but i haven't heard any liberal say maybe he doesn't like obama's policies, or the chinese influx of crap barry crams into the US, they just say he's racist...

I'm either being very dense here or you guys are way over my head.

What's is so fascinating about this?

What does geometry have to do with it?
No matter what twists and turns you try to make, you can't get any smaller than a Planck length and you can't find any space between them.

This means that there cannot be an infinite number of points in any closed space.

But this rabbit hole is an offshoot of the original rabbit hole. The last time I checked, pool tables have a flat surface. So 3D doesn't come into the picture, it's only 2D.

I think when we speak about it in the context of american history, we are speaking about race in terms of ancestral identity and not nationality though,,,,

doesnt 'foreigner' imply a non citizen or nationality?

people exchange race with nationality alot,
Asia is a very homogenous nation in terms of race (ie. mostly ASIANS,which we consider a race here in the US), so I guess in their example other nationalities would pretty much also be other races,,

I think when we speak about it in the context of american history, we are speaking about race in terms of ancestral identity and not nationality though,,,,

I think that can easily be a problem with those of the same race.

It's simple. A Planck length is a point. You can't travel across a point. You are either at that point or your aren't. You can't find space between two points, there is no space there. The point is the smallest possible size. You can't get any smaller. Reality doesn't get more granular than the Planck length.

You are absolutely right. This need not apply in reality. But that does not say anything. You are refuting it on the basis that it is not necesssarily true.

I don't follow this. You say we can imagine it, and therefore it's impossible?

Why can't it be possible?

I think a counter argument's job is to state how a claim is impossible, and its job is not to state that it's not necessarily possible.

Once you place an atom, yes, there are restrictions on the placements of other atoms. But if you move this one firstly placed atom, then the others are restricted in a different way from the first set-up.

If you populate a table with three balls, which have hefty two-dimensional expanses, (when viewed from above, as to ignore the third dimension, and see the balls by their projections on the table surface) which cannot cover each other, then there is still infinite number of ways that the fininte number of balls can be laid down on the table or can occupy positions.

I say this because if you take planck space of minimum movement distance, it does not exclude any geometrical (zero dimensional) point as occupiable on the table.

If the balls could change their movement direction only in right angles, then yes, there would be no shorter distance occupiable by the centre of a ball than a planck space away. But balls bounce all kinds of degrees from each other, and this creates not minimum movements shorter than one planck space, but still, it creates occupational distances, although not in consecutive moments or planck times, that are shorter distances away from each other than one planck space.

Incidentally, if balls could change directions only by 60 degrees at any time, that would also be true. But if you allow balls to change once 90 degrees, and at another time 60 degrees, then the planck space is no longer the minimum positional distance a piece of matter can occupy in subsequent times. (But obviously not adjacent subsequent times.)

That is what I hoped you guys would understand.

From here we can see that shorter distances can be used for occupational positions of the balls, and hence, we can reduce this distance to a point, which can be found in infinite numbers the table.

There are a few assumptions that people made on my model, which I did not make.

1. I did not restrict the balls to zero dimension point size. The balls can stay real-size. Then the obvious is to imagine one particular point on the balls, which could be their geometrical centre, for instance.

To further explain how this makes no difference:
2. When two balls collide, there are a lot of points, or there is a large area, which the centres of the balls never cover in their two-dimensional projection onto the table. However, there will be collisions occurring on all points in the oncovered area, since the collisions in the future will happen on different spots, like half a ball radius away northwest, or third a ball radius south, etc., away from the original collision here discussed.

3. The balls' centre points have no restrictions on any geometrical point on the table which they can't cover. There is an infinite number of geometrical points on the table. Therefore a table with three balls bouncing off each other on it will have an infinite number of combination of balls.

4. The only restriction of covered points on the table is that the surface of the table which is a little less than a ball's radius away from the bounce-guard inside bumper wall of the table, are restricted from the ball's centres passing over them. This is so becasue the balls can't get closer to the rigid walls than at least one ball radius away. the rigid side of the table is lined with rubbery, bouncing material, which "gives" when it decelares a ball by contracting, and then accelerates the ball back to the table as it reexpands.

I made one assumption too. This is the assumption that when a body moves in a straight line, and changes direction to another straight line which cover an angle which is not 90 degrees or any integer multiple of 90 degrees, then the ball or an object moves in that straight line. This is an assumption, which is unnecessary to most, but I say why I make it: if you draw a straight line on a computer screen, then the line progresses in a zig-zag, always keeping a general direction, but moving from pixel to pixel only in 90 or -90 or in 0 (zero) degree turns. This is so because pixels are arranged on the screen in a geometrically strict row-column fashion.

If, and only if, in reality the movement of an object would zig-zag on a square- or regular triangularly patterned fashion, only apporximating the to us apparent travel direction, then it would be possible to say that not all points (geometrical points) will be covered on the table by the the balls or their centres.

This assumption is not necessitated by our knowledge of physics. It is not necessary to make at all, as there is no reason to believe that things move in a right-angle zig-zag only because our screens are squarely laid out by pixels.

This is an assumption nevertheless, because it is possible that it will be discovered in the future that this is the only way things can progress in movement.

However, until such time that it becomes known that planck movement is not freely angular, my argument stands, which is that three or any finite number of balls that fit there to allow the bouncing on a finite area sized table have the potential of comprizing an infinite number combinations of distinct and non-identical set of locational arrangements of the balls on the table.

I think it is an assumption that evidence will be found to 'prove' men descended from primates

and even then, that would not disprove or negate the possibility of there having been an Adam and Eve who were created by God, it would only open a new possibility that IF there were Adam and Eve, they may have had the form of a primate
, still created by God and able to communicate with Him

Santorum probably caught his wife back on the computer AGAIN.
When he gets to be president, he sure is gonna put the kibosh on THAT!


[/quote

Why did he only deliver white babies?? He turned no one away, and delivered babies for free. He doesn't sound racist to me.

I didn't know about that law but California really does have a lot of laws. I haven't seen raw almonds in super markets, but I can still get them in health food stores here in Colorado.

Well thank you!



Honestly, I don't see how there can ever be "truth" in this debate. We humans are never going to know everything! And in that space of what we don't know, our human nature is always going to have us arguing the possibilities. Even intelligent people with an interest in learning are brought up differently, in different circumstances, and do not easily agree. To me, the value of learning is that it encourages you to be tolerant of other points of view and humble about your own. One of the greatest sentences a person can say in any language is, "You may be right."

The bold statement above is impossible.

I think this side track is silly in the extreme

A proton is 100,000,000,000,000,000,000 Planck lengths in diameter. Nothing is smaller than a plank length. What Wux posted makes absolutely no sense.

actually, there is a finite (but large) number of combinations for ball positions because there is a finite number of balls and a finite number of points on the table

neither of those factors CONTINUE to increase, so they can be figured out


and this

'Insert idiotic straw man attack on F=ma by someone who confuses a more detailed, derived formula with a contradictory formula...]'

is certainly a humourously ironic point of view of this particular topic


EMPHASIS : CONFUSES detailed with contradictory,,,,,,,

It cost more to make the movie Titanic than it did to build the Titanic.

This is just a friendly reminder members are not allowed to direct insults toward other members this includes petty name calling.

If we get a thrid party then we'll get some idiot running the country!

It's exactly what's happened in Rhode Island. We got a third party and the candidate got 34% of the vote and WON. Now we have Forrest Gump running our state!