Infinite Space and Time...How?

<BLOCKQUOTE id=quote><font size=2 face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id=quote>quote:<hr height=1 noshade id=quote>
No, in MM, the universe is not even expanding, let alone accelerating. Redshift is caused by light waves losing energy to gravitons by friction. -|Tom|-
<hr height=1 noshade id=quote></BLOCKQUOTE id=quote></font id=quote><font face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" size=2 id=quote>

In his book, Seeing Red, Halton Arp proposes that redshift is an intrinsic property of matter caused by incremental increases in mass of fundamental particles such as electrons. How does this idea square with that of 'tired light' in the Meta Model?

Best
Don

<BLOCKQUOTE id=quote><font size=2 face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id=quote>quote:<hr height=1 noshade id=quote>[Magoo]: I can't understand how you can claim that there are two types of space, one which is physical and one which is dimentional(non-physical/mathematical only) and then preach that physics is about what is real.<hr height=1 noshade id=quote></BLOCKQUOTE id=quote></font id=quote><font face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" size=2 id=quote>

If you read meanings into my words that I didn't put there, don't blame me for where they take you. <img src=icon_smile.gif border=0 align=middle>

I didn't say there are two kinds of space. I said the word "space" is used with two different meanings, and I described each. Objects exist (i.e., are real), while dimensions are mathematical devices used to measure objects comparatively. Dimensions are abstractions, but useful abstractions. Math is useful too. Sometimes even pure math, the part that has no practical applications yet, can prove useful. But let's not play word games. Real is real and abstract is abstract. Objects are real and dimensions are abstract. Right?

<BLOCKQUOTE id=quote><font size=2 face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id=quote>quote:<hr height=1 noshade id=quote>From a scientific view point, the only way you can have infinity is through mathematics, infinity does not exist in physics. Like you have said, phyisics is about the what is real and what is real can only be finite and "the finite cannot become infinite". Physics is about everything that exists or could exist, dimentions do not and cannot exist, they are not real.<hr height=1 noshade id=quote></BLOCKQUOTE id=quote></font id=quote><font face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" size=2 id=quote>

Up to there, I agree.

<BLOCKQUOTE id=quote><font size=2 face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id=quote>quote:<hr height=1 noshade id=quote>:It is not appropriate for you to say space and time are physical but they have dimensions which, mathematically, can be infiite so space is infinite. This is not logical.<hr height=1 noshade id=quote></BLOCKQUOTE id=quote></font id=quote><font face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" size=2 id=quote>

I explained that the English language has one word for two different concepts. Either we must learn to use context to tell which meaning is intended, or we must invent new terminology to continue. In the sentence just quoted, you mixed the two different meanings of "space" and said that was illogical. Well, it is if you ignore the distinction I made.

Specifically, the dimensions of space and time are infinite. All physical forms that exist in space and time are finite. Please tell me how this differs from the set of all integers? Each and every integer, and every collection of integers, no matter how large, is finite. But the measure of all integers is infinite. You can't then say "That is illogical because you claimed that all integers are finite, but the set of integers is infinite." Or more compactly, "Claiming that integers are both finite and infinite is illogical." That is just using words to blur a logical, important distinction.

<BLOCKQUOTE id=quote><font size=2 face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id=quote>quote:<hr height=1 noshade id=quote>You say to Mac "I have defined dimensions as the measures of space, time, and scale. As such, they cannot "curl in on themselves" as they can in math because I've defined them as straight." The only way that <u>You</u> could define something is in the maths, <u>you</u> cannot define anything in the physically real.<hr height=1 noshade id=quote></BLOCKQUOTE id=quote></font id=quote><font face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" size=2 id=quote>

I thought I just did that. A straight line is a mathematical concept, not a physical one. In practice, a straight line segment can be approximated by a taut rope -- a physical object.

<BLOCKQUOTE id=quote><font size=2 face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id=quote>quote:<hr height=1 noshade id=quote>So just to clairify, in the Meta Model, the only things that are infinite are actually just the non-real, non-physical, dimensions and not that the physical, real, things are finite? Do I have this right?<hr height=1 noshade id=quote></BLOCKQUOTE id=quote></font id=quote><font face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" size=2 id=quote>

Yes.

<BLOCKQUOTE id=quote><font size=2 face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id=quote>quote:<hr height=1 noshade id=quote>Additionally, if there are only a finite amount of constituents, as you have said, how then could you build something infinite in size, would you run out of parts since there are only so many of them.<hr height=1 noshade id=quote></BLOCKQUOTE id=quote></font id=quote><font face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" size=2 id=quote>

You cannot build anything infinite. All forms have a finite number of constituents in any finite scale range.

<BLOCKQUOTE id=quote><font size=2 face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id=quote>quote:<hr height=1 noshade id=quote>I'm sorry Dr. VanFlandern but it seems as though your entire Meta Model is founded on inaccurate understandings of infinity and I can't see how it could in any way model real physics.<img src=icon_smile.gif border=0 align=middle><img src=icon_smile.gif border=0 align=middle><hr height=1 noshade id=quote></BLOCKQUOTE id=quote></font id=quote><font face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" size=2 id=quote>

The MM makes no assumptions about the nature of infinity, or about what is infinite and what is finite. That comes deductively out of the model, starting from first principles. The specific reasoning that gives the nature of infinity in MM is Zeno's paradoxes. That is the part we have not discussed, and I'm guessing you may know little about.

I'm begging off because that is a BIG subject, and this MB is quite active at the moment, and I can't keep up with all the messages as it is. As in any learning environment, I recommend that we all read up on Zeno's paradoxes (either in my book, or in one of the dozens of others). Then we might all have an informed discussion. I'm prepared to answer questions about anything unclear with my approach, but not to teach it from scratch on this MB. Is that not reasonable? -|Tom|-

<BLOCKQUOTE id=quote><font size=2 face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id=quote>quote:<hr height=1 noshade id=quote>In his book, Seeing Red, Halton Arp proposes that redshift is an intrinsic property of matter caused by incremental increases in mass of fundamental particles such as electrons. How does this idea square with that of 'tired light' in the Meta Model?<hr height=1 noshade id=quote></BLOCKQUOTE id=quote></font id=quote><font face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" size=2 id=quote>

Technically, MM does not use THE tired light model, which is a straw man model easily falsified. Instead, MM is one of over 20 models that use "energy loss" (generically) as the redshift mechanism.

IMO, Arp's model and MM are reconcilable. But I'd rather speak in terms of elysium density than changes in fundamental particle masses.

The defect built into "tired light" is that light is imagined to be getting tired of traveling in a straight line, but not getting tired of pumping up and down in transverse waves. In any physically real model, wave amplitude (whose square is intensity) must lose energy at the same rate as frequency (which determines wavelength). When the model is fixed to include both effects, it fits the observations significantly better than either tired light or the Big Bang. -|Tom|-

Tom,

First I want to clarify by what I meant to infer by the term "curl", that probably won't change your view but I realize it isn't a clear definition.

As one moves outward from the center inside a sphere or volume, radial lines from the vertex diverge. With an attenuation through self interaction (like rubbing ones hands together) the energy density (spatial dimension) deminishes then the seperation (divergence) begins to narrow such that a surface described at given radii would not maintain a standard euclidian relationship. So it isn't curving in the normal sense of the word but I'm not quite sure howelse to describe it.

In your prior response you said:

"I have defined dimensions as the measures of space, time, and scale. As such, they cannot "curl in on themselves" as they can in math because I've defined them as straight. If one of my measurement standards were curved in the slightest, I would demand a straight replacement, formed by stretching a taut rope between two points on the curved standard."

By what authority or basis can you state that "........because I've defined then straight. ..........slightest, I would demand a straight replacement,......"; makes your view reality.

You are basing your arguement upon your view, more importantly your assumption that straight is reality.

What other basis can you offer, other than your opinion, that space is not curved and cannot curve?

The reason I ask is that I clearly see such curves as not only being reality but necessary to a sucessful vision of the universe.



Mac

From Mac

The reason I ask is that I clearly see such curves as not only being reality but necessary to a sucessful vision of the universe.

---

I agree Mac. I don't wanna use sophisticated terms like "curl" but I know there is no such a thing as a straight line on earth. You can imagine straigth lines but in space no such thing is possible since there can be no absolute point at rest to measure them. I think Einstein solved that problem why is it coming up again? Who was that guy, Reimmann, maybe I spelled it wrong. In guess in ones mind straight line can exist but in space to tarvel anywhere one must follow a curved path. So what good does "straight" make?

mechanic,

I think where many get lost is visualizing a straight line as being made with a pencil and ruler but in physics a straight line can be a mobius if it is the least path of resistance.

To not follow the path of least resistance creates an acceleration force or the sense of curving while actually you could be going right along Toms stretched rope.




mac