Path: csiph.com!xmission!news.glorb.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: Mon, 26 Oct 2015 12:40:11 -0500 Message-ID: <562E73A3.729B@ix.netcom.com> Date: Mon, 26 Oct 2015 10:40:35 -0800 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> <562B1D92.2E74@ix.netcom.com> <60c37b64-1c69-4fc6-925b-27e0a08763bb@googlegroups.com> <562C6C1E.1927@ix.netcom.com> <562D5196.668E@ix.netcom.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Lines: 219 X-Usenet-Provider: http://www.giganews.com NNTP-Posting-Host: 45.49.183.72 X-Trace: sv3-Z9Mtrkbeb67rjkOYpT4YyZXxMRwXArBOt39ckAZ4hn/05arTaubPfDfoqaUrW6gUuZeetvYDgw10wIm!ULE/vxZHd/B5bjtxwfh1dT6heezx/398wYdw72M3ZaCg0iXFy/pQVK+MUC3GkCLfOMR+sXeZCI8G!wXQeYLAl 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: 11002 Xref: csiph.com sci.physics:528255 Ross A. Finlayson wrote: > > On Sunday, October 25, 2015 at 3:03:05 PM UTC-7, The Starmaker wrote: > > The Starmaker wrote: > > > > > > Ross A. Finlayson wrote: > > > > > > > > On Friday, October 23, 2015 at 10:56:18 PM UTC-7, The Starmaker wrote: > > > > > 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'. > > > > > > > > Truth is discovered / > > > > lies are invented / > > > > when you discover a lie / > > > > that's the truth > > > > > > > > That's poetic, but also "truths" are invented, > > > > sure. > > > > > > > > There's not so much a technical difference > > > > between inventing one's mental machinery > > > > and discovering it's the truth. > > > > > > > > Really though I think you'd be more interested > > > > in possibilities in mathematics for physics > > > > than the semantics of "discovery vs. invention" > > > > when those aren't exclusive. That's not so much > > > > a wild goose chase, as chasing a goose (or "snipe"). > > > > > > > > (You can leave that to mathematics. Also that > > > > doesn't interfere with your cognitive semantics > > > > about knowledge and its discovery, or what you > > > > establish via action.) > > > > > > I don't undersatnd what you are saying... > > > you simply have a perpective of the world > > > where you see math and laws of physics as > > > somewhere out there...on what planet, Pluto? > > > Mars...under a rock somewhere? Where is it that these > > > math rules and laws of physics exist at? maybe on an asteroid, > > > a comet...inside a star? It has to be somewhere besides...in you mind. > > > > > > But where??? where is it at? > > > > > > Yous are no different than people who believe in flying saucers from > > > outer space or, ghosts. > > > > > > There are just inventions of the mind... > > > > > > And I cannot believe people 'still' hang to a guy born 347 BC named Plato. > > > > > > Plato invented the inventions of the mind. > > > > > > I'll take it a step further.. > > looking at it in reverse... > > the laws of physics > > cannot explain...people, > > math cannot explain people. > > > > Things that don't exist cannot explain that which does. > > > > People exist on earth. Where do the laws of physics exist? What place in the universe? > > > > > > Answer: There is no place... > > > > it exist only in the mind. > > So Starmaker and HVAC are the same? > > "A Theory of Mind", and there are various of > those, may be an enlightened personal philosophy > (and it's not a lack thereof). > > The field of cognition as of beliefs / desires / > motivations in a usual model of sentience , in > part explains people. > > We're scientists. We know that science informs > us, including that bad science misinforms (that's > quantitative). > > Here, mathematics is established via proof, logical > proof. From the foundations of a mathematical logic, > mathematical relations _are established as facts, > then physicists know their _model of physics_ is > a mathematical model where the mathematics if fixed, > mathematics is never wrong, only the model can be > wrong. > > This is familiar from a usual hallway quote or classroom > quip with "quantum mechanics is never wrong", qualifiedly, > "if you can find an error in quantum mechanics we can publish > it and get famous." Its the brass ring, but generally > also considered somewhat difficult to achieve (learning to > understand quantum mechanics). > > Our physical model has components seemingly / obviously > very well suited to utilize a mathematical theory of > "real" (for the concrete) mathematical infinitesimals, > here, for as of the differential (often "dx"). > > Then, where the grail is "solving for the path integral", > it is of the consequences of all configuration of > experiment, then for that a mathematical physics would > be needing infinity, if it's in the physics (really). > > The universe is infinite or we'd be a point (all > one reference frame). That we aren't, is that it is. > > Does Einstein have enough quotable material, that > you can find any truth you need from him? (It's a > start.) Luckily his imagination was unbounded. You don't have to be and Einstein to have unbounded imagination... Mathematics is just a walt disney cartoon like mickey mouse. Somebody draws a few lines, calls it a mouse.. and it takes a life of it's own. Now you have disney land and kids around the world want to see micky mouse. But it's just a few lines on paper...a cartoon. Mathematics was around before Plato was born... by the time Plato...'discovered it', it already took a life of it's own. I think you're just making a mountain out of a mathematical infinitesimals molehill.