From: L' Ermit (lhermit@hotmail.com)
Date: Sat Feb 02 2002 - 03:21:41 MST
[Hermit] Joe Dees suggested I visit:
[Joe Dees] http://www.philoonline.org/library/smith_1_1.htm:
[Joe Dees] http://www.philoonline.org/library/drange_1_2.htm
[Joe Dees] http://www.philoonline.org/library/mccormick_3_1.htm
[Joe Dees] http://www.philoonline.org/library/shanks_4_1.htm
[Hermit] And I did.
[Hermit] Joe Dees also suggested that I would love them.
[Hermit] And I did.
[Hermit] Thanks again Joe. Nice find.
[Hermit] One small issue with your topic. I suspect that D. Hill is not
going to try to read them, and if he does, that he will not [b]want[/b] to
understand them - and thus will not hate them because he does not think
deeply enough to realize that he should. D Hill appears to me as a classic
example of an irrational atheist (? - I think he claimed to be an atheist)
who having given up gods, does not realize that he is now free to give up
belief, but instead clings to it with a degree of desperation and
irrational vocalization usually only seen in fervid fundamentalists under
pressure. From his speech here, so far, despite having a rudimentary
intelligence, he seems condemned by his background or genes to be unwilling
or unable to use it.
[Hermit] Proof, if ever it was needed, that not all atheists are smart.
Kind Regards
Hermit
[hr]
[Hermit] PS. Much simpler proofs for the "immovable object" vs "irresistible
force" paradox exist, than those offered, which is why I claimed that it
would be a physical paradox for both to exist in one universe. Here are a
few "top of the head" arguments - along with some which speak to why an
"immovable object" could not occur in our (I would say any) universe:
[Hermit 1.1] To move any object requires only that its momentum be overcome
in order to accelerate it. To overcome momentum, work must be performed. The
work performed is relative to the energy expended over time. As the Universe
has a finite life span, the time over which such work is performed cannot be
infinite, and thus real work must be performed in real time to overcome the
momentum of any object. This greatly simplifies the following explanations.
[Hermit 1.2] Unless an object has infinite mass, any amount of work, no
matter how small, expended on moving an object, no matter how great, in
finite time, will accelerate the mass.
[Hermit 1.3] From [Hermit 2.2], any "immovable object" presupposes an
infinite mass.
[Hermit 1.4] The Universe has finite mass* (observation and measurement).
[Hermit 1.5] *Current physics requires this to be true of all universii.
[Hermit 1.6] Thus no immovable object can exist in the Universe.
[Hermit 1.7] To create an immovable object in any universe, such an object
would require infinite mass to be sourced from "outside" the universe.
[Hermit 1.8] This is by definition impossible.
[Hermit 1.9] Were an object of infinite mass to be introduced to any
universe, it would result in the collapse of the universe.
[Hermit 1.10] Of course, mass and energy are equivalent. An object of
infinite mass might be achieved by energy conversion.
[Hermit 1.11] To create an infinite mass would of course [from Hermit 1.10]
require infinite energy.
[Hermit 1.12] The Universe has finite energy*.
[Hermit 1.13] *Current physics requires this to be true of all universii.
[Hermit 1.14] Thus supposing the creation of an infinite mass via
energy-matter duality would require the introduction of infinite energy from
"outside" the universe.
[Hermit 1.15] This is by definition impossible.
[Hermit 1.16] Again, this would have the effect of destroying the universe
in question.
[Hermit 1.17] Any object of infinite mass would suffer an instantaneous
gravitational collapse*. Thus no object in our Universe can be
"irresistible."
[Hermit 1.18] *And would take the Universe with it.
[Hermit 1.19] As all matter has mass, but the mass is finite, the
construction of an infinite mass would require infinite space.
[Hermit 1.20] If an object occupied infinite space, it would by definition
have no "outside", and thus no reaction could be developed to overcome it's
momentum, irrespective of the force applied.
[Hermit 1.21] In counter, an "irresistible force" implies a concentrated
source of energy so great as to perform sufficient work in finite time that
no object can have sufficient momentum to withstand its application.
[Hermit 1.22] As no object other than an object of infinite mass can resist
even the slightest amount of energy applied over finite time, then assuming
an infinite mass, this presupposes an infinite amount of work capable (i.e.
concentrated) energy.
[Hermit 1.23] Assuming a Universe where an object of infinite mass could
exist, no physical object (required to have mass) can withstand an infinite
amount of energy as the mass would transform into energy when the
interparticle force was exceeded by the applied energy.
[Hermit 1.24] Thus a Universe containing an irresistible force could not
contain the matter required to resist it.
[Hermit 1.25] Thus the two cannot exist in the same Universe, even though it
might be argued that one or the other might exist in some hypothetical
universe. Neither can exist in our Universe as our Universe has both finite
mass and finite energy.
[Hermit] etc, etc, etc...
_________________________________________________________________
Join the world’s largest e-mail service with MSN Hotmail.
http://www.hotmail.com
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Wed Sep 25 2002 - 13:28:42 MDT