Infinity

[Savage Beatings]

I've started typing about a dozen sentences here, and then I've deleted each one becuase they have sounded meaningless in light of your circumstances. I can't comfort you. I can't relate to what you've just gone through. But I'm here thinking about you and and your daiughter right now, and feeling profoundly sad for you. So, it's not much, but right now, you're not alone. You've got some silent internet support and prayers for peace & comfort... for whatever that might be worth.

[Jimmy Neutron]

Very sorry to hear this, Thews. You hve my sincere condolences and prayers.

[Thews40]

Thews, I can't imagine how hard it is for you, but she is definately in a better place.

 

1) Hard to answer this without knowing what kind or types of gravity or friction are in the environment.

 

2) I can't answer this one, though I think they have proven the existence of "antimatter", right?

 

3) No friggen clue

 

4) Puddy is the man AND the myth, but machine is debatable, given his tire-changing troubles...

For question 1, it's not required to know the variables of gravity, friction, etc. to answer the question. For argument's sake, in a trial of 100 1/2 inch pulls, the mean was 2.2 inches, and furthest outliers were 2.78 inches, and 1.87.

 

There's a reason I asked these questions, and that's to know why you all think they way you do, and what conclusions you've reached. Guys like Dr. Love understand this stuff, and I've learned a lot in past conversations. In one conversation long ago, Bushwhacked said something that really took me back, forced me to wrap my mind around it and process it, and it changed my opinion. I don't want to go into the God part of this argument, because what I'm looking for is the scientific argument from the other extreme in the tangible domain... if that makes sense. I'm not a math guy, and I don' understand quantum physics, but I'll bet there's people in here who do, or know someone who might be knowledgeable enough to answer these questions with conviction. I really just want to understand the thought process, and leave God out of this series of questions, and focus on the facts.

 

Please take the kid gloves off, and know that I feel the support from you guys during this very difficult time in my life, just like I had through the last 5 years. I really want to know your side of these questions differs from mine, and if it is different, it doesn't threaten me. Yer a smart bunch, and I'd like to know why you answered the questions the way you did. The results are mixed, and I like to know if anyone has determined a "correct" answer to #1 and why they think so. This isn't meant to "win", and it's not my objective. We're talking about facts, or supposed facts, and I just don't see the definition of Antimatter as valid.

 

Thanks

Edited February 28, 2009 by Thews40

[Bier Meister]

i am so sorry for your loss thews. i just keep looking at my 3 year old daughter and hope she should have such courage and strength when life isn't so easy. i really feel for you. i also smile a little when i think about how you two got to share those last 5 years. you were a fantastic father and it sounds like she was the type of daughter we'd all like to have call any time.

 

 

[Puddy]

Wow. Terribly sorry to hear the news. God bless you Thews. May Mallory rest in peace. It's not supposed to happen this way, that's for sure.

[Chargerz]

 

I am so sorry you lost your daughter. Please accept my deepest condolences.

[Azazello1313]

1) seems like the distance travelled as the result of the force imparted by the paddle is going to be finite. at least in a simple, classical, euclidean sense. I'm not smart enough to come up with any other angle.

 

2) seems to me like the answer is yes. I mean, the very definition of antimatter is that it is made up of antiparticles. if there is such a thing as antimatter, it is made up of antiparticles. if there are antiparticles, they presumably can combine to make up antimatter. I really don't know if there's enough factual information to comfortably assert that all of that anti-stuff exists or not.

 

3) sounds like it might be possible, but if it is there will always be a greater unsolved problem. that I am relatively certain of.

 

4) yes

[The Holy Roller]

I am so sorry you lost your daughter. Please accept my deepest condolences.

 

Please accept mine also.

[Wolverines Fan]

Thews, please accept my deepest condolences. I also believe in the afterlife, and you will definitely see your daughter again. She is in a better place.

Edited February 28, 2009 by Wolverines Fan

[Thews40]

1) seems like the distance travelled as the result of the force imparted by the paddle is going to be finite. at least in a simple, classical, euclidean sense. I'm not smart enough to come up with any other angle.

My answer to this question is that the "exact" distance traveled is infinite, though it's held to a finite boundary condition of approx. 3 inches. If a ruler were used to measure it, the resolution would be low. If a Laser Doppler Vibrometer were used (no mass loading), we could measure the distance with more accuracy, but the accuracy would be held to the resolution of the device measuring it. If the LDV measured 2.398724268(go out a hundred decimal places), we'd be so far into the noise floor we'd discount the resolution as unnecessary, and discount it. If we could go out a billion decimal places in accuracy, there would still be a billion one and so on.

 

Conclusion: In an infinite domain, there is no noise floor and it never ends. The limitation of what we define as infinite is held to the boundary conditions we set. When those boundary conditions are opened up to infinity, we stop once we don't see any further value or possibility of achieving an answer. It's how we rationalize time, as "the beginning" of the earth (or big bang), discounts what happened before it, when in fact time is infinite.

 

2) seems to me like the answer is yes. I mean, the very definition of antimatter is that it is made up of antiparticles. if there is such a thing as antimatter, it is made up of antiparticles. if there are antiparticles, they presumably can combine to make up antimatter. I really don't know if there's enough factual information to comfortably assert that all of that anti-stuff exists or not.

My problem is with the definition and the factuality of the definition. What we're talking about is "anit", or the opposite of matter. The properties of the definition included, also included what would happen if antimatter we mixed with matter, and also paints a picture it can be harnessed. To harness antimatter, would mean we'd have to contain it, and that would be defined by space. Matter occupies space, but the opposite of space is antispace. To further define something that doesn't exist to a finite description of little particles of "things" that also don't exist, is attempting to bridge the gap of infinity IMO and fill the void with a theory. One would have to observe antimatter to conclude this, but theories based on a scientific principals only a handful of people actually supposedly understand, in theory, sort of takes the need for us (the individual) to understand it, and assumes (or places trust in) that there's enough evidence from the people who supposedly do to make the claims the definition implies. I don't believe the definition is accurate, and that's based on the facts.

 

3) sounds like it might be possible, but if it is there will always be a greater unsolved problem. that I am relatively certain of.

Riddle me this... you're in a room that's 10 feet by 10 feet. The room is surrounded by antimatter, and from inside it you have 6 foot by 6 foot windows on each wall that contain the antimatter to the other side. What color do you see as you look out the widow? is it... probably black, because of the absence of light. Shine a light through the window, and the beam may not penetrate it, but step back and grasp what you're looking at, and that's space which contains the opposite of something. This is all IMO a finite mind's perspective into believing the space contains something tangible, which doesn't make sense to me. because by definition it's the inverse of something tangible. Analogous to the room, if the universe were the room, surrounded by antimatter, it would be the different thing in that it was comprised of matter, when everything else wasn't.

 

Conclusion: The human mind is finite, antimatter cannot now nor never will be "observed", because it's not tangible. The definition of antimatter isn't valid, other to point out we cannot observe or unterstand its properties, which assumes it has properties. It's of another dimension, and would require an infinite mindset to understand it. Claiming ID is factual is as accurate as this definition of antimatter, and claiming it's made up of antiparticles is absurd IMO.

 

The crux of this, for me anyway, is reaching a conclusion to what is or isn't possible. If someone believes the problem can be solved, or that antimatter can be broken down into finite terms, then they can place faith that a new discovery will explain it eventually. I contend it cannot be solved, which would then contain the "end" of the tangible domain. As long as the finite mind wants to believe there isn't an end to the tangible domain, or that their mind is infinite and we can perceive infinite concepts, then admitting their minds are finite would be difficult, when I contend it is a fact. I've spend a lot of time in the hospital the last few months thinking about things, and cognitive dissonance and the way we rationalize things is something I find interesting. To place believe in opposing concepts requires cognitive dissonance, and rationalizing out the properties of antimatter as possible is how it's dealt with IMO when using the scientific method to explain it.

 

 

4) yes

I didn't answer this poll, but I would have picked "machine" ...and I don't dance for nobody but you.

 

PS - Food for thought... if your soul (if you believe you have one) is not made up of matter, then it's not held to the domain (dimension) which encompasses matter.

[wiegie]

My answer to this question is that the "exact" distance traveled is infinite, though it's held to a finite boundary condition of approx. 3 inches. If a ruler were used to measure it, the resolution would be low. If a Laser Doppler Vibrometer were used (no mass loading), we could measure the distance with more accuracy, but the accuracy would be held to the resolution of the device measuring it. If the LDV measured 2.398724268(go out a hundred decimal places), we'd be so far into the noise floor we'd discount the resolution as unnecessary, and discount it. If we could go out a billion decimal places in accuracy, there would still be a billion one and so on.

 

Conclusion: In an infinite domain, there is no noise floor and it never ends. The limitation of what we define as infinite is held to the boundary conditions we set. When those boundary conditions are opened up to infinity, we stop once we don't see any further value or possibility of achieving an answer. It's how we rationalize time, as "the beginning" of the earth (or big bang), discounts what happened before it, when in fact time is infinite.

You are making up your own definition of infinite. The distance traveled is NOT infinite.

[Azazello1313]

yeah, an infinite number of decimal places in our arbitrary units of measurement does not equal an infinite distance travelled. what you're describing is just drilling down to greater and greater levels of detail in quantifying that finite distance travelled.

[Ursa Majoris]

yeah, an infinite number of decimal places in our arbitrary units of measurement does not equal an infinite distance travelled. what you're describing is just drilling down to greater and greater levels of detail in quantifying that finite distance travelled.

Agree. The question was phrased incorrectly. Assuming an infinite level of accuracy measurement then the number of possible answers is infinite within bounds, ergo, the distance itself is not infinite.

[billay]

I think what you're getting at Thews is more along the lines of the heisenburg uncertainty principal. It is impossible to pinpoint exactly where the ball ended up for a number of reasons. First, there is the mathematical difficulty in making a precice calculation, which you have articulated here. There is also the difficulty in determining exactly where the ball is, were it started, and where it ended up. To me this is more a result of the ultimately "fuzzy" nature of reality. The uncertainly principal states that the more accurately you know a particle's velocity, the less accuratley you can know its position and vice versa. At its most fundemental level, matter cannot be "pinned down" to an exact position because it is made up by vibration, moreso than substance. To pin it down completely, would be to cease the vibration, and thus, annihilate the particle altogether.

[Big John]

yeah, an infinite number of decimal places in our arbitrary units of measurement does not equal an infinite distance travelled. what you're describing is just drilling down to greater and greater levels of detail in quantifying that finite distance travelled.

Correct, such as in pi, its precision goes in infinitely but is a finite number.

[tazinib1]

I just read this thread. I'm not much of a science guy so I've been leaving this thread unopened and decided to see what it was about. I can't tell you how shocked I was to hear about your daughter Thews. The responses so far is why I have chosen to make this my home. A wonderful, heartfelt outpouring of support by TheHuddlers. These guys/gals never cease to impress me. My deepest condolences to you.

[Thews40]

yeah, an infinite number of decimal places in our arbitrary units of measurement does not equal an infinite distance travelled. what you're describing is just drilling down to greater and greater levels of detail in quantifying that finite distance travelled.

I disagree. You're rationalizing (cognitive dissonance) in redefining the question to fit your bounday conditions, which puts into something you can grasp. I asked what the "exact" distance traveled was, placing focus on the distance rather than the ball. Contained to the finite boundary condition of 3 inches, and stopping, would define the boundary condition as finite. But, the exact number, the distance, is infinite. It opens the boundary condition of how small we can perceive, but the exact number never stops, and the answer is, in fact, infinity. Does anyone agree with this logic? Or disagree?

[Thews40]

I just read this thread. I'm not much of a science guy so I've been leaving this thread unopened and decided to see what it was about. I can't tell you how shocked I was to hear about your daughter Thews. The responses so far is why I have chosen to make this my home. A wonderful, heartfelt outpouring of support by TheHuddlers. These guys/gals never cease to impress me. My deepest condolences to you.

Thank you, and you are correct in that there's some very wonderful people here. I will miss my daughter, as she was a very precious gift ...that will never change, the love will never change, and I say "never" is it's past tense, when in reality it's permanent. We've all heard of cultures that celebrate when someone dies. I think we all wish we could buy into that, but when we lose someone we love, the feeling of anger for the loss is overridden by its gift. I don't make the rules and I don't have much to complain about. My daughter lived an extra 5 years after having bone cancer. I've lived an extra 14 years since I was electrocuted and had an out of body experience. I didn't see anything but myself dead, but it solidifed I existed. When I sat talking to my daughter about letting go, I told her that if her experience were like mine, she'd sit up in soul, and decide to leave. I didn't think about this at the time, but she could have actually been sitting up when I said it. She died minutes later, grasping my hand. That gift, being able to bring my baby girl into this world, watch her grow up, and then take her out of it, were all gifts of love. My near death experience, which I consider a gift only I can understand, also helped me in dealing with all of this. The prayers that got her through everything so far came from here too. The world is pretty messed up, but there's solace in finding good people to help get us through it.

[billay]

I disagree. You're rationalizing (cognitive dissonance) in redefining the question to fit your bounday conditions, which puts into something you can grasp. I asked what the "exact" distance traveled was, placing focus on the distance rather than the ball. Contained to the finite boundary condition of 3 inches, and stopping, would define the boundary condition as finite. But, the exact number, the distance, is infinite. It opens the boundary condition of how small we can perceive, but the exact number never stops, and the answer is, in fact, infinity. Does anyone agree with this logic? Or disagree?

I disagree with your logic. "3 inches" is an arbitrary number, which is not dependent on a frame of reference, hence, you call it finite. The distance the ball traveled, is not arbitrary, but relies on a frame of reference, which is impossible to calculate to ultimate precision fro the reasons i stated above. While you do not know the distance the ball actually travelled, you do know that it had a starting point and a stopping point, and there is a finite distance between the two of the same nature as your boundary conditions. You just cannot give a convenient concrete number for it.

[JoJoTheWebToedBoy]

I am truely sorry man..... I can't imagine what it's like to lose a child, but my thoughts are with you today.....

[Savage Beatings]

I disagree. You're rationalizing (cognitive dissonance) in redefining the question to fit your bounday conditions, which puts into something you can grasp. I asked what the "exact" distance traveled was, placing focus on the distance rather than the ball. Contained to the finite boundary condition of 3 inches, and stopping, would define the boundary condition as finite. But, the exact number, the distance, is infinite. It opens the boundary condition of how small we can perceive, but the exact number never stops, and the answer is, in fact, infinity. Does anyone agree with this logic? Or disagree?

 

You're talking about one of Zeno's Paradoxes (the dichotomy paradox). It goes something like this... the ball travels 3 inches (or whatever distance you want to pick) but before it travels the full 3 inches, it first has to travel half that distance 1.5 inches. But before it travels 1.5 inches it first has to travel half that distance 0.75 inches. Sicne you can continue to divide each distnace in half infinitely, the ball can never travel the full 3 inches. It's impossible to complete an infinite number of tasks right?

 

Aristotle, among others, attempted to answer the paradox. I'm sure you can wikipedia it.

 

For myself, I would also maintain that quantum physics sheds some new light on the issue, as well as some new questions. If indeed we live in a quantum universe (which most scientists would maintain that we do) then you can't continue to divide things infinitely. You eventually get to a point of a single indivisible packet of the thing in question. For instance, light is made up of digital photons. You can have a single indivisible photon.

 

But on the other hand, while quantum physics shows us the digital nature of the miniscule parts of our universe, it also deals very much in probabilities instead of absolutes. The two-slit experiment (where a single photon is fired at two slits and can either go through one or the other) results in a seemingly impossible outcome. The photon, a single digital particle, doesn't behave like a single digital paritcle. While it should go through one slit or the other, it instead shows that it has a wave function which seems to indicate that it is in more than one place at the same time, and it's final measure is only a percentage of a probability of going through one slit or the other.

 

I would answer that the distance the ball travels is finite, even while that distance might contain an infinite amount of the stuff of the universe.

[Azazello1313]

I asked what the "exact" distance traveled was, placing focus on the distance rather than the ball. Contained to the finite boundary condition of 3 inches, and stopping, would define the boundary condition as finite. But, the exact number, the distance, is infinite.

 

I don't think that is accurate either. I mean, I don't think the level of detail at which we can quantify the distance travelled is infinite. we are limited by "unmeasurableness" at the subatomic level. you butt up to the limit of uncertainty, not infinity.

 

getting it into numbes...john mentioned pi, which is very much a finite "number"...with an infinite number of digits. or one third. one divded by three. finite, but if you try to express it decimally you can keep adding levels of precision infinitely, .3333333.....

[Thews40]

You are making up your own definition of infinite. The distance traveled is NOT infinite.

You are correct in that the distance traveled is finite, but the "exact" distance it traveled is infinite. When you think of things as they're explained in terms of size, like an atom, you could still break that into a billion parts, and then a billion more, etc., and you'd understand more each time. At some point you have to realize it never stops and you'll never reach the end. Does anyone else agree that the "exact" distance traveled is infinite?

[wiegie]

You are correct in that the distance traveled is finite, but the "exact" distance it traveled is infinite. When you think of things as they're explained in terms of size, like an atom, you could still break that into a billion parts, and then a billion more, etc., and you'd understand more each time. At some point you have to realize it never stops and you'll never reach the end. Does anyone else agree that the "exact" distance traveled is infinite?

I would agree with you if you said that it would require infinite precision to measure the exact finite distance that the ball has traveled, but that is not the same thing as saying that the exact distance that the ball has traveled is infinite.

[rocknrobn26]

When I first read this post I wasn't sure what it was about. After reading that your daughter died , my heart sunk like an anchor!

I still can't answer your questions, but believe me you have experienced pain that hopefully none of the rest of will ever feel. God Bless you for that!!

Children should not die!!! Dammit!!! I am at a loss for words. She was a fighter, a child that any of us would have been proud of.

Dammit...I'm welling up here.

All I can offer you is prayers and peace.

She's in a better place and no longer is in pain.

Peace, Bro...PEACE!