EPTAsk and answer stupid questions here! - Page 639
| Forum Index > General Forum |
|
farvacola
United States18869 Posts
| ||
|
xM(Z
Romania5299 Posts
in this case, what you do when going from A to B is increase the frequency of measurement. you transform the decrease(of the space/time) into an increase(in frequency) which is more logically handy to mess with and shift the problem/question from how small can you go? into how high can you go?. on one side that looks like purposely shooting yourself in the foot: you want to get from A to B and start taking smaller and smaller steps but on the other ... it is an increase of something.  the question now becomes is there an upper limit to frequency?. (technically, it doesn't seem to be so because it depends on the frame of reference and since there's no absolute reference frame a photon can give out different frequencies to two different observers... (or something along those lines; officially it's up in the air)) . (you may want to look at some definitions on https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Actual_infinity ; infinity is not about going from A to B but about defining it, its contents, then using it based on chosen reference frames. every time these sci-fi dudes choose a divide, they change their reference frame(shorten wavelength/increase measurement frequency) and you don't) | ||
|
Cascade
Australia5405 Posts
On July 03 2017 23:20 farvacola wrote: You don't have to fill a scarecrow with hay and name it "Philosopher" (nor "Mathematician," for that matter) to make your point that some kinds of pedantic nonsense don't actually yield anything useful. It was aimed at this part here: On July 03 2017 18:57 Uldridge wrote: [physics implication of Zeno's paradox.] Edit: I mean, my text probably doesn't make a lot of sense (because I'm not a physicist) but it's more of philosophical pondering of how lacking our understanding of the most fundamental properties of nature actually are. I get triggered when people talk about things they don't know anything about with such confidence. It is common practice, but it triggers me nonetheless, sorry. I should probably just not be in this thread I think, or any thread for that matter. | ||
|
farvacola
United States18869 Posts
| ||
|
Uldridge
Belgium5232 Posts
But I guess my words on space being unexplored, or unknown terrain as opposed to matter, is just bullshit. Thanks for enlightening me dude. And good thing I talked with confidence! That sure showed through on my post: my text probably doesn't make a lot of sense | ||
|
Acrofales
Spain18473 Posts
On July 04 2017 00:29 Uldridge wrote: So if I confirm we're talking about that paradox, which I understood from the start (sorry for not explicitly telling you, though), and I explicitly talk to you about potential smallest spaces, not infinitesimal spaces, mind you and after I get a reply about you getting triggered, will you stop being triggered? But I guess my words on space being unexplored, or unknown terrain as opposed to matter, is just bullshit. Thanks for enlightening me dude. And good thing I talked with confidence! That sure showed through on my post: my text probably doesn't make a lot of sense Zeno's paradox requires infinitesimal distances. If you're talking about a tiny finite distance, you are, by definition, no longer talking about Zeno's paradox, because there is no way of dividing a finite distance into an infinite number of finite distances. Also 0.9999999... = 1. | ||
|
Uldridge
Belgium5232 Posts
I didn't think it was THAT bad of a paragraph from me, but I guess I was wrong. | ||
|
Simberto
Germany12038 Posts
Your whole problem stems from that assumption, if i understand you correctly. Now, even if we assume that space is discrete, we still don't have a problem. Because a lot of stuff just gets very weird when you get to very small things and does not fit our large-space intuition at all. The problem here is not with the universe, but with the fact that your brain is used to large-scale things, and implicitly believes that small-scale stuff should somehow behave similarly to what you are used to. But we already have loads of examples where it does not. And if space is actually continuous, which you have yet to bring any argument against ("There needs to be a smallest piece of space" is an assertion, not an argument. I don't see any reason why that needs to be the case at all.), there is even less of a problem. And there are a bunch of people studying how spacetime actually works. That is basically the whole idea of general relativity. It is just incredibly hard to understand, so not a lot of what they do actually gets from theoretical physicists to the people on the street. That might be your reason why you believe no one knows anything about it. | ||
|
Uldridge
Belgium5232 Posts
It's basically a philosophical discussion though, because, as you said in a post previous to the one you just posted, it doesn't matter if it's discrete or continuous. But if things would behave different on the smallest level, perhaps it could be exploited somehow in the future. I'll completely agree that I don't know one iota of the things people theorize and experiment on relating to space-time, gravity, particle physics, etc., the knowledge is too vast for someone not in the field to understand and even talk about. I didn't know people were studying what space is, I just thought they experimented/theorized on what it does/can do/interacts/its implications are. Something I've wondered for a while, but haven't really put forward, because it's pretty out there, is the following: what if you have the ability to create new space. Could you make a new space inside already existing space? What would that be like? Would it be closed off? Would it destroy our space? Can you only add new space to existing space instead of making a subspace? What would you be able to do with it? | ||
|
Simberto
Germany12038 Posts
On July 04 2017 02:01 Uldridge wrote: I don't necessarily think it is discrete, but I think I've put a decent argument for it to be discrete out of which my assumption came (in continuity one applies discreteness to find volume/area -> but things can simply be(/seem) continuous because of the addition of all the discrete steps). It's basically a philosophical discussion though, because, as you said in a post previous to the one you just posted, it doesn't matter if it's discrete or continuous. But if things would behave different on the smallest level, perhaps it could be exploited somehow in the future. I'll completely agree that I don't know one iota of the things people theorize and experiment on relating to space-time, gravity, particle physics, etc., the knowledge is too vast for someone not in the field to understand and even talk about. I didn't know people were studying what space is, I just thought they experimented/theorized on what it does/can do/interacts/its implications are. Something I've wondered for a while, but haven't really put forward, because it's pretty out there, is the following: what if you have the ability to create new space. Could you make a new space inside already existing space? What would that be like? Would it be closed off? Would it destroy our space? Can you only add new space to existing space instead of making a subspace? What would you be able to do with it? "New" space is constantly being created. Or, more precisely, existing space expands. That is why in a universe that is ~13.8 billion years old, we can see things that are 40 billion lightyears away. Because they were not that far away when the light they sent out started. Space has stretched in between then and now. So new space being created isn't a problem per se, it just happens in areas where there is not a lot of gravity (and thus not a lot of stuff) for...reasons (Probably general relativity or something, i don't actually know why) In general, if you are interested in this kind of stuff, i would highly suggest you take some physics courses. Looking at it from "a philosophical standpoint" won't help you actually solve anything if you don't even know the basics of the physics behind things. It makes you similar to that weird guy in my university that keeps handing out flyers where he claims to have proven that dark energy and dark matter don't exist with pretty shitty napkin maths that doesn't make any sense whatsoever and doesn't even realize what problems dark energy or dark matter are supposed to fix in physical theories. Or the large amount of people that write weird letters to maths professors where they claim to have figured out "the quadrature of the circle" (Usually with a poor understanding of what that is supposed to mean, and an even worse mathematical "proof"), which have long been proven to not exist. Please don't take this as too negative. It is great that you are interested in weird ideas. Weird ideas are cool! But you don't have to reinvent the wheel, or claim that no one actually knows what a wheel is. Additional knowledge in these areas is not going to make them more boring, but it will help you focus that creative energy onto actual problems, as opposed to misconceptions or problems that have been thought through already. I know that i come off really negative in this rant, but that is not what i want to tell you. I love questions, and a search for knowledge is generally something valuable. But sometimes that knowledge is not found in a hidden space, but where you would most expect it. Like a physics textbook. | ||
|
Uldridge
Belgium5232 Posts
I'm talking about a hypothetical machine that's invented/made that can literally create space. Let's say matter can be made (fusion, kind of) or that we can use/condense photons to make it into matter; great, that's straightforward and not abstract because we know what matter is (we interact with it all the time), and it's probably the most researched property of our universe. It might not be possible because of the laws that act upon energy, but it can at least be thought about conceptually. But what happens when you introduce new space into existing space. Or, let's think about it in another way, could we pinch of a piece of space? Let's say you want to "quarantine" the cubic meter of space that floats right above your head. How would/could that work? Like I said, it's pretty out there, but that's because something like space (time much less, even though they're so linked with each other) is so much more esoteric for me. Of course I don't know as much about time and matter as I should, so I can probably expect another Cascade post directed to me, but it's just some stuff I like to think about, even though it's not fruitful in any way. | ||
|
Simberto
Germany12038 Posts
On July 04 2017 04:00 Uldridge wrote: I don't think you come off too negative, however, I do think you're underestimating me. I know the universe is expanding. I'm talking about a hypothetical machine that's invented/made that can literally create space. Let's say matter can be made (fusion, kind of) or that we can use/condense photons to make it into matter; great, that's straightforward and not abstract because we know what matter is (we interact with it all the time), and it's probably the most researched property of our universe. It might not be possible because of the laws that act upon energy, but it can at least be thought about conceptually. But what happens when you introduce new space into existing space. Or, let's think about it in another way, could we pinch of a piece of space? Let's say you want to "quarantine" the cubic meter of space that floats right above your head. How would/could that work? Like I said, it's pretty out there, but that's because something like space (time much less, even though they're so linked with each other) is so much more esoteric for me. Of course I don't know as much about time and matter as I should, so I can probably expect another Cascade post directed to me, but it's just some stuff I like to think about, even though it's not fruitful in any way. Ok, in that case i misunderstood you. If you actually want to understand that stuff, you should probably try to understand general relativity. As far as i know (Which is a pretty big as far as, i don't know a lot about general relativity), you can mostly just stretch spacetime, not make a completely new one. The only way that i know of to seal of a part of spacetime is inside a black hole, and that is irrevocable. | ||
|
Uldridge
Belgium5232 Posts
| ||
|
Thieving Magpie
United States6752 Posts
On July 04 2017 04:00 Uldridge wrote: I don't think you come off too negative, however, I do think you're underestimating me. I know the universe is expanding. I'm talking about a hypothetical machine that's invented/made that can literally create space. Let's say matter can be made (fusion, kind of) or that we can use/condense photons to make it into matter; great, that's straightforward and not abstract because we know what matter is (we interact with it all the time), and it's probably the most researched property of our universe. It might not be possible because of the laws that act upon energy, but it can at least be thought about conceptually. But what happens when you introduce new space into existing space. Or, let's think about it in another way, could we pinch of a piece of space? Let's say you want to "quarantine" the cubic meter of space that floats right above your head. How would/could that work? Like I said, it's pretty out there, but that's because something like space (time much less, even though they're so linked with each other) is so much more esoteric for me. Of course I don't know as much about time and matter as I should, so I can probably expect another Cascade post directed to me, but it's just some stuff I like to think about, even though it's not fruitful in any way. That's an already solved problem right? It can't happen. Matter is the stuff in space. Space is where matter is not at. To create space is to remove the matter in said space. You can't simply "quarantine" a space and say that that is "new space" because you can only quarantine things that already exists. So in order to create space, you'd need to de-exist matter to "create" said space--correct? | ||
|
Simberto
Germany12038 Posts
| ||
|
IgnE
United States7684 Posts
On July 04 2017 07:43 Thieving Magpie wrote: That's an already solved problem right? It can't happen. Matter is the stuff in space. Space is where matter is not at. To create space is to remove the matter in said space. You can't simply "quarantine" a space and say that that is "new space" because you can only quarantine things that already exists. So in order to create space, you'd need to de-exist matter to "create" said space--correct? i have no idea how your brain works most of the time space is where matter is not at? even plato knew khora as that "third thing" neither matter nor ideal but which gives place to both | ||
|
Thieving Magpie
United States6752 Posts
On July 04 2017 08:52 IgnE wrote: i have no idea how your brain works most of the time space is where matter is not at? even plato knew khora as that "third thing" neither matter nor ideal but which gives place to both His question was about creating space, which is not the same thing as finding more space, quarantining space, or segregating space. It is taking the totality of existence. In that totality matter takes up space, and space without matter is empty. The only way to increase space within that totality is for there to be less matter. | ||
|
IgnE
United States7684 Posts
| ||
|
Thieving Magpie
United States6752 Posts
On July 04 2017 13:08 IgnE wrote: how does matter being there or not affect the total geometric space? do i not "take up space?" is there not matter situated where i am? How does one create empty space that never existed prior to that moment? There is a totality of existence. In that existence X area is empty "space" and Y is occupied by matter. How does one create X+Z space where Z is any positive value? You can't just find it, since all of existence is already accounted for. To make new space, you'd have to reduce Y in order for X to be greater. In other words, new space. Space, by definition, cannot be occupied. Because it stops being space. It stops being empty. It stops being blank, absent, of nothingness. If something is currently present, then it cannot be currently absent as well. You can move mass. You can cover up and shift, hide, partition, quarantine. But to create space out of existence the only way would be to remove things that occupy it. But since it is impossible to destroy (or create) matter, then it is impossible to create space. | ||
|
opisska
Poland8852 Posts
| ||
| ||
