Poll: Is Anything Possible?

[Vitor Goncalves]

What does speed have to do with lenght in this case?! Relativity is an ilusion and leads to measurement errors of time and space, but the real/absolute time and space keep the same.

But as Einstein showed, space and time are not absolute. Only the speed of light is. Before Einstein came, we collectively believed that time is absolute and Einstein made a mockery of it.

Is just that because the position of the observers distorts their reading of reality.

But since all speeds are relative to eachother, who can say what the objective reality is? I measure something, someone else moving at .4c measures something else, who would arbitate as to which one of us is wrong or right?

No-one, because as long as we made our measurements stringently, we are both right.

You speak of time and space as objective absolutes.


Time and space as measured by you, or as measured by the person who doesn't move at 107 000 km/h in relation to the sun.

And because light doesn't travel instantly from point A to any other giving point, neither are we standing still in the universe, our reality, including our measurements, are always distorted.

And because of this, how can we say a foot is 12 inches and never ever anything else?

Well because we ignored one thing, the frame. When you pick up a 1 foot long object and a ruler all the 3 elements of the equation are framed. Therefore they remain in the same position on the Minkowski space (4 dimensional, including time). And because the distance between the 3 is so small, its relativity impact is irrelevant or at least makes impossible for such error like 1/12 (8.3333333%) to occur. Probably something more on the 0.0000000000000000001%. Cant determine it but guess using the right formula you can find it.

The problem is measuring large objects in space, and that's where relativity issue came from (and not with Einstein, but first person to mention it that I am aware was Galileo). When you try to measure a celestial body you can't frame all the elements of the equation, either just you and your measuring tool (the telescope) or one of the particular bodies. That's why you need to include other better known celestial bodies as triangulation sources. And you can frame relatively if for example you try to measure something within our galaxy, as you can ignore the movement of the galaxy drifting through the universe. But not the movement of the objects within the galaxy. And if your measurement efforts jump to the closest galaxy then you can't frame it at all. Theory of relativity+Lorentz transformation (the theory that determines the distortional universe one sees in opposition to the real shape of the universe) and their formulas using the Minkowski and its a way to overcome the error and give the real figures (not 100& accurate but much more then using the Newton laws)
Worse thou when measuring black holes, as you know. The way they distortion light makes it impossible to make acceptable measures even considering relativity. For a start one can't even determine what kind of distortion is really occuring, can either be a slow down of light while moving away from the blackhole, or a change on its trajectory while passing tangentially to the black hole (probably some stars you see close to a black hole are actually behind it and not "next to" it), the whole light supposed to reach us is absorbed by the black hole (there might be stars there you can't see) or even in case there is no light speed limit and we just were not able to create the conditions to make it cross the limit, and the black hole gravity is enough to speed it up.

 

[kiwisushi]

I can tell you one thing that is currently impossible, humans creating a rip in space-time because the quantity of matter-energy is far higher than anything we can output, and the sun for that matter. It may not be impossible forever, but currently it is.

 

[MurderousToaster]

A digon, changing the past, Santa Claus, uhmmm.. me giving a shit about alt dimensions...
Come on you can't use that as a argument for anything being possible because there is no way to prove it

But there is also no way to disprove it.

The onus of proof is one proving the idea, not disproving it. For example, I make the conjecture that I ride dinosaurs around only when people are not observing me during which time I also shoot lasers at cowboys.

Now just because you can't disprove it doesn't mean it's true.

Huh, I was trying to respond to you quoting me, but it appears to have been gone. Did you misinterpret me as trying to prove it was possible, and respond with proof that it was impossible?

 

[MurderousToaster]

Just, here, skip the shit.

Provide me with mathematical proof that it is possible to divide by zero.

Again, you made the statement. The burden of proof is on you. Sadly you have missed the point entirely of this. I was trying to get you to back up your statements instead of restating your premise, shutting your ears and declaring victory, or relying on shaky arguments. I would have accepted a copy+paste from any site on the web, even a link would have been sufficient. Just so you know, this is the answer: There exists no such element x in Real numbers such that x^(-1) is the multiplicative inverse of 0 yielding the multiplicative identity element of 1. I am no math major but what we call zero seems to be pretty universal. I would doubt we could find a universe where this proof doesn't hold true. I can be wrong though.

If you just say something unconnected again, I'll just not respond at all.

And, as a side note, in your p.s you appear to have misread me. Here's what I said:
That's just telling the calculator to provide a set response rather than fulfilling the actual sum.

That is all computers(which a calculator is) do though. They provide a set response set by the programmer. That error you see on a calculator is a set response put in by the programmer.

If your computers didn't perform the calculations and sums, they would not work. That is fairly obvious. You think someone went through every mathematical possibility, programming the correct answers? That would be ridiculous. They'd still be working on the first calculator now.

Whatever. I give up with you. You're flat-out refusing to prove that dividing by zero is possible until I, I dunno, go into the past and ask the first person who discovered you can't do as as to why.

As a side note, it is you that is just "shutting your ears and declaring victory". You're just saying "Give me proof!" when it is a widely-known fact that you cannot divide by zero.

Whatever. I'll just copy-paste from Wikipedia, since you seem to feel that you don't want to actually respond until I provide something.

In mathematics, a division is called a division by zero if the divisor is zero. Such a division can be formally expressed as a / 0 where a is the dividend. Whether this expression can be assigned a well-defined value depends upon the mathematical setting. In ordinary (real number) arithmetic, the expression has no meaning.

Also, someone provided this which helps my point:

"Assume you can divide by zero.
0 x a =0 and 0 x b =0 where a=/= b

0=0
0 x a = 0 x b taking out a common factor of zero
a=b which contradicts the original statement a=/=b hence you can not divide by zero."

Happy now? If you just respond with "GIVE PROOF!" again, I'll just sort of give up on my slight sliver of hope of you ever responding and actually disproving it.

And, the fact is, I don't want to win. If you can disprove it, go ahead and do so. If I'm wrong, I'm wrong.

 

[Smallells]

Argueing against your point is thus impossible

 

[Bloodstain]

36 for, 36 against. Wow.

Personally, I think anything is possible.

Since the universe is infinite, everything that has ever been thought must exist somewhere. Provided that the universe actually *is* infinite, which is yet to be proven.

Wrong. There is not, for instance, a purple hippopotamus in my bedroom at this point. It is imaginable, but it is not happening. By specifying where and when things happen (my bedroom, right now), you can put limits on things.

Then again, there could be a place resembling the earth, including you and your room, where purple hippopotamus actually could be

I guess the statement "Anything is possible" is far too general...

36 for, 36 against. Wow.

Personally, I think anything is possible.

Since the universe is infinite, everything that has ever been thought must exist somewhere. Provided that the universe actually *is* infinite, which is yet to be proven.

Surely not. Just because infinity is a factor it doesn't mean anything can happen. If I flip a coin an infinite amount of times I could land a heads every time. Just because I've flipped it an infinite amount of times doesn't mean I have to get tails at some point. it is highly likely, but not definite.

You do have a point there. Please replace "must exist" with "is highly likely to exist".

EDIT: I guess I should stop posting in threads about possibility and the universe right before going to sleep.

 

[jigilojoe]

Someone actually laughing at a film by the guys that make the 'Scary/Epic/Adventure Movies'

 

[Zacharine]

Snip

Unless we wish to begin discuss Lorentz Transformations (something which I admit I have little experience in, and even less experience in english terminology of it), I suggest we leave four-vectors alone. However, since you declaration of Minkowski-space reference for the rulers I will deal with.

You set the event spacial vectors close to eachother. Why? To get an impressivly small sounding difference in measurement, that has nothing to do with the fact that there is a difference. And my argument has been that with sufficient difference in the timelike v(0) vectors of two events, an observer that is event 2 would measure the foot-long object that is event 1 as 13 inches long.

To put it simply: you chosen as an example specifically limited four-vectors, precisely because if we unbind the fourvectors, the possibility to measure a 13 inch foot exists.

Precisely why we have Lorentz Transformation: to make sense of and combine the reference grids in the odd cases such as this, as you said. Without it we would be hard-pressed to explain hypothetical observations such as this, or the very real observations we do make of celestial objects.

We seem to be talking of two slightly disconnected things: I argue that it is possible to measure a 13inch long foot (thereby, for the observer, making the foot-long object be 13 inches long), you argue that the foot-long object is always 12 inches long and only our perception of it changes.

Almost as if we are saying the same thing, but from a completely opposite viewpoint.

EDIT: the difference here seems to stem from me saying that there is no absolute frame of reference, whereas you hold the only practical frame (that being our own) as the default basis to compare things to.

 

[Hicerion]

Don't know if it was said already, but a quote from Batman:

"Many things are improbable, but nothing is impossible."

 

[Eternalsun]

Yeah anything is possible. unless your talking about it actually physically happening. in your dreams anything can happen.

 

[dietpeachsnapple]

The speed at which this dissolves into futility it staggering. If nothing is impossible, and everything is possible, there is no frame of reference to have a conversation at all. I appreciate the Cartesian doubt, but there comes a point where it is an exercise in semantics as opposed to an exercise of dispelling entrenched paradigms.

Or, in normal English:
This discussion is becoming pointless really quickly. If nothing is impossible, and everything is possible, then this question is entirely pointless, and shouldn't generate as much discussion as it has. You keep saying 'alternate dimensions make everything fine', and we keep saying 'even so, there are limits', so this has become a game of people trying to find a loophole in your rules rather than a thread of people letting their imaginations wander, free of the rules of this world.

Sorry, I'm usually the one with the posts using sufficiently obscure English to deter several readers...

Thank you, I suppose. I felt that my statements were imbued with exceedingly accurate word choice for the purpose of succinctly expressing my stance on the matter. If that is interfered with by that word choice being inappropriate for my audience, then it was, naturally, a mistake on my part.

 

[dietpeachsnapple]

The speed at which this dissolves into futility it staggering. If nothing is impossible, and everything is possible, there is no frame of reference to have a conversation at all. I appreciate the Cartesian doubt, but there comes a point where it is an exercise in semantics as opposed to an exercise of dispelling entrenched paradigms.

i may sound stupid saying this but.. did you chose those words intentionally so that NO-ONE would have the foggiest idea of what youre on about!?

In short, no. That was not my intention.

 

[AwesomeNinjaPowers]

Anything is possible unless proven without a shadow of a doubt, and there are always doubts =D

 

[Vitor Goncalves]

*snip*


EDIT: the difference here seems to stem from me saying that there is no absolute frame of reference, whereas you hold the only practical frame (that being our own) as the default basis to compare things to.

Yes I think we are in agreement on 90% of the things. No there is no absolute frame, that should be implicit when I gave two examples of frames, yourself, or the galaxy to facilitate measuring. And it was our own frame that allowed us to notice the distortion in first place and that relying on it would lead us to increasing error
But the difference was never there, the difference is you said 1 foot as the unit of measure will change (why not the inch thou?), and I said just the 1 foot object (not the unit) will "change".

 

[Gigano]

Wasn't this answered centuries ago?

"I think, therefore I am"...

Illusions as the world may be, I at least must be real to ponder it, and thus it is impossible that I do not exist, whatever "I" may be.

So no, anything's not possible. A thought without a thinker, for instance.

If we keep to what may exist in the physical world, then in abstract theory everything can exist, and for all practical purposes humans need worry about none of it, apart from that which they have scientific or empirical indications for actually do exist.

 

[ComptonEffect]

'I think therefore I am' isn't technically correct, it presupposes the I.

Wasn't this answered centuries ago?

"I think, therefore I am"...

Illusions as the world may be, I at least must be real to ponder it, and thus it is impossible that I do not exist, whatever "I" may be.

So no, anything's not possible. A thought without a thinker, for instance.

If we keep to what may exist in the physical world, then in abstract theory everything can exist, and for all practical purposes humans need worry about none of it, apart from that which they have scientific or empirical indications for actually do exist.

'I think therefore I am' isn't technically correct, it presupposes the 'I'. It's akin to saying 'it rains therefore it is', wherein reality the 'it' is just a grammatical placeholder rather than a real, corporeal entity (i.e. 'it' doesn't exist itself).

As for saying 'we can't disprove anything' (i.e. magic), that's a logical fallacy called the appeal to ignorance. When you make an assertion something exists you have to be able to prove it does or it's a meaningless statement. The burden of proof is upon you because you're asserting the existence of something beyond the ontological benchmark.

As for things that are impossible... you can't have an unmarried bachelor, that's just a fact of logic. Such a thing would be impossible.

EDIT: Oooh, just thought of another. Something cannot be blue and not blue... that's the law of the excluded middle.

 

[Zacharine]

But the difference was never there, the difference is you said 1 foot as the unit of measure will change (why not the inch thou?), and I said just the 1 foot object (not the unit) will "change".

Did I say that? I was pretty out of it yesterday.

Hmm, fact-checking time. *begins browsing the thread back* I'll be back soon.

EDIT: let's see, i've said (regarding the 1 foot lenght) that:

"Because lenght is relative. A 13 inch foot exists, as long as the observers are moving at sufficients speeds relative to eachother."

"But time is relative, dependant upon the speed of the observers relative to eachother. Hence, if observers move at different speeds, they measure a different lenght by using that formula."

"But since all speeds are relative to eachother, who can say what the objective reality is? I measure something, someone else moving at .4c measures something else, who would arbitate as to which one of us is wrong or right?

No-one, because as long as we made our measurements stringently, we are both right."

"an observer that is event 2 would measure the foot-long object that is event 1 as 13 inches long."

" I argue that it is possible to measure a 13inch long foot (thereby, for the observer, making the foot-long object be 13 inches long)"

And your own statement of

"What does speed have to do with lenght in this case?! Relativity is an ilusion and leads to measurement errors of time and space, but the real/absolute time and space keep the same. "

I'm sorry, but I must ask you to clarify and either provide the quote where I said that, or at least the post number from where you inferred that. Because I am honestly a bit confused.

 

[Vitor Goncalves]

But the difference was never there, the difference is you said 1 foot as the unit of measure will change (why not the inch thou?), and I said just the 1 foot object (not the unit) will "change".

Did I say that? I was pretty out of it yesterday.

Hmm, fact-checking time. *begins browsing the thread back* I'll be back soon.

EDIT: let's see, i've said (regarding the 1 foot lenght) that:

*snip*

In your defense you didn't say yourself, but that's what was being discussed, you didnt track back enough:

There are many things that can't happen by definition, like having a 13 inch foot, or a circle with 4 corners.

The former can happen if we change the definition of a foot(when I am king of everything I will do it to scare the triscadecaphobians).

We will not even have to change definition. Because lenght is relative. A 13 inch foot exists, as long as the observers are moving at sufficients speeds relative to eachother.

It's implicit when we talk about definition that we are refering to the foot as measuring unit.

 

[Zacharine]

There are many things that can't happen by definition, like having a 13 inch foot, or a circle with 4 corners.

The former can happen if we change the definition of a foot(when I am king of everything I will do it to scare the triscadecaphobians).

We will not even have to change definition. Because lenght is relative. A 13 inch foot exists, as long as the observers are moving at sufficients speeds relative to eachother.

It's implicit when we talk about definition that we are refering to the foot as measuring unit.

My first quote was taken from that same precise post.

"We will not have to change definition" was in response to crudus' comment that a 13 inch long foot can exist as soon as we redifine foot.

And notice how I say we will not need to change the definition of foot as lenght measurement unit for there to exist a footlong piece that is measurably 13 inches.

So, I'm still a bit confused.

 

[Vitor Goncalves]

There are many things that can't happen by definition, like having a 13 inch foot, or a circle with 4 corners.

The former can happen if we change the definition of a foot(when I am king of everything I will do it to scare the triscadecaphobians).

We will not even have to change definition. Because lenght is relative. A 13 inch foot exists as long as the observers are moving at sufficients speeds relative to eachother.

It's implicit when we talk about definition that we are refering to the foot as measuring unit.

My first quote was taken from that same precise post.

"We will not have to change definition" was in response to crudus' comment that a 13 inch long foot can exist as soon as we redifine foot.

And notice how I say we will not need to change the definition of foot as lenght measurement unit for there to exist a footlong piece that is measurably 13 inches.

So, I'm still a bit confused.

No you are not confused. Saying a "13 inch foot exists" and "to exist a footlong piece that is measurably 13 inches" is not the same thing is it? But now that you replaced it I think we finally are in agreement 100%.