|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
Thread ▼ Details |
|
Thread Info
|
|
|
Author | Topic: On Infinity | |||||||||||||||||||||||
New Cat's Eye Inactive Member |
That's what I was thinking in the first place...matter/energy creates the ripple. That's not really it tho. Its more like the ripples create matter. Well, the ripples are matter. But the ripples are not there because the existence of matter causes them, the ripples cause the existence of matter. The matter-created ripples that I think that you're thinking of, like the bowling ball on a bedsheet analogy, are from the affects of mass on spacetime and happen on a totally different length scale than we are Is time the 4th dimension or are you talking about another spacial dimension? Yes, the 4th dem is time.
As for your 2d model being 4d. I am assuming you mean that the flat plane is not really flat but has some unknown depth. Well if its flat it doesn't have depth One of the problems with analogies is that people like to add in extra stuff or bring their own presumptions to the analogy. Its easier to understand if yu drop all those presumptions and take the analogy at face value. I'm not going to re-type the analogies here so read up on some of the threads and pages you now know of and pay attention to the analogies at face value. After you learn some more, then ask more questions or start a new thread. As far as 4d being represented by 2d, its easier to imagine if you reduce the number of demensions. But basically it comes down to the maths and how things are calculated and represented. For example, lets say we have a cube of LxWxH. We could represent all three of those deminsions as one deminsion: X Now, we can appply mathematical funtions to X and calculate with it as one deminsion, like say, 2X or X^2 etc. But that one deminsion, X, represents all three deminsions of the cube and that will affect the results of our calculations. So now to a visual analogy, and say I draw the line X: ______________________________ We can double or square the line, etc, and it will change it, but we must remember that what we are doing this too is actually a cube and the line is only representing that. The same goes with the 2d's actually reprsenting four of them (or at least that is how I understand it ((I'm sure someone will correct me if I'm wrong))) Hope that helps a little with the analogies. Ask away...
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
cavediver Member (Idle past 3643 days) Posts: 4129 From: UK Joined: |
That's what I was thinking in the first place...matter/energy creates the ripple. No, in the analogy that CS is using, the ripples are matter/energy. And these ripples can group together to create much larger ripples or disturbances. In your picture of the heavy ball on the wet towel, you asked whether the ball was on, under or in the towel, so to speak. Well, in CS's analogy, the ball is made up of ripples in the towel... there is actually only the towel! In other words, there is only space-time. You are I are made of space-time itself! (I must admit that we're being a little loose here, and extending the concept of space-time to include all of the quantum fields, not just the metric)
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
New Cat's Eye Inactive Member |
Another question on the flat fabric. I have seen a demonstration on the warping of spacetime with a person holding and stretching a wet paper towel. Then a ball is placed in the middle and the indentation the ball makes is the ripple or the warping of space time. Different ripples. That's for showing how gravity warps space-time. We're talking about how matter exists in space-time. The ripples in the wet paper towel would be matter existing. For the ball to be made of matter, it would have to be a ripple of the wet paper towel, not some other thing altogether. Make sense?
My next question is should I imagine the ball (a planet) actually sitting on top or underneath the fabric or actually existing inside the fabric itself. In other words like the same ball in the middle of two wet paper towels? I have always wondered that. The ball is made of the paper towel. The ball if composed of towel-stuff.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
New Cat's Eye Inactive Member |
Hi cavediver,
How have you been? Thanks for the compliment. I guess I'm just trying to pay it forward with all the time and effort you've spent explaining things to me. I figure I can handle the easy beginner questions and then when they start to catch up and pass me, shout for help Thanks man.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
numnuts Junior Member (Idle past 6090 days) Posts: 19 Joined: |
CS and Cavediver,
Thank you! I was completely off base with how I was thinking about it and I'm not sure I fully understand how to think about it now but I will do some research like you asked. I think I understand most of your points but not all of them. I am glad on one hand that you have corrected my distorted view but I am also a little confused which is why I'm asking questions. Rather than continuing to think in the wrong terms I would much rather try and grasp reality. As you can surely tell by now I am new to this but eager to learn. I appreciate your time and response! Gotta run I think therefore I am...busy
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
RAZD Member (Idle past 1405 days) Posts: 20714 From: the other end of the sidewalk Joined: |
.. there is actually only the towel! Become one with the towel? (Always travel with a towel: Hitchhiker's Guide) (ducks)
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
IamJoseph Member (Idle past 3668 days) Posts: 2822 Joined: |
There is no infinity in the universe, not anywhere, and not in any levels. Space is not infinite, nor is matter, time or enegy. The criteria for infinity is 'no changes', and that none of its parts can be finite. You can't add $5 to an infinite amount of $.
Infinity is Sci-Fi. It is resorted to as a deflection from failed theories and premises, used to justify the unjustifiable. One must thus examine all theories and see if they work in a finite universe; if not - its should be discarded from the science sector.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
IamJoseph Member (Idle past 3668 days) Posts: 2822 Joined: |
quote: This action illustrates a 'change' - which begates infinity. Also, the the matter can be infinite if created by a finite item - and thus, vice versa. Additionally, if the product produce is finite, the precedent host is finite.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
RAZD Member (Idle past 1405 days) Posts: 20714 From: the other end of the sidewalk Joined: |
The criteria for infinity is 'no changes', and that none of its parts can be finite. You can't add $5 to an infinite amount of $. Logically and mathematically false. Infinity is unlimited therefore you can add to it. The result is still infinity (but it is not necessarily the same infinity). The mathematical concept of a infinite series is one where the sum total increases without bound while continually adding finite elements to the sum total. This contradicts your position. Your "no changes" is a false definition and part of the problem with your position. It does not show up in any of the above definitions. Immeasurable, unlimited, unbounded, not finite, these are the criteria for infinite.
You do not get to redefine terms to create straw-man arguments that the item defined by the term does not exist: all you prove is that your (false) concept does not exist, while the actual (true) concept is unaffected. Enjoy. compare Fiocruz Genome and fight Muscular Dystrophy with Team EvC! (click) we are limited in our ability to understand by our ability to understand RebelAAmericanOZen[Deist ... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ... to share.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Chiroptera Inactive Member |
Be careful, IaJ. Several of us have advanced degrees in mathematics, and others are pretty knowledgeable in this area, too. If you want to learn what "infinity" means, then we can teach you. However, if you insist that you know what you are talking about (and I assure you that you don't), then you are going to get spanked as badly as you are being spanked by Brian and arachnophilia in the archaeology threads.
I've done everything the Bible says, even the stuff that contradicts the other stuff! -- Ned Flanders
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
New Cat's Eye Inactive Member |
This action illustrates a 'change' - which begates infinity. What does begates mean? I couldn't find it in the dictionary. From Message 52:
The criteria for infinity is 'no changes', and that none of its parts can be finite. That is false. 'No Change' is not the criteria for infinity (you can see RAZD's post for the definition). Now, back to what you said, keeping in mind your misconception about infinity being changeless:
This action illustrates a 'change' - which begates infinity. Oohhhh... Did you mean to type negates? Change does not negate infinity. Where did you get this idea? Are you just making stuff up or is this a real concept that you are typing about? Got a link you can give me?
Also, the the matter can be infinite if created by a finite item - and thus, vice versa. I'm having trouble making sense out of this sentance as well. Are you sure you meant can? And I guess the first 'the' should be a then? Can you take a little more care in typing your replies to me so I don't have to waste time deciphering them, please? I think you're trying to say that if a finite item created all of matter then there cannot be an infinite amount of matter. I don't have a problem with a finite universe, so... I guess I don't know why you're telling me this. But thanks anyways It seems that you dislike science and are trying to prove it wrong, or something. Why it that? From my point of view, you're just exemplifying your misconceptions.
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024