Limits in space....(and time)...

Thought experimenting and conjecures about space's limits.

Astronomy, Chemistry, Earth Sciences, Mathematics & Physics.

Moderators: Calilasseia, ADParker

Re: Limits in space....(and time)...

#21  Postby Spearthrower » Nov 20, 2019 5:09 pm

Scott Mayers wrote:
I don't care where you opt to pick your definition. The distinction between LOGIC (anaylyizing) and SCIENCE (via the collection of observations), originally comes from philosophy, and is clear enough. But 'science' is etymologically of the same roots as "to see" versus analyzing. "Science" as a more modern term to encompass both tends to blur the rational distinction.


Yes, I get it - you don't care about anything anyone else has to say, or about facts, you want everyone to accept your assertions uncritically even when they're manifestly wrong.

I'm afraid I won't be genuflecting to your assertions, regardless of how insistent you are, when I know they're wrong.

Similarly, I didn't 'opt to pick my definition'; I was informing you that there is a philosophy subforum here you could use for this topic clearly on Philosophy.

Given your track record so far, this is not going to be a thread on science as you will refuse to provide any material support for your positions.

Further, logic is not 'analyzing' - that's an idiosyncrasy I don't buy into. Logic is concerned with the practice of reasoning and identifying and applying the correct principles of reasoning.

Science's operating paradigm within philosophy is 'methodological naturalism' but science does not operate in any way like philosophy, as I've already explained.

Finally, as I already informed you, your Latin is flawed.

The Latin word 'to see' is videre.
The Latin word for 'to know' is scire.

My Latin is not particularly hot as I never studied it formally, but I am still quite insistent that you are wrong here.

Let me establish this finally and firmly with an independent source:

https://www.etymonline.com/word/science

from Latin scientia "knowledge, a knowing; expertness," from sciens (genitive scientis) "intelligent, skilled," present participle of scire "to know,"


A rational distinction is not worth a fig if it fails to comprehend that observation (i.e. evidence) is a non-optional requisite to do or be talking about science.


Scott Mayers wrote:So, on topic, I presented the paradox here because it is necessary to understand what is or is not possible about reality. I can't prove anything to you if you can't play along.


You can't prove anything to me if you refuse to employ evidence supporting your claims.

You can make pretty arguments; that's not exactly hard. But how are we to tell which argument is worth a fig if we're not meant to arbitrate claims made about reality against reality?

Can you arbitrate your claims against reality, i.e. point to an experiment or empirical evidence? If not, then you're doing philosophy.


Scott Mayers wrote: [Pretend this is one of your D&D games. I am your dungeon master and to prove that you're a good player, let me take the LEAD.]


Fuck off with you snide condescension.


Scott Mayers wrote:Does the paradox here prove true for a real or virtual point in space as understood as our 'origin' in this Universe?

If you guys are as competent as you say, then this should be no problem, right?


So, the first thing you're going to do is quote where I said I am competent.

If you can do that, then I will respond to your question.

If you can't do that, then perhaps it's time Scott that you dialed back a bit. Considering how briefly you've been here, you seem intent on being an asshole to everyone. It'll be no good complaining about being treated like an asshole if that treatment is merited. It does also rather put into perspective your voluntary reports about how your time on other fora has evolved, and it's not looking like your perspective on how unfairly you were treated is the complete story, so to say.


Edit: typo
Last edited by Spearthrower on Nov 20, 2019 6:13 pm, edited 1 time in total.
I'm not an atheist; I just don't believe in gods :- that which I don't belong to isn't a group!
Religion: Mass Stockholm Syndrome

Learn Stuff. Stuff good. https://www.coursera.org/
User avatar
Spearthrower
 
Posts: 26315
Age: 43
Male

Country: Thailand
Print view this post

Ads by Google


Re: Limits in space....(and time)...

#22  Postby Scott Mayers » Nov 20, 2019 5:14 pm

hackenslash wrote:The paradox presented here isn't a paradox, it's a failure to understand that time has been removed from the equation, the self-same problem with all Xeno's so-called paradoxes. Xeno was an idiot, who didn't realise that he'd tripped himself up with his own attempt to be clever.

It was presented as it was not because Zeno could NOT recognize the difference between reality or not. There CAN be a real paradox if either the time or the space is non-existent at or beyond those points. The paradox is not real only IF there is actual space and time beyond the wall in the example.

The related paradox of the Tortoise and the Hare relays the same problem. (I'll hold off on that for now as it might only add more confusion and investement in writing or drawing that I may not want to bother with.)

The 'goal' or ends of the limits in these paradoxes are what derived the impetus for Calculus AND to the major physical theories of space and time. {Einstein's Relativity theories relied on one of these to infer certain things through extended thought experiments on them.]

If time began at the singularity, then any energy extant in it depending on it as part of its forumlation approaches a limit and NOT a real point. If time ends, but space exist still, the paradox falls; if space exists but time doesn't, the paradox fails.

The point (before devolping it here) is that if TIME AND SPACE (which also happen to be one as the "space-time continuum") then the point is a sincere assymptote and a place in which you could NEVER reach. This means that a 'Big Bang' interpretation cannot rationally be true on grounds of logic. [If this end conclusion inspires the desire to understand this paradox and how it leads to it, then let this be a reason that might make you more interested in taking this seriously.]



[P.S. The philosopher, Zeno, is likely the root of the evolved "zero" (and possibly by name as well) AND to infinities and infinitesimals. The paradoxes are real under certain conditions. The paradox of the arrow derives Einstein recognizing that matter itself is compressed in the directon of motion, for instance.]
Scott Mayers
THREAD STARTER
 
Name: Scott Mayers
Posts: 57

Country: Canada
Canada (ca)
Print view this post

Re: Limits in space....(and time)...

#23  Postby Spearthrower » Nov 20, 2019 5:20 pm

Scott Mayers wrote:
Spearthrower wrote:
Scott Mayers wrote:
Cito di Pense wrote:Scott, if you want to bring limits into your discussion in a rigorous way, rather than in just a wibbly metaphorical way, you'd better start by showing you understand how to use the limit concept as presented in mathematics, rather than just name-dropping it....


This is my thread. If you don't like my approach leave. But don't tell me what I do and do not know. I would run circles around your head. And your insult is just acting as troll. Instead of ASSUMING something of me, PRETEND that I might have something of value (that is, assume charity rather than predefine me negatively.)

Thank you.


While requesting Cito or anyone else employ the principle of charity is perfectly reasonable, nothing else here is.


The underlined points above are not established (by oh what it that?...oh yeah, 'evidence') and it insults.


You can feel insult regardless of intent.

If you want to claim that Cito is being intentionally insulting, then report it. But you have no right to attempt to forbid him from the conversation or stop him from writing whatever he so chooses.


Scott Mayers wrote:That LOGICALLY tells anyone this this person is not interested in what you have to say regardless, but is only intent on DEFEATING you by the trolling it clearly is. And you are acting no different.


Firstly, your notion of logic appears to be very particular to you, in which case, it's not actually logic.

Secondly, you've now called 2 people trolls just because they're not performing tricks for you on command and dare to challenge your behavior.

You're rapidly becoming someone I am sorry to have seen join this forum, and it's got nothing to do with the content of your ideas, but is wholly to do with your exhibitions of overbearing arrogance. Three threads, and in each one you've repeatedly opted to make generalized condescending observations about people just because they aren't doing something you like.

Perhaps get a blog? That way you can control what people can or can't say. But here, you have no such power. Remember that, Scott.


Scott Mayers wrote:I won't be responding to OFF-TOPIC remarks about my credibility that you cannot establish.


I don't care.


Scott Mayers wrote: [I left the thread on what I am biased against (that D&D thread). If you are biased against me in turn as a whole person rather than that one particular topic I backed out of in respect, then you are only adding fuel to the fire of my own supposedly errant biases against you.]


That sentence doesn't confer the same information to the reader as I suppose you intended.


Scott Mayers wrote:I don't care if those of you want to participate or not. If you want me to go away, I can do that.


What I want you to do is to chill the fuck out and stop acting like you're something special. We've got plenty of those already, and we sure as shit don't need another one.

But mostly...

Aesop wrote:A Gnat alighted on one of the horns of a Bull, and remained sitting there for a considerable time. When it had rested sufficiently and was about to fly away, it said to the Bull, “Do you mind if I go now?” The Bull merely raised his eyes and remarked, without interest, “It’s all one to me; I didn’t notice when you came, and I shan’t know when you go away.”




Scott Mayers wrote:I I assure you I'll leave if I get no responses quicker though. Why would I want to discuss anything to those I'm unwelcomed to?


Are you unaware of how you're part of that equation?

If you make yourself unwelcome, then yes, you'll be unwelcome.

You could, of course, not make yourself unwelcome. Just sayin'.


Scott Mayers wrote:I But, if you continue to insult just to keep other potentially interested readers elsewhere here from wanting to bother speaking with me (out of fear of you guys wolfpacking them in turn), you show the perfect example of the online troll.


You claim I have insulted you, but you've not actually shown that I've insulted you. As far as I can see, you may well take disagreement as insult, but when you make sweeping derogatory generalizations about people you don't even know, you seem to think that's just hard facts they're not allowed to dispute.

A healthy dose of get over yourself would be useful to lubricate your participation here.


Scott Mayers wrote:II don't care one way or the other. I just hope the admins here notice this behavior and perhaps may use it to determine if their site welcomes you more than others who might potentially be attracted to coming here.


Me particularly?

So it went from Cito being a troll, to me saying that you shouldn't be so rude for no valid reason, to now me being the problem with this website... and really, it's just because I challenged your behavior?

And again, you've been here just a couple of days and you seem to think you've got the right to dictate how it operates.

POP
I'm not an atheist; I just don't believe in gods :- that which I don't belong to isn't a group!
Religion: Mass Stockholm Syndrome

Learn Stuff. Stuff good. https://www.coursera.org/
User avatar
Spearthrower
 
Posts: 26315
Age: 43
Male

Country: Thailand
Print view this post

Re: Limits in space....(and time)...

#24  Postby Scott Mayers » Nov 20, 2019 5:29 pm

Spearthrower, (a label to hint at your agression?), the 'condescention' is earned when, as I have tried to say before, some will not let you get past go for THEIR bias AND then get bullied (with the initial 'condescention') FIRST that is evidenced already here. You don't have to like me. But I'm not hiding behind anoymity here and thus should get at least a little better respect, as though you would give me if in person. I don't think you or others would be brave enough to speak as many of you do in person. It's cowardous and abusive.
Scott Mayers
THREAD STARTER
 
Name: Scott Mayers
Posts: 57

Country: Canada
Canada (ca)
Print view this post

Re: Limits in space....(and time)...

#25  Postby Spearthrower » Nov 20, 2019 5:40 pm

This means that a 'Big Bang' interpretation cannot rationally be true on grounds of logic. [


Then that logic is flawed if evidence suggests that the inflationary models are true. The primacy flows that way, not in favour of philosophy.

And what is this logic that is meant to falsify inflationary models?

The point (before devolping it here) is that if TIME AND SPACE (which also happen to be one as the "space-time continuum") then the point is a sincere assymptote and a place in which you could NEVER reach.


It doesn't even actually offer any semantic sense. Cut the ellipses out: The point is that if TIME AND SPACE then the point is a sincere assymptote and a place in which you could NEVER reach.

What is that meant to convey?

This is the big point you're making, apparently, but it seems to be lacking any definable idea.

But taking the little bit that is comprehensible: why would being unable to reach a past event or not matter in terms of reversing time to get to it? That doesn't mean it couldn't have happened, only that it would be unreachable from the later state. Such irreversibility happens routinely in the natural world, not least in terms of thermodynamic processes.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Irreversible_process

All complex natural processes are irreversible.[1][2][3][4] The phenomenon of irreversibility results from the fact that if a thermodynamic system, which is any system of sufficient complexity, of interacting molecules is brought from one thermodynamic state to another, the configuration or arrangement of the atoms and molecules in the system will change in a way that is not easily predictable.[5][6] Some "transformation energy" will be used as the molecules of the "working body" do work on each other when they change from one state to another. During this transformation, there will be some heat energy loss or dissipation due to intermolecular friction and collisions. This energy will not be recoverable if the process is reversed.

Many biological processes that were once thought to be reversible have been found to actually be a pairing of two irreversible processes. Whereas a single enzyme was once believed to catalyze both the forward and reverse chemical changes, research has found that two separate enzymes of similar structure are typically needed to perform what results in a pair of thermodynamically irreversible processes.[7]
I'm not an atheist; I just don't believe in gods :- that which I don't belong to isn't a group!
Religion: Mass Stockholm Syndrome

Learn Stuff. Stuff good. https://www.coursera.org/
User avatar
Spearthrower
 
Posts: 26315
Age: 43
Male

Country: Thailand
Print view this post

Re: Limits in space....(and time)...

#26  Postby Spearthrower » Nov 20, 2019 5:50 pm

Scott Mayers wrote:Spearthrower, (a label to hint at your agression?),...


No, the Anglo-Saxon word for my surname, but thanks once again for being personally obnoxious.


Scott Mayers wrote:the 'condescention' is earned when,


You started with condescension, and you've applied it to everyone regardless.


Scott Mayers wrote: as I have tried to say before, some will not let you get past go for THEIR bias AND then get bullied (with the initial 'condescention')


Yes, you're attempting to be a bully, but you're going to find it's somewhat difficult to bully me.


Scott Mayers wrote:FIRST that is evidenced already here.


What is evident Scott is that you think you're special and you think everyone else should agree with that. Then you are unduly hostile to people who don't perform as you desire.


Scott Mayers wrote: You don't have to like me.


Bull and gnat.


Scott Mayers wrote:But I'm not hiding behind anoymity here...


Which means?

Are you trying to say that I am hiding behind anonymity?

My name is Gary Sparkes.

Am I now revealed to you? Have I achieved something important here that would justify being obnoxious and condescending to you just because you now know my name?

And really, Scott? This is the internet. Your name could be anything at all. You could be a woman called Mandy for all I know. But it doesn't matter anyway as it's entirely irrelevant when my complaints are about your behavior, regardless of whether you're Scott OR Mandy.


Scott Mayers wrote: and thus should get at least a little better respect,


Do I now get your respect because you know my name?

For me, it's not your name that potentially engenders respect, in reality I offered you plenty of respect throughout your initial posts here and would be more than happy to show a) that I did so and b) how you responded. I treat all people with respect up until they show they are not worthy of respect. What does not engender respect, Scott, is nothing to do with your name, but to do with your behavior. Dial the fuck back. It's not hard. You may not be here to find your soul-mate or find pub pals, but this is still a community and you don't come in and shit on the tables demanding that other people perform for you.

Scott Mayers wrote: as though you would give me if in person.


Trust me: if you acted like this in person, I'd be a damn sight more frank about what I thought about you than I am permitted to here.

Again, Scott. Perhaps, just perhaps, you're part of the equation, and perhaps, just perhaps, you need to consider how you want to behave here if respect is what you're seeking.


Scott Mayers wrote: I don't think you or others would be brave enough to speak as many of you do in person.


I think you're doing what you've done since you arrived: use demeaning generalizations.


Scott Mayers wrote: It's cowardous and abusive.


It's cowardly to challenge your absurd behavior? Does not compute.

If it's abusive, then hit the alert button on the top right of my post and notify a moderator. They will then apply the Forum User Agreement's rules to decide if they agree, and if they do, I will receive a warning about my conduct. That is a way we can all go. I 'cowardly' opt to tell you directly rather than have the moderators perform that function.

But don't for a moment think I'd be cowed by a bully just because we're face to face. You don't know me very well, do you? :lol:
I'm not an atheist; I just don't believe in gods :- that which I don't belong to isn't a group!
Religion: Mass Stockholm Syndrome

Learn Stuff. Stuff good. https://www.coursera.org/
User avatar
Spearthrower
 
Posts: 26315
Age: 43
Male

Country: Thailand
Print view this post

Re: Limits in space....(and time)...

#27  Postby Spearthrower » Nov 20, 2019 5:58 pm

hackenslash wrote:We don't need to find an edge, we only need measure curvature. One probably anomalous observation aside, we measure the universe to be flat to well within error bars on the largest scales we can currently measure. If we measure positive curvature, the universe is closed and finite. If we measure negative curvature, the universe is open and infinite. If we measure it to be flat, there are both finite and infinite solutions possible.

If the universe is infinite in extent, then it was always infinite in extent, and the 'singularity' can only refer to the energy density of the universe, and even then only within our local particle horizon.



That Hack, was very succinctly written and clear.
I'm not an atheist; I just don't believe in gods :- that which I don't belong to isn't a group!
Religion: Mass Stockholm Syndrome

Learn Stuff. Stuff good. https://www.coursera.org/
User avatar
Spearthrower
 
Posts: 26315
Age: 43
Male

Country: Thailand
Print view this post

Ads by Google


Re: Limits in space....(and time)...

#28  Postby Scott Mayers » Nov 20, 2019 6:45 pm

Spearthrower wrote:
This means that a 'Big Bang' interpretation cannot rationally be true on grounds of logic. [


Then that logic is flawed if evidence suggests that the inflationary models are true. The primacy flows that way, not in favour of philosophy.

And what is this logic that is meant to falsify inflationary models?
Too far ahead. You're missing the point about the fact that I'm stating what cannot be even begun as a foundation about the theory, not an addendum to theory assuming it is already established.


The point (before devolping it here) is that if TIME AND SPACE (which also happen to be one as the "space-time continuum") then the point is a sincere assymptote and a place in which you could NEVER reach.


It doesn't even actually offer any semantic sense. Cut the ellipses out: The point is that if TIME AND SPACE then the point is a sincere assymptote and a place in which you could NEVER reach.

What is that meant to convey?

This is the big point you're making, apparently, but it seems to be lacking any definable idea.

If we are inside a space-time, you cannot use the perception of a point to infer an actual beginning but a converging virtual one. Thus, all you CAN be certain of is that time and space has always existed in our Universe. It defines it. There is no possible rationale to permit even an assumption of a sudden origin because it breaks every rule of what is supposed to be based upon empricism: our capacity to observe from where we are anytime we are.

The paradox occurs ONLY if you assume a real singularity because you'd require a sudden INFINITE FORCE to go from nothing to ANY finite quantity.

Energy is a measure of Force through a distance. Force is an acceleration of mass. You'd need both to POP into existence (the 'Bang') a finite mass + energy AT that singularity if time and space is itself originated. But where other than some magic being could supply such power? [Enter the political justification to conserve this theory over the Steady State one, since it DOESN'T rule out even the Diestic interpretation if space and time is infinite.]


But taking the little bit that is comprehensible: why would being unable to reach a past event or not matter in terms of reversing time to get to it? That doesn't mean it couldn't have happened, only that it would be unreachable from the later state. Such irreversibility happens routinely in the natural world, not least in terms of thermodynamic processes.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Irreversible_process

In the paradoxes, what gets missed is that there is a real wall that implies something is still beyond it. The 'goal' to reach the wall though is the distance to it finitely in Zeno's example. Also, we know that time still exists for the challenge. That is why the paradox fails in Zeno's particular cases. But IF time and space both do not exist at that point, it can only be an assymptote which means that Zeno's cases are true in those cases.

This can only mean that the closer you try to get to it, some distance, it has to match with the time in a way that you could never reach it. Thus the point is an illusion as the only way you could not reach there is if the appearance is an infinitismal point where there is always some time and space. ....an infinite reality. Big Bang theory is dependent on a finite interpetation that suddenly pops in a special quanity of matter and energy in no time at all.

The Big Bang is a religious theory for this reason alone. The fact that it was kept has to mean it is a political closed door decision. Likely science would not get the funding for the same justification you feel that I was insulting you here for, but by the collective taxpaying religious people everywhere in the world who would be insulted should the Steady State model be adopted.

Note too that regardless, a Big Bang or Steady State theory MUST be in a space that accelerates from the singularity if at least by the perception alone.

Then add the fixed speed of light. If given the point is virtual, what we see has to be interpreted that far back as appearing hot because the RELATIVE speed of light further back we look is faster (by illusion) and thus denser when we see galaxies further away. This is because if time and space appear to shrink looking further back, then the ration of any speed based upon a quantity of space as distance/time.

So how one presumes even the CMBR or quasars don't fit with Steady State models is a mistake or intentional lie.


All complex natural processes are irreversible.[1][2][3][4] The phenomenon of irreversibility results from the fact that if a thermodynamic system, which is any system of sufficient complexity, of interacting molecules is brought from one thermodynamic state to another, the configuration or arrangement of the atoms and molecules in the system will change in a way that is not easily predictable.[5][6] Some "transformation energy" will be used as the molecules of the "working body" do work on each other when they change from one state to another. During this transformation, there will be some heat energy loss or dissipation due to intermolecular friction and collisions. This energy will not be recoverable if the process is reversed.

Many biological processes that were once thought to be reversible have been found to actually be a pairing of two irreversible processes. Whereas a single enzyme was once believed to catalyze both the forward and reverse chemical changes, research has found that two separate enzymes of similar structure are typically needed to perform what results in a pair of thermodynamically irreversible processes.[7]

I agree with processes to be reversible. See the last point to understand the difference of interpretation of what we see.

Do you think that the speed of light stays fixed in all times relative to us HERE? If we can't make space and time disappear like this locally, we have to assume that such appearance of that inferred by any theory must make the theory more dubiously anti-scientific than to a simpler more realistic one of it being a normal appearance due alone that the (or a) Steady State theory implies. The Big Bang not only falls on the fact that we cannot infer this phenomena locally but to the logic I just presented.

We SHOULD see a CMBR....we should see further objects in space look different then closer objects as well because the apparent intensity of light as a field is closer together just as fields of gravity or electromagnetism is stronger closer to its 'point' location.

If you are not yet satisfied with the paradox, I have some illustrations that I can add here that might make it easier to see.
Scott Mayers
THREAD STARTER
 
Name: Scott Mayers
Posts: 57

Country: Canada
Canada (ca)
Print view this post

Re: Limits in space....(and time)...

#29  Postby Thommo » Nov 20, 2019 7:07 pm

In a general sense an "edge" in spacetime can look like anywhere. There's a meaningful sense in which where you are right now is an "edge". With only the constraints of geometry and no attempt at physical modelling we can just invoke the Whitney embedding theorem to say that whatever space we model our local surroundings as we can embed it in a higher dimensional space and define all points as being parts of the hypersurface in that space.

One might think this is not terribly informative though, as it makes no account of physical realities. But that's what you get with geometry alone. What's north of the north pole? What's west of the west pole? I guess it depends on your choice of co-ordinate system. :dunno:

ETA: Essentially unrelated to this post I did read this: https://www.forbes.com/sites/startswith ... 0c92e7d815 the other day which was an interesting enough layman's language presentation of a case against the singularity.
User avatar
Thommo
 
Posts: 26670

Print view this post

Re: Limits in space....(and time)...

#30  Postby Spearthrower » Nov 20, 2019 7:33 pm

Scott - you didn't actually respond to anything in my post.

Even when I quoted from Wikipedia about irreversible processes, you replied that you agree with reversible processes.

All complex natural processes are irreversible.[1][2][3][4] The phenomenon of irreversibility results from the fact that if a thermodynamic system, which is any system of sufficient complexity, of interacting molecules is brought from one thermodynamic state to another, the configuration or arrangement of the atoms and molecules in the system will change in a way that is not easily predictable.[5][6] Some "transformation energy" will be used as the molecules of the "working body" do work on each other when they change from one state to another. During this transformation, there will be some heat energy loss or dissipation due to intermolecular friction and collisions. This energy will not be recoverable if the process is reversed.

Many biological processes that were once thought to be reversible have been found to actually be a pairing of two irreversible processes. Whereas a single enzyme was once believed to catalyze both the forward and reverse chemical changes, research has found that two separate enzymes of similar structure are typically needed to perform what results in a pair of thermodynamically irreversible processes.[7]

Scott Mayers wrote:I agree with processes to be reversible. See the last point to understand the difference of interpretation of what we see.


Essentially, this defeats your main point that things must necessarily be reversible. Not just things, but the entire universe's evolution must be reversible to its initial state. I don't think you can assert that. I don't think it follows. I don't think you can use words to show it's true. As I've made clear many times, for me evidence has primacy over statements.
I'm not an atheist; I just don't believe in gods :- that which I don't belong to isn't a group!
Religion: Mass Stockholm Syndrome

Learn Stuff. Stuff good. https://www.coursera.org/
User avatar
Spearthrower
 
Posts: 26315
Age: 43
Male

Country: Thailand
Print view this post

Re: Limits in space....(and time)...

#31  Postby hackenslash » Nov 20, 2019 9:30 pm

Scott Mayers wrote:This means that a 'Big Bang' interpretation cannot rationally be true on grounds of logic. [If this end conclusion inspires the desire to understand this paradox and how it leads to it, then let this be a reason that might make you more interested in taking this seriously.]


This is the bit where you explain how you entirely overlooked my prior posts, wherein I explained that 'big bang' is simply the name we apply, as a matter of historical contingency, to the observed fact that the universe is not, in a very specific and falsifying sense, steady state, namely that, as newolder (physicist) noted, the energy density of the universe is decreasing, which constitutes a fatal falsification of ALL steady-state cosmologies.

The paradox itself is not, as noted by myself, a paradox, but a failure to keep time in mind when erecting temporally-centred notions, something that you clearly haven't grasped in your illiterate fumblings about singularities (how does something with no time experience change; again, newolder (physicist) pointed this out unambiguously)

[P.S. The philosopher, Zeno, is likely the root of the evolved "zero" (and possibly by name as well) AND to infinities and infinitesimals. The paradoxes are real under certain conditions. The paradox of the arrow derives Einstein recognizing that matter itself is compressed in the directon of motion, for instance.]


The philosopher, Aristotle, is likely the root of most popular notions of causality, AND to the notion that women have fewer teeth than men.

This is the bit where you explain why Xeno has more place in a discussion about cosmology as Aristotle has in a discussion about causality.

You might as well say that Ross Brawn should base all his conclusions on the management of a Formula 1 team on the opinions of the proto-human who invented the fucking wheel.
User avatar
hackenslash
 
Name: The Other Sweary One
Posts: 21438
Age: 50
Male

Country: Republic of Mancunia
Print view this post

Re: Limits in space....(and time)...

#32  Postby newolder » Nov 20, 2019 9:45 pm

Is the fucking wheel related to the menstrual cycle? :scratch:
I am, somehow, less interested in the weight and convolutions of Einstein’s brain than in the near certainty that people of equal talent have lived and died in cotton fields and sweatshops. - Stephen J. Gould
User avatar
newolder
 
Name: Albert Ross
Posts: 6765
Age: 9
Male

Country: Feudal Estate number 9
Print view this post

Re: Limits in space....(and time)...

#33  Postby hackenslash » Nov 20, 2019 9:47 pm

Dunno, but I think the cyclical nature of internet fuckwits might be tractable.
User avatar
hackenslash
 
Name: The Other Sweary One
Posts: 21438
Age: 50
Male

Country: Republic of Mancunia
Print view this post

Re: Limits in space....(and time)...

#34  Postby Fallible » Nov 20, 2019 9:54 pm

I’m an anoymity. It’s a kind of manatee.
She battled through in every kind of tribulation,
She revelled in adventure and imagination.
She never listened to no hater, liar,
Breaking boundaries and chasing fire.
Oh, my my! Oh my, she flies!
User avatar
Fallible
RS Donator
 
Name: Alice Pooper
Posts: 50133
Age: 47
Female

Country: Engerland na na
Canada (ca)
Print view this post

Re: Limits in space....(and time)...

#35  Postby hackenslash » Nov 20, 2019 9:57 pm

Except that everybody knows this particular sirenian...
User avatar
hackenslash
 
Name: The Other Sweary One
Posts: 21438
Age: 50
Male

Country: Republic of Mancunia
Print view this post

Ads by Google


Re: Limits in space....(and time)...

#36  Postby Fallible » Nov 20, 2019 10:09 pm

You callin me a slow and passive mammal? I warn you, sir, I will sluggishly drift over there, stopping every 2 minutes to allow vegetation to float into my gaping maw, and just sort of float there with a stupid grin on my face. Then you’ll be sorry.

No hang on...I’m calling me a slow and passive mammal. Well just you wait, me, I gots a whole bunch of floatin and a-gawpin with my name on it. I’ll be sorry, oh yes! Just me wait!
She battled through in every kind of tribulation,
She revelled in adventure and imagination.
She never listened to no hater, liar,
Breaking boundaries and chasing fire.
Oh, my my! Oh my, she flies!
User avatar
Fallible
RS Donator
 
Name: Alice Pooper
Posts: 50133
Age: 47
Female

Country: Engerland na na
Canada (ca)
Print view this post

Re: Limits in space....(and time)...

#37  Postby hackenslash » Nov 20, 2019 10:14 pm

I await your pleasure, my little sea cow.
User avatar
hackenslash
 
Name: The Other Sweary One
Posts: 21438
Age: 50
Male

Country: Republic of Mancunia
Print view this post

Re: Limits in space....(and time)...

#38  Postby Thommo » Nov 20, 2019 10:15 pm

Since it's something of a bête noire of mine I'm also going to say that there's absolutely no reason to be pretending that physics or mathematics are subsumed by philosophy or that Zeno's paradoxes have the first thing to do with the development of important theories like SR, GR or Newtonian mechanics.
User avatar
Thommo
 
Posts: 26670

Print view this post

Re: Limits in space....(and time)...

#39  Postby hackenslash » Nov 20, 2019 10:18 pm

Thommo wrote:Since it's something of a bête noire of mine I'm also going to say that there's absolutely no reason to be pretending that physics or mathematics are subsumed by philosophy or that Zeno's paradoxes have the first thing to do with the development of important theories like SR, GR or Newtonian mechanics.


You and your facts and developed thinking... :british: :conspiracy: :moustache: :fly: :jump: :dunno:
User avatar
hackenslash
 
Name: The Other Sweary One
Posts: 21438
Age: 50
Male

Country: Republic of Mancunia
Print view this post

Re: Limits in space....(and time)...

#40  Postby Thommo » Nov 20, 2019 11:31 pm

Well, I think you're too kind, but I'm in fine company at least! :hugs:
User avatar
Thommo
 
Posts: 26670

Print view this post

PreviousNext

Return to Physical Sciences & Mathematics

Who is online

Users viewing this topic: No registered users and 1 guest