Create a New Forum Admin Login Member Login Contribute to Voyager Search VoyForums Help Desk VoyForums Exchange VoyForums Directory/Categories VoyForums Homepage VoyForums News FAQ - Frequently Asked Questions

[ Show ]

Support VoyForums

[ Shrink ]

VoyForums Announcement: Programming and providing support for this service has been a labor of love since 1997. We are one of the few services online who values our users' privacy, and have never sold your information. We have even fought hard to defend your privacy in legal cases; however, we've done it with almost no financial support -- paying out of pocket to continue providing the service. Due to the issues imposed on us by advertisers, we also stopped hosting most ads on the forums many years ago. We hope you appreciate our efforts.

Show your support by donating any amount. (Note: We are still technically a for-profit company, so your contribution is not tax-deductible.) PayPal Acct: Feedback:

Donate to VoyForums (PayPal):

Thursday, May 15, 05:10:53am

[ Login ] [ Main index ] [ Post a new message ] [ Search | Check update time | Archives: 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, [6], 7, 8, 9, 10 ]

Subject: Your objection is noted but irrelevant Author: Damoclese [ Next Thread | Previous Thread | Next Message | Previous Message ] Date Posted: 03/25/04 1:47pm In reply to: Wade A. Tisthammer 's message, "Effect" on 03/25/04 12:55pm > >That does not logically follow. The distance could be >finite, thereby not requiring one to travel an >infinite space. It could be, but it is not treated as such. When dealing with motion, one is necessarily dealing with calculus, and calculus deals with infinite distances that converge on finite points, like it or not. I suggest you take up your objection with calculus itself, and if you have something better to offer to offer it. You'll be remembered for many generations to come. >But if we don't travel that way (i.e. each step we >halve our distance) we don't necessarily never cross >it. If we travel an infinite number of such distance >intervals with each step, then the above need not >apply. Halving it is irrelevant. You could 1/4 it or 1/8 it or whatever you liked. The fact of the matter is within the bounds of calculus infinities have finite answers. I didn't make the rules up, so I suggest you take up your objections with those who might be responsible for "changing" the rules of calculus if you have a better system. If not, I think one is simply forced to accept that we seem to travel an infinite distance that can yield a finite answer. Otherwise, I think you are faced with questioning the underpinning of calculus as unsound on your own. (You wouldn't be the first) Yet, the fact remains that a pure logical system like calculus has generated something you find to be logically unreasonable. Which direction do you go now? Are you going to reject a premise calculus rests on? Or are you going to go with how reality SEEMS to be to you and use calculus as a conveinient model? (although not necessarily valid in reality?) [ Next Thread | Previous Thread | Next Message | Previous Message ]

Replies:

Subject Author Date Speaking of irrelevant, what's calculus got to do with it? Wade A. Tisthammer 03/29/04 12:48pm Calculus -- QUITTNER, 04/ 5/04 1:50pm you oughtta -- Damoclese, 04/ 5/04 3:09pm ...explain yourself. -- Wade A. Tisthammer, 04/ 6/04 10:50am terse answers -- Damoclese, 04/ 6/04 7:41pm Succinct replies. -- Wade A. Tisthammer, 04/ 7/04 11:48pm That's what I'm talking about -- Damoclese, 04/ 8/04 7:44am Really? -- Wade A. Tisthammer, 04/ 8/04 10:07am Watch this -- Damoclese, 04/ 8/04 10:29am I'm watching. -- Wade A. Tisthammer, 04/11/04 9:38pm and oh yeah -- damoclese, 04/ 8/04 10:51am Oh yeah! Kool Aid for everyone! -- Wade A. Tisthammer, 04/11/04 9:48pm Assuming -- Damoclese, 04/12/04 8:25am Infinity. -- Wade A. Tisthammer, 04/12/04 10:25am heh -- Damoclese, 04/12/04 11:14am Tee hee. -- Wade A. Tisthammer, 04/12/04 4:47pm "one" -- Damoclese, 04/12/04 6:56pm Two -- Wade A. Tishtammer, 04/14/04 1:06pm What's good for the goose -- Damoclese, 04/14/04 5:04pm What other alternatives are there? -- Wade A. Tisthammer, 04/15/04 11:37am Ganders -- Damoclese, 04/15/04 5:36pm Why abandon logic? -- Wade A. Tisthammer, 04/28/04 12:14pm Hiatus over -- Damoclese, 04/28/04 6:53pm Illogical to abandon logic. -- Wade A. Tisthammer, 04/29/04 12:47pm what a bounty -- Damoclese, 04/29/04 2:25pm Of logic. -- Wade A. Tisthammer, 05/ 2/04 3:11pm of intuition -- Damoclese, 05/ 4/04 10:51am Of more logic. -- Wade A. Tisthammer, 05/ 7/04 2:25pm One mistake... -- Wade A. Tisthammer, 04/15/04 11:40am