Why are we able to see the Moon?

Quote from: JRoweSkeptic on March 29, 2015, 07:13:51 AM

Quote from: LogicalKiller on March 29, 2015, 07:09:46 AM

Quote from: JRoweSkeptic on March 29, 2015, 07:03:07 AM

Quote from: LogicalKiller on March 29, 2015, 06:59:09 AM

Quote from: JRoweSkeptic on March 29, 2015, 06:46:54 AM

can you people please stop treating space as if it has mass? if it does, it doesn't need to accelerate infinitely. if it does not have mass, however, which is what you insisted on earlier, bounding it by light speed or treating it like it's made of particles with mass is nothing more than sheer bs. in addition, we're not dealing with quantum probability waves, we're dealing with substance.

mainframes is the only person who's said anything of any value, however my problem with his statement is that it refers to something in space, not space itself.
i'll try to demonstrate this with three points, a b and c. the distance between b and c is twice that between a and b.

how long does space take to travel from a to be? clearly, it is instantaneous. everywhere that displacement is possible, space is, so any possible distance to travel, space has already covered. this gives us a distance d, and a time of zero. speed is therefore d/0, so infinite.
how far from b to c now? it covers twice the distance, in the same time: zero.
this means space accelerated from a to b, to b to c: and did so in no time at all. this is, by definition, infinite acceleration.

what is your problem with this? not one person has bothered to critique the math round earthers are so obsessed by, you're just asserting. have you no respect for math and equations?

it never fails to surprise me how much round earthers refuse to admit they're wrong, even when doing so doesn't touch their pet theory.

You're right at the beginning - space isn't limited by light speed, so it expands faster than light, but.
Space doesn't travel in universe, it just stays motionless. It doesn't travel, it expands at the edges of universe, but then you can't say about point a, b, and c. It's something like point a is at the edge of the universe and there's a space expanding, and the expansion of space does another points, b, c, d and so on, but then previous points aren't staying at the edge of the universe. Expanding space is like filling very, very blank... thing that doesn't exist. Expanding space makes non-existing medium existing. It brings there time, space itself and with expansion a matter also.

i am concerned with space's speed within itself: that is the only time displacement, and so speed, are relevant. it's nothing to do with the expansion of space.

Space usually has no speed, it's staying still, so you're wrong. Have you got anything beyond assertion?

how is space staying still when it occupies multiple points? i have given you the math, please respond.

You're wrong. Space is occuping multiple points, but motionless. What's wrong with that?

do you understand how speed is calculated?
displacement divided by time. between two points, there is displacement. this happens instantaneously, so the time is zero. a number divided by zero, you get infinity.
what's wrong with that?

Quote from: LogicalKiller on March 29, 2015, 07:21:42 AM

Quote from: JRoweSkeptic on March 29, 2015, 07:13:51 AM

Quote from: LogicalKiller on March 29, 2015, 07:09:46 AM

Quote from: JRoweSkeptic on March 29, 2015, 07:03:07 AM

Quote from: LogicalKiller on March 29, 2015, 06:59:09 AM

Quote from: JRoweSkeptic on March 29, 2015, 06:46:54 AM

can you people please stop treating space as if it has mass? if it does, it doesn't need to accelerate infinitely. if it does not have mass, however, which is what you insisted on earlier, bounding it by light speed or treating it like it's made of particles with mass is nothing more than sheer bs. in addition, we're not dealing with quantum probability waves, we're dealing with substance.

mainframes is the only person who's said anything of any value, however my problem with his statement is that it refers to something in space, not space itself.
i'll try to demonstrate this with three points, a b and c. the distance between b and c is twice that between a and b.

how long does space take to travel from a to be? clearly, it is instantaneous. everywhere that displacement is possible, space is, so any possible distance to travel, space has already covered. this gives us a distance d, and a time of zero. speed is therefore d/0, so infinite.
how far from b to c now? it covers twice the distance, in the same time: zero.
this means space accelerated from a to b, to b to c: and did so in no time at all. this is, by definition, infinite acceleration.

what is your problem with this? not one person has bothered to critique the math round earthers are so obsessed by, you're just asserting. have you no respect for math and equations?

it never fails to surprise me how much round earthers refuse to admit they're wrong, even when doing so doesn't touch their pet theory.

You're right at the beginning - space isn't limited by light speed, so it expands faster than light, but.
Space doesn't travel in universe, it just stays motionless. It doesn't travel, it expands at the edges of universe, but then you can't say about point a, b, and c. It's something like point a is at the edge of the universe and there's a space expanding, and the expansion of space does another points, b, c, d and so on, but then previous points aren't staying at the edge of the universe. Expanding space is like filling very, very blank... thing that doesn't exist. Expanding space makes non-existing medium existing. It brings there time, space itself and with expansion a matter also.

i am concerned with space's speed within itself: that is the only time displacement, and so speed, are relevant. it's nothing to do with the expansion of space.

Space usually has no speed, it's staying still, so you're wrong. Have you got anything beyond assertion?

how is space staying still when it occupies multiple points? i have given you the math, please respond.

You're wrong. Space is occuping multiple points, but motionless. What's wrong with that?

do you understand how speed is calculated?
displacement divided by time. between two points, there is displacement. this happens instantaneously, so the time is zero. a number divided by zero, you get infinity.
what's wrong with that?

The point is that these two points happen in motionless space, so between them nothing occurs, space still stay still. What's wrong with that? The only movement that space does is the expansion.

Quote from: JRoweSkeptic on March 29, 2015, 07:24:37 AM

Quote from: LogicalKiller on March 29, 2015, 07:21:42 AM

Quote from: JRoweSkeptic on March 29, 2015, 07:13:51 AM

Quote from: LogicalKiller on March 29, 2015, 07:09:46 AM

Quote from: JRoweSkeptic on March 29, 2015, 07:03:07 AM

Quote from: LogicalKiller on March 29, 2015, 06:59:09 AM

Quote from: JRoweSkeptic on March 29, 2015, 06:46:54 AM

can you people please stop treating space as if it has mass? if it does, it doesn't need to accelerate infinitely. if it does not have mass, however, which is what you insisted on earlier, bounding it by light speed or treating it like it's made of particles with mass is nothing more than sheer bs. in addition, we're not dealing with quantum probability waves, we're dealing with substance.

mainframes is the only person who's said anything of any value, however my problem with his statement is that it refers to something in space, not space itself.
i'll try to demonstrate this with three points, a b and c. the distance between b and c is twice that between a and b.

how long does space take to travel from a to be? clearly, it is instantaneous. everywhere that displacement is possible, space is, so any possible distance to travel, space has already covered. this gives us a distance d, and a time of zero. speed is therefore d/0, so infinite.
how far from b to c now? it covers twice the distance, in the same time: zero.
this means space accelerated from a to b, to b to c: and did so in no time at all. this is, by definition, infinite acceleration.

what is your problem with this? not one person has bothered to critique the math round earthers are so obsessed by, you're just asserting. have you no respect for math and equations?

it never fails to surprise me how much round earthers refuse to admit they're wrong, even when doing so doesn't touch their pet theory.

You're right at the beginning - space isn't limited by light speed, so it expands faster than light, but.
Space doesn't travel in universe, it just stays motionless. It doesn't travel, it expands at the edges of universe, but then you can't say about point a, b, and c. It's something like point a is at the edge of the universe and there's a space expanding, and the expansion of space does another points, b, c, d and so on, but then previous points aren't staying at the edge of the universe. Expanding space is like filling very, very blank... thing that doesn't exist. Expanding space makes non-existing medium existing. It brings there time, space itself and with expansion a matter also.

i am concerned with space's speed within itself: that is the only time displacement, and so speed, are relevant. it's nothing to do with the expansion of space.

Space usually has no speed, it's staying still, so you're wrong. Have you got anything beyond assertion?

how is space staying still when it occupies multiple points? i have given you the math, please respond.

You're wrong. Space is occuping multiple points, but motionless. What's wrong with that?

do you understand how speed is calculated?
displacement divided by time. between two points, there is displacement. this happens instantaneously, so the time is zero. a number divided by zero, you get infinity.
what's wrong with that?

The point is that these two points happen in motionless space, so between them nothing occurs, space still stay still. What's wrong with that? The only movement that space does is the expansion.

those two points aren't 'in' space, they are space. you're applying the mechanics the same way you would to objects in space, that's a flawed approach. space isn't made out of atoms, it is simply space.
it isn't the easiest thing to visualize, that's why i supplied math.

Quote from: LogicalKiller on March 29, 2015, 07:27:00 AM

Quote from: JRoweSkeptic on March 29, 2015, 07:24:37 AM

Quote from: LogicalKiller on March 29, 2015, 07:21:42 AM

Quote from: JRoweSkeptic on March 29, 2015, 07:13:51 AM

Quote from: LogicalKiller on March 29, 2015, 07:09:46 AM

Quote from: JRoweSkeptic on March 29, 2015, 07:03:07 AM

Quote from: LogicalKiller on March 29, 2015, 06:59:09 AM

Quote from: JRoweSkeptic on March 29, 2015, 06:46:54 AM

can you people please stop treating space as if it has mass? if it does, it doesn't need to accelerate infinitely. if it does not have mass, however, which is what you insisted on earlier, bounding it by light speed or treating it like it's made of particles with mass is nothing more than sheer bs. in addition, we're not dealing with quantum probability waves, we're dealing with substance.

mainframes is the only person who's said anything of any value, however my problem with his statement is that it refers to something in space, not space itself.
i'll try to demonstrate this with three points, a b and c. the distance between b and c is twice that between a and b.

how long does space take to travel from a to be? clearly, it is instantaneous. everywhere that displacement is possible, space is, so any possible distance to travel, space has already covered. this gives us a distance d, and a time of zero. speed is therefore d/0, so infinite.
how far from b to c now? it covers twice the distance, in the same time: zero.
this means space accelerated from a to b, to b to c: and did so in no time at all. this is, by definition, infinite acceleration.

what is your problem with this? not one person has bothered to critique the math round earthers are so obsessed by, you're just asserting. have you no respect for math and equations?

it never fails to surprise me how much round earthers refuse to admit they're wrong, even when doing so doesn't touch their pet theory.

You're right at the beginning - space isn't limited by light speed, so it expands faster than light, but.
Space doesn't travel in universe, it just stays motionless. It doesn't travel, it expands at the edges of universe, but then you can't say about point a, b, and c. It's something like point a is at the edge of the universe and there's a space expanding, and the expansion of space does another points, b, c, d and so on, but then previous points aren't staying at the edge of the universe. Expanding space is like filling very, very blank... thing that doesn't exist. Expanding space makes non-existing medium existing. It brings there time, space itself and with expansion a matter also.

i am concerned with space's speed within itself: that is the only time displacement, and so speed, are relevant. it's nothing to do with the expansion of space.

Space usually has no speed, it's staying still, so you're wrong. Have you got anything beyond assertion?

how is space staying still when it occupies multiple points? i have given you the math, please respond.

You're wrong. Space is occuping multiple points, but motionless. What's wrong with that?

do you understand how speed is calculated?
displacement divided by time. between two points, there is displacement. this happens instantaneously, so the time is zero. a number divided by zero, you get infinity.
what's wrong with that?

The point is that these two points happen in motionless space, so between them nothing occurs, space still stay still. What's wrong with that? The only movement that space does is the expansion.

those two points aren't 'in' space, they are space. you're applying the mechanics the same way you would to objects in space, that's a flawed approach. space isn't made out of atoms, it is simply space.
it isn't the easiest thing to visualize, that's why i supplied math.

If you posted that these two points are space, then you shouldn't post that these points are different, because they aren't and in conclusion if you want talk about 2 points, you're saying about point A and second point A.

Displacement divided by time. Between two points, there is displacement. This happens instantaneously, so the time is zero. A number divided by zero, you get infinity.

So now this whack-job reckons that something can happen, literally, "instantaneously"?  That time can effectively stop?   

At any rate, dividing a number by 0 does not equal infinity; it's termed an undefined result.  Not only does JRoweSceptimatic claim that air doesn't exist, he apparently has no knowledge of simple arithmetic.  All a bit losery LOL.

Quote from: JRoweSkeptic on March 29, 2015, 07:29:07 AM

Quote from: LogicalKiller on March 29, 2015, 07:27:00 AM

Quote from: JRoweSkeptic on March 29, 2015, 07:24:37 AM

Quote from: LogicalKiller on March 29, 2015, 07:21:42 AM

Quote from: JRoweSkeptic on March 29, 2015, 07:13:51 AM

Quote from: LogicalKiller on March 29, 2015, 07:09:46 AM

Quote from: JRoweSkeptic on March 29, 2015, 07:03:07 AM

Quote from: LogicalKiller on March 29, 2015, 06:59:09 AM

Quote from: JRoweSkeptic on March 29, 2015, 06:46:54 AM

can you people please stop treating space as if it has mass? if it does, it doesn't need to accelerate infinitely. if it does not have mass, however, which is what you insisted on earlier, bounding it by light speed or treating it like it's made of particles with mass is nothing more than sheer bs. in addition, we're not dealing with quantum probability waves, we're dealing with substance.

mainframes is the only person who's said anything of any value, however my problem with his statement is that it refers to something in space, not space itself.
i'll try to demonstrate this with three points, a b and c. the distance between b and c is twice that between a and b.

how long does space take to travel from a to be? clearly, it is instantaneous. everywhere that displacement is possible, space is, so any possible distance to travel, space has already covered. this gives us a distance d, and a time of zero. speed is therefore d/0, so infinite.
how far from b to c now? it covers twice the distance, in the same time: zero.
this means space accelerated from a to b, to b to c: and did so in no time at all. this is, by definition, infinite acceleration.

what is your problem with this? not one person has bothered to critique the math round earthers are so obsessed by, you're just asserting. have you no respect for math and equations?

it never fails to surprise me how much round earthers refuse to admit they're wrong, even when doing so doesn't touch their pet theory.

You're right at the beginning - space isn't limited by light speed, so it expands faster than light, but.
Space doesn't travel in universe, it just stays motionless. It doesn't travel, it expands at the edges of universe, but then you can't say about point a, b, and c. It's something like point a is at the edge of the universe and there's a space expanding, and the expansion of space does another points, b, c, d and so on, but then previous points aren't staying at the edge of the universe. Expanding space is like filling very, very blank... thing that doesn't exist. Expanding space makes non-existing medium existing. It brings there time, space itself and with expansion a matter also.

i am concerned with space's speed within itself: that is the only time displacement, and so speed, are relevant. it's nothing to do with the expansion of space.

Space usually has no speed, it's staying still, so you're wrong. Have you got anything beyond assertion?

how is space staying still when it occupies multiple points? i have given you the math, please respond.

You're wrong. Space is occuping multiple points, but motionless. What's wrong with that?

do you understand how speed is calculated?
displacement divided by time. between two points, there is displacement. this happens instantaneously, so the time is zero. a number divided by zero, you get infinity.
what's wrong with that?

The point is that these two points happen in motionless space, so between them nothing occurs, space still stay still. What's wrong with that? The only movement that space does is the expansion.

those two points aren't 'in' space, they are space. you're applying the mechanics the same way you would to objects in space, that's a flawed approach. space isn't made out of atoms, it is simply space.
it isn't the easiest thing to visualize, that's why i supplied math.

If you posted that these two points are space, then you shouldn't post that these points are different, because they aren't and in conclusion if you want talk about 2 points, you're saying about point A and second point A.

that is only true when you deal with matter composed of units such as atoms. space does not have mass, or such atoms.


ausgeoff, it is undefined because infinity is not a number. one number divided by zero is indeed infinity. ask anyone who knows anything beyond first grade math.

One number divided by zero is indeed infinity. Ask anyone who knows anything beyond first grade math.

Nope.  You obviously don't understand what the mathematical term "undefined" means.  And in in ordinary arithmetic, the expression N/0 has no meaning, because it's impossible to assign any real number to the quotient when the divisor is zero.

But ∞ it surely ain't.

Quote from: LogicalKiller on March 29, 2015, 07:33:39 AM

Quote from: JRoweSkeptic on March 29, 2015, 07:29:07 AM

Quote from: LogicalKiller on March 29, 2015, 07:27:00 AM

Quote from: JRoweSkeptic on March 29, 2015, 07:24:37 AM

Quote from: LogicalKiller on March 29, 2015, 07:21:42 AM

Quote from: JRoweSkeptic on March 29, 2015, 07:13:51 AM

Quote from: LogicalKiller on March 29, 2015, 07:09:46 AM

Quote from: JRoweSkeptic on March 29, 2015, 07:03:07 AM

Quote from: LogicalKiller on March 29, 2015, 06:59:09 AM

Quote from: JRoweSkeptic on March 29, 2015, 06:46:54 AM

can you people please stop treating space as if it has mass? if it does, it doesn't need to accelerate infinitely. if it does not have mass, however, which is what you insisted on earlier, bounding it by light speed or treating it like it's made of particles with mass is nothing more than sheer bs. in addition, we're not dealing with quantum probability waves, we're dealing with substance.

mainframes is the only person who's said anything of any value, however my problem with his statement is that it refers to something in space, not space itself.
i'll try to demonstrate this with three points, a b and c. the distance between b and c is twice that between a and b.

how long does space take to travel from a to be? clearly, it is instantaneous. everywhere that displacement is possible, space is, so any possible distance to travel, space has already covered. this gives us a distance d, and a time of zero. speed is therefore d/0, so infinite.
how far from b to c now? it covers twice the distance, in the same time: zero.
this means space accelerated from a to b, to b to c: and did so in no time at all. this is, by definition, infinite acceleration.

what is your problem with this? not one person has bothered to critique the math round earthers are so obsessed by, you're just asserting. have you no respect for math and equations?

it never fails to surprise me how much round earthers refuse to admit they're wrong, even when doing so doesn't touch their pet theory.

You're right at the beginning - space isn't limited by light speed, so it expands faster than light, but.
Space doesn't travel in universe, it just stays motionless. It doesn't travel, it expands at the edges of universe, but then you can't say about point a, b, and c. It's something like point a is at the edge of the universe and there's a space expanding, and the expansion of space does another points, b, c, d and so on, but then previous points aren't staying at the edge of the universe. Expanding space is like filling very, very blank... thing that doesn't exist. Expanding space makes non-existing medium existing. It brings there time, space itself and with expansion a matter also.

i am concerned with space's speed within itself: that is the only time displacement, and so speed, are relevant. it's nothing to do with the expansion of space.

Space usually has no speed, it's staying still, so you're wrong. Have you got anything beyond assertion?

how is space staying still when it occupies multiple points? i have given you the math, please respond.

You're wrong. Space is occuping multiple points, but motionless. What's wrong with that?

do you understand how speed is calculated?
displacement divided by time. between two points, there is displacement. this happens instantaneously, so the time is zero. a number divided by zero, you get infinity.
what's wrong with that?

The point is that these two points happen in motionless space, so between them nothing occurs, space still stay still. What's wrong with that? The only movement that space does is the expansion.

those two points aren't 'in' space, they are space. you're applying the mechanics the same way you would to objects in space, that's a flawed approach. space isn't made out of atoms, it is simply space.
it isn't the easiest thing to visualize, that's why i supplied math.

If you posted that these two points are space, then you shouldn't post that these points are different, because they aren't and in conclusion if you want talk about 2 points, you're saying about point A and second point A.

that is only true when you deal with matter composed of units such as atoms. space does not have mass, or such atoms.


ausgeoff, it is undefined because infinity is not a number. one number divided by zero is indeed infinity. ask anyone who knows anything beyond first grade math.

Wrong. If we were talking about atoms, then I wouldn't say that two points are the same. Each single atom is slightly, really, really slightly different than other, so idea of two different points is correct, but if we are talking about space which everywhere has the same properties, then your idea isn't correct.

Quote from: JRoweSkeptic on March 29, 2015, 07:39:43 AM

Quote from: LogicalKiller on March 29, 2015, 07:33:39 AM

Quote from: JRoweSkeptic on March 29, 2015, 07:29:07 AM

Quote from: LogicalKiller on March 29, 2015, 07:27:00 AM

Quote from: JRoweSkeptic on March 29, 2015, 07:24:37 AM

Quote from: LogicalKiller on March 29, 2015, 07:21:42 AM

Quote from: JRoweSkeptic on March 29, 2015, 07:13:51 AM

Quote from: LogicalKiller on March 29, 2015, 07:09:46 AM

Quote from: JRoweSkeptic on March 29, 2015, 07:03:07 AM

Quote from: LogicalKiller on March 29, 2015, 06:59:09 AM

Quote from: JRoweSkeptic on March 29, 2015, 06:46:54 AM

can you people please stop treating space as if it has mass? if it does, it doesn't need to accelerate infinitely. if it does not have mass, however, which is what you insisted on earlier, bounding it by light speed or treating it like it's made of particles with mass is nothing more than sheer bs. in addition, we're not dealing with quantum probability waves, we're dealing with substance.

mainframes is the only person who's said anything of any value, however my problem with his statement is that it refers to something in space, not space itself.
i'll try to demonstrate this with three points, a b and c. the distance between b and c is twice that between a and b.

how long does space take to travel from a to be? clearly, it is instantaneous. everywhere that displacement is possible, space is, so any possible distance to travel, space has already covered. this gives us a distance d, and a time of zero. speed is therefore d/0, so infinite.
how far from b to c now? it covers twice the distance, in the same time: zero.
this means space accelerated from a to b, to b to c: and did so in no time at all. this is, by definition, infinite acceleration.

what is your problem with this? not one person has bothered to critique the math round earthers are so obsessed by, you're just asserting. have you no respect for math and equations?

it never fails to surprise me how much round earthers refuse to admit they're wrong, even when doing so doesn't touch their pet theory.

You're right at the beginning - space isn't limited by light speed, so it expands faster than light, but.
Space doesn't travel in universe, it just stays motionless. It doesn't travel, it expands at the edges of universe, but then you can't say about point a, b, and c. It's something like point a is at the edge of the universe and there's a space expanding, and the expansion of space does another points, b, c, d and so on, but then previous points aren't staying at the edge of the universe. Expanding space is like filling very, very blank... thing that doesn't exist. Expanding space makes non-existing medium existing. It brings there time, space itself and with expansion a matter also.

i am concerned with space's speed within itself: that is the only time displacement, and so speed, are relevant. it's nothing to do with the expansion of space.

Space usually has no speed, it's staying still, so you're wrong. Have you got anything beyond assertion?

how is space staying still when it occupies multiple points? i have given you the math, please respond.

You're wrong. Space is occuping multiple points, but motionless. What's wrong with that?

do you understand how speed is calculated?
displacement divided by time. between two points, there is displacement. this happens instantaneously, so the time is zero. a number divided by zero, you get infinity.
what's wrong with that?

The point is that these two points happen in motionless space, so between them nothing occurs, space still stay still. What's wrong with that? The only movement that space does is the expansion.

those two points aren't 'in' space, they are space. you're applying the mechanics the same way you would to objects in space, that's a flawed approach. space isn't made out of atoms, it is simply space.
it isn't the easiest thing to visualize, that's why i supplied math.

If you posted that these two points are space, then you shouldn't post that these points are different, because they aren't and in conclusion if you want talk about 2 points, you're saying about point A and second point A.

that is only true when you deal with matter composed of units such as atoms. space does not have mass, or such atoms.


ausgeoff, it is undefined because infinity is not a number. one number divided by zero is indeed infinity. ask anyone who knows anything beyond first grade math.

Wrong. If we were talking about atoms, then I wouldn't say that two points are the same. Each single atom is slightly, really, really slightly different than other, so idea of two different points is correct, but if we are talking about space which everywhere has the same properties, then your idea isn't correct.

i mentioned atoms, because atoms differentiate two points. a table is in multiple points in space, but does not necessarily have velocity because the atoms are separate and distinct.
space does not have that property. from this, my previous reasoning follows.


ausgeoff, you are simply wrong. i suggest you take the opportunity to ask any mathematician. a number divided by zero takes on an infinitely large value. there have to be math experts somewhere on this forum, i can promise you they'll agree with me.

Quote from: LogicalKiller on March 29, 2015, 08:57:04 AM

Quote from: JRoweSkeptic on March 29, 2015, 07:39:43 AM

Quote from: LogicalKiller on March 29, 2015, 07:33:39 AM

Quote from: JRoweSkeptic on March 29, 2015, 07:29:07 AM

Quote from: LogicalKiller on March 29, 2015, 07:27:00 AM

Quote from: JRoweSkeptic on March 29, 2015, 07:24:37 AM

Quote from: LogicalKiller on March 29, 2015, 07:21:42 AM

Quote from: JRoweSkeptic on March 29, 2015, 07:13:51 AM

Quote from: LogicalKiller on March 29, 2015, 07:09:46 AM

Quote from: JRoweSkeptic on March 29, 2015, 07:03:07 AM

Quote from: LogicalKiller on March 29, 2015, 06:59:09 AM

Quote from: JRoweSkeptic on March 29, 2015, 06:46:54 AM

can you people please stop treating space as if it has mass? if it does, it doesn't need to accelerate infinitely. if it does not have mass, however, which is what you insisted on earlier, bounding it by light speed or treating it like it's made of particles with mass is nothing more than sheer bs. in addition, we're not dealing with quantum probability waves, we're dealing with substance.

mainframes is the only person who's said anything of any value, however my problem with his statement is that it refers to something in space, not space itself.
i'll try to demonstrate this with three points, a b and c. the distance between b and c is twice that between a and b.

how long does space take to travel from a to be? clearly, it is instantaneous. everywhere that displacement is possible, space is, so any possible distance to travel, space has already covered. this gives us a distance d, and a time of zero. speed is therefore d/0, so infinite.
how far from b to c now? it covers twice the distance, in the same time: zero.
this means space accelerated from a to b, to b to c: and did so in no time at all. this is, by definition, infinite acceleration.

what is your problem with this? not one person has bothered to critique the math round earthers are so obsessed by, you're just asserting. have you no respect for math and equations?

it never fails to surprise me how much round earthers refuse to admit they're wrong, even when doing so doesn't touch their pet theory.

You're right at the beginning - space isn't limited by light speed, so it expands faster than light, but.
Space doesn't travel in universe, it just stays motionless. It doesn't travel, it expands at the edges of universe, but then you can't say about point a, b, and c. It's something like point a is at the edge of the universe and there's a space expanding, and the expansion of space does another points, b, c, d and so on, but then previous points aren't staying at the edge of the universe. Expanding space is like filling very, very blank... thing that doesn't exist. Expanding space makes non-existing medium existing. It brings there time, space itself and with expansion a matter also.

i am concerned with space's speed within itself: that is the only time displacement, and so speed, are relevant. it's nothing to do with the expansion of space.

Space usually has no speed, it's staying still, so you're wrong. Have you got anything beyond assertion?

how is space staying still when it occupies multiple points? i have given you the math, please respond.

You're wrong. Space is occuping multiple points, but motionless. What's wrong with that?

do you understand how speed is calculated?
displacement divided by time. between two points, there is displacement. this happens instantaneously, so the time is zero. a number divided by zero, you get infinity.
what's wrong with that?

The point is that these two points happen in motionless space, so between them nothing occurs, space still stay still. What's wrong with that? The only movement that space does is the expansion.

those two points aren't 'in' space, they are space. you're applying the mechanics the same way you would to objects in space, that's a flawed approach. space isn't made out of atoms, it is simply space.
it isn't the easiest thing to visualize, that's why i supplied math.

If you posted that these two points are space, then you shouldn't post that these points are different, because they aren't and in conclusion if you want talk about 2 points, you're saying about point A and second point A.

that is only true when you deal with matter composed of units such as atoms. space does not have mass, or such atoms.


ausgeoff, it is undefined because infinity is not a number. one number divided by zero is indeed infinity. ask anyone who knows anything beyond first grade math.

Wrong. If we were talking about atoms, then I wouldn't say that two points are the same. Each single atom is slightly, really, really slightly different than other, so idea of two different points is correct, but if we are talking about space which everywhere has the same properties, then your idea isn't correct.

i mentioned atoms, because atoms differentiate two points. a table is in multiple points in space, but does not necessarily have velocity because the atoms are separate and distinct.
space does not have that property. from this, my previous reasoning follows.


ausgeoff, you are simply wrong. i suggest you take the opportunity to ask any mathematician. a number divided by zero takes on an infinitely large value. there have to be math experts somewhere on this forum, i can promise you they'll agree with me.

Still space stays still.

AusGeoff is right - a number divided by zero gives undefined result. You don't know it's a number x, y, c, or d. It's undefined.

Quote from: JRoweSkeptic on March 29, 2015, 11:42:41 AM

Quote from: LogicalKiller on March 29, 2015, 08:57:04 AM

Quote from: JRoweSkeptic on March 29, 2015, 07:39:43 AM

Quote from: LogicalKiller on March 29, 2015, 07:33:39 AM

Quote from: JRoweSkeptic on March 29, 2015, 07:29:07 AM

Quote from: LogicalKiller on March 29, 2015, 07:27:00 AM

Quote from: JRoweSkeptic on March 29, 2015, 07:24:37 AM

Quote from: LogicalKiller on March 29, 2015, 07:21:42 AM

Quote from: JRoweSkeptic on March 29, 2015, 07:13:51 AM

Quote from: LogicalKiller on March 29, 2015, 07:09:46 AM

Quote from: JRoweSkeptic on March 29, 2015, 07:03:07 AM

Quote from: LogicalKiller on March 29, 2015, 06:59:09 AM

Quote from: JRoweSkeptic on March 29, 2015, 06:46:54 AM

can you people please stop treating space as if it has mass? if it does, it doesn't need to accelerate infinitely. if it does not have mass, however, which is what you insisted on earlier, bounding it by light speed or treating it like it's made of particles with mass is nothing more than sheer bs. in addition, we're not dealing with quantum probability waves, we're dealing with substance.

mainframes is the only person who's said anything of any value, however my problem with his statement is that it refers to something in space, not space itself.
i'll try to demonstrate this with three points, a b and c. the distance between b and c is twice that between a and b.

how long does space take to travel from a to be? clearly, it is instantaneous. everywhere that displacement is possible, space is, so any possible distance to travel, space has already covered. this gives us a distance d, and a time of zero. speed is therefore d/0, so infinite.
how far from b to c now? it covers twice the distance, in the same time: zero.
this means space accelerated from a to b, to b to c: and did so in no time at all. this is, by definition, infinite acceleration.

what is your problem with this? not one person has bothered to critique the math round earthers are so obsessed by, you're just asserting. have you no respect for math and equations?

it never fails to surprise me how much round earthers refuse to admit they're wrong, even when doing so doesn't touch their pet theory.

You're right at the beginning - space isn't limited by light speed, so it expands faster than light, but.
Space doesn't travel in universe, it just stays motionless. It doesn't travel, it expands at the edges of universe, but then you can't say about point a, b, and c. It's something like point a is at the edge of the universe and there's a space expanding, and the expansion of space does another points, b, c, d and so on, but then previous points aren't staying at the edge of the universe. Expanding space is like filling very, very blank... thing that doesn't exist. Expanding space makes non-existing medium existing. It brings there time, space itself and with expansion a matter also.

i am concerned with space's speed within itself: that is the only time displacement, and so speed, are relevant. it's nothing to do with the expansion of space.

Space usually has no speed, it's staying still, so you're wrong. Have you got anything beyond assertion?

how is space staying still when it occupies multiple points? i have given you the math, please respond.

You're wrong. Space is occuping multiple points, but motionless. What's wrong with that?

do you understand how speed is calculated?
displacement divided by time. between two points, there is displacement. this happens instantaneously, so the time is zero. a number divided by zero, you get infinity.
what's wrong with that?

The point is that these two points happen in motionless space, so between them nothing occurs, space still stay still. What's wrong with that? The only movement that space does is the expansion.

those two points aren't 'in' space, they are space. you're applying the mechanics the same way you would to objects in space, that's a flawed approach. space isn't made out of atoms, it is simply space.
it isn't the easiest thing to visualize, that's why i supplied math.

If you posted that these two points are space, then you shouldn't post that these points are different, because they aren't and in conclusion if you want talk about 2 points, you're saying about point A and second point A.

that is only true when you deal with matter composed of units such as atoms. space does not have mass, or such atoms.


ausgeoff, it is undefined because infinity is not a number. one number divided by zero is indeed infinity. ask anyone who knows anything beyond first grade math.

Wrong. If we were talking about atoms, then I wouldn't say that two points are the same. Each single atom is slightly, really, really slightly different than other, so idea of two different points is correct, but if we are talking about space which everywhere has the same properties, then your idea isn't correct.

i mentioned atoms, because atoms differentiate two points. a table is in multiple points in space, but does not necessarily have velocity because the atoms are separate and distinct.
space does not have that property. from this, my previous reasoning follows.


ausgeoff, you are simply wrong. i suggest you take the opportunity to ask any mathematician. a number divided by zero takes on an infinitely large value. there have to be math experts somewhere on this forum, i can promise you they'll agree with me.

Still space stays still.

AusGeoff is right - a number divided by zero gives undefined result. You don't know it's a number x, y, c, or d. It's undefined.

asserting that space has zero speed when it exists in more than one point simultaneously is not an argument, it's blind rejection.

as i've said, it's undefined because infinity is not a number. it is clearly not going to be finite, however. (we can show that with a simple equation. if n/0=x, 0^x=n, which is impossible for a number n). by definition, it is infinite.
i don't understand how you could possibly reject that.

Quote from: LogicalKiller on March 29, 2015, 12:10:09 PM

Quote from: JRoweSkeptic on March 29, 2015, 11:42:41 AM

Quote from: LogicalKiller on March 29, 2015, 08:57:04 AM

Quote from: JRoweSkeptic on March 29, 2015, 07:39:43 AM

Quote from: LogicalKiller on March 29, 2015, 07:33:39 AM

Quote from: JRoweSkeptic on March 29, 2015, 07:29:07 AM

Quote from: LogicalKiller on March 29, 2015, 07:27:00 AM

Quote from: JRoweSkeptic on March 29, 2015, 07:24:37 AM

Quote from: LogicalKiller on March 29, 2015, 07:21:42 AM

Quote from: JRoweSkeptic on March 29, 2015, 07:13:51 AM

Quote from: LogicalKiller on March 29, 2015, 07:09:46 AM

Quote from: JRoweSkeptic on March 29, 2015, 07:03:07 AM

Quote from: LogicalKiller on March 29, 2015, 06:59:09 AM

Quote from: JRoweSkeptic on March 29, 2015, 06:46:54 AM

can you people please stop treating space as if it has mass? if it does, it doesn't need to accelerate infinitely. if it does not have mass, however, which is what you insisted on earlier, bounding it by light speed or treating it like it's made of particles with mass is nothing more than sheer bs. in addition, we're not dealing with quantum probability waves, we're dealing with substance.

mainframes is the only person who's said anything of any value, however my problem with his statement is that it refers to something in space, not space itself.
i'll try to demonstrate this with three points, a b and c. the distance between b and c is twice that between a and b.

how long does space take to travel from a to be? clearly, it is instantaneous. everywhere that displacement is possible, space is, so any possible distance to travel, space has already covered. this gives us a distance d, and a time of zero. speed is therefore d/0, so infinite.
how far from b to c now? it covers twice the distance, in the same time: zero.
this means space accelerated from a to b, to b to c: and did so in no time at all. this is, by definition, infinite acceleration.

what is your problem with this? not one person has bothered to critique the math round earthers are so obsessed by, you're just asserting. have you no respect for math and equations?

it never fails to surprise me how much round earthers refuse to admit they're wrong, even when doing so doesn't touch their pet theory.

You're right at the beginning - space isn't limited by light speed, so it expands faster than light, but.
Space doesn't travel in universe, it just stays motionless. It doesn't travel, it expands at the edges of universe, but then you can't say about point a, b, and c. It's something like point a is at the edge of the universe and there's a space expanding, and the expansion of space does another points, b, c, d and so on, but then previous points aren't staying at the edge of the universe. Expanding space is like filling very, very blank... thing that doesn't exist. Expanding space makes non-existing medium existing. It brings there time, space itself and with expansion a matter also.

i am concerned with space's speed within itself: that is the only time displacement, and so speed, are relevant. it's nothing to do with the expansion of space.

Space usually has no speed, it's staying still, so you're wrong. Have you got anything beyond assertion?

how is space staying still when it occupies multiple points? i have given you the math, please respond.

You're wrong. Space is occuping multiple points, but motionless. What's wrong with that?

do you understand how speed is calculated?
displacement divided by time. between two points, there is displacement. this happens instantaneously, so the time is zero. a number divided by zero, you get infinity.
what's wrong with that?

The point is that these two points happen in motionless space, so between them nothing occurs, space still stay still. What's wrong with that? The only movement that space does is the expansion.

those two points aren't 'in' space, they are space. you're applying the mechanics the same way you would to objects in space, that's a flawed approach. space isn't made out of atoms, it is simply space.
it isn't the easiest thing to visualize, that's why i supplied math.

If you posted that these two points are space, then you shouldn't post that these points are different, because they aren't and in conclusion if you want talk about 2 points, you're saying about point A and second point A.

that is only true when you deal with matter composed of units such as atoms. space does not have mass, or such atoms.


ausgeoff, it is undefined because infinity is not a number. one number divided by zero is indeed infinity. ask anyone who knows anything beyond first grade math.

Wrong. If we were talking about atoms, then I wouldn't say that two points are the same. Each single atom is slightly, really, really slightly different than other, so idea of two different points is correct, but if we are talking about space which everywhere has the same properties, then your idea isn't correct.

i mentioned atoms, because atoms differentiate two points. a table is in multiple points in space, but does not necessarily have velocity because the atoms are separate and distinct.
space does not have that property. from this, my previous reasoning follows.


ausgeoff, you are simply wrong. i suggest you take the opportunity to ask any mathematician. a number divided by zero takes on an infinitely large value. there have to be math experts somewhere on this forum, i can promise you they'll agree with me.

Still space stays still.

AusGeoff is right - a number divided by zero gives undefined result. You don't know it's a number x, y, c, or d. It's undefined.

asserting that space has zero speed when it exists in more than one point simultaneously is not an argument, it's blind rejection.

as i've said, it's undefined because infinity is not a number. it is clearly not going to be finite, however. (we can show that with a simple equation. if n/0=x, 0^x=n, which is impossible for a number n). by definition, it is infinite.
i don't understand how you could possibly reject that.

Space doesn't exist in more than one point, it just exists. If you got a big whale is laying on two buildings, it doesn't occur at 2 points simultaneously, but just is at 2 points, so this whale doesn't travel at an infinite speed, but is motionless.

And your simple equation is possible if n and x is equal to zero, which is actually a finite number.

Quote from: JRoweSkeptic on March 29, 2015, 12:15:00 PM

Quote from: LogicalKiller on March 29, 2015, 12:10:09 PM

Quote from: JRoweSkeptic on March 29, 2015, 11:42:41 AM

Quote from: LogicalKiller on March 29, 2015, 08:57:04 AM

Quote from: JRoweSkeptic on March 29, 2015, 07:39:43 AM

Quote from: LogicalKiller on March 29, 2015, 07:33:39 AM

Quote from: JRoweSkeptic on March 29, 2015, 07:29:07 AM

Quote from: LogicalKiller on March 29, 2015, 07:27:00 AM

Quote from: JRoweSkeptic on March 29, 2015, 07:24:37 AM

Quote from: LogicalKiller on March 29, 2015, 07:21:42 AM

Quote from: JRoweSkeptic on March 29, 2015, 07:13:51 AM

Quote from: LogicalKiller on March 29, 2015, 07:09:46 AM

Quote from: JRoweSkeptic on March 29, 2015, 07:03:07 AM

Quote from: LogicalKiller on March 29, 2015, 06:59:09 AM

Quote from: JRoweSkeptic on March 29, 2015, 06:46:54 AM

can you people please stop treating space as if it has mass? if it does, it doesn't need to accelerate infinitely. if it does not have mass, however, which is what you insisted on earlier, bounding it by light speed or treating it like it's made of particles with mass is nothing more than sheer bs. in addition, we're not dealing with quantum probability waves, we're dealing with substance.

mainframes is the only person who's said anything of any value, however my problem with his statement is that it refers to something in space, not space itself.
i'll try to demonstrate this with three points, a b and c. the distance between b and c is twice that between a and b.

how long does space take to travel from a to be? clearly, it is instantaneous. everywhere that displacement is possible, space is, so any possible distance to travel, space has already covered. this gives us a distance d, and a time of zero. speed is therefore d/0, so infinite.
how far from b to c now? it covers twice the distance, in the same time: zero.
this means space accelerated from a to b, to b to c: and did so in no time at all. this is, by definition, infinite acceleration.

what is your problem with this? not one person has bothered to critique the math round earthers are so obsessed by, you're just asserting. have you no respect for math and equations?

it never fails to surprise me how much round earthers refuse to admit they're wrong, even when doing so doesn't touch their pet theory.

You're right at the beginning - space isn't limited by light speed, so it expands faster than light, but.
Space doesn't travel in universe, it just stays motionless. It doesn't travel, it expands at the edges of universe, but then you can't say about point a, b, and c. It's something like point a is at the edge of the universe and there's a space expanding, and the expansion of space does another points, b, c, d and so on, but then previous points aren't staying at the edge of the universe. Expanding space is like filling very, very blank... thing that doesn't exist. Expanding space makes non-existing medium existing. It brings there time, space itself and with expansion a matter also.

i am concerned with space's speed within itself: that is the only time displacement, and so speed, are relevant. it's nothing to do with the expansion of space.

Space usually has no speed, it's staying still, so you're wrong. Have you got anything beyond assertion?

how is space staying still when it occupies multiple points? i have given you the math, please respond.

You're wrong. Space is occuping multiple points, but motionless. What's wrong with that?

do you understand how speed is calculated?
displacement divided by time. between two points, there is displacement. this happens instantaneously, so the time is zero. a number divided by zero, you get infinity.
what's wrong with that?

The point is that these two points happen in motionless space, so between them nothing occurs, space still stay still. What's wrong with that? The only movement that space does is the expansion.

those two points aren't 'in' space, they are space. you're applying the mechanics the same way you would to objects in space, that's a flawed approach. space isn't made out of atoms, it is simply space.
it isn't the easiest thing to visualize, that's why i supplied math.

If you posted that these two points are space, then you shouldn't post that these points are different, because they aren't and in conclusion if you want talk about 2 points, you're saying about point A and second point A.

that is only true when you deal with matter composed of units such as atoms. space does not have mass, or such atoms.


ausgeoff, it is undefined because infinity is not a number. one number divided by zero is indeed infinity. ask anyone who knows anything beyond first grade math.

Wrong. If we were talking about atoms, then I wouldn't say that two points are the same. Each single atom is slightly, really, really slightly different than other, so idea of two different points is correct, but if we are talking about space which everywhere has the same properties, then your idea isn't correct.

i mentioned atoms, because atoms differentiate two points. a table is in multiple points in space, but does not necessarily have velocity because the atoms are separate and distinct.
space does not have that property. from this, my previous reasoning follows.


ausgeoff, you are simply wrong. i suggest you take the opportunity to ask any mathematician. a number divided by zero takes on an infinitely large value. there have to be math experts somewhere on this forum, i can promise you they'll agree with me.

Still space stays still.

AusGeoff is right - a number divided by zero gives undefined result. You don't know it's a number x, y, c, or d. It's undefined.

asserting that space has zero speed when it exists in more than one point simultaneously is not an argument, it's blind rejection.

as i've said, it's undefined because infinity is not a number. it is clearly not going to be finite, however. (we can show that with a simple equation. if n/0=x, 0^x=n, which is impossible for a number n). by definition, it is infinite.
i don't understand how you could possibly reject that.

Space doesn't exist in more than one point, it just exists. If you got a big whale is laying on two buildings, it doesn't occur at 2 points simultaneously, but just is at 2 points, so this whale doesn't travel at an infinite speed, but is motionless.

And your simple equation is possible if n and x is equal to zero, which is actually a finite number.

i have directly explained that before. please read the thread. 'it just exists' is not an answer. space exists at all points in space, by definition: and as you said, it's not made of atoms or particles, so your whale analogy does not relate. no part of the whale exists at more than one point: but space cannot be so easily divided into points.

i suggest you read the thread, yet again, because n is not zero, nor can it be, for every relevant example i have given.

Studying maths at uni person here!
This is one of the few times I'll side with JRowe. We can't technically divide by zero (the operation is badly defined. Including zero, the real numbers aren't closed under division, because zero takes you right out of them).
We can come arbitrarily close, however. We define the function x over epsilon, and let epsilon get as small as we want.
This 'diverges': we can pick any number N, and there will always be an x/epsilon that is larger than N. What that means, is that the function can get arbitrarily large: and that's what mathematicians generally mean by infinity.

If you pick any number, x/epsilon is larger than it. That can be used recursively. For an N1, our function has a value N2 that's larger. For N2, the sequence has a value N3 that's larger... and so on.

Studying maths at uni person here!
This is one of the few times I'll side with JRowe. We can't technically divide by zero (the operation is badly defined. Including zero, the real numbers aren't closed under division, because zero takes you right out of them).
We can come arbitrarily close, however. We define the function x over epsilon, and let epsilon get as small as we want.
This 'diverges': we can pick any number N, and there will always be an x/epsilon that is larger than N. What that means, is that the function can get arbitrarily large: and that's what mathematicians generally mean by infinity.

If you pick any number, x/epsilon is larger than it. That can be used recursively. For an N1, our function has a value N2 that's larger. For N2, the sequence has a value N3 that's larger... and so on.

And a question to JRowe - how do you imagine an infinite speed sketched on as an infinite number of functions going on and so on? It's physically impossible. And still - space stays still.

Quote from: BiJane on March 29, 2015, 12:27:06 PM

Studying maths at uni person here!
This is one of the few times I'll side with JRowe. We can't technically divide by zero (the operation is badly defined. Including zero, the real numbers aren't closed under division, because zero takes you right out of them).
We can come arbitrarily close, however. We define the function x over epsilon, and let epsilon get as small as we want.
This 'diverges': we can pick any number N, and there will always be an x/epsilon that is larger than N. What that means, is that the function can get arbitrarily large: and that's what mathematicians generally mean by infinity.

If you pick any number, x/epsilon is larger than it. That can be used recursively. For an N1, our function has a value N2 that's larger. For N2, the sequence has a value N3 that's larger... and so on.

And a question to JRowe - how do you imagine an infinite speed sketched on as an infinite number of functions going on and so on? It's physically impossible. And still - space stays still.

do you have anything other than assertion?!
i have repeatedly explained what i have said with multiple examples and math and you have said absolutely nothing beyond repeated assertion. at this point, everyone can see you have quite clearly lost. you can't just say "oh, but space stays still!" and ignore everything i have said, which you have not so much as acknowledged or responded to, which shows that is a stupid point of view to hold once you see what space actually is (non-matter not composed of atoms).

Quote from: LogicalKiller on March 29, 2015, 12:49:47 PM

Quote from: BiJane on March 29, 2015, 12:27:06 PM

Studying maths at uni person here!
This is one of the few times I'll side with JRowe. We can't technically divide by zero (the operation is badly defined. Including zero, the real numbers aren't closed under division, because zero takes you right out of them).
We can come arbitrarily close, however. We define the function x over epsilon, and let epsilon get as small as we want.
This 'diverges': we can pick any number N, and there will always be an x/epsilon that is larger than N. What that means, is that the function can get arbitrarily large: and that's what mathematicians generally mean by infinity.

If you pick any number, x/epsilon is larger than it. That can be used recursively. For an N1, our function has a value N2 that's larger. For N2, the sequence has a value N3 that's larger... and so on.

And a question to JRowe - how do you imagine an infinite speed sketched on as an infinite number of functions going on and so on? It's physically impossible. And still - space stays still.

do you have anything other than assertion?!
i have repeatedly explained what i have said with multiple examples and math and you have said absolutely nothing beyond repeated assertion. at this point, everyone can see you have quite clearly lost. you can't just say "oh, but space stays still!" and ignore everything i have said, which you have not so much as acknowledged or responded to, which shows that is a stupid point of view to hold once you see what space actually is (non-matter not composed of atoms).

If you look at it, you'll see that my post wasn't an assertion and your was. Look - you posted "oh, but space travels with an infinite speed" and then you're showing a primitive "math" explanation assuming the space is travelling, when it's not. So, your question should be posted by me - do you have anything other than assertion?!

Quote from: JRoweSkeptic on March 29, 2015, 12:53:15 PM

Quote from: LogicalKiller on March 29, 2015, 12:49:47 PM

Quote from: BiJane on March 29, 2015, 12:27:06 PM

Studying maths at uni person here!
This is one of the few times I'll side with JRowe. We can't technically divide by zero (the operation is badly defined. Including zero, the real numbers aren't closed under division, because zero takes you right out of them).
We can come arbitrarily close, however. We define the function x over epsilon, and let epsilon get as small as we want.
This 'diverges': we can pick any number N, and there will always be an x/epsilon that is larger than N. What that means, is that the function can get arbitrarily large: and that's what mathematicians generally mean by infinity.

If you pick any number, x/epsilon is larger than it. That can be used recursively. For an N1, our function has a value N2 that's larger. For N2, the sequence has a value N3 that's larger... and so on.

And a question to JRowe - how do you imagine an infinite speed sketched on as an infinite number of functions going on and so on? It's physically impossible. And still - space stays still.

do you have anything other than assertion?!
i have repeatedly explained what i have said with multiple examples and math and you have said absolutely nothing beyond repeated assertion. at this point, everyone can see you have quite clearly lost. you can't just say "oh, but space stays still!" and ignore everything i have said, which you have not so much as acknowledged or responded to, which shows that is a stupid point of view to hold once you see what space actually is (non-matter not composed of atoms).

If you look at it, you'll see that my post wasn't an assertion and your was. Look - you posted "oh, but space travels with an infinite speed" and then you're showing a primitive "math" explanation assuming the space is travelling, when it's not. So, your question should be posted by me - do you have anything other than assertion?!

and i have repeatedly shown that it is travelling, as much as it can be said to be. it isn't moving in three-dimensional terms because it is all three dimensions. when the three dimensional math is applied, however, space occupies more than one point simultaneously. that is the definition of infinite speed (dividing by time equals zero).
the only response you've had is to act like space is made up of atoms or matter, which clearly makes no sense. space is one thing. it may not be moving in higher dimensional terms, but as it is one thing (not made up of multiple atoms), taking up more than one point in space, in the three dimensional terms we're concerned with it has, mathematically, infinite speed and consequently acceleration.

Quote from: LogicalKiller on March 29, 2015, 01:03:32 PM

Quote from: JRoweSkeptic on March 29, 2015, 12:53:15 PM

Quote from: LogicalKiller on March 29, 2015, 12:49:47 PM

Quote from: BiJane on March 29, 2015, 12:27:06 PM

Studying maths at uni person here!
This is one of the few times I'll side with JRowe. We can't technically divide by zero (the operation is badly defined. Including zero, the real numbers aren't closed under division, because zero takes you right out of them).
We can come arbitrarily close, however. We define the function x over epsilon, and let epsilon get as small as we want.
This 'diverges': we can pick any number N, and there will always be an x/epsilon that is larger than N. What that means, is that the function can get arbitrarily large: and that's what mathematicians generally mean by infinity.

If you pick any number, x/epsilon is larger than it. That can be used recursively. For an N1, our function has a value N2 that's larger. For N2, the sequence has a value N3 that's larger... and so on.

And a question to JRowe - how do you imagine an infinite speed sketched on as an infinite number of functions going on and so on? It's physically impossible. And still - space stays still.

do you have anything other than assertion?!
i have repeatedly explained what i have said with multiple examples and math and you have said absolutely nothing beyond repeated assertion. at this point, everyone can see you have quite clearly lost. you can't just say "oh, but space stays still!" and ignore everything i have said, which you have not so much as acknowledged or responded to, which shows that is a stupid point of view to hold once you see what space actually is (non-matter not composed of atoms).

If you look at it, you'll see that my post wasn't an assertion and your was. Look - you posted "oh, but space travels with an infinite speed" and then you're showing a primitive "math" explanation assuming the space is travelling, when it's not. So, your question should be posted by me - do you have anything other than assertion?!

and i have repeatedly shown that it is travelling, as much as it can be said to be. it isn't moving in three-dimensional terms because it is all three dimensions. when the three dimensional math is applied, however, space occupies more than one point simultaneously. that is the definition of infinite speed (dividing by time equals zero).
the only response you've had is to act like space is made up of atoms or matter, which clearly makes no sense. space is one thing. it may not be moving in higher dimensional terms, but as it is one thing (not made up of multiple atoms), taking up more than one point in space, in the three dimensional terms we're concerned with it has, mathematically, infinite speed and consequently acceleration.

What is space occupying?

Quote from: JRoweSkeptic on March 29, 2015, 01:07:35 PM

Quote from: LogicalKiller on March 29, 2015, 01:03:32 PM

Quote from: JRoweSkeptic on March 29, 2015, 12:53:15 PM

Quote from: LogicalKiller on March 29, 2015, 12:49:47 PM

Quote from: BiJane on March 29, 2015, 12:27:06 PM

Studying maths at uni person here!
This is one of the few times I'll side with JRowe. We can't technically divide by zero (the operation is badly defined. Including zero, the real numbers aren't closed under division, because zero takes you right out of them).
We can come arbitrarily close, however. We define the function x over epsilon, and let epsilon get as small as we want.
This 'diverges': we can pick any number N, and there will always be an x/epsilon that is larger than N. What that means, is that the function can get arbitrarily large: and that's what mathematicians generally mean by infinity.

If you pick any number, x/epsilon is larger than it. That can be used recursively. For an N1, our function has a value N2 that's larger. For N2, the sequence has a value N3 that's larger... and so on.

And a question to JRowe - how do you imagine an infinite speed sketched on as an infinite number of functions going on and so on? It's physically impossible. And still - space stays still.

do you have anything other than assertion?!
i have repeatedly explained what i have said with multiple examples and math and you have said absolutely nothing beyond repeated assertion. at this point, everyone can see you have quite clearly lost. you can't just say "oh, but space stays still!" and ignore everything i have said, which you have not so much as acknowledged or responded to, which shows that is a stupid point of view to hold once you see what space actually is (non-matter not composed of atoms).

If you look at it, you'll see that my post wasn't an assertion and your was. Look - you posted "oh, but space travels with an infinite speed" and then you're showing a primitive "math" explanation assuming the space is travelling, when it's not. So, your question should be posted by me - do you have anything other than assertion?!

and i have repeatedly shown that it is travelling, as much as it can be said to be. it isn't moving in three-dimensional terms because it is all three dimensions. when the three dimensional math is applied, however, space occupies more than one point simultaneously. that is the definition of infinite speed (dividing by time equals zero).
the only response you've had is to act like space is made up of atoms or matter, which clearly makes no sense. space is one thing. it may not be moving in higher dimensional terms, but as it is one thing (not made up of multiple atoms), taking up more than one point in space, in the three dimensional terms we're concerned with it has, mathematically, infinite speed and consequently acceleration.

What is space occupying?

why is that relevant?
you tell me. personally i think there's is a more-dimensional 'hyperspace', but even if there is not, my point stands. i've relied only on three dimensional math.

Quote from: LogicalKiller on March 29, 2015, 01:10:40 PM

Quote from: JRoweSkeptic on March 29, 2015, 01:07:35 PM

Quote from: LogicalKiller on March 29, 2015, 01:03:32 PM

Quote from: JRoweSkeptic on March 29, 2015, 12:53:15 PM

Quote from: LogicalKiller on March 29, 2015, 12:49:47 PM

Quote from: BiJane on March 29, 2015, 12:27:06 PM

Studying maths at uni person here!
This is one of the few times I'll side with JRowe. We can't technically divide by zero (the operation is badly defined. Including zero, the real numbers aren't closed under division, because zero takes you right out of them).
We can come arbitrarily close, however. We define the function x over epsilon, and let epsilon get as small as we want.
This 'diverges': we can pick any number N, and there will always be an x/epsilon that is larger than N. What that means, is that the function can get arbitrarily large: and that's what mathematicians generally mean by infinity.

If you pick any number, x/epsilon is larger than it. That can be used recursively. For an N1, our function has a value N2 that's larger. For N2, the sequence has a value N3 that's larger... and so on.

And a question to JRowe - how do you imagine an infinite speed sketched on as an infinite number of functions going on and so on? It's physically impossible. And still - space stays still.

do you have anything other than assertion?!
i have repeatedly explained what i have said with multiple examples and math and you have said absolutely nothing beyond repeated assertion. at this point, everyone can see you have quite clearly lost. you can't just say "oh, but space stays still!" and ignore everything i have said, which you have not so much as acknowledged or responded to, which shows that is a stupid point of view to hold once you see what space actually is (non-matter not composed of atoms).

If you look at it, you'll see that my post wasn't an assertion and your was. Look - you posted "oh, but space travels with an infinite speed" and then you're showing a primitive "math" explanation assuming the space is travelling, when it's not. So, your question should be posted by me - do you have anything other than assertion?!

and i have repeatedly shown that it is travelling, as much as it can be said to be. it isn't moving in three-dimensional terms because it is all three dimensions. when the three dimensional math is applied, however, space occupies more than one point simultaneously. that is the definition of infinite speed (dividing by time equals zero).
the only response you've had is to act like space is made up of atoms or matter, which clearly makes no sense. space is one thing. it may not be moving in higher dimensional terms, but as it is one thing (not made up of multiple atoms), taking up more than one point in space, in the three dimensional terms we're concerned with it has, mathematically, infinite speed and consequently acceleration.

What is space occupying?

why is that relevant?
you tell me. personally i think there's is a more-dimensional 'hyperspace', but even if there is not, my point stands. i've relied only on three dimensional math.

Three-dimension-cube is still a definition of space, so your point is wrong.
PS: You are changing your mind so quickly, few minutes ago you posted that space is occupying space, now you're saying that space is occupying hyperspace. Then - what hyperspace is occupying?

Quote from: JRoweSkeptic on March 29, 2015, 01:13:26 PM

Quote from: LogicalKiller on March 29, 2015, 01:10:40 PM

Quote from: JRoweSkeptic on March 29, 2015, 01:07:35 PM

Quote from: LogicalKiller on March 29, 2015, 01:03:32 PM

Quote from: JRoweSkeptic on March 29, 2015, 12:53:15 PM

Quote from: LogicalKiller on March 29, 2015, 12:49:47 PM

Quote from: BiJane on March 29, 2015, 12:27:06 PM

Studying maths at uni person here!
This is one of the few times I'll side with JRowe. We can't technically divide by zero (the operation is badly defined. Including zero, the real numbers aren't closed under division, because zero takes you right out of them).
We can come arbitrarily close, however. We define the function x over epsilon, and let epsilon get as small as we want.
This 'diverges': we can pick any number N, and there will always be an x/epsilon that is larger than N. What that means, is that the function can get arbitrarily large: and that's what mathematicians generally mean by infinity.

If you pick any number, x/epsilon is larger than it. That can be used recursively. For an N1, our function has a value N2 that's larger. For N2, the sequence has a value N3 that's larger... and so on.

And a question to JRowe - how do you imagine an infinite speed sketched on as an infinite number of functions going on and so on? It's physically impossible. And still - space stays still.

do you have anything other than assertion?!
i have repeatedly explained what i have said with multiple examples and math and you have said absolutely nothing beyond repeated assertion. at this point, everyone can see you have quite clearly lost. you can't just say "oh, but space stays still!" and ignore everything i have said, which you have not so much as acknowledged or responded to, which shows that is a stupid point of view to hold once you see what space actually is (non-matter not composed of atoms).

If you look at it, you'll see that my post wasn't an assertion and your was. Look - you posted "oh, but space travels with an infinite speed" and then you're showing a primitive "math" explanation assuming the space is travelling, when it's not. So, your question should be posted by me - do you have anything other than assertion?!

and i have repeatedly shown that it is travelling, as much as it can be said to be. it isn't moving in three-dimensional terms because it is all three dimensions. when the three dimensional math is applied, however, space occupies more than one point simultaneously. that is the definition of infinite speed (dividing by time equals zero).
the only response you've had is to act like space is made up of atoms or matter, which clearly makes no sense. space is one thing. it may not be moving in higher dimensional terms, but as it is one thing (not made up of multiple atoms), taking up more than one point in space, in the three dimensional terms we're concerned with it has, mathematically, infinite speed and consequently acceleration.

What is space occupying?

why is that relevant?
you tell me. personally i think there's is a more-dimensional 'hyperspace', but even if there is not, my point stands. i've relied only on three dimensional math.

Three-dimension-cube is still a definition of space, so your point is wrong.
PS: You are changing your mind so quickly, few minutes ago you posted that space is occupying space, now you're saying that space is occupying hyperspace. Then - what hyperspace is occupying?

i have no idea what your first sentence means.
again, you're confusing definitions. 'hyperspace' is an awful term to use, because everyone things of star wars. however, that wasn't what was meant. 'space occupies space' was, in that situation, a tautology: it seemed necessary to spell it out.

Okay, first of all, the divide by 0 topic is completely pointless and will go nowhere. Divide by zero gets an infinite number of possible answers, which therefore, reaches infinity. Both answers work.

Now, the space and distance point. Let's create another hypothetical situation, similar to the one JRowe described in this:

can you people please stop treating space as if it has mass? if it does, it doesn't need to accelerate infinitely. if it does not have mass, however, which is what you insisted on earlier, bounding it by light speed or treating it like it's made of particles with mass is nothing more than sheer bs. in addition, we're not dealing with quantum probability waves, we're dealing with substance.

mainframes is the only person who's said anything of any value, however my problem with his statement is that it refers to something in space, not space itself.
i'll try to demonstrate this with three points, a b and c. the distance between b and c is twice that between a and b.

how long does space take to travel from a to be? clearly, it is instantaneous. everywhere that displacement is possible, space is, so any possible distance to travel, space has already covered. this gives us a distance d, and a time of zero. speed is therefore d/0, so infinite.
how far from b to c now? it covers twice the distance, in the same time: zero.
this means space accelerated from a to b, to b to c: and did so in no time at all. this is, by definition, infinite acceleration.

what is your problem with this? not one person has bothered to critique the math round earthers are so obsessed by, you're just asserting. have you no respect for math and equations?

it never fails to surprise me how much round earthers refuse to admit they're wrong, even when doing so doesn't touch their pet theory.

For example, I have an iPhone 4S. At least one other person, somewhere in the world, would also have an iPhone 4S. Just because there are 2 iPhones on different parts of the Earth, does not mean that there is only one iPhone with infinite speed. The 2 locations of the iPhones are completely different entities, and as such, do not have infinite acceleration.

But wait! In the space scenario, 'space' is occupied by many different points of 'space'. As JRowe has said, because there are 3 locations with space, this would mean that space travels at an infinite speed, right?

No. This is because what is technically happening is that you're 'timing' the speed after the space has already moved. Say that I got my hypothetical iPhone's again, and put them 100m away from each other. Then, I measure the amount of time it takes for one of the iPhones to cover that distance. Because the iPhone has been placed at that distance before the timer started, this cannot be accepted as a reason purely because the result has already been achieved before the results have started to be recorded.

You're contradicting yourself in the fact that you're saying that space has infinite acceleration because it is existing in 2 places at once. In this, you're assuming that because these 2 particles are the 'same', they can technically be counted as being one single bit of 'space'. As LogicalKiller said before:

You're wrong. Space is occuping multiple points, but motionless. What's wrong with that?

Space could just simply exist as separate, multiple points, without being connected in any way. Just because they are the same type of 'thing', does not mean that they can be connected to form theories. There needs to be more proof of their interconnectedness before they can be 'the same', and attributed to having infinite acceleration.

And just for all the people who believe science, space isn't a complete vacuum, it is actually filled with very small amounts of gas and space dust. Citation: http://scienceline.ucsb.edu/getkey.php?key=1076

fallacyalert, stop saying space is composed of particles. i have criticized you for this before. space is not composed of particles or atoms or any such thing, as i have explicitly and repeatedly stated, and as even round earthers agree.
every conclusion you draw from such a bs assumption is utterly irrelevant. have you finished being an idiot?
"Space could just simply exist as separate, multiple points," is nonsense as space is not composed of particles, space is composed of one entity. this is the crucial fact every single one of you are ignoring. that one entity exists in every location in space.

i'm not sure why you're talking about vacuums, we're discussing space as in the four dimensional undercurrent to everything, not 'outer space'.
none of you are providing anything other than assertion. why are you expecting the thing by which we measure acceleration (space, and so distance) to behave in the same way as the things within it? that's absurd.

fallacyalert, stop saying space is composed of particles. i have criticized you for this before. space is not composed of particles or atoms or any such thing, as i have explicitly and repeatedly stated, and as even round earthers agree.
every conclusion you draw from such a bs assumption is utterly irrelevant. have you finished being an idiot?
"Space could just simply exist as separate, multiple points," is nonsense as space is not composed of particles, space is composed of one entity. this is the crucial fact every single one of you are ignoring. that one entity exists in every location in space.

i'm not sure why you're talking about vacuums, we're discussing space as in the four dimensional undercurrent to everything, not 'outer space'.
none of you are providing anything other than assertion. why are you expecting the thing by which we measure acceleration (space, and so distance) to behave in the same way as the things within it? that's absurd.

Space does not need to be comprised of particles for the multiple location thing to be proven wrong. Even if space is 'one entity', as you say, then it cannot have infinite acceleration because it is one single thing occupying every available point of space that it can fill, so it cannot be accelerating because there is nowhere for it to move to.

For this one thing that exists in every location in space to be infinitely accelerating is wrong according to your previous point anyway, because then again, it would be reaching those defined points of distance 'a' and 'b' before the recording has even started, which doesn't work as part of a proper test.

Have you finished being an idiot?

Hey man, stop with the personal attacks and get back to the conversation, please

Quote from: JRoweSkeptic on March 30, 2015, 03:50:20 AM

fallacyalert, stop saying space is composed of particles. i have criticized you for this before. space is not composed of particles or atoms or any such thing, as i have explicitly and repeatedly stated, and as even round earthers agree.
every conclusion you draw from such a bs assumption is utterly irrelevant. have you finished being an idiot?
"Space could just simply exist as separate, multiple points," is nonsense as space is not composed of particles, space is composed of one entity. this is the crucial fact every single one of you are ignoring. that one entity exists in every location in space.

i'm not sure why you're talking about vacuums, we're discussing space as in the four dimensional undercurrent to everything, not 'outer space'.
none of you are providing anything other than assertion. why are you expecting the thing by which we measure acceleration (space, and so distance) to behave in the same way as the things within it? that's absurd.

Space does not need to be comprised of particles for the multiple location thing to be proven wrong. Even if space is 'one entity', as you say, then it cannot have infinite acceleration because it is one single thing occupying every available point of space that it can fill, so it cannot be accelerating because there is nowhere for it to move to.

For this one thing that exists in every location in space to be infinitely accelerating is wrong according to your previous point anyway, because then again, it would be reaching those defined points of distance 'a' and 'b' before the recording has even started, which doesn't work as part of a proper test.

you are still thinking in terms of matter. for matter to exist in more than one location, the fundamental atom (or rather, planck length part of an atom) would need to be in two locations. this is because matter is made up of particles, and those particles are what is relevant.
space, as one entity not composed of trillions of planck lengths, themselves all entities, is different. space is space.

it doesn't matter if you measure from a to b or b to a. by definition, space is at both those points. it's not a matter of testing, it's a matter of fundamental fact. space is at every single point in space. that's so simple it's a tautology. when you're not thinking in terms of particles, it is in multiple places at once.

why is it so hard to understand that higher dimensional things don't behave as we'd expect in lower dimensions? that's a pretty basic part of science.

Quote from: FallacyAlert on March 30, 2015, 03:59:33 AM

Quote from: JRoweSkeptic on March 30, 2015, 03:50:20 AM

fallacyalert, stop saying space is composed of particles. i have criticized you for this before. space is not composed of particles or atoms or any such thing, as i have explicitly and repeatedly stated, and as even round earthers agree.
every conclusion you draw from such a bs assumption is utterly irrelevant. have you finished being an idiot?
"Space could just simply exist as separate, multiple points," is nonsense as space is not composed of particles, space is composed of one entity. this is the crucial fact every single one of you are ignoring. that one entity exists in every location in space.

i'm not sure why you're talking about vacuums, we're discussing space as in the four dimensional undercurrent to everything, not 'outer space'.
none of you are providing anything other than assertion. why are you expecting the thing by which we measure acceleration (space, and so distance) to behave in the same way as the things within it? that's absurd.

Space does not need to be comprised of particles for the multiple location thing to be proven wrong. Even if space is 'one entity', as you say, then it cannot have infinite acceleration because it is one single thing occupying every available point of space that it can fill, so it cannot be accelerating because there is nowhere for it to move to.

For this one thing that exists in every location in space to be infinitely accelerating is wrong according to your previous point anyway, because then again, it would be reaching those defined points of distance 'a' and 'b' before the recording has even started, which doesn't work as part of a proper test.

you are still thinking in terms of matter. for matter to exist in more than one location, the fundamental atom (or rather, planck length part of an atom) would need to be in two locations. this is because matter is made up of particles, and those particles are what is relevant.
space, as one entity not composed of trillions of planck lengths, themselves all entities, is different. space is space.

it doesn't matter if you measure from a to b or b to a. by definition, space is at both those points. it's not a matter of testing, it's a matter of fundamental fact. space is at every single point in space. that's so simple it's a tautology. when you're not thinking in terms of particles, it is in multiple places at once.

why is it so hard to understand that higher dimensional things don't behave as we'd expect in lower dimensions? that's a pretty basic part of science.

Okay, that was pretty hard to read, but I'll roll with it.

So, space is one, higher-dimensional entity that occupies all of space. So, how is it infinitely accelerating? If this big entity occupies all of space, then it should still not have any area in which to accelerate.

Quote from: JRoweSkeptic on March 30, 2015, 04:14:49 AM

Quote from: FallacyAlert on March 30, 2015, 03:59:33 AM

Quote from: JRoweSkeptic on March 30, 2015, 03:50:20 AM

fallacyalert, stop saying space is composed of particles. i have criticized you for this before. space is not composed of particles or atoms or any such thing, as i have explicitly and repeatedly stated, and as even round earthers agree.
every conclusion you draw from such a bs assumption is utterly irrelevant. have you finished being an idiot?
"Space could just simply exist as separate, multiple points," is nonsense as space is not composed of particles, space is composed of one entity. this is the crucial fact every single one of you are ignoring. that one entity exists in every location in space.

i'm not sure why you're talking about vacuums, we're discussing space as in the four dimensional undercurrent to everything, not 'outer space'.
none of you are providing anything other than assertion. why are you expecting the thing by which we measure acceleration (space, and so distance) to behave in the same way as the things within it? that's absurd.

Space does not need to be comprised of particles for the multiple location thing to be proven wrong. Even if space is 'one entity', as you say, then it cannot have infinite acceleration because it is one single thing occupying every available point of space that it can fill, so it cannot be accelerating because there is nowhere for it to move to.

For this one thing that exists in every location in space to be infinitely accelerating is wrong according to your previous point anyway, because then again, it would be reaching those defined points of distance 'a' and 'b' before the recording has even started, which doesn't work as part of a proper test.

you are still thinking in terms of matter. for matter to exist in more than one location, the fundamental atom (or rather, planck length part of an atom) would need to be in two locations. this is because matter is made up of particles, and those particles are what is relevant.
space, as one entity not composed of trillions of planck lengths, themselves all entities, is different. space is space.

it doesn't matter if you measure from a to b or b to a. by definition, space is at both those points. it's not a matter of testing, it's a matter of fundamental fact. space is at every single point in space. that's so simple it's a tautology. when you're not thinking in terms of particles, it is in multiple places at once.

why is it so hard to understand that higher dimensional things don't behave as we'd expect in lower dimensions? that's a pretty basic part of science.

Okay, that was pretty hard to read, but I'll roll with it.

So, space is one, higher-dimensional entity that occupies all of space. So, how is it infinitely accelerating? If this big entity occupies all of space, then it should still not have any area in which to accelerate.

this is advanced, it's not going to be easy to understand. everything requires a little thought to learn.
space exists in more than one place at any one time. as it is not in more than one place, it is one entity that exists in multiple points in space instantaneously. we simply apply the calculations i have given multiple times to deduce the speed (and by a similar process, the acceleration) is infinite.
it is accelerating within itself, not beyond itself. don't try to visualize, higher dimensional things are impossible to visualize. trust simple math.

This is advanced, it's not going to be easy to understand. Everything requires a little thought to learn.

LOL... maybe this looney tunes guy should take some of his own advice to heart?

Space exists in more than one place at any one time.

Damn... I knew Stephen Hawking had got something wrong!

As it is not in more than one place, it is one entity that exists in multiple points in space instantaneously. We simply apply the calculations I have given multiple times to deduce the speed (and by a similar process, the acceleration) is infinite.

Yeah... I see now.  How could I have missed these obvious points?  Silly me.

It is accelerating within itself, not beyond itself. Don't try to visualize, higher dimensional things are impossible to visualize. Trust simple math.

Yup... I've got my frontal lobotomy booked for next week.