Planck limits

<BLOCKQUOTE id=quote><font size=2 face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id=quote>quote:<hr height=1 noshade id=quote>This is a good argument but does it propose a mechanism for converting photon momentum into some other form of energy and of what kind and where does this energy go without causing unbalance of material in the universe (stars, planets..)?<hr height=1 noshade id=quote></BLOCKQUOTE id=quote></font id=quote><font face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" size=2 id=quote>

Yes, this process is all part of "the meta cycle", wherein graviton energy is first absorbed by matter to produce gravity. Then at a later time the accumulated absorbed energy is re-radiated back into space in the form of radioactive-decay particles or lightwaves. The lightwaves then travel through space, gradually losing their energy back to the graviton medium, which regains the energy it lost in the first step.

In the end, momentum, energy, entropy, and even number counts of each kind of entity are all conserved, as is appropriate for a truly infinite universe. See <i>Pushing Gravity</i> or the <i>Meta Research Bulletin</i> for details. -|Tom|-

"In the end, momentum, energy, entropy, and even number counts of each kind of entity are all conserved, as is appropriate for a truly infinite universe. See Pushing Gravity or the Meta Research Bulletin for details. -|Tom|-"

Dr. Van Flandern you have described what is called a "perpetual cycle" by which motion of universal bodies is accomplished without the need of any external energy since the universe is infinite, there can be no external energy coming into it. Then,

1. The axiom of energy conservation states that perpetual machnines are impossible.
2. The universe is an infinite perpetual machine according to Meta Model, in size and time.
3. Therefore, either the principle of energy conservation is wrong or the Meta Cycle cannot be true. (reductio ad absurdum)

In essence, this happens because the concept of infinity is used. For the Meta Cycle model to be logically sound, it must be defined apart from infinity. I am not saying Meta Cycle is wrong but

Meta Cycle + Infinity + Energy Conservation = logical contradiction

<BLOCKQUOTE id=quote><font size=2 face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id=quote>quote:<hr height=1 noshade id=quote>Dr. Van Flandern you have described what is called a "perpetual cycle" by which motion of universal bodies is accomplished without the need of any external energy since the universe is infinite, there can be no external energy coming into it.<hr height=1 noshade id=quote></BLOCKQUOTE id=quote></font id=quote><font face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" size=2 id=quote>

I was answering your question about "infinite redshift" (meaning zero energy). You are now asking about what appears to be a completely unrelated matter. Of course, given the definition of "universe" as "everything that exists", there can be no external energy coming into the universe.

<BLOCKQUOTE id=quote><font size=2 face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id=quote>quote:<hr height=1 noshade id=quote>Then, 1. The axiom of energy conservation states that perpetual machnines are impossible.<hr height=1 noshade id=quote></BLOCKQUOTE id=quote></font id=quote><font face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" size=2 id=quote>

I assume you mean "perpetual motion machines" (PMM). The truth of the above axiom then depends on definitions. In <i>Pushing Gravity</i> (PG), we show how to build a practical perpetual motion machine drawing energy from gravitons. But as I said, everything depends on definitions. In principle, our PMM is not very different from using a waterfall to run a generator and extract electrical energy. That will remain a PMM for as long as the Sun shines and the oceans have water. But of course, nothing lasts forever.

Likewise, as I explained in PG, even though our visible universe seems to be filled with gravitons and elysons, in the larger picture, all of this and all the stars and galaxies we see are just an "atmosphere" or an "ocean" of some "mega-planet" born a finite time ago that will last a finite time into the future. Everything looks fundamentally the same, although greatly different in detail, at every scale. So in this strictest sense, a PMM is impossible.

<BLOCKQUOTE id=quote><font size=2 face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id=quote>quote:<hr height=1 noshade id=quote>2. The universe is an infinite perpetual machine according to Meta Model, in size and time.<hr height=1 noshade id=quote></BLOCKQUOTE id=quote></font id=quote><font face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" size=2 id=quote>

That is such a strange thing to say that I will have to disagree. The universe is everything that exists. And inasmuch as momentum can never be created or destroyed, but can merely change form, it follows that if relative motion exists, it has always existed and will always continue to exist. Yet no form in the universe has more than a finite lifetime. So any PMM you might build must have a finite lifetime, and is therefore not truly "perpetual". So a PMM in the strictest sense cannot exist.

The universe is not a form or a specific thing, but just a mathematical or logical concept to refer to everything. If you build a PMM, and someday it falls apart and stops working, I might argue that the momentum of its parts continues to exist in atoms or in some level of substance somewhere in the universe. In that sense, the PMM continues to exist. But obviously that is not the ordinary meaning of PMM.

<BLOCKQUOTE id=quote><font size=2 face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id=quote>quote:<hr height=1 noshade id=quote>3. Therefore, either the principle of energy conservation is wrong or the Meta Cycle cannot be true. (reductio ad absurdum)<hr height=1 noshade id=quote></BLOCKQUOTE id=quote></font id=quote><font face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" size=2 id=quote>

This illustrates one type of invalid logic -- introducing fuzzy or poorly defined axioms, then use them with different meanings for different purposes.

The Meta Cycle is not an attribute of the universe. It is just a temporary attribute of the local mega-planet, with a duration of a few quadrillion years or so. It is a mere grain of sand in space or time or scale in an infinite universe.

Just as Earth's atmosphere and oceans did not always exist and will not continue to always exist, and just as they came from "outside" the Earth at one time, these same attributes apply to everything in the visible universe that is part of the Meta Cycle. So the Meta Cycle is or is not a PMM depending on your definitions. But in no sense does your syllogism apply because you must change the meaning of "perpetual" in the middle to make it valid.

<BLOCKQUOTE id=quote><font size=2 face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id=quote>quote:<hr height=1 noshade id=quote>In essence, this happens because the concept of infinity is used. For the Meta Cycle model to be logically sound, it must be defined apart from infinity.<hr height=1 noshade id=quote></BLOCKQUOTE id=quote></font id=quote><font face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" size=2 id=quote>

You and I have a very different understanding of the applicability of "infinity" to the universe and the forms therein. It colors several different discussions. I explained this whole matter at one time. Obviously, my explanation was insufficient because you rejected it, but for reasons that made no sense to me. Nonetheless, you have continued to introduce criticisms of various aspects of the Meta Model based on your (incorrect) understanding of the role of infinity in MM, then draw "logical contradictions".

The problem seems to be that you are committed to the viewpoint that infinite divisibility of space and time necessarily means that motion is impossible. I have reached the opposite conclusion -- that infinite divisibility is the only way to explain motion without leading to unresolvable paradoxes.

Limiting ourselves to the immediate point here, I repeat the following usage of "infinity" in the MM: No form at any time, any place, or any scale, either alone or in combination with other forms, can be infinite in any of its properties. (The finite cannot become infinite.) However, the mathematical dimensions used to measure time, space, and mass or scale, and the counts of forms or range of properties, are all infinite. Note carefully that all things real and tangible are finite; whereas the things that are infinite are all mathematical abstractions. For example, we are each finite beings, yet composed of an infinite number of constituents. However, the sum of an infinite series can be finite, provided that it is convergent.

As this applies to your last statement, all properties of individual forms are finite, including all aspects of the Meta Cycle. But for practical purposes compared to the human lifespan, the duration of this "local" cycle (probably confined to a few million times the size of the visible universe and a few quadrillion years) can be approximated as "infinite". -|Tom|-

"In Pushing Gravity (PG), we show how to build a practical perpetual motion machine drawing energy from gravitons. But as I said, everything depends on definitions. In principle, our PMM is not very different from using a waterfall to run a generator and extract electrical energy. "

A perpetual motion machine is defined in physics books as a machine that produces work from zero input. In this sense, a machine you describe is not perpetual because it has an input source.

According to this definition of perpetual motion machine, the universe as a whole is such a perpetual machine. According to Meta Model, motion is accomplished via a perpetual re-cycle of available energy and energy cannot be created from nothing or destroyed into nothing.

The details may be interesting but of no importance to the main argument made. How can somebody refuse that according to that definition the universe is not a perpetual machine? Is there any energy coming outside of the universe? If your anser is no, then the universe is a perpetual motion machine. At the same time, a machine that has some form of input is not considered perpetual motion.

If the above are agreed upon we can continue. If not, it seems you may have different understanding of physics principles and definitions as traditionaly taught and accepted in major universities. If that's the case, there is of course nothing wrong, you may be right, but there is no basis for arguing against anything because there is a lack of common scientific ground.

The, for someone who acceptes the definition of a perpetual motion machine as it has been established in physics based on the axiom of conservation of energy, the universe is a perpetual motion machine according to the Meta Model. This results in a logical contradiction.

In contrast, the standard model does not face the same logical contradiction because it is not a perpetual motion machine. It expands and possibly it will collapse back when available energy cannot be re-cycled to produce useful work.

It seems that a model of an infinite universe, in whatever sense, requires an infinite replenishing of energy and an internal thermodynamic cycle cannot solve this basic physics problem it does not matter what specific language is used.

I think Dr. Van Flandern, I honestly recommend without bad faith towards you that some type of re-assesement of the basic premises of your model may help dramatically in its wide acceptance because it is a good model. That is my opinion based on the little I know but it seems many people I discuss agree with that.

Somehow, all theories involving any reference to "infinity", in any sense, have been managed by science as it progresses. The objective of natural philosophers has been to restrict the existence on infinity to mathematics because more logical contradictions arise from its presence that it solves. This is not my opinion now, but the opinion that prevails in science.

But I think that you have expresses your opinion as I have done. Logical analysis and physics must go beyond personal beliefs and when arguments are reduced to beliefs, from any side of the debate, the argument must stop.

Therefore, I recommend a termination of the arguments regarding motion and infinity and maybe I will be involved in some other argument involving other things in the future.

Thank you.

<BLOCKQUOTE id=quote><font size=2 face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id=quote>quote:<hr height=1 noshade id=quote>A perpetual motion machine is defined in physics books as a machine that produces work from zero input. In this sense, a machine you describe is not perpetual because it has an input source.<hr height=1 noshade id=quote></BLOCKQUOTE id=quote></font id=quote><font face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" size=2 id=quote>

This is yet another fuzzy definition. If we are to get anywhere, we must define our concepts clearly and rigorously.

In the case I described, the energy for my PMM comes from gravitons. You say that it is not a PMM because it has an input source (gravitons). But why can't I define the field of gravitons and my device as the PMM? Then it has no external input source. So when is an "input source" just part of the machine, and when does it disqualify the machine as a PMM?

<BLOCKQUOTE id=quote><font size=2 face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id=quote>quote:<hr height=1 noshade id=quote>According to this definition of perpetual motion machine, the universe as a whole is such a perpetual machine.<hr height=1 noshade id=quote></BLOCKQUOTE id=quote></font id=quote><font face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" size=2 id=quote>

This is contrary to the definitions I gave. The "universe" (defined as "everything that exists") is not a form or any kind of real, tangible entity. It is a fictitious mathematical concept. This is a meaningful distinction that you do not grasp of refuse to accept. It is the difference between "all integers from 1 to a google" and "all integers". The first set is finite and tangible, the second set is infinite and intangible, existing only in our minds but not in reality. So each of the things that exists is real and tangible. But "everything that exists" has measure infinity, is intangible, and exists only in our minds.

With words carefully defined in this way, it is meaningful to say that the universe is everything that exists, yet the universe does not itself exist (meaning it is not a real, tangible form). The non-existence of the universe relates to the existence of the contents of the universe in the same way as the non-existence of the set of all integers relates to the existence of uncountable finite set of integers. Or when I say that an infinite series has a finite sum, an infinite series is a mathematical construct existing only in our minds but not in reality. Yet an uncountably large number of terms of the series do exist, making my statement as close to exactly true as we wish it to be.

In another thread, you expressed your objection this way: "That an infinite series has a finite sum is a premise used in an attempt to resolve the paradox but Zeno does not care about convergent series but only of the infinite intervals he has to travel." This completely mixes up the finiteness of all forms and properties that exist and the infiniteness of counts of those forms or properties. The former exist, the latter do not, and are purely mathematical concepts. So although there are an infinite number of intervals to be traveled to reach any goal, the interval itself (like the sum of the series) is finite and is reached in a finite time. You must distinguish the real from the mathematical. Although the latter are essential to our descriptions and understandings of reality, they are neither real nor tangible. But only these non-real, non-tangible concepts can ever become infinite.

<BLOCKQUOTE id=quote><font size=2 face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id=quote>quote:<hr height=1 noshade id=quote>According to Meta Model, motion is accomplished via a perpetual re-cycle of available energy and energy cannot be created from nothing or destroyed into nothing.<hr height=1 noshade id=quote></BLOCKQUOTE id=quote></font id=quote><font face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" size=2 id=quote>

I do not understand your meaning: "motion is accomplished"??? Motion exists in MM because there is no possible meaning to non-motion because there is nothing that exists that can define "rest". So absolute motion is meaningless, but relative motion must exist everywhere and cannot be destroyed, but only assembled or divided.

<BLOCKQUOTE id=quote><font size=2 face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id=quote>quote:<hr height=1 noshade id=quote>How can somebody refuse that according to that definition the universe is not a perpetual machine?<hr height=1 noshade id=quote></BLOCKQUOTE id=quote></font id=quote><font face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" size=2 id=quote>

Easy. The universe is not real, not tangible, not existing, and definitely not a "machine". Any finite portion of it might be, however.

<BLOCKQUOTE id=quote><font size=2 face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id=quote>quote:<hr height=1 noshade id=quote>Is there any energy coming outside of the universe? If your answer is no, then the universe is a perpetual motion machine.<hr height=1 noshade id=quote></BLOCKQUOTE id=quote></font id=quote><font face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" size=2 id=quote>

Illogical. This is a false dichotomy, as I have explained. The universe is a useful, mathematical or logical concept. But there is no such concept as "outside the universe".

<BLOCKQUOTE id=quote><font size=2 face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id=quote>quote:<hr height=1 noshade id=quote>If the above are agreed upon we can continue. If not, it seems you may have different understanding of physics principles and definitions as traditionaly taught and accepted in major universities.<hr height=1 noshade id=quote></BLOCKQUOTE id=quote></font id=quote><font face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" size=2 id=quote>

That is an appeal to authority. Rejected. Our only requirement is that our definitions be crisp, our premises clearly stated, and our reasoning valid. [But in fact, I have read several books that disagree with your far-too-simplistic interpretation of Zeno's paradoxes, along with a few that agree with it. But it is not the number of prestige of opinions of others that matters, but the quality of the arguments we can invoke here and now.]

<BLOCKQUOTE id=quote><font size=2 face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id=quote>quote:<hr height=1 noshade id=quote>In contrast, the standard model does not face the same logical contradiction because it is not a perpetual motion machine. It expands and possibly it will collapse back when available energy cannot be re-cycled to produce useful work.<hr height=1 noshade id=quote></BLOCKQUOTE id=quote></font id=quote><font face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" size=2 id=quote>

This is ironic inasmuch as the standard Big Bang model is widely recognized as not respecting conservation of energy, and in fact invokes continual creation of new, energy-laden space from nothing.

<BLOCKQUOTE id=quote><font size=2 face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id=quote>quote:<hr height=1 noshade id=quote>It seems that a model of an infinite universe, in whatever sense, requires an infinite replenishing of energy and an internal thermodynamic cycle cannot solve this basic physics problem it does not matter what specific language is used.<hr height=1 noshade id=quote></BLOCKQUOTE id=quote></font id=quote><font face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" size=2 id=quote>

Again, false. In MM, neither matter nor momentum can ever come into or go out of existence.

<BLOCKQUOTE id=quote><font size=2 face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id=quote>quote:<hr height=1 noshade id=quote>Somehow, all theories involving any reference to "infinity", in any sense, have been managed by science as it progresses. The objective of natural philosophers has been to restrict the existence on infinity to mathematics because more logical contradictions arise from its presence than it solves. This is not my opinion now, but the opinion that prevails in science.<hr height=1 noshade id=quote></BLOCKQUOTE id=quote></font id=quote><font face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" size=2 id=quote>

What you have failed to perceive is tha

"I made a logical argument {to wit: an infinite series can have a finite sum; and steps to a goal or constituents in a substance can be put into a one-to-one correspondence with terms in an infinite series having a finite sum). But you rejected this argument, for no good cause that I can yet see. "

I can give you a good reason for my rejection. Your argument is absurd and one reason is as follows: it is an induction against a deduction. Try this:

You may start dividing 1 meter in half, and then the remainning in half, and so on. Then, keep adding them together, not in your mind but with your calculator. Are you ever going to finish? The answer is no. Then, your answer that a finite series converges is only in mathematics which you claim in the first place to have nothing to do with reality in the sense of the infinite, but them you invoke mathematics of infinity to provide a proof of your argument because you cannot demontrate a proof by experiment.

Maybe you are still adding, if you decided to start. Zeno recommends that you do not even attempt to start. But if you started doing the little experiment I proposed, you will never finish, unless you say to me that magically, by induction, your series will converge. But you cannot and will never be able to prove that experimentally. You will "frame hypothesis" and look at the result, that you travelled the road, and claim that you moved. Zeno tells you that your motion is an illusion of your space-time.

If you are still counting your series and you are exausted, you are allowed to make the induction for practical reasons. Confusing that allowance with you solving the paradox of motion is a very big step to take. Certainly, it is a "small step for mankind"

If you are still counting but wondering why it will take you forever to count an infinite series but the person next to you walked the meter in a second, think about it: It is not that the series converged. Nature probably knows nothing about series convergence. It is because there is something we do not perceive that allows motion and this is the essence of Zeno paradox and the missing premise to resolve it. Zeno, with his paradox, calls for that premise but it is a suprise that so may fail to understand this and get too fanatic about the paradox itself.

And yet, if you are still counting the infinite series, hopping to ever converge it, even in a mathematical sense you must know it never does but only asymptotically, so even in mathematics you will never get there unless you drop the final infinitesimal and consider it the smallest possible element, a delta or epsilon, which makes your continous space idea a contradiction in terms, even in mathematics.

By now, you probably stopped counting, if you ever started, and you are trying to think of a way to prove that you can count it, although you never did. This proof will only be an "intellectual construction" and based on any inductions you can make regarding space and time. It will never be a deduction. Unless, you can discover the missing premise that resolves the paradox and demonstrate it. Whoever does it, will probably become the highest scientific figure ever. At the some time, those proposing naive convergent series abstractions must live in a well known contradiction their argument presents. Natural philosophy goes beyond high school algebra and seeks to answer fundamental issues regarding space and time. Those issues are as valid today as in Zeno's time and maybe before him.

I still expect you to invoke the "convergent series" argument as a solution to Zeno's paradox. But think about it: by invoking that argument have you realized a solution for the cause of motion? If you say yes, Newton will jump out of his grave and kiss you! If you say no, you will be at least an honest man. If you say that the cause of motion is know, then I say we have been waisting our time here.

Ciao