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 4 of 9 — ← Prev page 1 2 3 [4] 5 6 7 8 9 Next page →
| From | The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-10-21 21:51 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <56286B6D.6CBA@ix.netcom.com> |
| In reply to | #527374 |
Ross A. Finlayson wrote: > > On Wednesday, October 21, 2015 at 7:59:01 PM UTC-7, The Starmaker wrote: > > Ross A. Finlayson wrote: > > > > > > On Wednesday, October 21, 2015 at 1:12:36 AM UTC-7, The Starmaker wrote: > > > > Ross A. Finlayson wrote: > > > > > > > > > > On Tuesday, October 20, 2015 at 9:06:19 PM UTC-7, Ross A. Finlayson wrote: > > > > > > On Tuesday, October 20, 2015 at 4:55:35 PM UTC-7, noTthaTguY wrote: > > > > > > > expanding Universe has long been passe', > > > > > > > since the plasma cosmology of Alfven has shown that a) > > > > > > > most of Universe is plasma > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Zwicky's ''tired light'' hypothesis. We also test for power-law > > > > > > > > > > dependencies of the aging rate on redshift. The best-fit exponent for > > > > > > > > > > these models is consistent with the expected 1/(1 þ z) factor. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > A supernova is quite extromissive, including > > > > > > > > with the shock front. (Which is quite deformed, > > > > > > > > whether space is flat or not.) > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Space-time curvature is just a notational relic. > > > > > > > > The effects are still the same, and also it's > > > > > > > > still the Dirac positronic sea or aether (which > > > > > > > > experiment also supports and yes it does.) > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > We need mathematics of infinities/infinitesimals > > > > > > > > and the real effects in the numbers to reduce these > > > > > > > > "systems of numerical appeasement" to "systems > > > > > > > > in numbers". > > > > > > > > > > > > These "systems of numerical appeasement" are > > > > > > uncomfortable accommodations of physicists that > > > > > > would rather expect reduction and spareness of > > > > > > framework. These "fudge factors", here as the > > > > > > placement of the cosmological constant and what > > > > > > its value and import is in projection, are an > > > > > > arithmetic kludge to match data to model. > > > > > > > > > > > > "Systems of numerical appeasement", often ad-hoc > > > > > > and particular to configuration of experiment, > > > > > > find themselves somehow systematically reducing to > > > > > > features of the numbers, that in the interest > > > > > > of conservation of "numerical and mathematical > > > > > > resources" (the principle of conservation of > > > > > > numerical content), are eventually reduced to > > > > > > more "fundamental" numerical frameworks and as > > > > > > of effect in numbers. > > > > > > > > > > > > This is a role for effects at the demarcator > > > > > > between continuous fields and discrete events > > > > > > in them, that of the infinitesimal composition > > > > > > of continua as of points, collected. > > > > > > > > > > > > Point! > > > > > > > > > > " ... find themselves somehow systematically reducing to > > > > > features of the numbers ...." > > > > > > > > > > Examples (of successful reductions to the fundamental) > > > > > include "Maxwell equations" and "E = mc^2". > > > > > > > > Just studying one google page result is an example of successful reductions to the fundamental. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > There's a perceived need, for mathematical physics, of > > > > > these features of real mathematical infinitesimals > > > > > that they are. > > > > > > > > There is nothing REAL about "real mathematical infinitesimals". > > > > > > > > The chance that real mathematical infinitesimals is real is...infinitesimal. > > > > > > > > > > > > The laws of physics is not real > > > > The laws of nature are not real > > > > > > > > math does not exist anywhere out there...it's not real. > > > > > > > > > > > > Have you tried learning to play a guitar? > > > > > > "Mathematical Platonists" have mathematical objects > > > as real, even concrete (there are subcamps in Mathematical > > > Platonism, but that the numbers are "real" or "exist" > > > regardless our formation of them). > > > > > > Well, can you tell me where do they exist at, what place are they at? > > http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/platonism-mathematics/ > > How do we categorize experiments and ultimate or > penultimate results of both the absolute and relative > that experimental data has integer or fractional > factors that seems to appear and disappear over the > bounds of the range of the experiment. "?" > > These are to be considered for what effect to the model > there would be of a numerical or mathematical effect, > basically building the observation/measurement as the > action of "counting" over these "numbered" fields > (vector, force fields), as that these factors would > follow or be explained (falsifiable predictions for > hypothesis testing of the scientific method). > > That's defensively written, here with this admission > that aprocryphally infinities and infinitesimals are > ubiquitous in cosmological and atomic scale physical > systems. As example, framed in the context of > "normalization", that is in a sense "de-re-normalization", > with the maintenance in variables for cancellation of > these "infinite" terms (and their numerical approximations > and the conditions under "linearization" as a numerical > method feature with "normalization") - replaced with some > infinity or infinitesimal, what other factors like > Einstein's cosmological constant or Planck's big C and > small c, are infinities or their inverses? (Or vice versa?) > > This is where, otherwise the "real infinities" as they are, > have not yet been found to be of, say, our transfinite > cardinals that otherwise we have in terms of "counting" > (which is not the same thing as "numbering" which is more > fundamental). Here, if we have some putative object or > structural feature of what that infinite value would be > under the condition of what detection/measurement/observation > or the measurement effect has: where is the measured data > that is off so thrown out as to that the interaction of > an otherwise closed system by measurement, has these integer > or fractional ratios that may be accounted for, by features > of a numerical "infinity", as a scalar. > > This is where the line between (0,0) and (1,1) has area > underneath of 1/2, and the points are all one-sided on > through in the line, then that as each point gets to > have both sides on the line, the area under the function > defined on the integers, of the "constant monotonically > (infinitesimally) increasing in the range from 0 to 1", > _doubles_ the area, as the feature (or numerical effect). > > "Mathematical Platonism" isn't necessarily part of a > numerical model of this construction of a model of > the real numbers suitable for standard and extra > "continuum infinitesimal analysis", though it neatly > is a part: here given features of the scalar (infinite) > under normalization/linearization and otherwise action: > what comes to mind in the experimental data that is > already there, in addition to the electron/photon > "integer" deflection and dark matter/energy "fractional" > ratios, other "integer" and "fractional" corrections. "?" You're a...platonists. I notice people get confused when they mix Philosophy with Science and Math. Platonism in the Philosophy of Mathematics http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/platonism-mathematics/ Why did they remove the word Philosophy "http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/platonism-mathematics/" from the link?
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-10-21 22:02 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <56286DF8.501C@ix.netcom.com> |
| In reply to | #527388 |
The Starmaker wrote: > > Ross A. Finlayson wrote: > > > > On Wednesday, October 21, 2015 at 7:59:01 PM UTC-7, The Starmaker wrote: > > > Ross A. Finlayson wrote: > > > > > > > > On Wednesday, October 21, 2015 at 1:12:36 AM UTC-7, The Starmaker wrote: > > > > > Ross A. Finlayson wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > On Tuesday, October 20, 2015 at 9:06:19 PM UTC-7, Ross A. Finlayson wrote: > > > > > > > On Tuesday, October 20, 2015 at 4:55:35 PM UTC-7, noTthaTguY wrote: > > > > > > > > expanding Universe has long been passe', > > > > > > > > since the plasma cosmology of Alfven has shown that a) > > > > > > > > most of Universe is plasma > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Zwicky's ''tired light'' hypothesis. We also test for power-law > > > > > > > > > > > dependencies of the aging rate on redshift. The best-fit exponent for > > > > > > > > > > > these models is consistent with the expected 1/(1 þ z) factor. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > A supernova is quite extromissive, including > > > > > > > > > with the shock front. (Which is quite deformed, > > > > > > > > > whether space is flat or not.) > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Space-time curvature is just a notational relic. > > > > > > > > > The effects are still the same, and also it's > > > > > > > > > still the Dirac positronic sea or aether (which > > > > > > > > > experiment also supports and yes it does.) > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > We need mathematics of infinities/infinitesimals > > > > > > > > > and the real effects in the numbers to reduce these > > > > > > > > > "systems of numerical appeasement" to "systems > > > > > > > > > in numbers". > > > > > > > > > > > > > > These "systems of numerical appeasement" are > > > > > > > uncomfortable accommodations of physicists that > > > > > > > would rather expect reduction and spareness of > > > > > > > framework. These "fudge factors", here as the > > > > > > > placement of the cosmological constant and what > > > > > > > its value and import is in projection, are an > > > > > > > arithmetic kludge to match data to model. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > "Systems of numerical appeasement", often ad-hoc > > > > > > > and particular to configuration of experiment, > > > > > > > find themselves somehow systematically reducing to > > > > > > > features of the numbers, that in the interest > > > > > > > of conservation of "numerical and mathematical > > > > > > > resources" (the principle of conservation of > > > > > > > numerical content), are eventually reduced to > > > > > > > more "fundamental" numerical frameworks and as > > > > > > > of effect in numbers. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > This is a role for effects at the demarcator > > > > > > > between continuous fields and discrete events > > > > > > > in them, that of the infinitesimal composition > > > > > > > of continua as of points, collected. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Point! > > > > > > > > > > > > " ... find themselves somehow systematically reducing to > > > > > > features of the numbers ...." > > > > > > > > > > > > Examples (of successful reductions to the fundamental) > > > > > > include "Maxwell equations" and "E = mc^2". > > > > > > > > > > Just studying one google page result is an example of successful reductions to the fundamental. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > There's a perceived need, for mathematical physics, of > > > > > > these features of real mathematical infinitesimals > > > > > > that they are. > > > > > > > > > > There is nothing REAL about "real mathematical infinitesimals". > > > > > > > > > > The chance that real mathematical infinitesimals is real is...infinitesimal. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > The laws of physics is not real > > > > > The laws of nature are not real > > > > > > > > > > math does not exist anywhere out there...it's not real. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Have you tried learning to play a guitar? > > > > > > > > "Mathematical Platonists" have mathematical objects > > > > as real, even concrete (there are subcamps in Mathematical > > > > Platonism, but that the numbers are "real" or "exist" > > > > regardless our formation of them). > > > > > > > > > Well, can you tell me where do they exist at, what place are they at? > > > > http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/platonism-mathematics/ > > > > How do we categorize experiments and ultimate or > > penultimate results of both the absolute and relative > > that experimental data has integer or fractional > > factors that seems to appear and disappear over the > > bounds of the range of the experiment. "?" > > > > These are to be considered for what effect to the model > > there would be of a numerical or mathematical effect, > > basically building the observation/measurement as the > > action of "counting" over these "numbered" fields > > (vector, force fields), as that these factors would > > follow or be explained (falsifiable predictions for > > hypothesis testing of the scientific method). > > > > That's defensively written, here with this admission > > that aprocryphally infinities and infinitesimals are > > ubiquitous in cosmological and atomic scale physical > > systems. As example, framed in the context of > > "normalization", that is in a sense "de-re-normalization", > > with the maintenance in variables for cancellation of > > these "infinite" terms (and their numerical approximations > > and the conditions under "linearization" as a numerical > > method feature with "normalization") - replaced with some > > infinity or infinitesimal, what other factors like > > Einstein's cosmological constant or Planck's big C and > > small c, are infinities or their inverses? (Or vice versa?) > > > > This is where, otherwise the "real infinities" as they are, > > have not yet been found to be of, say, our transfinite > > cardinals that otherwise we have in terms of "counting" > > (which is not the same thing as "numbering" which is more > > fundamental). Here, if we have some putative object or > > structural feature of what that infinite value would be > > under the condition of what detection/measurement/observation > > or the measurement effect has: where is the measured data > > that is off so thrown out as to that the interaction of > > an otherwise closed system by measurement, has these integer > > or fractional ratios that may be accounted for, by features > > of a numerical "infinity", as a scalar. > > > > This is where the line between (0,0) and (1,1) has area > > underneath of 1/2, and the points are all one-sided on > > through in the line, then that as each point gets to > > have both sides on the line, the area under the function > > defined on the integers, of the "constant monotonically > > (infinitesimally) increasing in the range from 0 to 1", > > _doubles_ the area, as the feature (or numerical effect). > > > > "Mathematical Platonism" isn't necessarily part of a > > numerical model of this construction of a model of > > the real numbers suitable for standard and extra > > "continuum infinitesimal analysis", though it neatly > > is a part: here given features of the scalar (infinite) > > under normalization/linearization and otherwise action: > > what comes to mind in the experimental data that is > > already there, in addition to the electron/photon > > "integer" deflection and dark matter/energy "fractional" > > ratios, other "integer" and "fractional" corrections. "?" > > You're a...platonists. > > I notice people get confused when they mix Philosophy with Science and Math. > > Platonism in the Philosophy of Mathematics > http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/platonism-mathematics/ > > Why did they remove the word Philosophy "http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/platonism-mathematics/" from the link? If you read the first paragragh, (and just only the first paragragh) you will find tons of errors. "Platonism about mathematics (or mathematical platonism) is the metaphysical view that there are abstract mathematical objects whose existence is independent of us and our language, thought, and practices. Just as electrons and planets exist independently of us, so do numbers and sets. And just as statements about electrons and planets are made true or false by the objects with which they are concerned and these objects' perfectly objective properties, so are statements about numbers and sets. Mathematical truths are therefore discovered, not invented." http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/platonism-mathematics/ Starting from the botton: "Mathematical truths are therefore discovered, not invented." That isn't true. And if that isn't true, why bother going any further? It is a "metaphysical view". That's all it is, a view, ...metaphysical view. an opinion, just a way of looking at things. Mathematical truths are therefore discovered, not invented. Mathematical truths are invented, they just seem or feel like a discovery... putting symbols on patterns is just how yous view things.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | "Ross A. Finlayson" <ross.finlayson@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-10-21 23:10 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <1b255ad2-7f34-4955-b5aa-f28e61d3c92e@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #527391 |
On Wednesday, October 21, 2015 at 10:02:49 PM UTC-7, The Starmaker wrote:
> The Starmaker wrote:
> >
> > Ross A. Finlayson wrote:
> > >
> > > On Wednesday, October 21, 2015 at 7:59:01 PM UTC-7, The Starmaker wrote:
> > > > Ross A. Finlayson wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > > On Wednesday, October 21, 2015 at 1:12:36 AM UTC-7, The Starmaker wrote:
> > > > > > Ross A. Finlayson wrote:
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > On Tuesday, October 20, 2015 at 9:06:19 PM UTC-7, Ross A. Finlayson wrote:
> > > > > > > > On Tuesday, October 20, 2015 at 4:55:35 PM UTC-7, noTthaTguY wrote:
> > > > > > > > > expanding Universe has long been passe',
> > > > > > > > > since the plasma cosmology of Alfven has shown that a)
> > > > > > > > > most of Universe is plasma
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > Zwicky's ''tired light'' hypothesis. We also test for power-law
> > > > > > > > > > > > dependencies of the aging rate on redshift. The best-fit exponent for
> > > > > > > > > > > > these models is consistent with the expected 1/(1 þ z) factor.
> > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > A supernova is quite extromissive, including
> > > > > > > > > > with the shock front. (Which is quite deformed,
> > > > > > > > > > whether space is flat or not.)
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > Space-time curvature is just a notational relic.
> > > > > > > > > > The effects are still the same, and also it's
> > > > > > > > > > still the Dirac positronic sea or aether (which
> > > > > > > > > > experiment also supports and yes it does.)
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > We need mathematics of infinities/infinitesimals
> > > > > > > > > > and the real effects in the numbers to reduce these
> > > > > > > > > > "systems of numerical appeasement" to "systems
> > > > > > > > > > in numbers".
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > These "systems of numerical appeasement" are
> > > > > > > > uncomfortable accommodations of physicists that
> > > > > > > > would rather expect reduction and spareness of
> > > > > > > > framework. These "fudge factors", here as the
> > > > > > > > placement of the cosmological constant and what
> > > > > > > > its value and import is in projection, are an
> > > > > > > > arithmetic kludge to match data to model.
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > "Systems of numerical appeasement", often ad-hoc
> > > > > > > > and particular to configuration of experiment,
> > > > > > > > find themselves somehow systematically reducing to
> > > > > > > > features of the numbers, that in the interest
> > > > > > > > of conservation of "numerical and mathematical
> > > > > > > > resources" (the principle of conservation of
> > > > > > > > numerical content), are eventually reduced to
> > > > > > > > more "fundamental" numerical frameworks and as
> > > > > > > > of effect in numbers.
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > This is a role for effects at the demarcator
> > > > > > > > between continuous fields and discrete events
> > > > > > > > in them, that of the infinitesimal composition
> > > > > > > > of continua as of points, collected.
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > Point!
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > " ... find themselves somehow systematically reducing to
> > > > > > > features of the numbers ...."
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > Examples (of successful reductions to the fundamental)
> > > > > > > include "Maxwell equations" and "E = mc^2".
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Just studying one google page result is an example of successful reductions to the fundamental.
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > There's a perceived need, for mathematical physics, of
> > > > > > > these features of real mathematical infinitesimals
> > > > > > > that they are.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > There is nothing REAL about "real mathematical infinitesimals".
> > > > > >
> > > > > > The chance that real mathematical infinitesimals is real is...infinitesimal.
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > > The laws of physics is not real
> > > > > > The laws of nature are not real
> > > > > >
> > > > > > math does not exist anywhere out there...it's not real.
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Have you tried learning to play a guitar?
> > > > >
> > > > > "Mathematical Platonists" have mathematical objects
> > > > > as real, even concrete (there are subcamps in Mathematical
> > > > > Platonism, but that the numbers are "real" or "exist"
> > > > > regardless our formation of them).
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > Well, can you tell me where do they exist at, what place are they at?
> > >
> > > http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/platonism-mathematics/
> > >
> > > How do we categorize experiments and ultimate or
> > > penultimate results of both the absolute and relative
> > > that experimental data has integer or fractional
> > > factors that seems to appear and disappear over the
> > > bounds of the range of the experiment. "?"
> > >
> > > These are to be considered for what effect to the model
> > > there would be of a numerical or mathematical effect,
> > > basically building the observation/measurement as the
> > > action of "counting" over these "numbered" fields
> > > (vector, force fields), as that these factors would
> > > follow or be explained (falsifiable predictions for
> > > hypothesis testing of the scientific method).
> > >
> > > That's defensively written, here with this admission
> > > that aprocryphally infinities and infinitesimals are
> > > ubiquitous in cosmological and atomic scale physical
> > > systems. As example, framed in the context of
> > > "normalization", that is in a sense "de-re-normalization",
> > > with the maintenance in variables for cancellation of
> > > these "infinite" terms (and their numerical approximations
> > > and the conditions under "linearization" as a numerical
> > > method feature with "normalization") - replaced with some
> > > infinity or infinitesimal, what other factors like
> > > Einstein's cosmological constant or Planck's big C and
> > > small c, are infinities or their inverses? (Or vice versa?)
> > >
> > > This is where, otherwise the "real infinities" as they are,
> > > have not yet been found to be of, say, our transfinite
> > > cardinals that otherwise we have in terms of "counting"
> > > (which is not the same thing as "numbering" which is more
> > > fundamental). Here, if we have some putative object or
> > > structural feature of what that infinite value would be
> > > under the condition of what detection/measurement/observation
> > > or the measurement effect has: where is the measured data
> > > that is off so thrown out as to that the interaction of
> > > an otherwise closed system by measurement, has these integer
> > > or fractional ratios that may be accounted for, by features
> > > of a numerical "infinity", as a scalar.
> > >
> > > This is where the line between (0,0) and (1,1) has area
> > > underneath of 1/2, and the points are all one-sided on
> > > through in the line, then that as each point gets to
> > > have both sides on the line, the area under the function
> > > defined on the integers, of the "constant monotonically
> > > (infinitesimally) increasing in the range from 0 to 1",
> > > _doubles_ the area, as the feature (or numerical effect).
> > >
> > > "Mathematical Platonism" isn't necessarily part of a
> > > numerical model of this construction of a model of
> > > the real numbers suitable for standard and extra
> > > "continuum infinitesimal analysis", though it neatly
> > > is a part: here given features of the scalar (infinite)
> > > under normalization/linearization and otherwise action:
> > > what comes to mind in the experimental data that is
> > > already there, in addition to the electron/photon
> > > "integer" deflection and dark matter/energy "fractional"
> > > ratios, other "integer" and "fractional" corrections. "?"
> >
> > You're a...platonists.
> >
> > I notice people get confused when they mix Philosophy with Science and Math.
> >
> > Platonism in the Philosophy of Mathematics
> > http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/platonism-mathematics/
> >
> > Why did they remove the word Philosophy "http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/platonism-mathematics/" from the link?
>
>
> If you read the first paragragh, (and just only the first paragragh) you
> will find tons of errors.
>
>
>
> "Platonism about mathematics (or mathematical platonism) is the
> metaphysical view that there are
> abstract mathematical objects whose existence is independent of us and
> our language, thought, and practices.
> Just as electrons and planets exist independently of us, so do numbers
> and sets. And just as statements about
> electrons and planets are made true or false by the objects with which
> they are concerned and these objects' perfectly
> objective properties, so are statements about numbers and sets.
> Mathematical truths are therefore discovered, not invented."
> http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/platonism-mathematics/
>
>
>
> Starting from the botton: "Mathematical truths are therefore discovered,
> not invented."
>
>
> That isn't true.
>
> And if that isn't true, why bother going any further?
>
>
>
> It is a "metaphysical view".
>
> That's all it is, a view, ...metaphysical view.
>
>
> an opinion, just a way of looking at things.
>
>
> Mathematical truths are therefore discovered, not invented.
>
>
> Mathematical truths are invented, they just seem or feel like a
> discovery...
>
> putting symbols on patterns is just how yous view things.
You can detach the philosophical (over the "physical")
aspects for this:
1) what quantities in mathematical physics
are unbounded or vanishing?
2) what results in experimental physics see
simple factors of difference from otherwise
clearly expected results?
(The "concrete realization of philosophical concerns" is
among various other issues that is separable from these
notions of the utility in mathematical modelling of
infinities and infinitesimals as they are the model.)
I think we all are aware of various what were
or are "paradoxes" of physics, that over time have
been resolved by clarification of the mathematics
and the mathematical model of the physics (eg Zeno
for the classical and the constancy of lightspeed
as "unbounded" in the post-absolutist relativistic.)
Around renormalization, the running constants are
often described as 1/oo = 0, in the conservation,
here including of the conservation of complexity
of mathematical structures and even truth as
quantified, eg of Noether's theorem and etcetera.
I'm hoping interested physicists might look to that:
here's a new tool that may allow the emplacement of
"infinity" (the usual lemniscate 'oo') or of the
differential, "infinitesimals" ("iota-values").
How ubiquitous or central are these usually in
the field equations and then as of action under effect,
in terms of, for example, what "differentiates".
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | "Ross A. Finlayson" <ross.finlayson@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-10-22 12:32 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <0525fbe1-fc10-4428-b7e1-c4d386102dec@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #527405 |
On Wednesday, October 21, 2015 at 11:10:57 PM UTC-7, Ross A. Finlayson wrote:
> On Wednesday, October 21, 2015 at 10:02:49 PM UTC-7, The Starmaker wrote:
> > The Starmaker wrote:
> > >
> > > Ross A. Finlayson wrote:
> > > >
> > > > On Wednesday, October 21, 2015 at 7:59:01 PM UTC-7, The Starmaker wrote:
> > > > > Ross A. Finlayson wrote:
> > > > > >
> > > > > > On Wednesday, October 21, 2015 at 1:12:36 AM UTC-7, The Starmaker wrote:
> > > > > > > Ross A. Finlayson wrote:
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > On Tuesday, October 20, 2015 at 9:06:19 PM UTC-7, Ross A. Finlayson wrote:
> > > > > > > > > On Tuesday, October 20, 2015 at 4:55:35 PM UTC-7, noTthaTguY wrote:
> > > > > > > > > > expanding Universe has long been passe',
> > > > > > > > > > since the plasma cosmology of Alfven has shown that a)
> > > > > > > > > > most of Universe is plasma
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > Zwicky's ''tired light'' hypothesis. We also test for power-law
> > > > > > > > > > > > > dependencies of the aging rate on redshift. The best-fit exponent for
> > > > > > > > > > > > > these models is consistent with the expected 1/(1 þ z) factor.
> > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > A supernova is quite extromissive, including
> > > > > > > > > > > with the shock front. (Which is quite deformed,
> > > > > > > > > > > whether space is flat or not.)
> > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > Space-time curvature is just a notational relic.
> > > > > > > > > > > The effects are still the same, and also it's
> > > > > > > > > > > still the Dirac positronic sea or aether (which
> > > > > > > > > > > experiment also supports and yes it does.)
> > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > We need mathematics of infinities/infinitesimals
> > > > > > > > > > > and the real effects in the numbers to reduce these
> > > > > > > > > > > "systems of numerical appeasement" to "systems
> > > > > > > > > > > in numbers".
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > These "systems of numerical appeasement" are
> > > > > > > > > uncomfortable accommodations of physicists that
> > > > > > > > > would rather expect reduction and spareness of
> > > > > > > > > framework. These "fudge factors", here as the
> > > > > > > > > placement of the cosmological constant and what
> > > > > > > > > its value and import is in projection, are an
> > > > > > > > > arithmetic kludge to match data to model.
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > "Systems of numerical appeasement", often ad-hoc
> > > > > > > > > and particular to configuration of experiment,
> > > > > > > > > find themselves somehow systematically reducing to
> > > > > > > > > features of the numbers, that in the interest
> > > > > > > > > of conservation of "numerical and mathematical
> > > > > > > > > resources" (the principle of conservation of
> > > > > > > > > numerical content), are eventually reduced to
> > > > > > > > > more "fundamental" numerical frameworks and as
> > > > > > > > > of effect in numbers.
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > This is a role for effects at the demarcator
> > > > > > > > > between continuous fields and discrete events
> > > > > > > > > in them, that of the infinitesimal composition
> > > > > > > > > of continua as of points, collected.
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > Point!
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > " ... find themselves somehow systematically reducing to
> > > > > > > > features of the numbers ...."
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > Examples (of successful reductions to the fundamental)
> > > > > > > > include "Maxwell equations" and "E = mc^2".
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > Just studying one google page result is an example of successful reductions to the fundamental.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > There's a perceived need, for mathematical physics, of
> > > > > > > > these features of real mathematical infinitesimals
> > > > > > > > that they are.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > There is nothing REAL about "real mathematical infinitesimals".
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > The chance that real mathematical infinitesimals is real is...infinitesimal.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > The laws of physics is not real
> > > > > > > The laws of nature are not real
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > math does not exist anywhere out there...it's not real.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > Have you tried learning to play a guitar?
> > > > > >
> > > > > > "Mathematical Platonists" have mathematical objects
> > > > > > as real, even concrete (there are subcamps in Mathematical
> > > > > > Platonism, but that the numbers are "real" or "exist"
> > > > > > regardless our formation of them).
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > Well, can you tell me where do they exist at, what place are they at?
> > > >
> > > > http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/platonism-mathematics/
> > > >
> > > > How do we categorize experiments and ultimate or
> > > > penultimate results of both the absolute and relative
> > > > that experimental data has integer or fractional
> > > > factors that seems to appear and disappear over the
> > > > bounds of the range of the experiment. "?"
> > > >
> > > > These are to be considered for what effect to the model
> > > > there would be of a numerical or mathematical effect,
> > > > basically building the observation/measurement as the
> > > > action of "counting" over these "numbered" fields
> > > > (vector, force fields), as that these factors would
> > > > follow or be explained (falsifiable predictions for
> > > > hypothesis testing of the scientific method).
> > > >
> > > > That's defensively written, here with this admission
> > > > that aprocryphally infinities and infinitesimals are
> > > > ubiquitous in cosmological and atomic scale physical
> > > > systems. As example, framed in the context of
> > > > "normalization", that is in a sense "de-re-normalization",
> > > > with the maintenance in variables for cancellation of
> > > > these "infinite" terms (and their numerical approximations
> > > > and the conditions under "linearization" as a numerical
> > > > method feature with "normalization") - replaced with some
> > > > infinity or infinitesimal, what other factors like
> > > > Einstein's cosmological constant or Planck's big C and
> > > > small c, are infinities or their inverses? (Or vice versa?)
> > > >
> > > > This is where, otherwise the "real infinities" as they are,
> > > > have not yet been found to be of, say, our transfinite
> > > > cardinals that otherwise we have in terms of "counting"
> > > > (which is not the same thing as "numbering" which is more
> > > > fundamental). Here, if we have some putative object or
> > > > structural feature of what that infinite value would be
> > > > under the condition of what detection/measurement/observation
> > > > or the measurement effect has: where is the measured data
> > > > that is off so thrown out as to that the interaction of
> > > > an otherwise closed system by measurement, has these integer
> > > > or fractional ratios that may be accounted for, by features
> > > > of a numerical "infinity", as a scalar.
> > > >
> > > > This is where the line between (0,0) and (1,1) has area
> > > > underneath of 1/2, and the points are all one-sided on
> > > > through in the line, then that as each point gets to
> > > > have both sides on the line, the area under the function
> > > > defined on the integers, of the "constant monotonically
> > > > (infinitesimally) increasing in the range from 0 to 1",
> > > > _doubles_ the area, as the feature (or numerical effect).
> > > >
> > > > "Mathematical Platonism" isn't necessarily part of a
> > > > numerical model of this construction of a model of
> > > > the real numbers suitable for standard and extra
> > > > "continuum infinitesimal analysis", though it neatly
> > > > is a part: here given features of the scalar (infinite)
> > > > under normalization/linearization and otherwise action:
> > > > what comes to mind in the experimental data that is
> > > > already there, in addition to the electron/photon
> > > > "integer" deflection and dark matter/energy "fractional"
> > > > ratios, other "integer" and "fractional" corrections. "?"
> > >
> > > You're a...platonists.
> > >
> > > I notice people get confused when they mix Philosophy with Science and Math.
> > >
> > > Platonism in the Philosophy of Mathematics
> > > http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/platonism-mathematics/
> > >
> > > Why did they remove the word Philosophy "http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/platonism-mathematics/" from the link?
> >
> >
> > If you read the first paragragh, (and just only the first paragragh) you
> > will find tons of errors.
> >
> >
> >
> > "Platonism about mathematics (or mathematical platonism) is the
> > metaphysical view that there are
> > abstract mathematical objects whose existence is independent of us and
> > our language, thought, and practices.
> > Just as electrons and planets exist independently of us, so do numbers
> > and sets. And just as statements about
> > electrons and planets are made true or false by the objects with which
> > they are concerned and these objects' perfectly
> > objective properties, so are statements about numbers and sets.
> > Mathematical truths are therefore discovered, not invented."
> > http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/platonism-mathematics/
> >
> >
> >
> > Starting from the botton: "Mathematical truths are therefore discovered,
> > not invented."
> >
> >
> > That isn't true.
> >
> > And if that isn't true, why bother going any further?
> >
> >
> >
> > It is a "metaphysical view".
> >
> > That's all it is, a view, ...metaphysical view.
> >
> >
> > an opinion, just a way of looking at things.
> >
> >
> > Mathematical truths are therefore discovered, not invented.
> >
> >
> > Mathematical truths are invented, they just seem or feel like a
> > discovery...
> >
> > putting symbols on patterns is just how yous view things.
>
> You can detach the philosophical (over the "physical")
> aspects for this:
>
> 1) what quantities in mathematical physics
> are unbounded or vanishing?
>
> 2) what results in experimental physics see
> simple factors of difference from otherwise
> clearly expected results?
>
> (The "concrete realization of philosophical concerns" is
> among various other issues that is separable from these
> notions of the utility in mathematical modelling of
> infinities and infinitesimals as they are the model.)
>
> I think we all are aware of various what were
> or are "paradoxes" of physics, that over time have
> been resolved by clarification of the mathematics
> and the mathematical model of the physics (eg Zeno
> for the classical and the constancy of lightspeed
> as "unbounded" in the post-absolutist relativistic.)
>
> Around renormalization, the running constants are
> often described as 1/oo = 0, in the conservation,
> here including of the conservation of complexity
> of mathematical structures and even truth as
> quantified, eg of Noether's theorem and etcetera.
>
>
> I'm hoping interested physicists might look to that:
> here's a new tool that may allow the emplacement of
> "infinity" (the usual lemniscate 'oo') or of the
> differential, "infinitesimals" ("iota-values").
>
> How ubiquitous or central are these usually in
> the field equations and then as of action under effect,
> in terms of, for example, what "differentiates".
So, introduction of this notion to this kind
of (poor) forum, really just makes it easy to
see how it stands.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | noTthaTguY <abu.kuanysh05@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-10-21 13:03 -0700 |
| Subject | ask why, that |
| Message-ID | <5304674b-d6a9-4986-8adf-7d89061bec89@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #527176 |
tOOk a class in highschOOl; I discovered the canonical major key, which isn't C (or, A > Have you tried learning to play a guitar?
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | jay moseley <jaymoseley@hotmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-10-22 13:20 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <ae4a71d7-d39c-4df5-a11f-644fc3af8ce3@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #527033 |
Sam wrote.... >Jay you are odds with the astrophysics community.... Here are a few graphs showing how a non expanding model can fit the data as well as an expanding model. Refuting the spurious claim that this was not possible. Ask your Iowa state colleagues to chew on these for a while... http://physicsexplained.blogspot.co.uk/2015/10/supernova-light-curves-fit-non.html Regarding your so called "scientific paper".... Thats quite a paper Sam. 13 pages of fitting, algorithms etc and not one example of proof published in the whole paper. Lots of graphs etc But, we are being asked by Blondin et al to accept their assertion that yes, back in their offices somewhere on some SNID software there is comparative proof.! Pseudoscience at its new all time high. Where is a single example of one of their 13 high redshift examples compared to a supposed rest frame template? There is not a single example of proof in the entire paper. Tell your colleagues to forward a couple of their so called comparisons to me and maybe Ill consider their spurious claims. Instead of them writing 13 pages of explanation and then when it comes to actually printing the evidence so the reader can decide for themselves, they say,,...."yes take our word for it we proved their is expansion." ( subtext being.." sorry cant actually supply any proof in our paper, youll have to take our word for it") Seperately,... I note a new angle in their paper regarding what used to be considered iron clad proof of expansion. 10 years ago lightcurve dilation due to expansion was considered ultimate proof for the BBT. Now that better data isnt matching expectations, we are now told that maybe those claims arent so good anymore. Too many failed attempts to make SN1a lightcurves fit an expanding model I expect. So ask your colleagues in Iowa state to explain why the following SN1a data seems to match a non expanding model. In fact if they actually are astrophysists(doubtful) then maybe you should ask them to try doing their own fit to a z=0 non expanding model. Its not that hard. And unlike their spectral matching scam, you can actually show proof of lightcurve fitting methods. http://physicsexplained.blogspot.co.uk/2015/10/supernova-light-curves-fit-non.html The above url uses all the same accepted methods of fitting etc except for one important difference. The data is control tested to a non expanding z=0 template as well as an expanding model template.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | "Ross A. Finlayson" <ross.finlayson@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-10-22 14:47 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <c0c338f2-7e6d-4ad2-9f70-33fbf44299e8@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #527500 |
On Thursday, October 22, 2015 at 1:20:58 PM UTC-7, jay moseley wrote: > Sam wrote.... > >Jay you are odds with the astrophysics community.... > > Here are a few graphs showing how a non expanding model > can fit the data as well as an expanding model. Refuting the spurious > claim that this was not possible. Ask your Iowa state colleagues > to chew on these for a while... > http://physicsexplained.blogspot.co.uk/2015/10/supernova-light-curves-fit-non.html > > > Regarding your so called "scientific paper".... > Thats quite a paper Sam. 13 pages of fitting, algorithms etc and not > one example of proof published in the whole paper. Lots of graphs etc > But, we are being asked by Blondin et al to accept their assertion that > yes, back in their offices somewhere on some SNID software there is > comparative proof.! Pseudoscience at its new all time high. > > Where is a single example of one of their 13 high redshift examples > compared to a supposed rest frame template? > There is not a single example of proof in the entire paper. Tell your > colleagues to forward a couple of their so called comparisons to > me and maybe Ill consider their spurious claims. Instead > of them writing 13 pages of explanation and then when it comes > to actually printing the evidence so the reader can decide for > themselves, they say,,...."yes take our word for it we proved their > is expansion." ( subtext being.." sorry cant actually supply any proof > in our paper, youll have to take our word for it") > > Seperately,... I note a new angle in their paper regarding what used > to be considered iron clad proof of expansion. 10 years ago lightcurve > dilation due to expansion was considered ultimate proof for the > BBT. Now that better data isnt matching expectations, we are now > told that maybe those claims arent so good anymore. Too many failed > attempts to make SN1a lightcurves fit an expanding model I expect. > > So ask your colleagues in Iowa state to explain why the following SN1a > data seems to match a non expanding model. In fact if they actually > are astrophysists(doubtful) then maybe you should ask them to > try doing their own fit to a z=0 non expanding model. Its not that > hard. And unlike their spectral matching scam, you can actually > show proof of lightcurve fitting methods. > > http://physicsexplained.blogspot.co.uk/2015/10/supernova-light-curves-fit-non.html > > The above url uses all the same accepted methods of fitting etc except > for one important difference. The data is control tested to a non expanding > z=0 template as well as an expanding model template. This is another possible explanation of the effect of "gravitational lensing" of light. Gravitational lensing is often used as an illustrative empirical example of the "curvature" of "space". Here instead it may follow from light's auto-diffraction about large shining bodies. That focus is lensed over the Sun, it's shining right at it. Then also that would leave physics looking for why there is deflection of light about the Sun. If you can point to another empirical example of "curvature" of space, that otherwise could be that "massy bodies share rest frames" instead of "massy bodies distort neighboring rest frames".
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | "Ross A. Finlayson" <ross.finlayson@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-10-22 14:55 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <a97ccfe1-844b-4b32-a027-6ffe6570de87@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #527528 |
On Thursday, October 22, 2015 at 2:47:21 PM UTC-7, Ross A. Finlayson wrote: > On Thursday, October 22, 2015 at 1:20:58 PM UTC-7, jay moseley wrote: > > Sam wrote.... > > >Jay you are odds with the astrophysics community.... > > > > Here are a few graphs showing how a non expanding model > > can fit the data as well as an expanding model. Refuting the spurious > > claim that this was not possible. Ask your Iowa state colleagues > > to chew on these for a while... > > http://physicsexplained.blogspot.co.uk/2015/10/supernova-light-curves-fit-non.html > > > > > > Regarding your so called "scientific paper".... > > Thats quite a paper Sam. 13 pages of fitting, algorithms etc and not > > one example of proof published in the whole paper. Lots of graphs etc > > But, we are being asked by Blondin et al to accept their assertion that > > yes, back in their offices somewhere on some SNID software there is > > comparative proof.! Pseudoscience at its new all time high. > > > > Where is a single example of one of their 13 high redshift examples > > compared to a supposed rest frame template? > > There is not a single example of proof in the entire paper. Tell your > > colleagues to forward a couple of their so called comparisons to > > me and maybe Ill consider their spurious claims. Instead > > of them writing 13 pages of explanation and then when it comes > > to actually printing the evidence so the reader can decide for > > themselves, they say,,...."yes take our word for it we proved their > > is expansion." ( subtext being.." sorry cant actually supply any proof > > in our paper, youll have to take our word for it") > > > > Seperately,... I note a new angle in their paper regarding what used > > to be considered iron clad proof of expansion. 10 years ago lightcurve > > dilation due to expansion was considered ultimate proof for the > > BBT. Now that better data isnt matching expectations, we are now > > told that maybe those claims arent so good anymore. Too many failed > > attempts to make SN1a lightcurves fit an expanding model I expect. > > > > So ask your colleagues in Iowa state to explain why the following SN1a > > data seems to match a non expanding model. In fact if they actually > > are astrophysists(doubtful) then maybe you should ask them to > > try doing their own fit to a z=0 non expanding model. Its not that > > hard. And unlike their spectral matching scam, you can actually > > show proof of lightcurve fitting methods. > > > > http://physicsexplained.blogspot.co.uk/2015/10/supernova-light-curves-fit-non.html > > > > The above url uses all the same accepted methods of fitting etc except > > for one important difference. The data is control tested to a non expanding > > z=0 template as well as an expanding model template. > > > This is another possible explanation of the effect > of "gravitational lensing" of light. > > Gravitational lensing is often used as an illustrative > empirical example of the "curvature" of "space". > Here instead it may follow from light's auto-diffraction > about large shining bodies. > > That focus is lensed over the Sun, it's shining right at it. > > Then also that would leave physics looking for why > there is deflection of light about the Sun. > > If you can point to another empirical example of > "curvature" of space, that otherwise could be that > "massy bodies share rest frames" instead of "massy > bodies distort neighboring rest frames". "Stars are Fresnel plates."
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Sam Wormley <swormley1@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-10-22 16:56 -0500 |
| Message-ID | <eMKdnXjzKNQHxrTLnZ2dnUU7-dudnZ2d@giganews.com> |
| In reply to | #527530 |
On 10/22/15 4:55 PM, Ross A. Finlayson wrote: > "Stars are Fresnel plates." No. -- sci.physics is an unmoderated newsgroup dedicated to the discussion of physics, news from the physics community, and physics-related social issues.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | "Ross A. Finlayson" <ross.finlayson@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-10-22 15:10 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <884aa45d-396b-4019-bdba-9fed1d1e3f32@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #527531 |
On Thursday, October 22, 2015 at 2:56:45 PM UTC-7, Sam Wormley wrote: > On 10/22/15 4:55 PM, Ross A. Finlayson wrote: > > "Stars are Fresnel plates." > > No. > > > -- > > sci.physics is an unmoderated newsgroup dedicated > to the discussion of physics, news from the physics > community, and physics-related social issues. "Lensing as via a Fresnel plate has the same effect as space curvature would have." - ? Space-time is flat or space-time is flat. If you rubber-sheet that, _that's_ flat. Relativity of motion is of constancy of light speed then mass/energy equivalence. Light carries through space at a constant speed. When it hits a shining body, here where the Sun emits at all visible wavelengths, then besides that there are ripples, there's a notion that the lensing is as the Fresnel plate lens from the resulting auto-diffraction. Obviously physics at large already looks to this in its general absorption of knowledge in detail.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Sam Wormley <swormley1@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-10-22 19:08 -0500 |
| Message-ID | <eMKdnXvzKNT857TLnZ2dnUU7-dudnZ2d@giganews.com> |
| In reply to | #527538 |
On 10/22/15 5:10 PM, Ross A. Finlayson wrote: > When it hits a shining body, here where the Sun > emits at all visible wavelengths, then besides > that there are ripples, there's a notion that > the lensing is as the Fresnel plate lens from > the resulting auto-diffraction. No. -- sci.physics is an unmoderated newsgroup dedicated to the discussion of physics, news from the physics community, and physics-related social issues.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | "Ross A. Finlayson" <ross.finlayson@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-10-22 22:57 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <aa8ecc5b-c6f7-49ad-8ccc-c343768562ad@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #527556 |
On Thursday, October 22, 2015 at 5:08:04 PM UTC-7, Sam Wormley wrote: > On 10/22/15 5:10 PM, Ross A. Finlayson wrote: > > When it hits a shining body, here where the Sun > > emits at all visible wavelengths, then besides > > that there are ripples, there's a notion that > > the lensing is as the Fresnel plate lens from > > the resulting auto-diffraction. > > No. > > Then how is space flat, eg. per Guth in the original post? It seems an interesting notion. It's coincidence that I was reading a book on light for it to apply, yet the wave-like features of light (Fresnel school) really does have much of the most development of light in the applications. Now that various parts of physics are being re-examined, by physics, this _may_ be an example of one of these things that doesn't not fit, to accommodate other regular considerations in the large (and small). So, also, look at a lunar eclipse, for example, and the light coming around it. Not Fresnel? That's just a bit of a conciliatory point where as from "space is flat, or what", really the notion that I hope you consider is all the infinities and infinitesimals that are the things in our formulas / systems in mathematical physics: where are the mathematics for these. I have some mathematics for scalar infinities and iota-values over here, what happens when they are put in the formulas for infinities and infinitesimals, and as of symmetry and reflection about the running constants. Physicists have just never had mathematics to put there, in the physics equations, for infinities and their inverses, (or partitionings of the unit scalar to parts or points), there is no "rigorous" mathematics that would suit them [1], on the shelves. They would be inventing this themselves and some quite already do. [1] of "real" mathematical infinities and infinitesimals
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Sam Wormley <swormley1@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-10-23 08:57 -0500 |
| Message-ID | <9-OdnQ7F878gobfLnZ2dnUU7-I2dnZ2d@giganews.com> |
| In reply to | #527607 |
On 10/23/15 12:57 AM, Ross A. Finlayson wrote: > So, also, look at a [total] lunar eclipse, for example, > and the light coming around it. Not Fresnel? The Earth's atmosphere scatters light. Not the same as Fresnel lens > https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fresnel_lens -- sci.physics is an unmoderated newsgroup dedicated to the discussion of physics, news from the physics community, and physics-related social issues.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | "Ross A. Finlayson" <ross.finlayson@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-10-23 08:23 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <f02b2436-f0fe-4903-af84-c45173e816f6@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #527636 |
On Friday, October 23, 2015 at 6:57:21 AM UTC-7, Sam Wormley wrote: > On 10/23/15 12:57 AM, Ross A. Finlayson wrote: > > So, also, look at a [total] lunar eclipse, for example, > > and the light coming around it. Not Fresnel? > > The Earth's atmosphere scatters light. > > Not the same as Fresnel lens > > https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fresnel_lens > Perhaps if you were referring to "double refraction" or "birefringence" instead of "atmospheric glory", but here double refraction or birefringence is also an effect in rhombic chrystals then as polarization, here about that light flips "over" the focus, while media transport is "around". No - that's a difference effect. Thank you very much, Fresnel and Land. No, thank you. Then also there is interest in what are "micro-lensing anomalies" then what that means for "space is flat". Consider: what if a zone Fresnel plate, _was_ put in scale about a star (point light source in the cosmological)? Would the focal length of lensing be halved?
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Sam Wormley <swormley1@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-10-23 10:44 -0500 |
| Message-ID | <-radnaQZmdR7yLfLnZ2dnUU7-fmdnZ2d@giganews.com> |
| In reply to | #527648 |
On 10/23/15 10:23 AM, Ross A. Finlayson wrote: > On Friday, October 23, 2015 at 6:57:21 AM UTC-7, Sam Wormley wrote: >> On 10/23/15 12:57 AM, Ross A. Finlayson wrote: >>> So, also, look at a [total] lunar eclipse, for example, >>> and the light coming around it. Not Fresnel? >> >> The Earth's atmosphere scatters light. >> >> Not the same as Fresnel lens >>> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fresnel_lens >> > > Perhaps if you were referring to "double refraction" > or "birefringence" instead of "atmospheric glory", > but here double refraction or birefringence is also > an effect in rhombic chrystals then as polarization, > here about that light flips "over" the focus, while > media transport is "around". No - that's a difference > effect. > > Thank you very much, Fresnel and Land. No, thank you. > > Then also there is interest in what are "micro-lensing > anomalies" then what that means for "space is flat". > > Consider: what if a zone Fresnel plate, _was_ put in > scale about a star (point light source in the cosmological)? > > Would the focal length of lensing be halved? > 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 -- sci.physics is an unmoderated newsgroup dedicated to the discussion of physics, news from the physics community, and physics-related social issues.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | "Ross A. Finlayson" <ross.finlayson@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-10-23 08:54 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <f76f7c8b-0182-440e-ba79-9e38a00d8889@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #527654 |
On Friday, October 23, 2015 at 8:44:41 AM UTC-7, Sam Wormley wrote: > On 10/23/15 10:23 AM, Ross A. Finlayson wrote: > > On Friday, October 23, 2015 at 6:57:21 AM UTC-7, Sam Wormley wrote: > >> On 10/23/15 12:57 AM, Ross A. Finlayson wrote: > >>> So, also, look at a [total] lunar eclipse, for example, > >>> and the light coming around it. Not Fresnel? > >> > >> The Earth's atmosphere scatters light. > >> > >> Not the same as Fresnel lens > >>> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fresnel_lens > >> > > > > Perhaps if you were referring to "double refraction" > > or "birefringence" instead of "atmospheric glory", > > but here double refraction or birefringence is also > > an effect in rhombic chrystals then as polarization, > > here about that light flips "over" the focus, while > > media transport is "around". No - that's a difference > > effect. > > > > Thank you very much, Fresnel and Land. No, thank you. > > > > Then also there is interest in what are "micro-lensing > > anomalies" then what that means for "space is flat". > > > > Consider: what if a zone Fresnel plate, _was_ put in > > scale about a star (point light source in the cosmological)? > > > > Would the focal length of lensing be halved? > > > > > 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.) Thank you, Fresnel and Land, and Gary Waldman. Sam, that's about "wave optics". The ask is "for each symbol in the formulas of mathematical physics, is it unbounded or vanishing, in the consideration of points of placement for placeholders of real mathematical infinities and infinitesimals, that mathematics should provide."
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Sam Wormley <swormley1@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-10-23 11:01 -0500 |
| Message-ID | <-radnaEZmdQixLfLnZ2dnUU7-fmdnZ2d@giganews.com> |
| In reply to | #527657 |
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. -- sci.physics is an unmoderated newsgroup dedicated to the discussion of physics, news from the physics community, and physics-related social issues.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | "Ross A. Finlayson" <ross.finlayson@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-10-23 09:12 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <f585c884-c5c8-4c85-aad1-f6a9bd9408c2@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #527659 |
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".
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-10-23 11:52 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <562A81DC.4350@ix.netcom.com> |
| In reply to | #527664 |
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.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | "Ross A. Finlayson" <ross.finlayson@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-10-23 12:17 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <817a393f-5fba-471f-9e4d-6d15a939db74@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #527709 |
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.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
Page 4 of 9 — ← Prev page 1 2 3 [4] 5 6 7 8 9 Next page →
Back to top | Article view | sci.physics
csiph-web