- My Forums
- Tiger Rant
- LSU Recruiting
- SEC Rant
- Saints Talk
- Pelicans Talk
- More Sports Board
- Fantasy Sports
- Golf Board
- Soccer Board
- O-T Lounge
- Tech Board
- Home/Garden Board
- Outdoor Board
- Health/Fitness Board
- Movie/TV Board
- Book Board
- Music Board
- Political Talk
- Money Talk
- Fark Board
- Gaming Board
- Travel Board
- Food/Drink Board
- Ticket Exchange
- TD Help Board
Customize My Forums- View All Forums
- Show Left Links
- Topic Sort Options
- Trending Topics
- Recent Topics
- Active Topics
Started By
Message
re: All Motion is theoretically impossible unless you accept higher dimensions
Posted on 12/18/18 at 9:48 pm to theunknownknight
Posted on 12/18/18 at 9:48 pm to theunknownknight
quote:
So how is it possible? The dimensions above us recreate us frame by frame in every moment above our perspectives in the same way our 3D selves created old school 2D cartoons.
This also merges classical mechanics with quantum mechanics.
0
Posted on 12/18/18 at 10:12 pm to RougeDawg
quote:
What if it is a straight line between two quarks...jackass.
It’s the same exact issue. There is a higher dimensional force being exerted causing the motion.
This also explains the zero-time entanglement response upon measurement as well as how electrons jump cloud orbitals without traversing the empty space...they aren’t really traversing. They are exiting and re-entering from a higher dimension.
Posted on 12/18/18 at 11:01 pm to theunknownknight
Zeno.
Posted on 12/18/18 at 11:11 pm to theunknownknight
quote:
The dimensions above us recreate us frame by frame in every moment above our perspectives in the same way our 3D selves created old school 2D cartoons.
more.
What dimensions are there?
What does above mean
Ill check back tomorrow.
Tia.
Posted on 12/18/18 at 11:20 pm to theunknownknight
Okay Parmenides, Hericlitus says it’s the exact opposite (you never step in the same river twice). Everything is flux.
Wasn’t this problem solved by Aristotle (maybe even Plato) in regards to Being and Motion?
Is there a unity at all to being??
ETA: I gotta give it to you for being at least interested in Metaphysics.
Wasn’t this problem solved by Aristotle (maybe even Plato) in regards to Being and Motion?
Is there a unity at all to being??
ETA: I gotta give it to you for being at least interested in Metaphysics.
This post was edited on 12/18/18 at 11:22 pm
Posted on 12/19/18 at 1:19 am to theunknownknight
Planck laughs at your infinite amount of points between two locations.
So does God.
So does God.
Posted on 12/19/18 at 3:34 am to Meauxjeaux
quote:
Planck laughs at your infinite amount of points between two locations.
Here's your alternative... What if space is discrete? Then there aren't an infinite number of points in between. We just jump over tiny distances of nothingness to the next point.
Moving on...
Posted on 12/19/18 at 4:30 am to theunknownknight
bullshite. All of those points are real and can be defined.
Posted on 12/19/18 at 6:45 am to theunknownknight
quote:
Pick any two points a foot apart directly in front of you.
quote:
That single line of motion between those two points has an infinite amount of sub points mathematically as proven by division using 1 over an infinite denominator
I overcome this by simply traversing that area by using the finite 1 inch line segments. Unless I teleport, of course.
Posted on 12/19/18 at 7:19 am to theunknownknight
quote:
You just performed the impossible
Posted on 12/19/18 at 7:20 am to theunknownknight
Drugs are bad mmmmkay
Posted on 12/19/18 at 7:22 am to theunknownknight
I’m way ahead of you.
Posted on 12/19/18 at 8:17 am to theunknownknight
quote:Operative word in title is "theoretically".
That single line of motion between those two points has an infinite amount of sub points mathematically as proven by division using 1 over an infinite denominator.
Like the paradox of the archer, Guilliam Tell stands 100 feet from the apple, sends the arrow flying and, at any point along its path, it is a fractional distance in feet and inches from his target. 5/100, 10/100, 50/100, 75/100, 90/100, 99/100 (it's the fractions of a foot and then fractions of inches and fractions of fractions of fractions that titillate here). It seems to me that it's difficult on a line fragment like you describe, point A to point B ( or a time line fragment for that matter) to account for infinite denominators in a meaningful way traveling from point A, 0/100 to point B, 100/100. The arrow, launched skillfully and true, did, and does always reach its target.
To quote the German poet Heine,
quote:
But war and justice have far different laws, And worthless acts are often done right well; The rascals' shots were better than their cause, And I was hit--and hit again, and fell!
We're dealing with way more than simple mathematical division and distances alone. All of Physics and Mathmatics are involved. Time plays an essential part in this dance as do concepts of statistical probability, mathematical certainty and impossibility creating in their harmonious tapestry a weave that holds within it a hint of eternity and a glimpse of the timeless.
Posted on 12/19/18 at 8:20 am to RaginSaint43
quote:
Okay Parmenides, Hericlitus says it’s the exact opposite (you never step in the same river twice). Everything is flux.
Firstly, I stated it was an ancient question (based on Zeno’s arrow paradox). Secondly, I am submitting in the OP that every frame is a recreation due to the restrictions of space time. That in fact, a higher “intentional” dimension must exist for what we perceive to be motion to occur.
Aristotle didn’t really solve the problem - he ultimately created a new one in physics. For the paradox to disappear, time itself must altogether disappear.
The problem is time is SOMETHING in physics. We know that. So the only escape is upwards mathematically.
This post was edited on 12/19/18 at 8:21 am
Posted on 12/19/18 at 8:27 am to theunknownknight
quote:
So how is it possible? The dimensions above us recreate us frame by frame in every moment above our perspectives in the same way our 3D selves created old school 2D cartoons.
quote:
It’s the same exact issue. There is a higher dimensional force being exerted causing the motion. This also explains the zero-time entanglement response upon measurement as well as how electrons jump cloud orbitals without traversing the empty space...they aren’t really traversing. They are exiting and re-entering from a higher dimension.
So in other words, time is the 'higher dimension.' There is no motion at all without the passing of time. I don't find this a new revelation.
Posted on 12/19/18 at 8:31 am to Meauxjeaux
quote:
Planck laughs at your infinite amount of points between two locations.
Plancks are discrete experimental measurements (which itself poses a question as to better measurements over time) of energy carried by blackbody radiation. The key word is discrete. The question remains as to what happens BETWEEN those discrete points. What holds those points together? What moves between them and how? If our definition is accurate what defines the size in the first place?
quote:
So does God.
Since you brought Him up:
Acts 17:28 - for “‘In him we live and move and have our being’; as even some of your own poets have said, “‘For we are indeed his offspring.’
Colossians 1:17 - And he is before all things, and in him all things hold together.
This post was edited on 12/19/18 at 8:39 am
Posted on 12/19/18 at 8:36 am to Enadious
quote:
So in other words, time is the 'higher dimension.' There is no motion at all without the passing of time. I don't find this a new revelation.
It’s more than that. It’s not simply a dimension - it’s an intentional force outside our view we are incapable of even measuring or seeing because we can only perceive 3 dimensions that remaps all existence (from our perspective) continuously.
Time, being measurable, immediately excludes this possibility. If we use this definition of time, we are left with the same quantum questions we have today.
Posted on 12/19/18 at 8:37 am to munchman
quote:
I’m way ahead of you.
Go on
Posted on 12/19/18 at 8:52 am to theunknownknight
quote:
Time, being measurable, immediately excludes this possibility. If we use this definition of time, we are left with the same quantum questions we have today.
Distance is measurable too. You could use the same argument that between two points in time there are an infinite amount of sub points mathematically as proven by division using 1 over an infinite denominator.
I think Paul simplified the matter in Acts 17:28:
‘For in him we live and move and have our being.’
Posted on 12/19/18 at 9:24 am to theunknownknight
I'm pondering your post about motion while I make a movement.
Page 3 of 4
Popular
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News