Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
4 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,821 Year: 3,078/9,624 Month: 923/1,588 Week: 106/223 Day: 4/13 Hour: 0/2


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   A layman's questions about universes
Buzsaw
Inactive Member


Message 76 of 128 (117758)
06-23-2004 1:46 AM
Reply to: Message 70 by Rrhain
06-23-2004 12:26 AM


Unbounded, yet finite. There are definitely numbers that are not in the interval, but no matter what number you choose in the interval, you will always find another number that's just a little bit closer to the boundary.
Gotta get this one in before retiring.
1. "Unbounded, yet............closer to the boundary??" The unbounded has a boundary??
2. This's real confusing, Rrhain. If you include the numbers outside of the bounded infinity of numbers for your analogy, you must also eliminate the boundary for a true analogy of the universe and you come full circle to essentially agreeing with me that the universe is dimensionless, infinite and boundless. Why? Because the numbers outside become inclusive in your analogy. Otherwise your analogy is that of two systems, one system being a bounded infinity of numbers and the other, the outside numbers being a boundless infinity of numbers. It appears to be a bogus analogy for the universe, for the universe is one system. You would have to say "forget the outside numbers" but they do exist so you can't sweep them under the rug, so to speak. Your problem in your
analogy is that little phrase, "closer to the boundary." If the system is "unbounded" it cannot have a "boundary" restricting your infinity of numbers into and make any sense atol. Yes, yes, I know, with science we're not suppose to make any sense, common, that is. Oh well, g'nite all.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 70 by Rrhain, posted 06-23-2004 12:26 AM Rrhain has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 78 by paisano, posted 06-23-2004 1:58 AM Buzsaw has replied
 Message 106 by Rrhain, posted 06-24-2004 5:28 AM Buzsaw has replied

  
Buzsaw
Inactive Member


Message 77 of 128 (117760)
06-23-2004 1:58 AM
Reply to: Message 72 by Beercules
06-23-2004 1:26 AM


It's implicated here:
Who said it could disappear?
Quoting Rrhain:
If you were somehow able to switch off the gravitational field, "space" would disappear as well.
I get the implication here that Rrhain has it in his mind that given the right conditions, space would have the capacity to disappear. Where'd I go wrong??
Talk to you later.
This message has been edited by buzsaw, 06-23-2004 12:59 AM

This message is a reply to:
 Message 72 by Beercules, posted 06-23-2004 1:26 AM Beercules has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 90 by Beercules, posted 06-23-2004 12:17 PM Buzsaw has replied
 Message 107 by Rrhain, posted 06-24-2004 5:33 AM Buzsaw has replied

  
paisano
Member (Idle past 6423 days)
Posts: 459
From: USA
Joined: 05-07-2004


Message 78 of 128 (117761)
06-23-2004 1:58 AM
Reply to: Message 76 by Buzsaw
06-23-2004 1:46 AM


Yes, yes, I know, with science we're not suppose to make any sense, common, that is.
It would make a lot more sense to you if you studied some tensor calculus and differential geometry.
If you can't be bothered to do the homework needed to comment in an informed manner, you aren't going to be taken seriously.
As it is, you're coming across like a witch doctor criticizing a cardiologist. That is, woefully uninformed about the subject you're discussing.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 76 by Buzsaw, posted 06-23-2004 1:46 AM Buzsaw has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 79 by Buzsaw, posted 06-23-2004 2:03 AM paisano has replied

  
Buzsaw
Inactive Member


Message 79 of 128 (117766)
06-23-2004 2:03 AM
Reply to: Message 78 by paisano
06-23-2004 1:58 AM


Paisano, cut the insults and refute my logic and we'll talk.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 78 by paisano, posted 06-23-2004 1:58 AM paisano has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 80 by NosyNed, posted 06-23-2004 2:05 AM Buzsaw has replied
 Message 84 by paisano, posted 06-23-2004 10:35 AM Buzsaw has replied
 Message 88 by PaulK, posted 06-23-2004 11:37 AM Buzsaw has replied

  
NosyNed
Member
Posts: 8996
From: Canada
Joined: 04-04-2003


Message 80 of 128 (117768)
06-23-2004 2:05 AM
Reply to: Message 79 by Buzsaw
06-23-2004 2:03 AM


Incorrect wording
I'm pretty sure that Rrhain did, in fact, word that wrong.
Rrhain writes:
Unbounded, yet finite. There are definitely numbers that are not in the interval, but no matter what number you choose in the interval, you will always find another number that's just a little bit closer to the boundary
Should have ended with ... just a little bit closer to the limit.
However, with that correction, what Rrhain is telling you is correct for the mathematics being discussed. And over and over some very counter-intuitive math has been very useful in describing the real world. (not this simple example though, that is used only to discuss the meaning of the mathematical terms).
To really understand the issues you do have to "do the math".
This message has been edited by NosyNed, 06-23-2004 01:08 AM

This message is a reply to:
 Message 79 by Buzsaw, posted 06-23-2004 2:03 AM Buzsaw has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 86 by Buzsaw, posted 06-23-2004 11:30 AM NosyNed has not replied
 Message 108 by Rrhain, posted 06-24-2004 5:38 AM NosyNed has not replied

  
Garf
Inactive Member


Message 81 of 128 (117820)
06-23-2004 5:28 AM
Reply to: Message 69 by Buzsaw
06-23-2004 12:15 AM


lmao @ common sense
Common sense use to tell people that the earth was flat.. I mean, if it was round we'd fall off!

This message is a reply to:
 Message 69 by Buzsaw, posted 06-23-2004 12:15 AM Buzsaw has not replied

  
JonF
Member (Idle past 169 days)
Posts: 6174
Joined: 06-23-2003


Message 82 of 128 (117863)
06-23-2004 8:57 AM
Reply to: Message 73 by jar
06-23-2004 1:33 AM


Re: Slightly off topic
I didn't do non-Euclidean geometry in high school in '62-'64.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 73 by jar, posted 06-23-2004 1:33 AM jar has not replied

  
Nasa
Inactive Member


Message 83 of 128 (117874)
06-23-2004 10:26 AM


Three
There are 3 heavens I believe, or 3 universes, or maybe- for better words- Created sections.
The first is the world: The kingdom of Jesus, the flesh of God.
The second is what we call the universe: The realm of the Holy spirit, the soul of God
The third, which is also the first, is eternity. The father. The two above combined with a third. Imagine 3 circles, each inside one another.
The father created two sections out from himself, for himself to dwell.

  
paisano
Member (Idle past 6423 days)
Posts: 459
From: USA
Joined: 05-07-2004


Message 84 of 128 (117876)
06-23-2004 10:35 AM
Reply to: Message 79 by Buzsaw
06-23-2004 2:03 AM


Nobody's insulting you. Your logic is self refuting, becuase it's not even addressing the problem at hand.
Feeling insulted by being told you need to do your homework is not going to garner you much respect.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 79 by Buzsaw, posted 06-23-2004 2:03 AM Buzsaw has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 85 by Buzsaw, posted 06-23-2004 11:12 AM paisano has not replied

  
Buzsaw
Inactive Member


Message 85 of 128 (117879)
06-23-2004 11:12 AM
Reply to: Message 84 by paisano
06-23-2004 10:35 AM


Nobody's insulting you.
Well, yes and no, Paisano. It was insolent, in that a better kinder analogy would've been equating a wholistic diet and herbal naturalist doctor who would clean out the arteries via natural methods, treating/healing the whole body, to a cardiologist who would do a bypass, patching up the symptom but leaving the rest of the body and the diet deficient.
Not insolent, in that I guess it was analogous of your own sincere attitude about my argument.
This message has been edited by buzsaw, 06-23-2004 10:36 AM

This message is a reply to:
 Message 84 by paisano, posted 06-23-2004 10:35 AM paisano has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 87 by NosyNed, posted 06-23-2004 11:30 AM Buzsaw has replied

  
Buzsaw
Inactive Member


Message 86 of 128 (117880)
06-23-2004 11:30 AM
Reply to: Message 80 by NosyNed
06-23-2004 2:05 AM


Re: Incorrect wording
I'm pretty sure that Rrhain did, in fact, word that wrong.
Rrhain writes:
Unbounded, yet finite. There are definitely numbers that are not in the interval, but no matter what number you choose in the interval, you will always find another number that's just a little bit closer to the boundary
Should have ended with ... just a little bit closer to the limit.
But Ned, in this case, "limit" is synonomous to "boundary," having the same damning effect on his statement.
However, with that correction, what Rrhain is telling you is correct for the mathematics being discussed.
How so? Perhaps he'd like to state precisely himself what he meant and correct in his own words if indeed he should agree with you that his statement was erroneous.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 80 by NosyNed, posted 06-23-2004 2:05 AM NosyNed has not replied

  
NosyNed
Member
Posts: 8996
From: Canada
Joined: 04-04-2003


Message 87 of 128 (117881)
06-23-2004 11:30 AM
Reply to: Message 85 by Buzsaw
06-23-2004 11:12 AM


Odd analogy
However, in a case of severve cardiovascular disease attempting a "cleanout" by diet is a good way to die.
There are times when the much maligned experts really do know what they are talking about. If you don't understand the information and capabilities of modern medicine then you will get it wrong. If you can't handle the math of modern cosmology and physics you will get that wrong too.
(as an aside you are wrong about the "conventional" medicine. As soon as I exhibited any elevation in my cholesterol levels my GP recommended changes in diet and an increase in exercise. This is hardly an "alternative" method of treatment.)

This message is a reply to:
 Message 85 by Buzsaw, posted 06-23-2004 11:12 AM Buzsaw has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 89 by Buzsaw, posted 06-23-2004 12:01 PM NosyNed has not replied

  
PaulK
Member
Posts: 17822
Joined: 01-10-2003
Member Rating: 2.2


Message 88 of 128 (117883)
06-23-2004 11:37 AM
Reply to: Message 79 by Buzsaw
06-23-2004 2:03 AM


To be a bit more precise an "open" bound is one which excludes the actual limit. So if we take the open interval (0, 1) on the Real Numbers we are looking at all Real Numbers greater than zero and less than one.
For any number in that range we choose we can find another that is closer to one and another that is closer to zero. One and zero are outside the range because we are using an open bound at each end and they are explicitly outside the interval.
If we choose 0.999, 0.9999 is closer to 1.
If we choose 0.001, 0.0001 is closer to 0.
In fact for any number, x, in the range that we choose (x+1)/2 will be closer to 1 and x/2 will be closer to 0.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 79 by Buzsaw, posted 06-23-2004 2:03 AM Buzsaw has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 91 by Buzsaw, posted 06-23-2004 12:20 PM PaulK has replied

  
Buzsaw
Inactive Member


Message 89 of 128 (117887)
06-23-2004 12:01 PM
Reply to: Message 87 by NosyNed
06-23-2004 11:30 AM


Re: Odd analogy
However, in a case of severve cardiovascular disease attempting a "cleanout" by diet is a good way to die.
True, and a good naturalist MD would recognize that and recommend accordingly, but scores of thousands of bypass cases are not that severe.
There are times when the much maligned experts really do know what they are talking about. If you don't understand the information and capabilities of modern medicine then you will get it wrong. If you can't handle the math of modern cosmology and physics you will get that wrong too.
......And by the same token, the mistakes and miscalculations of MDs, not to mention drug side effects all too often result in the MD's burying their mistakes, literally.
(as an aside you are wrong about the "conventional" medicine. As soon as I exhibited any elevation in my cholesterol levels my GP recommended changes in diet and an increase in exercise. This is hardly an "alternative" method of treatment.)
Conventional medicine, nevertheless, imo, performs far more lucrative bypasses than those MD's who tend toward the wholistic approach. Public demand is pushing the trend in the right direction, thankfully. Good for you!

This message is a reply to:
 Message 87 by NosyNed, posted 06-23-2004 11:30 AM NosyNed has not replied

  
Beercules
Inactive Member


Message 90 of 128 (117893)
06-23-2004 12:17 PM
Reply to: Message 77 by Buzsaw
06-23-2004 1:58 AM


Re: It's implicated here:
quote:
I get the implication here that Rrhain has it in his mind that given the right conditions, space would have the capacity to disappear. Where'd I go wrong??
That's not implied at all. The statement just shows that no gravitational field means no space.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 77 by Buzsaw, posted 06-23-2004 1:58 AM Buzsaw has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 99 by Buzsaw, posted 06-24-2004 12:03 AM Beercules has not replied

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024