Path: csiph.com!au2pb.net!usenet.blueworldhosting.com!feeder01.blueworldhosting.com!peer02.iad.highwinds-media.com!news.highwinds-media.com!feed-me.highwinds-media.com!Xl.tags.giganews.com!border1.nntp.dca1.giganews.com!nntp.giganews.com!local2.nntp.dca.giganews.com!nntp.earthlink.com!news.earthlink.com.POSTED!not-for-mail NNTP-Posting-Date: Sat, 24 Oct 2015 00:56:09 -0500 Message-ID: <562B1D92.2E74@ix.netcom.com> Date: Fri, 23 Oct 2015 22:56:34 -0700 From: The Starmaker Reply-To: starmaker@ix.netcom.com X-Mailer: Mozilla 3.04Gold (WinNT; U) MIME-Version: 1.0 Newsgroups: sci.physics Subject: Re: Why is the universe flat? References: <2fe6cc0a-0d4a-4ccc-9b86-9e972510fb74@googlegroups.com> <77071cef-e1e9-4b5b-b142-a1c69a4ccd45@googlegroups.com> <884aa45d-396b-4019-bdba-9fed1d1e3f32@googlegroups.com> <9-OdnQ7F878gobfLnZ2dnUU7-I2dnZ2d@giganews.com> <-radnaQZmdR7yLfLnZ2dnUU7-fmdnZ2d@giganews.com> <-radnaEZmdQixLfLnZ2dnUU7-fmdnZ2d@giganews.com> <562A81DC.4350@ix.netcom.com> <817a393f-5fba-471f-9e4d-6d15a939db74@googlegroups.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Lines: 86 X-Usenet-Provider: http://www.giganews.com NNTP-Posting-Host: 45.49.183.72 X-Trace: sv3-TcAxXqXtYMKjboSTB3RbeCqTYcuoFak8Wt508X/a8gjXKTwCMByo/M+B08gcL0nnIpT/p7lXwph12h8!GE9F65txk3/8s1TK8c8q8Es0K4BWKFdcKaJlUFoK3f3u3IT+2s/iYddJ2rJgKoLjULHxl4B7hUif!RXxkxsHO X-Abuse-and-DMCA-Info: Please be sure to forward a copy of ALL headers X-Abuse-and-DMCA-Info: Otherwise we will be unable to process your complaint properly X-Postfilter: 1.3.40 X-Original-Bytes: 5206 X-Received-Bytes: 5318 X-Received-Body-CRC: 29685156 Xref: csiph.com sci.physics:527836 Ross A. Finlayson wrote: > > On Friday, October 23, 2015 at 11:51:55 AM UTC-7, The Starmaker wrote: > > Ross A. Finlayson wrote: > > > > > > On Friday, October 23, 2015 at 9:01:07 AM UTC-7, Sam Wormley wrote: > > > > On 10/23/15 10:54 AM, Ross A. Finlayson wrote: > > > > >> Background for you Ross > > > > >> > > > > >> Refraction by Lenses > > > > >> >http://www.physicsclassroom.com/class/refrn/Lesson-5/Refraction-by-Lenses > > > > >> > > > > >> Refraction and Lenses > > > > >> >http://www.bowlesphysics.com/images/AP_Physics_B_-_Refraction_and_Lenses.pdf > > > > >> > > > > >> Atmospheric refraction > > > > >> >https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Atmospheric_refraction > > > > >> > > > > >> > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > Thanks, I could already search for that, and I have a > > > > > library here including some texts on optics, eg, "wave > > > > > optics" besides "geometrical optics". (I've already > > > > > been through uni. undergraduate physics courses, > > > > > with a mathematics degree.) > > > > > > > > > > > > I would like you to read these resources. > > > > > > > > > > Sorry Sam, I work for Uncle Al. Get your own grad student. > > > > > > That's a usenet funny - Sam: that's about "wave > > > optics" AND "geometrical optics", and other usual > > > interesting optical effects that yet fall under "to > > > be more fully explained". Thank you, Fresnel and Land. > > > > > > Then, here, for mathematical physics writ large, this > > > is about "infinity, mathematical, in physics". > > > > > > > > > > infinity, mathematical, in physics does not...compute. > > > > > > are the laws of physics exist somewhere, someplace ...anyplace somewhere > > other than inside your mind? > > > > does evil exist as a force or a place somewhere out there somewhere?? > > > > > > "infinity, mathematical, in physics" is just....a thought, ..it exist > > only in the mind...like evil. > > No, StarMaker, that is metaphysics, meaning actually > of morality, meaning not of physics, which is > scientific. (There are scientific theories of > what and why people believe.) > > I'm neutral (lawful good), evil doesn't enter into it. > > Infinity, on the other hand, is well nigh ubiquitous > in our field equations of physics for where it's been > carefully detailed in "normalization" and etcetera, > standard modeling of the "Dirac delta or impulse" and > etcetera, and otherwise out from the classical (where > Cauchy/Weierstrass already sufficiently formalized the > "differential", which some physicists may know as "raw", > or a "mathematical infinitesimal", for the "beyond the" > or "extra-" standard mathematics, rigorous and formal so > without equivocation and etcetera. > > ([Einstein quotes.]) > > This is science, don't hem while you haw. You believe that math is a discovery, not an invention of man. What about 'the laws of physics', are they an invention of man or a discovery? Or, is it as simple as...'people see what they want to see'.