Gravity Probe B

Skarp,

It is generally the case that set theory ignores duplicate member, thus S={1,1}={1}, unless you are in combinatorics, which we are not, presumably. Your {1,1,1,1,1,1,1,1,1} is just the set {1}. []

<blockquote id="quote"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"><i>Originally posted by Jan</i>
<br />Skarp,

It is generally the case that set theory ignores duplicate member, thus S={1,1}={1}, unless you are in combinatorics, which we are not, presumably. Your {1,1,1,1,1,1,1,1,1} is just the set {1}. []
<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">
If I read your post correctly - I would agree.

Take for an example the head of a pin. There are perhaps a trillion atoms that make up that head. So we have a set of a trillion atoms that equal one pinhead. When pinhead pops into your head - You don't give consideration to all those atoms, and if you do, you no longer give consideration to the pinhead at the same time. It can't be done any other way. Only ones - one at a time.

<blockquote id="quote"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote">The word "one" has three letters. I see all three at the same time.<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote"> Yep - It's got three letter all right. The word one is a set of three letters in the proper order. It is {{one}} word. Let's examine the letters - The letter O by itself is not the word one, nor is N, or E. Any discussion about the letters in the word one is not a discussion about the word one while each letter is discussed. Place them together in a set, in the proper order, and walla! - You have one word called one.
Do all three letters register in your head at the same time? I am very doubtful that they do. How could you know what order they are in if they register at the same time?

Your brain works rather fast given the time frame we use. You are fooling yourself if you think the world comes to you in anything other than one at a time.

Yep. A vision problem.

I agree with Skarp about the one thing. You have one person and that person is made of many parts but still it is one person. One tree-one ocean-one atom. Thats enough of this for me.

<blockquote id="quote"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"><i>Originally posted by tvanflandern</i>
<br /><blockquote id="quote"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"><i>Originally posted by north</i>
<br />why does this not strike you as a finite situation?,when the planet does die, no matter the reason it will, it will take all the universe with it.<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">All the <i>visible</i> universe, yes, of course. Did you think everything we see was going to last forever? All forms are finite.
_____________________________________________________________________

ques: but how does the death of this planet distinguish what is visable to us and what is not?is it a hundred years ago ,from now or a hundred years from now? being hundreds of times our size that is well beyond our visable observation.when it goes ALL of it will go,not just a Chunk of it.what happens when this Chunk goes? how does the universe repair itself? or does it? what fills the gap created?
______________________________________________________________________

<blockquote id="quote"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote">now since it is just a matter of scale, physics is the same, how does something 1000 times the universe's size produce something billions of times smaller than even an atom?<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">The megaplanet (remember, this is an example of what might be on a larger scale, not a definite thing) might have a mega-atmosphere whose molecules are our galaxy clusters, and whose atoms are our galaxies. Or the elysium filling our visible universe might be like an ocean of the megaplanet, with galaxy clusters playing the role of water molecules instead of air molecules.
____________________________________________________________________

ques:but being just a matter of scale, is there any evidence that any of this is actually happening? do molecules behave as galaxy clusters,with all that is implied? do atoms in an atmosphere of any sort, behave in this universe,like galaxies? what atom(s) are that complete in their substance?
____________________________________________________________________

Either way, all mediums remain infinitely divisible. Just as Earth's oceans are filled with water, which is made of baryons, which are immersed in elysium, which is continually bombarded by gravitons, the same is true of larger-scale media too. Every medium on every scale is part of an infinite continuum of mediums both larger and smaller than itself.
____________________________________________________________________

Ans: perhaps, what kinds remains to be seen.

_____________________________________________________________________

<blockquote id="quote"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote">if this planet is in a solar system then it must get energy from it's Sun and therefore energize it's atmosphere, which should brighten our universe at some point.<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">Brighten it with what? Our universe is already filled with elysium, the light-carrying medium. Its total energy content defines "absolute zero" on our temperature scale, which might turn out to be relatively hot compared to the energy available in "vacuums" elsewhere in the larger universe.
_____________________________________________________________________

Ans: are you trying to tell me that there is no "dark side" to each planet when facing away from the Sun? and a lighted side when they do?
____________________________________________________________________

if a rogue i'm sure that the blast of a supernova would blast away any atmosphere it had.<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">The melting of surface layers from the blast would produce more out-gassing than the total of what was blown away.
_____________________________________________________________________

Ans: but it is highly unlikely that the planet would even survive this blast!
____________________________________________________________________
But you are taking these terms too literally. The basic rule of thumb is that all scales are fundamentally the same. There is no observation you could make that would tell you what scale you are on. It's all relative, in a sense much deeper than Einstein ever dreamed. -|Tom|-
____________________________________________________________________

Ans: this is not so much about the scales, as it is what you say happens at these scales and the physics. the important thing to me to keep in mind here is that what happens there happens here.and all the proof you need should be found here! whether it be galaxy clusters behaving as molecules,galaxies behaving as atoms,if this were true why all the different atomic elements?

the physics seems to me is not based on scales, it seems to change with scale. show that galaxy clusters only produce one enormous molecule. show that galaxies are one enormous element.