Cantor Confusion
in [Math]
|
Prev: Pi berechnen: Ramanujan oder BBP
Next: Group Theory
From: Han de Bruijn on 1 Nov 2006 03:20 Virgil wrote: > In article <f328c$45470fd4$82a1e228$20321(a)news2.tudelft.nl>, > Han de Bruijn <Han.deBruijn(a)DTO.TUDelft.NL> wrote: > >>David Marcus wrote: >> >>>I guess your definition of "mathematics" is different from mine. >> >>Yes. Like your definition of "physics" is different from mine. > > Fair enough. > > In another post, HdB claimed to have physical evidence that a > discontinuity would halt time, or something equally idiotic. A large mass (as with the balls in a vase close to noon) surely _will_ halt time, according to the General Theory of Relativity. > So we are not at all distressed to hear him say that his definition of > physics is quite different from ours. It's Albert Einstein's theory, not mine. Can't you keep up with modern physics a little bit? Han de Bruijn
From: Han de Bruijn on 1 Nov 2006 03:26 Virgil wrote: > In article <bdc92$45476e9e$82a1e228$30478(a)news1.tudelft.nl>, > Han de Bruijn <Han.deBruijn(a)DTO.TUDelft.NL> wrote: > >>It's easy to come up with a correct physical problem and >>solve it with the wrong mathematics. As you did. > > HdB has come up with a mathematical problem which he claims can end the > world: > > HdB claimed that a discontinuity in a mathematical function of time > causes time to stop. And he claimed this followed from physics. > > Thus, if HdB is right, the vase problem will cause the end of the > world. Yes. If it came into _existence_, it would cause the end of the world. Because an infinite mass would be no less than a Cosmic Disaster. Han de Bruijn
From: Han de Bruijn on 1 Nov 2006 03:29 David Marcus wrote: > Han de Bruijn wrote: > >>David Marcus wrote: >> >>>I guess your definition of "mathematics" is different from mine. >> >>Yes. Like your definition of "physics" is different from mine. > > I certainly hope so. Me too. Han de Bruijn
From: Han de Bruijn on 1 Nov 2006 03:38 Virgil wrote: > In article <ei937d$jsr$1(a)news.msu.edu>, stephen(a)nomail.com wrote: > >>David Marcus <DavidMarcus(a)alumdotmit.edu> wrote: >> >>>Virgil wrote: >>> >>>>In article <bdc92$45476e9e$82a1e228$30478(a)news1.tudelft.nl>, >>>> Han de Bruijn <Han.deBruijn(a)DTO.TUDelft.NL> wrote: >>>> >>>>>It's easy to come up with a correct physical problem and >>>>>solve it with the wrong mathematics. As you did. >>>> >>>>HdB has come up with a mathematical problem which he claims can end the >>>>world: >>>> >>>>HdB claimed that a discontinuity in a mathematical function of time >>>>causes time to stop. And he claimed this followed from physics. >>>> >>>>Thus, if HdB is right, the vase problem will cause the end of the >>>>world. >> >>>Yes, but when? >> >>Noon? > > As there cannot be any such noon according to HdB's physics experiments, > it must happen before noon, but after every other time before noon. It may seem that you are just making fun. But no, for the first time in the history of 'sci.math' there's a chance that Stephen and Virgil are both getting somewhere ... Han de Bruijn
From: Randy Poe on 1 Nov 2006 06:31
Han de Bruijn wrote: > Virgil wrote: > > > In article <f328c$45470fd4$82a1e228$20321(a)news2.tudelft.nl>, > > Han de Bruijn <Han.deBruijn(a)DTO.TUDelft.NL> wrote: > > > >>David Marcus wrote: > >> > >>>I guess your definition of "mathematics" is different from mine. > >> > >>Yes. Like your definition of "physics" is different from mine. > > > > Fair enough. > > > > In another post, HdB claimed to have physical evidence that a > > discontinuity would halt time, or something equally idiotic. > > A large mass (as with the balls in a vase close to noon) surely _will_ > halt time, according to the General Theory of Relativity. You are no doubt remembering something you heard about time inside the Schwarzchild radius of a black hole. Point to ponder: Black holes exist in our galaxy. Yet here we are, with time ticking on regardless. Is it possible you remember something wrong? > > So we are not at all distressed to hear him say that his definition of > > physics is quite different from ours. > > It's Albert Einstein's theory, not mine. That's a common statement among those in sci.physics who have issues with relativity. Of course, what they are saying is in fact their theory, their misinterpretation of something Einstein said, rather than Einstein's theory. > Can't you keep up with modern physics a little bit? This is a non-physical problem. There are many aspects of it that make it physically non-realizable. Once you start pondering this problem at all, you've left the real where GR or any other physical theory applies. - Randy |