03 Dec 09
Originally posted by twhiteheadIt isn't a problem, I don't change the data to fit my views as you do.
You simply don't understand what I mean by 'straight line' and are convinced for some reason that only your understanding of the word is correct and all else is bunk.
The problem you have that the only straight line you can accurately describe that fits your conception of it is the one in the Cartesian plane. The real world is not so nice. There is no re ...[text shortened]... n the phenomena I listed. You don't like that, so you call it bunk rather than face reality.
Kelly
03 Dec 09
2 edits
Originally posted by twhiteheadNo, mass does not belong in 4.a. You are ignoring what I write which is really irritating.
As I said, 4.a. is more general and includes 5.
[b]I know what a space is. I've studied quite a lot of physics and math.
But you clearly don't understand what is meant by 'a space' in 4.a
The set of all possible masses is 'a space'.
Are you suggesting "southness" is one of the two polar coordinates needed to define a point on a sphere of f of the way, and 7/2 of the way, forever and ever...infinitely.
And your point is?[/b]
Mass is not a value needed to define a point no matter how many times you claim it is.
The set of all possible masses is not part of Euclidean space which is what we are discussing here.
If "southness" is a polar coordinate then the south pole is not as south as you can get. You can go "south" indefinitely. However you will come back to the original point over and over again.
Are you suggesting that if you go some large distance D, you will eventually arrive at your original point? If so, what's stopping you from continuing past the original point?
Are you suggesting that if you go back in time far enough, you will come to the end of time?
I think you need to study up on the ideas of space; either that or provide me some references that will help me understand your point if you actually do have a legitimate point I am missing.
4.a is Euclidean space. 5 is a more general definition that describes any quantifiable value.
Think about it. We refer to three dimensional space or four dimensional space-time.
Why don't we say we live in infinite dimensional space? There are an infinite number of things we can count...
03 Dec 09
Originally posted by twhiteheadYou keep referring to my "mistakes" no matter how much support I offer up, yet you offer nothing. Anyone can say "you're wrong you're wrong you're wrong" but can you support your patronizing condescention to me?
Your usage so far is actually closer to 5. as in "regarded as a fundamental measure", whereas I was using the more general 4.a.
Your mistake in 4.a. is to not realize what is meant by 'a space'.
The surface of the earth is 'a space' and is two dimensional. Latitude and longitude are a valid set of dimensions for the surface of the earth and they are both finite.
Show me some reference that clearly shows that I am wrong. I've done the equivalent for what you're saying, but you just ignore me and keep saying "I'm right and you're wrong".
03 Dec 09
Originally posted by knightmeisterScience only describes the big bang from a certain point during its expansion. Anything before that is hypothesis. Too many people take it as fact that there was a singularity and that time started at the singularity. It is not something that is known scientifically.
Oh , come on , for the purposes of the debate are we not assuming as fact that the Big bang did happen the way science describes? My point is that assuming the Big Bang was proven then we would still only know about the time we experience in this universe and nothing else could be definitively said.
03 Dec 09
Originally posted by AThousandYoungI am not ignoring what you write, I simply disagree with it.
No, mass does not belong in 4.a. You are ignoring what I write which is really irritating.
Mass is not a value needed to define a point no matter how many times you claim it is.
It is a value in the space defined by the various possible masses. As I have said several times now, you simply don't realize the meaning of the phrase 'a space' in 4.a. It does not say 'space', it says 'a space'. Think about that for a while.
The set of all possible masses is not part of Euclidean space which is what we are discussing here.
We are discussing several things, including what a dimension is.
If "southness" is a polar coordinate then the south pole is not as south as you can get. You can go "south" indefinitely. However you will come back to the original point over and over again.
Well then I misunderstood what you meant by 'polar co-ordinate' and it is not a polar co-ordinate. You cannot go further South than the South pole.
Are you suggesting that if you go some large distance D, you will eventually arrive at your original point? If so, what's stopping you from continuing past the original point?
Nothing will stop you, but space will still be finite.
Are you suggesting that if you go back in time far enough, you will come to the end of time?
Not necessarily. If you go past the South pole you don't end up at the North pole.
I think you need to study up on the ideas of space; either that or provide me some references that will help me understand your point if you actually do have a legitimate point I am missing.
I need to do some digging to find the best references.
Think about it. We refer to three dimensional space or four dimensional space-time.
Why don't we say we live in infinite dimensional space? There are an infinite number of things we can count...
I am not claiming that mass or Southness are dimensions of space-time. You have misunderstood me. I am claiming that they are dimensions.
As for space, it may have four dimensions, it may have more. As I already mentioned, General relativity adds another dimension (sometimes called 3+1 ). I believe though that new theories about quantum gravity get rid of that dimension.
03 Dec 09
Originally posted by KellyJayDepends on your persective Kelly.
You say straight lines are the same as circles, they are two different things.
Change really isn't a good choice, distort your tools to get what you want may be closer.
Kelly
Imagine standing at the equator. If someone could draw an equator running past your feet it would be a straight line. Walk along it as far as you like in either direction and it's still straight. But of course, from the perspective of someone in a spacecraft viewing the equator at a distance, the line is curved into a circle.
So who's right - straight line or circle? Well obviously it's a circle, but to the person standing on it, it seems straight. Just a perspective thing I guess.
03 Dec 09
Originally posted by KellyJayI never said that. I said a circle is a straight line, not the other way around. They are not equivalent, one is more specific than the other. More importantly, a circle is a straight line when viewed from less dimensions.
You say straight lines are the same as circles, they are two different things.
Kelly
You stubbornly refuse to admit that it is so, but cannot explain why. Accusations of 'bunk' does not constitute an argument.
If you don't think that a circle is a straight line, then please define a circle and define a straight line and I will show that the circle is a straight line or that your definitions are non-standard.
I am perfectly happy with you having non-standard definitions, but that doesn't make the standard ones 'bunk' nor does it mean that I changed the data.
03 Dec 09
Originally posted by twhiteheadStop wriggling about ! For the purposes of your argument about time starting at a finite point , something like the Big Bang theory needs to be hypothesised - yes?
Science only describes the big bang from a certain point during its expansion. Anything before that is hypothesis. Too many people take it as fact that there was a singularity and that time started at the singularity. It is not something that is known scientifically.
I agree it's not fact - so let's move on.
04 Dec 09
Originally posted by knightmeisterI realize that dimensions are not substances, but neither are they non-existent.
(BTW- I would be interested in what you mean by time "itself" - to me this suggests some kind of newtonian concept. Bear in mind that I don't think time exists in the way you do. Time to me is just a causal process of events that happen in some sequential order - and we express this as a concept called "time" - What actually exists is matter and energy ...[text shortened]... - only reality exists. Time to me is not finiyte or infinite - it just isn't anything )
What is it that makes the separation between you and me? What is distance?
It is not nonsensical to talk about time beginning or space being finite, so long as we know what we mean. If I say space is finite, then I am saying that anything that exists, is a finite distance away from anything else that exists. If I say time is finite, then anything that has ever existed was a finite time in the past.
You however claim that for every existent object there must be at least one object that is older. You claim this based mostly on your claim that causality is a universal law ie that everything that exists has a cause from a prior time.
However, you have not proven this law, it is not a known law of science, it is just something you believe.
04 Dec 09
Originally posted by twhiteheadAre you going to address the fact that mass is not a necessary value for defining a point? You've been consistently ignoring that point which is pissing me off. ðŸ˜
I realize that dimensions are not substances, but neither are they non-existent.
What is it that makes the separation between you and me? What is distance?
It is not nonsensical to talk about time beginning or space being finite, so long as we know what we mean. If I say space is finite, then I am saying that anything that exists, is a finite distance a ...[text shortened]... ou have not proven this law, it is not a known law of science, it is just something you believe.
05 Dec 09
Originally posted by AThousandYoungI have addressed it several times. I fully agree that it does not define the location of an object in space-time. I never claimed it did. I never claimed that mass was a dimension of space-time.
Are you going to address the fact that mass is not a necessary value for defining a point? You've been consistently ignoring that point which is pissing me off. ðŸ˜
Nevertheless, mass is a dimension under both definitions you gave: 4.a (maths) and 5. (physics)
It is simply not a dimension of space-time.
You also claimed that I was "committing the Fallacy of Equivocation". Are you able to restate your original argument in terms that include something other than pure dimensions.
It is my belief that you are claiming that dimensions are necessarily infinite, and one example of a finite dimension is sufficient to prove you wrong. If I am committing the Fallacy of Equivocation then there must be something special about the specific dimensions you are referring to that requires them to be infinite. What is that property?
05 Dec 09
Originally posted by twhiteheadHow do you reconcile that fact with the definition 4.a that you claim mass falls under?!
I have addressed it several times. I fully agree that it does not define the location of an object in space-time. I never claimed it did. I never claimed that mass was a dimension of space-time.
Nevertheless, mass is a dimension under both definitions you gave: 4.a (maths) and 5. (physics)
It is simply not a dimension of space-time.
You also claimed ...[text shortened]... ific dimensions you are referring to that requires them to be infinite. What is that property?
[4.a] The least number of independent coordinates required to specify uniquely the points in a space.
http://www.answers.com/topic/dimension