Theos-Talk Archives (June 2002 Message tt00112)

Ademma: "Wouldn't infinity divided by infinity equal to one , just as 
pi divided by pi.

That is only true of finite numbers. Looking at Newton's second law 
again, we see that if f=ma then dividing both sides of the equation 
by m, we get a=f/m. Both these equations say the same thing, in 
other words. So if f=ma and m is infinity, any value of a will also 
make f infinity as well. That is why dividing infinity by infinity 
is said in mathematucs to be indeterminate.

Ademma: "And if irresistible force met an immovable object it would 
lead to a kind of chemical change. Leading to something as immaculate 
as the big bang.

To make the terms "irresistible force" and "immovable object" 
meaningful, I would submit we must redefine them as infinite force 
and infinite mass. If we sum all the force in the universe it is 
less than infinite, and ditto with mass. So we are not talking about 
a scenario that is possible in nature, even during rhe Big Bang. 
Moreover, since the value of acceleration assuming infinite force and 
mass may be positive and non zero, Newton's second law 
suggests "immovable object" is an oxymoron. There is no such thing. 
Even an infinite mass would be movable, confronted with an infinite 
force. That is what creates the paradox. Once we spot the oxymoron, 
we see that the question is meaningless.

The same is the solution of the medieval scholastic question of 
whether God can create an object so heavy he cannot lift it. The 
real question is, can God create an immovable object? Since any 
object is movable, given sufficient force, the answer here is no.

Of course, you could argue that an infinite mass, were there such a 
thing in nature, would have some of the properties of a black hole 
and may not be subject to classical physics.

Ademma: "I may not be able to explain it in mathematical terms but 
wouldn't a planet be a sphere just as a clam develops a pearl? A 
pearl formed around a grain of sand or other foreign matter. So the 
sun could produce polar density (like a shell) leading cosmic dust or 
some kind of matter to ball up keeping it round from magnetic 
polarities.

Different principle. The fact that matter is solid (i.e., displays 
cohesion) is theoretically due to the fact that the molecules which 
comprise it have "bonds" with which they bond to other molecules in 
the neighborhood. Each molecule has so many of these molecular 
bonds. If a molecule is inside a mass of matter, all its molecular 
bonds may be complete, meaning they are all in use bonding to other 
molecules. However, if a molecule is on the surface of a piece of 
matter, it is not surrounded on all sides by other molecules, and 
therefore is more likely to have uncompleted molecular bonds. That 
is why you can press two very smooth pieces ot steel together with 
tremendous force and they will fuse. The molecules at the surfaces 
of the two pieces of steel complete their molecular bonds, and the 
two pieces of metal become one. Don't try this at home, because it 
takes a lot of force and the surfaces have to be very smooth for the 
molecules to come that close together. You probably know that 
machines made of steel sometimes seize up when very finely machined 
parts fuse together.

Anyway, the molecules which have uncompleted molecular bonds are said 
to be in a higher energy state than are those with all their 
molecular bonds completed. Therefore, the more surface area there is 
to a piece of matter, the higher the energy state of the entire 
system of molecules. With analytic geometry and calculus you can 
show that of all the possible solid shapes, the one which minimizes 
surface area per unit volume is a perfect sphere. The sphere is 
therefore the lowest energy state, to which nature always tends.

Planets which spin on their axis tend to be not perfect spheres but 
to bulge at the equator because of centrifugal and other forces.