Re: Division by Zero in Nature, and Decomposition of Time.
From: Lefty (Ye_at_h.Right)
Date: 01/02/05
- Next message: Lefty: "Re: Division by Zero in Nature, and Decomposition of Time."
- Previous message: Lefty: "Re: Division by Zero in Nature, and Decomposition of Time."
- In reply to: Bill Hobba: "Re: Division by Zero in Nature, and Decomposition of Time."
- Next in thread: Kenneth Doyle: "Re: Division by Zero in Nature, and Decomposition of Time."
- Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ]
Date: Sun, 02 Jan 2005 04:07:54 GMT
"Bill Hobba" <bhobba@rubbish.net.au> wrote in message
news:jbJBd.99286$K7.55939@news-server.bigpond.net.au...
>
> "Lefty" <Ye@h.Right> wrote in message
news:tLIBd.7946$wu4.4767@attbi_s52...
> >
> > "Alex Hunsley" <lard@tardis.ed.ac.molar.uk> wrote in message
> > news:CnFBd.11788$Z7.1194@fe2.news.blueyonder.co.uk...
> > > Lefty wrote:
> > > > "Bill Hobba" <bhobba@rubbish.net.au> wrote in message
> > > > news:TVuBd.98715$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.
> > >
> > > No, you are the one positing something and the burden of proof is on
> > > you. This is how science works. However, as far as I can see, you've
not
> > > even stated anything in a meaningful way. For example, what is the
null
> > > hypothesis for the word salad you posted? What can we measure or
> > > experiment with to show if your idea is meaningful, or true (or will
> > > disprove it)?
> >
> >
> > Yes, and to be really fair about things,
> >
> > snip
> > ----------------------
> > http://chem.tufts.edu/AnswersInScience//What-Is-Science.htm
> > One of the more concise definitions of science I have seen was that
given
> by
> > Edward O. Wilson and published in the American Scientist, Jan/Feb 1998,
> > pg.6.
> >
> > "Science, ... is the organized systematic enterprise that gathers
> knowledge
> > about the world and condenses the knowledge into testable laws and
> > principles. The diagnostic features of science that distinguish it from
> > pseudoscience are first, _repeatability_: The same phenomenon is sought
> > again, preferably by independent investigation, and the interpretation
> given
> > to it is confirmed or discarded by means of novel analysis and
> > experimentation. Second, _economy_: Scientists attempt to abstract the
> > information into the form that is both simplest and aesthetically most
> > pleasing the combination called elegance while yielding the largest
amount
> > of information with the least amount of effort. Third, _mensuration_: If
> > some thing can be properly measured, using universally accepted scales,
> > generalizations about it are rendered unambiguous. Fourth, _heuristics_:
> The
> > best science stimulates further discovery, often in unpredictable new
> > directions; and the new knowledge provides an additional test of the
> > original principles that led to its discovery. Fifth and finally,
> > _consilience_: The explanations of different phenomena most likely to
> > survive are those that can be connected and proved consistent with one
> > another.
> > ----------------------
> > end snip
> >
> >
> > OK then -
> >
> > repeatability - If you take the derivation I provided as a
> > gedanken-experiment, then certainly it is repeatable because there are
> > others who can see the logic behind it.
>
> Your derivation of what? It in no way changes the definition of a second
> which is what is used in actual experiments so you ideas lack any
> experimental consequences.
>
> > But, I dont take too much stock in
> > gedanken-experiments. You need physical proof. So, currently, the only
> > physical evidence I have is the observation that the universe does not
> > appear to be infinite. This observation is repeatable. You also have the
> > usage of mathematical division - which is really a scientific
instrument.
> I
> > think that my usage of this instrument is correct, and I think that
others
> > would probably agree that division is not being deployed improperly.
> >
> > economy - I cant think of anything more asthetically pleasing than a
very
> > straightforward explanation with minimal math which has such an amazing
> > result. I just dont think it gets any more economical than this.
>
> Since it explains and predicts nothing it is useless.
>
> >
> > mensuration - Yes, it can be measured. If there is a distance at which
> time
> > appears to decompose relative to an observer here on Earth, then this
> > distance an be measured or calculated numerically. No problem.
>
> Mind couching that in terms of an actual prediction for a real
experimental
> setup and give numerical values to your predicted results rather than
> soundbytes strung incoherently together?
>
> >
> > heuristics - Stimulates further discoveries ? You bet it does.
>
> Nonsense simply begets further nonsense.
>
> >
> > consilience - I dont think that this neccesaily goes against relativity,
> QM,
> > string theory, or anything else. In fact, it probably fits very well
with
> > all of the current explanations. It might even resolve questions about
> > "quantum wierdness".
>
> That is because you are using vacuous erroneous logic that basically says
> nothing. It does not follow that because you can not construct a clock
out
> of an infinite universe that such an unversed can not conceptually exist.
> You can not construct anything of infinite size in a finite amount of
time -
> that does not imply the universe in finite. If you can not see that then
it
> is doubtful you even understand the concept of limit; so basically all of
> modern science would be beyond you.
>
> >
> >
> > Null hypothesis - hmmmm. Maybe you can help me out here. I mean, do you
> have
> > any suggestions of what my null hyp should be ? We're not being graded,
> you
> > can tell me and it wont be considered cheating. : )
>
> My suggestion is to stop it before you go blind - if you are not already.
>
> Bill
I must have crossposted into the "please spam my thread" NG.
And whatever the reference to blindness may be, I reckon I'll be doing
whatever that may be until my eyes rot right out so screw off.
There are appropriate places to send spam and unrelated messages, and this
is'nt one of them. Try sending it to yourself for a while.
You dont happen to work for a certain moron Sherrif out in Arizona - do you
?
- Next message: Lefty: "Re: Division by Zero in Nature, and Decomposition of Time."
- Previous message: Lefty: "Re: Division by Zero in Nature, and Decomposition of Time."
- In reply to: Bill Hobba: "Re: Division by Zero in Nature, and Decomposition of Time."
- Next in thread: Kenneth Doyle: "Re: Division by Zero in Nature, and Decomposition of Time."
- Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ]
Relevant Pages
|
