When you buy something in the physical world but don’t pay for it on the spot, it shows up as a negative number on your credit card. So it reflects a real life situation.If you put this here to add to my point, I say:
Exactly. The negative numbers used are only for idealistic simplification. Negative quantities don’t physical world.
By physical I mean material. The financial world is still in the realm of ideas.
No. Money is more than an idea. It is a material instrument accepted as payment for goods and services.
Yes, but there is no such thing as “negative” money. The whole concept of credit is to make expressing the transfer of money between people more convenient. Credit is not material. To have negative credit is another of saying that money is owed. Money owed would be physical money absent. When you have positive credit, that means that the person owed has actual, physical money. Negative numbers are not used to represent actual, material quantities. They represent a lack or nonexistence.
Well, now I’m suspicious, so let me ask something different. Which of the 7 OP statements do you see as incorrect?That is by no means what I’m doing.
I start by assuming that time is infinite. Then I assume that the ball changes colors for all infinity. Then I assume that that ball must take time to change (how could something change in no time?). Next I assume that time is measurable (it has to be if any change is to occur). I acknowledge that when I measure this time, I am actually dividing the infinite quantity by a certain number to give me the measurement. But I realize, that infinity divided by any number, still yields infinity. If the time for the ball to change from one color to the next takes an infinite amount of time, then it would never reach the time for the change to occur. The only thing I envisioned was the most instantaneous switch of colors I could, in order to realize that even that took a certain amount of time. Everything else is purely mathematics.
This is exactly the problem. How do you divide infinity in such a manner as to get n equal amounts of 10 seconds? Every time you measure time, you are implicitly dividing all of time into equal parts of which have the same exact measurement which you measured. Following this, if time were infinite, the time for each change would also have to be infinite, which means that the change would never occur.
There are certain things in math that are present for idealistic simplification. For example, negative numbers do exist in math, but they don’t physically exist. The same could be said of infinity in a sense. But still, let us assume that infinity with certainty exists in the physical world. The distance between 10 infinity (which is simply infinity) and 5 infinity (which is also simply infinity) is infinity. If the distance between 10 infinity and 5 infinity is infinite, how do you get from one to the other?
My good friend, let me reassure your suspicion is misplaced.
Let us review what was said. I said that if t were to equal infinity, then v would equal 0. Then you said that I must be confusing “time increases” with the “amount of time taken” for which I rightfully answered was semantics (it matters not whether I say “an increase from 0 to 6 seconds” or “an amount of time taken 6 seconds”). I made a transfer of information for which you asked: “How did you go from an infinite amount of time existing to everything in the universe taking an infinite amount of time? What does the existence of eternity have to do with how long it takes to drink a cup of coffee?” (I regret not answering that earlier, but I have answered it through other examples).
The distance could very well be 0 m, where the object is permanently at rest. But anyways, if the time that something travels cannot be infinite, and yet time as a whole is without beginning or end as you say (infinite), how can you measure one moment from the next? How do you measure time at all?
I answered this previously. If time is infinite as you assume, then every division of total time will yield infinity. In other words, if I could take the whole of infinite time and divide it into parts then each part would still be infinite. Every time you measure time, you are dividing all of time equally into parts which share the value of the measured time. If time were infinite and I divided it into x parts, I could never get a value of 10 seconds. I would always get infinity. We have previously agreed that nothing moves in an infinite amount of time. So therefore, the ball taking an infinite amount of seconds to change, would never do so. To answer the question of yours that I copied, that is how I made to connection between an infinite amount of time existing, to everything in the universe taking an infinite amount of time.
I am entirely serious and I think what appears to be equivocation, is only a misunderstanding.
And as I have explained. If you divide an infinite thing by and infinite number of divisions, you end up with a finite thing. The cycling is infinite. There are an infinite number of cycles through infinite time. That means that you have “inf/inf = undetermined”. The reason it is undetermined is that with only “inf/inf” you don’t have enough information to complete the solution, but it is finite, not infinite.
Undefined is neither infinite nor finite since to yield such an answer defies logic. It’s the same reason that dividing any number by 0 gives you an undefined answer. Such an operation is logically impossible.
It is logically possible if you are a logical thinker.
Pardon my error. I was not thinking of infinities (I haven’t taken calculus yet), but rather an infinity (I’m in pre-calculus). Now that I think of it, I think this has been the problem the whole time. Sorry for wasting your time.
No. i don’t think that the earth can be eternal because of the second Law of Thermodynamics which posits the increase in entropy over time. Of course, the earth does eceive energy from the sun, and with this energy, life on the earth can be sustained. however, the sun will eventually die out due to the Clausius law, and thereafter, the earth as we know it will no longer exist.
The “Second Law of Thermodynamics” is not a law, but a “tendency”. Maxwell explained how it could not be a law 130 years ago. Since that time, the “law” has been broken many times and thus has been rewritten many times and is now stated merely as a “tendency” or “generality”.
You reveal in that post, that you did not understand the OP and assumed it to be in conflict with Scripture. It isn’t in conflict with Scripture. Your understanding is.
Perhaps you have not heard of a scientist by the name of Albert Einstein. I would like to refer you to an article on professor Einstein here:
It was hardly MY discovery, although I was actually one of many. I designed (circa 1972) one of the many ways the “law” has been broken. You worship Einstein too much. He was wrong about many things. Many people, including Science are aware. Maybe you should update and read more before you preach your faith.
Yes, perhaps you are right and professor Einstein, the Father of modern physics, is wrong. Do you have the link to your research paper disproving professor Einstein? How many published papers do you have in this area?
I was an Engineer actually designing the things. I don’t publish papers on speculations and theories. I designed what needed designing. I thought at the time that I had discovered something new, but then found that many before me already new the law wasn’t real. Since that time the breaking of it is common industry practice. It hardly needs the approval of Sciencism.
Granted, it isn’t easy to break, but a “law” in physics was SUPPOSED to be something NEVER broken or breakable. How is it a law of reality if it is breakable at all?