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 (), 363 Guests and 1 Spider online.
Key: Admin, Global Mod, Mod
Latest Posts
Top Posters (30 Days)
Page 3 of 9 < 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 >
Topic Options
#50953 - 01/25/14 02:38 AM Re: Retiring Infinity from science [Re: Bill]
redewenur Offline
Megastar

Registered: 02/14/07
Posts: 1840
Originally Posted By: Bill
...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

Well said, Bill. Intellectual honesty, that's refreshing. But how dare you find flaws in the approach of the BS'ing SAGG Lord and Master Know-it-All? Most irregular, you know. Go stand in the corner.
_________________________
"Time is what prevents everything from happening at once" - John Wheeler

Top
.
#50954 - 01/25/14 04:52 AM Re: Retiring Infinity from science [Re: Orac]
Revlgking Offline
Megastar

Registered: 01/17/07
Posts: 2311
Loc: markham (Thornhill), Ontario, ...
Originally Posted By: Orac
What, I am surprised ...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 King entered the argument he would ask the question correctly. [ORAC. Here, as one individual, is my answer: For me, EXISTENCE BEGAN THE MOMENT WHEN I BECAME AWARE OF IT. The same is true for each of us. smile ]

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

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.

PAST, PRESENT, FUTURE in space and time (from Old English, TIMA).

Defining the meaning of 'time' is such an important concept that, in my World Book Dictionary, it takes up almost a whole page.

PROCESS PHILOSOPHY AND THEOLOGY
Can we imagine any kind of science activity--or for that matter, any kind of human activity--that would really make any sense whatever without the concept of processing in time? Without it, humanity, as we know it, simply would not be. Check out the work of Alfred North Whitehead (1861-1947)--a great mathematician, process philosopher and lay theologian.

THE BOTTOM LINE? Process philosophy and theology says to scientists: Go ahead, within creation, within the space-time continuum, go ahead and do the best work you can. But make sure that your motives are unselfish ones; ones that devoted to serve goodness and truth in the service of all humanity. Meanwhile, leave the fathoming of eternity and infinity to good, moral and ethical philosophers and theologians.

Check out the work of Whitehead and his friend and colleague, Bertrand Russell.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alfred_North_Whitehead

OK, NOW I WILL BE PERSONAL. If you feel left out, feel free to put yourself in the drama.

Existence is my experience of space and time. It started the instant I was conceived (the same is so for each of us). Then came birth, and eventually I became aware of being aware. Because I experienced the deaths of my two older siblings--I think I was younger than five--my sense of awareness came early in my current life.

This ability we all have of being consciously aware of the NOW--the one in which we presently live, move and have our being, is the quintessential evidence of the reality of life, and that we are who we are within it.

Similarly, the ability to remember the past and to envision the kind of future we want, makes us, for better, or for worse, the kind of person we happen to be.

THE FUTURE
What of the future? It is, IMO, not something that we can predict. However, it is one that we, individually and collectively, can create. It will be what we will and work on making it to be.

To put it another way: The future I used to think of and dream about, is for me, the one I am in NOW--a rather good one of the kind that I would like others to have, BTW.

Therefore, if I want a better future for me and all of us--one that is filled with that which is Good, Opportune and Desirable--it only makes sense for me simply to keep on with the process of good willing, thinking, learning, knowing and growing, moment by moment from this NOW, this point onward. As Shakespeare put it: "There is a tide in the affairs of men, which taken at the flood leads on to fortune..."



Edited by Revlgking (01/25/14 05:16 AM)
Edit Reason: Always helpful
_________________________
G~O~D--Now & ForeverIS:Nature, Nurture & PNEUMA-ture, Thanks to Warren Farr&ME AT www.unitheist.org

Top
#50957 - 01/25/14 08:52 AM Re: Retiring Infinity from science [Re: Orac]
newton Offline
Megastar

Registered: 09/30/12
Posts: 1209
Time not exist similar like 0,1,3,4 not exist

time = only tool for describe this what we see around Us
mathematica = tool for describe this what we see around Us

Right now I see itiotic situation
for many people who like research mathematica determinate real world ???
They are building world for equation that they wrote
They not use equation to describe world


Edited by newton (01/25/14 08:53 AM)

Top
#50958 - 01/25/14 10:56 AM Re: Retiring Infinity from science [Re: redewenur]
Orac Offline
Megastar

Registered: 05/20/11
Posts: 2819
Loc: Currently Illinois, USA
Originally Posted By: redewenur
Well said, Bill. Intellectual honesty, that's refreshing. But how dare you find flaws in the approach of the BS'ing SAGG Lord and Master Know-it-All? Most irregular, you know. Go stand in the corner.


It's not an answer ... he stated that himself laugh

No offense was intended against Bill I was simply pointing out it's a safety position rather than an answer that stops one getting into to many arguments and fine it's his right to do so.

I don't care if people agree with me or not or think it is all BS, I certainly don't agree with many on here and think there answers are BS and that's fine. I personally don't want to convert any of you so I don't mind what you think smile

Paul, Rev K, Newton all have very different views to me as we and certainly would think my answers are BS as well that is sort of the point of what the discussion has become. A friendly exchange of different views without trying to annoy each other but understand different positions.

The point I was making to Bill and from your response I got the translation right is Bill's answer was posturing rather than trying to answer the question.

We all agreed this stuff isn't science so it was an open and frank exchange of peoples views nothing more nothing less.


Edited by Orac (01/25/14 10:58 AM)
_________________________
I believe in "Evil, Bad, Ungodly fantasy science and maths", so I am undoubtedly wrong to you.

Top
#50959 - 01/25/14 11:06 AM Re: Retiring Infinity from science [Re: Revlgking]
Orac Offline
Megastar

Registered: 05/20/11
Posts: 2819
Loc: Currently Illinois, USA
Originally Posted By: Revlgking
Here, as one individual, is my answer: For me, EXISTENCE BEGAN THE MOMENT WHEN I BECAME AWARE OF IT. The same is true for each of us. smile.


Thank you for that it's a very good philosophical answer, so true. Doesn't help me much in science but still a very good answer.

Let me do some background philosophical reading and I will start a post in NQS about self awareness, interested in your thoughts.
_________________________
I believe in "Evil, Bad, Ungodly fantasy science and maths", so I am undoubtedly wrong to you.

Top
#50960 - 01/25/14 01:04 PM Re: Retiring Infinity from science [Re: Orac]
newton Offline
Megastar

Registered: 09/30/12
Posts: 1209
Below evidence that not exist NOW and Not Exist Future

Exist only PAST or TIME not exist ?!?!?!?


M --V1----> motion ...... m ----> V2

V1>V2


Mass M3 ..................Mxxx

Mass M will hit mass m

Why exist only past ?



Between Us Masse m, M, Mxx in the universe Exist distance

Information need some times and medium that will inform Us
about problem /new situation


All is past because we never have information in real time !!!


Body that can not recognize time ??? very alone body without informations about other bodies in the universe ?
Perpetuum motion first type ?

please imagine distance p1----p7 = 1000000000000 Light Years

p1....p2....p3.....p4....p5.......p6.....p7......M>>> G>speed
.
.
.
.
m

Mass m is many km before mass M ?

we all know that gravitation's speed
G is lower than Light speed C


Why mass M is very alone mass ? why it is first type perpetum mobile ? it was first mass after big bang ?


lets describe mass M motion respect to point 1 ,2,3,4,...
and lets this motion will be biger than G speed

We all know that not Exist EM speed ( electromagnetic wave speed )
plus V speed ( V speed = Source's velocity )
NOT EXIST C+ 30 km/s !!!


Supersonic airplane can escape from point where was in past !!!
( we can see airplane but we will hear it after few secounds )

What if mass M is moving faster than G ????


WHY PERPETUM MOBILE FIRST TYPE ???


p1....p2....p3.....p4....p5.......p6.....p7......M>>> G>speed
.
.
.
.
m

Mass m fell old position of the mass M .
Mass M was in past in point p1 ..p2...p3...p4...p5 ...
and started perfect ring 1 ,r2,r3,,,




to above model please add very old fact ( Iverted square law )
how big intensity will register mass m




NOT EXIST ANY METHODE TO STOP MASS M !!!
mass m register step by step old position Mass M Very important animation is below !!!
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/6/6d/Aberrationlighttimebeaming.gif


THE UNIVERSE , HUBBLE and above

right ""now """ * sorry better use word """past"""
--- astronomers are measuring right now this what was in past.

right ""now """ people very well know that galactics are accelerating

what is the reason ?

why galactics step by step rise up own velocity

Newton told About Action and Reaction ( III rule ) if galactics are accelerating sooo ... please show me mass M that must slowing
down ???

You can not why ?

Because that mass was there where right now are going galactics
many years ago ( in PAST )






Edited by newton (01/25/14 01:15 PM)

Top
#50962 - 01/25/14 03:33 PM Re: Retiring Infinity from science [Re: Orac]
Bill Offline
Megastar

Registered: 12/31/10
Posts: 1858
Loc: Oklahoma, USA
Originally Posted By: Orac
"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.

I have seen that analogy before and have accepted it, but at the same time I have always felt a little uneasy about it. The thing is that the circle is finite and bounded, as long as you stay on the circle. But it has very definite bounds if you try to leave the circle. So then the question is, what is the circle embedded in?

This brings us back to Bill S.' questions as to infinity and time. He is still trying to understand them. I don't think he will ever do it because nobody really understands them. I certainly don't. As far as the universe is concerned, I haven't heard of any thing that explains where it came from if it isn't infinite. Again that is Bill's question. And saying it came from a Quantum nothing (a quantum foam?) is begging the point.

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

Top
#50963 - 01/25/14 10:30 PM Re: Retiring Infinity from science [Re: Orac]
Bill S. Offline
Megastar

Registered: 08/20/10
Posts: 3570
Loc: Essex, UK
Originally Posted By: Bill S
Why might the Universe be embedded in an infinite cosmos?


I'm glad you picked up that point, Bill. there should have been a "not" in there smirk
_________________________
There never was nothing.

Top
#50964 - 01/25/14 11:28 PM Re: Retiring Infinity from science [Re: Orac]
Bill S. Offline
Megastar

Registered: 08/20/10
Posts: 3570
Loc: Essex, UK

For my own benefit I would like to clarify the position.

1. In scientific circles “nothing” means “something” unless it is “absolute nothing”?

2. The “something” from which virtual particles emerge is classed as “nothing”, but not “absolute nothing”?

3. If there had ever been “absolute nothing”, there would be nothing now; but not all scientists agree with this?

4. There are physicists who maintain that “something” could have come from “absolute nothing” because the causality which we observe in the Universe might not apply outside the Universe?

5. There are also physicists who maintain that “something” could have come from “absolute nothing” if we accept that God exists, and created everything”?
_________________________
There never was nothing.

Top
#50965 - 01/25/14 11:41 PM Re: Retiring Infinity from science [Re: Orac]
Bill S. Offline
Megastar

Registered: 08/20/10
Posts: 3570
Loc: Essex, UK
What happens if we treat infinity (including eternity) in the same way that science seems to have treated “nothing”?

We accept that infinity is a concept that can be manipulated mathematically, it can consist of an infinite sequence of finite objects.

There can be more than one infinity; in fact there can be an infinite number of infinities.

Infinity can have a beginning, as long as we cannot see an end.

However, we have to distinguish between “infinity” and “absolute infinity”.

None of the things applied to “infinity” above apply to “absolute infinity”.
_________________________
There never was nothing.

Top
#50966 - 01/26/14 12:28 AM Re: Retiring Infinity from science [Re: Orac]
Bill S. Offline
Megastar

Registered: 08/20/10
Posts: 3570
Loc: Essex, UK
Originally Posted By: Paul
eternity describes an infinite length of time.


I have to disagree with that. I know what you mean, of course, but I cannot agree that eternity is any length of time, any more that infinity is a number.
_________________________
There never was nothing.

Top
#50968 - 01/26/14 02:07 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

I have seen that analogy before and have accepted it, but at the same time I have always felt a little uneasy about it. The thing is that the circle is finite and bounded, as long as you stay on the circle. But it has very definite bounds if you try to leave the circle. So then the question is, what is the circle embedded in?


Bingo ... That is indeed the problem the one of containment, so you understand the issue.

Originally Posted By: Bill

This brings us back to Bill S.' questions as to infinity and time. He is still trying to understand them. I don't think he will ever do it because nobody really understands them. I certainly don't. As far as the universe is concerned, I haven't heard of any thing that explains where it came from if it isn't infinite. Again that is Bill's question. And saying it came from a Quantum nothing (a quantum foam?) is begging the point.

Bill Gill


Time I think the jury is out on it has some things that MAY be testable. Infinity will never be able to be tested because you can't test something that has no limits, there is always the possibility that just one more step beyond the current limit of testing will falsify. So anything with infinity in the question is ultimately unanswerable ever, in the same way an question with absolute nothing is unanswerable because you can not test either condition.

So I agree with you totally I just take a stronger stance that you could never do it, level of science understanding has nothing to do with the problem.
_________________________
I believe in "Evil, Bad, Ungodly fantasy science and maths", so I am undoubtedly wrong to you.

Top
#50969 - 01/26/14 02:56 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.

For my own benefit I would like to clarify the position.

1. In scientific circles “nothing” means “something” unless it is “absolute nothing”?


Yes and let me expand it.

Normal nothing is the same as it to layman it is the lack of something that might be expected. You walk into a room and say it has nothing in it the universe didn't stop in the room and it likely contains air, dust, germs just not the usual stuff you expected.

So in scientifically we would say something like nothing can only be applied to contained set of parameters which you know the limits on.

What does that mean, I have to know that something exists to be able to test for it's inverse or nothing otherwise there is a big problem and the classic argument goes like this

If GOD exists he hates flying pigs so no flying pigs will exist. We tested all pigs on the planet and found none could fly therefore GOD exists and it is scientifically proven.

Do you see the problem the test collapses in it's own logic because it's setup to test of absence of something that doesn't exist.

Something exists (your existence proves that) so therefore the inverse is absolutely nothing. The problem is you will never be able to test absolutely nothing scientifically because of the problem above you can only test for the absence of something within known limits. Absolute nothing has no limits there are infinite tests required on infinite properties. So absolutely nothing is very different from nothing.

It's the flying pig scenario smile


Originally Posted By: Bill S.

2. The “something” from which virtual particles emerge is classed as “nothing”, but not “absolute nothing”?


Correct ... it is a nothing in the sense if you sum the bits they cancel out. It is actually a large amount of energy popping into and out of our existence and that is hardly nothing.


Originally Posted By: Bill S.

3. If there had ever been “absolute nothing”, there would be nothing now; but not all scientists agree with this?


I won't say all scientists we are a varied lot but it is very hard to fly the argument because science is about logic at right at the start you are going to have a big issue.

You have absolutely nothing, 1 fraction of time or some parameter later you have a quantity x whatever that may be .... doesn't matter how much we advance science that is a drop dead problem for science you are never going to be able to construct a logical argument.


Originally Posted By: Bill S.

4. There are physicists who maintain that “something” could have come from “absolute nothing” because the causality which we observe in the Universe might not apply outside the Universe?


This is the attempt to get around the logic issue. It sets up is that our logic doesn't apply in a wider universe so we are a logical universe inside a larger universe made up of different states of logical universes. So the solution to the problem is attempted by breaking the logic.

Do you see the issues?

Think about boundaries somehow the universes must coexist why don't the chaotic universes break into our universe, why is it respecting our boundaries?

Does this mean you can have part logical and part chaotic universe? Our universe seems to be completely logical so it sets up a very strong anthropic principle.

You setup the same problem with a new parameter called logic or chaos, so you just regress the problem to a new parameter, you haven't solved anything.

You could argue we just haven't seen the chaotic universe breaking into our ordered universe but we then have a flying pig again smile

So some scientists believe this but it has the same justification under it as the scientists that believe in god.

Originally Posted By: Bill S.

5. There are also physicists who maintain that “something” could have come from “absolute nothing” if we accept that God exists, and created everything”?


Yes that is perfectly fine it just means science is the study of laws of GOD.


Edited by Orac (01/26/14 04:03 AM)
_________________________
I believe in "Evil, Bad, Ungodly fantasy science and maths", so I am undoubtedly wrong to you.

Top
#50971 - 01/26/14 06:05 AM Re: Retiring Infinity from science [Re: Bill S.]
paul Offline
Megastar

Registered: 03/21/06
Posts: 4136
Quote:
I have to disagree with that. I know what you mean, of course, but I cannot agree that eternity is any length of time, any more that infinity is a number.


eternity describes an infinite length of time.

I didnt say that eternity describes any particular length of time or that eternity is any particular length of time.

but , maybe a better choice of words would have been

eternity describes an infinite amount of time...

LOL

I think of eternity as a word that describes all of time which includes any and all lengths of time.









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

Top
#50973 - 01/26/14 01:31 PM Re: Retiring Infinity from science [Re: Orac]
newton Offline
Megastar

Registered: 09/30/12
Posts: 1209


We Have Einstein's train and station

inside train is bulb at the end of train we have SENSORS

(to start Senor that will open door we need
energy Estart = A * T [Joules /mm2 ] * sec )

Many people who designe similar sensor know that we can
change sensitive of the sensor by changing Time or Intensity of the signal

What Is it Intensity of the signal ?


More far from place where
the signal started = lower intensity of signal
( "lower brightness" )
1R = brightness X , 2R = brightness X/4 , 3R = X/9
X- brightness, R- radius
the same energy portion but different area


What happen if Bulb is moving in space
below oryginal Doppler's drawing


The bulb is sending 3D wave from each new point in space where is ,was, and will be ..

Rear sensor and Front Sensor inside train is feel in one and the same time different Intensity of the signal



sensor..........bulb...........sensor ++++ motion

The DOORS wait for Sensor signal
;please open
,
,
Senor wait for energy portion Estart Joules-
.
.
the doors will be open for observer inide
train not in one and the same time !!!


Einstein made huge mistake
light it is not FLAT line but 3D Signal
to open door sensor need Energy portion Estart


Intensity of the signal is different for front and rear sensor

first test in HOME 2012 poland
30 km-s Earth around the Sun

C constant determinate direction
below I showed strait line
graph explain what will register Front and Rear sensor
How many joules per mm2








Edited by newton (01/26/14 01:56 PM)

Top
#50979 - 01/26/14 11:59 PM Re: Retiring Infinity from science [Re: paul]
Bill S. Offline
Megastar

Registered: 08/20/10
Posts: 3570
Loc: Essex, UK
Quote:
eternity describes an infinite amount of time...


We have evolved in time (or were created in time, if you prefer that), so it is very difficult for us to think of a timeless state. I propose that eternity is not time, it is just a term we use to try to get our heads round timelessness.
_________________________
There never was nothing.

Top
#50980 - 01/27/14 12:35 AM Re: Retiring Infinity from science [Re: Orac]
newton Offline
Megastar

Registered: 09/30/12
Posts: 1209
Time exist only in our head ( not exist in real world )

Mathematica exist only in our head (not exist in real world )

People use many definition to describe this what is happen
around Us .Einstein made drawing and he use own imagination
not real observation.

light = 3d ball shape
it is not Flat single line !!!L

in above post I explained his mistake !!!
mistake !!! mistake !!!

We must back to physics and stop create world by mathematic equations
( the universe is not like we and Our imaginations about the universe - the universe is like is ... we can step by step see like it was
* we always see somthing not fresh












Edited by newton (01/27/14 12:37 AM)

Top
#50981 - 01/27/14 12:37 AM Re: Retiring Infinity from science [Re: Bill S.]
paul Offline
Megastar

Registered: 03/21/06
Posts: 4136
Quote:
I propose that eternity is not time


eternity is not time , only time is time.
eternity is a word that describes an infinite amount of time.


Quote:
it is just a term we use to try to get our heads round timelessness.


I cant agree with that because eternity requires time.

and you cant stop time and experience timelessness , if you
could then you would also stop and even your thoughts would stop , so even if you could stop time , you could not experience timelessness because none of your senses would function once time had stopped.





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

Top
#50982 - 01/27/14 12:43 AM Re: Retiring Infinity from science [Re: Orac]
newton Offline
Megastar

Registered: 09/30/12
Posts: 1209
please stop time

ok I stoped and what ...

please stop use mathematica

You stoped and what

Universe has got any problem that You are not write 2+2

Top
#50983 - 01/27/14 12:48 AM Re: Retiring Infinity from science [Re: Orac]
newton Offline
Megastar

Registered: 09/30/12
Posts: 1209
Our imaginations can not and will never manage the universe !!!

Einstein = God :):):) wow he use own brain to tell the universe please use my theory plese use time ????and mathematica on very high level ????


what a comic situation !?!

Physics = that we observe and describe
Physics it is not that we imagine and create how is

I made test in my home
I know that light = 3D ball not FLAT LINE !!!

I'm not manage the universe I'm observing ...




Edited by newton (01/27/14 12:50 AM)

Top
Page 3 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.