "state", finite in duration until they ultimately return to their original state of "Eternal Energy".

In my opinion, what Tom calls "Gravitons" are what most people would consider "Space" itself, this would fall into the "substance" category. The planets and other "Physical" stuff would fall into the "forms" category.

Does this help clear up some of <u>Toms</u> confusing dissertation?


Patrick<img src=icon_smile_wink.gif border=0 align=middle>


<hr height=1 noshade id=quote></BLOCKQUOTE id=quote></font id=quote><font face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" size=2 id=quote>


Well, I've learned my lesson in trying to put words into Dr. Flandern or anyone else's mouth so I'll let him speak for himself on his own definitions of the words.

As for your idea, well, you have defined both Energy as "nothing" and "everything" so I don't know if there's anything left. There's nothing to argue about in this case.

If you answered a "True or False" question both true and false, you can't go wrong.

So, perhaps it would help if we can narrow the definition of energy. For me, it has always been more meaningful to discuss existence as in the existence of rules, and specifically, the set of rules we observe in our present universe. I think this set of rules did not just always "exist", but either evolved or was created. Furthermore, if it always existed, it is no different than if it was created out of nothing, imo.

[123..0]:So, let's start by at least definining the term "energy" more specifically.

Allow me to inteject here and give the appropriate definition for energy E:

E = mc^2 (1)

also

m = E/c^2 (2)

(1) + (2): E = (E/c^2)c^2

or

E = E

This is the best way you can define energy 123...0. Simply E is E and that's all. Unless you can find another equation defining mass in place of (2) above. Let me tell ya, I've been looking for such an equation but there is none.

Your analogy to a truth or false answer is wrong. Energy is the level where everything is the same, including truth or false. Energy does not recognize the semantics you attribute to truth or false, a human creation dealing with perception.

Toss a coin 123...0; which side is true and which is false? It really depends which side you assign it or perceive it as such. But the coin is made of pure E. That's what Patrick is trying to teach you I think.

Gee, I'm getting philosophical here, that'a bad for a mechanic...

I think you have to start a bit further back.


Quote:
Ultimately, since "everything" is constructed from the same "Stuff" there is nothing to create and nothing to destroy because all that exists is something which CANNOT be created or destroyed. Unquote.


That premis I believe is false on its surface. It is that presmis that defies the logical solution.

It is better to simply state that as of today we don't know how to create nor destroy energy. Not that it can't or didn't happen. The statement assumes we know how the universe works. We clearly do not and that is why we are still seeking asnwers.

It seems counter productive to assume knowledge for which there is no evidence that limits the possibilities for solutions to questions for which we seek answers. Matter and anti-matter anihilate and become pure energy. Is there such a thing as anti-energy? If so what happens when anti-energy and energy merge - Nothing? What happens when they bifurcate from nothing?

(+1)+(-1)

---

>0

0

---

> (+1)+(-1)

<BLOCKQUOTE id=quote><font size=2 face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id=quote>quote:<hr height=1 noshade id=quote>
<BLOCKQUOTE id=quote><font size=2 face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id=quote>quote:<hr height=1 noshade id=quote>(123...)So, let's start by at least definining the term "energy" more specifically.<hr height=1 noshade id=quote></BLOCKQUOTE id=quote></font id=quote><font face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" size=2 id=quote>
Sounds like a great place to start. I will warn you 123..., I am not a scientist so you might need to bare with me a little. However, unlike others, I will NOT play name games with you. I am happy to clarify if needed.

Mechanic is exactly right. As you know, there are lots of different types of "Energy" we could refer to but the "Energy" I talk about is one, which is the most pure or highest form of energy possible. I call it "Pure Energy". It is the "Energy" in which all other versions of "energy" consist of. Basically, forget the symantics.

What is your definition of "Energy"?

Patrick<img src=icon_smile.gif border=0 align=middle>


<hr height=1 noshade id=quote></BLOCKQUOTE id=quote></font id=quote><font face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" size=2 id=quote>


Ok, let me start off by clarifying my objection to Dr. Flandern's multiple definitions for the word "substance". We often use a word to mean many things- that's not a problem. It becomes a problem though when we try to merge the meanings from the multiple definitions. For example, the word "race". In one definition, it is used to differentiate human beings with different genetic traits. In another, it is a speed contest. Each definition is fine in its own context, but when you start composing sentences where the context isn't so clear or when you start mixing the contexts (for example: "The Chinese are in a different race than the long distance runners"), it causes confusion.

So, when Dr. Flandern says something like "substance" is the collection of all forms and also that "substance" is what forms are made of all within the same model of the universe, it leads to confusion if not contradiction; the two definitions for "substance" lead to different models of the universe.

Your idea of Energy appears identical with Dr. Flandern's substance, but under his second definition for substance- that it is the stuff all forms are made from. If so, then my answer was given in the "infinite cloth" analogy. Energy then should have the property of having the ability to change shapes, sizes, and other rules, at will. It is basically omnipotent. This is no different than saying that God is the universe. Spinoza's God?

I think the main difference between my view and yours is that you view "existence" as an eternal state but I look at it as just another state that came from a previous state. It depends on how you view existence. If existence is matter and energy as we observe it today occupying space, I think there was something before that.
If existence includes all possible states, and matter and energy occupying space only one of the possible states, then I would have to agree that existence is eternal.