Welcome to
Science a GoGo's
Discussion Forums
Please keep your postings on-topic or they will be moved to a galaxy far, far away.
Your use of this forum indicates your agreement to our terms of use.
So that we remain spam-free, please note that all posts by new users are moderated.


The Forums
General Science Talk        Not-Quite-Science        Climate Change Discussion        Physics Forum        Science Fiction

Who's Online
0 registered (), 336 Guests and 1 Spider online.
Key: Admin, Global Mod, Mod
Latest Posts
Top Posters (30 Days)
Page 2 of 9 < 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 >
Topic Options
#50926 - 01/23/14 07:14 PM Re: Retiring Infinity from science [Re: Orac]
newton Offline
Megastar

Registered: 09/30/12
Posts: 1209
Zero
and
Infinity

definition ( physics )



......... source ------>V2..........observer ----> V1


Exist many combination ( relation V2/V1)

always true is that observer can see infinity different Hz

always true is if V1 >>> C observer will see ZERO light

Top
.
#50927 - 01/23/14 07:42 PM Re: Retiring science from Infinity [Re: Orac]
paul Offline
Megastar

Registered: 03/21/06
Posts: 4136
Retiring Infinity from science?

so , I suppose that infinity has gotten in the way of
some of ...

meanwhile , infinity is retiring portions of science and replacing portions of science with something that has value.





Edited by Amaranth Rose II (01/23/14 08:14 PM)
_________________________
3/4 inch of dust build up on the moon in 4.527 billion years,LOL and QM is fantasy science.

Top
#50928 - 01/23/14 07:54 PM Re: Retiring science from Infinity [Re: paul]
newton Offline
Megastar

Registered: 09/30/12
Posts: 1209
You can call me like You want ...

If this will help you read very old Doppler's drawing ...


there is zero and infiniti and nothing is relative



Edited by newton (01/23/14 07:55 PM)

Top
#50929 - 01/23/14 08:00 PM Re: Retiring science from Infinity [Re: paul]
paul Offline
Megastar

Registered: 03/21/06
Posts: 4136
disclaimer: if the use of the word science in the above context has placed any human being under any stress or caused any discomfort either physically or mentally , I would like to
express my virtual condolences in advance , at this time.

that said , if the shoe fits then you should think about
getting a better pair of shoes.

or at least complain to the manufacturer about the shoes
you have worked so hard for , because they are falling apart
at the seams.
_________________________
3/4 inch of dust build up on the moon in 4.527 billion years,LOL and QM is fantasy science.

Top
#50930 - 01/23/14 08:07 PM Re: Retiring science from Infinity [Re: newton]
paul Offline
Megastar

Registered: 03/21/06
Posts: 4136
Quote:
Re: Retiring science from Infinity [Re: Orac]


My reply was targeted at oracs OP

_________________________
3/4 inch of dust build up on the moon in 4.527 billion years,LOL and QM is fantasy science.

Top
#50931 - 01/23/14 08:13 PM Re: Retiring Infinity from science [Re: Orac]
newton Offline
Megastar

Registered: 09/30/12
Posts: 1209
to help You each ring from Doppler = 3d ball




to help You more I will add animation

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/6/6d/Aberrationlighttimebeaming.gif


Ohh and one more --- in past in 1930 Mr Tolman made test
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/6/6d/Aberrationlighttimebeaming.gif

ohhh .... in home you can repeat my test



ohh You can ask somone who Like Astronomy ( not only matematica but he can use glass )



FLAT MATEMATICA no FLAT PEOPLE !!! BEAM HAS GOT 3D shape !!!



V0, 2 V0 flat physics ? we can or we can not recognize and measure motion respect to old apparent position ?

If intensity of the signal is zero ? the rocket can be too short ...

What a stupid question ? rocket ?



Rocket has got mass M person inside rocket has got mass m ?

how far from plaace where mass M was in past Mass m will register signal ( grvitation ? ) what is it constant acceleration ?



Above I showed real test and real experiment that we can confirm
only people who repeat that Einstein was great not like learn and study !!!

Top
#50935 - 01/23/14 10:13 PM Re: Retiring Infinity from science [Re: Orac]
Revlgking Offline
Megastar

Registered: 01/17/07
Posts: 2311
Loc: markham (Thornhill), Ontario, ...
Originally Posted By: Orac
Originally Posted By: Bill S
If there is nothing, there is nothing, there is nothing to borrow and no one to do the borrowing or lending


That is called "Absolute nothing" and it's not a science term smile

Absolute nothing as per your definition can't exist in science it's not possible because there is an instant falsification because you exist.

... If you really feel absolute nothing as you have defined is essential then you need to take up a religion there isn't another choice and I am serious.

....."Nothing seems to be a concept, could it ever really exist".

See it is a simple two choice problem with absolute nothing

(A) Absolute nothing can not and does not exist as evidence by the fact you are here.

(B) There is some GOD, Deity or whatever who can make something from absolute nothing.


They are the only two possible start points choose (A) or (B).

... If your question was able to be answered it would however have implications to religion.

So make a choice Bill S .... A or B
Orac, where does astronomy fit in to this discussion?--See the link, below I just found on SAGG.

The Bible does imply that, in the beginning, G.O.D (as a NO-thing, neither an object, nor a subject) created everything out of NO-thing, eh! laugh And G.0.D (the NO-thing, 0) is still in the business.

http://scienceagogo.com/news/20120011182544data_trunc_sys.shtml cool



Edited by Revlgking (01/23/14 10:18 PM)
Edit Reason: Always helpful
_________________________
G~O~D--Now & ForeverIS:Nature, Nurture & PNEUMA-ture, Thanks to Warren Farr&ME AT www.unitheist.org

Top
#50937 - 01/24/14 12:29 AM Re: Retiring Infinity from science [Re: Bill]
Orac Offline
Megastar

Registered: 05/20/11
Posts: 2819
Loc: Currently Illinois, USA
Originally Posted By: Bill

Orac, I don't really have a big problem with infinity and nothing the way Bill S. does, but this brings up a sort of a problem. Earlier you said that the universe is finite. That then raises the question of what is outside the universe. That would presumably be absolutely nothing. So there is a bit of a conflict there.
Bill Gill


No you can't have an absolute nothing you made that decision in step one so it can only be a nothing which supports virtual particles.

I mean the current workable idea goes something like virtual particle pair pops into existence they balance back in all values to zero. The pair will create a scalar field, they will create time around, they will create space.

They won’t last long and they will drop back into the nothing.

But what if quite a lot of other virtual pairs turned up before that first particle pairs stopped? Perhaps there are imbalances that could develop that start or "bud" a universe.

So here nothing is simply a zero of all the pieces created it isn't an absolute nothing in that you can borrow against the nothing by simple particle-anti particle physics. That is after all why science is taking a good look at matter-anti matter imbalance.

From that theory start point our universe is most definitely finite against a backdrop of a nothing but that backdrop is not and can not be an absolute nothing.

Now lets assume we are way off track and something like string theory were right and the start point is in one of 10 dimensions we don't see etc. It doesn't change the problem absolute nothing still can't exist if it does you have a god because the definition of absolute zero gives you no option.

It doesn't matter how you roll the problem back, change the laws of physics, absolute nothing is a concept that only allows one option to a start which is a god.

So there is either a god or there is no absolute nothing you can't hide from the choice.
_________________________
I believe in "Evil, Bad, Ungodly fantasy science and maths", so I am undoubtedly wrong to you.

Top
#50938 - 01/24/14 12:45 AM Re: Retiring Infinity from science [Re: Orac]
Bill Offline
Megastar

Registered: 12/31/10
Posts: 1858
Loc: Oklahoma, USA
Originally Posted By: Orac
But what if quite a lot of other virtual pairs turned up before that first particle pairs stopped? Perhaps there are imbalances that could develop that start or "bud" a universe.

But then the individual universe that budded from your nothing would not be THE universe. It would be part of the larger universe that it budded from, even if that larger universe consists only of the nothing that it budded from. So then we have the question of whether that superverse is infinite. If it isn't then there is still the problem of what is outside it.

Bill Gill
_________________________
C is not the speed of light in a vacuum.
C is the universal speed limit.

Top
#50939 - 01/24/14 12:53 AM Re: Retiring Infinity from science [Re: Bill S.]
Bill Offline
Megastar

Registered: 12/31/10
Posts: 1858
Loc: Oklahoma, USA
Originally Posted By: Bill S.
Why might the Universe be embedded in an infinite cosmos?

Why not? The thing is that having a finite universe implies that it must in some way be bounded. And if there is some kind of a bound then that implies a separation. So if the universe is separate, what is it separate from?

I can't say that I really think you have a problem with infinity and nothing, but you seem to be trying very hard to figure out what they really mean. Personally I readily accept that I don't know, and will never really know. You are one of those people who really tries to figure out what things mean. That isn't a problem, in fact that type of thinking can lead to some profound insights.

Bill Gill
_________________________
C is not the speed of light in a vacuum.
C is the universal speed limit.

Top
#50940 - 01/24/14 12:54 AM Re: Retiring Infinity from science [Re: Bill S.]
Orac Offline
Megastar

Registered: 05/20/11
Posts: 2819
Loc: Currently Illinois, USA
Originally Posted By: Bill S.


Originally Posted By: orac
Absolute nothing as per your definition can't exist in science it's not possible because there is an instant falsification because you exist.


Not only do I agree with this, it is what I have been saying on this forum for over three years.


And you are correct or GOD exists. The ultimate determination of that answer is of little interest to science and likely will never be answered.


Originally Posted By: Bill S.

Could there be a spot of fixation amnesia here Orac. Look at my “signature” smile


I would answer that I could be developing a certain age disease but I am not sure of the status of that word and it worries me to use such a negative word smile


Originally Posted By: Bill S.

“All these laws are assumed to be true only within our universe, since that's the only place where we can look to see if they're true. We have no idea what happens outside of our universe--if there is an outside. If our universe was created from "nothing" it's possible this law doesn't hold.

Similarly, causality can't be violated within our universe, but outside our universe it might be---in particular, the concept of causality probably wouldn't have meaning, since it describes how things interact within the space-time of our universe, which presumably doesn't extend outside of it.”


The problem with that answer is it doesn't take you back to the ultimate beginning, it is setting up an infinite regression if you have logic OR it gives you a place where logic doesn't hold.

The problem with the place that logic doesn't hold answer is that then you end up with the same question put a different way and it goes like this

"Can a place that logic holds ever come from a place that logic doesn't"

See the problem it needs a GOD to provide logic or some way that a system can become automatically logical.

So that answer gives an infinite regression or the original question rephrased on a new definition of nothing involving logic smile


Edited by Orac (01/24/14 02:17 AM)
_________________________
I believe in "Evil, Bad, Ungodly fantasy science and maths", so I am undoubtedly wrong to you.

Top
#50941 - 01/24/14 01:09 AM Re: Retiring Infinity from science [Re: Bill]
Orac Offline
Megastar

Registered: 05/20/11
Posts: 2819
Loc: Currently Illinois, USA
Originally Posted By: Bill

But then the individual universe that budded from your nothing would not be THE universe. It would be part of the larger universe that it budded from, even if that larger universe consists only of the nothing that it budded from. So then we have the question of whether that superverse is infinite. If it isn't then there is still the problem of what is outside it.

Bill Gill


And then you have your answer .. balancing of numbers/information is the only possible solution to that suggestion.

No other way with logic to solve that problem any other way and I already gave Bill S the problem if you try to invoke a place where logic doesn't hold.

See the answer to the question depends on the definitions contained in the question ... universe, beginning, nothing, logic all have definitions that change the result smile

This goes back to where we all started .. which under your answer now goes too

A) there can never really be nothing and therefore the "ultimate universe" has no start

B) The "ultimate universe" has a start there is a GOD

make a choice Bill.

All you did was move the universe down thru regressions and now we need to define universe start as "ultimate universe start".


Edited by Orac (01/24/14 01:15 AM)
_________________________
I believe in "Evil, Bad, Ungodly fantasy science and maths", so I am undoubtedly wrong to you.

Top
#50942 - 01/24/14 01:35 AM Re: Retiring Infinity from science [Re: Orac]
Orac Offline
Megastar

Registered: 05/20/11
Posts: 2819
Loc: Currently Illinois, USA
What I am surprised at is that none have realized the better and correct phrasing of the question.

"Can there be such thing as a start to existence?"

I thought when Rev K entered the argument he would ask the question correctly

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Existence

Quote:
Existence has been variously defined by sources. In common usage, it is the world one is aware or conscious of through one's senses, and that persists independently in one's absence. Other definitions describe it as everything that 'is', or more simply, everything. Some define it to be everything that most people believe in.


OR it is often simplified to "Can there be a start to everything?"

GOD is the only known start point OR else there is no start point and everything has always been smile

Inverting the question to include nothing like Bill S did compounds the problem because the concept of "nothing" relies on definition which means it may or may not exist depending on that definition. "Everything" while ill defined must exist because you exist (otherwise nothing exists and there is no existence). The only ambiguity to the definition of everything is it is either infinite or finite. So there is only one definition that is murky and that is what does "start" or "begin" mean if you select the infinite definition of everything.

Ultimately it isn't a science question it is much more a religious one and if I was the complaining type it would be that this should be in NQS section smile


Edited by Orac (01/24/14 02:44 AM)
_________________________
I believe in "Evil, Bad, Ungodly fantasy science and maths", so I am undoubtedly wrong to you.

Top
#50945 - 01/24/14 05:31 AM Re: Retiring Infinity from science [Re: Orac]
paul Offline
Megastar

Registered: 03/21/06
Posts: 4136
actually , I dont think that infinity should be recognized
by "science" , so Im all for "science" removing infinity from
itself.

also eternity is similar to infinity yet
eternity describes an infinite length of time.

so , why wouldnt "science" also retire eternity from itself
in order to completely rid itself of such words that it considers to be jargon or illogical.

and lets not forget about forever , everlasting , etc.

"science" its obviously not infinite nor will it be eternal
nor will it last forever , or have everlasting life , so I can understand why "science" would want to remove obstacles that will outlast and outlive it.

I wonder how many words "science" will need to be removed
in the future in order to maintain its influence on the population of the earth.

science --- remove the C and add an L --- silence



http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Silence


_________________________
3/4 inch of dust build up on the moon in 4.527 billion years,LOL and QM is fantasy science.

Top
#50946 - 01/24/14 06:48 AM Re: Retiring Infinity from science [Re: paul]
Orac Offline
Megastar

Registered: 05/20/11
Posts: 2819
Loc: Currently Illinois, USA
I thought you were a literal bible man Paul isn't is supposed to end in a day of judgement with big fires and the like?

If it does I am pretty sure science will end on that day laugh

So science is definitely not eternal it ends at about the same point as humans and I thought that was pretty obvious to even you.

Science's roll is not to be eternal it simply doesn't care about that sort of thing we leave that to religion smile

So if your religion is right you will get your wish and science will fall silent but definitely not before.


Edited by Orac (01/24/14 06:53 AM)
_________________________
I believe in "Evil, Bad, Ungodly fantasy science and maths", so I am undoubtedly wrong to you.

Top
#50948 - 01/24/14 07:49 PM Re: Retiring Infinity from science [Re: Orac]
Bill Offline
Megastar

Registered: 12/31/10
Posts: 1858
Loc: Oklahoma, USA
Originally Posted By: Orac
And then you have your answer .. balancing of numbers/information is the only possible solution to that suggestion.

No other way with logic to solve that problem any other way and I already gave Bill S the problem if you try to invoke a place where logic doesn't hold.

Orac, I don't know the answer to the question of whether the universe is infinite or not. Right now nobody has a good answer. I don't know if we will ever have a good answer. But I don't think that your answer is a good one. What I would like to have happen is for people to accept that we don't know, and not just make positive statements when there is no hard evidence to support them. Speculation about the matter is quite acceptable to me, dogmatism isn't.

Bill Gill
_________________________
C is not the speed of light in a vacuum.
C is the universal speed limit.

Top
#50949 - 01/24/14 07:56 PM Re: Retiring Infinity from science [Re: paul]
Bill Offline
Megastar

Registered: 12/31/10
Posts: 1858
Loc: Oklahoma, USA
Originally Posted By: Paul
And then you have your answer .. balancing of numbers/information is the only possible solution to that suggestion.

No other way with logic to solve that problem any other way and I already gave Bill S the problem if you try to invoke a place where logic doesn't hold.

Paul, if the universe isn't infinite, then there is very little chance that time is infinite. For one thing the universe had a fixed start in the far past. So while time might possibly have an eternal future it really isn't infinite. If Orac is right about the universe not being infinite, then I seriously doubt that it will have an eternal future. So if Orac wants to take infinity out of physics, then he automatically takes eternity out of physics. So I don't see what your problem is.

Bill Gill
_________________________
C is not the speed of light in a vacuum.
C is the universal speed limit.

Top
#50950 - 01/24/14 11:02 PM Re: Retiring Infinity from science [Re: Bill]
paul Offline
Megastar

Registered: 03/21/06
Posts: 4136
Quote:
Orac, I don't know the answer to the question of whether the universe is infinite or not. Right now nobody has a good answer.


I have been under the impression that science doesnt need
any basis to claim the things it claims , so we can just
expect science to do as it pleases with whatever it pleases
and we can choose to believe what it claims or not.


Quote:
So if Orac wants to take infinity out of physics, then he automatically takes eternity out of physics.


I thought he wanted to take infinity out of science , not just physics.

it doesnt matter to me anyway , I dont consider myself as
belonging to the same group of believers that orac belongs to.

its really retarded to think that you can remove infinity
from science or physics and still have the ability to
describe endless division by 2 because endless division
by 2 would be infinite division.

the same goes for multiplication.

so without infinity , or forever , you dont have endless.

how will science or physics cope with that?

if anything can be done infinitely then infinity exist.

even if the job of division is passed on as an inheritance
from one parent to the next forever throughout eternity
as long as there is someone to continue the division then
the division will continue throughout infinity.

you can never divide something by 2 and have a result of nothing.

therefore infinity exist.













_________________________
3/4 inch of dust build up on the moon in 4.527 billion years,LOL and QM is fantasy science.

Top
#50951 - 01/25/14 12:07 AM Re: Retiring Infinity from science [Re: Orac]
paul Offline
Megastar

Registered: 03/21/06
Posts: 4136
Quote:
So science is definitely not eternal it ends at about the same point as humans and I thought that was pretty obvious to even you.


science is nothing more than a word taken from the greek word
for knowledge , scientia.

scientia ,it means knowledge.

so as long as there are people or other creatures that have
some bits of knowledge then you could claim that science still
exist.

Im thinking that scientist should have kept the original
terminology for a scientist apx 180 years ago which was "natural philosopher" because lately scientist are more like philosophers and to use a word that is defined as knowledge doesnt fit just right.

orac , would you consider yourself to be more of a philosopher
who deals mainly in the unknown or someone who mainly deals with the known?









_________________________
3/4 inch of dust build up on the moon in 4.527 billion years,LOL and QM is fantasy science.

Top
#50952 - 01/25/14 01:22 AM Re: Retiring Infinity from science [Re: Bill]
Orac Offline
Megastar

Registered: 05/20/11
Posts: 2819
Loc: Currently Illinois, USA
Originally Posted By: Bill
Orac, I don't know the answer to the question of whether the universe is infinite or not. Right now nobody has a good answer. I don't know if we will ever have a good answer. But I don't think that your answer is a good one. What I would like to have happen is for people to accept that we don't know, and not just make positive statements when there is no hard evidence to support them. Speculation about the matter is quite acceptable to me, dogmatism isn't.

Bill Gill


What I am disappointed at is that a group of educated people in 2014 can't work out is the answer is larger dependent on the framing of the question. One can be dogmatic about the answer because that's the way the question is framed, you consider the answer but you don't think about the question.

Bill S asked the question about something from nothing, even a mob of goat farmers and fishermen in BC times worked out to invert the question and wrote a book about the answer. Even prompted not one educated person on here thought to invert the question because it removes one poorly defined entity.

The dogmatic answers are not the problem, even your question above has two poorly defined entities "universe" and "infinite". Therefore the only answer possible must itself be a poorly defined entity (of which at universal scope there are very few). You can't prove an infinity you will be going to even define it, so the question is fundamentally flawed in the same way as Bill S's "nothing" question was.

So for me on fundamental grounds I would never start with anything being infinite because I could never test that because it gets tricky.

I should ask at this point have you ever run across the expression bounded and unbounded?

"Bounded" here refers to the fact that something has limits within the context of a particular property. An example of something that is finite yet unbounded is a circle. The circumference has no end points, but it is of a specific length.

So the circle is infinite & finite depends totally on the framing of the question and we are talking about a circle drawn on a piece of paper not something as complex as the universe.

Perhaps we need more goat farmers and fishermen in the world smile


Edited by Orac (01/25/14 02:16 AM)
_________________________
I believe in "Evil, Bad, Ungodly fantasy science and maths", so I am undoubtedly wrong to you.

Top
Page 2 of 9 < 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 >



Newest Members
debbieevans, bkhj, jackk, Johnmattison, RacerGT
865 Registered Users
Sponsor
Facebook

We're on Facebook
Join Our Group

Science a GoGo's Home Page | Terms of Use | Privacy Policy | Contact Us
Features | News | Books | Physics | Space | Climate Change | Health | Technology | Natural World

Copyright © 1998 - 2016 Science a GoGo and its licensors. All rights reserved.