pmk@prometheus.UUCP (Paul M Koloc) (09/25/86)
>> ... In article <1272@utastro.UUCP> padraig@utastro.UUCP (Padraig Houlahan) writes: >The criticism is still valid since the sciences physics and cosmology - >in spite of your contrived hypotheses - do not recognize the existence of >angels and souls, leaving this as an appropriate forum. > >In article <257@prometheus.UUCP>, pmk@prometheus.UUCP (Paul M Koloc) writes: >> Once the cosmology was "invented", however, it was interesting to look >> around for "strange things" to put in these strange places. Let's look at the "physical problem" and assume that the one space of "Divine substance" (no volume) is embedded in our grainy three space physical world. How do you find it? How do you cut it??? How do you cut an infinitely dense infinitesimal width with a "grainy" cut line. One space could simply exist between the grains without any measure (physical contact). > - "can" and "might" are not the same. Even if we were to go off the > deep end and go along with you, why SHOULD an "entity" exist there? If this substance did exist there at all, it must exist there at all times because of its nature. If it never existed there then it never existed and doesn't exist now, and there was no juice to generate the substance of two and then three dimensional space, and we don't exist. Compared to the density of one space, we're just a fleeting grainy few frames on a television boob tube, anyway. > But since a line can be partitioned ad infinitum, your "logic" now > allows for an infinite number of "entities". Yes, a "line" can, in two and three space, but that is not the case in one space. > - Even if you don't like the previous objection you are not off the > hook. There are an infinite number of n-spaces that can fit into > an m-space if m > n (ignoring partions for the present). This still > permits an infinite number of your infinite density entities to > exist. Well in mathematical space you can believe (construct) almost anything, assume infinite information densities, continuity point wise, ..etc. But in the REAL physical world there isn't an infinite amount of information, so, it must be that our space is somehow nested in one dimension rather than vice versa. >To some extent I am giving you the benefit of the doubt here. I am assuming >that you understand that lines are 1-dim objects, points have zero dim. etc. >in spite of the fact that there is evidence that you are confused even at this >level. If this is the case I won't press the edge/gradient/partition >objections above. > Well that's very kind, and who knows maybe I'm getting "old timers disease". :-) >> Then too we can estimate the "time" characteristics of this substance. >> This is "interpolation" from the time characteristics of ordinary matter, >> but it seems not at all unreasonable. That is that since the matter has >> "infinite density" time passes at a "zero" rate. > >How did you "interpolate" this result from "time characteristics of ordinary >matter"? What are the "time characteristics of ordinary matter"? The general science that is currently taught is sloppy and doesn't bother to consider such a dimension as time and "see" a particles "symmetry" in space and time. It's really nifty, and the meaning of things like charge and gravity fall out very nicely. But that's another newsgroup. The only aspects we need are the concept that a typical particle has a distribution in time as well as space, and the "width" of the time distribution can be calculated from the Heisenberg's relation of uncertainy, where the energy is related to the mass of the neutron. The inverse of the time width is the "number" of times or frequency it is recreated each second. Now this can vary even in our physical universe because it takes time to "recalculate" the particle's next created location and that time depends on the total number of grains that have to be "processed" on each recreation. The numbers go up when the particle drops into a denser and denser gravity field or is being accelerated close to the speed of light. The latter is the result of the particle intercepting nearly as many grains as it can "recalculate" during its flight through the background fields. Consequently, it takes a longer time to obtain information that the accelerating particle should be moving "faster". At the speed of light it can't go faster because it can't make another recalculation! The "relativistic mass" is related to the number of grains it interacts with as it flies through the background fields at nearly the speed of light. Anyway that is an interesting aside, because what is important is that time of existence "real present time" expands into the future and the past as the "energy density goes up". The frequency or "particle framing rate" slows down, correspondingly. The second important thing that takes place during acceleration is contraction into a more "planar" shape normal to the direction of acceleration. Now to become infinitely "thin" the energy expended would have to be infinite. That's not necessary because all that is required is that the object become "thin enough" to "slip between the grains" and it will then "quantum mechanically" disappear into "hypermatter and two dimensional space". That means the energy density of hyper matter is very large, and angels must be very "strong"; my guess is that they would be something up to the level of a "freshly born quasar" in equivalent punch. The possibility of an angel or the Holy Spirit "withdrawing" his physical body (Jesus) into 2 space is just as likely as the extrusion of a physical body into three space from the conversion of hyper energy to matter. Of course, the latter causes a big pop from the air displacement as witnessed by the apostles when Jesus appeared "though the doors were shut". I think they described it as a "big wind". Now if a substance greatly increases its density from 3 to 2 dimensions then it's consistent that it would increase if hypermatter were supercompressed into a line in two space. That means: When it comes to GOD, .. .oops I mean Divine Matter.. forget it, AWESOME .. just doesn't even start to define it. >>...OR as I explained else >> where, it means that the "real present time" expands in width infinitely >> into both the future and the past. > >Really? Can you give us an example of "artificial present time"? Or of time >that doesn't "expand in width"? Cute! I mean to say not a "modeled result" but a real actual occurring sort of thing. >As a result of your "cosmology" or that which astronomers and physicists >dabble in? I think you want to know if Carl Sagan approves? I am sure he might since he spouts hypotheses that are just as colorful and even more controversial. On his recent NOVA appearances he put forth the concept of "black holes", which haven't exactly made themselves very evident, may in fact, be "shrinking to nothingness" or so small that they slip out of our universe. He didn't say where, but then he might have - - I wasn't paying too much attention. (yawn) Paul was just glad that He only threw a lightning bolt! +---------------------------------------------------------+--------+ | Paul M. Koloc, President: (301) 445-1075 | FUSION | | Prometheus II, Ltd.; College Park, MD 20740-0222 | this | | {umcp-cs | seismo}!prometheus!pmk; pmk@prometheus.UUCP | decade | +---------------------------------------------------------+--------+
padraig@utastro.UUCP (Padraig Houlahan) (09/26/86)
In article <261@prometheus.UUCP>, pmk@prometheus.UUCP (Paul M Koloc) writes: > >> ... > In article <1272@utastro.UUCP> padraig@utastro.UUCP (Padraig Houlahan) writes: > >The criticism is still valid since the sciences physics and cosmology - > >in spite of your contrived hypotheses - do not recognize the existence of > >angels and souls, leaving this as an appropriate forum. > > > > Let's look at the "physical problem" and assume that the one > space of "Divine substance" (no volume) is embedded in our grainy > three space physical world. Let's not. I'm still waiting for a good reason to expect it to exist. > > If this substance did exist there at all, it must exist there at > all times because of its nature. If it never existed there then > it never existed and doesn't exist now, and there was no juice to > generate the substance of two and then three dimensional space, > and we don't exist. Compared to the density of one space, we're > just a fleeting grainy few frames on a television boob tube, anyway. More assertions: - "juice " - three space came from two, and two from one... - infinite density of one space (implied) > > But since a line can be partitioned ad infinitum, your "logic" now > > allows for an infinite number of "entities". > > Yes, a "line" can, in two and three space, but that is not the case in > one space. NO!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! Any 1 dimensional space can be partitioned into sub spaces. > > - Even if you don't like the previous objection you are not off the > > hook. There are an infinite number of n-spaces that can fit into > > an m-space if m > n (ignoring partions for the present). This still > > permits an infinite number of your infinite density entities to > > exist. > > Well in mathematical space you can believe (construct) almost anything, > assume infinite information densities, continuity point wise, ..etc. > But in the REAL physical world there isn't an infinite amount of > information, so, it must be that our space is somehow nested > in one dimension rather than vice versa. More assertions? -Finiteness of the "REAL physical world"'s information -Three dimensional space is subset of a one dimensional space I'm not going to spend any more time on this. You are not just covering assertions with assertions but are also attempting "proof by repeated assertion". Padraig Houlahan.
pmk@prometheus.UUCP (Paul M Koloc) (09/28/86)
In article <1286@utastro.UUCP> padraig@utastro.UUCP (Padraig Houlahan) writes: >>In article <1272@utastro.UUCP> padraig@utastro.UUCP (Padraig Houlahan) writes: >> >The criticism is still valid since the sciences physics and cosmology - >> >in spite of your contrived hypotheses - do not recognize the existence of >> >angels and souls, leaving this as an appropriate forum. >> > >> >In article <261@prometheus.UUCP>, pmk@prometheus.UUCP (Paul M Koloc) writes: >> Let's look at the "physical problem" and assume that the one >> space of "Divine substance" (no volume) is embedded in our grainy >> three space physical world. > Your point of view assumes that one dimensional space is a line in three space, and that an infinite number of these lines can be produced (see > paragraphs below). What I wanted to point out here is that even IF we consider that one space becomes embedded in three space after the "big bang creation" of three space then we must look at the "physical" interactions. Since the infinitesimal one space "slips between the grains of 3 space", there can be no interaction, no measure, and therefore, One Space can NOT be embedded in three space. For a space to be embedded, it must be contiguous. >> If this substance did exist there at all, it must exist there at >> all times because of its nature. If it never existed there then >> it never existed and doesn't exist now, and there was no juice to >> generate the substance of two and then three dimensional space, >> and we don't exist. Compared to the density of one space, we're >> just a fleeting grainy few frames on a television boob tube, anyway. >More assertions: > - "juice " I think it was quite clear from the start that this cosmology was first conceived to explain the "source of the 'juice' that fueled the big bang creation of our physical three dimensional universe". Generalizing that concept doesn't really "add" assertions. > - three space came from two, and two from one... Yes, and it's logically consistent and easily generalized. > - infinite density of one space (implied) This is indeed postulated. > >> > But since a line can be partitioned ad infinitum, your "logic" now >> > allows for an infinite number of "entities". >> >> Yes, a "line" can, in two and three space, but that is not the case in >> one space. >NO!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! Now you have one, right! Congratulations! >Any 1 dimensional space can be partitioned into sub spaces. That's not true. A purely 1 dimensional space not embedded in higher spaces can NOT be subdivided or partitioned. Lines existing in two or higher spaces can be partitioned, simply because other lines can intersect them, which are also embedded in the same higher space. There doesn't exist a partitioning "element" (an intersecting line) in a purely NON-embedded one dimensional space. >> > - Even if you don't like the previous objection you are not off the >> > hook. There are an infinite number of n-spaces that can fit into >> > an m-space if m > n (ignoring partions for the present). This still >> > permits an infinite number of your infinite density entities to >> > exist. >More assertions? > -Finiteness of the "REAL physical world"'s information > -Three dimensional space is subset of a one dimensional space Well, if the first is true the second is feasible. Every astrological student such as yourself, Padraig, knows that the universe has a limited amount of mass and and a limited size. Now that can imply a finite number of particles, positions, etc and ... . . Voila! information. Isn't that possibly true. >I'm not going to spend any more time on this. You are not just covering >assertions with assertions but are also attempting "proof by repeated >assertion". Mssr. Padraig Houlahan. I don't think you are giving your brain and soul a fair shake here. Generalize the assertions! Please, do it! Stretch that brain muscle. This is in the "conceptual" stage, and as far as "proof" goes, I'm to battered to believe that such things have much value except on a very personal level. Then remember this is NOT DOGMA, it's not a THEORY, it is a hypothesis. For the time being, only one leg of it is open to scientific investigation. That will change, in a century or two. And before that you'll be able to personally investigate another leg, yourself, first hand. I hope Good bye and best regards, Paul +---------------------------------------------------------+--------+ | Paul M. Koloc, President: (301) 445-1075 | FUSION | | Prometheus II, Ltd.; College Park, MD 20740-0222 | this | | {umcp-cs | seismo}!prometheus!pmk; pmk@prometheus.UUCP | decade | +---------------------------------------------------------+--------+