New Paradox for the "Principles of Physics".

Larry Burford
Offline
Platinum Member

21 years 8 months ago #5511 by Larry Burford

Replied by Larry Burford on topic Reply from Larry Burford

<BLOCKQUOTE id=quote>quote:<hr height=1 noshade id=quote>
[Patrick]
Larry, it seems to me that you sorta butchered Toms whole argument with your changes.
<hr height=1 noshade id=quote></BLOCKQUOTE id=quote>
I suppose that to someone with a weak understanding of MM and of infinity it might seem that way. If you actually do see a change-of-meaning that flows from this change-of-wording, then you are still on the wrong track.

<BLOCKQUOTE id=quote>quote:<hr height=1 noshade id=quote>
I now must ask, in the following portion of your changes:
"An individual integer (is made/comes) from various combinations of other individual integers."

From a mathematical position, Where did these "other individual numbers" come from? For some odd reason I thought all numbers had to come from or go into sets. Your numbers seem to have come from nowhere.<img src=icon_smile_sad.gif border=0 align=middle> Please explain.
<hr height=1 noshade id=quote></BLOCKQUOTE id=quote>
Strawman (a really obvious one, too). If all numbers must come from a set, then I suspect that even you can guess where these numbers came from. (Hint - three letters, starts with an "s"...)

Regards,
LB

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

tvanflandern
Topic Author
Offline
Platinum Member

21 years 8 months ago #5512 by tvanflandern

Replied by tvanflandern on topic Reply from Tom Van Flandern

<BLOCKQUOTE id=quote>quote:<hr height=1 noshade id=quote>[Mac]: The fact is the mere concept of Relativity in any form is still in doubt. All proported observation and/or experimental results have or can have alternate explanations.<hr height=1 noshade id=quote></BLOCKQUOTE id=quote>

This is a wish and a prayer based on ignorance. Disputes over tests of relativity disappeared in the era of modern, high-precision observational techniques such as VLBI, spacecraft, and radar and laser ranging. All of the traditional tests have now been repeated and passed with a precision of order 1% or better.

For example, the predicted changes in the rates of clocks are now easily seen in the orbiting atomic clocks of the GPS system. Atomic clocks are good to a nanosecond in time and a nanosecond per day in rate. [Nanosecond (ns) = 1,000,000,000 second] The GPS clock rate change predicted by SR of 7,200 ns/day (exact value varies from orbit to orbit, but all are similar) is correct to within 1 ns/day. The same is true of the rate change of 45,900 ns/day predicted by GR. These results have a precision of better than a part in 1000.

Anyone who does not test his/her beliefs against reality is practicing a personal belief system, and apparently would rather continue to trust his/her own thinking, however erroneous, than to learn the truth. That is the very antithesis of the scientist's approach. -|Tom|-

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

tvanflandern
Topic Author
Offline
Platinum Member

21 years 8 months ago #5514 by tvanflandern

Replied by tvanflandern on topic Reply from Tom Van Flandern

<BLOCKQUOTE id=quote>quote:<hr height=1 noshade id=quote>[JoeW]: What a clever attempt to undermine the main issue of the discussion by attacking the participant's educational level.<hr height=1 noshade id=quote></BLOCKQUOTE id=quote>

If the discussion were about the intended meaning of Einstein's diary (written in German), and some of the participants did not know German, they could not really contribute usefully to the discussion, could they? At best, they would be consigned to commenting on the plausibility of the translations of others.

If the discussion were about the area under a curve defined by some non-linear equation, parties who did not know differential and integral calculus could not be expected to contribute much of value, could they?

For any given subject, there exists a degree of ignorance that renders a person unqualified to comment. For example, we do not give animals or even children the right to vote, even though their interests are very much affected by the outcome of elections.

I submit that anyone unfamiliar with the math of infinities, in particular the value of one-to-one correspondences in solving practical problems in physical reality using infinities, is not qualified to judge the use of infinities in MM. Such a person must acquire the needed qualifications before understanding becomes possible. Lacking that, they can merely kibitz by commenting on the opinions of others based on whichever side they feel emotionally attached to.

<BLOCKQUOTE id=quote>quote:<hr height=1 noshade id=quote>as far as I can see by reading the messages posted by the participants, all have a very good grasp and understanding of the mathematical concepts discussed.<hr height=1 noshade id=quote></BLOCKQUOTE id=quote>

That figures. You can't comment on what you don't know about.

I suggest this litmus test: Anyone who doesn't understand the meaning of <img src=icon_infty.gif border=0 align=middle>+1=<img src=icon_infty.gif border=0 align=middle> lacks the background needed to understand the parts of this discussion that deal with the practical use of infinities to describe reality.

<BLOCKQUOTE id=quote>quote:<hr height=1 noshade id=quote>I find it very disturbing you thinking they don't.<hr height=1 noshade id=quote></BLOCKQUOTE id=quote>

This does not challenge their intelligence. They may well be very smart people. But they would still be unqualified to comment in the area of the math of infinities.

<BLOCKQUOTE id=quote>quote:<hr height=1 noshade id=quote>What the participant cannot see is how infinity can be relevant to a model of reality.<hr height=1 noshade id=quote></BLOCKQUOTE id=quote>

How could anyone who has studied differential and integral calculus even ask such a question? Books of integrals used everyday by engineers are filled with definite integrals having <img src=icon_infty.gif border=0 align=middle> in their limits that give exact solutions to practical problems. The very concept of a derivative involves taking a limit as some quantity approaches zero by becoming infinitesimal.

Anyone here lacking that background would be at a tremendous handicap in this discussion, even if they were unaware of it. But people everywhere always tend to discount the importance of knowledge they do not have. It's a self-interested position to take, but is usually wrong.

<BLOCKQUOTE id=quote>quote:<hr height=1 noshade id=quote>The logical fallacy you have just made, an "appeal to ignorance" cannot undermine the simple fact that you have not demonstrated in any way, acceptable to intellectual individuals, how a world can be infinite in time, dimensions, scale and mass and at the same time avoid the many paradoxes of infinity.<hr height=1 noshade id=quote></BLOCKQUOTE id=quote>

And the fact that you think I have not already demonstrated this with my correspondence analogies is telling.

<BLOCKQUOTE id=quote>quote:<hr height=1 noshade id=quote>1. Thermodynamic paradox. If the universe has been for infinite time, then thermodynamic equilibrium requires that stars do not exist and everything has the same temperature.<hr height=1 noshade id=quote></BLOCKQUOTE id=quote>

This is also called "Olbers' paradox" in astronomy. This was one of the first successes of the MM when it was developed to that point. The radiation of sufficiently distant starlight does not reach us because the lightwaves are redshifted by friction in the graviton medium until the lightwaves reach zero energy and contribute nothing further.

The energy absorbed by the graviton medium becomes part of the rms speed of gravitons, part of its own thermal content. However, as gravitons encounter matter, they transfer their energy to matter as gravity and motion at the sub-atomic level. That energy continues to build up until atoms emit the excess energy by electrons jumping energy levels and emitting photons. The result is a conservation of energy, matter, gravitons and photons if examined over a sufficiently long time and large enough space and scale. Yet temperatures where there is lots of matter will greatly exceed temperatures where there is little.

In short, even in an infinite universe, all forms are finite and temporary, and the formation of temporary local hot and cold spots is inevitable.

<BLOCKQUOTE id=quote>quote:<hr height=1 noshade id=quote>2. Propability paradox. If a universe is infinite then everything that could happen would have to have already happen. Therefore, why isn't the case that cats haven't become fluent in English and get elected for Senate?<hr height=1 noshade id=quote></BLOCKQUOTE id=quote>

They "probably" have, but you just don't know about it because you can only sense an infinitesimal portion of the infinite universe. Our vision in space, time, and scale is extremely limited, and all forms are temporary. So the reason infinitely smart beings don't already exist is that they can't take their knowledge forward into the next cycle once the "atom" that represents their entire visible universe is destroyed.

<BLOCKQUOTE id=quote>quote:<hr height=1 noshade id=quote>Let's get the ball rolling here by avoiding getting trapped in word games and logical fallacies and let's see how simple well known paradoxes can be answered by TVF without making all sorts of assumptions and circularities.<hr height=1 noshade id=quote></BLOCKQUOTE id=quote>

I answered in the context of the Meta Model. Other than for that, I made no new assumptions or certainly no circularities. However, this gets back to the question of understanding what is and is not possible for infinities. It requires understanding at a physical level that an infinite series can have a finite sum. Otherwise, we will end up arguing in circles and playing word games endlessly.

<BLOCKQUOTE id=quote>quote:<hr height=1 noshade id=quote>I kindly propose to the participant to quit talking about the math of infinity becau

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

JoeW
Offline
Senior Member

21 years 8 months ago #5516 by JoeW

Replied by JoeW on topic Reply from

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

So the reason infinitely smart beings don't already exist is that they can't take their knowledge forward into the next cycle once the "atom" that represents their entire visible universe is destroyed.

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

Please define:

A. What does "can't take knowledge forward mean"?

B. What is a cycle? Where it comes from? It sounds like a postulate in order to resolve an apparent paradox. Axiom of cycles, that is.

C. What do you mean by an "atom" destroyed?

D. What is an "entire visible universe"

You are attempting to answer a paradox by introducing several postulates.

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

In short, even in an infinite universe, all forms are finite and temporary, and the formation of temporary local hot and cold spots is inevitable.

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

The portion of the universe that's in a non-equilibrium state exceeds far that portion which is at equilibrium. Non-equilibrium is the rule rather that the exception. Obviously, your answer does not provide a single clue of why that is happening. On the contrary, it reinforces the original paradox. Your answer can be best described as ad-hoc.

Furthermore:

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

I submit that anyone unfamiliar with the math of infinities, in particular the value of one-to-one correspondences in solving practical problems in physical reality using infinities, is not qualified to judge the use of infinities in MM.

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

Can you be more specific who are those that do not understand the math of infinities? Give as some names please. As far as I can see everyone involved here understands it well. Why do you want to forge
your model's validity by claiming other's don't understand it main premise and thus disqualify from the discussion?

TVF, has another possibility crossed your mind? Maybe those "others" are correct in their notions and you are trying to convey an idea that's a sole construction of your own mind?

By the way, the Thermodynamic paradox and Olber's paradox, although related, are very much different.

As I have explained before, I's not for or against any model of the universe. But the more this discussion id progressing the more I conclude that an infinite universe cannot exist. You are providing the evidence with your illogical solutions to simple paradoxes.

You're doing a good job.

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

tvanflandern
Topic Author
Offline
Platinum Member

21 years 8 months ago #5517 by tvanflandern

Replied by tvanflandern on topic Reply from Tom Van Flandern

<BLOCKQUOTE id=quote>quote:<hr height=1 noshade id=quote><BLOCKQUOTE id=quote>quote:<hr height=1 noshade id=quote>[tvf]: I answered in the context of the Meta Model. Other than for that, I made no new assumptions or certainly no circularities.<hr height=1 noshade id=quote></BLOCKQUOTE id=quote>
[JoeW]: You are attempting to answer a paradox by introducing several postulates.<hr height=1 noshade id=quote></BLOCKQUOTE id=quote>

All your alleged "introduced psotulates" are a standard part of the Meta Model. Am I to understand that you have only been pontificating about a model you haven't even read?

<BLOCKQUOTE id=quote>quote:<hr height=1 noshade id=quote>A. What does "can't take knowledge forward mean"?<hr height=1 noshade id=quote></BLOCKQUOTE id=quote>

The super-smart civilization and everything in its visible universe will one day be destroyed because all forms are temporary. So any knowledge accumulated won't carry forward into the future and be available to the next super-smart civilization. Each one has to evolve anew.

<BLOCKQUOTE id=quote>quote:<hr height=1 noshade id=quote>B. What is a cycle? Where it comes from? It sounds like a postulate in order to resolve an apparent paradox. Axiom of cycles, that is.<hr height=1 noshade id=quote></BLOCKQUOTE id=quote>

I used the word "cycle" generically to indicate that all forms are temporary. The complete lifetime of any civilization and all its libraries is finite. It eventually decays back into tiny bits and may or may not assenble again into galaxies, stars, and planets to allow another civilization to evolve. If it does, that would be, figuratively speaking, a "cycle" through which knowledge cannot be preserved. So the inhabitants of even an infinitely old universe cannot just keep on getting smarter.

<BLOCKQUOTE id=quote>quote:<hr height=1 noshade id=quote>C. What do you mean by an "atom" destroyed?<hr height=1 noshade id=quote></BLOCKQUOTE id=quote>

In the MM, scale is infinite, so everything we see is just an "atom" in a much larger structure. Conversely, a single atom to us might be a whole solar system to some civilization on an ultra-small scale. All forms on all scales are temporary, and either decay or merge to form other forms.

<BLOCKQUOTE id=quote>quote:<hr height=1 noshade id=quote>D. What is an "entire visible universe"<hr height=1 noshade id=quote></BLOCKQUOTE id=quote>

All parts of the infinite universe known to any particular civilization at a particular epoch. To the ancients, it was the Earth up to the dome on which the stars were painted. In the last century, it went from our own "island universe" (the old name for our Milky Way galaxy before it was known that other galaxies existed -- the subject of the Curtis-Shapley debates in 1920), to the nearest hundred billion galaxies (out to about 10 billion light years), in the span of just 80 years.

<BLOCKQUOTE id=quote>quote:<hr height=1 noshade id=quote>The portion of the universe that's in a non-equilibrium state exceeds far that portion which is at equilibrium. Non-equilibrium is the rule rather that the exception. Obviously, your answer does not provide a single clue of why that is happening. On the contrary, it reinforces the original paradox. Your answer can be best described as ad-hoc.<hr height=1 noshade id=quote></BLOCKQUOTE id=quote>

Inasmuch as my answer presumed that non-equilibrium states dominate over equilibrium states locally everywhere (that's why there are hot and cold spots everywhere), the rest of what you say makes no sense except as posturing. Read about the MM before sticking foot in mouth.

<BLOCKQUOTE id=quote>quote:<hr height=1 noshade id=quote>Can you be more specific who are those that do not understand the math of infinities? Give us some names please. As far as I can see everyone involved here understands it well.<hr height=1 noshade id=quote></BLOCKQUOTE id=quote>

The fact that you make this last statement means your name must be on any such list of names as you request. I gave the example of <img src=icon_infty.gif border=0 align=middle>+1=<img src=icon_infty.gif border=0 align=middle>. Some people here have questioned this, and others have agreed with them. All such persons obviously don't have a clue what they are talking about.

It's no sin to admit that one doesn't know something. We all have holes in our knowledge. The sin is in not remedying the deficit once it is pointed out, assuming the person cares about the truth. That crosses the line into invincible ignorance.

<BLOCKQUOTE id=quote>quote:<hr height=1 noshade id=quote>TVF, has another possibility crossed your mind? Maybe those "others" are correct in their notions and you are trying to convey an idea that's a sole construction of your own mind?<hr height=1 noshade id=quote></BLOCKQUOTE id=quote>

I always remain open to informed criticisms, and have modified many things I have written or thought when others have pointed out deficits in my knowledge or things I learned erroneously. I am always appreciative when that happens. But the people criticizing the math of infinities are not informed on the subject. Even if there were something wrong in that field, there is no way to learn about it from uninformed people.

Has it occured to you what your position looks like to the many people here who already know the math of infinities? How patient would you be with a child (not your own) who, when first told about fractions, rebelled at the whole idea and refused to recognize such a thing as legitimate?

I repeat my litmus test. If you don't understand <img src=icon_infty.gif border=0 align=middle>+1=<img src=icon_infty.gif border=0 align=middle>, you don't have the background to be discussing the concept of infinity as it pertains to the MM.

Here's part 2 for my litmus test: Once you understand part 1, tell me what <img src=icon_infty.gif border=0 align=middle>-<img src=icon_infty.gif border=0 align=middle> is. Hint: Although it would not be correct, "42" would display more understanding of the question than either zero or <img src=icon_infty.gif border=0 align=middle>, which are also wrong answers.

<BLOCKQUOTE id=quote>quote:<hr height=1 noshade id=quote>By the way, the Thermodynamic paradox and Olber's paradox, although related, are very much different.<hr height=1 noshade id=quote></BLOCKQUOTE id=quote>

This is a good example of our problem in communicating. I've never heard it called the "thermodynamic paradox" before. However, from the phrasing of your question, I recognized it as Olber's paradox in the form "If every line of sight eventually intersects the surface of a star, why isn't the temperature of everything in the universe equal to the temperatu

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

Mac
Offline
Platinum Member

21 years 8 months ago #5521 by Mac

Replied by Mac on topic Reply from Dan McCoin

Tom,

I'll do the polite thing on this MSB since I am a guest and skip the unqualified reference to "Ignorance".

For example, the predicted changes in the rates of clocks are now easily seen in the orbiting atomic clocks of the GPS system. Atomic clocks are good to a nanosecond in time and a nanosecond per day in rate. [Nanosecond (ns) = 1,000,000,000 second] The GPS clock rate change predicted by SR of 7,200 ns/day (exact value varies from orbit to orbit, but all are similar) is correct to within 1 ns/day. The same is true of the rate change of 45,900 ns/day predicted by GR. These results have a precision of better than a part in 1000.[unquote]

Clocks do not measure time. They are a process and process are affected by forces of motion. Your point is mute since Relavistic affects have other equal if not superior interpretations.

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

Time to create page: 0.341 seconds