Broken Circle

1234567890
Visitor

21 years 7 months ago #5551 by 1234567890

Replied by 1234567890 on topic Reply from

<BLOCKQUOTE id=quote>quote:<hr height=1 noshade id=quote>
<BLOCKQUOTE id=quote>quote:<hr height=1 noshade id=quote>[Mac]: Solve the meaning of a singularity and you solve the origin of the Universe.<hr height=1 noshade id=quote></BLOCKQUOTE id=quote>

Singularities are well-studied and well-understood by mathematicians, and also by celestial mechanicians. Their "meaning" is not in any doubt. However, the math of infinities is again essential background to understand them.

But how ironic for Mac. A singularity is a point in space where density, force, and speed have all become infinite -- something Mac claims to eschew. Moreover, this is an example of a bad use of infinity, the kind forbidden by MM. A singularity requires the finite to become infinite, which is another process requiring a miracle. No matter how many forms or how much "energy" is added to a point, it can never reach infinity in reality. But singularities require a true mathematical infinity, not just a very large, finite value. They blow off the logical constraints of the principles of physics. -|Tom|-

<hr height=1 noshade id=quote></BLOCKQUOTE id=quote>

I think singularities are contradictory to the Big Bang theory anyhow.

Please Log in or Create an account to join the conversation.

Mac
Offline
Platinum Member

21 years 7 months ago #5552 by Mac

Replied by Mac on topic Reply from Dan McCoin

Tom,

The problem with your response is that it assumes you do know what a singularity is. But as you also stated it is a mathematical concept. That is not reality. My gut tells me that a singularity is a finite "quantum" point and not the mathematical analog version you propose.

In which case Infinity doesn't get involved but "Nothingness" does.

Sorry your assumptions are not scientific, they are crass speculation without logic (by yours I mean the current scientific community).

While on the subject of the value of math:

1 - Start with an identity: a=b
2 - Multiply both sides by variable "a": a^2=a*b
3 - Subtract b^2 from both sides: a^2-b^2=a*b-b^2
4 - Factor both sides: (a-b)(a+b)=b*(a-b)
5 - Cancel the common term: a+b=b
6 - But a=b, so: b+b=b
7 - Divide both sides by b: 2=1

Please Log in or Create an account to join the conversation.

tvanflandern
Offline
Platinum Member

21 years 7 months ago #5553 by tvanflandern

Replied by tvanflandern on topic Reply from Tom Van Flandern

<BLOCKQUOTE id=quote>quote:<hr height=1 noshade id=quote>[Mac]: The problem with your response is that it assumes you do know what a singularity is. But as you also stated it is a mathematical concept. That is not reality.<hr height=1 noshade id=quote></BLOCKQUOTE id=quote>

Yes, it is reality. "Singularity" has a definition, and based on that definition and derived mathematical properties therefrom, we can draw the conclusions I listed.

<BLOCKQUOTE id=quote>quote:<hr height=1 noshade id=quote>My gut tells me that a singularity is a finite "quantum" point and not the mathematical analog version you propose.<hr height=1 noshade id=quote></BLOCKQUOTE id=quote>

If you wish to propose a new, completely different concept, why borrow an inappropriate name, already in use for something else? Invent a new name for your new concept. (How does "macularity" sound to you? <img src=icon_smile.gif border=0 align=middle>)

<BLOCKQUOTE id=quote>quote:<hr height=1 noshade id=quote>Sorry your assumptions are not scientific, they are crass speculation without logic (by yours I mean the current scientific community).<hr height=1 noshade id=quote></BLOCKQUOTE id=quote>

I "love" the way you throw out these provocative declarations when you are unfamiliar with the subject matter. <img src=icon_smile_sad.gif border=0 align=middle>

"Singularities" are a big subject. But to take just a single example, consider a star collapsing toward a "black hole". (To be clear, I think this is a mathematical fiction. But it illustrates the physical reason for the infinity in singularities.) As the star collapses, the same amount of mass is found within a smaller and smaller distance. That makes the gravitational force at the surface get larger and larger. This continues until the matter is squeezed so much that it can collapse no more. But if the initial mass is large enough, the force of gravity during the collapse can exceed the ability of anything in quantum physics, even quarks (the supposed smallest building blocks), to resist further collapse. So once the quarks are no longer able to resist further collapse, nothing can stop the collapse as the force heads toward infinity. The mass collapses all the way to a singularity -- a mathematical point with zero dimensions and infinite density.

<BLOCKQUOTE id=quote>quote:<hr height=1 noshade id=quote>1 - Start with an identity: a=b
2 - Multiply both sides by variable "a": a^2=a*b
3 - Subtract b^2 from both sides: a^2-b^2=a*b-b^2
4 - Factor both sides: (a-b)(a+b)=b*(a-b)
5 - Cancel the common term: a+b=b
6 - But a=b, so: b+b=b
7 - Divide both sides by b: 2=1<hr height=1 noshade id=quote></BLOCKQUOTE id=quote>

You made an error in line 5, which you would have spotted instantly if you were familiar with the math of infinities. The "common term" is (a-b), which by starting assumption is zero. So "canceling" that term means dividing by zero, which gives an infinity on both sides. So the concluding three lines should read:
5 - (a+b)<img src=icon_infty.gif border=0 align=middle>=b<img src=icon_infty.gif border=0 align=middle>
6 - (b+b)<img src=icon_infty.gif border=0 align=middle>=b<img src=icon_infty.gif border=0 align=middle>
7 - 2<img src=icon_infty.gif border=0 align=middle>=<img src=icon_infty.gif border=0 align=middle>
Line 7 happens to be true.

If you get nothing else from our discussions, I hope you will be motivated to get some books and read up on these subjects you seem interested in, but have such limited knowledge of. It is always dangerous to start drawing conclusions before you have all the facts. Good luck. -|Tom|-

Please Log in or Create an account to join the conversation.

Larry Burford
Offline
Platinum Member

21 years 7 months ago #4059 by Larry Burford

Replied by Larry Burford on topic Reply from Larry Burford

<BLOCKQUOTE id=quote>quote:<hr height=1 noshade id=quote>
[Mac]
I think your interpretation is quite close. I would differ only in that I believe once 0

>(+n)+(-n) is understood then there can be NO First Cause for Nothing.
<hr height=1 noshade id=quote></BLOCKQUOTE id=quote>

And I suspect that it is not safe for me to assume that I know what you mean by:

0--->(+n)+(-n)

so I wonder if you would "say it in words"? IOW tell me what you mean by each symbol.

I'm looking for something like this:

0: "zero"

>: "equals"
(+n): "the quantity positive en"
+: "plus"
(-n): "the quantity negative en"

Of course my examples above might not be even close to what you intend, so please fill in the right answers.

And I'd like to know what the over all equation means to you. Your physical explanation. Say it in words, please.

(Yeah I know - you've said it before. I just want to be sure.)

Thanks,
LB

Please Log in or Create an account to join the conversation.

JoeW
Topic Author
Offline
Senior Member

21 years 7 months ago #5721 by JoeW

Replied by JoeW on topic Reply from

<BLOCKQUOTE id=quote>quote:<hr height=1 noshade id=quote>

1 - Start with an identity: a=b
2 - Multiply both sides by variable "a": a^2=a*b
3 - Subtract b^2 from both sides: a^2-b^2=a*b-b^2
4 - Factor both sides: (a-b)(a+b)=b*(a-b)
5 - Cancel the common term: a+b=b
6 - But a=b, so: b+b=b
7 - Divide both sides by b: 2=1

<hr height=1 noshade id=quote></BLOCKQUOTE id=quote>

Obviously, TVF is right and one cannot divide through by the common term (a-b). Also, one must mote that the operation is not allowed by definition, that is, it's invalidity is an integral part of the mathematics of infinity. However, there is another approach:

1 - Start with an identity: a=b
2 - Multiply both sides by variable "a": a^2=a*b
3 - Subtract b^2 from both sides: a^2-b^2=a*b-b^2
4 - Factor both sides: (a-b)(a+b)=b*(a-b)
5 - But a=b, so: (a-b)(b+b) = b *(a-b) or (a-b)*2b = b*(a-b)
7 - Divide both sides by b (b # 0): 2(a-b)=(a-b)

So far so good, I think there should be no objection to 7.

Now, let a = apples bought by Patrick and left on his kitchen table
b = apples eaten by Joe while Patrick run to the bathroom

Conclusion 7 says that:

2x(Patrick's apples - Joe's apple lunch) = (Patrick's apples - Joe's apple lunch)

Is this possible? I maintain that energy is not conserved in this statement, only the axioms of arithmetic.

My proposition: Arithmetic operations do not conserve energy and therefore any models based on such correspondences, like the MM, lack realism.

My conclusion is along the lines of famous scientists and philosophers like Hume and Karnop: any model of the world based on infinity is metaphysical and therefore nonsense. Also, as Hume said, any book promoting such metaphysical ideas should be put to fire.

Let's see what other metaphysical ideas TVF will come up with to attack these realistic conclusions. Maybe Angels=gravitons?

Please Log in or Create an account to join the conversation.

tvanflandern
Offline
Platinum Member

21 years 7 months ago #5554 by tvanflandern

Replied by tvanflandern on topic Reply from Tom Van Flandern

<BLOCKQUOTE id=quote>quote:<hr height=1 noshade id=quote>[JoeW]: 2x(Patrick's apples - Joe's apple lunch) = (Patrick's apples - Joe's apple lunch)

Is this possible? I maintain that energy is not conserved in this statement, only the axioms of arithmetic.<hr height=1 noshade id=quote></BLOCKQUOTE id=quote>

If "Patrick's apples" = "Joe's apple lunch" (the starting assumption), then the above statement holds exactly and is true. If the two are not perfectly equal, then the starting assumption is violated. No mystery there.

<BLOCKQUOTE id=quote>quote:<hr height=1 noshade id=quote>My proposition: Arithmetic operations do not conserve energy and therefore any models based on such correspondences, like the MM, lack realism.<hr height=1 noshade id=quote></BLOCKQUOTE id=quote>

The basis for this conclusion was invalidated above. In any case, arithmetic is a mathematical process, and any physical counterpart may be exact or only an approximation according to our wishes. But that does not reflect any defect in the mathematics.

<BLOCKQUOTE id=quote>quote:<hr height=1 noshade id=quote>My conclusion is along the lines of famous scientists and philosophers like Hume and Karnop: any model of the world based on infinity is metaphysical and therefore nonsense. Also, as Hume said, any book promoting such metaphysical ideas should be put to fire.

<hr height=1 noshade id=quote></BLOCKQUOTE id=quote>

Can you say "non sequitur"? We understand the above is your philosophy. So what was Hume's opinion of calculus? Or yours, for that matter? The engineering marvels of the modern world would be in sad shape without differentials (which are infinitesimals) or integrals using infinity as limits.

<BLOCKQUOTE id=quote>quote:<hr height=1 noshade id=quote>Let's see what other metaphysical ideas TVF will come up with to attack these realistic conclusions. Maybe Angels=gravitons?

<hr height=1 noshade id=quote></BLOCKQUOTE id=quote>

So calculus and celestial mechanics are now "metaphysical ideas"? That's a strange world you live in, JoeW. <img src=icon_smile_shock.gif border=0 align=middle> -|Tom|-

Please Log in or Create an account to join the conversation.

Time to create page: 0.457 seconds