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 02:41:19 GMT

"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

Relevant Pages