Re: Have you ever wondered.....
From: AllYou! (idaman_at_conversent.net)
Date: 12/22/04
- Next message: Eugene Shubert: "Re: the base of relativity"
- Previous message: Randy Poe: "Re: 1c+1c Closing Velocity of Light and Matter"
- In reply to: Kees Roos: "Re: Have you ever wondered....."
- Next in thread: Kees Roos: "Re: Have you ever wondered....."
- Reply: Kees Roos: "Re: Have you ever wondered....."
- Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ]
Date: Wed, 22 Dec 2004 14:17:22 -0500
"Kees Roos" <croos@xs4all.nl> wrote in message
news:41c9c145$0$149$e4fe514c@news.xs4all.nl...
> "AllYou!" <idaman@conversent.net> schreef in bericht
> news:9MGdnY0LNYKRGlXcRVn-1g@conversent.net...
> >
> > "Kees Roos" <croos@xs4all.nl> wrote in message
> > news:41c8765a$0$1148$e4fe514c@news.xs4all.nl...
> >> "AllYou!" <idaman@conversent.net> schreef in bericht
> >> news:FdCdnW2R7dO9VFvcRVn-ug@conversent.net...
> >> >
> >> > "Kees Roos" <croos@xs4all.nl> wrote in message
> >> > news:41c27e64$0$75359$e4fe514c@news.xs4all.nl...
> >> >> "AllYou!" <idaman@conversent.net> schreef in bericht
> >> >> news:kYmdnc3jKMmMGFzcRVn-oQ@conversent.net...
> >> >> >
> >> >> [snip]
> >> >> > If 1*0 = 0, what is 1,000,000,000 * 0?
> >> >> >
> >> >> As I said, you are discovering calculus.
> >> >> So, we'll have to explain.
> >> >
> >> >
> >> > That's silly. The limit of 1/ ant real number is zero. But the fact
> >> > is
> >> > that it never
> >> > reaches zero.
> >> >
> >> So you state. Any evidence, apart from your statement?
> >> Any reference to any literature?
> >> Have you looked up the pages I indicated? The math is quite
> >> rigorous.
> >
> > Given the context of our discussion, it's not necessary.
> >
> So, you cannot.
> That makes your statement just that: your statement, not one
> shred of corroboration. My two references contradict it.
You just don't get it. No matter what math you use, you cannot take a value to zero by
division of any real number, much less multiply it back to a value again. In essence,
you're saying that you can multiply zero by a large enough number to get it to be more
than zero. This is simply not possible.
Moreover, it's besides the point. An event is a singular position. The starting point
here is not a value which we're dividing. Rather, it's an abstraction which has zero
value. You stated that a series of events will add up to a duration. This is crazy.
It's the duration between the events which adds up to a larger duration. You cannot add
any number of zero values and create a duration. This is contrary to all known precepts
of physics.
> Anyway, since it is clear that you don't have a clue of calculus
> and don't want to learn anything on the subject this will
> get us nowhere.
LOL!
> However, in order to explain to you how 'space' is just
> as abstract as 'time', we have to get the concepts
> 'state', 'process' and 'event' cleared up.
>
> So, let's try another approach.
> Let's go back to our process of 5 seconds, let's say that we
> morph an elephant into a mouse during this period.
>
> First let's define the concept 'state'.
> The process has two defined states:
> -Prior to the process the state of the object to morph
> is 'elephant'.
> -After the end of the process the state of the morphed
> object is 'mouse'.
> States are situations, not the process.
> Agreed?
Agree. And the beginning and the end of that process were events of zero duration.
> Now let's define the concept 'process'.
> The process is the ongoing thing which takes
> an elephant and turns it into a mouse in 5 seconds.
> Agreed?
That's what I've been saying. You're finally getting it.
> Now let's divide the period of the process into two
> equally long segments.
> During each of these time segments, half of the
> total morphing process takes place.
Let's not take as a given that which is being debated. Each of these segments is half the
period of the process.
> The first segment morphs the elephant into an
> moulephant, the second morphs the moulephant
> into a mouse.
> One state added: end state of first half process
> and initial state of second half process:
> object is moulephant.
> Both these halves of the process can be regarded as
> independent processes.
> Agreed so far?
As silly as you are, yes.
> (please try to understand what I try to explain, don't
> just deny it because I say it)
And so where did this get you? You've still shown nothing in terms of the physicality of
time. I assume that you'll eventually get there?
- Next message: Eugene Shubert: "Re: the base of relativity"
- Previous message: Randy Poe: "Re: 1c+1c Closing Velocity of Light and Matter"
- In reply to: Kees Roos: "Re: Have you ever wondered....."
- Next in thread: Kees Roos: "Re: Have you ever wondered....."
- Reply: Kees Roos: "Re: Have you ever wondered....."
- Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ]
Relevant Pages
|
