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

"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

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

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

"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

"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