Re: Division by Zero in Nature, and Decomposition of Time.

From: Lefty (Ye_at_h.Right)
Date: 01/01/05 

Date: Sat, 01 Jan 2005 15:43:43 GMT

> "Lefty" <Ye@h.Right> wrote in message
news:%%rBd.2136$3m6.2075@attbi_s51...
> > An example of division by zero in nature. Also, a justification of a
> > multidimensional space, possible of non-integral dimension. The
> > decomposition of time, and an approach to the fabric of spacetime.
> >
> > It's full of words, but they're all very simple, and the only math
> > required is division.
> >
> >
> >
> > -----------------------------------------
> > Our understanding of time, and our ability to measure it is based on
cycles
> > in nature.
> >
> > You can build a clock out of the solar system, and maybe even some
larger
> > things. But at some point, things become so vast that their gross motion
is
> > zero or very near zero, relative to man. In other words, the universe is
> > vast and nearly motionless relative to man.
>
> So why does man deserve such a priority when discussing science?

Not sure he does, unless we're looking at pathalogical biology.

> > Earth spins on axis ~365.25 times per every revolution round the Sun.
> > Basically, a 1 : 365 ratio.
> >
> > Moon goes round Earth 12 times per year. Essentially a 12 : 1 ratio.
> >
> > Now, lets see you build a clock out of the whole universe! There is a
> > problem. It is so huge, that even if it has some gross, collective
motion
> > such as rotation, it is just so vast that we simply cannot observe such
> > motions. They cant be measured with any instrument, and even if you
could,
> > they would be either zero or very near zero relative to everything else
in
> > the universe.
>
> Not true. Just come up with different units. We do the same with
distance. If we try to
> express the size of the universe in terms of meters, we get a number which
is difficult to
> express in human terms. But all we did was to come with universalist
units like a
> light-year, and viola, we now have something more manageable. The same is
true or could
> be true when expressing units of duration.

Instead of going through all of these contortions, lets just let the units
remain the same. All you need to do is consider gear ratios, because that's
how we measure time, very similar to the idea of gear ratios.

There are 365 days per 1 rotation about the Sun. 365 : 1.
There are 24 hours per 1 day. 24 : 1
How many days are there per big-bang cycle ? Billions. Trillions.

IF the universe were infinitely large, you would have a ration of (infinity
: 1), or equivalently, 1 : 0. Cant happen, and nothing has ever been more
obvious than this.

> > So, you have a ratio which is basically 1 : 0 or something like that,
>
> There is nothing like zero. It is unique in all respects. There is
either a quantity or
> there is not. There is no such thing as *something like no quantity*.

I can easily demonstrate that this process "converges" to a ratio of 1 : 0.
I dont think it's neccesary to do so because it should be obvious that if
universe is infinitely large, then certain cycles in nature will give ratios
of "infinitely large" compared to "relatively small". Universe cannot
divide by zero.

The universe must therefore be limited in size, relative to an observer, and
time is undefined at the edge of the universe. It simply decomposes relative
to an observer.

> > and
> > the universe simply cannot divide by zero.
>
> [because of the above mistake, the rest is drivel]

Good rebuttal, but did'nt really illustrate an error. When I said "something
like zero", I meant that it is close to zero in relative terms. The process
itself can be shown to converge to zero exactly if you wish (by letting the
universe become infinitely large), but I think its completely unneccsary and
would only add more words to a very simple idea.

I dont want to pollute usenet with with unneccesary words : )

-WK-

> > So, the only reasonable
> > conclusion, and it's really very simple, is that 4 dimensional spacetime
> > decomposes into 3 dimensional space as time becomes unobservable
(relative
> > to an observer).
> >
> > You cannot build a clock out of the the whole universe because the large
> > scale motions are so close to zero, relative to us. Time is therefore
> > unmeasurable, and unobservable, relative to us. And, if it is
unmeasurable,
> > and unobservable, then time ceases to exist on that scale, relative to
us.
> >
> > The same must also be true of the quantum world. Things can become so
small
> > that they simply do not exist relative to an observer such as us.
> >
> > It seems that we are trapped between two worlds, the extremely large,
and
> > the extremely small. We are somewhere in the middle. Additionally, it
seems
> > that the fabric of 4D spacetime decomposes into a 3 dimensional state,
> > possibly decomposing into a state which is nonexistent relative to an
> > observer.
> >
> > -WK-
> >
> > ----------------------------------
> >
> > Comments, criticism & outrage - please post.
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
>

Quantcast