Infinite quantity, infinite space, finite options?

Let's not suppose... The "big-bang" IS wrong. The universe IS finite. The universe IS expanding. Here's something for your "Gee-whiz" bag. Did you know that God revealed through the Scriptures (Bible) that the universe is expanding at least a couple of thousand years or so before "science" discovered it? (Job 9:8, Psalm 104:2, Isaiah 40:22, 42:5, 44:24, 45:12, 51:13, Jeremiah 10:12, 51:15, Zechariah 12:1

Think they were just lucky guesses?

Romans 1:25 "They exchanged the truth of God for a lie..."

<blockquote id="quote"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote">LR (1904) is an alternative to SR (1905) rather than an alternative to GR (1916). GR can use either SR or LR as a starting point.<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">I admit that I am not well versed in LR. Anyone wondering who's right should take Larry's word over mine.
<blockquote id="quote"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote">When GR starts with SR, it inherits SR's speed limit and all of the paradoxes that come with it.
<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">The so-called "paradoxes" result from either applying the definitions of other theories to SR solutions or from applying SR results to GR problems. The "twins paradox", for example, was Einstein's idea of a joke; it was a test to see who had been paying attention during the lecture. How can one twin make a round trip without gravity or acceleration? Ha, ha, ha! Since the audience evidently didn't immediately roll in the aisles laughing, I imagine poor ol' Alf must have been very dismayed; he probably made an appointment to learn the truth about time from a popular German comedian. If he could hear serious scientists still talking seriously about the "paradoxes" a century later, he would resign from the human race.

<blockquote id="quote"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"> Job 9:8 , Psalm 104:2 , Isaiah 40:22 , 42:5 , 44:24 , 45:12 , 51:13 , jeremiah 10:12 , 51:15 , Zechariah 12:1 <hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote"> Bible references in other languages . Just though I'd provide links for anyone foolish enough to argue scripture with a zealot. Unworthy1, I recommend that you learn how to link your bible references. [Personal comment deleted by author.]

Have you read Tom's article (What the GPS tells us about the Twin's Paradox) about this?

He shows that acceleration is not needed to resolve it.

LB

Cosmology / Gravity from the main page.

<blockquote id="quote"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"><i>Originally posted by PhilJ</i>
<br />Let me take a stab at it; as I understand it:

Time IS the orderly succession of events in our universe. (Philosophically speaking, time is only our perception of an orderly succession of events; we should be open to the possibility of some superior being or beings to whom all events in our tiny universe occur simultaneously or in random order.)

Our measure of time is a count of successive periodic events. Events are peridic if they repeat in such a way that the count of two periodic events in different places reliably maintains a constant ratio when relative velocity is zero.

Relative velocity may alter the ratio of periodic events. Special relativity is a mathematical relationship between relative velocity and the ratio of periodic events where relative velocity is constant. General relativity (in the generic sense) is a mathematical relationship between relative velocity and the ratio of periodic events where relative velocity is variable.

"GR" refers to Einstein's particular form of general relativity, based on the assumption that light has no medium and all inertial frames are equivalent. "LR" refers to Lorentz's particular form of general relativity, based on the assumption that light requires a medium (the aether) and there is a preferred frame of reference which is stationary relative to the aether. In most respects, SR and LR yield identical predictions of observations during relativistic space journeys---though the interpretation of those observations may differ drastically.

I am not yet convinced that the differences between GR and LR are of any consequence. I think they will continue to yield identical results unless and until we discover that the aether not only exists, but that it is not homogeneous thruought the universe, or that it does not behave like a perfect gas. Differences in quality (density, motion, temperature, composition, etc.) of the aether at different locations may affect the periodicity of similar events, thus throwing a monkey wrench into our measure of time.
<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">

If, as Mr. Van Flandern proposes, the motion of an object from A to B is an infinite series of steps in between(which he says is actually mathematically possible), then what precisely governs the progress of that transition?

What I mean is this: Time as we know it seems to basically be determined by the position change of objects relative to references. The atom's change governs our clocks, the progress of the sun, the moon, etc. all have an effect on our time. The motion of one object toward another and the potential energy between them relative to their mass seems to be a factor determining time as well. The more potential energy an object has moving toward another, the "faster" it is said to be moving. What governs that? When an object moves it's infinite increments, what limits that change? The "faster" an object goes the harder it is to accelerate. Why? If it must go across an infinite number of steps, and each step has an amount of time it must take to traverse, then would it not take infinite amount of time to make that movement? If the crossing of that infinite number of steps does not have an infinite number of delays involved, then is the motion of some or all of them instant? If only some, why just some? If all, why do objects in our scale not instantly appear whever they're going? I realize a lot of "time" is based on our perception at 25 frames per second(interleaved), and that to an insect with much faster optics than us we appear incredibly slow. Regardless, there's still some very real science issues involved in the vague nature of our concept of time.

That's why time is so vague. Everyone just seems to take it for granted. I think perhaps when understanding the possibility of FTL travel or messaging, we're going to need to really come to understand exactly WHAT time is, not just what it does.

"Regret can only change the future" -Me

Dangus,

I don't know what to tell you here, except you need to re-read Tom's chapter on Zeno's Paradox.

Essentially, you have missed every major point he made. Got many of them more or less backwards, in fact.

Example:
[Dangus] "If it must go across an infinite number of steps, and each step has an amount of time it must take to traverse, then would it not take infinite amount of time to make that movement?

Re-read the Zeno chapter. But the Really Short Version is:

As you *visualize* the size of each step getting smaller, you must also visualze the time for the object to cross the now smaller distance shrinking.

At a constant speed, the object will take half as long to cover half the distance.

As the distance intervals are visualized as approaching zero, the time intervals also approach zero.

LB

Hmmm. Reality is analog, not digital.

LB