New Paradox for the "Principles of Physics".

<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>[tvf]:
* "All forms and all combinations of forms are finite and temporary. No forms are infinite or eternal."
* "No form can ever cease to exist any more than it could come into existence. 'Eternal' means it has no beginning and no end."<hr height=1 noshade id=quote></BLOCKQUOTE id=quote></font id=quote><font face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" size=2 id=quote>

[Patrick]: Are you not saying above that the forms are eternal?<hr height=1 noshade id=quote></BLOCKQUOTE id=quote></font id=quote><font face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" size=2 id=quote>

Let me see if I can find a way to say this clearly.

Forms do not "cease to exist", meaning change from something into nothing. Forms simply change into other forms. So although all forms are temporary, the substance they come from continues to exist. So forms are always turning into other forms to continue their existence.

The problem is with our language. We use the expression "cease to exist" casually. When an apple is eaten, the apple "ceases to exist" in common parlance. But it doesn't really because all its atoms and all its energy continue into other forms.

We somehow have to deal with this double meaning of those words in this discussion. So when I say "No form can ever cease to exist", I mean it cannot become nothing. And when I say "all forms are temporary", I mean they remain as that particular form for only a limited time before they change into some other form or forms.

So the "eternal" part is a property of the set of all forms, which we have agreed to call "substance"; whereas the forms themselves are temporary before they change into something else.

When dealing with infinities, analogies are necessary. So forms are like integers, all of which are finite (or if they represent time intervals, temporary). And substance (the set of all forms) is like the set of all integers, and is infinite in extent (or eternal when dealing with time intervals).

If that is now clear (I can only hope), then let's examine your question again in this light:

<BLOCKQUOTE id=quote><font size=2 face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id=quote>quote:<hr height=1 noshade id=quote>what happens if all the "Finite" forms cease to exist all at the same time? That is possible isn't it?<hr height=1 noshade id=quote></BLOCKQUOTE id=quote></font id=quote><font face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" size=2 id=quote>

So what did you mean by this question? Did you mean "cease to exist" in the sense of "somehting becoming nothing" (as I assumed in my answer), or did you mean it in the sense of all forms simultaneously changing into other forms? Assuming the latter is possible, it would be a remarkable event, but doesn't seem to bear on this discussion. You seemed to want to know what would happen if all forms became nothing. Hence my answer of "no, that's impossible because something can never become nothing". I then reminded you that forms only turn into other forms, and so the set of all forms has eternal existence.

Did I make the correct assumption about your intended meaning, and does the above clarify my answer for you? -|Tom|-

<BLOCKQUOTE id=quote><font size=2 face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id=quote>quote:<hr height=1 noshade id=quote>
Let me lay it out for you here Tom. I planted some seeds here about six months ago. The concept faced heavy scrutiny from you and others. However, one of the seeds seem to have started growing in your brain. I watch and read and watch and read and watch and read and one day I am reading and I see that you, as the MM, are claiming conception of the exact basic idea of my concept with the exception that you don't have it completely solved.

Knowing you don't have the entire solution and that you are not the original founder of this concept and in an effort to call you out I started posting to the site again.
<hr height=1 noshade id=quote></BLOCKQUOTE id=quote></font id=quote><font face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" size=2 id=quote>

Sounds like megalomania here to me Patrick. I read your postings and saw no great plagiarisms being done. I find that farcical given the extreme difference in worldview that you two have.

<BLOCKQUOTE id=quote><font size=2 face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id=quote>quote:<hr height=1 noshade id=quote>
As expected, your whole version of this concept has crumbled which has been proven by all of your doublespeak(gobble-de-gook). Again, as I have done in the past, I offered to help you but you seem to think that you are above help or perhaps it's just ignorance that has you blinded. Anyway Tom, the game is over. I won, you lost!<img src=icon_smile_tongue.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>

And that's what all this new posting has been about, so you can engage in a juvenile "I won you lost" diatribe. You got to learn some patience bud, no one is going to be converted by being razzed and taunted.

<BLOCKQUOTE id=quote><font size=2 face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id=quote>quote:<hr height=1 noshade id=quote>
However, I am reminded of the reason I quite posting on this site, it is full of vermin. Anyway, if you would like to reach me you can email me at moorez@msn.com
<hr height=1 noshade id=quote></BLOCKQUOTE id=quote></font id=quote><font face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" size=2 id=quote>

Why would we want to email you Patrick? I just love to converse with people that call all who disagree with them vermin.

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

I don't see any defect in using negations or in the definitions I gave. However, to answer you directly, both of these seem to involve no negations:
* "the concept of ... always being larger than any imposed value or boundary"
* "one divided by zero"

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

You should try harder.

- 10 is always larger than any imposed boundary less than 10. If X is always larger than any boundary imposed, X is a google. That's not how infinity is defined. Actually, it's the wrong definition.

- 1/0 is not a definition of infinity. Let's not confuse elementary school algebra visualizations with serious definitions. We should be able to do better than this. We must, or it's April fools day.

Hint:

Inf = lim(x -> 0) of 1/x

But then you must take in account what a limit means. That brings in either infinitesimals or some other mathematical definitions. Then, back to square one.

Mathematics is again close, very close TVF in outlawing infinity. I'm looking forward to that. It's coming soon. This story about infinity must end soon for humanity to preseve its sanity and science to forge ahead. The day will come that the definition os infinity will be like:

Infinity: a great distortion and misconception of the human mind

(By the way, Cantor, the modern resurector of infinity had mental health problems, a historical fact. Does that tell you anything?)

<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>

I don't see any defect in using negations or in the definitions I gave. However, to answer you directly, both of these seem to involve no negations:
* "the concept of ... always being larger than any imposed value or boundary"
* "one divided by zero"

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

You should try harder.

- 10 is always larger than any imposed boundary less than 10. If X is always larger than any boundary imposed, X is a google. That's not how infinity is defined. Actually, it's the wrong definition.

- 1/0 is not a definition of infinity. Let's not confuse elementary school algebra visualizations with serious definitions. We should be able to do better than this. We must, or it's April fools day.

Hint:

Inf = lim(x -> 0) of 1/x

But then you must take in account what a limit means. That brings in either infinitesimals or some other mathematical definitions. Then, back to square one.

Mathematics is again close, very close TVF in outlawing infinity. I'm looking forward to that. It's coming soon. This story about infinity must end soon for humanity to preseve its sanity and science to forge ahead. The day will come that the definition os infinity will be like:

Infinity: a great distortion and misconception of the human mind

(By the way, Cantor, the modern resurector of infinity had mental health problems, a historical fact. Does that tell you anything?)



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

I agree with all the above except that I would revise your comment on infinity to: "Larger infinities: a great distortion and misconception of the human mind".

<BLOCKQUOTE id=quote><font size=2 face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id=quote>quote:<hr height=1 noshade id=quote>
Just curious, isn't this change from one form to another sorta like energy changing to mass and mass changing to energy? The underlying "substance"(energy) can't be created or destroyed and so therefore is eternal. The "forms"(mass) state is physical and temporary. We know that E=mc^2 and that m=E/c^2.
Why is the MM and all the meta modelians so scared of this concept?
<hr height=1 noshade id=quote></BLOCKQUOTE id=quote></font id=quote><font face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" size=2 id=quote>

We're not Patrick, no one here has said that mass and energy do not interconvert. We simply say that it does not disappear POOF into nothing as many here believe.

<BLOCKQUOTE id=quote><font size=2 face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id=quote>quote:<hr height=1 noshade id=quote>
After all, you are trying to adopt my idea as your own with the exception of trying to make it "infinite".
<hr height=1 noshade id=quote></BLOCKQUOTE id=quote></font id=quote><font face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" size=2 id=quote>

Yep, we're all "stealing" your ideas. Go call the copyright board and bust all of us.

<BLOCKQUOTE id=quote><font size=2 face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id=quote>quote:<hr height=1 noshade id=quote>
Ah hah! I think I have it. If all that exists is "Energy" then there can't be an "infinite" quantity. Is that what scares you? (Tom, Jeremy, Larry, any others)
<hr height=1 noshade id=quote></BLOCKQUOTE id=quote></font id=quote><font face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" size=2 id=quote>

Not based on this sterling statement. If there is an infinite universe with infinite matter in it then that automatically means an infinite amount of available energy. You have provided no logical necessity for a finite amount.

Jeremy,

Not based on this sterling statement. If there is an infinite universe with infinite matter in it then that automatically means an infinite amount of available energy. You have provided no logical necessity for a finite amount.[unquote]

Ans: Perhaps Patrick hasn't, I have. While I'll acknowledge that the testing and conclusions have not yet had peer review, I am telling you that UniKEF gravity testing clearly indicates the requirement for a finite universe.

Patrick,

You stand corrected. I did and do say "POOF" to <img src=null-set.gif border=0 align=middle> and provide an example of how that works. See topic "Broken Circle".