|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
#1
|
|||
|
|||
Infinities in physics.
"Rich" wrote in message ... Dirk Van de moortel replied: "Rich" wrote in message ... [snip] I think you are missing the point. [snip] I think you severely missed my point as well. Never mind, I don't feel like explaining. Hypotheticals can be hard to explain. Sometimes yes, but hypotheticals are not what I don't feel like explaining. What I said was meant to be entirely self-explaining. There was no amusing typo. Despite my warning on the first line of my reply, this happened to be a carefully worded statement, specially put in place so that you would not feel the need to make that remark "unknowable as that place may be". You really missed my point. I just had a look at the thread in sci.astro.seti Alfred: | Isn't "forever" infinity? You: | This is not an infinity in nature Alfred. Let me translate | it for you, if something takes infinite time to happen, | it never happens. You clearly missed Alfred's point as well. Dirk Vdm |
#2
|
|||
|
|||
Infinities in physics.
"Rich" wrote in message ... Dirk Van de moortel replied: "Rich" wrote in message ... [snip] I think you are missing the point. [snip] I think you severely missed my point as well. Never mind, I don't feel like explaining. Hypotheticals can be hard to explain. Sometimes yes, but hypotheticals are not what I don't feel like explaining. What I said was meant to be entirely self-explaining. There was no amusing typo. Despite my warning on the first line of my reply, this happened to be a carefully worded statement, specially put in place so that you would not feel the need to make that remark "unknowable as that place may be". You really missed my point. I just had a look at the thread in sci.astro.seti Alfred: | Isn't "forever" infinity? You: | This is not an infinity in nature Alfred. Let me translate | it for you, if something takes infinite time to happen, | it never happens. You clearly missed Alfred's point as well. Dirk Vdm |
#3
|
|||
|
|||
Infinities in physics.
Dirk Van de moortel replied: "Rich" wrote in message ... Dirk Van de moortel replied: "Rich" wrote in message ... [snip] I think you are missing the point. [snip] I think you severely missed my point as well. Never mind, I don't feel like explaining. Hypotheticals can be hard to explain. Sometimes yes, but hypotheticals are not what I don't feel like explaining. They were the first part of it. What I said was meant to be entirely self-explaining. You say... DVM I don't say that these infinities exist - I just don't know - but do you DVM know for sure that they don't? I say that even if they do, they cannot even in principle be measured and they are no part of any real world problem. What you probably meant to say was that as the bringer of absolute truth, you see no need to soil yourself debating the perls you cast before swine, or something to that effect. There was no amusing typo. Despite my warning on the first line of my reply, this happened to be a carefully worded statement, specially put in place so that you would not feel the need to make that remark "unknowable as that place may be". You really missed my point. Perhaps there's more than a single viewpoint here? Perhaps there's some disagreement as to the state of infinity? A physicist won a Nobel prize for cleaning up those pesky infinities. Seems you know something neither he nor the prize committe knew. I just had a look at the thread in sci.astro.seti Alfred: | Isn't "forever" infinity? You: | This is not an infinity in nature Alfred. Let me translate | it for you, if something takes infinite time to happen, | it never happens. You clearly missed Alfred's point as well. I did not miss it, it's simply wrong. Dirk Vdm The final (summing-up) chapter of Achilles in the Quantum Universe: The Definitive History of Infinity (just published by Holt): "In physics, on the other hand, the appearance of infinite quantities in a theory is usually a sign that something is terribly wrong." There seems to be some agreement here. But if you claim to have infinite answers to real world questions and problems, I'd love to see them (and how you'd use them to build a bridge or whatever). My newseerver won't allow me to post to two groups at once, so I'm posting seperatly to both groups. Rich |
#4
|
|||
|
|||
Infinities in physics.
Dirk Van de moortel replied: "Rich" wrote in message ... Dirk Van de moortel replied: "Rich" wrote in message ... [snip] I think you are missing the point. [snip] I think you severely missed my point as well. Never mind, I don't feel like explaining. Hypotheticals can be hard to explain. Sometimes yes, but hypotheticals are not what I don't feel like explaining. They were the first part of it. What I said was meant to be entirely self-explaining. You say... DVM I don't say that these infinities exist - I just don't know - but do you DVM know for sure that they don't? I say that even if they do, they cannot even in principle be measured and they are no part of any real world problem. What you probably meant to say was that as the bringer of absolute truth, you see no need to soil yourself debating the perls you cast before swine, or something to that effect. There was no amusing typo. Despite my warning on the first line of my reply, this happened to be a carefully worded statement, specially put in place so that you would not feel the need to make that remark "unknowable as that place may be". You really missed my point. Perhaps there's more than a single viewpoint here? Perhaps there's some disagreement as to the state of infinity? A physicist won a Nobel prize for cleaning up those pesky infinities. Seems you know something neither he nor the prize committe knew. I just had a look at the thread in sci.astro.seti Alfred: | Isn't "forever" infinity? You: | This is not an infinity in nature Alfred. Let me translate | it for you, if something takes infinite time to happen, | it never happens. You clearly missed Alfred's point as well. I did not miss it, it's simply wrong. Dirk Vdm The final (summing-up) chapter of Achilles in the Quantum Universe: The Definitive History of Infinity (just published by Holt): "In physics, on the other hand, the appearance of infinite quantities in a theory is usually a sign that something is terribly wrong." There seems to be some agreement here. But if you claim to have infinite answers to real world questions and problems, I'd love to see them (and how you'd use them to build a bridge or whatever). My newseerver won't allow me to post to two groups at once, so I'm posting seperatly to both groups. Rich |
#5
|
|||
|
|||
Infinities in physics.
"Rich" wrote in message ... Dirk Van de moortel replied: [snip] You really missed my point. Perhaps there's more than a single viewpoint here? Perhaps there's some disagreement as to the state of infinity? A physicist won a Nobel prize for cleaning up those pesky infinities. You don't know what they are talking about and you don't want to know what I was talking about. Seems you know something neither he nor the prize committe knew. Yes, I know that you are a qualified point misser. Dirk Vdm |
#6
|
|||
|
|||
Infinities in physics.
"Rich" wrote in message ... Dirk Van de moortel replied: [snip] You really missed my point. Perhaps there's more than a single viewpoint here? Perhaps there's some disagreement as to the state of infinity? A physicist won a Nobel prize for cleaning up those pesky infinities. You don't know what they are talking about and you don't want to know what I was talking about. Seems you know something neither he nor the prize committe knew. Yes, I know that you are a qualified point misser. Dirk Vdm |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
Scientific books: cheap sell-out of the library | Scientific Books | Astronomy Misc | 2 | July 2nd 04 06:31 PM |
Physics News Update -- Number 658, October 21, 2003 | Rich | SETI | 0 | October 22nd 03 09:35 PM |