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

From: Bill Hobba (bhobba_at_rubbish.net.au)
Date: 01/02/05 

Date: Sun, 02 Jan 2005 02:55:25 GMT

"Lefty" <Ye@h.Right> wrote in message news:MVIBd.7991$wu4.2594@attbi_s52...
>
> "Bill Hobba" <bhobba@rubbish.net.au> wrote in message
> news:cWFBd.99031$K7.66515@news-server.bigpond.net.au...
> >
> > "Lefty" <Ye@h.Right> wrote in message
> > news:TcyBd.737089$mD.164105@attbi_s02...
> > >
> > > "Bill Hobba" <bhobba@rubbish.net.au> wrote in message
> > > news:TVuBd.98715$K7.77697@news-server.bigpond.net.au...
> > > >
> > > > "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.
> > > > >
> > > > > 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.
> > > > >
> > > > > So, you have a ratio which is basically 1 : 0 or something like
> that,
> > > and
> > > > > the universe simply cannot divide by zero. 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.
> > > >
> > > > Yea - use your ideas to make a non trivial prediction that can be
> tested
> > > > against current theories. If you can' t do that then guess what -
it
> > is -
> > > > well to be blunt - ****ing; not science.
> > > >
> > > > Bill
> > >
> > >
> > > Thanks Bill, and I've got plenty of applications for this up my
sleeve.
> > But
> > > I'd like to break it down into pieces which are easy to understand and
> > > criticize more thoroughly. This is just the first installment of
> something
> > > which is really much, much larger. So, please attack the substance of
> the
> > > idea, or I will assume that you are unable to do so and therefore must
> > > presume it to be scientific fact.
> >
> > The substance of the idea is worthless philosophical drivel because it
is
> > saying precisely nothing. I see a lot of that sort of thing on
> > sci.relativity.physics and it is really east to spot. When you are
ready
> > post something of substance then myself or others more knowledgeable may
> be
> > able to comment.
> >
> > Bill
>
> Billllly billy billy.

Lefty lefty lefty (might be time to change hands - people usually recommend
you do that after 100 strokes).

>
>
> The substance of the idea is a very straightforward usage of division.
> Nothing could be easier to comprehend. If you need to go over it a few
times
> then please go ahead, but It's not complicated at all. If you cant figure
it
> out, then just let me know wher you are getting stuck and I'll walk you
> through it.

I have explained in other parts of this thread why it is nonsense - no use
repeating it here. It is nonsense - and obvious nonsense at that.

>
> If the universe were infinitely large, then there would be cyclical
> behaviours in nature which would have a wavelength of infinity.
>

Since it is not possible to measure a wavelength of infinity such is
irrelevant nonsense.

> You would
> also be seeing ratios which are equivalent to 1/0. This cant happen,
because
> division by zero is impossible.

You mean the same ratio that appears for the electric field of a point
charge at the charge? Thus EM must be wrong so the computer you are writing
this drivel on would not work either - but it does so I guess it is all a
figment of our obviously dysfunctional imaginations. And I guess that would
invalidate the Dirac Delta function (look that one up - it is a function
whose height is 1/0 at zero but zero everywhere else) and so out goes a lot
of applied mathematics. We are all obviously in deep *** and do not know
it.

Bill

>
> NEXT.
>
> -WK-
>
>
>
>
> > >
> > > Thanks, your feedback is always welcome,
> > > -WK-
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> >
> >
>
>

Quantcast