Basically, I’ll re-explain my disproof for Zeno’s paradox.
Whenever you divide something it can no longer be the same object by definition… so Zeno is always stepping on new ground every time something is divided, since the universe is finite… the last division will take him across the finish line. The only reason he’s moving faster is because he’s dividing the segments faster. It’s a brief summary, but doesn’t rely upon infinite regress. I used the disproof for infinite universe by saying that if you could divide a coffee cup an infinite number of times, it would take an infinite amount of time to see it, which means you would never see it, or you’d see it infinitely fast which means no time passed and you still didn’t see it. You had no objection to my disproof. Yours still has the problems of infinitesimals… but I don’t see how this is on topic for this thread anyways.
This is the point I’ve been trying to address all along. I disproved this in three different ways, which I means i disproved cantor in three different ways in this thread, maybe 4, but I won’t count it.
And to add to this James, I’m a string theorist, but not the kind you’ll find… I think our whole universe comes from one string bisecting itself in a finite number of ways. Points are bisections.
You see… anytime the line bisects, it causes both a point and more mass, so it’s bigger than the line. I think this line moves WAY faster than the speed of light, and draws our entire reality moment by moment… the entire universe each moment.
There should be a finite speed for this line. I haven’t figured out how to calculate it yet though.
Basically, another way to look at this, is that the point is moving so fast, it can cross the entire universe in a grid faster than it tail decays, creating mass. So it’s kind of a misnomer to call it a line. It’s really just one particle moving so sfast that it keeps hitting itself in motion, given the constraints of it’s velocity.
How can you experience that time exists? How can you experience that thee ist patterned motion? It is only possible if you can distinguish, thus if you can realise the change.
So the concept that comes very close to the concept “time” is the concept “change”.
Although it is hard to follow (despite being simple math), Dingle pointed out the most basic flaw in SRT. What I find interesting is that GRT actually disproves SRT … yet no one notices.
If the speed of light were adjusted so that it matched closely its region, although not completely, then the experiments would indcate an observer-dependent speed of light. And by the way: that would explain the so-called “stopped clock paradox” as well. The light that incidents in the area of each observer is changed so that it adapts to the speed of this area. If that were true, the stopped clock paradox would not exisst anymore.
Fresnel, Stokes, and Lorentz all had Aether theories. Those were the closest theories to actual reality. And due to the Michelson-Morley experiment began thinking in terms of “aether drag”. Their error was only their lack of understanding of exact what Aether really must be. And thus they presumed many thing about aether and tried to prove or disprove it based upon false presumptions. They didn’t understand that matter and all of the “forces” had to be in fact made of that aether substance rather than merely being mediated by it. And their “aether drag” theory, better defined as “ambient affectance”, resolves the issue raised by the Stopped Clock Paradox.
The beauty of Affectance is that there is no option but for it to exist. It is not a “perhaps it is like this or that” kind of theory. There is a total lack of alternatives. Affectance absolutely must exist if anything exists at all and regardless of what else might exist. Aether was proposed as a possible medium for other things to travel through and by which things could affect other things. That made if different than Newton’s proposition that magically mass reached out, without medium, and affected distant things. Einstein didn’t like that thought, nor did most of the world.
The Fresnel, Stokes, and Lorentz crew were the most accurate and on target of all of them (or of those noted). Einstein and Minkowski proposed a brand new ontological basis for science involving a change in what the definition of space and time actually meant (change the definition to match the presumed observation). An alteration in fundamental definition can allow for a new ontology to be exactly correct while the old id still exactly correct. It is like changing languages, yet saying the same thing.
The problem is that Relativity turned out t be logically incoherent, but useful for specific circumstances. It isn’t that it was ever exactly true, but rather it was easier to get right. And since the earlier aether theory didn’t have aether defined quite properly, the aether theory and experiments could not compete against the media’s preferred authority.
Affectance Ontology completely resolves the entire issue from beginning to end, philosophically and scientifically. It has no match, although Aether theory comes close. The one “field” of Affectance automatically gives rise to all of the laws of physics and formation of matter and energy and their aberrant properties. RM:AO gives foundation to all existence. In RM:AO nothing is presumed. And because of that, as long as its logic has been properly verified, RM:AO will always be 100% true without exception or need to cheat or play mind games such as “bending space” or “dilating time”.
James, in your thread “Forces or Farces” you are asking whether “forces” are “farces” or not, and I think we should not speak of “forces” but of “interactions”. And if we do that, it will soon become obvious that gravity is not the “queen of the universe” but merely one of the natural interactions.