GeneralDadmission Posted February 25, 2015 Share Posted February 25, 2015 (edited) Mr. Astrophysicist, on 22 Feb 2015 - 11:58 PM, said: What is the difference between an inacceleratable object and a immovable object? One goes nowhere the other stays somewhere. Mr. Astrophysicist, on 22 Feb 2015 - 11:58 PM, said: This is somewhat similar or perhaps is the Theory of Relativity. Agreed. The point of the question is which cannot occur as a principal. An object that cannot be accelerated is nowhere and therefore removes itself paradoxically. An object that can't be moved can still be approached and therefore provides space to be examined. I believe this is the fundamental paradox that illustrates Occam's Razor not only as sound scientific method but as a fundamental principal of nature and is the most applicable to concisely defining gravitation and unifying relativity to quantum physics. The OP thought experiment represents the spatial context of this paradox. The time aspects of this paradox are definable under the following thought experiment: A time traveler travels exactly 3 seconds into the past from where he was standing, however when he arrives in the past and waits 3 seconds, he sees himself, but he does not see himself traveling into the future. How is this possible? It is a classic paradox, where you can "screw up" space and time. Imagine a timeline. He time travels back past 3 seconds, and as time moves on, the man (past) doesn't move. Why? Because another man from another time line would go into this timeline, and the process will keep on happening until there is no more space on earth. Classic time travel paradox. As soon as he looks away from his other the paradox will evaporate. Only the observer is retained from any given FoR. Edited February 25, 2015 by GeneralDadmission Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GeneralDadmission Posted February 25, 2015 Author Share Posted February 25, 2015 (edited) If there are greater definitions to this set of paradoxes and their consequences I would appreciate the references. Cheers Edited February 25, 2015 by GeneralDadmission Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
swansont Posted February 25, 2015 Share Posted February 25, 2015 A time traveler travels exactly 3 seconds into the past from where he was standing Any scenario involving something forbidden by physical law cannot properly be called a paradox. Further, I don't see how zero degrees comes into this. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GeneralDadmission Posted February 25, 2015 Author Share Posted February 25, 2015 (edited) Any scenario involving something forbidden by physical law cannot properly be called a paradox. Further, I don't see how zero degrees comes into this. I have used this title because the two paradoxes define the nature of mass and it's relationship to the steady state of the vacuum. It is also the best example of Occams Razor I've seen. I believe that restricting many of my questions to ones in regard this scenario will avoid further conflict of comprehension. In regard your conclusion on this scenarios being a paradox my thoughts are, if it has been shown that particles without mass can, at least in very controlled conditions, travel in time, and that matter can at least move forward in time at a faster rate, then it should be ruled out definitively that mass cannot displace to a previous position in the timeline before this is ruled out as appropriately paradoxical. Further, if there has not been a definitive thesis submitted linking these two thought experiments as studies of mass I would construct anything I might produce around that context. I think the two thought experiments would make a brilliant thesis to investigate Occams Razor through as well but that is a secondary motivation at this point. Edited February 25, 2015 by GeneralDadmission Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
swansont Posted February 25, 2015 Share Posted February 25, 2015 I have used this title because the two paradoxes define the nature of mass and it's relationship to the steady state of the vacuum. It is also the best example of Occams Razor I've seen. I believe that restricting many of my questions to ones in regard this scenario will avoid further conflict of comprehension. Since nothing has actually been explained, how does Occam figure into this? And what does mass's "relationship to the steady state of the vacuum" actually mean? In regard your conclusion on this scenarios being a paradox my thoughts are, if it has been shown that particles without mass can, at least in very controlled conditions, travel in time, Really? Where has this been shown? and that matter can at least move forward in time at a faster rate, then it should be ruled out definitively that mass cannot displace to a previous position in the timeline before this is ruled out as appropriately paradoxical. Faster rate than what? What experiments show this? Still not seeing a connection to zero degrees. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GeneralDadmission Posted February 25, 2015 Author Share Posted February 25, 2015 Since nothing has actually been explained, how does Occam figure into this? And what does mass's "relationship to the steady state of the vacuum" actually mean? Yes. I attempted to justify the thread and should have been more discrete. I should have stuck to seeking data relevant to the two thought experiments. The two thought experiments define mass very well. The compression of vacuum is defined by the confinement of mass. Really? Where has this been shown? Couple years ago or so some lab displaced a photon by some poofteenth of a something through a refraction/reflection process. Faster rate than what? What experiments show this? that may have been a very bad description of time dilation with distance from mass. late. tired etc. Still not seeing a connection to zero degrees. The maintenance of 0 vacuum by the properties of mass. Not being able to travel backwards in time but being able to travel forward in time, at any rate, is not the defining paradox of the state of matter? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
swansont Posted February 25, 2015 Share Posted February 25, 2015 Yes. I attempted to justify the thread and should have been more discrete. I should have stuck to seeking data relevant to the two thought experiments. The two thought experiments define mass very well. The compression of vacuum is defined by the confinement of mass. How do they define mass? What is compression of vacuum? Couple years ago or so some lab displaced a photon by some poofteenth of a something through a refraction/reflection process. Not really helpful at all. The maintenance of 0 vacuum by the properties of mass. Not being able to travel backwards in time but being able to travel forward in time, at any rate, is not the defining paradox of the state of matter? What is "maintenance of 0 vacuum by the properties of mass"? What is the self-contradiction (paradox) about only being able to travel forward in time? Is there any physical law that assures us that this is possible? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GeneralDadmission Posted February 25, 2015 Author Share Posted February 25, 2015 How do they define mass? What is compression of vacuum? Not really helpful at all. What is "maintenance of 0 vacuum by the properties of mass"? What is the self-contradiction (paradox) about only being able to travel forward in time? Is there any physical law that assures us that this is possible? All things I was seeking to define with reference to any material I could find related to the 2 thought experiments. Not really helpful at all? I didn't post anything trying to satisfy your curiosity. -3 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
swansont Posted February 25, 2015 Share Posted February 25, 2015 All things I was seeking to define with reference to any material I could find related to the 2 thought experiments. Not really helpful at all? I didn't post anything trying to satisfy your curiosity. Why you expect anyone to try and answer you, when you refuse to clarify your request? And you are making pronouncements here, rather than asking questions. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GeneralDadmission Posted February 25, 2015 Author Share Posted February 25, 2015 Why you expect anyone to try and answer you, when you refuse to clarify your request? And you are making pronouncements here, rather than asking questions. No. I asked for information related to the two scenarios. I included what I understood of them for the purpose of discussion and reference. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MWresearch Posted February 25, 2015 Share Posted February 25, 2015 If you don't mind me suggesting, couldn't something traveling at a constant velocity be moving yet not be acceleratable? For instance, photons always travel at the constant speed of light in a vacuum and their speed cannot be changed. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GeneralDadmission Posted February 26, 2015 Author Share Posted February 26, 2015 If you don't mind me suggesting, couldn't something traveling at a constant velocity be moving yet not be acceleratable? For instance, photons always travel at the constant speed of light in a vacuum and their speed cannot be changed. Entirely. Photons are an inacceleratable object. Baryons are an acceleratable object and the immovable object is vacuum seperation and the universal constant.. On this basis the OP can be fleshed out to examine the nature of baryon mass and it's relationship to vacuum maintenance definitively. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MWresearch Posted February 26, 2015 Share Posted February 26, 2015 Well, if you look at modern cosmological models, space itself in a vacuum can also move and twist. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GeneralDadmission Posted February 26, 2015 Author Share Posted February 26, 2015 Well, if you look at modern cosmological models, space itself in a vacuum can also move and twist. Space is a maintenance of vacuum. I understand this. I'm following what Mordred posts on vacuum because his explanations approximate my understanding the closest. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
xyzt Posted February 26, 2015 Share Posted February 26, 2015 Space is a maintenance of vacuum. I understand this. I'm following what Mordred posts on vacuum because his explanations approximate my understanding the closest. bs Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MWresearch Posted February 26, 2015 Share Posted February 26, 2015 If space was just a vacuum there would be nothing to permeate the physical dimensions by which matter and energy exist. There would be no length, no width, no height, no time. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mordred Posted February 26, 2015 Share Posted February 26, 2015 (edited) Space is a maintenance of vacuum. I understand this. I'm following what Mordred posts on vacuum because his explanations approximate my understanding the closest. Space is volume. Vacuum is a pressure term. You misread the other post in the "What is in Space" thread in which I detailed the ideal gas laws in Cosmology usage, with correlations to the stress energy tensor. Edited February 26, 2015 by Mordred Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GeneralDadmission Posted February 26, 2015 Author Share Posted February 26, 2015 (edited) Space is volume. Vacuum is a pressure term. You misread the other post in the "What is in Space" thread in which I detailed the ideal gas laws in Cosmology usage, with correlations to the stress energy tensor. Fair enough I see what you are saying and it is not incompatible with what I was trying to convey. After discussing this with you I've understood that the equation I've been trying to identify is one that identifies the mean rest mass of DM. Has this been done? If not I would suggest it would be that of a helium atom with a velocity just below c. Edited February 26, 2015 by GeneralDadmission Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
swansont Posted February 26, 2015 Share Posted February 26, 2015 No. I asked for information related to the two scenarios. I included what I understood of them for the purpose of discussion and reference. That wasn't in this thread. In the OP you posed two questions in the context of an alleged paradox. The rest has been soapboxing — assertions that you have an explanation of some physics, but without any support for the assertions. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GeneralDadmission Posted February 26, 2015 Author Share Posted February 26, 2015 That wasn't in this thread. In the OP you posed two questions in the context of an alleged paradox. The rest has been soapboxing — assertions that you have an explanation of some physics, but without any support for the assertions. What? I have an idea of what to measure the DM particle's rest mass against. I'm asking questions related to that. What is wrong with 'has the DM particles rest mass been proposed'? If it has been measured then I'd be interested in it's weight simply because it turns out that was what I've been modelling, as it turns out. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
swansont Posted February 26, 2015 Share Posted February 26, 2015 What? I have an idea of what to measure the DM particle's rest mass against. I'm asking questions related to that. What is wrong with 'has the DM particles rest mass been proposed'? If it has been measured then I'd be interested in it's weight simply because it turns out that was what I've been modelling, as it turns out. You didn't mention DM in this thread until the post before this. And we've been over why it can't be Helium and why specifying a speed is nonsensical. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GeneralDadmission Posted February 26, 2015 Author Share Posted February 26, 2015 You didn't mention DM in this thread until the post before this. And we've been over why it can't be Helium and why specifying a speed is nonsensical. who explained how converting acceleration generated mass to rest mass to identify a particle is nonsensical? Mordred gave some answers and I got prompted to properly identify what I was talking about but nobody specifically explained that this could not be applied or why. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
swansont Posted February 26, 2015 Share Posted February 26, 2015 who explained how converting acceleration generated mass to rest mass to identify a particle is nonsensical? Mordred gave some answers and I got prompted to properly identify what I was talking about but nobody specifically explained that this could not be applied or why. That must have happened in another thread. I only see one post by Mordred in this thread, and it doesn't discuss accelerating masses. The problem with attempting revisionist history arguments is that we have an actual record of what was discussed. Since you can't seem to stay focused on the discussion that you brought up, and are refusing to answer questions, this is closed. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts