Gravity Probe B

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

<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.
___________________________________________________________________

Ans: the problem here is that you are using ONLY Human perception to come to some cosmic truth. whereas the universe is much more than just Human perception,is'nt it!! the universe's perception is all that there is no matter the scale. which in time perhaps we will reach,we ourselves become pure energy,reaching far, very far.

All those trillion atoms are presented to you at one time.

===

Ones, twos, trillions. Whatever. You can look at them one at a time if you choose to.

Or two at a time. Or whatever.

<blockquote id="quote"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote">Ans: the problem here is that you are using ONLY Human perception to come to some cosmic truth. whereas the universe is much more than just Human perception,is'nt it!! the universe's perception is all that there is no matter the scale. which in time perhaps we will reach,we ourselves become pure energy,reaching far, very far.<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote"> I'm using human peception in this discussion, but the application can be used for all things. All things being conceptual.

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

Ans: the problem here is that you are using ONLY Human perception to come to some cosmic truth. whereas the universe is much more than just Human perception,is'nt it!! the universe's perception is all that there is no matter the scale. which in time perhaps we will reach,we ourselves become pure energy,reaching far, very far.<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote"> I'm using human peception in this discussion, but the application can be used for all things. All things being conceptual.
_____________________________________________________________________

Ques: how do you conceptualize the unknown?

<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 />ques: but how does the death of this planet distinguish what is visible 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 visible 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?<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">I have no idea where we disconnected, but we seem to be talking past one another with neither of us understanding the other.

If scale is a dimension just like space and time, then similar forms can occur anywhere in scale, just as they can occur anywhere in space or time. Given that time is just a measure of change, (you have read chapter one of <i>Dark Matter...</i>, haven't you?), then if a megaplanet exploded, that explosion would take billions or trillions of years at our scale. There could not be significant change in 100 years. The visible universe has nothing to do with any megaplanet. (Or should I be saying "megastructure"? It could be anything.)

<blockquote id="quote"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote">ques:but being just a matter of scale, is there any evidence that any of this is actually happening?<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">We cannot observe beyond our limited horizon in space, time, or scale. The "evidence" that all are infinite comes from reasoning alone -- chapter one of <i>Dark Matter...</i>.

<blockquote id="quote"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote">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?<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">Again, we're talking past one another. "Light" is a feature of our scale. At bigger or smaller scales, other similar forms of energy would exist. But they would not be light.

<blockquote id="quote"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote">if this were true why all the different atomic elements?<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">Why are there double, triple, quadruple, etc. stars? On a larger scale, these might behave as ever-more-complex atoms. There is a virtually unlimited diversity in the detail of possible forms. Yet there is also a commonality, such as being able to classify all forms as consisting of waves or particles.

<blockquote id="quote"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote">show that galaxy clusters only produce one enormous molecule. show that galaxies are one enormous element.<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">Your challenges make no sense. There are no "molecules" or "elements" on other scales. There are simply forms with overall similar properties. And we know that from reason alone (chapter one again). -|Tom|-

<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 />ques: but how does the death of this planet distinguish what is visible 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 visible 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?<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">I have no idea where we disconnected, but we seem to be talking past one another with neither of us understanding the other.

If scale is a dimension just like space and time, then similar forms can occur anywhere in scale, just as they can occur anywhere in space or time. Given that time is just a measure of change, (you have read chapter one of <i>Dark Matter...</i>, haven't you?), then if a megaplanet exploded, that explosion would take billions or trillions of years at our scale. There could not be significant change in 100 years. The visible universe has nothing to do with any megaplanet. (Or should I be saying "megastructure"? It could be anything.)
_____________________________________________________________________

Ans: but the amount of time(change) is irrelavent, the thing is, what ever you define as the "visable" universe is dependent on the existence of this megastruture to exist.which when it explodes it implies a finite time, not infinity!! begining and an end for this universe!
_____________________________________________________________________

<blockquote id="quote"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote">ques:but being just a matter of scale, is there any evidence that any of this is actually happening?<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">We cannot observe beyond our limited horizon in space, time, or scale. The "evidence" that all are infinite comes from reasoning alone -- chapter one of <i>Dark Matter...</i>.
_____________________________________________________________________

Ans: but the reason to support infinity seems to contridicted with giving a time line!

_____________________________________________________________________

<blockquote id="quote"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote">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?<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">Again, we're talking past one another. "Light" is a feature of our scale. At bigger or smaller scales, other similar forms of energy would exist. But they would not be light.
____________________________________________________________________

Ques: and you don't find this a more complex theory? why is there no light? why would not similar energy give off light? what confines or changes this energy not to do so?

_____________________________________________________________________

<blockquote id="quote"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote">if this were true why all the different atomic elements?<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">Why are there double, triple, quadruple, etc. stars? On a larger scale, these might behave as ever-more-complex atoms. There is a virtually unlimited diversity in the detail of possible forms. Yet there is also a commonality, such as being able to classify all forms as consisting of waves or particles.

_____________________________________________________________________

Ans: why not these groups of stars? this is why i like fluid-dynamics,it will show why they are happening in 3D and there implications and behavours clearly.


____________________________________________________________________

<blockquote id="quote"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote">show that galaxy clusters only produce one enormous molecule. show that galaxies are one enormous element.<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">Your challenges make no sense. There are no "molecules" or "elements" on other scales. There are simply forms with overall similar properties. And we know that from reason alone (chapter one again). -|Tom|-
____________________________________________________________________

Ans: No,it makes no sense to tell me there are no molecules or elements,so there is no coming together of constituents to create a form? so how does form become?
<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">