Finite yet unbounded space?
Post Reply
 
Thread Rating:
  • 0 Votes - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
25-12-2013, 09:03 PM
 
RE: Finite yet unbounded space?
(25-12-2013 09:25 AM)Chas Wrote:  
(25-12-2013 08:19 AM)Mike Wrote:  Space and time are two distinct abstract concepts that resolve to nothing in reality. Space and time have no boundaries for you or me to transcend. Space and time are not a house that we can transcend by walking out the front door and circling in the yard. There is NO front door to the universe. Or back door. Only objects have boundaries, and only can the internal structures of objects recede bounds. Those who irrationally assume that space is an object with a bound receding at C will have to explain that which space is receding into. Is space receding into the space of another universe? What is outside of space?

Space is that which has no shape. Space has no dimensions since it is not an object of existence with shape and internal structure. Space refers to nothing. Space is a concept referring to the static distance between two or more objects of existence. The distance between two nouns of reality is also called spatial separation. Space contours forms of existence. Our ancestors and their descendants came along and conceptualized space via associating objects in their brains. And thousands of years later the later generations discovered that their is nothing separating objects. Unfortunately some have converted space into a noun of reality with a form and so now we have to deal with people who insisting that the universe is finite but unbounded and universe's bound is expanding at an ever increasing rate of acceleration into nothing.

Time is the brain associating two or more locations of an object via the atoms or neurons responsible for memory. Location is the set of static distances from one object to all other objects. Like space, time has no bounds since it has no form. Time is all in our head. Time is a verb not a noun of reality. Humans get together and agree upon a scalar quantity to reference the motion of objects e.g. the day and then they arbitrarily divide this quantity into smaller quantities (hours, minutes, seconds, etc.). Time is a metric of motion. And it is good to note that the earliest human or previous generations have no memory of all the locations of all atoms of the universe. Some mainstream scientists are quite frankly irrational when they presume to use a tautologous system to 'predict' the time of the network of atoms.

What is gravity?

A: Gravity is not a thing, force, etc. Gravity is an action that things do, i.e. action-at-a-distance (AAAD) – they attract each other. Since gravity is a concept, the term must be defined.

Gravity : a phenomenon where objects pull each other in direct proportion to their matter and in inverse proportion to the square of the distance that separates them.

Space-time has reality, it has existence, it has properties.
Time does not depend on consciousness. Time passes whether or not anyone is there to experience it. It is a dimension of reality, not a construct of mind.
Gravity is the curvature of space-time by mass.


If space is indeed exist and it is something, what are their properties?

What is MASS?

Mass is typically defined by the mathematicians as “the quantity of X”, where X usually designates matter (atoms).

All quantities are concepts that were invented by man. The Universe embodies a relation of objects and space, not “mass”. Mass is purely a conceptual relation of a measured quantity. It takes a human with a brain to perform such tasks, as counting and relating. And this is obvious because the SI unit for mass is the “kilogram”. This means that the “mass” of an object is the same as the “weight” of the object.

So is the mass of an object the MEASURE of the amount of matter? Of course it is, because weight is also a MEASURE of the amount of matter. We have no idea how many atoms comprise the object because this is impossible to determine. All we know is how much it weighs.

But the most popular argument comes from neophytes, and it goes as follows:

"Excuse me sir. But on the Moon, my weight would be 28 lbs, and yet my mass would still be 170 lbs, as it is on Earth."

The flaw with such reasoning is that if humans evolved on the Moon and had never visited Earth, this person would say that his weight on Earth is 170 lbs, while his mass would still be 28 lbs, just as it is on the Moon.

Therefore, on the Moon, this person’s weight and mass are BOTH 28 lbs. No exception.

We don't even need to go to the Moon to perform a basic test of this. In fact, if you take the kilogram Standard from France to the North Pole, its weight and, therefore, its mass changes. We measure mass the same way we measure weight. Indeed, Einstein claimed to have “proved” (in Math they always 'prove', and we know that proof is nothing more than opinion) that Inertial and Gravitational mass are one and the same. So as far as Einstein was concerned, this issue is settled.

So the notion that '"mass" has anything to do with the number of atoms in an object is absurd.

There is no difference whatsoever between MASS and WEIGHT. The only reason the “MASS is not equal to WEIGHT” fallacy is perpetuated by the mathematicians, is because they want to defend and protect their conceptual notion of Relativistic Mass, which is nothing but an absurd concept that no Relativist can explain rationally.

MASS is NOT a Physical Property of Matter.

Atoms don’t have numbers. As such, the atoms comprising the Earth cannot be counted by nature. It takes a human brain with memory to conceptualize such artificial notions as “counting”. Therefore, mass is not an intrinsic property of objects.

So if a nearby planet was accelerated to near-c speeds during a supernova explosion, it is obvious that the mass of the planet will not change. The planet doesn’t even have any property called “mass”, so how can it change?

So what are Relativists trying to say when they irrationally claim that “the mass of the planet increases”?

1) Are they saying that the planet somehow acquired more and more ATOMS as its speed was accelerated to near-c?

2) If so, then how is it possible for these extra atoms to magically materialize from nothing, and yet manage to assemble in their correct molecular configurations within the planet?

3) And where did these extra atoms disappear to, after the speed of the planet decelerated when it was captured in orbit by a massive star?

Conclusion:

Einstein’s Theory of Relativity posits the claim that a concept, such as “mass”, increases with the increasing speed of an object. But when its physical interpretations are analyzed, it is irrational to claim that concepts increase, or that even objects magically acquire extra atoms during motion.
Quote this message in a reply
25-12-2013, 09:51 PM (This post was last modified: 25-12-2013 09:54 PM by Chas.)
RE: Finite yet unbounded space?
Your understanding of mass is completely mistaken. Mass is the particles, the amount of matter. Weight is the effect of the gravitational field on that mass.

Skepticism is not a position; it is an approach to claims.
Science is not a subject, but a method.
[Image: flagstiny%206.gif]
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 2 users Like Chas's post
25-12-2013, 11:04 PM
RE: Finite yet unbounded space?



2.5 billion seconds total
1.67 billion seconds conscious

Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
26-12-2013, 02:29 AM
RE: Finite yet unbounded space?
(25-12-2013 09:03 PM)Mike Wrote:  Einstein’s Theory of Relativity posits the claim that a concept, such as “mass”, increases with the increasing speed of an object. But when its physical interpretations are analyzed, it is irrational to claim that concepts increase, or that even objects magically acquire extra atoms during motion.
Einstein didn't claim that with an increase in speed comes an increase in atoms.
Mass is relative, time is relative, distance is relative.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
26-12-2013, 07:58 AM
RE: Finite yet unbounded space?
(25-12-2013 09:51 PM)Chas Wrote:  Your understanding of mass is completely mistaken. Mass is the particles, the amount of matter. Weight is the effect of the gravitational field on that mass.

And remember E=mc² ? The faster a mass is moving, the more energy it has, therefore it has more mass. Mass and energy are interchangeable.

Skepticism is not a position; it is an approach to claims.
Science is not a subject, but a method.
[Image: flagstiny%206.gif]
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
28-12-2013, 09:26 PM
 
RE: Finite yet unbounded space?
(26-12-2013 07:58 AM)Chas Wrote:  
(25-12-2013 09:51 PM)Chas Wrote:  Your understanding of mass is completely mistaken. Mass is the particles, the amount of matter. Weight is the effect of the gravitational field on that mass.

And remember E=mc² ? The faster a mass is moving, the more energy it has, therefore it has more mass. Mass and energy are interchangeable.

Is an object “that which has mass, weight, energy, volume, motion, color or temperature”?

The definition of ‘object’ precedes the definition of all these criteria because they necessarily require a second object in order to establish these properties. This means that such properties are not intrinsic to the object itself, but are rather extrinsic properties requiring us to establish relations with external objects before we can conceive them. Concepts such as mass, energy, volume, motion, color and temperature establish a dynamic relation between a minimum of two objects. This necessitates for our test object to move in relation to another object before these dynamic concepts can be related and conceived. Objects precede motion. All dynamic concepts necessarily invoke at minimum two objects in different locations. Therefore, any of these proposed criteria for objecthood are inherently circular because they necessitate the invocation of two objects within the definition of ‘object’.

We also need to consider that the term ‘object’ defines a category which is inherently static. Whatever is designated to fall under the category of OBJECT will not be required to move before it can be an object. For example, if the Universe was comprised of a single solitary object, that object would not be amenable to motion. And yet it is an object nonetheless. So it’s not only contradictory, but also impossible to define a static concept (i.e. the category known as 'object') by invoking dynamic concepts.

Furthermore, quantitative concepts such as mass, weight, volume, and temperature designate quantities we invented by relating them to a pre-defined standard. If we decree any of these notions as a defining criterion for an object, we are saying in no uncertain terms that the definition of object requires another object called a ‘human’ to discern it by defining standards and running an experiment. But the Earth and Moon were already objects before we evolved here and began running experiments on them to calculate their mass, weight, volume, etc. Is the star that you cannot see or measure an object? Is a tree not an object before you cut it? Do you prove definitions by running an experiment? Obviously not. Definitions are conceptual and not dependent on empirical verification. So it’s clear that whatever the rational criterion for objecthood is, it is necessarily divorced from any observer dependency.

The only objective (not subjective) explanation of object is "Object: that which has shape". What is the definition of shape? "Shape: a term that relates what is bounded from the immediate surrounding. (Synonym: form)"

Back to the main topic.

"Finite yet unbounded" can only be applied to object, such as Earth. Space is not an object with shape and location, it is nothing. Thus, space is non-finite and non-infinite because "finite" and "infinite" imply size (Remember, only objects have size, nothingness have no size). Space is eternal, which mean "it" have no beginning and ending.
Quote this message in a reply
28-12-2013, 09:33 PM
RE: Finite yet unbounded space?
(28-12-2013 09:26 PM)Mike Wrote:  
(26-12-2013 07:58 AM)Chas Wrote:  And remember E=mc² ? The faster a mass is moving, the more energy it has, therefore it has more mass. Mass and energy are interchangeable.

Is an object “that which has mass, weight, energy, volume, motion, color or temperature”?

The definition of ‘object’ precedes the definition of all these criteria because they necessarily require a second object in order to establish these properties. This means that such properties are not intrinsic to the object itself, but are rather extrinsic properties requiring us to establish relations with external objects before we can conceive them. Concepts such as mass, energy, volume, motion, color and temperature establish a dynamic relation between a minimum of two objects. This necessitates for our test object to move in relation to another object before these dynamic concepts can be related and conceived. Objects precede motion. All dynamic concepts necessarily invoke at minimum two objects in different locations. Therefore, any of these proposed criteria for objecthood are inherently circular because they necessitate the invocation of two objects within the definition of ‘object’.

We also need to consider that the term ‘object’ defines a category which is inherently static. Whatever is designated to fall under the category of OBJECT will not be required to move before it can be an object. For example, if the Universe was comprised of a single solitary object, that object would not be amenable to motion. And yet it is an object nonetheless. So it’s not only contradictory, but also impossible to define a static concept (i.e. the category known as 'object') by invoking dynamic concepts.

Furthermore, quantitative concepts such as mass, weight, volume, and temperature designate quantities we invented by relating them to a pre-defined standard. If we decree any of these notions as a defining criterion for an object, we are saying in no uncertain terms that the definition of object requires another object called a ‘human’ to discern it by defining standards and running an experiment. But the Earth and Moon were already objects before we evolved here and began running experiments on them to calculate their mass, weight, volume, etc. Is the star that you cannot see or measure an object? Is a tree not an object before you cut it? Do you prove definitions by running an experiment? Obviously not. Definitions are conceptual and not dependent on empirical verification. So it’s clear that whatever the rational criterion for objecthood is, it is necessarily divorced from any observer dependency.

The only objective (not subjective) explanation of object is "Object: that which has shape". What is the definition of shape? "Shape: a term that relates what is bounded from the immediate surrounding. (Synonym: form)"

What the actual fuck did any of that mean?

Skepticism is not a position; it is an approach to claims.
Science is not a subject, but a method.
[Image: flagstiny%206.gif]
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes Chas's post
28-12-2013, 11:48 PM
 
RE: Finite yet unbounded space?
(28-12-2013 09:33 PM)Chas Wrote:  
(28-12-2013 09:26 PM)Mike Wrote:  Is an object “that which has mass, weight, energy, volume, motion, color or temperature”?

The definition of ‘object’ precedes the definition of all these criteria because they necessarily require a second object in order to establish these properties. This means that such properties are not intrinsic to the object itself, but are rather extrinsic properties requiring us to establish relations with external objects before we can conceive them. Concepts such as mass, energy, volume, motion, color and temperature establish a dynamic relation between a minimum of two objects. This necessitates for our test object to move in relation to another object before these dynamic concepts can be related and conceived. Objects precede motion. All dynamic concepts necessarily invoke at minimum two objects in different locations. Therefore, any of these proposed criteria for objecthood are inherently circular because they necessitate the invocation of two objects within the definition of ‘object’.

We also need to consider that the term ‘object’ defines a category which is inherently static. Whatever is designated to fall under the category of OBJECT will not be required to move before it can be an object. For example, if the Universe was comprised of a single solitary object, that object would not be amenable to motion. And yet it is an object nonetheless. So it’s not only contradictory, but also impossible to define a static concept (i.e. the category known as 'object') by invoking dynamic concepts.

Furthermore, quantitative concepts such as mass, weight, volume, and temperature designate quantities we invented by relating them to a pre-defined standard. If we decree any of these notions as a defining criterion for an object, we are saying in no uncertain terms that the definition of object requires another object called a ‘human’ to discern it by defining standards and running an experiment. But the Earth and Moon were already objects before we evolved here and began running experiments on them to calculate their mass, weight, volume, etc. Is the star that you cannot see or measure an object? Is a tree not an object before you cut it? Do you prove definitions by running an experiment? Obviously not. Definitions are conceptual and not dependent on empirical verification. So it’s clear that whatever the rational criterion for objecthood is, it is necessarily divorced from any observer dependency.

The only objective (not subjective) explanation of object is "Object: that which has shape". What is the definition of shape? "Shape: a term that relates what is bounded from the immediate surrounding. (Synonym: form)"

What the actual fuck did any of that mean?

The energy is conceptualized by us humans. It is a RELATION, not an object. It establishes a RELATION between objects. "Energy", rationally interpreted, is an abstract concept, specifically a conceptual RELATION. Energy relates matter, its motion, and the distance it has travelled, and how much time it took for it to get there. Energy is not a thing.
Quote this message in a reply
29-12-2013, 12:29 AM
RE: Finite yet unbounded space?
Mike, are you looking to be educated in this thread or are you looking to express some kind of woo explanation for the universe as it is. Because so far you are making a lot of statements that are provably false and seem to by trying to disprove the most reliable models we have for the universe through incredulity alone. If you're willing to learn I'm sure we will be willing to fill in the gaps in your knowledge as best we can, although I would tend to point of to wikipedia and youtube for explanations that are too difficult to give through this kind of forum.

If you are trying to push a woo agenda where what is true for me is not true for you then I'm sorry, but I don't have anything to add.

Give me your argument in the form of a published paper, and then we can start to talk.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
29-12-2013, 08:19 AM
RE: Finite yet unbounded space?
(28-12-2013 11:48 PM)Mike Wrote:  
(28-12-2013 09:33 PM)Chas Wrote:  What the actual fuck did any of that mean?

The energy is conceptualized by us humans. It is a RELATION, not an object. It establishes a RELATION between objects. "Energy", rationally interpreted, is an abstract concept, specifically a conceptual RELATION. Energy relates matter, its motion, and the distance it has travelled, and how much time it took for it to get there. Energy is not a thing.

You are wrong. Energy is a thing, it exists. The universe started as pure energy - matter condensed out of it.

Skepticism is not a position; it is an approach to claims.
Science is not a subject, but a method.
[Image: flagstiny%206.gif]
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
Post Reply
Forum Jump: