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

From: Lefty (Ye_at_h.Right)
Date: 01/02/05 

Date: Sun, 02 Jan 2005 02:11:37 GMT

"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. 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.

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.

heuristics - Stimulates further discoveries ? You bet it does.

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".

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. : )

-WK-

Quantcast