Another view of the beginning

[Strange]

Strange , fi find the multiquote disconcerting and confusing as I feel I give each point less attention if I try to answer this type of post.

 

Sorry, but I find it easier to focus on each point, to try and keep the discussion organised. It is easier to see what has and hasn't been answered.

 

 

But I'll see what I can answer.

 

I'm afraid you haven't really answered anything. For example:

 

 

Misusing infinity is more in the nature of conversation I can find using google and the word infinite. Most of these are referring to infinity as " going on forever and ever" . Any forum is full of this use of the term by very well educated posters , so I can find any number of examples of it's misuse in relation to actual physical space.

 

But you haven't explained why you think this is a misuse, or what you think "infinity" means. Or even if you are talking about spatial extent or duration (which could be independent of one another).

 

"Going on forever and ever" seems a perfectly good informal description of infinity to me. Think of the integers as a comparison; there are an infinite number of integers: they go on forever and ever. So can you say what you think is wrong with it?

 

 

In saying the universe is neither infinite nor finite , I am saying that neither of these options need be the case.

 

This is a binary option. It can't be slightly infinite. Or more than finite but less than infinite. Or both infinite and finite.

 

 

That could be why I can be adamant about my position on something

 

I'm sorry but I think the reason you can be adamant (a very unscientific attitude, by the way, you should be looking for evidence that shows you are wrong) is simply that you find your own idea convincing. People always do. That is one reason we have developed the scientific method; to get rid of these sort of personal biases.

 

It clearly makes sense to you, even if you are unable to express it clearly. But, unless your "view of the beginning" can be formalised enough to answer some basic questions (both those we already have answers to and those that are currently unknown) and be tested against observation it probably has little value beyond making sense to you. But maybe making sense to you is all that matters (to you).

 

I'm afraid I don't understand the rest of your post, so I'll say no more.

[Iseason]

Quote

Sorry, but I find it easier to focus on each point, to try and keep the discussion organised. It is easier to see what has and hasn't been answered. Unquote.

 

Yes , but it's polite to use conversation structure that everyone is comfortable with . Especially when one half of the conversation requests it.

 

Quote

But you haven't explained why you think this is a misuse, or what you think "infinity" means. Or even if you are talking about spatial extent or duration (which could be independent of one another). Unquote.

 

I don't expect to minutely explain something which I made quite clear by " forever and ever" . And you are quite aware my objection is not mathematical infinity , but infinity in a physical reality.

My objection to using either is rather more of not wanting to create a wrong impression of meaning and the reasons are to do with time.

From a raw perspective , the single energy is there and then not there. This is neither finite nor infinite because there is nothing else to give the perspective necessary to define either finite or infinite. It is only when you view from within the process that you would consider either of these options.

So if you were inside the process then you might conclude it to be finite. However from such a perspective you would have to also consider it infinite( unmeasurable) . So in fact neither is correct nor incorrect.

 

Cheers iseason

[Strange]

Yes , but it's polite to use conversation structure that everyone is comfortable with . Especially when one half of the conversation requests it.

 

Good. I hope you will use my requested format then. So, without quoting you in detail ...

 

All you have done is repeat that your objection to "forever and ever" but without saying why. I see nothing wrong with that description of infinity (whether applied to time or space). But thanks for clarifying that you are referring to the temporal aspect, rather than the physical.

 

I'm afraid I still have no idea what you mean by "the single energy" and it being "there and then not there". Energy is not quantised so I don't know what you mean by a "single energy". Also (locally, at least) energy cannot disappear, so I don't know what you mean by "then not there". Do you mean it has disappeared or that it has moved somewhere else?

 

And if you have a "single energy" then it must be finite (in quantity). If it disappears (or moves) then it is no longer present and so was finite in time as well.

 

I suspect you are using several words (finite, energy, point, process, etc) in non-standard ways that mean something specific to you. Without clear (preferably quantitative) definitions of what you intend by these terms I don't see this going very far. Rather than explain anything, you appear to simply repeat the same statements.

 

Anyway, I agree with Mordred: perhaps if you go away and study current theories, you might find out why they are the currently accepted theories. And you might get a clearer idea of how some of the words are used and thereby be able to explain yourself better. Just iterating the same arguments here isn't going to be very productive.

Edited July 11, 2014 by Strange

[Mordred]

I agree with Strange here, the problem is I'm no closer to understanding your model ideas than the opening post.

 

Think of it this way its like listening to a salesman trying to pitch a yard about how much I would earn by investing in his company without providing any details on his business model, or using non standard terminology.

 

The materials I provided will allow you to use the terminology to better describe your model, the handy part is that you can ask pertinant questions individually on any of its aspects and use those same articles as a reference.

[Iseason]

I agree with Strange here, the problem is I'm no closer to understanding your model ideas than the opening post.

 

Think of it this way its like listening to a salesman trying to pitch a yard about how much I would earn by investing in his company without providing any details on his business model, or using non standard terminology.

 

The materials I provided will allow you to use the terminology to better describe your model, the handy part is that you can ask pertinant questions individually on any of its aspects and use those same articles as a reference.

 

I have returned to this topic to see if i can get any agreement on some behaviiours. There are some things which i find fascinating that i don't hear or read about , so hear goes.

 

Something which is important to this line of thought is that there is, never will be and never has been anything that could be considered stationary in the known universe. You could say something is stationary relative to other regional mass , but in the greater sense of things nothing is ever stationary.

Even going downwards within an object , you could not see any component as stationary.

 

Lets try that for starters.

 

Cheers iseeson

[Strange]

Something which is important to this line of thought is that there is, never will be and never has been anything that could be considered stationary in the known universe. You could say something is stationary relative to other regional mass , but in the greater sense of things nothing is ever stationary.

Even going downwards within an object , you could not see any component as stationary.

 

That implies you think there is some sense of absolute motion, which is not true. Motion is always relative, so what are defining the motion of things relative to?

 

Any object can always be considered stationary in its own frame of reference.

Edited December 22, 2015 by Strange

[Iseason]

That implies you think there is some sense of absolute motion, which is not true. Motion is always relative, so what are defining the motion of things relative to?

 

Any object can always be considered stationary in its own frame of reference.

That's word games strange. Could anything be considered absolutely stationary...yes or no

[Strange]

That's word games strange. Could anything be considered absolutely stationary...yes or no

 

I don't see why it is "word games". I tried to be as clear as possible.

 

Absolutely stationary relative to what?

[Iseason]

I don't see why it is "word games". I tried to be as clear as possible.

 

Absolutely stationary relative to what?

Does any object occupy the same postion in space ....ever

[Strange]

Does any object occupy the same postion in space ....ever

 

Relative to what?

[Iseason]

Relative to what?

Well even if i humour you, an object on earth is stationary only if you take it in it's entirety and not look further down . But the further you go up from it's position on earth the greater the degree of motion.

 

So relative to anything you want really ,

[Ophiolite]

Well even if i humour you, an object on earth is stationary only if you take it in it's entirety and not look further down . But the further you go up from it's position on earth the greater the degree of motion.

 

So relative to anything you want really ,

So, relative to my back door, my front door has not moved in the thirty years I have known it. Thus the answer to your question, from post #34, "Does any object occupy the same position in space ....ever", is Yes.

 

Your question, to which you expected a negative answer, arose from your earlier statement.

Something which is important to this line of thought is that there is, never will be and never has been anything that could be considered stationary in the known universe.

And, of course, Strange's point seems to be "it depends what you are trying to do". If I am intent on reflooring my hallways, the fixed distance between front and back door is important. Their non-movement, relative to each other, is crucial.

 

In the larger sense you are simply saying that all movement is relative. There is no absolute framework against which we can measure position, or motion. This point of view is standard and unremarkable. Have I interpreted you correctly?

[Strange]

Well even if i humour you, an object on earth is stationary only if you take it in it's entirety and not look further down . But the further you go up from it's position on earth the greater the degree of motion.

 

I'm not sure why height above or below you is relevant; they would still be stationary, relative to you. Unless you are taking gravity into account, in which case they would be in different frames of reference and it all gets much more complicated.

 

But perhaps you could explain what different predictions your model makes that would allow it to be tested and compare to other models?

[Iseason]

I'm not sure why height above or below you is relevant; they would still be stationary, relative to you. Unless you are taking gravity into account, in which case they would be in different frames of reference and it all gets much more complicated.

 

But perhaps you could explain what different predictions your model makes that would allow it to be tested and compare to other models?

It's really quite important. If in the wider intrepetation everything is in motion, then there is no requirement that an object has constency. In other words the movement or observance of motion through space doesn't have anything to do with" solid " ojbect. It can be true that we are a series in a pattern rather than something simply moving through space

[Strange]

It's really quite important. If in the wider intrepetation everything is in motion, then there is no requirement that an object has constency. In other words the movement or observance of motion through space doesn't have anything to do with" solid " ojbect. It can be true that we are a series in a pattern rather than something simply moving through space

 

1. Everything is in motion with respect to some frame of motion. You are currently moving at 99.99% the speed of light (relative to some subatomic particle whizzing past) while also moving at 30mph (relative to that car outside) while also being stationary (relative to your chair).

 

That is well understood. Can you explain (preferably mathematically) how this is incorporated into your model?

 

2. What do you mean by "constency"? (Is that constancy or consistency? In either case, what does it mean?) And how does this relate or follow from the first point?

 

3. What does solidity have to do with it? We can see motion of subatomic particles (arguably not solid) and fluids (definitely not solid).

 

4. In what way, exactly, are we a "series in a pattern"? Can you describe this pattern more precisely, preferably mathematically? Can you describe this series within the pattern more explicitly, preferably mathematically?

 

In short, this all seems very vague. It is not clear what it means and how it is supposed to help. Or even what it is supposed to help with.

 

Perhaps you need to add some detail (preferably mathematical).

BTW, I guess you might not see it this way () but I am trying to help you - by pointing out what parts of your ideas are not clear, I hope you can clarify them and then get some more constructive feedback...

[swansont]

Does any object occupy the same postion in space ....ever

 

Bosons can and do.

[Strange]

 

Bosons can and do.

 

Good answer, but I think it is the answer to a different question (can two objects occupy the same position in space).

[swansont]

 

Good answer, but I think it is the answer to a different question (can two objects occupy the same position in space).

 

I refer you to the answer I gave some moments ago.

[Iseason]

I am trying to explain that each moment in time and space has a different universal makeup. Not just here and there , but every single position.

 

My house is in the same position on earth as it was yesterday , but the earth has shifted. This defies the arguement about local relativity being relevant. Our measure of time and space rely heavily on our ability to measure motion. If i were to say " what did nineteen seventy four actually consist of", i would need to rewind the pathways that the universe AS A WHOLE followed until everything was in the same position it was then. It is not just sitting there somewhere waiting for me to revisit it.

 

Equally, if i wanted to revisit the last nanosecond, i would have to do the same. Time and space cannot be seperated. If motion stops, then so does time.

 

Cheers

[MigL]

Just to be absolutely clear.

Nothing is at absolute rest because there is no absolute frame in which to measure absolute motion ( or lack thereof ).

[Strange]

I am trying to explain that each moment in time and space has a different universal makeup. Not just here and there , but every single position.

 

What do you mean by "universal makeup"? Do you mean the chemical elements, or the fundamental particles, differ from one place to another?

 

What evidence do you have for this?

 

My house is in the same position on earth as it was yesterday , but the earth has shifted. This defies the arguement about local relativity being relevant.

 

That is exactly why relativity is relevant. Your house is in the same position as yesterday in one frame of reference (the Earth) but not in another (the Sun).

 

Our measure of time and space rely heavily on our ability to measure motion.

 

Our measurement of time doesn't. Measurement of space might, I suppose.

 

If i were to say " what did nineteen seventy four actually consist of"

 

I don't even understand what that question means. In what sense does a year consist of something? The historical events that took place? Or ... ?

 

Time and space cannot be seperated.

 

True. Which is another reason that relativity is relevant.

 

If motion stops, then so does time.

 

Sigh. This again. Obviously not. There are dozens of threads of people claiming this is true (when it is blindingly obvious it isn't). Please go and read them. I don't really want to see the same stupid argument again.

[swansont]

I am trying to explain that each moment in time and space has a different universal makeup. Not just here and there , but every single position.

 

My house is in the same position on earth as it was yesterday , but the earth has shifted. This defies the arguement about local relativity being relevant. Our measure of time and space rely heavily on our ability to measure motion. If i were to say " what did nineteen seventy four actually consist of", i would need to rewind the pathways that the universe AS A WHOLE followed until everything was in the same position it was then. It is not just sitting there somewhere waiting for me to revisit it.

 

Equally, if i wanted to revisit the last nanosecond, i would have to do the same. Time and space cannot be seperated. If motion stops, then so does time.

 

Cheers

 

But we've discovered that's not true. You can't tell if something is in motion or at rest, as long as the motion is inertial.

 

Claiming that if motion stops so does time is pretty empty, since there is no way to stop all motion. Additionally, there is no trend toward time stopping as things slow down. It's the opposite - time runs fastest when things are at rest. So you can't even argue with an extrapolation in the limit of no motion. It's an untestable claim, and therefore of little scientific value.