Posted: Mon Oct 29, 2007 7:24 pm Post subject: Absolute Point Theory
Imagine, if you will, that you are sitting at a table enjoying your breakfast. During your meal you happen by complete accident to knock your cup of orange juice with your elbow, which slides off the table onto the floor. Now the question stands, at what point did the cup actually leave the table? It should in theory (math or other wise) have only gotten infinitely closer to the edge but unable lose contact with it.
My theory is that all matter, unlike math to which you can always add on more numbers with out end, must have an absolute smallest point. For if there is not some finite point the cup should never have left the table.
It could have left the table when its closer to the floor (as a whole ). This moment it's altitude was lower,
measured from the floor, the table also will stand on. The highest lower point of the cup should still be
lower than the tables desk. Also depending on how accurate you need the measurement to be. Time
can be a good measure cause of the fall velocity.
Posted: Wed Oct 31, 2007 2:10 pm Post subject: it's odd
If the object had a SET (known) number of atoms and the table had a SET (known) number of atoms the point the 'object' fell, the contact between the table and the object would slowly(or speedily) reach back toward 0. It would be in one of the forms of what scientist would call quantization or it in a way, "acts in whole numbers", so it would be able to predict when it left. This scenario would only work if it were in an environment that had SET values.
However we have no clue where or how many or the what of the objects present, for all we know the object could still be “on the table”. Who knows there might be an electron flying between the object and the table or maybe part of the object never leaves but “becomes a part of the table” forever more. The thing is the probability of it “being on the table” even thought our visual or our mind tells us “it is OFF the table”, the probability of it being still there NEVER LEAVES there will always be even the smallest percentage of it “being there”.
That is different, 0 being = to something other then nothing....
I see what your saying, however I was pointing out that we do not know the if‘s and's or but's. The object could have moved all the way to 'end' even one atom from the object touching one atom of the table, there may have even been electron exchange for a billionth of a second before the connection was severed...what would something like that be called?
Still something that close to something else, would have some effect, be it static or even the repulsion of the electrons. That puts an intrusting point out, "was the object even ever 'touching' the table to begin with???" or was it the electrons in the object repelling the electrons in the table, technically never actually "touching".
So the smallest point would be even smaller then an atom maybe even as small electron (or smaller then an electron, depends on how you look at it), and if you consider forces as things that are ‘touching’ it would complicate things even more… Because electrons around atoms are mathematically and theoretically not able to touch.
First, what If you had found the absolute point. What are your intentions? What would you like to do with the knowledge? Where could
we find the results, investing time on the issue?
Second, do you think of the absolute point as being sort of a stable mark at some point?
Third, does it resize its own shape in some way, so the thingy to be the point first could become something else totally, at the end?
I’d better make my point more clear first. The idea behind my theory is that if we have object A compared to object B and there is an infinite amount of space between the two (whether it be in two millimeters or two miles, it doesn’t matter) the two will only get infinitely closer to each other but never pass. It’s like dividing 10 by 3 which the closest we come to is 3.333… but take that number and then reverse it by multiplying by three and what do you get? 9.999… not ten! You can go on and on, but it will never be ten only infinitely closer. The same is with particles that make up the table and cup, as long as you can keep zooming in it can never move. But we can move a cup off a table or two people can pass by each other, so there must some absolute smallest point. Other wise it would be like 9.999… never being ten. I hope this helps.
To answer your questions Steve,
First, I have not found it. I see only the evidence as stated above that it is a very likely probability. I do not really have any training in the ways of how to prove it. But if I did find it, I would hope it would some how help advance us one step further in the understanding of the space around and that make up us.
Second, The only way this stuff could be seen as stable would by zooming way, way out to behold what it makes up. Like viewing a soap bubble, from far away it looks pretty consistent but up close would reveal is true nature of swirling, intertwining soap partials.
Third, I don’t know what shape it would be (or if you could even call it a shape?). This stuff though would be the basic building blocks of everything (except energy maybe?).
Some further thoughts, If there was in theory this whats-it-stuff (if you can call it stuff), it would all vibrating (maybe at different rates?). I don’t know why, but without so I don’t know how or why it would all be moving around (Much like water molecules?).
Sorry folks I have mistaken the thread starter to the one who posted before my last post. I thought he was the thread
starter, and thus, answered as if he was the one who has started the thread. No idea how this could have happened.
Is still do not fully understand the concept of your theory to be honest. The absolute point could also mean a point on
the event horizon?
Like something about to be happen had to assure the presences of that point in space time (? ) to be able to
happen? Like a center point in some why which could also be existent several times, simultaneously, making things
special understandable?
What about the absolute point if things barely move, lets say, as for our comprehension of space and time stand still?
Thank you so much for your responses, it has helped me a lot in.
My theory is that as long as we can zoom in on matter (say from molecules to atoms to protons, neutrons, and electrons... ect) infinitely then the cup should never have left the table (the cup being 9.999... and over the edge being 10) unless there is an absolute smallest point (where the cup can reach 10). If there is no end point then then the cup will continue infinitely to slide towards the edge.
I don't know how my theory would apply to the event horizon except maybe to disprove it (?).
As far as using my theory to understand space it would be limited to understanding the matter that makes it up. Time would be progression or activity of matter at this absolute smallest point (level might be a better term?).
Let me know your thoughts or on how I can bring this more into focus.
-Aaron
I'm sorry Steve but I don't understand your question..."Do you think the cup never has left the table though going to pieces?"
Do you mean that the 'cup' when it hits will brake to pieces? Or something else? Please restate...
My theory is that as long as we can zoom in on matter (say from molecules to atoms to protons, neutrons, and electrons... ect) infinitely then the cup should never have left the table (the cup being 9.999... and over the edge being 10) unless there is an absolute smallest point (where the cup can reach 10). If there is no end point then then the cup will continue infinitely to slide towards the edge.
He seemed to be denying real facts, or else , to be trying to squeeze real facts into the unproven.
What do you mean by this? Could you elaborate a little for me so I know where your coming from?
Quote:
or else, to be trying to squeeze real facts into the unproven.
That's the general idea behind theories, I thought (like Big Bang or Evolution, ideas to explain phenomenon) I posted my theory not as trying to portray it as something that is already proven but because I see validity in it for explaining evidence. It is just a theory, that is all.
I would love to hear if either of you can find flaws in my theory, how I might go about to test or improve it.
Joined: Feb 08, 2007 Posts: 14 Location: Australia
Posted: Fri Nov 09, 2007 9:03 pm Post subject:
Greeting All,
When working with numbers it's an infinite quantity with no theoretical limitation.
But the table is made up of a finite numbers of atoms, configured to make it a table.
The cup is also made up of a finite numbers of atoms, configured to make it a cup.
At a Quantum level the two will share bonds due to the close physical proximity of the cup being on the table.
As the cup separates from the table, these bonds weaken.
If you remove the finite limitations on the cup and table (to make it more compatible with the numbers) you could redefine the minimal parameters of the shared bonds required for the cup to still be considered to be in contact with the table.
Then the cup could be on the floor in pieces and still considered to have never left the table.
It’s all relative as to who ‘owns’ and who ‘broke’ the cup
You cannot post new topics in this forum You cannot reply to topics in this forum You cannot edit your posts in this forum You cannot delete your posts in this forum You cannot vote in polls in this forum
Forum FAQ
Search
Usergroups
Profile
Log in to check your private messages
Log in
, to be trying to squeeze real facts into the unproven.
