- Apr 17, 2003
- 910
- 0
- 0
Originally posted by: Estrella
After reading half the stuff you put up OP, would you rather argue about philsophy or mathematics?
I'm not here to argue, just here to discuss my Infinite Scaling theory...
Originally posted by: Estrella
After reading half the stuff you put up OP, would you rather argue about philsophy or mathematics?
Are you saying that space isn't anything, it didn't begin with the "big bang", it began with the human mind?? Space and time are inseparable from each other. Another suggested reading to get your feet wet: hereTime isn't anything, it didn't begin with the "big bang" (also a theory), it began with the human mind, and that's the ONLY place time really exists.
Just because it's not arithmetic doesn't mean it's not math. Infinity is a mathematical concept that has been studied very well. You don't just get to say "well, in my opinion it's not math, therefore I'm free to be ignorant of the mathematics.""complex over-my-head math..." Calculus isn't *that* complex. It's pretty simple actually; most of my students comment that it's surprisingly simple compared to my pre-calculus course. Over your head? Well, you said it, not me. But, calculus has been around for hundreds of years. Perhaps if the concepts of limits are over your head, then continuing a lengthy thread about the subject is about as productive as me having a lengthy thread about brain surgery.
We're not talking about math here, so much as we are discussing concepts.
Originally posted by: Estrella
Where is the thread on your sig? Could it not be represented as I put it? "!=" meaning not equals, like in Computer Science.
Originally posted by: DrPizza
--- SNIP ---
Wait a second... EricMartello... aren't you the person who had the conspiracy theory that the Tunguska event was caused by Nikolai Tesla?! here
Then, there's this thread... here
Quiet humorous, especially when the creative fictional writing begins toward the end of the thread.
And, this thread, when you start whining about being accused of fraud and denying it, while providing evidence that proves some amount of fraud on your part. Come to think of it, didn't you get a lengthy vacation for your comment having to do with a sweet chocolatey snack in that thread?
Originally posted by: EricMartello
Originally posted by: DrPizza
--- SNIP ---
Wait a second... EricMartello... aren't you the person who had the conspiracy theory that the Tunguska event was caused by Nikolai Tesla?! here
Um....WTF?
Then, there's this thread... here
Quiet humorous, especially when the creative fictional writing begins toward the end of the thread.
And, this thread, when you start whining about being accused of fraud and denying it, while providing evidence that proves some amount of fraud on your part. Come to think of it, didn't you get a lengthy vacation for your comment having to do with a sweet chocolatey snack in that thread?
Wow! What a concept: this is not my first post on these forums! Congratulations, you've discovered something that has eluded the best minds of our time. I can see bright futures for your students, with a fountain of intelligence such as yourself guiding them along!!!
That aside, what are you doing in this thread? OH! That's right, you're TROLLING!
Originally posted by: DrPizza
Nahh, not trolling. Merely pointing out that there's no reason whatsoever to take this thread seriously. (Not that this wasn't evident in the first post)
Originally posted by: EricMartello
Originally posted by: DrPizza
Nahh, not trolling. Merely pointing out that there's no reason whatsoever to take this thread seriously. (Not that this wasn't evident in the first post)
You actually fall into several of these definitions:
http://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=troll
I am sure AT is proud to have you as a member.
Originally posted by: EricMartello
Infinity is a concept, not really a construct. It's more philosophical than mathematical, and what is the basis of science? Math, and what I am saying is that using the concept of infinity to make theories work is essentially invalidating them.
Originally posted by: Eeezee
You say this, yet some very advanced equipment is able to work thanks to being able to use infinity in physics. You're bringing in a philosophical argument where it really doesn't belong.
I'm not a philosopher, so I'm not sure where the logical fallacy is, but it has to be there. For example, let's say you want to cross a room. First you must travel a distance equal to have the length of the room. Then you must travel half of the distance. Then you must travel half of that distance. Continue infinitely and you will never reach the other side of the room. Therefore, travel is impossible.
Do you see why that doesn't work?
Okay, read through a few more pages and this is what I have to say
1) This doesn't belong on HT. You're discussing philosophy, and typically HT has more scientific topics.
2) You're trying to apply philosophy to science and math, which has historically not worked well. It's your right to ask these types of questions, but you may not like the answer; using infinity may remove significance in a philosophical sense, but it is still a useful tool for mathematics. Trust me when I say that it is important and that it certainly does not make any subject meaningless.
3) There is much evidence supporting the idea that space-time is finite anyway.
Originally posted by: EricMartello
3) The idea of time itself sure helps things make more sense to us. I don't think it really exists beyond the human mind, and to use something as arbitrary as "time" in science is somewhat ironic, if not counterintuitive.
Originally posted by: StopSign
Yes there are infinitely many points between two points on a number line. It doesn't matter what your physical size is if distance is always measured from a point to the destination point. Say you're measuring from a point on the tip of my toe to the wall, and when scaling down, you use that point as my anchor point. It doesn't matter how big or small I am because the physical size of a point never changes and the number of points between the point on my toe to the wall is always infinite.
My questions is this: SO WHAT?
Nope.Originally posted by: EricMartello
Let's pretend that humans existed on two extreme scales - B for BIG and s for small. On one scale humans are so "large" that a planet would be the size of a molecule, and on the other end humans are so "small" that to them an molecule is the size of a planet.
Now the humans in group B have a centimeter unit in their measurement system, as to the humans in group s. If we compared the two centimeter units' relative length, the the group B humans' centimeter is vastly longer than that of the group s humans. Yes, we could scale up group s to the scale of B so that the units "match", but in doing so we show the general irrelevance of measuring distance.
So that is what I'm attempting to explain here. Make sense?
Originally posted by: EricMartello
Let's pretend that humans existed on two extreme scales - B for BIG and s for small. On one scale humans are so "large" that a planet would be the size of a molecule, and on the other end humans are so "small" that to them an molecule is the size of a planet.
Now the humans in group B have a centimeter unit in their measurement system, as to the humans in group s. If we compared the two centimeter units' relative length, the the group B humans' centimeter is vastly longer than that of the group s humans. Yes, we could scale up group s to the scale of B so that the units "match", but in doing so we show the general irrelevance of measuring distance.
So that is what I'm attempting to explain here. Make sense?
It makes no sense what so ever. All measurement units are derived from reference measurements. The "foot" was derived from an actual foot of some nameless person and it happens to be 12". What are inches? Inches are 1/12 of a foot. Not your foot. Not my foot. Mr. Nameless's foot.Originally posted by: EricMartello
What you said is true by definition. If we choose two fixed points and a standard reference for the distance between them, then that distance will always remain the same. To put it simply, a centimeter is a centimeter.
Now our perception of distance or length is based on our relative size to objects. Since we do not physically get "bigger" or "smaller" in terms of changing position on the scale, our position becomes our reference point for measurement. The problem here is that we're trying to apply a measurement based on what may as well be a random reference point.
What you can understand with Infinite Scaling, is that we could be anywhere on this scale, and there will always be something of infinitely "larger" and "smaller" scale to us. This means that using relative size as reference a point limits the scope of the whole measurement system to the point on the infinite scale from which the reference points are defined.
Let's pretend that humans existed on two extreme scales - B for BIG and s for small. On one scale humans are so "large" that a planet would be the size of a molecule, and on the other end humans are so "small" that to them an molecule is the size of a planet.
Now the humans in group B have a centimeter unit in their measurement system, as to the humans in group s. If we compared the two centimeter units' relative length, the the group B humans' centimeter is vastly longer than that of the group s humans. Yes, we could scale up group s to the scale of B so that the units "match", but in doing so we show the general irrelevance of measuring distance.
So that is what I'm attempting to explain here. Make sense?