Science a GoGo's Home Page Forums General Discussion Physics Forum Is the physical world real?

As I said this problem dates back to Newton so lets look at the solution to it under Newton + fictional forces (Mach space)

It was done by no less than Richard Feynman and is a classic masterpiece called the wobbling plate solution

http://www.stuleja.org/vscience/osp/contents/physicsClub/feynmanPlate.html#applet

(http://www.stuleja.org/vscience/osp/contents/physicsClub/sol.pdf)

I leave you to walk thru the proof if you want.

Now I understand you are exchanging energy but the energy in the plate oscillates wildly between alot of potential energy versus alot of kinetic energy so somehow the exchanges would be required to have a law to know how much of each and here in lies your problem with those sorts of real world motions in your finite world.

Finiter, I'm going to be very short of time for the rest of this week, and I think posts in this thread deserve more thought than I shall probably be able to muster. Look forward to returning with some thoughts next week.

I think the problem you put forth is like this: The moon revolves around Earth at a speed of 1km/s. The Earth revolves around the sun at a speed of 30km/s. The Sun revolves around the galaxy at a speed of (say) 250km/s. The galaxy revolves around the intergalactic centre at a speed of (say) 5000km/s, and the galaxy cluster moves at a speed of (say) 100,000km/s. (I will stop with galaxy clusters because in my theory, the clusters are somewhat independent. However, still it is 'five different motions' for the moon.)

So the questions you are asking (I think) are, "How can you explain the motion of moon on the basis of absolute space?" and "What is the kinetic energy possessed by moon?". Is it not so?

In my model, the galaxy cluster moves away from a point, 'the centre of the universe'. However, it follows a helical path; the axis of the helix lies on the radius of the universe, and the radius of the helix increases as the cluster moves outwards. At any time, the distance of the cluster from the centre of the universe is finite and absolute. The distance between the galaxy and the intergalactic centre, the distance between sun and the galactic centre, the distance between Earth and sun, and the distance between moon and Earth are all finite and absolute. Thus, in my model, space is absolute and the centre of the universe is a point of reference for all. The motion of moon is complex, however, we can have a mental picture of it, and we can make a workable model similar to that. So in all respects the space is absolute.

Regarding energy required to counter the five different motions, we have to apply the the theory of relativity (not SR or GR). We can ignore the four motions and need take only the revolution of moon around earth. For a given G and for a given absolute distance, the speed required will be independent of the other four motions. (This is what the present theory also states). The other four motions are countered by the respective entities.

Based on my theory, the actual kinetic energy possessed by moon includes all the four motions, and so it is very high. In my theory, the natural energy of any body is mc^2/2, and half of it remains as internal energy of the subatomic particles in it. Though there can be energy transfer between bodies, the energy can never be too low, it will be comparable to mc^2/2.

The problem with the present model is that we cannot visualize the actual motion of galaxy clusters based on that; so space has to be non-absolute. The space is absolute in my model, and the problem of identifying the energy can be easily done based on theory of relativity (not SR/GR). Whether my model actually represents the real universe or not is another question.

Yes you understood perfectly what I was saying. As I have pointed out your basic physics for why are very different but you end up with very similar movements to Einsteins own static universe (he called it static because there is a centre point which is static to all movements).

However as I have shown I can introduce chaos deliberately into space the rules would break and so I argue it doesn't describe the real universe. We see no breaking of the rules in the universe just because we add in chaotic movements infact some simple physics design can be made to act chaotically the double pendulum is the most classic dating to Newtons argument with Mach (http://www.myphysicslab.com/dbl_pendulum.html).

The discussion was definitely worth going through, I even got reminded of some old physics I had long forgotten and you revisit the reasons why science believes what it does.

I can be encourage you to keep thinking and challenging science and wish you luck.

Thank you for the comments. It appears as a concluding comment. So I will treat this discussion as closed. However, before that, I would like to point out that Einstein called the universe static not because there is a static centre, but because he thought the space is neither expanding nor contracting. Such a model is unstable. The model I put forth is a pulsating system, and is thus entirely different from the static universe of Einstein.

I express my thanks to 'Science a GoGo' and all the members, especially to Orac and Bill S (BS) for the cooperation they have extended, and also to all others who have watched this topic.

Hopefully I shall have a little more time again now, so I intend going back over this thread. I expect to learn a lot, and may have some comments/questions, so don't treat the discussion as closed yet.

I have been thinking of posting another thread to put forth my theory; the concept of reality is the starting point of my theory, and during discussion, I just pointed out some aspects of my theory, but the theory as a whole was not presented. Anyway, we will continue this thread.

'An infinite unchanging reality exists hid behind the illusion of ceasless change' - a very meaningful, but metaphysical, statement. Removing the metaphysical part,it will read like this: An infinite unchanging reality exists hid behind 'the reality of ceaseless change that we encounter'. The unchanging reality is logically unexplainable, but the changing reality (rather the changes in the reality that we encounter) is fully explainable (in my opinion).

IMO, the situation is almost reversed: the "unchanging reality" becomes a logical necessity, while the changing reality we observe is more difficult to explain.

Vive la difference.

I have problems with divisions of infinity/eternity, also with the infinite series, other than as a mathematical concept. In reality, there cannot be an infinite series. It exists only in the mind of the mathematician. It cannot be physically produced.

A “number” of anything is a finite thing. Something that is finite can never become infinite. Ergo, you cannot have an infinite number of anything.

The infinite number of pulsations before 'the present one', is an infinity with an end; a contradiction in terms. The infinite number of pulsations after the present has a beginning, so is not infinite, for the same reason. If you regard each of these as half of infinity, then each is less than infinite, so it is finite, and therefore measurable. Measure one, multiply by 2 and you have measured infinity, which is nonsense.

Of course you can argue that the present is neither an end, nor a beginning, but before tackling that, I must ask if time in yiur theory is tensed or un-tensed?

You have to remember the simplest math of infinity. Infinity divided by any integer is still infinity. One infinity added to another infinity is still infinity. But in any infinity you can find non-infinite areas. There are an infinite number of integers. But within that infinity of integers it is easy to find non-infinite bits, such as the numbers 1,2,3,4,5. See, the total number of integers is infinite, but there is a finite number (5) of integers in that series which is still a part of the infinity of integers. So finiter's selection of one pulsation out of an infinite number of pulsations is perfectly ok.

I'm not standing up for finiter's hypothesis. I think it is just wishful thinking that he is smarter than everybody else.

Bill Gill

http://gizmodo.com/5339831/pi-calculation-record-destroyed-25-trillion-decimals

There are natural things that can not be represented except to whatever precision you select they do indeed go on to infinitely.

The good old fibonacci sequence turns up alot in nature if the plant or animal continued to grow it would indeed go on to infinity it is truncated by some artifical limit or size.
(http://www.google.com.au/search?q=fibona...mp;ved=0CG0QsAQ)




There is no reason to believe that universe is no predicated around the same rule that it has infinity at its heart but some other rule dictates the endpoints of either cycle or size whichever we talk about ... as you see with fibonacci sequence stuff that is very common in nature.

I am putting this in a seperate reply as you may want to answer it differently Bill S.

You are looking at the universe we have a very similar problem when we look at radioactive decay of atoms.

I can measure two atoms to whatever precision I like and we can find no difference between them. Yet one of those atoms will decay and one may go on for eterntity.

Infact if I measure a whole bunch of thsoe atoms which I can not distinguish they obey the half life rule (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Half-life) that exactly half of them will decay in a set period, yet each and every atom was apparently identical.

So your problem you are having with the universe exists even in the single atom.

The QM background to this is another one of those reasons I believe QM is the most fundemental process in the universe but I stress this is simply my personal view there definitely is no clear science model of how this all works as we have only snippets of the processes.

Bill, the "infinite" series of integers is a mathematical infinity.

When you can actually produce an infinite number of anything in the physical world, I will accept your reasoning.

It is only that we consider different aspects. 'The "unchanging reality" becomes a logical necessity' is a correct evaluation, but why it remains unchanged is unexplainable. 'The explanation of the changing reality' is what the science does. It is difficult, but is possible.

You may be objecting to my use of infinite number of 'finite universes'. Can there be an infinite number of finite things? If you say 'yes' it may seem illogical. If you say 'no', then, you have to explain the limit. Here, the limit is arbitrary; it can be just 'one' universe or a very large number of universes. In such cases where the limit is arbitrary, we can practically say that it is infinite 'just to imply that the number of things can be very large'.

Regarding infinite time, Bill and Orac has given the required explanation.

In my model, time is tensed in the sense that 'present is present' for the whole of the universe, and there is no 'separate present' for each part of the universe. We can observe only the past, not the future, not even the present.

Dear friend,
I am putting forth a hypothesis. It may be wrong or right. If it is wrong, it is just wrong; if it is right, it is just right; there is no question of 'smarter than anybody'.

The progress in physics has been a continuous process involving a lot of people; some are remembered, but some are not even mentioned in the history. Do you think that the smartest always got the credit? It may even be luck.

I see what you are saying, but this is "limitless" or "unbounded", certainly not "infinite".

Not if Preearth is to be believed.

This line of reasoning bears no relation to the reality we observe. The Fibonacci sequence is a mathematical concept, and like all mathematical “infinities” is really only “boundless”.

Manifestly, a plant or animal cannot grow to infinity. As someone who, rightly, places great emphasis on observation, I am surprised that you resort to this.

IMO, it would be more accurate to say that the growth of these organisms is truncated by some natural limit, rather than by some artificial limit.

While I take their points, I cannot agree. I suspect they are both interpreting "infinity" in terms of mathematics.

In a "real" infinity there cannot be any change or passage of time or any division. Trying to think of something that is spaceless and timeless is extremely difficult; even the terminology we use to try to describe it is anchored in our experience of time and space.