PDA

View Full Version : 2. Is this really a paradox “irresistible force meets an immovable object"



Alexander
2008-Dec-13, 01:53 PM
Again more mad uttering's from a novice full if's, but's and a lot of maybe's


a) I have listened to many learned friends tell me how it is impossible for both these things to exist both an irresistible force and immovable object, But I find fault in their opinion and believe they should be looking at this from a relativistic point of perception.

b) If we look at this paradox from a relativistic viewpoint, as in a force which we can not stop, slow down or speed up relative to ourselves then the answer is time .we may be able to alter space-time between two objects but the time relative to each object we can not change meaning the speed which they travel through time at which is a fixed unchangable constant, thus my irresistible force is time but not space-time.

c) Now we come to the immovable object, this at first seems to be a object of theory as all things within the universe move right down to the quantum level nothing is fixed, but is this a case of cant see the wood for the tree’s yes there is nothing within the universe which fills this roll but if we take a step back the universe itself fits the bill rather nicely, we may move within the universe but the universe itself can not be moved so it becomes my immovable object

d) So humor me for a bit lets think about time or as we understand it as space time in the modern age, but what if this was not always the case and at one point in past before the Big bang it was a single force we know that other forces have changed why not time, a force of time separate from space now we know at one time the whole universe was a super dense point so what if space was an attribute of this super dense point rather than being connected to time but locked and concentrated in this point of super density .



So My train of thought leads me to this odd conclusion , time has always exsisted as a force traveling through a higher demonsional arena as it moved through infinty it was and is an unstoppable force but every so often the force would and does collide with these super dense points.

The force of time can not be stoped but nethier can the super dense points be moved so each has to pass through each other I believe time absorbs the attribute of space and in some way and the super dense point becomes mutlidimensional allowing time( space time) to expand through these dimensions as it travels,maybe even the accelerated expansion we see in the universe today may even be caused by time(space time’s) interaction with these other dimensions as it expands through it over extend timelines.

So I think there would be no paradox when the irressistible force meets the immovable object , they would just pass through each other (*) releaseing a staggering amount of energy and the laws that would govern this interaction would niether be just quantum the land of the small and or relativiy the land of the big we would need a third set of laws which would govern the land of the giants


(*)or maybe the universe expands in and through the movement/force of time but within itself on a dimensional level and maybe the huge size of the universe we see today is really an illusion of time and our perception of movement through it.

01101001
2008-Dec-13, 02:22 PM
I didn't see a question mark. Oh, there's the question. Your topic sentence is:


Is this really a paradox “irresistible force meets an immovable object"

No. It's not a paradox. It doesn't contradict itself. The items do not exist -- as words are normally used.

A lot of what you wrote by way of explanation looks like impenetrable word salad, phrases such as "the force of time" or "it moved through infinity". It looks more like Against-the-Mainstream claims than a question about mainstream astronomy. Maybe you should look into claiming a new physics in that section.

Halcyon Dayz
2008-Dec-13, 02:27 PM
Most, if not all, paradoxes are semantical in nature, not physical.
(If there were real paradoxes the universe might disappear in a puff of logic.)

You have to think about what the words irresistible and immovable mean.

Your friends were right.
The question: What happens if a irresistible force meets an immovable object is nonsensical.

So I think there would be no paradox when the irresistible force meets the immovable object...

There is your problem, what is a irresistible force and what is a immovable object?

TrAI
2008-Dec-13, 03:06 PM
Hmmm... The object would absorb the force but be annhialated by it.

it doesn't violate the statement, the force isn't resisted, only converted into (another form of) energy, and the object isn't moved, but converted into energy, since it is no longer an object, it is no longer immovable. I wouldn't like to be anywere close though, such things are best viewed from another universe...

Of course, in the real world the things would probably just collapse under their own gravity and be two black holes long before thinking about getting together for a fight...

Sam5
2008-Dec-13, 04:31 PM
Is this really a paradox “irresistible force meets an immovable object"




That's pretty much a word game. It's like saying someone is alive and dead at the same time, or your glass of water is freezing cold and boiling hot at the same time, or your car engine is running and stopped at the same time.

Alexander
2008-Dec-13, 05:17 PM
The items do not exist.

Maybe they dont exsist within the universe but are external to it that was my point and it would not be a new form of physics because it would be external to it as physics is a production of the big bang a rule of rules that defines how objects act within the explosion which at current we are still in the middle of.

we all agree and so does physics that the universe was a super dense point at one time in the past And if so it would have been immovable, and you can not alter the speed at which you travel through time so time is the irresistible force if you can explain to me how we can move the universe or stop or change the speed at which i travel through time as in 60sec a minute I would love to discuss it

Ken G
2008-Dec-13, 05:19 PM
So I think there would be no paradox when the irressistible force meets the immovable object , they would just pass through each other (*) releaseing a staggering amount of energy and the laws that would govern this interaction would niether be just quantum the land of the small and or relativiy the land of the big we would need a third set of laws which would govern the land of the giants.I think the reason this proposition has met with sort of a cool reception here is that scientists are used to pretty precise use of language, but you are asking about issues that are hard to frame in scientific terms. Nevertheless, I think you have some interesting insights here-- and I agree with you that it is a bit uninteresting to dismiss the paradox as "not making sense". What they really mean is, it does not make precise sense, framed in scientific terms, but in somewhat more philosophical terms that underlie scientific discovery, there could be some sense there indeed.

Basically, it sounds like you are suggesting that the confrontation between an irresistible force and an immovable object is a universe-creating event, whereas TrAI sees it in opposite terms as an annihilation event. Perhaps there is not so much distance between these possibilities after all, as annihilation of one could be creation of something else. Either way, it's certainly an "out-of-the-box" event of some import, moreso than a paradox or a meaningless event worthy of prompt dismissal. As little as we know scientifically about the origin of our universe, I wouldn't leave any insight off the table.

Alexander
2008-Dec-13, 06:09 PM
Thanks ken, Yes I know I am scientifically illiterate and mathematically as well I am not trying to ruffle feathers or invent new science I was always taught before you ask a question try to answer it yourself through deduction, so my questions are always posed as theories of such and when I say to people like 01101001 I would love to discuss it I mean it sincerely all I want to do is understand.

mugaliens
2008-Dec-13, 09:53 PM
The only irrestable force in the universe that's possible would be the sum total of all energy, including all mass converted to energy.

The only immovable object in the universe that's possible would be the sum total of all mass, including all energy converted to mass.

Obviously, you can have one or the other, but not both. Thus, the situation isn't possible.

01101001
2008-Dec-13, 09:59 PM
I was always taught before you ask a question try to answer it yourself through deduction, so my questions are always posed as theories of such and when I say to people like 01101001 I would love to discuss it I mean it sincerely all I want to do is understand.

Why don't you make your extreme tentativeness apparent? I couldn't tell. It sounded like you were convinced of your own non-mainstream ideas and were looking to promote them. It's a common subterfuge and/or mistake of non-mainstream-idea proponents to come to the Q&A section to assert their ideas as facts, perhaps to avoid being challenged.

I think you'll be better off and get more quickly to the point, and efficiently use the BAUT members as resources, if you ask specific well constructed questions. If you just ramble on about what you think, especially if it was as opaque as some of the above, you're going to get a lot of people trying to figure out what you mean.

Just ask the question here. What do you want to know, precisely? It's the point of Q&A.

Please, if you must put your questions in the form of statements, always indicate that you are not asserting these ideas as facts. Label speculation. Describe how little you are convinced of your own words. But, still, try to ask clear questions.

I hope that helps you.

Many people come to BAUT to learn, and some of them will may assume assertions like you were making are facts, or at least well founded in some sort of theory.

Thanks for keeping them in mind in the future.

Sam5
2008-Dec-13, 10:41 PM
Thanks ken, Yes I know I am scientifically illiterate and mathematically as well I am not trying to ruffle feathers or invent new science I was always taught before you ask a question try to answer it yourself through deduction, so my questions are always posed as theories of such and when I say to people like 01101001 I would love to discuss it I mean it sincerely all I want to do is understand.

There was an old song about this back in the '50s:

"When an irresistible force such as you,
Meets an old immovable object like me,
You can bet, as sure as you li-i-i-ive;
Somethin's gotta give
Somethin's gotta give
Somethin's gotta give"

- Lyrics as delivered by Ella Fitzgerald

Jeff Root
2008-Dec-13, 10:49 PM
All forces are irresistible. There are no immoveable objects.

Apply any force to anything, and it will move.

-- Jeff, in Minneapolis

cosmocrazy
2008-Dec-13, 11:07 PM
The only irresistible force in the universe that's possible would be the sum total of all energy, including all mass converted to energy.

The only immovable object in the universe that's possible would be the sum total of all mass, including all energy converted to mass.

Obviously, you can have one or the other, but not both. Thus, the situation isn't possible.

The big bang?

Maybe the point Alexander was making.;)

cosmocrazy
2008-Dec-13, 11:11 PM
All forces are irresistible. There are no immovable objects.

Apply any force to anything, and it will move.

-- Jeff, in Minneapolis

Relative to what?

At the point of "infinite" density the "big bang" it would take an infinite force to move it, no?

Then define movement, expansion springs to mind.

Jeff Root
2008-Dec-14, 01:37 AM
All forces are irresistible. There are no immovable objects.

Apply any force to anything, and it will move.
Relative to what?
Whatever is convenient.



At the point of "infinite" density the "big bang" it would take an
infinite force to move it, no?
To move what?

If you are talking about moving everything in the Universe,
then where does the force come from? Outside the Universe???

The density is of no consequence in this conundrum.

If the Universe is finite, then it would not take infinite force to
move the whole thing. If the Universe is infinite, then "the whole
thing" is a string of words that has no meaning.

If you apply a force to anything, it will move. If you can't get
to a thing in order to apply a force to it, you won't be able to
move it.

-- Jeff, in Minneapolis

cjl
2008-Dec-14, 02:43 AM
Relative to what?

At the point of "infinite" density the "big bang" it would take an infinite force to move it, no?

Then define movement, expansion springs to mind.
It doesn't matter what it is relative to. Acceleration is not relative. Apply any force, no matter how small, to any object, and it will accelerate. Therefore, all forces are irresistible and no object is immovable.

Alexander
2008-Dec-14, 06:27 PM
@ 01101001
Look I do understand the sentiments of written/typed words can be misconstrued, but I thought the first line of the first post made that clear “Again more mad uttering's from a novice full if's, but's and a lot of maybe's” but I will try to express it a little better in future, and if I am wrong by all means explain why but short three words answer really do not cut it . So I could also say the reverse of you



Why don't you make your extreme tentativeness apparent? I couldn't tell. It sounded like you were convinced of your own non-mainstream ideas and were looking to promote them. It's a common subterfuge and/or mistake of non-mainstream-idea proponents to come to the Q&A section to assert their ideas as facts, perhaps to avoid being challenged.

The total opposite I am here to be challenged, my perception of reality is individual and maybe as a bumbling amateur I might see things others don’t but even if the ideas, theories and conjectures I put forward are wrong they still merit a valid response


Just ask the question here. What do you want to know, precisely? It's the point of Q&A.

Please, if you must put your questions in the form of statements, always indicate that you are not asserting these ideas as facts. Label speculation. Describe how little you are convinced of your own words. But, still, try to ask clear questions.

Well the question IS in the title “Is this really a paradox “irresistible force meets an immovable object" my post below is what I think on the matter not a statement of fact just My conclusion.

And you still have not addressed my reply of yesterday on why i do believe these objects exist.

@Sam 5
:eh:Thanks for the response ..I think

@Jeff root, mugaliens & cji
yes internal to the universe I agree, but I am talking externally before the big bang

@cosmocrazy
Yes I am but I was trying to avoid saying it to much in case 01101001 throws stones at me

cosmocrazy
2008-Dec-14, 10:36 PM
I don't disagree with you Jeff


To move what?
If you are talking about moving everything in the Universe,
then where does the force come from? Outside the Universe???

The point Alexander was making is that time is the force.



The density is of no consequence in this conundrum.

If the Universe is finite, then it would not take infinite force to
move the whole thing. If the Universe is infinite, then "the whole
thing" is a string of words that has no meaning.

neither has the term in the OP. "Irresistible meets immovable".



If you apply a force to anything, it will move. If you can't get
to a thing in order to apply a force to it, you won't be able to
move it.

Yes.

cosmocrazy
2008-Dec-14, 10:43 PM
It doesn't matter what it is relative to. Acceleration is not relative. Apply any force, no matter how small, to any object, and it will accelerate. Therefore, all forces are irresistible and no object is immovable.

Yes, within space-time as we know it. Alexander was talking about at the beginning, The BB.

Alexander
2008-Dec-15, 08:06 PM
@cosmocrazy
correct again :D

@cjl
you agree with me that without space-time an object cannot move so if space-time was created at the instant of the big-bang then before that there was no time or space so the volume of the super dense point was immovable and always would be unless you add at least a single force of time before the big bang because no big bang no begining of space-time.

space time really does not apply as it was created in the instant of the big bang so it could not have caused the big bang beacuse it is a product or consequence of it.

Jeff Root
2008-Dec-15, 08:47 PM
without space-time an object cannot move so if space-time was
created at the instant of the big-bang then before that there was
no time or space so the volume of the super dense point was
immovable...
You contradicted yourself three times in that short snippet:

Without space-time, objects could not exist, so it is contradictory
to say "without space-time" and yet have "an object".

If time was created at the instant of the Big Bang, then there was
no "before that". It is a logical contradiction.

If space was created at the instant of the Big Bang, then there
was no "volume" before that. It is a logical contradiction.



...and always would be unless you add at least a single force of time...
Time is not a force. What did you mean by "force of time"?

-- Jeff, in Minneapolis

PetersCreek
2008-Dec-15, 11:33 PM
Maybe they dont exsist within the universe but are external to it that was my point and it would not be a new form of physics because it would be external to it as physics is a production of the big bang a rule of rules that defines how objects act within the explosion which at current we are still in the middle of.

I don't think changing the domain helps your case in the least. Where ever you posit the immoveable object and the irresistable force to exist, they must meet the criteria for being defined as such, by whatever rules are in force in that domain. Because the two, as described, are mutually exclusive, at least one of them must fail to meet those criteria.

DrRocket
2008-Dec-16, 12:12 AM
I think the reason this proposition has met with sort of a cool reception here is that scientists are used to pretty precise use of language, but you are asking about issues that are hard to frame in scientific terms. Nevertheless, I think you have some interesting insights here-- and I agree with you that it is a bit uninteresting to dismiss the paradox as "not making sense". What they really mean is, it does not make precise sense, framed in scientific terms, but in somewhat more philosophical terms that underlie scientific discovery, there could be some sense there indeed.

Basically, it sounds like you are suggesting that the confrontation between an irresistible force and an immovable object is a universe-creating event, whereas TrAI sees it in opposite terms as an annihilation event. Perhaps there is not so much distance between these possibilities after all, as annihilation of one could be creation of something else. Either way, it's certainly an "out-of-the-box" event of some import, moreso than a paradox or a meaningless event worthy of prompt dismissal. As little as we know scientifically about the origin of our universe, I wouldn't leave any insight off the table.


Mechanics: Irrestible force meets immovable object.

Mathematics : 0/0

Circuit theory: Instantaneoulsly open the switch supplying steady-state current to an inductor.

Conclusion: The concepts cannot be used in these situations. You are overdriving your model.

Answer: Only apply idealized models in situations in which the fundamental assumptions are valid.

Ken G
2008-Dec-16, 12:13 AM
Without space-time, objects could not exist, so it is contradictory
to say "without space-time" and yet have "an object".
Why do you claim that? The concept of "object" and the concept of "spacetime" are quite different, I see no reason the former requires the latter, merely that we use the concepts in tandem.


If time was created at the instant of the Big Bang, then there was
no "before that". It is a logical contradiction.That is also not so obvious. Certainly, the meaning of "before that" needs to be quite a bit more sophisticated if there was no time as we measure it, but an appropriate meaning can be extended to the concept nevertheless. For example, some speculations about the Big Bang origin (by Hawking and so forth) have a four-dimensional spatial universe for some reason converting one dimension into time. So "before that", you'd have a four-dimensional spatial universe. Remember, in relativity, all times exist just as all space does, so the concept of "before" is like the concept of "over there". That connection might have been even closer "before" the Big Bang origin.


If space was created at the instant of the Big Bang, then there
was no "volume" before that. It is a logical contradiction.Yes, there would be no way to talk about volume if space was created at the instant of the Big Bang origin, but we don't know that this is the case. And even if it was the case, one could use the concept of volume at the time of the origin as a descriptor of the volume prior to the origin. It wouldn't mean the same thing, but it could still meaning something nevertheless.


Time is not a force. What did you mean by "force of time"?
Here is where Alexander is using more philosophical terminology than scientific. That is indeed an issue with what he is saying-- on a science forum, we crave the precise definitions science allows. But some questions are either outside of science, or at least on the boundary of science into other more philosophical modes of inquiry. On those boundaries, greater latitude into the use of the words must be allowed, especially to someone not technically proficient.

The very nature of the OP ("irresistible force") implies we cannot be talking about the standard and precise scientific meaning of force, for any force could be negated by an equal and opposite one, so precise scientific language cannot allow for irresistible forces. But we do not reason from starting with precise language and saying that anything that does not fit cannot be important or useful to think about-- that would be backwards logic. Indeed, we well know that our own precise scientific language has boxed us into something of a corner when we talk about the Big Bang origin. I think the question being asked here is quite an interesting one, it is basically, what insights can we gain on the boundaries of empirical science by considering interpretations of what irresistible forces and immovable objects might be. The possible outcomes of creation and annihilation, brought up early in the thread, give some valid insights into that question, it seems to me.

Ken G
2008-Dec-16, 12:17 AM
Mathematics : 0/0But there are interesting mathematical insights that stem from considering this type of relation, specifically the meaning of limits.


Circuit theory: Instantaneoulsly open the switch supplying steady-state current to an inductor.Yes, this is an example of a simplification that is useful in some situations not being valid in others.

Answer: Only apply idealized models in situations in which the fundamental assumptions are valid.Yes, but Alexander is not applying the idealized models, that's what his critics are doing-- he is leaving those models and their language behind because they don't work, and asking if the question still survives the breakdown of the inapplicable albeit precise versions of the words. People are saying "you can't ask that question, because our idealized models can't accomodate it", but that's the backwards logic I was talking about-- the idealized models exist to be useful when they do apply, not to tell us what we shouldn't ask about when they break down. But this is a bit like the issue of philsophy in physics, which we know is an area of some fundamental dispute!

Jens
2008-Dec-16, 01:52 AM
This reminds me of the famous question, can god make a stone big enough that it can't lift it? This is not really a paradox about god, but rather a demonstration of the illogical nature of the concept of omnipotency. I think that similarly, the original post is based on impossibility, so it only demonstrates that it is logically impossible to have both an irresistible force and an immovable object.

Ken G
2008-Dec-16, 02:02 AM
Actually, I rather take Alexander's view on that not actually being a logical impossibility. It is a problem with definition-- and we can retain the paradox by simply defining an irresistible force to be a force that moves (noticeably or significantly) anything that is movable, and an immovable object to be unmoved (in any appreciable or quantifiable way) by any resistible force. Indeed, those are the only definitions you can allow yourself that have any meaning, if you maintain that absolutely irresistible forces and absolutely immovable objects are impossible. But your problem is, even if you adopt that stance, and take the definitions I give here in an attempt to allow those words to have some actual meaning, you still end up smack in the middle of the unanswered question: what happens when the irresistible force meets the immovable object, so defined as above? Alexander's point is that the flow of time satisfies (in an imprecise way, not being a "force" in the conventional sense) that definition of irresistibility, and the entire universe satisfies that definition of immovability. And, we do have an answer, of sorts, for that case, even if we don't really understand it. It's not so clear what we deduce from all this, but I think it still a valid observation that might conceivably help categorize various ways of thinking about the origin event.

Jens
2008-Dec-16, 03:42 AM
It is a problem with definition-- and we can retain the paradox by simply defining an irresistible force to be a force that moves (noticeably or significantly) anything that is movable.

Then it really is a problem with definitions, because I would define irresistible as a force that can move any object, and an immovable object as one that can resist being moved by any force.

DrRocket
2008-Dec-16, 04:24 AM
Yes, but Alexander is not applying the idealized models, that's what his critics are doing-- he is leaving those models and their language behind because they don't work, and asking if the question still survives the breakdown of the inapplicable albeit precise versions of the words. People are saying "you can't ask that question, because our idealized models can't accomodate it", but that's the backwards logic I was talking about-- the idealized models exist to be useful when they do apply, not to tell us what we shouldn't ask about when they break down. But this is a bit like the issue of philsophy in physics, which we know is an area of some fundamental dispute!

The problem here, then, seems to be one of language.

An irresistible force, is not a particularly well-defined concept. Any finite force is resistible as you noted, just apply a force of the same magnitude in the opposite direction. An infinite force is impossible, hence meaningless in reality and hence must be an idealization. But it does not apply to an idealized model either.

So, what is the subject here if it is not an idealization and not anything real either ?

I agree that idealized models ought not constrain that which we might discuss. But they do often provide the language and context for the discussion of concepts. That observation seems to be inapplicable here. So, what does the provide the definition and context required to continue this discussion ?

There's no sense in being precise when you don't even know what you're talking about. -John von Neumann

Randy_W
2008-Dec-16, 04:34 AM
Most, if not all, paradoxes are semantical in nature, not physical.

Yes.


You have to think about what the words irresistible and immovable mean.

I agree that terms should be defined if they are going to be used. As you can see from the rest of the thread, some disagree :)

astromark
2008-Dec-16, 06:26 AM
Use of such terms as Immovable objects and irresistible force are not at all well suited to this forum... As has been established clearly. Nothing is actually immovable and any force can be resisted... Unless you are talking of more literal meanings. Not cosmology, physics or even science. A Donkey can be described as a immovable object.. A train will do it. As lust can be a irresistible force...:) get the idea that this could go very wrong.....:(Do you see the point. I am not making well ?...
This question is whats wrong here. The answer is not so clear as the question is ambiguas... definitions of time and the very mechanics of this universe would seem to rule this out of order...Mark.

Ken G
2008-Dec-16, 07:42 AM
Then it really is a problem with definitions, because I would define irresistible as a force that can move any object, and an immovable object as one that can resist being moved by any force.But it has been argued that those are impossible, as the very basis for excluding the "paradox" as having meaning. If you use those definitions, you do have a paradox, or if you say those things are impossible, then there's no point in defining them that way. We have only so many words in our language, why devote some to things that are impossible? Note that defining an irresistible force as a force that can move anything that is possible to move does not contradict your definition if all objects are possible to move, which they would have to be if there were such a thing as an irresistible force by your definition.

Ken G
2008-Dec-16, 08:07 AM
The problem here, then, seems to be one of language.Yes, it is not really a scientific issue in the OP, it is very much an issue of whether or not those words can have meaning. There can be an interface with science though-- indeed, I would argue that all science started at some point with the question of whether or not certain words could be afforded with meaning. You often don't know if they can or not, until you actually do it, and the proof of meaning is in the pudding.

So, what is the subject here if it is not an idealization and not anything real either ?That is very much the question. Is there really a serious question here, or is it all just word games? When the Greeks wondered if matter was continuous or atomic, was there a serious question there, if the atoms were way smaller than anything they could perceive or measure? It was kind of a pointless debate, expressly because there was no way to make it concrete. But that situation has changed, we now view that as a serious debate because we do have ways of testing the idealizations. So even though we still don't know whether matter is best described in terms of particles or fields, so we can't say what is real, we can say we have idealizations in place. Could the same ever be said about irresistible forces?

Perhaps-- to me, the underlying issue is that you need a concept of sameness to define a concept of change. The two come together, it's a yin/yang kind of situation. We tend to see irresistibility and immovability as being in opposition or conflicting with each other, when in fact each relies on some aspect of the other to even have meaning. In a universe where nothing changes, there is no concept of sameness, and if there are no forces, immovability has no distinction from movability. Their meaning is not separate, it is a tension between them, like the tension a guitar string needs to work as a guitar string. Hence the paradox is not a bad thing, it is more like a singularity. And when our idealization of the origin of the universe embraces the mathematical flavor of a singularity, perhaps Alexander is not so far off in seeing the basic tension between irresistibility and immovability as being analogous to the Big Bang singularity.

Yes that tension is impossible in the "real world", just as singularities are also impossible there, yet they leave their mark on the real behavior all the same. For example, the inverse-square singularity of point particles has left a lasting imprint on our fundamental theories, even though there is "no such thing" as an inverse-square singularity in "reality".

There's no sense in being precise when you don't even know what you're talking about. -John von NeumannExactly true-- but it still begs the question of what you do in that situation-- avoid it altogether, and resign yourself to preciseness, or embrace the imprecision and try to start to find out what you are talking about.

Jens
2008-Dec-16, 08:27 AM
We have only so many words in our language, why devote some to things that are impossible?

I'm not sure of the point of asking that. It seems obvious to me that we do devote some of the "limited" words in our language (they are not really so limited) to impossible concepts. I think it's a good thing, because there are times when we want to express concepts that are impossible. I would still define irresistible as an impossible concept, but one that we commonly use in a figurative way I suppose.

Ken G
2008-Dec-16, 02:17 PM
It seems obvious to me that we do devote some of the "limited" words in our language (they are not really so limited) to impossible concepts.Any time you have a word that is impossible, it is generally not hard to alter the definition so that it is possible. In fact, that's just what happens whenever the word is used, whether or not the dictionary has accomodated it. As such, it is kind of silly to dismiss a concept (like an irresistible force meeting and immovable object) simply because it is impossible. Instead, the challenge is to find the useful definition that is possible, as this is the purpose of language. Or put another way, those who would say that meaning stems from words have exactly reversed the purpose of that process. The real question of that paradox is what is the meaning of an irresistible force meeting and immovable object? The answer "there is no meaning to that" simply doesn't do the work of exploring the meaning.

cosmocrazy
2008-Dec-16, 05:11 PM
Ken, thank you for elaborating on what i was thinking along with Alexander and his OP.
The point is we are trying to suggest a concept about, at the point of or prior to the BB. Mainstream science using mainstream physics and maths, predicts a physical (as we define it) impossibility with the "singularity" at the origin of the BB. Does this mean the theory is wrong? because it predicts something that has no real concept in physical terms? We know that time and space are entwined some how and its mainstream that this unison originated at the BB. So how? why not consider a finite density that occupies no space (a singularity, possibly) and has no space in which it could move in, so in a sense an "immovable" object. For some unknown reason it happens to meet up with time, which, certainly as we known it is unstoppable (certainly for things to exist as we know them). So there in a sense lies your "irresistible" force. What happens? One heck of a huge expansion of the "immovable" object to allow the "irresistible" force to continue to propagate.

cosmocrazy
2008-Dec-16, 05:45 PM
It might be a good idea to move this thread to the ATM Forum. Or maybe Alexander would like to open a new thread there. At least so people can express any of their ATM ideas about this subject with out violating the rules of BAUT.

Ken G
2008-Dec-17, 07:11 AM
It's hard to classify-- it's not really ATM, because there is no M theory to be against. But there also isn't a scientific action item, it's just an interesting thing to think about.

cosmocrazy
2008-Dec-17, 09:53 PM
It's hard to classify-- it's not really ATM, because there is no M theory to be against. But there also isn't a scientific action item, it's just an interesting thing to think about.

Yes i see your point, it is an interesting subject and i just didn't want anybody falling into the trap of suggest something that may go against mainstream. :o

Alexander
2008-Dec-20, 03:13 PM
The problem I think is how we approach this.

1.the mental picture i get of this big bang is a space-time event within the quantum structure of the universe all this event has done was expand the properties of the original object in space and time internally

2. what was the universe before space-time When we see visualizations of the super dense point the universe was we usually see a pulsating point, but this is false there was no time no space so there was no motion or space to move in, it was just a point of concentrated matter it must have had mass so it would acquire only the attribute of 3 axis of volume and that is all , now we look at this point it begins to resemble a Bose Einstein condensate ,think about it how could the universe be hot or experience any temperature at all there was no time no space so no movement no energy just pure matter It could not be energy without time and if there was no heat then it must have been in the form of a Bose Einstein condensate as no temperature at all would have existed the object would have been one trully solid immovable object.

3.Saying not just space-time which is an event within our universe but that all time began at the big bang is a bold claim which creates a paradox on how something can begin or emerge without time and we all know paradoxes mean we actually don't understand correctly the truth of the matter, it is far more likely time just IS and always has been and that fact of the matter is just that until 13.7 billion years ago our universe had just not experienced it yet.


@PetersCreek

The universe exists in one domain but before the space-time event within it then time would have had to have exsited in another domain or the big bang would have always happened ? or not at all.



what I am trying to say is that universe has never moved even after the big bang all that has happend is a space-time event has expanded within it's quantum structure, and speed though time realtive to ourself does not alter so both the universe has remained in situe and time has always flowed.

loglo
2008-Dec-20, 11:28 PM
cosmoscrazy,
Just a small point of correction. The BB does not predict a singularity at the start of the universe simply because a singularity represents a lack of predictive ability in a theory not a prediction in itself.

DrRocket
2008-Dec-21, 12:08 AM
The problem I think is how we approach this.

1.the mental picture i get of this big bang is a space-time event within the quantum structure of the universe all this event has done was expand the properties of the original object in space and time internally


Your mental picture is probably accurate, if a bit vague. But there is no current basis that permits us to discuss this very intelligently, and everyone's mental picture is therefore vague.

There is no current validated theory that can handle quantum theory and gravity simultaneously. Finding such a theory is a major topic in research physics, and nobody know how to do it. There is some speculation, responsible speculation, but no consistent theory. It appears at the moment that our knowledge of both mathematics and physics is insufficient to handle the earliest moments after the Big Bang and, of course, the event itself.

If you accept that the universe is the space-time of general relativity, then the questions involving concepts such as "time before the big bang" and "movement of the universe" have no meaning. The first because the big bang represents a singularity relative to which there is no "before" just as there is no "other place". The second because movement is relative to some dataum and there is no datum outside of the universe against which its movement could be judged.

So you need to either introduce concepts and models that make your questions meaningful, or conclude that they are only word games, and therefore unanswerable in principle.

Jeff Root
2008-Dec-21, 07:28 AM
The BB does not predict a singularity at the start of the universe,
simply because a singularity represents a lack of predictive ability
in a theory, not a prediction in itself.
I added two commas to your quote to make the meaning clearer.
If I erred, lemme know!

I kinda disagree. Big Bang theory does predict a singularity. We
look at lots of galaxies, see that they have a certain distribution
of redshifts relative to distance, and interpret that to mean that
they are moving away from each other in such a way that at a
particular instant in the past, they would all have been in the
same place. That instant is the singularity.

The thing is, we have plenty of reasons to think that that
singularity never existed. All the matter/energy of the Universe
was never compressed into an infinitely-dense mathematical point.
Instead, something happened that caused the Universe to come
into existence, most likely at somewhere around the predicted
time of the singularity. We don't know how long that process
took, or how large a volume of space it involved. Or anything else
about it, really. So the best we have is a predicted time at which
everything should have been in one place, and the knowledge that
something interesting must have happened at about that time.

-- Jeff, in Minneapolis

Ken G
2008-Dec-21, 03:14 PM
I kinda disagree. Big Bang theory does predict a singularity.It all depends on your meaning, and loglo's, of "predict". I believe loglo is taking the standard empirical-science meaning for a prediction-- a calculated outcome you could compare with an observation. In that sense, loglo is right-- the singularity is not a prediction of the BB, because we know our predictive capabilities break down before we get to such a singularity with any observations we could imagine making. But I think you just mean the singularity is a mathematical feature of the BB theory that cannot be removed without creating what would need to be called a new theory. That's kind of a semantic issue about what the BB theory really is-- if we find a new theory that avoids the singularity, my money says it will still be considered a version of the BB theory-- without a singularity. So I'd call it a significant feature of the current theory that points to an incompleteness, but it's not a "prediction" of that theory. It's a pretty important feature though, probably the most important of all, because it is the current way around the problem that science is not at all good at original cause.

loglo
2008-Dec-22, 05:32 PM
Ken, I can live with a working "physics" definition that a singularity is a prediction of incompleteness of a theory. :)

The trouble I have with your definition though Jeff is that we get contradictions from it. You state within a few lines both:-

I kinda disagree. Big Bang theory does predict a singularity.
and

The thing is, we have plenty of reasons to think that that singularity never existed.

It is like doing tricks in math when dividing by zero. Making 1=2 becomes easy but at the cost of certainty about what any number means. It kind of defeats the point of the exercise in the first place.

I think we should have a standard BAUT definition of "singularity" put up on a sticky. It would certainly cut down on the number of semantic debates in the innumerable Black Hole threads we have in Q&A! :)

Murray

Jeff Root
2008-Dec-22, 10:35 PM
All right, rather than saying that Big Bang theory predicts a singularity,
how about if I say that the first-level analysis of Big Bang theory predicts
a singularity? Everything is seen to be moving apart at a certain rate, so
25 billion years ago, everything must have been at a single point. But then
we take into account that the rate isn't constant, so time zero must have
been only 13.7 billion years ago, and we take into account that something
funny happened right at the start-- and we just removed the prediction of
a singularity. I agree with Ken that the new theory will still be called the
Big Bang theory. Smudging out the point where the lines all come together
at the beginning and leaving that bit of the diagram blank doesn't make it
something other than the Big Bang theory, and neither will drawing in some
fancy curves at the beginning to fill in the blank. Of course, that portion
of the BBT will have its own name, just like Inflation gets one.

-- Jeff, in Minneapolis

PetersCreek
2008-Dec-23, 01:03 AM
@PetersCreek

The universe exists in one domain but before the space-time event within it then time would have had to have exsited in another domain or the big bang would have always happened ? or not at all.

what I am trying to say is that universe has never moved even after the big bang all that has happend is a space-time event has expanded within it's quantum structure, and speed though time realtive to ourself does not alter so both the universe has remained in situe and time has always flowed.

I think you missed my point about defining terms within domains. I was suggesting that if you assert the existence of an immoveable object or an irresistable force, you must define them within the domain you assert they exist...that is, this Universe or whatever is "before" or "outside" of it. I don't think it's appropriate to apply definitions from one domain to another without first establishing that they are similar enough to make the definitions universal...if you'll pardon the pun.

Now, what is the basis for your statement, "[the] universe has never moved"? We describe movement relative to the 4 dimensions of our Universe. Within what framework would the Universe itself move, if it did move? Against what do you measure non-movement?

Durakken
2008-Dec-23, 02:12 AM
why is it immovable and what type of force is it?
Implicitly the type of force is a moving force, but the object is not immovable for any particular reason. So what if the object simply did not exist. A non-existent object is immovable...but implicit in say it is an object is the state of existence...therefor it must be and existing non-real object...again non-real object cannot be moved. They are kept in the mind of the person that has them...so if we say what happens when an unresistable moving force meets a unmovable non-real object...well the first thing is that you would be hitting a person where the object is kept as an idea. Would the idea move?

So essentially the answer to the question of what would happen when this happened is... a sentient being would get hit.

There...non-paradoxical and fully logical.

Alexander
2008-Dec-28, 05:07 PM
@PetersCreek
What I meant was you could say that the super dense point existed on a dimension or Mbrane with 3 Axis , and that time existed on a separate dimension or Mbrane with a single axis.




We describe movement relative to the 4 dimensions of our Universe

Space-time is an event within the structure of the universe it is not the universe itself, we only move within the event and we also say space-time is one thing a fabric both interwoven, yet each object within this space-time event you and I and everything else also has its own relative time disconnected from space-time, so one could argue that in fact space is just another object that experiences a flow of relative time.

PetersCreek
2008-Dec-29, 12:03 AM
For "a novice full if's, but's and a lot of maybe's", you make some very tenuous statements with certainty. This is no longer a simple Q&A subject. You've strayed into what I see as against-the-mainstream territory and I'm considering moving this thread to the ATM forum.