Infinte Regress Timeline...

[Mageth]

You say "The forces defined in our models are acting on the things within the slice" and "There are the forces and there is that which they act upon". No: the "things" as you call them act on each other, their various ways of interacting are what we call forces. You also say "The forces are not a function of time." However, time is integral to the notion of (and the definition of) forces. See, e.g., the gravitational force.

Forces are descriptive, not prescriptive. There are no forces outside of the "things" within the slices to act on the things within the slices.

You can't separate the forces from the "things", and you can't separate forces from time.

No. You confuse not being able to see something with it not being there.

Bullshit. You confuse "forces" as some separate entity that acts on things. Instead, forces describe the way things act on each other. Without the things, no forces.

The forces are there acting as usual.

Where is this "there" that the forces are allegedly at???

The slice is so thin you cannot discern the activity of the forces, but they are there.

But once you get two slices you can clearly see the forces in action.

So, contrary to your earlier assertions, there is change within a slice, but you just can't see it????

You're constructing a Gordian Knot.

 

[skepticalbip]

Yes we can theoretically look at something with all possible frames of reference. No it isn't an approximation unless you are using the meaning of a limit to the measurement resolution of our observation. Our resolution of time is certainly much, much better than one nano-second but we can measure, and have measured, time dilation many orders of magnitude greater than the resolution of our equipment.

Here is the concept worked out mathematically so perhaps you will understand it better.

A chronon is a proposed quantum of time, that is, a discrete and indivisible "unit" of time as part of a hypothesis that proposes that time is not continuous.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chronon

I am not the creator of this idea.

What the fuck does that have to do with whether time dilation is real or not? Yes, there is a limit to what we can resolve with our current technology, even if there is not anything to the concept of a chronon. Resolution is not the question since we observe time dilation much, much greater than the resolution limit that we have.

 

[ryan]

Uh oh, I have come to what I think is an argument against our logic of there only being a finite number of entities. It is far from a death blow and may not even make sense, but it seems to.

You seem to have your hands full at the moment, so I will bring it up later.

 

[untermensche]

It is observable if it could happen.

An observation requires something more, an observer.

This is complicated because we understand the universe using a brain. Brains of course are dynamic.

It is conceptual. We have to imagine something unobservable. But we do the same thing when we talk about quarks acting together in a nucleus.

If we consider bonds as electromagnetic forces in the form of photons/bosons, then I have these questions:

1) Does the particle property of the photon have a size?

a) If so, how large is it. Is it continuous?

b) If it doesn't have size, doesn't that mean it is infinitesimally small?

You have to tell me how this applies to my point.

I am saying there is a distinction between two atoms sharing electrons and two atoms not sharing electrons.

If you accept the theories of relativity, then there is no present moment for two different frames of reference.

In relativity the observers have to be moving either away or towards each other at great speeds. Their difference in speed causes them to see the same thing differently.

Just as the Doppler effect causes us to hear the same sound differently.

 

[untermensche]

No. You confuse not being able to see something with it not being there.

Bullshit. You confuse "forces" as some separate entity that acts on things. Instead, forces describe the way things act on each other. Without the things, no forces.

I have not removed the "things". So how do you possibly think I have removed the forces?

All I have removed is change. And change is not required for the forces to exist. Change is what the forces create.

Where is this "there" that the forces are allegedly at???

They are exactly the same place they always are. Nothing about the forces has changed just because you can't see how they are acting.

Your argument makes no logical sense. I have not removed the forces or proposed they are removed. It is a ghost of your making.

The slice is so thin you cannot discern the activity of the forces, but they are there.

But once you get two slices you can clearly see the forces in action.

So, contrary to your earlier assertions, there is change within a slice, but you just can't see it????

You're constructing a Gordian Knot.

You seem to have trouble with the the simple distinction between not being able to see the action of the forces and not having the forces.

 

[ryan]

An observation requires something more, an observer.

This is complicated because we understand the universe using a brain. Brains of course are dynamic.

It is conceptual. We have to imagine something unobservable. But we do the same thing when we talk about quarks acting together in a nucleus.

If we consider bonds as electromagnetic forces in the form of photons/bosons, then I have these questions:

1) Does the particle property of the photon have a size?

a) If so, how large is it. Is it continuous?

b) If it doesn't have size, doesn't that mean it is infinitesimally small?

You have to tell me how this applies to my point.

I am saying there is a distinction between two atoms sharing electrons and two atoms not sharing electrons.

If you accept the theories of relativity, then there is no present moment for two different frames of reference.

In relativity the observers have to be moving either away or towards each other at great speeds. Their difference in speed causes them to see the same thing differently.

Just as the Doppler effect causes us to hear the same sound differently.

I feel like we are just talking past each other.

 

[skepticalbip]

An observation requires something more, an observer.



It is conceptual. We have to imagine something unobservable. But we do the same thing when we talk about quarks acting together in a nucleus.

If we consider bonds as electromagnetic forces in the form of photons/bosons, then I have these questions:

1) Does the particle property of the photon have a size?

a) If so, how large is it. Is it continuous?

b) If it doesn't have size, doesn't that mean it is infinitesimally small?

You have to tell me how this applies to my point.

I am saying there is a distinction between two atoms sharing electrons and two atoms not sharing electrons.

If you accept the theories of relativity, then there is no present moment for two different frames of reference.

In relativity the observers have to be moving either away or towards each other at great speeds. Their difference in speed causes them to see the same thing differently.

Just as the Doppler effect causes us to hear the same sound differently.

I feel like we are just talking past each other.

Yes. And it seems to be intentional from his end in order to avoid addressing your points that demonstrate his errors.

 

[untermensche]

I feel like we are just talking past each other.

The arguments I am making require a finite ability to divide time.

That is an assumption you don't for good reasons don't want to fully commit to.

But I am saying that for the sake of not talking past each other you have to assume it is at least possible.

 

[ryan]

I feel like we are just talking past each other.

The arguments I am making require a finite ability to divide time.

That is an assumption you don't for good reasons don't want to fully commit to.

But I am saying that for the sake of not talking past each other you have to assume it is at least possible.

But to assume a finite maximum of temporal divisions I think is to throw out special relativity.

My textbook Sears and Zemansky's University Physics 9th Edition (used in the University of Alberta for calculus based physics) P.1230 has,

There is only one frame of reference in which a clock is at rest, and there are infinitely many in which it is moving.

is in the context of "Relativity" in "Chapter 37". My professor from a much better university than the University of Alberta would never question this book if it contradicted anything he said; supposedly it is that good.

 

[untermensche]

But to assume a finite maximum of temporal divisions I think is to throw out special relativity.

My textbook Sears and Zemansky's University Physics 9th Edition (used in the University of Alberta for calculus based physics) P.1230 has,

There is only one frame of reference in which a clock is at rest, and there are infinitely many in which it is moving.

is in the context of "Relativity" in "Chapter 37". My professor from a much better university than the University of Alberta would never question this book if it contradicted anything he said; supposedly it is that good.

I would say that when frames of reference are defined mathematically it is possible for there to be an infinite amount of them. We have figured out methods to use infinity in mathematics.

But again I would say that in reality there may only be a finite amount of frames of reference. There may only be a finite amount of change possible.

To say there is an infinite amount of frames of reference is possible assumes that there can be infinite amounts of change. It assumes what it claims.

 

[Juma]

My professor from a much better university than the University of Alberta would never question this book if it contradicted anything he said; supposedly it is that good.

What a completely ridiculous statement!
You should ALWAYS question the contests of books, textbooks or not! Especially if you are a teacher in the subject!

 

[Juma]

But again I would say that in reality there may only be a finite amount of frames of reference. There may only be a finite amount of change possible.

As you say, again and again and again. But you never provide something that really support you case. Just unsupported handwaving like this:

To say there is an infinite amount of frames of reference is possible assumes that there can be infinite amounts of change. It assumes what it claims.

I assume that you somehow beleive this to be an argument for your position, but it isnt. You see: just because there are an infinite amount of possible reference frames there doesnt have to be infinite amount of change.

it assumes what it claims.

At least you could specify what you believe is claimed and how that is assumed, but you doesnt.

 

[untermensche]

I assume that you somehow beleive this to be an argument for your position, but it isnt. You see: just because there are an infinite amount of possible reference frames there doesnt have to be infinite amount of change.

To change your frame of reference means changing your conditions in some way. If you can only meaningfully change your conditions a finite amount you will only have a finite number of frames of reference.

it assumes what it claims.

At least you could specify what you believe is claimed and how that is assumed, but you doesnt.

It claimed that there are infinite frames of reference by assuming there is an infinite ability to change your conditions.

It needs to prove the latter to make the claim.

 

[Juma]

To change your frame of reference means changing your conditions in some way. If you can only meaningfully change your conditions a finite amount you will only have a finite number of frames of reference.

By sneaking in an undefined word "meaningfully" you totally changed the statement.

What the heck is "meaningfully" supposed to mean? Is it "meaningfully" if it that atom can be moved 0.3Å?

The thing is: you cannot decide what is meaningful or not.

But I understand that you cling to this bogus "meaningful change" because without it you know that you are wrong.

 

[George S]

To change your frame of reference means ....

to choose a different space location as (0,0,0). It's a math thing.

 

[George S]

To change your frame of reference means ....

to choose a different space location as (0,0,0). It's a math thing.

To change a viewing device from location to location changes that object's point of view, not frame of reference.

 

[skepticalbip]

to choose a different space location as (0,0,0). It's a math thing.

To change a viewing device from location to location changes that object's point of view, not frame of reference.

Well it would be changing a frame of reference but it would not be changing the inertial frame of reference that special relativity is all about. His thinking that "freezing the universe" has any meaning is just a restatement of his position that there are no real effects from special relativity. He is using the common usage of the phrase, "reference frame", and apparently doesn't know or doesn't care that the scientific term has a different meaning even though I have told him.

 

[untermensche]

To change your frame of reference means changing your conditions in some way. If you can only meaningfully change your conditions a finite amount you will only have a finite number of frames of reference.

By sneaking in an undefined word "meaningfully" you totally changed the statement.

What the heck is "meaningfully" supposed to mean? Is it "meaningfully" if it that atom can be moved 0.3Å?

The thing is: you cannot decide what is meaningful or not.

But I understand that you cling to this bogus "meaningful change" because without it you know that you are wrong.

The word is important. And I understand why you don't like it.

With mathematics we can pretend the universe can make infinite changes. But there can be a point where a change is defined by mathematics but to the real universe that amount of change is meaningless. The real universe cannot make a change that small.

As I said, first you assume that infinite change is possible than you conclude infinite frames of reference are. It's simply assuming your conclusion.

 

[untermensche]

To change your frame of reference means ....

to choose a different space location as (0,0,0). It's a math thing.

No. Your continual poor understanding.

Change has nothing to do with mathematics. Your position in space and time has nothing to do with mathematics.

Mathematics is what we use to abstract change and position into a system where change can be quantified and therefore predicted.

 

[George S]

to choose a different space location as (0,0,0). It's a math thing.

No. Your continual poor understanding.

Change has nothing to do with mathematics. Your position in space and time has nothing to do with mathematics.

Mathematics is what we use to abstract change and position into a system where change can be quantified and therefore predicted.

When moving through space the inertial reference frame of an object does not change.

We wouldn't use the math if it didn't work to predict the future accurately.

There is a reference frame for the object's surroundings. It provides the background against which movement may be judged. There is another reference frame moving (relative to surroundings) with the object. In this reference frame the object is at rest and all else moves. One frame in which each particle is at rest. Permantly.