Re: Division by Zero in Nature, and Decomposition of Time.
From: ken quirici (kquirici_at_yahoo.com)
Date: 01/04/05
- Next message: David C. Ullrich: "Re: Real analytic function"
- Previous message: Artur: "introducing parentheses in a series"
- In reply to: Lefty: "Division by Zero in Nature, and Decomposition of Time."
- Next in thread: Lefty: "Re: Division by Zero in Nature, and Decomposition of Time."
- Reply: Lefty: "Re: Division by Zero in Nature, and Decomposition of Time."
- Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ]
Date: 4 Jan 2005 07:44:13 -0800
Lefty wrote:
> 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!
[I enter this discussion with not a little trepidation!]
OK, so suppose we conduct a thought experiment in which we have a
clock in which the rotational motion of one body around another is
used to act as a clock. I would assume for example that one rotation
would be a unit of time, but we could also choose motion of the
rotation body through 1 degree of arc, 1 second of arc, 1 10-15 or arc.
>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.
>
You're right that the laws of orbital mechanics (assuming it's
gravity that's driving the body's rotation) provide that the larger
the orbit, the slower the motion of the body in orbit. So you're right
that on a scale of billions of light-years, the motion of the body
would probably imperceptible. In fact, we can, since it's only a
thought experiment, ensure that the diameter of the orbit is trillions
of
light-years, or however large we need to make its motion unmeasurable
to us.
So we now have our orbital-motion-clock as per your specs.
> 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).
>
I'm not sure what ratio you're talking about. However, we can actually
think of a ratio from our thought experiment that might serve as the
ratio you're talking about: the ratio of the diameter of our huge
rotational system/clock to the time it takes the orbiting body to move
1 cm. This is very very small, and in fact might be so small that we
can't measure it (certainly just because we can't measure something
doesn't mean it can't be measure. For example it might take tens of
thousands of years for there to a visible change in position of the
rotating body, and this is certainly 'unmeasurable' at least for the
next several tens of thousands of years.
This ratio is NOT 1 : 0. It is extremely small, but it exists. So no
conclusion is warranted about spacetime, since our thought experiment
has
produced no violation of any physical law, and so everything we
currently
believe about spacetime remains unshaken.
>
> 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-
>
I really have no idea what you mean by 'the fabric of 4D spacetime
decomposes into a 3 dimensional state, possibly decomposing into a
state which is nonexistent relative to and observer.' I don't think
you mean an actual physical event we could label a decomposition, I
think you mean conceptually we can no longer think that... well, no
longer think something but what I don't understand.
> ----------------------------------
>
> Comments, criticism & outrage - please post.
- Next message: David C. Ullrich: "Re: Real analytic function"
- Previous message: Artur: "introducing parentheses in a series"
- In reply to: Lefty: "Division by Zero in Nature, and Decomposition of Time."
- Next in thread: Lefty: "Re: Division by Zero in Nature, and Decomposition of Time."
- Reply: Lefty: "Re: Division by Zero in Nature, and Decomposition of Time."
- Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ]
Relevant Pages
|
