Sex Crimes and Vatican

pat · May 23, 2007, 3:47pm

[quote]pookie wrote:
lixy wrote:
Drop the linear perception of time and you’ll have your answer. Future and present are the same thing for an all-emcompassig being.

That changes nothing. God still knows all before I do. Even though time is linear from my point of view, what I’ll do in 10 or 20 years is already know to God. My freedom of will is illusory at best.

[/quote]

Your illusion is an illusion. You cannot say your notion of choice is any more of an illusion than the notion of predetermined action is an illusion.

The linear concept of time is absolutely critical for determinism to work. Causes must necessarily follow their effects. You take time out of it or employ simultaneous causation and the concept of determinism suddenly starts to crumble.

pat · May 23, 2007, 3:49pm

[quote]pookie wrote:
pat36 wrote:
It’s a paradox. According to Xeno movement isn’t possible, yet movement happens.

Zeno’s paradox is quite explainable if you have the right mathematical tools to do it.

Free will is a lot harder to button down.

In fact, as the science piles up, it appears more and more that free will is nothing more than an illusion.
[/quote]

Please explain or provide a link. I have never seen or heard of Xeno’s paradox being solved.

LIFTICVSMAXIMVS · May 23, 2007, 4:13pm

[quote]pat36 wrote:
It’s a paradox. According to Xeno movement isn’t possible, yet movement happens.
[/quote]

Zeno’s paradox has been shown to be inconsistent with the physical universe. What Zeno does is show that distance can be divided infinitely and then argues that one cannot complete an infinite amount of tasks in a finite amount of time. What he neglects is that time must be treated in the same manner–it is nothing more than a “line” like distance. You cannot have movement without time:

v = dx/dt.

Hence movement is possible and Zeno didn’t understand basic physics.

pat · May 23, 2007, 4:31pm

[quote]LIFTICVSMAXIMVS wrote:
pat36 wrote:
It’s a paradox. According to Xeno movement isn’t possible, yet movement happens.

Zeno’s paradox has been shown to be inconsistent with the physical universe. What Zeno does is show that distance can be divided infinitely and then argues that one cannot complete an infinite amount of tasks in a finite amount of time. What he neglects is that time must be treated in the same manner–it is nothing more than a “line” like distance. You cannot have movement without time:

v = dx/dt.

Hence movement is possible and Zeno didn’t understand basic physics.[/quote]

So what your saying is that movement and time happen together like still frames in a movie placed in sequence.

That really doesn’t make sense because distance is still covered and you cannot get from a to b with out covering half that distance first.
I also argue that time is a measure of movement and change. If things ceased to move and change there would be no time. Time is a measure and not an entity unto itself.

LIFTICVSMAXIMVS · May 23, 2007, 5:20pm

[quote]pat36 wrote:
That really doesn’t make sense because distance is still covered and you cannot get from a to b with out covering half that distance first.
I also argue that time is a measure of movement and change. If things ceased to move and change there would be no time. Time is a measure and not an entity unto itself.
[/quote]
hmmm…then the physical universe is not correct as we currently understand it. You should publish this and submit it to a physics journal. You would win a nobel prize if it could ever be proven. You just killed relativity.

Let me just reiterate. You cannot move without a change in time otherwise it is instantaneous which cannot happen because you need a force to move an object which is also dependent on time.

F=ma. Again you cannot escape time. If you think I am wrong try throwing a ball without winding up to throw. The best you can do is drop it and let the force of gravity move it.

There are only three fundamental units that are used to measure the universe (actually there are a couple more but only factor in when dealing with forces other than gravity). These units are distance, time, and mass. All macroscopic measurements are made up of combinations of these units.

velocity: time and distance.
acceleration: distance and time squared.
force: mass, distance, time squared.
Energy: mass, distance squared, time squared.
power: mass, distance squared, time cubed.

You CANNOT have motion without time in the universe as we know it. If distance is halved infinitely then time must be also halved infinitely.

Take three points A, B, C. B is half the distance to C. You are traveling at v m/s. The time it takes you to get to point B is exactly x/2v. For simplicity’s sake take all units to equal one and what you come out with is:

t = 1/2. Thus it takes half the time to travel half the distance.

pat · May 23, 2007, 6:25pm

[quote]LIFTICVSMAXIMVS wrote:
pat36 wrote:
That really doesn’t make sense because distance is still covered and you cannot get from a to b with out covering half that distance first.
I also argue that time is a measure of movement and change. If things ceased to move and change there would be no time. Time is a measure and not an entity unto itself.

hmmm…then the physical universe is not correct as we currently understand it. You should publish this and submit it to a physics journal. You would win a nobel prize if it could ever be proven. You just killed relativity.

Let me just reiterate. You cannot move without a change in time otherwise it is instantaneous which cannot happen because you need a force to move an object which is also dependent on time.

F=ma. Again you cannot escape time. If you think I am wrong try throwing a ball without winding up to throw. The best you can do is drop it and let the force of gravity move it.

There are only three fundamental units that are used to measure the universe (actually there are a couple more but only factor in when dealing with forces other than gravity). These units are distance, time, and mass. All macroscopic measurements are made up of combinations of these units.

velocity: time and distance.
acceleration: distance and time squared.
force: mass, distance, time squared.
Energy: mass, distance squared, time squared.
power: mass, distance squared, time cubed.

You CANNOT have motion without time in the universe as we know it. If distance is halved infinitely then time must be also halved infinitely.

Take three points A, B, C. B is half the distance to C. You are traveling at v m/s. The time it takes you to get to point B is exactly x/2v. For simplicity’s sake take all units to equal one and what you come out with is:

t = 1/2. Thus it takes half the time to travel half the distance.[/quote]

Well, first, let me say I believe in movement. So you don’t have to convince me. All I am say is nobody has solved the paradox. If there are an infinite amount of points between A and B then you can never reach b because you have to go though all points in between to get there and there are an infinite amount of points.

The only way to solve the paradox is to prove there are a finite amount of points between the distance of one point to another. Nobody has been able to do that, time be damned.

Secondly, that time is a measure of movement and change

A) is not a new idea and certainly isn’t mind, though I’ll be damned if remember whose theory it was. It works for me, however, because truly can you say time passed if there is no movement or change? If everything simultaneously stopped moving/changing from the largest star to the smallest sub-atomic particle would there be any time and if so, how would you measure how much has gone by?

B) This also does nothing to the theory of relativity or any other theory. If you look at our understanding of time, it encompasses divisions of earthly movement. 1 year = 1 rotation around the sun. 1 day = one rotation along the axis, etc. Our time measures are still valid because they are consistent.

kroby · May 23, 2007, 6:29pm

[quote]haney1 wrote:

Can five minutes ago be repeated to under go scrutiny?[/quote]

I shall take this proposition and put it to your test that Jesus existed.

Sorry, the test has come back and Jesus did not exist.

Care to continue this farse?

kroby · May 23, 2007, 6:33pm

[quote]haney1 wrote:
kroby wrote:
haney1 wrote:
kroby wrote:
haney1 wrote:
That is the middle ground God could care, but He might care about some else more. You left that option out.

So Gods intentions are variable? Like He cares in some people more than others?

what part of “might”, and did you not understand?

waffle.

Waffle, or back tracking would imply that I am trying to reverse what I said.

I pointed out where the emphasis of what I said should have been placed. You see that is an angle you haven’t covered. That is the middle ground.

You see I’m not claiming I’m right. I’m claiming your argument hasn’t ruled those things out. for your argument to be taken seriously you would have to satisfy that objection.
You have yet to show that it this isn’t possible.[/quote]

“might” is a subterfuge that obfuscartes the point. “might” is in the realm of fantasy. “might” sits on the fence, never daring to commit to a statement. “might” is a poor excuse for a conversation.

haney1 · May 23, 2007, 6:59pm

[quote]kroby wrote:
haney1 wrote:

Can five minutes ago be repeated to under go scrutiny?

I shall take this proposition and put it to your test that Jesus existed.

Sorry, the test has come back and Jesus did not exist.

Care to continue this farse?[/quote]

Red Herring.

haney1 · May 23, 2007, 7:11pm

[quote]kroby wrote:
haney1 wrote:
kroby wrote:
haney1 wrote:
kroby wrote:
haney1 wrote:
That is the middle ground God could care, but He might care about some else more. You left that option out.

So Gods intentions are variable? Like He cares in some people more than others?

what part of “might”, and did you not understand?

waffle.

Waffle, or back tracking would imply that I am trying to reverse what I said.

I pointed out where the emphasis of what I said should have been placed. You see that is an angle you haven’t covered. That is the middle ground.

You see I’m not claiming I’m right. I’m claiming your argument hasn’t ruled those things out. for your argument to be taken seriously you would have to satisfy that objection.
You have yet to show that it this isn’t possible.

“might” is a subterfuge that obfuscartes the point. “might” is in the realm of fantasy. “might” sits on the fence, never daring to commit to a statement. “might” is a poor excuse for a conversation.[/quote]

Then satisfy the objection.

This is now close to the fourth time I have asked that.

Show me that this middle ground doesn’t belong.

Face it you made a logical fallacy. Your argument is invalid. We could have been done long ago if you would have just reworked you bad argument.

You seem to think I’m bouncing around. The only reason why I came up with those stupid arguments is for you to see they are similiar to your own argument.

I have no interest in proving your premise wrong. I never have. I have from the beginning been trying to get you to figure out that your argument straight up SUCKS!

Somehow you got lost on my use of satire when making arguments like yours.

I thought maybe if I made a bad argument you would figure out what you were doing that I am objecting to. Sadly you still have not.

At this point I just can’t see you ever realizing the mistake you made and owning up to it. So I won’t bother anymore.

Do me a favor though take your argument to a logic class and see how far it gets you.

LIFTICVSMAXIMVS · May 23, 2007, 7:15pm

[quote]pat36 wrote:
Well, first, let me say I believe in movement. So you don’t have to convince me. All I am say is nobody has solved the paradox. If there are an infinite amount of points between A and B then you can never reach b because you have to go though all points in between to get there and there are an infinite amount of points.

The only way to solve the paradox is to prove there are a finite amount of points between the distance of one point to another. Nobody has been able to do that, time be damned.

Secondly, that time is a measure of movement and change

A) is not a new idea and certainly isn’t mind, though I’ll be damned if remember whose theory it was. It works for me, however, because truly can you say time passed if there is no movement or change? If everything simultaneously stopped moving/changing from the largest star to the smallest sub-atomic particle would there be any time and if so, how would you measure how much has gone by?

B) This also does nothing to the theory of relativity or any other theory. If you look at our understanding of time, it encompasses divisions of earthly movement. 1 year = 1 rotation around the sun. 1 day = one rotation along the axis, etc. Our time measures are still valid because they are consistent.[/quote]

The fact that you can move from point A to point C disproves the paradox. I would wager my Ph.D. in physics that I am correct and you are wrong.

It doesn’t matter that there are an infinite amount of point between A and C because there are also an infinite amount of points in time as well. They cancel each other out.

Let me try to tackle your 2 suppositions in one fell swoop. Time is not dependent on anything. It is a measure unto itself.

Time is not dependent on movement of the Earth. In fact, the velocity of the Earth has to do with the time it takes to travel a certain distance. The Earth’s velocity is: 1 revolution/year. You see? units of distance (1 revolution) and time (1 year). This is consistent with what I described above. We can also describe the speed of rotation: 1 Rotation/day. Again, we must use both units of distance and time to describe velocity.

You are allowing the scale of “Earth time” to confuse your conception of it. For example, kilograms are a unit of mass but do not change the inherent nature of mass. Meters are a unit of distance but do not affect distance. 1 Earth day is a unit of time that does not affect itself. A Martian day has its own scale but 1 second on mars is the same as 1 second here.

pat · May 23, 2007, 8:35pm

[quote]LIFTICVSMAXIMVS wrote:
pat36 wrote:
Well, first, let me say I believe in movement. So you don’t have to convince me. All I am say is nobody has solved the paradox. If there are an infinite amount of points between A and B then you can never reach b because you have to go though all points in between to get there and there are an infinite amount of points.

The only way to solve the paradox is to prove there are a finite amount of points between the distance of one point to another. Nobody has been able to do that, time be damned.

Secondly, that time is a measure of movement and change

A) is not a new idea and certainly isn’t mind, though I’ll be damned if remember whose theory it was. It works for me, however, because truly can you say time passed if there is no movement or change? If everything simultaneously stopped moving/changing from the largest star to the smallest sub-atomic particle would there be any time and if so, how would you measure how much has gone by?

B) This also does nothing to the theory of relativity or any other theory. If you look at our understanding of time, it encompasses divisions of earthly movement. 1 year = 1 rotation around the sun. 1 day = one rotation along the axis, etc. Our time measures are still valid because they are consistent.

The fact that you can move from point A to point C disproves the paradox. I would wager my Ph.D. in physics that I am correct and you are wrong.

It doesn’t matter that there are an infinite amount of point between A and C because there are also an infinite amount of points in time as well. They cancel each other out.

Let me try to tackle your 2 suppositions in one fell swoop. Time is not dependent on anything. It is a measure unto itself.

Time is not dependent on movement of the Earth. In fact, the velocity of the Earth has to do with the time it takes to travel a certain distance. The Earth’s velocity is: 1 revolution/year. You see? units of distance (1 revolution) and time (1 year). This is consistent with what I described above. We can also describe the speed of rotation: 1 Rotation/day. Again, we must use both units of distance and time to describe velocity.

You are allowing the scale of “Earth time” to confuse your conception of it. For example, kilograms are a unit of mass but do not change the inherent nature of mass. Meters are a unit of distance but do not affect distance. 1 Earth day is a unit of time that does not affect itself. A Martian day has its own scale but 1 second on mars is the same as 1 second here.[/quote]

You wouldn’t want to wager such things on Xeno’s Paradox. That’s why it’s called a paradox. Because, it is pretty obvious movement and change occur. It doesn’t dispel the paradox, it only makes it a stronger paradox. Infinite points in time doesn’t make a bit of difference only that the paradox can be applied to time itself if you want to look at time as a self containing entity that continues whether it’s a used as a measure or not.

Your kilogram argument doesn’t really say anything. A kilogram is a unit of measure, it is not the mass itself. Likewise a minute is a unit of measure as to how far the earth has turn around it’s axis. Martian time measures the movement of Mars. Either way you slice it, you are still measuring movement. If it isn’t a measure, then what exactly is it?

I am not disagreeing with you about movement existing, I am saying nobody has been able to disprove Xeno’s paradox with pure logic. I think it’s his only remaining paradox that Calculus has not been able to tackle. Again to disprove his theory you have to prove that there are not an infinite amount of points between two distances. Nobody has been able to do that.

LIFTICVSMAXIMVS · May 23, 2007, 9:53pm

[quote]pat36 wrote:
I am not disagreeing with you about movement existing, I am saying nobody has been able to disprove Xeno’s paradox with pure logic. I think it’s his only remaining paradox that Calculus has not been able to tackle. Again to disprove his theory you have to prove that there are not an infinite amount of points between two distances. Nobody has been able to do that. [/quote]

As long as Xeno’s paradox remains completely geometric it cannot be solved. The definition of a line ensures this. Physics doesn’t work in single discrete dimensions like Xeno’s paradox. As soon as he mentions motion it is no longer a paradox. He now has two lines to instead of one.

As soon as we say there is movement on the line we are dealing with two dimensions–time and distance. It cannot happen any other way. Once we bring in time the problem is solved because the number of points in time and space are equivalently infinite.

pookie · May 23, 2007, 11:59pm

[quote]pat36 wrote:
Please explain or provide a link. I have never seen or heard of Xeno’s paradox being solved. [/quote]

Start with this:

You can also google “zeno” (better hits than with “xeno”) for many pages that discuss the paradoxes.

pookie · May 24, 2007, 12:15am

[quote]pat36 wrote:
What Zeno does is show that distance can be divided infinitely and then argues that one cannot complete an infinite amount of tasks in a finite amount of time.[/quote]

The best way I’ve found to explain it to someone who isn’t familiar with the math involved is that as you divide the distance over and over, you must also divide the time. Each smaller distance takes less and less time to cover.

It can be shown mathematically that

1 + 1/2 + 1/4 + 1/8 + 1/16 + … (to infinity) = 2

So eventually, you’ll cover the finite distance in finite time.

Infinities are very tricky to think about, since what seems intuitive when you think about them is often wrong.

Another way to solve it is to refer to quantum mechanics. “Quantum” refers to the fact that our universe appears to come in small discrete packets of matter, energy and even time.

The smallest amount of light is called a photon. There is no such thing as half a photon; you cannot divide a quanta any further.

Distance is limited in a similar way. The shortest possible distance is called the Planck length. There is an equivalent amount of time that cannot be further subdivided (called a chronon, if memory serves.)

That’s according to Quantum Mechanics. In Relativity, time and space are not quantized.

So, if QM is right about the nature of our universe, then Zeno’s paradox is “prevented” simply because it’s physically impossible to divide space and time infinitely.

I personally don’t like this argument much; the mathematical one is much more elegant.

I think it’s more that when you divide one, you must also divide the other. So your infinite lengths can be covered using those infinite periods of time. The infinity of lengths is canceled out by the infinity of time periods.

The paradox comes from most people thinking that each distance will be covered in constant time, leading to an infinite duration. Covering X/2 takes less time than covering X.

pat · May 24, 2007, 3:34pm

[quote]LIFTICVSMAXIMVS wrote:
pat36 wrote:
I am not disagreeing with you about movement existing, I am saying nobody has been able to disprove Xeno’s paradox with pure logic. I think it’s his only remaining paradox that Calculus has not been able to tackle. Again to disprove his theory you have to prove that there are not an infinite amount of points between two distances. Nobody has been able to do that.

As long as Xeno’s paradox remains completely geometric it cannot be solved. The definition of a line ensures this. Physics doesn’t work in single discrete dimensions like Xeno’s paradox. As soon as he mentions motion it is no longer a paradox. He now has two lines to instead of one.

As soon as we say there is movement on the line we are dealing with two dimensions–time and distance. It cannot happen any other way. Once we bring in time the problem is solved because the number of points in time and space are equivalently infinite.[/quote]

Interesting! Good stuff. I am learning something new. Do the lines intersect and at what point do that intersect? I want to understand the problem from the physics point of view. The fact that both are equally divisible, does one cancel the other out. I don’t know that I am understanding it completely.

pat · May 24, 2007, 3:54pm

[quote]pookie wrote:
pat36 wrote:
What Zeno does is show that distance can be divided infinitely and then argues that one cannot complete an infinite amount of tasks in a finite amount of time.

The best way I’ve found to explain it to someone who isn’t familiar with the math involved is that as you divide the distance over and over, you must also divide the time. Each smaller distance takes less and less time to cover.

It can be shown mathematically that

1 + 1/2 + 1/4 + 1/8 + 1/16 + … (to infinity) = 2
[/quote]

The problem I see with this equation is that continuing along it’s infinite path, it would forever approach, but never actually reach 2.

It you were to graph it the line approaching 2 would come infinitely closer with out ever touching it. So I must be missing something, or not understanding how the math above would eventually reach 2. I’d love to learn more.

I am guessing that these dividable units were derived to help the math/science move along. I.E. it had to be defined to get past the problem because the having things infinitely regressing would basically halt the progression of the science. Define it and move on.

Agreed. Math is always more elegant because of it’s purity. Quantum theory is still a theory and like I said before defining the smallest possible unit of time and space is a way of moving the science forward with out constantly tangling with the infinity issue. Just define a unit that is all encompassing and then some, of the known universe.

Again, the equation approaches but never reaches. That is where I am having trouble with it.

The pure geometry of it makes it paradoxical like liftvs said.
But I am enjoying this. I haven’t been in school in a long time I am enjoying the education you guys are providing. Feel free to educate me more. I really want to get it.

LIFTICVSMAXIMVS · May 24, 2007, 5:26pm

[quote]pat36 wrote:
Interesting! Good stuff. I am learning something new. Do the lines intersect and at what point do that intersect? I want to understand the problem from the physics point of view. The fact that both are equally divisible, does one cancel the other out. I don’t know that I am understanding it completely. [/quote]

Its not that they cancel each other out specifically, but imagine that when going from A to B in space you are also traveling from A’ to B’ in time as well. When you pass the half-way mark in space, you have also passed the half way mark in time.

Constraints of travel tell you that at a certain point the mid-points of both segments will be smaller than the velocity of travel, thus you have arrived at your destination.

Another paradox that arises is when do you know you have arrived at your destination? If we define that location as point B what does that imply? A point is no more an accurate description of space than a line. A point is dimensionless so where in space is it?

Imagine flying home from some location. When can you say you have arrived home; when the plane touches down, when it stops, or when you walk through the door of your house? You see, location is a very abstract description.

Another way of looking at it: Think of space and time as a continuum–which it is. The simplest way I can describe it is in a 2-dimensional coordinate plane. On this plane we can draw a continuous curve (“curve” is just a generic term to mean any line). As long as the curve remains defined–that is, continuous and differentiable, we have a representation of motion.

If the curve is straight we have unaccelerated motion. If the line is horizontal it represents 0 velocity and hence no motion yet time continues to pass (assuming time is represented by the horizontal axis). If the line is vertical it is undefined and represents infinite velocity. This is not allowed because the speed of light is the fastest any particle can travel.

This vertical line is what Xeno’s paradox is represented by–infinite, instantaneous motion. If time does not pass how can one travel from point A to B?

BTW, velocity would be represented by the slope of the first time derivative with respect to x.

So, to answer your question, yes, time and space do intersect but in a very abstract way…since space is 3-dimensional how do we represent the 4th dimension, time, orthogonally to the x, y, z axes? You can see why people have a hard time contemplating the nature of space-time.

Physicists who study elementary particles, like me, do not differentiate between the two because it allows us to describe systems using momentum and energy.

Here is a wiki link to a space-time description which probably does a better job explaining it that I can:

pat · May 25, 2007, 4:17am

[quote]LIFTICVSMAXIMVS wrote:
pat36 wrote:
Interesting! Good stuff. I am learning something new. Do the lines intersect and at what point do that intersect? I want to understand the problem from the physics point of view. The fact that both are equally divisible, does one cancel the other out. I don’t know that I am understanding it completely.