[Tina]

Originally Posted by Euclid

You might want to take a look at what Joseph Mazur's latest book has to say about this -- The Motion Paradox. It is a fascinating book that starts with Zeno and ends with string theory

Hi Euclid - I see you have found the other forum Re: The motion paradox. I will not be reading Mazur's book because I have yet to find a non-fiction writer who understands what really is going on! Fiction is a more reliable source of truth for me and the more ficticious the better.

[N0B0DY]

Contrary to pifflian belief, I don't contradict myself, Dave. And, no, Greg is not correct because the intepretation works both ways. One may interpret evidence as supporting a claim of a paradox, and another may interpret the same evidence as supporting a claim that there are no paradoxes in nature. Notice, also, how the latter is based on a logic that precludes any possibility of a paradox.

One of the most common, imo, is based on the commonly-accepted inflationary model which posits expansion of space into non existence; another, based on an alternative model of a priori infinite space, is that space in all its fullness would have the capacity to move anywhere when it already is allegedly everywhere.

Granted both are illusory paradoxes based on relativity, but then illusion is what both Einstein and I have proclaimed reality is based upon.

[Lloyd Gillespie]

Nobody, like the man said; "Show us a paradox in nature..."

Lloyd

[MJA]

Nature's paradox
The uncertain measured duality or division of nature, when nature is truly united or one.

Yin and Yang
Black and white
Particle and wave
Right and wrong
in and out
up and down
etc.

Equal unites them, measure divides.
Nature's paradox is measure.
Motion is measured too.

=
MJA

[Lloyd Gillespie]

Where's the real substantive paradox, MJA...? Only, in your mind...?

[Fluent Piffle]

...space in all its fullness would have the capacity to move anywhere when it already is allegedly everywhere.

That would be Infinite Space and its inherent property of 'motion', Nob. Space is what exists, and motion is how.



David, no chance of a link to anything remotely scientific in regards to YOUR 'void' theory, then?


Being that this will be the third time you have ignored the question...I thought not.


pifflian.

[Lloyd Gillespie]

Pif, you can accept the ground states of the three existing(quantum, standard particle, cosmological) models, of everything coming from an extreme mass point particle, or you can choose to look at the much more sensible space and infinite void, as all other proposed models end up at the extreme mass point particle foolishness. I think it's pretty easy to choose a-priori logic and common sense over nonsense, don't you...? Also Dirac has been mentioned quite often___The Dirac Sea. May I suggest you research him...?

You know Pif, we here at ToeQuest are trying to create a new model of reality, that clearly explains all models. Many of us do know, it doesn't exist in the three standard models___They're not complete___Yet...

Lloyd

[Tina]

Originally Posted by Fluent Piffle

That would be Infinite Space and its inherent property of 'motion', Nob. Space is what exists, and motion is how.

pifflian.

But it is not just space that has inherent motion - everything has inherent motion, and if not visible, then evidenced at sub-atomic levels - all moving - nothing is still.

[Profpat]

Originally Posted by Lloyd Gillespie

Pif, you can accept the ground states of the three existing(quantum, standard particle, cosmological) models, of everything coming from an extreme mass point particle, or you can choose to look at the much more sensible space and infinite void, as all other proposed models end up at the extreme mass point particle foolishness.

Lloyd

Foolishness Lloyd?

I think the majority of scientist believe in the " Big Bang " and " Evolution ".

Now both are theories, which may be wrong, but I don't think I would be so quick as to dismiss either of them as Foolish.

Best to all,

Pat

[Lloyd Gillespie]

Professor Foolishness, I said nothing about the Big Bang and Evolution not being true, as I've many places stated they are. Re-read what I wrote... The only thing I stated was foolish, was those theories ground state origins...

Originally Posted by Profpat

Foolishness Lloyd?

I think the majority of scientist believe in the " Big Bang " and " Evolution ".

Now both are theories, which may be wrong, but I don't think I would be so quick as to dismiss either of them as Foolish.

Best to all,

Pat