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

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

Date: Sat, 01 Jan 2005 23:35:40 GMT

"Lefty" <Ye@h.Right> wrote in message
news:yjyBd.267259$5K2.224384@attbi_s03...
>
> "robert j. kolker" <nowhere@nowhere.net> wrote in message
> news:33ngauF42rrs1U1@individual.net...
> >
> >
> > Lefty wrote:
> >
> > > 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.
> >
> > In what number domain do you claim a division by zero makes sense?
> >
> > In a field, division by 0 implies 1 = 0. That simply will not do.
> >
> > Bob Kolker
>
>
>
> Well Bob, what I'm trying to say is that the universe cannot divide by
zero,
> and therefore time ceases to exist relative to an observer.

So you think the universe is a macine for processing real numbers? On what
basis do you bleive that?

>
> The number system I'm usign is the reals, the same number system everybody
> else is using.

It is not the one everyone uses eg we have Grassman numbers and the
hyperreals - see http://members.tripod.com/PhilipApps/nonstandard.html. For
a guy that seems to want to challenge current thinking it is not an
auspicious sign you do not know of such things.

> Is it the right one ? I dont know - yet.

Well find out before posting next.

> But, thats the way we've been doing it.

The way physics has been doing it depends on the physical situauation.
Check out Grassman numbers for example.

>
> Basically, 1/0 dosent make any sense. So, if you have a naturally occuring
> phenomena which appears to divide by zero, then this process is going to
> have problems.

That is silly. All such does is point to areas in our theory that future
investigation may elucidate. For example consider a point charge in EM -
the field at the charge has a divide by zero. Does that cause any real
problems for EM? - not really because we have methods of getting around it
such as using continuous charge distributions. And in QED the issue is
removed.

>
> If you try to build a huge, huge clock, based on cycles in nature which
> occur on teh scale of the whole universe, then the ratio of comparative
> cycles will converge to 1/0. Your clock cannot be built. Time ceases to
> exist relative to an observer because it cannot be observed.

Such is not the definition of time - which nowadays derived by how a second
is defined - http://www.bipm.fr/en/si/si_brochure/chapter2/2-1/second.html.
'The second is the duration of 9 192 631 770 periods of the radiation
corresponding to the transition between the two hyperfine levels of the
ground state of the caesium 133 atom.' The size of any construct you may
decide to conceptually build in the unversed will have no effect on that.

>
> It's quite elementary. Good to hear from you again Bob -

You writings had the feel of somone who has psted the same drivel before.

Bill

>
> -WK-
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>

Quantcast