Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]
Groups > sci.physics > #526497 > unrolled thread
| Started by | Sam Wormley <swormley1@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| First post | 2015-10-16 19:26 -0500 |
| Last post | 2015-11-02 12:22 -0800 |
| Articles | 20 on this page of 179 — 15 participants |
Back to article view | Back to sci.physics
Why is the universe flat? Sam Wormley <swormley1@gmail.com> - 2015-10-16 19:26 -0500
Re: Why is the universe flat? The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> - 2015-10-16 20:44 -0700
Re: Why is the universe flat? The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> - 2015-10-17 15:14 -0700
Re: Why is the universe flat? "Ross A. Finlayson" <ross.finlayson@gmail.com> - 2015-10-16 22:18 -0700
Re: Why is the universe flat? "Ross A. Finlayson" <ross.finlayson@gmail.com> - 2015-10-16 22:21 -0700
Re: Why is the universe flat? "Ross A. Finlayson" <ross.finlayson@gmail.com> - 2015-10-16 22:34 -0700
Re: Why is the universe flat? "Ross A. Finlayson" <ross.finlayson@gmail.com> - 2015-10-17 09:26 -0700
Re: Why is the universe flat? "Ross A. Finlayson" <ross.finlayson@gmail.com> - 2015-10-17 10:34 -0700
Why is/isn't the cosmological constant's value a "real" mathematical infinitesimal? was Re: Why is the universe flat? "Ross A. Finlayson" <ross.finlayson@gmail.com> - 2015-10-17 14:55 -0700
Re: Why is the universe flat? richard@microscitech.com - 2015-10-18 13:28 -0700
Re: Why is the universe flat? "Ross A. Finlayson" <ross.finlayson@gmail.com> - 2015-10-18 13:36 -0700
Re: Why is the universe flat? The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> - 2015-10-18 15:17 -0700
Re: Why is the universe flat? "Ross A. Finlayson" <ross.finlayson@gmail.com> - 2015-10-18 15:50 -0700
Re: Why is the universe flat? "Ross A. Finlayson" <ross.finlayson@gmail.com> - 2015-10-18 16:33 -0700
Re: Why is the universe flat? noTthaTguY <abu.kuanysh05@gmail.com> - 2015-10-18 19:20 -0700
Re: Why is the universe flat? The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> - 2015-10-18 22:37 -0700
Re: Why is the universe flat? "Ross A. Finlayson" <ross.finlayson@gmail.com> - 2015-10-18 22:58 -0700
Re: Why is the universe flat? "Ross A. Finlayson" <ross.finlayson@gmail.com> - 2015-10-18 23:05 -0700
Re: Why is the universe flat? "Ross A. Finlayson" <ross.finlayson@gmail.com> - 2015-10-18 23:15 -0700
Re: Why is the universe flat? "reber g=emc^2" <herbertglazier0@gmail.com> - 2015-10-17 10:49 -0700
Re: Why is the universe flat? "Ross A. Finlayson" <ross.finlayson@gmail.com> - 2015-10-17 11:09 -0700
Re: Why is the universe flat? Double-A <double-a3@hush.com> - 2015-10-17 12:03 -0700
Re: Why is the universe flat? pnalsing@gmail.com - 2015-10-17 12:26 -0700
Re: Why is the universe flat? jay moseley <jaymoseley@hotmail.com> - 2015-10-19 04:45 -0700
Re: Why is the universe flat? "reber g=emc^2" <herbertglazier0@gmail.com> - 2015-10-17 14:32 -0700
Re: Why is the universe flat? Sam Wormley <swormley1@gmail.com> - 2015-10-19 10:03 -0500
Re: Why is the universe flat? "reber g=emc^2" <herbertglazier0@gmail.com> - 2015-10-19 09:55 -0700
Re: Why is the universe flat? "Ross A. Finlayson" <ross.finlayson@gmail.com> - 2015-10-19 10:11 -0700
Re: Why is the universe flat? Sam Wormley <swormley1@gmail.com> - 2015-10-19 12:27 -0500
Re: Why is the universe flat? Sam Wormley <swormley1@gmail.com> - 2015-10-19 12:30 -0500
Re: Why is the universe flat? "Ross A. Finlayson" <ross.finlayson@gmail.com> - 2015-10-19 10:54 -0700
Re: Why is the universe flat? Sam Wormley <swormley1@gmail.com> - 2015-10-19 12:58 -0500
Re: Why is the universe flat? "Ross A. Finlayson" <ross.finlayson@gmail.com> - 2015-10-19 11:45 -0700
Re: Why is the universe flat? Sam Wormley <swormley1@gmail.com> - 2015-10-19 14:01 -0500
Re: Why is the universe flat? "Ross A. Finlayson" <ross.finlayson@gmail.com> - 2015-10-19 13:32 -0700
Re: Why is the universe flat? noTthaTguY <abu.kuanysh05@gmail.com> - 2015-10-19 14:15 -0700
Re: Why is the universe flat? jay moseley <jaymoseley@hotmail.com> - 2015-10-19 10:02 -0700
Re: Why is the universe flat? Sam Wormley <swormley1@gmail.com> - 2015-10-19 12:08 -0500
Re: Why is the universe flat? jay moseley <jaymoseley@hotmail.com> - 2015-10-19 10:24 -0700
Re: Why is the universe flat? Sam Wormley <swormley1@gmail.com> - 2015-10-19 12:29 -0500
Re: Why is the universe flat? Sam Wormley <swormley1@gmail.com> - 2015-10-19 12:25 -0500
Re: Why is the universe flat? jay moseley <jaymoseley@hotmail.com> - 2015-10-19 10:47 -0700
Re: Why is the universe flat? Sam Wormley <swormley1@gmail.com> - 2015-10-19 12:55 -0500
Re: Why is the universe flat? jay moseley <jaymoseley@hotmail.com> - 2015-10-19 11:35 -0700
Re: Why is the universe flat? Sam Wormley <swormley1@gmail.com> - 2015-10-19 13:49 -0500
Re: Why is the universe flat? jay moseley <jaymoseley@hotmail.com> - 2015-10-20 07:10 -0700
Re: Why is the universe flat? Sam Wormley <swormley1@gmail.com> - 2015-10-20 09:58 -0500
Re: Why is the universe flat? "Ross A. Finlayson" <ross.finlayson@gmail.com> - 2015-10-20 12:32 -0700
Re: Why is the universe flat? noTthaTguY <abu.kuanysh05@gmail.com> - 2015-10-20 16:55 -0700
Re: Why is the universe flat? "Ross A. Finlayson" <ross.finlayson@gmail.com> - 2015-10-20 21:06 -0700
Re: Why is the universe flat? noTthaTguY <abu.kuanysh05@gmail.com> - 2015-10-20 21:40 -0700
Re: Why is the universe flat? "Ross A. Finlayson" <ross.finlayson@gmail.com> - 2015-10-21 00:03 -0700
Re: Why is the universe flat? The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> - 2015-10-21 01:12 -0700
Re: Why is the universe flat? "Ross A. Finlayson" <ross.finlayson@gmail.com> - 2015-10-21 02:42 -0700
The Cosmological Constant is a real mathematical infinitesimal, Re: Why is the universe flat? "Ross A. Finlayson" <ross.finlayson@gmail.com> - 2015-10-21 17:37 -0700
free space w/ atoms therof noTthaTguY <abu.kuanysh05@gmail.com> - 2015-10-23 17:27 -0700
Re: free space w/ atoms therof "Ross A. Finlayson" <ross.finlayson@gmail.com> - 2015-10-23 17:46 -0700
Re: free space w/ atoms therof "Ross A. Finlayson" <ross.finlayson@gmail.com> - 2015-10-23 18:23 -0700
Re: Why is the universe flat? The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> - 2015-10-21 19:58 -0700
Re: Why is the universe flat? "Ross A. Finlayson" <ross.finlayson@gmail.com> - 2015-10-21 20:27 -0700
Re: Why is the universe flat? The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> - 2015-10-21 21:51 -0700
Re: Why is the universe flat? The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> - 2015-10-21 22:02 -0700
Re: Why is the universe flat? "Ross A. Finlayson" <ross.finlayson@gmail.com> - 2015-10-21 23:10 -0700
Re: Why is the universe flat? "Ross A. Finlayson" <ross.finlayson@gmail.com> - 2015-10-22 12:32 -0700
ask why, that noTthaTguY <abu.kuanysh05@gmail.com> - 2015-10-21 13:03 -0700
Re: Why is the universe flat? jay moseley <jaymoseley@hotmail.com> - 2015-10-22 13:20 -0700
Re: Why is the universe flat? "Ross A. Finlayson" <ross.finlayson@gmail.com> - 2015-10-22 14:47 -0700
Re: Why is the universe flat? "Ross A. Finlayson" <ross.finlayson@gmail.com> - 2015-10-22 14:55 -0700
Re: Why is the universe flat? Sam Wormley <swormley1@gmail.com> - 2015-10-22 16:56 -0500
Re: Why is the universe flat? "Ross A. Finlayson" <ross.finlayson@gmail.com> - 2015-10-22 15:10 -0700
Re: Why is the universe flat? Sam Wormley <swormley1@gmail.com> - 2015-10-22 19:08 -0500
Re: Why is the universe flat? "Ross A. Finlayson" <ross.finlayson@gmail.com> - 2015-10-22 22:57 -0700
Re: Why is the universe flat? Sam Wormley <swormley1@gmail.com> - 2015-10-23 08:57 -0500
Re: Why is the universe flat? "Ross A. Finlayson" <ross.finlayson@gmail.com> - 2015-10-23 08:23 -0700
Re: Why is the universe flat? Sam Wormley <swormley1@gmail.com> - 2015-10-23 10:44 -0500
Re: Why is the universe flat? "Ross A. Finlayson" <ross.finlayson@gmail.com> - 2015-10-23 08:54 -0700
Re: Why is the universe flat? Sam Wormley <swormley1@gmail.com> - 2015-10-23 11:01 -0500
Re: Why is the universe flat? "Ross A. Finlayson" <ross.finlayson@gmail.com> - 2015-10-23 09:12 -0700
Re: Why is the universe flat? The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> - 2015-10-23 11:52 -0700
Re: Why is the universe flat? "Ross A. Finlayson" <ross.finlayson@gmail.com> - 2015-10-23 12:17 -0700
Re: Why is the universe flat? The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> - 2015-10-23 22:56 -0700
Re: Why is the universe flat? "Ross A. Finlayson" <ross.finlayson@gmail.com> - 2015-10-23 23:35 -0700
Re: Why is the universe flat? The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> - 2015-10-24 22:43 -0700
Re: Why is the universe flat? The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> - 2015-10-25 14:03 -0800
Re: Why is the universe flat? "Ross A. Finlayson" <ross.finlayson@gmail.com> - 2015-10-25 15:17 -0700
Re: Why is the universe flat? The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> - 2015-10-26 10:40 -0800
Re: Why is the universe flat? "Ross A. Finlayson" <ross.finlayson@gmail.com> - 2015-10-26 11:00 -0700
Re: Why is the universe flat? The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> - 2015-10-26 13:43 -0800
Re: Why is the universe flat? The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> - 2015-10-26 14:44 -0800
Re: Why is the universe flat? "Ross A. Finlayson" <ross.finlayson@gmail.com> - 2015-10-26 15:05 -0700
Re: Why is the universe flat? The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> - 2015-10-26 17:35 -0800
Re: Why is the universe flat? "Ross A. Finlayson" <ross.finlayson@gmail.com> - 2015-10-26 17:38 -0700
Re: Why is the universe flat? The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> - 2015-10-26 18:27 -0800
Universe is curved locally, seems flat over teraparsecs noTthaTguY <abu.kuanysh05@gmail.com> - 2015-10-26 18:40 -0700
Re: Why is the universe flat? "Ross A. Finlayson" <ross.finlayson@gmail.com> - 2015-10-26 19:51 -0700
Re: Why is the universe flat? john <johnsefton288@gmail.com> - 2015-10-26 20:03 -0700
Re: Why is the universe flat? john <johnsefton288@gmail.com> - 2015-10-26 20:26 -0700
Re: Why is the universe flat? "Ross A. Finlayson" <ross.finlayson@gmail.com> - 2015-10-26 20:34 -0700
Re: Why is the universe flat? "Ross A. Finlayson" <ross.finlayson@gmail.com> - 2015-10-26 20:42 -0700
Re: Why is the universe flat? "Ross A. Finlayson" <ross.finlayson@gmail.com> - 2015-10-26 21:00 -0700
Re: Why is the universe flat? john <johnsefton288@gmail.com> - 2015-10-27 05:42 -0700
Re: Why is the universe flat? Sam Wormley <swormley1@gmail.com> - 2015-10-27 10:01 -0500
Re: Why is the universe flat? "Ross A. Finlayson" <ross.finlayson@gmail.com> - 2015-10-27 08:16 -0700
Re: Why is the universe flat? "Ross A. Finlayson" <ross.finlayson@gmail.com> - 2015-10-27 08:24 -0700
Re: Why is the universe flat? The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> - 2015-10-27 14:26 -0800
inside & outside of cell noTthaTguY <abu.kuanysh05@gmail.com> - 2015-10-27 17:11 -0700
Re: Why is the universe flat? "Ross A. Finlayson" <ross.finlayson@gmail.com> - 2015-10-27 19:36 -0700
Re: Why is the universe flat? noTthaTguY <abu.kuanysh05@gmail.com> - 2015-10-28 15:44 -0700
Re: Why is the universe flat? The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> - 2015-10-28 23:07 -0800
Re: Why is the universe flat? The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> - 2015-10-28 23:43 -0800
Re: Why is the universe flat? The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> - 2015-10-28 23:46 -0800
Re: Why is the universe flat? "Ross A. Finlayson" <ross.finlayson@gmail.com> - 2015-10-29 00:08 -0700
Re: Why is the universe flat? The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> - 2015-10-29 00:13 -0800
Re: Why is the universe flat? The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> - 2015-10-29 10:26 -0800
Re: Why is the universe flat? The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> - 2015-10-29 10:37 -0800
Re: Why is the universe flat? The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> - 2015-10-29 10:51 -0800
Re: Why is the universe flat? The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> - 2015-10-29 10:59 -0800
Re: Why is the universe flat? "Ross A. Finlayson" <ross.finlayson@gmail.com> - 2015-10-31 06:17 -0700
Re: Why is the universe flat? "Ross A. Finlayson" <ross.finlayson@gmail.com> - 2015-10-31 06:30 -0700
Re: Why is the universe flat? Sam Wormley <swormley1@gmail.com> - 2015-10-31 08:33 -0500
Re: Why is the universe flat? The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> - 2015-10-31 11:58 -0800
Re: Why is the universe flat? "Ross A. Finlayson" <ross.finlayson@gmail.com> - 2015-10-31 12:01 -0700
Re: Why is the universe flat? The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> - 2015-10-31 13:20 -0800
Re: Why is the universe flat? Sam Wormley <swormley1@gmail.com> - 2015-10-31 15:24 -0500
Re: Why is the universe flat? The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> - 2015-10-31 15:02 -0800
Re: Why is the universe flat? john <johnsefton288@gmail.com> - 2015-10-31 15:37 -0700
Re: Why is the universe flat? "Ross A. Finlayson" <ross.finlayson@gmail.com> - 2015-10-31 15:59 -0700
Re: Why is the universe flat? Sam Wormley <swormley1@gmail.com> - 2015-10-31 15:25 -0500
Re: Why is the universe flat? "reber g=emc^2" <herbertglazier0@gmail.com> - 2015-10-31 14:41 -0700
Re: Why is the universe flat? "Ross A. Finlayson" <ross.finlayson@gmail.com> - 2015-10-31 16:04 -0700
Re: Why is the universe flat? The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> - 2015-10-31 20:47 -0800
Re: Why is the universe flat? "Ross A. Finlayson" <ross.finlayson@gmail.com> - 2015-10-31 21:02 -0700
Re: Why is the universe flat? Sam Wormley <swormley1@gmail.com> - 2015-11-01 07:38 -0600
Re: Why is the universe flat? The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> - 2015-11-01 15:08 -0800
Re: Why is the universe flat? john <johnsefton288@gmail.com> - 2015-11-01 15:38 -0800
Re: Why is the universe flat? benj <none@gmail.com> - 2015-10-31 23:02 -0400
Re: Why is the universe flat? "Ross A. Finlayson" <ross.finlayson@gmail.com> - 2015-10-31 20:22 -0700
Re: Why is the universe flat? The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> - 2015-10-31 20:40 -0800
Re: Why is the universe flat? "Ross A. Finlayson" <ross.finlayson@gmail.com> - 2015-10-31 20:58 -0700
Re: Why is the universe flat? Sam Wormley <swormley1@gmail.com> - 2015-11-01 07:43 -0600
Re: Why is the universe flat? "Ross A. Finlayson" <ross.finlayson@gmail.com> - 2015-11-01 10:38 -0800
Re: Why is the universe flat? Sam Wormley <swormley1@gmail.com> - 2015-11-01 12:55 -0600
Re: Why is the universe flat? "Ross A. Finlayson" <ross.finlayson@gmail.com> - 2015-11-01 11:02 -0800
Re: Why is the universe flat? Jeffrey Bannister <jban48@pannelcamarena.org> - 2015-11-01 19:15 +0000
Re: Why is the universe flat? Sam Wormley <swormley1@gmail.com> - 2015-11-01 13:22 -0600
Re: Why is the universe flat? The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> - 2015-11-01 15:07 -0800
Re: Why is the universe flat? "Ross A. Finlayson" <ross.finlayson@gmail.com> - 2015-11-01 15:34 -0800
Re: Why is the universe flat? The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> - 2015-11-01 16:18 -0800
Re: Why is the universe flat? "Ross A. Finlayson" <ross.finlayson@gmail.com> - 2015-11-01 17:08 -0800
Re: Why is the universe flat? The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> - 2015-11-01 23:10 -0800
Re: Why is the universe flat? The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> - 2015-11-01 23:19 -0800
Re: Why is the universe flat? "Ross A. Finlayson" <ross.finlayson@gmail.com> - 2015-11-02 07:46 -0800
Re: Why is the universe flat? "Ross A. Finlayson" <ross.finlayson@gmail.com> - 2015-11-02 07:40 -0800
Re: Why is the universe flat? Sam Wormley <swormley1@gmail.com> - 2015-11-01 07:42 -0600
Re: Why is the universe flat? Sam Wormley <swormley1@gmail.com> - 2015-11-01 07:40 -0600
Re: Why is the universe flat? "reber g=emc^2" <herbertglazier0@gmail.com> - 2015-10-31 12:21 -0700
Re: Why is the universe flat? The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> - 2015-10-27 14:33 -0800
Re: Why is the universe flat? john <johnsefton288@gmail.com> - 2015-10-27 14:47 -0700
Re: Why is the universe flat? "Ross A. Finlayson" <ross.finlayson@gmail.com> - 2015-10-27 18:10 -0700
Re: Why is the universe flat? The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> - 2015-10-26 23:54 -0800
on, re noTthaTguY <abu.kuanysh05@gmail.com> - 2015-10-27 12:16 -0700
Re: Why is the universe flat? "reber g=emc^2" <herbertglazier0@gmail.com> - 2015-10-27 12:55 -0700
Re: Why is the universe flat? pnalsing@gmail.com - 2015-10-23 14:00 -0700
Re: Why is the universe flat? "Ross A. Finlayson" <ross.finlayson@gmail.com> - 2015-10-23 14:42 -0700
Re: Why is the universe flat? "Ross A. Finlayson" <ross.finlayson@gmail.com> - 2015-10-24 19:12 -0700
Re: Why is the universe flat? benj <nobody@gmail.com> - 2015-10-18 03:12 -0400
Re: Why is the universe flat? "Ross A. Finlayson" <ross.finlayson@gmail.com> - 2015-10-18 13:08 -0700
Re: Why is the universe flat? The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> - 2015-10-18 15:10 -0700
Re: Why is the universe flat? "reber g=emc^2" <herbertglazier0@gmail.com> - 2015-10-19 13:56 -0700
Re: Why is the universe flat? "nuny@bid.nes" <Alien8752@gmail.com> - 2015-10-17 12:49 -0700
Re: Why is the universe flat? "Ross A. Finlayson" <ross.finlayson@gmail.com> - 2015-10-17 13:50 -0700
Re: Why is the universe flat? Lofty Goat <rlwatkins@gmail.com> - 2015-10-17 16:45 -0500
Re: Why is the universe flat? "reber g=emc^2" <herbertglazier0@gmail.com> - 2015-10-19 12:39 -0700
Re: Why is the universe flat? Double-A <double-a3@hush.com> - 2015-10-19 14:23 -0700
theodolites noTthaTguY <abu.kuanysh05@gmail.com> - 2015-10-19 19:13 -0700
Re: Why is the universe flat? "reber g=emc^2" <herbertglazier0@gmail.com> - 2015-10-21 10:17 -0700
Re: Why is the universe flat? Double-A <double-a3@hush.com> - 2015-10-24 15:05 -0700
Re: Why is the universe flat? Sam Wormley <swormley1@gmail.com> - 2015-11-02 10:23 -0600
Re: Why is the universe flat? "reber g=emc^2" <herbertglazier0@gmail.com> - 2015-11-02 12:22 -0800
Page 5 of 9 — ← Prev page 1 2 3 4 [5] 6 7 8 9 Next page →
| From | The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-10-23 22:56 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <562B1D92.2E74@ix.netcom.com> |
| In reply to | #527713 |
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'.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | "Ross A. Finlayson" <ross.finlayson@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-10-23 23:35 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <60c37b64-1c69-4fc6-925b-27e0a08763bb@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #527836 |
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.)
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-10-24 22:43 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <562C6C1E.1927@ix.netcom.com> |
| In reply to | #527837 |
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.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-10-25 14:03 -0800 |
| Message-ID | <562D5196.668E@ix.netcom.com> |
| In reply to | #528013 |
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.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | "Ross A. Finlayson" <ross.finlayson@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-10-25 15:17 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <fc22c486-3d72-4ad5-96db-53b9ac01f446@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #528087 |
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.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-10-26 10:40 -0800 |
| Message-ID | <562E73A3.729B@ix.netcom.com> |
| In reply to | #528093 |
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.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | "Ross A. Finlayson" <ross.finlayson@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-10-26 11:00 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <330c9719-ff88-47d7-9c94-ce08f84348e4@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #528255 |
On Monday, October 26, 2015 at 10:40:15 AM UTC-7, The Starmaker wrote: > 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. So, you're OK with going back to rocks and sticks?
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-10-26 13:43 -0800 |
| Message-ID | <562E9E8E.35C8@ix.netcom.com> |
| In reply to | #528261 |
Ross A. Finlayson wrote: > > On Monday, October 26, 2015 at 10:40:15 AM UTC-7, The Starmaker wrote: > > 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. > > So, you're OK with going back to rocks and sticks? Even Einstein would be okay going back to rocks and sticks.... Albert Einstein — 'If I could do it all again, I'd be a plumber.' "I know not with what weapons World War III will be fought, but World War IV will be fought with sticks and stones." - Albert Einstein
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-10-26 14:44 -0800 |
| Message-ID | <562EACBB.2E0C@ix.netcom.com> |
| In reply to | #528261 |
Ross A. Finlayson wrote: > > On Monday, October 26, 2015 at 10:40:15 AM UTC-7, The Starmaker wrote: > > 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. > > So, you're OK with going back to rocks and sticks? If we go back to rocks and sticks, it will be the 'scientific community' doing... thank Einstein...he invented the atomic bomb, he aslo said: "I know not with what weapons World War III will be fought, but World War IV will be fought with sticks and stones." - Albert Einstein
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | "Ross A. Finlayson" <ross.finlayson@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-10-26 15:05 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <e00c5800-a836-401a-bfe5-02a4f0b37ada@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #528355 |
On Monday, October 26, 2015 at 2:43:45 PM UTC-7, The Starmaker wrote: > Ross A. Finlayson wrote: > > > > On Monday, October 26, 2015 at 10:40:15 AM UTC-7, The Starmaker wrote: > > > 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. > > > > So, you're OK with going back to rocks and sticks? > > > If we go back to rocks and sticks, it will be the 'scientific community' doing... > > thank Einstein...he invented the atomic bomb, he aslo said: > > "I know not with what weapons World War III will be fought, but World War IV will be fought with sticks and stones." - Albert Einstein Sure, I already knew Einstein's quote when I wrote that. The point is that as a novel mathematical tool, in the very foundations of continuum analysis, which is totally useful for the "continuums" of the "continuous fields" of mathematical physics, automatically equips theory with the feature.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-10-26 17:35 -0800 |
| Message-ID | <562ED4ED.7A49@ix.netcom.com> |
| In reply to | #528362 |
Ross A. Finlayson wrote: > > On Monday, October 26, 2015 at 2:43:45 PM UTC-7, The Starmaker wrote: > > Ross A. Finlayson wrote: > > > > > > On Monday, October 26, 2015 at 10:40:15 AM UTC-7, The Starmaker wrote: > > > > 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. > > > > > > So, you're OK with going back to rocks and sticks? > > > > > > If we go back to rocks and sticks, it will be the 'scientific community' doing... > > > > thank Einstein...he invented the atomic bomb, he aslo said: > > > > "I know not with what weapons World War III will be fought, but World War IV will be fought with sticks and stones." - Albert Einstein > > Sure, I already knew Einstein's quote when I wrote that. > > The point is that as a novel mathematical tool, in > the very foundations of continuum analysis, which > is totally useful for the "continuums" of the > "continuous fields" of mathematical physics, > automatically equips theory with the feature. You sound like you're talking about this... https://www.youtube.com/v/E91yxk_pT_A&autoplay=1
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | "Ross A. Finlayson" <ross.finlayson@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-10-26 17:38 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <473149b6-263d-4753-a986-73924a92b928@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #528393 |
On Monday, October 26, 2015 at 5:35:13 PM UTC-7, The Starmaker wrote: > Ross A. Finlayson wrote: > > > > On Monday, October 26, 2015 at 2:43:45 PM UTC-7, The Starmaker wrote: > > > Ross A. Finlayson wrote: > > > > > > > > On Monday, October 26, 2015 at 10:40:15 AM UTC-7, The Starmaker wrote: > > > > > 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. > > > > > > > > So, you're OK with going back to rocks and sticks? > > > > > > > > > If we go back to rocks and sticks, it will be the 'scientific community' doing... > > > > > > thank Einstein...he invented the atomic bomb, he aslo said: > > > > > > "I know not with what weapons World War III will be fought, but World War IV will be fought with sticks and stones." - Albert Einstein > > > > Sure, I already knew Einstein's quote when I wrote that. > > > > The point is that as a novel mathematical tool, in > > the very foundations of continuum analysis, which > > is totally useful for the "continuums" of the > > "continuous fields" of mathematical physics, > > automatically equips theory with the feature. > > > You sound like you're talking about this... > https://www.youtube.... No idea what you're talking about.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-10-26 18:27 -0800 |
| Message-ID | <562EE0FB.5CFA@ix.netcom.com> |
| In reply to | #528394 |
Ross A. Finlayson wrote: > > On Monday, October 26, 2015 at 5:35:13 PM UTC-7, The Starmaker wrote: > > Ross A. Finlayson wrote: > > > > > > On Monday, October 26, 2015 at 2:43:45 PM UTC-7, The Starmaker wrote: > > > > Ross A. Finlayson wrote: > > > > > > > > > > On Monday, October 26, 2015 at 10:40:15 AM UTC-7, The Starmaker wrote: > > > > > > 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. > > > > > > > > > > So, you're OK with going back to rocks and sticks? > > > > > > > > > > > > If we go back to rocks and sticks, it will be the 'scientific community' doing... > > > > > > > > thank Einstein...he invented the atomic bomb, he aslo said: > > > > > > > > "I know not with what weapons World War III will be fought, but World War IV will be fought with sticks and stones." - Albert Einstein > > > > > > Sure, I already knew Einstein's quote when I wrote that. > > > > > > The point is that as a novel mathematical tool, in > > > the very foundations of continuum analysis, which > > > is totally useful for the "continuums" of the > > > "continuous fields" of mathematical physics, > > > automatically equips theory with the feature. > > > > > > You sound like you're talking about this... > > https://www.youtube.... > > No idea what you're talking about. I'm talking about what you are talking about..."The Mandelbrot Set". It is your "continuums".
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | noTthaTguY <abu.kuanysh05@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-10-26 18:40 -0700 |
| Subject | Universe is curved locally, seems flat over teraparsecs |
| Message-ID | <888c70f8-0157-4bad-b9b6-66298f7c12e3@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #528396 |
fLt: e^p .=. e mod p. as for the M-set, the floatingpoint specifocation is inherently chaotic; hence, what > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > with a mathematics degree.) > > > You sound like you're talking about this... > > > https://www.youtube.... > > > > No idea what you're talking about. > > > I'm talking about what you are talking about..."The Mandelbrot Set". It > is your "continuums".
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | "Ross A. Finlayson" <ross.finlayson@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-10-26 19:51 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <3dcfe3c4-3c57-48c2-9e13-2ccc83ce22ad@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #528396 |
On Monday, October 26, 2015 at 6:26:39 PM UTC-7, The Starmaker wrote:
> Ross A. Finlayson wrote:
> >
> > On Monday, October 26, 2015 at 5:35:13 PM UTC-7, The Starmaker wrote:
> > > Ross A. Finlayson wrote:
> > > >
> > > > On Monday, October 26, 2015 at 2:43:45 PM UTC-7, The Starmaker wrote:
> > > > > Ross A. Finlayson wrote:
> > > > > >
> > > > > > On Monday, October 26, 2015 at 10:40:15 AM UTC-7, The Starmaker wrote:
> > > > > > > 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.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > So, you're OK with going back to rocks and sticks?
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > If we go back to rocks and sticks, it will be the 'scientific community' doing...
> > > > >
> > > > > thank Einstein...he invented the atomic bomb, he aslo said:
> > > > >
> > > > > "I know not with what weapons World War III will be fought, but World War IV will be fought with sticks and stones." - Albert Einstein
> > > >
> > > > Sure, I already knew Einstein's quote when I wrote that.
> > > >
> > > > The point is that as a novel mathematical tool, in
> > > > the very foundations of continuum analysis, which
> > > > is totally useful for the "continuums" of the
> > > > "continuous fields" of mathematical physics,
> > > > automatically equips theory with the feature.
> > >
> > >
> > > You sound like you're talking about this...
> > > https://www.youtube....
> >
> > No idea what you're talking about.
>
>
> I'm talking about what you are talking about..."The Mandelbrot Set". It
> is your "continuums".
OK. (This is a textual discussion, not conducive to
the metered presentation of "video content".)
Mandelbrot, as about the fractal or self-similar,
then is about two notions:
1) self-similarity at various scales of organization, eg
electron orbitals are like planet orbits,
the wave crest is a fringe, etc,
measuring the coastline
2) self-similarity at all scales
space-filling curves are what linear patterns
comprise or cover areas or areal segments
Basically what I would bring to your attention is
a spiral space-filling curve as from the origin as a
natural continuum, for example that is a line.
Otherwise the usual space-filling curves we see are box
curves, that "spiral" or maze in, with knight's tours and
this kind of thing ("curves" are "non-crossing").
A spiral space-filling curve (of R^2) would not be a
real-function, of sorts, because it is drawn of points,
so, each point on the spiral space-filling curve is only:
a) farther away from the origin than any preceding point
b) closer to the origin than any following point
Then in R^2, R^3, ..., R^n, the spiral space-filling curve
only fills the unit hyperball, it is from
(0, 0, { n-many}, 0) to (1, 1, {n-many}, 1).
eg:
[0,1] in R^1.
Then, it's worked up that this is another builder for
a continuum (or rather a unit length segment of a
continuum) than ran(EF) which is [0,1]. (Also it
is ran(EF) in R^1. )
Then, in _all_ the dimensions, or poly-dimensionally,
it is the same function, then also as to its pan-dimensionality.
Is this what you're talking about, "fractals" and "self-similarity"
then about "space-filling curves"?
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | john <johnsefton288@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-10-26 20:03 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <de350390-1141-4709-ba59-484bf0bf2346@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #528415 |
Galaxies are atoms. Galactic nuclei are atomic nuclei. Galactic star-arms are electrons. Up/down electrons are matter/antimatter star-arms. Neutrinos go through matter and are absorbed by galactic nuclei, resulting in expansion; similar radiations from electrons are absorbed by atomic nuclei resulting in Gravity and inertia.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | john <johnsefton288@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-10-26 20:26 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <54d3b48a-fa95-4761-bde7-9e220b3f5884@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #528417 |
Burnt-out stars are shredded when they fall back into the galactic center and the energy from absorbed neutrinos is reinvested into jets of HEPs (high-energy particles) which blast outward at .9c and produce new stars in a never-ending cycle. Similarly, the energy that electrons are constantly radiating is returned to them by their protons in the same way; the electrons constantly accelerating and radiating but never running out, while the protons are constantly absorbing and gravitating but never overheating in a never-ending cycle. No BB. No "heat death". No BS.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | "Ross A. Finlayson" <ross.finlayson@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-10-26 20:34 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <6e5c0ead-e1ec-4e7e-b42a-e33086b0766c@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #528420 |
On Monday, October 26, 2015 at 8:26:07 PM UTC-7, john wrote: > Burnt-out stars are shredded when > they fall back into the galactic center > and the energy from absorbed > neutrinos is reinvested into jets of > HEPs (high-energy particles) which > blast outward at .9c and produce new > stars in a never-ending cycle. > Similarly, the energy that electrons > are constantly radiating is returned to > them by their protons in the same way; > the electrons constantly accelerating and > radiating but never running out, while > the protons are constantly absorbing > and gravitating but never overheating > in a never-ending cycle. > No BB. > No "heat death". > No BS. Consider all of space-time somehow laid out in this resulting "continuum". First, the three dimensions of space, have to fit in the linear continuum. So, kind of like super-string looks to have three dimensions to store the relevant information, for each space dimension, here they are folded into the infinitesimals and infinities of the one dimension. This is simply in numerical resource terms. Then, and this is a "single-Universe" approach, also it is so for time, then all of everything for each instant of time started forever ago, and, has conservation and symmetry about the numerical resources as would represent each point in an infinite space-time in a continuum. So, BB Big Bang and SS Steady State are both, from our perspective or that of observers, then about where we are today, they're concurrent interpretations of the continuum. (Is the future already written out, no, I wouldn't know that it was.) And on we flow. This is for "final cause" from "first principles" for a purely logical mathematical physics that is scientific.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | "Ross A. Finlayson" <ross.finlayson@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-10-26 20:42 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <b28ba64d-37c1-41b4-b47a-b5e1e9aedaad@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #528421 |
On Monday, October 26, 2015 at 8:34:32 PM UTC-7, Ross A. Finlayson wrote: > On Monday, October 26, 2015 at 8:26:07 PM UTC-7, john wrote: > > Burnt-out stars are shredded when > > they fall back into the galactic center > > and the energy from absorbed > > neutrinos is reinvested into jets of > > HEPs (high-energy particles) which > > blast outward at .9c and produce new > > stars in a never-ending cycle. > > Similarly, the energy that electrons > > are constantly radiating is returned to > > them by their protons in the same way; > > the electrons constantly accelerating and > > radiating but never running out, while > > the protons are constantly absorbing > > and gravitating but never overheating > > in a never-ending cycle. > > No BB. > > No "heat death". > > No BS. > > Consider all of space-time somehow laid > out in this resulting "continuum". First, > the three dimensions of space, have to fit > in the linear continuum. So, kind of like > super-string looks to have three dimensions > to store the relevant information, for each > space dimension, here they are folded into > the infinitesimals and infinities of the one > dimension. This is simply in numerical resource > terms. > > Then, and this is a "single-Universe" approach, > also it is so for time, then all of everything > for each instant of time started forever ago, > and, has conservation and symmetry about the > numerical resources as would represent each > point in an infinite space-time in a continuum. > > So, BB Big Bang and SS Steady State are both, > from our perspective or that of observers, then > about where we are today, they're concurrent > interpretations of the continuum. > > (Is the future already written out, no, I wouldn't > know that it was.) > > And on we flow. > > This is for "final cause" from "first principles" > for a purely logical mathematical physics that is > scientific. "Cosmological expansion was originally discovered through observations by Edwin Hubble." https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Steady_State_theory The farther we look in the Universe, the bigger it looks. The closer we look at the atom, the smaller it looks. Somehow, reality is both Big Bang, and Steady State, and even Immobile Celestial Spheres of the Steady State.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | "Ross A. Finlayson" <ross.finlayson@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-10-26 21:00 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <c0e29718-3d74-4342-b890-2d21aec6f5ef@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #528423 |
On Monday, October 26, 2015 at 8:42:44 PM UTC-7, Ross A. Finlayson wrote: > On Monday, October 26, 2015 at 8:34:32 PM UTC-7, Ross A. Finlayson wrote: > > On Monday, October 26, 2015 at 8:26:07 PM UTC-7, john wrote: > > > Burnt-out stars are shredded when > > > they fall back into the galactic center > > > and the energy from absorbed > > > neutrinos is reinvested into jets of > > > HEPs (high-energy particles) which > > > blast outward at .9c and produce new > > > stars in a never-ending cycle. > > > Similarly, the energy that electrons > > > are constantly radiating is returned to > > > them by their protons in the same way; > > > the electrons constantly accelerating and > > > radiating but never running out, while > > > the protons are constantly absorbing > > > and gravitating but never overheating > > > in a never-ending cycle. > > > No BB. > > > No "heat death". > > > No BS. > > > > Consider all of space-time somehow laid > > out in this resulting "continuum". First, > > the three dimensions of space, have to fit > > in the linear continuum. So, kind of like > > super-string looks to have three dimensions > > to store the relevant information, for each > > space dimension, here they are folded into > > the infinitesimals and infinities of the one > > dimension. This is simply in numerical resource > > terms. > > > > Then, and this is a "single-Universe" approach, > > also it is so for time, then all of everything > > for each instant of time started forever ago, > > and, has conservation and symmetry about the > > numerical resources as would represent each > > point in an infinite space-time in a continuum. > > > > So, BB Big Bang and SS Steady State are both, > > from our perspective or that of observers, then > > about where we are today, they're concurrent > > interpretations of the continuum. > > > > (Is the future already written out, no, I wouldn't > > know that it was.) > > > > And on we flow. > > > > This is for "final cause" from "first principles" > > for a purely logical mathematical physics that is > > scientific. > > "Cosmological expansion was originally discovered > through observations by Edwin Hubble." > > https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Steady_State_theory > > The farther we look in the Universe, the bigger it > looks. The closer we look at the atom, the smaller > it looks. > > Somehow, reality is both Big Bang, and Steady State, > and even Immobile Celestial Spheres of the Steady State. Change is constant, there is a gradient. This is courtesy the "root probabilistic flaw".
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
Page 5 of 9 — ← Prev page 1 2 3 4 [5] 6 7 8 9 Next page →
Back to top | Article view | sci.physics
csiph-web