Freethought & Rationalism Archive

Bob K · 04-19-2006, 07:12 AM

The 1st Law of Thermodynamics shows that m/e is conserved and indestructible; therefore, there was no beginning to m/e, and there will be no ending to m/e, and, therefore m/e has always existed, exists now, and will continue to always exist.

When ...

Infinite = Having no spatial, temporal or/and physical limitations
Finite = Having spatial, temporal or/and physical limitations

... then the temporal duration of m/e is infinite.

When ...

Universe = (1) Space; (2) Time; (3) Physics (M/E)

... then, because physics (m/e) is (A) a part of the universe--it exists within space, (B) indestructible, and (C) infinite in temporal duration, the universe is infinite in temporal duration, and therefore had no beginning and has no ending.

Theophage · 04-19-2006, 09:45 AM

Yeah I know, I'm opening up a can of worms here.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Bob K

Infinite = Having no spatial, temporal or/and physical limitations
Finite = Having spatial, temporal or/and physical limitations

Infinite things most certainly can have limitations. Take a simple ray from geometry class. It has an endpoint, which is a limitation. It has no 2-d or 3-d extension, this is a limitation. But it is still an infinite colection of points.

You need better definitions, Bob.

Bob K · 04-19-2006, 10:08 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Theophage

... Infinite things most certainly can have limitations. Take a simple ray from geometry class. It has an endpoint, which is a limitation. It has no 2-d or 3-d extension, this is a limitation. But it is still an infinite colection of points.

You need better definitions, Bob.

A point has infinite smallness?!?!?

Get serious!

And get rid of the useless mantras!

Quote:

Krauss, Lawrence

The Three Dimensions of Physics

Krauss, Lawrence M., Fear of Physics, Basic Books, Harper-Collins, 10 East 53rd Street, New York, NY 10022-5299, 1993, pp. 36-37.

"[The] dimension of a quantity ... is what connects numbers in physics with the real world of phenomena. [pp. 36-37.]

"[The fact which is] probably most responsible for simplifying physics is a fascinating property of the world. There are only three kinds of fundamental dimensional qualities in nature: length, time, and mass.* Everything, all physical quantities, can be expressed in terms of some combination of these units." [Italics in original] [p. 37/]

*"One might choose to add electric charge to this list [of the fundamental dimensional qualities in nature], but it is not necessary. It [the electric charge] can be expressed in terms of the other three [fundamental dimensional qualities in nature]." [Foot note, p. 37.]

"Because there are just three kinds of dimensional quantities, there are a limited number of independent combinations of these quantities [which can be devised]. That means that every physical quantity is related to every other physical quantity in some simple way, and it strongly limits the number of different mathematical relationships that are possible in physics. There is probably no more important tool used by physicists than the use of dimensions to characterize physical observables. ... [Using] dimensional analysis gives ... a fundamental perspective of the world, which gives a sensible basis for interpreting the information obtained by [our] senses or by other measurements. It provides the ultimate approximation: When we picture things, we picture their dimensions.' [p. 37.]

Bob K Requirement/Mantra inre Geometrical/Physical Points: "All geometrical or physical points have dimensions measurable in units of length!"

We're discussing the existence of the universe, and that existence is relevant to space, and to time, and to the duration of physics (m/e), and when we find that m/e is indestructible we can extrapolate (until we find disconfirming physical evidence) that all m/e is indestructible and therefore infinite in duration, existence, in time, we are using the term infinite as meaning having no spatial, temporal or physical limitations.

These definitions are 100% operational/workable/functional:

Infinite = Having no spatial, temporal or/and physical limitations
Finite = Having spatial, temporal or/and physical limitations

Ravear · 04-19-2006, 10:35 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Theophage

Yeah I know, I'm opening up a can of worms here.

Please stop

mirage · 04-19-2006, 10:50 AM

Yeah, seconded. Please don't.

SophistiCat · 04-19-2006, 02:51 PM

Thirded. Although skimming Bob's ramblings above did give me chuckle

Braunhemd · 04-19-2006, 03:25 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Bob K

A point has infinite smallness?!?!?

Get serious!

The mathematical definition of a point was, last time I checked, a thing that has no extension, yet has position. So, I'm really not sure what you mean by the rest of your post, more specifically your mantra on points which directly contradicts the definition of "point".

mirage · 04-20-2006, 02:59 AM

No, honestly, please stop it. Can we stick to the topic please and reply only to at least half coherent posts on that topic?

Bob K · 04-20-2006, 04:51 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Eye Mushrooms

The mathematical definition of a point was, last time I checked, a thing that has no extension, yet has position. So, I'm really not sure what you mean by the rest of your post, more specifically your mantra on points which directly contradicts the definition of "point".

When you apply mathematics to the real world of physical phenomena, a dimensionless point is meaningless.

What do you do with a dimensionless point?

You can make a statement about an infinite number of dimensionless points on a finite line, but then you have to prove that such a statement has value for the description of physical phenomena.

As soon as a dimension of length is required for a physical point, then a finite line has only a finite number of physical points.

Here are quotes inre mathematics inre physics:

Quote:

Mathematics

Mathematics Must Describe Reality

If mathematics describe reality--the people/objects/events who/which are comprised of matter/energy--then mathematics would confirm verbal descriptions of reality and therefore augment other proof(s) of hypotheses.

But mathematics is useful ONLY if it describes reality.

Dr. Albert Einstein was aware of the problem of esoteric/useless mathematics when he stated "The mathematics must not get in the way of the physics." [I do not recall my source of this quote--perhaps someone else could help with a useful quote source.]

Lerner, Eric
The Big Bang Never Happened
Vintage Books, Random House, Inc. New York, 1991
p. 204

[Hannes] Alfven [Nobel Laureate, Physics] asserted that only observation linked to laboratory experiments can lead to an understanding of the solar system and its origin. Mathematical theory, he emphasized, must always be the servant of physical understanding and close observation—never the master.

Greene, Brian
The Elegant Universe
Vintage Books, Random House, Inc. New York, 2000
p. 203

"The physicist Ernest Rutherford once said, in essence, that if you can't explain a result in simple, nontechnical terms, then you really don't understand it. He wasn't saying that this means your result is wrong; rather, he was saying that it means you do not fully understand its origin, meaning, or implications."

Bernstein, Jeremy
Einstein
Penguin Books, 625 Madison Avenue, New York, NY 10022, USA, 1976.
p. 35.

There is one thing I would be glad to ask you. When a mathematician engaged in investigating physical actions and results has arrived at his conclusions may they not be expressed in common language as fully, clearly, and definitely as in mathematical formulae? If so, would it not be a great boon to such as I to express them so?--translating them out of the hieroglyphics, that we might also work upon them by experiment. I think it must be so, because I have always found that you could convey to me a perfectly clear idea of your conclusions, which, though they may give me no full understanding of the steps of your process, give me the results neither above nor below the truth, and so clear in character that I can think and work from them. If this be possible, would it not be a good thing if mathematicians, working on these subjects, were to give us the results in this popular, working state, as well as in that which is their own and proper to them? -- Michael Faraday, age 66, to James Clerk Maxwell, age 26, inre Maxwell's use of mathematics to describe electromagnetics.

Cited in MacDonald, D.K.C., Faraday, Maxwell and Kelvin, p. 79.

And, for those of you who either missed it or did not bother to read it, here is, again, the Lawrence Krauss, Ph.D. Physics, quote inre the dimensions of physics:

Quote:

Krauss, Lawrence

The Three Dimensions of Physics

Krauss, Lawrence M., Fear of Physics, Basic Books, Harper-Collins, 10 East 53rd Street, New York, NY 10022-5299, 1993, pp. 36-37.

"[The] dimension of a quantity ... is what connects numbers in physics with the real world of phenomena. [pp. 36-37.]

"[The fact which is] probably most responsible for simplifying physics is a fascinating property of the world. There are only three kinds of fundamental dimensional qualities in nature: length, time, and mass.* Everything, all physical quantities, can be expressed in terms of some combination of these units." [Italics in original] [p. 37/]

*"One might choose to add electric charge to this list [of the fundamental dimensional qualities in nature], but it is not necessary. It [the electric charge] can be expressed in terms of the other three [fundamental dimensional qualities in nature]." [Foot note, p. 37.]

"Because there are just three kinds of dimensional quantities, there are a limited number of independent combinations of these quantities [which can be devised]. That means that every physical quantity is related to every other physical quantity in some simple way, and it strongly limits the number of different mathematical relationships that are possible in physics. There is probably no more important tool used by physicists than the use of dimensions to characterize physical observables. ... [Using] dimensional analysis gives ... a fundamental perspective of the world, which gives a sensible basis for interpreting the information obtained by [our] senses or by other measurements. It provides the ultimate approximation: When we picture things, we picture their dimensions.' [p. 37.]

If you disagree with any of the above quotes, especially if you think mathematics somehow causes physical phenomena, or if you think physics somehow must fit the mathematics, or if you think physical phenomena cannot be described by mathematics, then provide your reasoning.

A physical point, in contrast to a mathematical point, has both spatial characterisics and a position measurable by a dimension of length.

We use dimensions of length (x, y, z) to describe a physical point's location, and, although we typically do not need to specify a physical point's spatial characteristics, there is an implication such characteristics exist so we can avoid semantic confusions such as claims that there are an infinite number of physical points in a finite line.

The implication that a physical point has spatial characteristics measurable by a dimension of length is therefore a reality that makes possible definitions of [i]infinite[/] and finite applicable to physical phenomena:

Mantra: "A physical point has spatial characteristics measurable by a dimension of length!!!"

Infinite = Having no spatial, temporal or/and physical limitations
Finite = Having spatial, temporal or/and physical limitations

Barefoot Bree · 04-20-2006, 10:49 AM

These posts split from here. Carry on, those who dare.

Thread Tools	Search this Thread
Show Printable Version	Search this Thread: Advanced Search

04-19-2006, 07:12 AM	#1
Bob K Veteran Member Join Date: Dec 2000 Location: New Durham, NH USA Posts: 5,933	The 1st Law of Thermodynamics shows that m/e is conserved and indestructible; therefore, there was no beginning to m/e, and there will be no ending to m/e, and, therefore m/e has always existed, exists now, and will continue to always exist. When ... Infinite = Having no spatial, temporal or/and physical limitations Finite = Having spatial, temporal or/and physical limitations ... then the temporal duration of m/e is infinite. When ... Universe = (1) Space; (2) Time; (3) Physics (M/E) ... then, because physics (m/e) is (A) a part of the universe--it exists within space, (B) indestructible, and (C) infinite in temporal duration, the universe is infinite in temporal duration, and therefore had no beginning and has no ending.

04-19-2006, 10:50 AM	#5
mirage Veteran Member Join Date: Aug 2004 Location: UK Posts: 8,524	Yeah, seconded. Please don't.

04-19-2006, 02:51 PM	#6
SophistiCat Banned Join Date: Jul 2005 Posts: 2,281	Thirded. Although skimming Bob's ramblings above did give me chuckle

04-20-2006, 02:59 AM	#8
mirage Veteran Member Join Date: Aug 2004 Location: UK Posts: 8,524	No, honestly, please stop it. Can we stick to the topic please and reply only to at least half coherent posts on that topic?

04-20-2006, 10:49 AM	#10
Barefoot Bree Contributor Join Date: Sep 2003 Location: East of ginger trees Posts: 12,637	These posts split from here. Carry on, those who dare.

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.