Re: = c + v (train)
From: The Ghost In The Machine (ewill_at_aurigae.athghost7038suus.net)
Date: 07/02/04
- Next message: The Ghost In The Machine: "Re: DHR's invited on space trip"
- Previous message: Simplicio: "Re: could this be possible"
- In reply to: Sam Wormley: "Re: = c + v (train)"
- Next in thread: Sam Wormley: "Re: = c + v (train)"
- Reply: Sam Wormley: "Re: = c + v (train)"
- Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ]
Date: Fri, 02 Jul 2004 14:08:11 GMT
In sci.physics, Sam Wormley
<swormley1@mchsi.com>
wrote
on Fri, 02 Jul 2004 04:26:21 GMT
<40E4E3E8.28494AA5@mchsi.com>:
> Jim Greenfield wrote:
>>
>> Sam Wormley <swormley1@mchsi.com> wrote in message news:<40E407E2.3E5C0BBC@mchsi.com>...
>> > Jim Greenfield wrote:
>> > >
>> > > Sam Wormley <swormley1@mchsi.com> wrote in message news:<40E36593.E1FEE148@mchsi.com>...
>> > > > Jim Greenfield wrote:
>> > > > >
>> > > > > So what are the earth ones [atomic clocks] zeroed to ????????????
>> > > >
>> > > > If you are really interested in the answer, read from the following
>> > > > and associated links:
>> > > > http://edu-observatory.org/gps/time.html
>> > >
>> > > Knew it! Comparisons are done (nuclear clocks) depending on FREQUENCY.
>> > > Since light velocity is source dependent, the alterations are
>> > > defaulting to "support GR" mode...........and don't bother with any of
>> > > that "velocity isn't _really_
>> > > distance divided by time".....I've seen so much circular logic in
>> > > these threads (ref R) my head will spin :-)
>> > >
>> > > .but wait up! If it spins, according to geodesical arguement ref
>> > > curves being "the shortest distance", no forces are acting! So why is
>> > > the pressure building in my ears?????????
>> > >
>> > > When will DHR's get a "real" job??????????
>> > >
>> > > Jim G
>> >
>> > Your lack of understanding is showing... Don't you want to understand?
>>
>> Of course I do, but unlike you, I accept that humanity CANNOT
>> understand the concept of "Infinity".
>
> Infinity is no problem
> http://mathworld.wolfram.com/Infinity.html
It may depend on what one does with it. Infinity here is
a concept, nothing more. Infinity cannot be visualized,
constructed, or worked with. Of course, the symbol
"infinity" (typically symbolized by a sidewise-8, TeX
code \infty, Unicode '\u221E', '&infinity;' or '∞',
depending on whether one's using Java, a symbolic-char
capable Web browser, or a non-symbolic-capable processing
system) has been used for awhile, and there's also an
infinite number of infinities, symbolized by aleph-sub-n
(aleph-null is the number of natural numbers, integers,
or rational numbers; aleph-one is the cardinality of the
power set of the set with cardinality aleph-null, etc.).
We can only talk about infinity, which isn't all that
useful although it can get mildly interesting (there's
a sort of debate going on in sci.logic and/or sci.math
whether the reals are countable or not -- I say sort
of because most accept Cantor's proofs, but apparently
there's one out there who has not; since his credibility
is marginal at best -- it's the TRUeMAN, aka |-|erc --
it's not much of a debate).
Does an electron care whether its charge reaches out
to infinity? No. Does an electron *act* as though its
charge reaches out to infinity? Indeterminable directly,
although various indirect methods might exist (e.g., subtle
changes in energy or motion consistent with the theory;
I'd have to look). Can an electron change because
of what we think of infinity? No.
>
> Dividing by zero is--learn the difference
Dividing by zero is not really a problem -- although
it's not all that useful either. Basically, one can
either extend the number system to allow constructs
such as 1/0 and 0/0 (1/0 is commonly called "+oo"; 0/0
is a NaN and would probably be addable, subtractable,
etc. in this new number system, but generate nothing
but NaNs as results), or simply discard the computation
(or generate a computational fault, altering execution --
which could be a problem if a fault results in a lethal
dose of radiation, but that's because of an application,
not the mathematical operation).
>
>
>> You and your DHR mates have
>> kidded yourself into thinking that you have solved and understand this
>> enigma, and are now content to live "eternally" in your ivory tower,
>> remote from Reality, while casting down intellectual stones upon those
>> who wish for more.
>>
>
> I, for one, don't believe in theories for which there is not supporting
> empirical data. SR has multitudes of supporting data, references for
> which, have been posted many times in this newsgroup!
And is probably provable every time one fires up a circular
accelerator (straight-line accelerators should show it
also, though not quite as dramatically; in a circular
accelerator, the particles have to synch up with the
electric/magnetic field gyrations or thing get slightly
wacky methinks).
No, there's plenty of evidence that characters gain mass. I'm
not sure about evidence for dimensional shrinkage along
direction of travel, though -- but I'd have to look, and
the theory predicts both.
-- #191, ewill3@earthlink.net It's still legal to go .sigless.
- Next message: The Ghost In The Machine: "Re: DHR's invited on space trip"
- Previous message: Simplicio: "Re: could this be possible"
- In reply to: Sam Wormley: "Re: = c + v (train)"
- Next in thread: Sam Wormley: "Re: = c + v (train)"
- Reply: Sam Wormley: "Re: = c + v (train)"
- Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ]
Relevant Pages
|
