Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]

Groups > sci.physics > #706028 > unrolled thread

How can anything be infinitely small?

Back to article view | Back to sci.physics

Contents

  How can anything be infinitely small? alal65536@gmail.com - 2018-10-03 13:53 -0700
    Re: How can anything be infinitely small? mitchrae3323@gmail.com - 2018-10-04 10:31 -0700
      Re: How can anything be infinitely small? Sergio <invalid@invalid.com> - 2018-10-04 12:50 -0500
        Re: How can anything be infinitely small? Double-A <double-a3@hush.com> - 2018-10-04 14:13 -0700
          Re: How can anything be infinitely small? "Chris M. Thomasson" <invalid_chris_thomasson@invalid.invalid> - 2018-10-04 14:52 -0700
            Re: How can anything be infinitely small? Double-A <double-a3@hush.com> - 2018-10-04 16:24 -0700
              Re: How can anything be infinitely small? Sergio <invalid@invalid.com> - 2018-10-04 20:53 -0500
                Re: How can anything be infinitely small? "Chris M. Thomasson" <invalid_chris_thomasson@invalid.invalid> - 2018-10-04 21:35 -0700
              Re: How can anything be infinitely small? "Chris M. Thomasson" <invalid_chris_thomasson@invalid.invalid> - 2018-10-04 21:42 -0700
        Re: How can anything be infinitely small? mitchrae3323@gmail.com - 2018-10-04 18:44 -0700
          Re: How can anything be infinitely small? "Chris M. Thomasson" <invalid_chris_thomasson@invalid.invalid> - 2018-10-05 21:32 -0700
            Re: How can anything be infinitely small? mitchrae3323@gmail.com - 2018-10-05 22:50 -0700
              Re: How can anything be infinitely small? "Chris M. Thomasson" <invalid_chris_thomasson@invalid.invalid> - 2018-10-05 23:14 -0700
      Re: How can anything be infinitely small? poraty149@gmail.com - 2018-10-04 20:37 -0700
      Re: How can anything be infinitely small? "reber G=emc^2" <herbertglazier0@gmail.com> - 2018-10-05 12:43 -0700
    Re: How can anything be infinitely small? Sylvia Else <sylvia@email.invalid> - 2018-10-05 12:14 +1000
      Re: How can anything be infinitely small? Edward Prochak <edprochak@gmail.com> - 2018-10-05 09:05 -0700
        Re: How can anything be infinitely small? benj <benj.fake@gmail.com> - 2018-10-05 17:00 -0400
          Re: How can anything be infinitely small? Edward Prochak <edprochak@gmail.com> - 2018-10-08 07:37 -0700
            Re: How can anything be infinitely small? benj <benj.fake@gmail.com> - 2018-10-08 11:57 -0400
    Re:How can anything be infinitely small? Libor Striz <poutnik4REMOVEnntp@CAPITALSgmail.com> - 2018-10-05 08:39 +0200
      Re:How can anything be infinitely small? john <johnsefton288@gmail.com> - 2018-10-05 07:01 -0700
        Re:How can anything be infinitely small? Libor Striz <poutnik4REMOVEnntp@CAPITALSgmail.com> - 2018-10-05 16:39 +0200
          Re:How can anything be infinitely small? john <johnsefton288@gmail.com> - 2018-10-05 07:52 -0700
            Re:How can anything be infinitely small? Libor Striz <poutnik4REMOVEnntp@CAPITALSgmail.com> - 2018-10-05 17:02 +0200
              Re: How can anything be infinitely small? benj <benj.fake@gmail.com> - 2018-10-05 11:22 -0400
                Re: How can anything be infinitely small? Libor Striz <poutnik4REMOVEnntp@CAPITALSgmail.com> - 2018-10-05 18:41 +0200
                  Re: How can anything be infinitely small? benj <benj.fake@gmail.com> - 2018-10-05 17:11 -0400
          Re: How can anything be infinitely small? benj <benj.fake@gmail.com> - 2018-10-05 11:16 -0400
            Re: How can anything be infinitely small? Edward Prochak <edprochak@gmail.com> - 2018-10-05 09:12 -0700
            Re: How can anything be infinitely small? Libor Striz <poutnik4REMOVEnntp@CAPITALSgmail.com> - 2018-10-05 18:43 +0200
              Re: How can anything be infinitely small? benj <benj.fake@gmail.com> - 2018-10-05 17:14 -0400
          Re: How can anything be infinitely small? poraty149@gmail.com - 2018-10-05 23:20 -0700
            Re: How can anything be infinitely small? "reber G=emc^2" <herbertglazier0@gmail.com> - 2018-10-10 13:05 -0700
              Re: How can anything be infinitely small? mitchrae3323@gmail.com - 2018-10-10 20:13 -0700
                Re: How can anything be infinitely small? "Chris M. Thomasson" <invalid_chris_thomasson@invalid.invalid> - 2018-10-10 20:14 -0700
                  Re: How can anything be infinitely small? benj <benj.fake@gmail.com> - 2018-10-10 23:53 -0400
    Re: How can anything be infinitely small? Edward Prochak <edprochak@gmail.com> - 2018-10-05 08:59 -0700
      Re: How can anything be infinitely small? benj <benj.fake@gmail.com> - 2018-10-05 16:48 -0400

Page 2 of 2 — ← Prev page 1 [2]

#706203

alal65536@gmail.com Wrote in message:
> I was watching a quality documentary on the Big Bang.  Somebody mentioned that the universe was infinitely small.  Can anything be smaller than Planck length?  I also don’t like the use of the word, infinity, used to describe something real.  While there may be infinities or infinitesimals in theory, I do not think anything real can be as such in practise.

There is need to distinguish mathematical and physical infinity.
A physical infinity is not a true mathematical infinity.

(Mathematical) infinities are bigger or smaller than any finite
 (nonzero) values. 

For physics, it means bigger or smaller than any finite (nonzero)
 *measureable* values.

In context of physics, an infinity is such a small or big value,
 where the difference wrt true infinity is negligible in context 
 of considered theory, known or measured values or observed or
 vonsidered phenomena.

E.g. an electron is for physics infinitely small, as it is
 experimentally smaller then any measurable size.

A photon  mass is for physics infinitely small, as it is
 experimentally smaller then any measurable mass.

-- 
Libor Striz aka Poutnik ( a pilgrim/wanderer/wayfarer)

"Humour is the only effective weapon against stupidity."
Miloš Forman


----Android NewsGroup Reader----
http://usenet.sinaapp.com/

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#706230

Libor
“E.g. an electron is for physics infinitely small, as it is 
 experimentally smaller then any measurable size. 
”
And at those sizes, light becomes too big to do the measurements.
You need a smaller version of emr.
This would manifest itself as a ‘field’, such as the electric field or the gravitational field.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#706234

john <johnsefton288@gmail.com> Wrote in message:
> Libor
> “E.g. an electron is for physics infinitely small, as it is 
>  experimentally smaller then any measurable size. 
> ”
> And at those sizes, light becomes too big to do the measurements.
> You need a smaller version of emr.
> This would manifest itself as a ‘field’, such as the electric field or the gravitational field.

Fields in physics are quantum fields, and EM field quanta
 manifests themselves as photons.

Highly energetic  photons can resolve very small sizes.

Experiments cannot use highly speculative particles.


-- 
Libor Striz aka Poutnik ( a pilgrim/wanderer/wayfarer)

"Humour is the only effective weapon against stupidity."
Miloš Forman


----Android NewsGroup Reader----
http://usenet.sinaapp.com/

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#706236

Libor
“Experiments cannot use highly speculative particles. 
“
Yes, but declaring there is no more organization smaller than a certain scale just because your visualization tool becomes unusable at that point seems silly. No?

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#706237

john <johnsefton288@gmail.com> Wrote in message:
> Libor
> “Experiments cannot use highly speculative particles. 
> “
> Yes, but declaring there is no more organization smaller than a certain scale just because your visualization tool becomes unusable at that point seems silly. No?
> 
No. 

There is no stating there are none smaller, just that there is no
 evidence there are some smaller.

Silly are things that are claimed true without being verifyable.

-- 
Libor Striz aka Poutnik ( a pilgrim/wanderer/wayfarer)

"Humour is the only effective weapon against stupidity."
Miloš Forman


----Android NewsGroup Reader----
http://usenet.sinaapp.com/

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#706241

On 10/5/2018 11:02 AM, Libor Striz wrote:
> john <johnsefton288@gmail.com> Wrote in message:
>> Libor
>> “Experiments cannot use highly speculative particles.
>> “
>> Yes, but declaring there is no more organization smaller than a certain scale just because your visualization tool becomes unusable at that point seems silly. No?
>>
> No.

No? So saying there is nothing smaller than you can see is not silly? I 
think that is silly.

> There is no stating there are none smaller, just that there is no
>   evidence there are some smaller.

Problem with "physics" to day is they've all gone leftist where fantasy 
is taken to be reality. And reality is believed to be created by what 
you imagine. Hence if you can't imagine something then it can't exist, 
right? To say there is "no evidence" (like say for ESP which has 
evidence, by the way) therefore it does not exist is standard fare these 
days in science. but it is not science. It is not even pseudoscience. It 
is unscience.

> Silly are things that are claimed true without being verifyable.

Depends on what you mean by "true" and what you mean by "verifiable".

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#706253

benj <benj.fake@gmail.com> Wrote in message:
> On 10/5/2018 11:02 AM, Libor Striz wrote:
>> john <johnsefton288@gmail.com> Wrote in message:
>>> Libor
>>> “Experiments cannot use highly speculative particles.
>>> “
>>> Yes, but declaring there is no more organization smaller than a certain scale just because your visualization tool becomes unusable at that point seems silly. No?
>>>
>> No.
> 
> No? So saying there is nothing smaller than you can see is not silly?

> I think that is silly.

Premature response, not considering the below  reasoning.
> 
>> There is no stating there are none smaller, just that there is no
>>   evidence there are some smaller.
> 
> Problem with "physics" to day is they've all gone leftist where fantasy 
> is taken to be reality. 

Predictions fitting observations are not fantasy. 

Classic quantum chemistry prediction of mercury melting point has
 error 120 Deg C.
Relativistic quantum chemistry prediction has error 1 Deg C.
It is "fantasy becomes true" reality.


>..... Hence if you can't imagine something then it can't exist, 
> right? To say there is "no evidence" (like say for ESP which has 
> evidence, by the way) therefore it does not exist is standard fare these 
> days in science. but it is not science. It is not even pseudoscience. It 
> is unscience.

You did not get me.
Physics  is about verification.
What cannot be verified lives  in *maybe* or *rather not* world
and not in *IS* world.


>> Silly are things that are claimed true without being verifyable.
> 
> Depends on what you mean by "true" and what you mean by "verifiable".

Usual means in context if physics.


-- 
Libor Striz aka Poutnik ( a pilgrim/wanderer/wayfarer)

"Humour is the only effective weapon against stupidity."
Miloš Forman


----Android NewsGroup Reader----
http://usenet.sinaapp.com/

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#706306

On 10/5/2018 12:41 PM, Libor Striz wrote:
> benj <benj.fake@gmail.com> Wrote in message:
>> On 10/5/2018 11:02 AM, Libor Striz wrote:
>>> john <johnsefton288@gmail.com> Wrote in message:
>>>> Libor
>>>> “Experiments cannot use highly speculative particles.
>>>> “
>>>> Yes, but declaring there is no more organization smaller than a certain scale just because your visualization tool becomes unusable at that point seems silly. No?
>>>>
>>> No.
>>
>> No? So saying there is nothing smaller than you can see is not silly?
> 
>> I think that is silly.
> 
> Premature response, not considering the below  reasoning.
>>
>>> There is no stating there are none smaller, just that there is no
>>>    evidence there are some smaller.
>>
>> Problem with "physics" to day is they've all gone leftist where fantasy
>> is taken to be reality.
> 
> Predictions fitting observations are not fantasy.

Yes they are!

> Classic quantum chemistry prediction of mercury melting point has
>   error 120 Deg C.
> Relativistic quantum chemistry prediction has error 1 Deg C.
> It is "fantasy becomes true" reality.

No, it is one theory givinb better results than another in a given case.
ALL theory is fantasy.

> 
>> ..... Hence if you can't imagine something then it can't exist,
>> right? To say there is "no evidence" (like say for ESP which has
>> evidence, by the way) therefore it does not exist is standard fare these
>> days in science. but it is not science. It is not even pseudoscience. It
>> is unscience.
> 
> You did not get me.
> Physics  is about verification.
> What cannot be verified lives  in *maybe* or *rather not* world
> and not in *IS* world.

Science is about verification. One cannot talk about that "which cannot 
be verified" because that is saying verification is "impossible" and as 
you should know saying something is "impossible" is the same as saying, 
"I'm a moron".

> 
>>> Silly are things that are claimed true without being verifyable.
>>
>> Depends on what you mean by "true" and what you mean by "verifiable".
> 
> Usual means in context if physics.

But even then, remember that nothing can REALLY be "verified". All is 
limited by the conditions of the 'verification". Some things verify to 
great accuracy. Others not so much. It may be a mistake to judge the 
quality of a theory by the accuracy of it's verification. However, 
theories that predict things that are never verified to any degree are 
obviously highly suspect.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#706240

On 10/5/2018 10:39 AM, Libor Striz wrote:
> john <johnsefton288@gmail.com> Wrote in message:
>> Libor
>> “E.g. an electron is for physics infinitely small, as it is
>>   experimentally smaller then any measurable size.
>> ”
>> And at those sizes, light becomes too big to do the measurements.
>> You need a smaller version of emr.
>> This would manifest itself as a ‘field’, such as the electric field or the gravitational field.
> 
> Fields in physics are quantum fields, and EM field quanta
>   manifests themselves as photons.
> 
> Highly energetic  photons can resolve very small sizes.
> 
> Experiments cannot use highly speculative particles.
> 
> 
You haven't the slightest idea what you are babbling on about.
It's pretty embarrassing when JOHN is making better arguments than you 
are.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#706250

On Friday, October 5, 2018 at 11:16:12 AM UTC-4, benj wrote:
> On 10/5/2018 10:39 AM, Libor Striz wrote:
> > john <johnsefton288@gmail.com> Wrote in message:
> >> Libor
> >> “E.g. an electron is for physics infinitely small, as it is
> >>   experimentally smaller then any measurable size.
> >> ”
> >> And at those sizes, light becomes too big to do the measurements.
> >> You need a smaller version of emr.
> >> This would manifest itself as a ‘field’, such as the electric field or the gravitational field.
> > 
> > Fields in physics are quantum fields, and EM field quanta
> >   manifests themselves as photons.
> > 
> > Highly energetic  photons can resolve very small sizes.
> > 
> > Experiments cannot use highly speculative particles.
> > 
> > 
> You haven't the slightest idea what you are babbling on about.
> It's pretty embarrassing when JOHN is making better arguments than you 
> are.

benj, John's arguments would barely hold up in a freshman Philosophy
class, let alone a Physics lab. As usual you chime in with
disingenuous arguments adding only heat and no light. When are
you going to stop playing this game and actually contribute something
to the discussion?

Ed

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#706256

benj <benj.fake@gmail.com> Wrote in message:
> On 10/5/2018 10:39 AM, Libor Striz wrote:
>> john <johnsefton288@gmail.com> Wrote in message:
>>> Libor
>>> “E.g. an electron is for physics infinitely small, as it is
>>>   experimentally smaller then any measurable size.
>>> ”
>>> And at those sizes, light becomes too big to do the measurements.
>>> You need a smaller version of emr.
>>> This would manifest itself as a ‘field’, such as the electric field or the gravitational field.
>> 
>> Fields in physics are quantum fields, and EM field quanta
>>   manifests themselves as photons.
>> 
>> Highly energetic  photons can resolve very small sizes.
>> 
>> Experiments cannot use highly speculative particles.
>> 
>> 
> You haven't the slightest idea what you are babbling on about.
> It's pretty embarrassing when JOHN is making better arguments than you 
> are.

Neither I got used to your babbling over the years .


-- 
Libor Striz aka Poutnik ( a pilgrim/wanderer/wayfarer)

"Humour is the only effective weapon against stupidity."
Miloš Forman


----Android NewsGroup Reader----
http://usenet.sinaapp.com/

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#706309

On 10/5/2018 12:43 PM, Libor Striz wrote:
> benj <benj.fake@gmail.com> Wrote in message:
>> On 10/5/2018 10:39 AM, Libor Striz wrote:
>>> john <johnsefton288@gmail.com> Wrote in message:
>>>> Libor
>>>> “E.g. an electron is for physics infinitely small, as it is
>>>>    experimentally smaller then any measurable size.
>>>> ”
>>>> And at those sizes, light becomes too big to do the measurements.
>>>> You need a smaller version of emr.
>>>> This would manifest itself as a ‘field’, such as the electric field or the gravitational field.
>>>
>>> Fields in physics are quantum fields, and EM field quanta
>>>    manifests themselves as photons.
>>>
>>> Highly energetic  photons can resolve very small sizes.
>>>
>>> Experiments cannot use highly speculative particles.
>>>
>>>
>> You haven't the slightest idea what you are babbling on about.
>> It's pretty embarrassing when JOHN is making better arguments than you
>> are.
> 
> Neither I got used to your babbling over the years .

So forget babbling. Are electrons "infinitely small" (The term used is 
"point particles") or not?  John says such assertions (made by Odd all 
the time) are nonsense. I agree with him.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#706358

On Friday, October 5, 2018 at 5:39:08 PM UTC+3, Libor Striz wrote:
> john <johnsefton288@gmail.com> Wrote in message:
> > Libor
> > “E.g. an electron is for physics infinitely small, as it is 
> >  experimentally smaller then any measurable size. 
> > ”
> > And at those sizes, light becomes too big to do the measurements.
> > You need a smaller version of emr.
> > This would manifest itself as a ‘field’, such as the electric field or the gravitational field.
> 
> Fields in physics are quantum fields, and EM field quanta
>  manifests themselves as photons.
> 
> Highly energetic  photons can resolve very small sizes.
> 
> Experiments cannot use highly speculative particles.
> 
> 
> -- ===================================
right !!
i found the mass of the 'real single photon '
to be
...exp -90 kilogram ! !!!
 it is documented in Google 
long ago 
===
TIA
Y.Porat
===========================

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#707039

On Friday, October 5, 2018 at 11:20:29 PM UTC-7, pora...@gmail.com wrote:
> On Friday, October 5, 2018 at 5:39:08 PM UTC+3, Libor Striz wrote:
> > john <johnsefton288@gmail.com> Wrote in message:
> > > Libor
> > > “E.g. an electron is for physics infinitely small, as it is 
> > >  experimentally smaller then any measurable size. 
> > > ”
> > > And at those sizes, light becomes too big to do the measurements.
> > > You need a smaller version of emr.
> > > This would manifest itself as a ‘field’, such as the electric field or the gravitational field.
> > 
> > Fields in physics are quantum fields, and EM field quanta
> >  manifests themselves as photons.
> > 
> > Highly energetic  photons can resolve very small sizes.
> > 
> > Experiments cannot use highly speculative particles.
> > 
> > 
> > -- ===================================
> right !!
> i found the mass of the 'real single photon '
> to be
> ...exp -90 kilogram ! !!!
>  it is documented in Google 
> long ago 
> ===
> TIA
> Y.Porat
> ===========================

It is easy for nature to have tinyest stuff.but largest stuff has its limit.Bert

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#707085

On Wednesday, October 10, 2018 at 1:05:27 PM UTC-7, reber G=emc^2 wrote:
> On Friday, October 5, 2018 at 11:20:29 PM UTC-7, pora...@gmail.com wrote:
> > On Friday, October 5, 2018 at 5:39:08 PM UTC+3, Libor Striz wrote:
> > > john <johnsefton288@gmail.com> Wrote in message:
> > > > Libor
> > > > “E.g. an electron is for physics infinitely small, as it is 
> > > >  experimentally smaller then any measurable size. 
> > > > ”
> > > > And at those sizes, light becomes too big to do the measurements.
> > > > You need a smaller version of emr.
> > > > This would manifest itself as a ‘field’, such as the electric field or the gravitational field.
> > > 
> > > Fields in physics are quantum fields, and EM field quanta
> > >  manifests themselves as photons.
> > > 
> > > Highly energetic  photons can resolve very small sizes.
> > > 
> > > Experiments cannot use highly speculative particles.
> > > 
> > > 
> > > -- ===================================
> > right !!
> > i found the mass of the 'real single photon '
> > to be
> > ...exp -90 kilogram ! !!!
> >  it is documented in Google 
> > long ago 
> > ===
> > TIA
> > Y.Porat
> > ===========================
> 
> It is easy for nature to have tinyest stuff.but largest stuff has its limit.Bert

The hypersphere universe has its absolute size.
No space or size contraction exists.
But rate for time slows down...

Mitchell Raemsch

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#707086

On 10/10/2018 8:13 PM, mitchrae3323@gmail.com wrote:
> On Wednesday, October 10, 2018 at 1:05:27 PM UTC-7, reber G=emc^2 wrote:
>> On Friday, October 5, 2018 at 11:20:29 PM UTC-7, pora...@gmail.com wrote:
>>> On Friday, October 5, 2018 at 5:39:08 PM UTC+3, Libor Striz wrote:
>>>> john <johnsefton288@gmail.com> Wrote in message:
>>>>> Libor
>>>>> “E.g. an electron is for physics infinitely small, as it is
>>>>>   experimentally smaller then any measurable size.
>>>>> ”
>>>>> And at those sizes, light becomes too big to do the measurements.
>>>>> You need a smaller version of emr.
>>>>> This would manifest itself as a ‘field’, such as the electric field or the gravitational field.
>>>>
>>>> Fields in physics are quantum fields, and EM field quanta
>>>>   manifests themselves as photons.
>>>>
>>>> Highly energetic  photons can resolve very small sizes.
>>>>
>>>> Experiments cannot use highly speculative particles.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> -- ===================================
>>> right !!
>>> i found the mass of the 'real single photon '
>>> to be
>>> ...exp -90 kilogram ! !!!
>>>   it is documented in Google
>>> long ago
>>> ===
>>> TIA
>>> Y.Porat
>>> ===========================
>>
>> It is easy for nature to have tinyest stuff.but largest stuff has its limit.Bert
> 
> The hypersphere universe has its absolute size.
> No space or size contraction exists.
> But rate for time slows down...

How much does one of your experiments cost to execute?

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#707096

On 10/10/2018 11:14 PM, Chris M. Thomasson wrote:
> On 10/10/2018 8:13 PM, mitchrae3323@gmail.com wrote:
>> On Wednesday, October 10, 2018 at 1:05:27 PM UTC-7, reber G=emc^2 wrote:
>>> On Friday, October 5, 2018 at 11:20:29 PM UTC-7, pora...@gmail.com 
>>> wrote:
>>>> On Friday, October 5, 2018 at 5:39:08 PM UTC+3, Libor Striz wrote:
>>>>> john <johnsefton288@gmail.com> Wrote in message:
>>>>>> Libor
>>>>>> “E.g. an electron is for physics infinitely small, as it is
>>>>>>   experimentally smaller then any measurable size.
>>>>>> ”
>>>>>> And at those sizes, light becomes too big to do the measurements.
>>>>>> You need a smaller version of emr.
>>>>>> This would manifest itself as a ‘field’, such as the electric 
>>>>>> field or the gravitational field.
>>>>>
>>>>> Fields in physics are quantum fields, and EM field quanta
>>>>>   manifests themselves as photons.
>>>>>
>>>>> Highly energetic  photons can resolve very small sizes.
>>>>>
>>>>> Experiments cannot use highly speculative particles.
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> -- ===================================
>>>> right !!
>>>> i found the mass of the 'real single photon '
>>>> to be
>>>> ...exp -90 kilogram ! !!!
>>>>   it is documented in Google
>>>> long ago
>>>> ===
>>>> TIA
>>>> Y.Porat
>>>> ===========================
>>>
>>> It is easy for nature to have tinyest stuff.but largest stuff has its 
>>> limit.Bert
>>
>> The hypersphere universe has its absolute size.
>> No space or size contraction exists.
>> But rate for time slows down...

Hey, Mitch, have you been reading my theories? That's not so easy 
because they are not currently online. Give me the diameter of the 
universe hypersphere. I'm stuck getting that calculation correct.

______ Parsecs.

> How much does one of your experiments cost to execute?

The problem is not cost (look at the money wasted on stupid LIGO) The 
problem is changing your The Grand Material Metaparadigm.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#706245

On Wednesday, October 3, 2018 at 4:53:31 PM UTC-4, alal...@gmail.com wrote:
> I was watching a quality documentary on the Big Bang.  Somebody
> mentioned that the universe was infinitely small.  Can anything
> be smaller than Planck length?  I also don’t like the use of the
> word, infinity, used to describe something real.  While there may
> be infinities or infinitesimals in theory, I do not think anything
> real can be as such in practise.

Well extrapolating from the current universe back to the Big Bang,
there is nothing stopping the process to arrive at something that
was originally "infinitely" small.

We need a word to describe the condition, so infinitely small
seems to work. Saying smaller than a Planck length is too long.
Was it smaller than a Planck length? We don't know.

Just keep in mind this is about describing a process we cannot test
in the lab. (We don't have the ability to create a universe.)

So it is a good question, but it doesn't really have an answer yet.

HTH,
ed

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#706296

On 10/5/2018 11:59 AM, Edward Prochak wrote:
> On Wednesday, October 3, 2018 at 4:53:31 PM UTC-4, alal...@gmail.com wrote:
>> I was watching a quality documentary on the Big Bang.  Somebody
>> mentioned that the universe was infinitely small.  Can anything
>> be smaller than Planck length?  I also don’t like the use of the
>> word, infinity, used to describe something real.  While there may
>> be infinities or infinitesimals in theory, I do not think anything
>> real can be as such in practise.
> 
> Well extrapolating from the current universe back to the Big Bang,
> there is nothing stopping the process to arrive at something that
> was originally "infinitely" small.

Nothing except the fact that the Big Bang is itself an extrapolation 
which just happens to be wrong and the fact that "infinite" is a 
mathematical term that has no existence in actual reality except in 
regard to human stupidity.

> We need a word to describe the condition, so infinitely small
> seems to work. Saying smaller than a Planck length is too long.
> Was it smaller than a Planck length? We don't know.

Since it's all fantasy you can make it any size you wish.

> Just keep in mind this is about describing a process we cannot test
> in the lab. (We don't have the ability to create a universe.)

How about keeping in mind that science is only validated by 
measurements, not philosophical fantasies.

> So it is a good question, but it doesn't really have an answer yet.

It is a good question with no answer (yet) and the rejection of any use 
of the word "infinite" in any context except mathematical theory is also 
exactly correct.

[toc] | [prev] | [standalone]

Page 2 of 2 — ← Prev page 1 [2]

Back to top | Article view | sci.physics

csiph-web