From: Dehler, Bernie <bernie.dehler@intel.com>

Date: Wed Oct 01 2008 - 20:00:15 EDT

Date: Wed Oct 01 2008 - 20:00:15 EDT

-----Original Message-----

From: D. F. Siemens, Jr. [mailto:dfsiemensjr@juno.com]

Sent: Wednesday, October 01, 2008 4:17 PM

To: Dehler, Bernie

Cc: asa@calvin.edu

Subject: Re: [asa] Thermodynamics & Eternal Universe - A Question

On Wed, 1 Oct 2008 11:58:49 -0700 "Dehler, Bernie"

<bernie.dehler@intel.com> writes:

*>
*

*>
*

*> -----Original Message-----
*

*> From: D. F. Siemens, Jr. [mailto:dfsiemensjr@juno.com]
*

*> Sent: Wednesday, October 01, 2008 11:37 AM
*

*> To: Dehler, Bernie
*

*> Cc: asa@calvin.edu
*

*> Subject: Re: [asa] Thermodynamics & Eternal Universe - A Question
*

*>
*

*>
*

*> On Wed, 1 Oct 2008 11:25:55 -0700 "Dehler, Bernie"
*

*> <bernie.dehler@intel.com> writes:
*

*> >
*

*> > Hi Christine- I'm not a physicist, but wanted to give you an idea
*

*> of
*

*> > something I think about on this topic, I heard from elsewhere. It
*

*> > has to do with an infinite regress.
*

*> >
*

*> > Here's a logical proof that time couldn't have been going on for
*

*> > infinity past:
*

*> >
*

*> > To get to the current moment, you have to pass through the prior
*

*> > moment. Since you can't ever find the most prior moment, since it
*

*> > is infinite, then it is impossible to arrive at the current
*

*> moment.
*

*> >
*

*> > For that reason, we need a starting point for time- when time
*

*> > actually started. It appears that most scientists say that at the
*

*> > big bang, time was created, as well as space. This solves the
*

*> > riddle for the beginning of time. More riddles follow- where did
*

*> > the big-bang energy come from, and what set it off "when" it did
*

*> > (you can't say "when" because there actually was no time at any
*

*> > point before the big bang).
*

*> >
*

*> > ...Bernie
*

*> >
*

*> This argument begs the question of a continuum. I cannot argue that,
*

*> because the mathematical continuum extends infinitely, so that I can
*

*> find
*

*> neither the first number nor the last, I cannot know that the
*

*> integer 2
*

*> precedes 3.
*

*> Dave (ASA)
*

*> ..................
*

*>
*

*> I think there's a difference when discussing pure numbers compared
*

*> to numbers with attributes, such as time and space. For example,
*

*> any pure number could be halved into infinity. But numbers in time
*

*> and distance can't, because they hit the limits of planck time and
*

*> planck length. You can't get a smaller length than planck length or
*

*> smaller time unit than planck time. Correct?
*

*>
*

*> ...Bernie
*

*>
*

You will note that I specified integers. You can keep going with division

and get an infinity of rational numbers between each pair of integers and

have a greater infinity than that of the integers. You can also have a

larger number yet of irrational numbers. That's without counting

imaginary numbers and the infinite number of modular arithmetics. If you

want to go with Planck values, assign an integer to each, although an

integral ordinal would probably be better. It will apply to what you

assumed for your claim of a proof.

Dave (ASA)

...........

Dave- let me ask you a clarifying question. Can you take a measurement of 1 second and divide it in half until infinity, or do you stop at a point called planck time where time can no longer be divided? Same with starting with 1 inch- can you divide that by 2 until infinity, or do you hit a limit when you hit the smallest possible length called planck length, which can't be divided anymore?

...Bernie

To unsubscribe, send a message to majordomo@calvin.edu with

"unsubscribe asa" (no quotes) as the body of the message.

Received on Wed Oct 1 20:07:08 2008

*
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.8
: Wed Oct 01 2008 - 20:07:08 EDT
*