The Impossibility of Distance, Volume – and ultimately – Reality

[chriscase]

Also I don't want to use the standard model.

Yes, I had taken it to be your intent from your OP that you did not want to use the standard model. However, this leaves you with a tremendous workload, as you must replace the standard model with something else.

Given that you have overthrown the standard model, and with it all the definitions of things like "distance" and "space", none of us has any reason to think what you are saying about "distance" or "space" is coherent at all until you prove that you have logically satisfying definitions of these words to replace the definitions provided by the standard model.

So far what we have from you is a rather vague set of statements that appear to be attempting to prove something about distance. However, since you have not as yet provided a coherent definition of what distance is supposed to be, your subsequent statements about distance are - literally - nonsense.

There is no reality. Whatever you see is distant! Don't you see that? Anything seen is distant or non-existant. Use your brain!

If there is no reality, who are you talking to? Do I exist?

What does it mean for the statement, "There is no reality," to be true? Can it really be true? If there is no reality, how shall we assess the truth of your statement? None of your cribbed "facts" from particle theory mean anything if there is no "reality" for them to pertain to. If it is true that there is no reality, the statement itself has no meaning.

The above statements might matter to someone using the standard model, but they shouldn't mean anything to you. As you have already stated, reality is meaningless, and thus statements about it are also meaningless. Of course that assumes you are using standard logic. Maybe you have overthrown that as well?

[Gaidin]

I did repond to you in a civilized manner more that once. But due to your sustained discourteousness, I'll not answer your posts anymore. Done!

Ok?!?

You haven't been answering my posts anyway. Just replying with words. But maybe I'll keep replying to your posts or maybe I'll just start observing you as a solipsist over and over again depending on whether I have anything better to do.

Distance and space. Is there distance without space? Is there space without distance? Also I don't want to use the standard model. Why not? There is no distance and thus not standard physics. Eyerone seems to believe in distance! Why, though? Imagine your retina in a sub-atomar level, just before a photon impacts...

You need a definition that prevents me from being able to draw more than one different line and saying 'done and done, we have a representation of distance between these two points and there's nothing you can do about it'. That is currently what you have.

[Himster]

Distance and space. Is there distance without space? Is there space without distance? Also I don't want to use the standard model. Why not? There is no distance and thus not standard physics. Eyerone seems to believe in distance! Why, though? Imagine your retina in a sub-atomar level, just before a photon impacts...

Distance and space are literal synonyms in the English language.

There is no reality. Whatever you see is distant! Don't you see that? Anything seen is distant or non-existant. Use your brain!

Whatever you see is distant, of course. And as everyone knows time and space are not separate dimensions, but rather the same dimension. To see something in space is also to see it back in time, this applies to something seen 100,000 light years away as well as something a hundred millimeters away. There is no such thing as the present, all experience is in the past. To say that means there is no reality is nonsense, you might say the present (and future, both being almost indistinguishable) exists only hypothetically is perfectly fine however. It is completely impossible to prove that the present doesn't exist, because it is impossible to experience.

[chriscase]

I must concede the argument. I am now convinced that reality, consciousness, and the existence of my own mind are...

[Taiji]

Reality(1) != Reality(n)

I killed the OP argument with my opening line of my reply. Why are people still discussing this nonsense?

[Denny Crane!]

I killed the OP argument with my opening line of my reply. Why are people still discussing this nonsense?

He keeps posting nonsense. Someone on the internet is wrong!

[King of the Ring]

He keeps posting nonsense. Someone on the internet is wrong!

No,the internet is wrong for someone.

Time was invented because these egyptians,sumerians and others needed to know when to stop boiling the water for cofee.So no peek into the future or the past because,in reality,it dosnt exist,like literally.

As for distance and speed,one object with infinite speed would exist everywhere and nowhere on his trajectory.Objects with no mass cannot be moved,however we cannot deny their existence in the infinity that we see or not.
What if 2 objects with infinite speed collide?Dont throw me the Big Bang theory,has no equivalent here.

I see these variables around T+V+S=object.Maybe we could replace the signs or remove some elements to make these single-cored peasants like the second poster in the thread boil the furnace at full capacity.Something is missing from his comma,like word mingling.

[Denny Crane!]

Time exists in the organisation of objects it is a property of the universe. The increasing entropy that is a state of the universe shows the existence of time. Since the big bang itself the arrow of time has shown itself to be true and we have countless ways to gather evidence on this.

As for the rest on the infinite speed? There is reason Einstein called the speed of light the Universes speed limit. Don't just say random things and then yell proof.

With infinite jelly we'd all be jelly so the universe is clearly jelly! Well there isn't infinite jelly. Nor is there objects with infinite speed. Infinite speed for an electron would require infinite energy.

If something sped up to the speed of light time slows down, so you don't exist everywhere. This is where relativity comes in. The object doesn't exist everywhere it exists somewhere relative to the observer, this is how photons work.

I don't really get physics. But I thought I would save the more educated some time on this one. In a few short sentences you were managing to completely destroy any notions of physics and universal laws and constants that exist. Good work.

Though I did get the theory of infinite jello so not a wasted day.

[King of the Ring]

Time exists in the organisation of objects it is a property of the universe. The increasing entropy that is a state of the universe shows the existence of time. Since the big bang itself the arrow of time has shown itself to be true and we have countless ways to gather evidence on this.

As for the rest on the infinite speed? There is reason Einstein called the speed of light the Universes speed limit. Don't just say random things and then yell proof.

With infinite jelly we'd all be jelly so the universe is clearly jelly! Well there isn't infinite jelly. Nor is there objects with infinite speed. Infinite speed for an electron would require infinite energy.

If something sped up to the speed of light time slows down, so you don't exist everywhere. This is where relativity comes in. The object doesn't exist everywhere it exists somewhere relative to the observer, this is how photons work.

I don't really get physics. But I thought I would save the more educated some time on this one. In a few short sentences you were managing to completely destroy any notions of physics and universal laws and constants that exist. Good work.

Though I did get the theory of infinite jello so not a wasted day.

I had to translate it into english but here's what i managed to extract from your potent argument.

IF the speed of light is the highest speed in the exquisite place you call universe is because no one ever forever discovered something faster.Also the electron alone would require infinite energy to move ,,alone'',when not interacted with.The object can exist everywhere if it has infinite speed,keep that in mind if you got enough space.

These laws couldnt find anything to keep company to that lonely neuron of yours,not even nothing.Here,this will help you understand why:

Pzzzfnsmsn sndasdbas,asu asna sdasdushd tpglgeije cnjcnwercw.Massix asxnasxbns xjcn xxxccccc cjdckwc.
Adcnd rcoekcer?

Wcnwcjwncw!

[Gaidin]

IF the speed of light is the highest speed in the exquisite place you call universe is because no one ever forever discovered something faster.

If you think you can find something faster than a massless particle they'll be happy to hand you a Nobel Prize for your troubles. No. Really. They will.

[Denny Crane!]

I had to translate it into english but here's what i managed to extract from your potent argument.

Yeah it was english I am english.

IF the speed of light is the highest speed in the exquisite place you call universe is because no one ever forever discovered something faster.

Ah wonderful a god of the gaps argument! I can't argue against you because what I want hasn't been discovered yet. I don't need evidence I have imagination!

Sorry science vs your imagination - science wins.

Also the electron alone would require infinite energy to move ,,alone'',when not interacted with.The object can exist everywhere if it has infinite speed,keep that in mind if you got enough space.

Once again you simply can't have FTL. You seem to think its a game. Its not, its a universal constant. Translate that into English. You just can't.

I tried to keep it plain but you force my hand OK explain how not only would you need infinite energy but you would also need to explain infinite mass, more mass than the universe itself.

A piece of rock in your hand has say 1kg mass. This its rest mass not at motion or rather relativistic mass. If it was moving you could assume that v is its speed relative to you and C is the speed of light. Its apparent mass would be:

1
apparent mass= rest mass * ---------------
sqrt(1 - v^2/c^2)

The mass becomes infinite and this is what requires the energy requirements. It is, like trying to reach zero by dividing by halfs. Looks great at first and quickly devolves into trying to find pi.

But seriously if you really have broken the laws of relativity do a bit more than post gibberish.

[King of the Ring]

Yeah it was english I am english.




Ah wonderful a god of the gaps argument! I can't argue against you because what I want hasn't been discovered yet. I don't need evidence I have imagination!

Sorry science vs your imagination - science wins.



Once again you simply can't have FTL. You seem to think its a game. Its not, its a universal constant. Translate that into English. You just can't.

I tried to keep it plain but you force my hand OK explain how not only would you need infinite energy but you would also need to explain infinite mass, more mass than the universe itself.

A piece of rock in your hand has say 1kg mass. This its rest mass not at motion or rather relativistic mass. If it was moving you could assume that v is its speed relative to you and C is the speed of light. Its apparent mass would be:

1
apparent mass= rest mass * ---------------
sqrt(1 - v^2/c^2)

The mass becomes infinite and this is what requires the energy requirements. It is, like trying to reach zero by dividing by halfs. Looks great at first and quickly devolves into trying to find pi.

But seriously if you really have broken the laws of relativity do a bit more than post gibberish.

I love this comic book too.Incomplete,but ok.Not even copy-paste can follow the laws of relativity anymore.

I'm pretty sure you dont need to pay the circus ticket,only we should.

[Denny Crane!]

Yeah it wasn't a copy paste.

Are you done with demolishing the laws of physics then on a whim?

[King of the Ring]

Maybe i should demolish the circus tent while you perform.The best for everyone.

[Denny Crane!]

Maybe i should demolish the circus tent while you perform.The best for everyone.

I realise you are putting out this false superiority act but the burden of proof and not seeming like a circus clown is firmly rested on the person who is positing nonsense and magic.

Stuff like this just goes further to confirm it.

[King of the Ring]

I realise you are putting out this false superiority act but the burden of proof and not seeming like a circus clown is firmly rested on the person who is positing nonsense and magic.

Stuff like this just goes further to confirm it.

Congratulations for saying it.Now if you want a salary raise,ask me.

[chriscase]

I can see you two are trying very hard to create distance between yourselves but the OP has clearly proven that there is no such thing.

Shazam!

[King of the Ring]

I'm glad that you measured it.

[Holger Danske]

PS: Again (as in the OP), I'm not religious, I don't believe in gods and I don't believe anything anyone says.

That defeats the purpose of this so-called debate/discussion. /Thread.

[Denny Crane!]

Congratulations for saying it.Now if you want a salary raise,ask me.

So long as you've given up posting rubbish on physics I'm happy.