It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Logic that will make your head spin

page: 9
56
<< 6  7  8    10  11  12 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Sep, 19 2011 @ 11:58 AM
link   

Originally posted by rickyrrr
reply to post by Amaterasu
 


So, if you know that energy can be extracted from zero point by means of virtual particles, how do you know that this energy is not subtracted from elsewhere?


Somewhere or from nowhere - but not from inside this universe. It may be that another dimension is leaking energy, or somewhere We have yet to conceive of. But the fact that the universe is not only expanding but accelerating in its expansion is a clue that energy is being added into the universe all the time and everywhere.


It is not a science question but a philosophical one: One cannot assert an unrestricted negative. So, yes, maybe energy can be extracted from the zero point field, but this energy might have come from somewhere you are, as of yet, unaware of.


Or it may be that the universe creates it ex nihilo. But it IS a science question, because science is the art of explaining things in demonstrable and repeatable ways. (And why can One not assert an unrestricted negative? Come to think of it... What do You mean by that to begin with?)


It's a bit like that CD club I was briefly a member of. I kept getting free CD's from them until one day they sent a bill


And I say there is no "bill" to be delivered. The energy is pouring into the universe - whether from nowhere or some other universe or whatever. But all the energy We could possibly use would be like consuming a 100th of a drop of water and just like consuming 1/100th of a drop of water has no effect on the sea, neither will the energy We use effect things any more.




posted on Sep, 19 2011 @ 12:02 PM
link   
reply to post by Amaterasu
 


Really, I don't think you grasp virtual particles.

Let's look at that article, mmkay?



Virtual particles are indeed real particles. Quantum theory predicts that every particle spends some time as a combination of other particles in all possible ways. These predictions are very well understood and tested.


IE, they are real in that they exist. They are not real in that we have no idea what their true form are. We know they exist. But in order to analyze them, we invent their form so we can base familiar mathematics of them and not have to spend year inventing new math.




Quantum mechanics allows, and indeed requires, temporary violations of conservation of energy, so one particle can become a pair of heavier particles (the so-called virtual particles), which quickly rejoin into the original particle as if they had never been there. If that were all that occurred we would still be confident that it was a real effect because it is an intrinsic part of quantum mechanics, which is extremely well tested, and is a complete and tightly woven theory--if any part of it were wrong the whole structure would collapse.


In this form, the particle must exist in multiple places so that it can analyze it's surroundings and make a logical choice. This doesn't make it alive nor conscious. This merely means exactly what I stated in my previous post. A VP is the tool by which a particle reacts to its environment, the same way atoms are how we smell and and photons are how we see. Smaller scale, different item, but the same basic concept.

Some real science on zero point energy would be preferred, versus folly-filled underground new agers.

philsci-archive.pitt.edu...

Zero point is simply the fact that things have energy, even at their lowest state. That this energy cannot be destroyed. Though in theory, it will inevitably decay into every smaller reactions, eventually reaching the photon and then dissolve throughout the ever growing universe. Again, to go with the on topic point of this thread, the fact that space is infinite means that finite matter will dissolve. Is basically literally dividing by zero. You can't. Thus the universe exists, even though it can't.

Related to what you said




If one grants the reality of quantum vacuum energy one must also assume an intertheoretical link between QFT and GR, specifically that quantum vacuum energy is a source of curvature in GR, in order to establish the cosmological constant problem. But, as we have seen, it can be doubted whether the cosmological constant problem is well-defined – given our insufficient understanding of this link between GR and QF


Very important is this fact. The fact that the science is inconclusive. It could end up that space time is what the photon decays into. In which case, you cannot suck energy out of nothing. It is simply the corpse of long-decayed photons.

And of course,



One must be convinced that the various QFT contributions to the vacuum energy density indeed result in a physically real energy density of empty space. While this conviction appears natural, at least in the context of QED and QCD, due to the apparent experimental demonstrations of the reality of various vacuum effects, we have hinted that this conclusion could be ambiguous. In particular, we indicated that the QED vacuum energy concept might be an artefact of the formalism with no physical existence independent of material systems. One possible way to maintain such a viewpoint would be to replace QED with Schwinger’s source theory, insofar as this theory can explain QED experiments without recourse to vacuum energy. But, regardless of the merits of source theory, the fact that all QED (and QCD) ‘vacuum’ experiments involve material systems makes it reasonable to question whether such experiments are useful for predicting how empty space ‘in itself’ will curve spacetime



When we test these things, they are done with materials. So we have no idea weather this energy is coming from those materials, adding into the vacuum. After all, isn't a vacuum an area of least resistance for energy transfer?

Something you should think about before you think so sure of your self.

So please do read more, before you advertise yourself as correct.
edit on 19-9-2011 by Gorman91 because: (no reason given)



posted on Sep, 19 2011 @ 12:09 PM
link   

Originally posted by filosophia

#3. Movement is impossible.

If you attempt to go from point A to point B, you must first travel from point A to point A(1)

A.......A(1).........B

In order to travel from A to A(1), you must travel from A to A(2),

A........A(2).........A(1)........B

and to travel from A to A(2), you must travel from A to A(3,4,5,6,7...infinity). Thus, you must travel an infinite distance to travel a finite distance. Since this is impossible, movement is impossible. (This is known as Zeno's tortoise paradox).


Movement is possible, ipso facto. It's our measuring of distance that gets confusing. For example, if you measure a coastline in kilometers you get a total distance. Measure it in smaller units (such as meters) and you get a longer total distance. This is due to the fractal nature of the world.

In the Greek example above the confusion is similarly a measurement issue. The "true" distance between point A and B is a unique unit of 1.



posted on Sep, 19 2011 @ 12:16 PM
link   
A masterpiece of confliction.
An infinite number of somethings in regression, is just as impossible as something coming from nothing. Therefore making the case for a God much stronger IMO. If there is a causeless cause as I believe this logic does dictate. we would know this to be God.

No replys will be answered save those from the OP.

SnF
edit on 19-9-2011 by randyvs because: (no reason given)



posted on Sep, 19 2011 @ 12:16 PM
link   

Originally posted by Amaterasu
Or it may be that the universe creates it ex nihilo. But it IS a science question, because science is the art of explaining things in demonstrable and repeatable ways. (And why can One not assert an unrestricted negative? Come to think of it... What do You mean by that to begin with?)


An unrestricted negative is a statement of the form "There is no X" With the implication (often unstated) that "There is no X *anywhere*" To demonstrate that "there is no X anywhere" one has to search everywhere and fail to find it. Because it is impossible to do that (as far as I know) anybody saying "There is no X" and does not add "Inside this box" (a restriction) could not possibly know for a fact what they are saying.

So in a statement claiming there to be a form of zero point energy, say, arriving into a device for extraction, and further saying that this energy "came from nowhere" one would have to have searched everywhere to account for all energy and demonstrated that no energy was lost elsewhere.

So, what if somebody demonstrated a machine that extracted energy from the potential in sideral mass separation? Say there is a machine that produces a few miliwatts, and apparently nothing nearby seems to be loosing energy, but that somehow this device (purely hypothetical by the way) is causing the distance between the earth and all other sideral mass to shrink infinitesimally. A machine that did this would appear to anybody testing it to violate the second law of thermodynamics. The true source of energy would be undetected and the device would be considered a fraud, regardless of how well it worked.

-rrr



posted on Sep, 19 2011 @ 12:25 PM
link   
reply to post by filosophia
 


Are You Saying It's All In The Eyes Of The Beholder ?



posted on Sep, 19 2011 @ 12:39 PM
link   

Originally posted by magicrat
reply to post by filosophia
 


I have vivid memories of #3 blowing my mind when I was about eight years old. There's no way to shake the logic of that (and you explained that logic really clearly), and no way to shake the fact that movement is possible, so the only conclusion I could make was that reality can't possibly be real. Thirty or so years later, here I am...


I would think #3 is the easiest... and the explanation there gets rid of the Impossibility of Aging as well. Taken individually, and cumulatively, the infinite gradations of a single unit of distance are impossible to achieve... but moving an infinite number of smaller gradations of a unit of distance is very clearly not impossible... and by moving any distance (or aging any time) the infinite gradations are inherent in the definition of the distance. Since we aren't talking a "cumulative infinity", but rather a "divisional infinity", I don't think there's really a comparison.

(And now I'm starting to wonder if I've been working around engineers for too long. (Approaching 2 months now.))

By definition, the universe is infinite. If there is nothing that is not in the universe, then the universe encompasses everything. Multiple universes are a contradiction because the universe is everything. Those multiple universes, therefore, must either not be universes (hence dimensions), or we have incorrectly defined the Universe.

Space does not exist: "Nothing" does not exist. If something exists within the confines of the universe, then it is something, and the space between it and other somethings can be measured. If it is outside the universe (as defined above), then it doesn't exist, and is irrelevant to discussions of space.

#6: Taking "The Universe is Everything", we can argue that Infinity cannot exist, as it cannot be contained in a universe..

#7: This is a concept taken to heart in Object Oriented Analysis and Design. You can define Horse as a container of all of the properties and functions that apply to every instance of Horse. Each instance of Horse, however, can add properties or functions that are inherent only to that instance. These properties include a unique identification that makes it distinct from every other instance of Horse.

(So I think overall, I agreed with #7.)



posted on Sep, 19 2011 @ 12:47 PM
link   

Originally posted by CharterZZ
reply to post by filosophia
 


It just goes to show that the human language we have made up just isnt good enough to describe the universe.

Or alot of other things for that matter.

Interesting read anyhow.
edit on 18-9-2011 by CharterZZ because: (no reason given)


languages evolve, like a species...give it time along with technology, knowledge etc. it'l come



posted on Sep, 19 2011 @ 12:49 PM
link   

Originally posted by Julie Washington
...and it still doesn't answer what came first...

the chicken or the egg?


The rooster.

Everyone knows that.



posted on Sep, 19 2011 @ 01:00 PM
link   
toooo....muuch....infruamateyyion...

beeeeeeeeeeeeeeep



posted on Sep, 19 2011 @ 01:00 PM
link   
reply to post by filosophia
 

WOWOWL... Urr right
... After reading this before ithought about it... my mind can't stop spinning
... so my conclusion to help stop it was&is... That God/Orginal source code light... Lived/On... in darkness first(how long... who knows)
... then white Before therr was even color
... Just a phobos of the dark I guess


Mr X-ULTRA-MOON-BEAM... Thanking God we have the moon so we can ALL SEE what we are doing in most of the the night times... Now can some one turn the light off
... so we can all get a good nights rest together


edit on 19-9-2011 by CosmicWaterGate because: I'm not perfect


edit on 19-9-2011 by CosmicWaterGate because: Post editing... after I had a private screening&seen what it looked like on the BIG GALACTIC SILVER SCREEN



posted on Sep, 19 2011 @ 01:05 PM
link   
reply to post by filosophia
 




and thus it's impossible for you to die in the sense of becoming nothing.


Well you don't become nothing, you remain a corpse (or some ashes). Your material body still exists, it simply isn't functioning, it's dead, and since the brain is dead everything YOU are is also dead. The Greek axiom itself is still fairly sound, just the way you're using it to hold up the afterlife that's flawed.



The universe must be two things, infinitely small and infinitely large.


Why use the words small or large here at all? When dealing with infinity such values lose all meaning. If time, for instance, is infinite, than measures of time become meaningless. It depends on a limited finite perspective to give things any meaning.



Since this is impossible, movement is impossible.


Like I said above, when dealing with infinity measurements become meaningless. Just because we can conceptualize an infinite amount of points between A and B doesn't mean we have to or should and doesn't mean the actual distance between the given points is infinite. In order to be functional such measurements must be finite.



Since it is impossible to age an infinite amount of finite seconds, age is impossible.


See above. All you're doing is creating smaller units of time. If aging is impossible than why are it's effects so demonstrable not just on humans but on rocks, stars, galaxies, etc? It's interesting but not functional.

Like I said, in my opinion in order to have meaning something like time has to be finite or be seen from a finite perspective. From an infinite perspective it has no real meaning, this is why I'm always perplexed by those that say eternal life via an afterlife or Heaven has more meaning than a finite life where when you're dead you're DEAD.



Thus, there is no logical reason to call a particular horse a 'horse.'


This I agree with you on. Barring some belief in Platonic forms a horse is only a horse because that is what we define it as. Such definitions are ours. To an alien calling a horse a horse has as much validity as calling a table a horse. Or to put it as Shakespeare did, that which we call a rose, by any other name, would smell as sweet.



posted on Sep, 19 2011 @ 01:13 PM
link   
Like I said on the third page (and was ignored) even virtual particles cannot possibly come from nothing, because they simply need space in the first place to exist. So space is basically pre-existent to them and necessarily to anything that occupies space, even the most infinitesimal amount of it. Where does space come from? Certainly we cannot say that it is nothing, but as far as I know we cannot also really say that it is material (energy). Furthermore, even time in my mind cannot be antecedent to space (or at least time, in that state of existence has no meaning), because prior to it no movement is possible, hence no change is perceivable.

Space and therefore time were probably caused or created by something transcending both, therefore we, as space and time-bound creatures will never be able to fully grasp or even identify what that is...



posted on Sep, 19 2011 @ 01:19 PM
link   
reply to post by Julie Washington
 


The real answer is the egg came first, layed by something that was not quite a chicken. The same way the first human was born of a hominid that was herself not quite human. It's called mutation and it's the basic mechanism of evolution.



posted on Sep, 19 2011 @ 01:23 PM
link   
One of the flaws in most of this 'logic' is assuming that everything can be subdivided infinitesimally small, which in and of itself creates a logical paradox.

You could say that matter cannot actually exist, because everything must be made up of something.

Matter does not exist, because matter must be made up of molecules...
...but molecules do not exist, because they must me made up of atoms...
...but atoms do not exist because they must be made up of protons/electrons...
...but protons/electrons do not exist, because they must be made up of quarks/leptons...
...but quarks/leptons do not exist, because they must be made up of some smaller unit...
...repeat ad infinitum...

This is the same logic that is used to show things can't move, because in order to have moved an inch, they must have moved each of the infinitely smaller distances that an inch can be subdivided into, so from this we can determine that nothing that can be subdivided can exist, right?

Well...not really. Just because something can be subdivided, doesn't mean it can be subdivided ad infinitum. Eventually you will reach the smallest building block particle after which no further subdivision is possible. Once you have determined the base unit after which no finer precision of movement can be determined, you can use the following equation to see that movement of smaller base units is possible using larger units of time and space.

z = number of larger distance units (feet)
y = number of larger time units (seconds)
w = number of base unit per feet

x = (z * w) / y

Then solve for x to determine the number of base units that must be traversed per second to travel z feet over y seconds, and you will see it is a finite number.

Yes, using simple mathmatics to solve a complex problem is certainly flawed, but clearly less-so than using even more simplified logic
edit on 19-9-2011 by Akasirus because: (no reason given)



posted on Sep, 19 2011 @ 01:23 PM
link   
reply to post by filosophia
 


perhaps it is my engineering mindset and my prior knowledge of how the universe was made and what the multiverse is (or atleast our theory of said items) but not on of the items you listed are contradictory when considering the universe and you seem to stop just shy of stating the information that would agree with your "axioms". I will take some time to gather my thoughts and give a complete reply to you post per my perspective.



posted on Sep, 19 2011 @ 01:26 PM
link   
reply to post by Akasirus
 


it seems the OP is trying to dazzle readers with simple calculus... lol sorry for the pun. but infinitley small distances can be traversed rather fast when you think about it. just because i have to traverse and infinite amounts spacial divisions to travel a length means nothing because those infinite amount of divisions have infinitely simile distance.



posted on Sep, 19 2011 @ 01:30 PM
link   

Originally posted by knowonder
reply to post by Akasirus
 


it seems the OP is trying to dazzle readers with simple calculus... lol sorry for the pun. but infinitley small distances can be traversed rather fast when you think about it. just because i have to traverse and infinite amounts spacial divisions to travel a length means nothing because those infinite amount of divisions have infinitely simile distance.


You have to understand the context of these paradoxes, they were meant to ridicule other people's premises, which is why they seem nonsensical, because the logic is meant to illustrate the fundamental flaw of those who believe the universe is both infinitely small and infinitely large. Greek thought focused mostly on geometry, and in geometry there is no such thing as zero, which would answer the paradox of Zeno's tortoise, so rather than thinking these arguments are flawed, you should instead focus on how they illustrated weak points in the prevailing thought of the time.



posted on Sep, 19 2011 @ 01:40 PM
link   
reply to post by filosophia
 


in reading your posts. it tastes like your understanding of a couple axioms. you list your facts and defend them with your perspective that perspective seems flawed not necessarily the fact you listed.



posted on Sep, 19 2011 @ 01:47 PM
link   

Originally posted by Freedom_is_Slavery
Here is an interesting one

If there was an omnipotent god,
would he be able to create a stone that he couldn't lift


The omnipotent God can not create/form something that is greater than him self.

God is infinite, God can not create a universe greater/larger than him self. That is also why there is only one omnipotent God.



new topics




 
56
<< 6  7  8    10  11  12 >>

log in

join