infinity ...
in [Math]
|
Prev: math
Next: The proof of mass vector.
From: Ross A. Finlayson on 5 Nov 2005 16:39 Randy Poe wrote: > Ross A. Finlayson wrote: > > Randy Poe wrote: > > > Let's start with protons. Are you asserting that the more accurately we > > > try to measure the mass of a proton, the closer to zero we will measure > > > that value to be? > > > > > The experimental particle physicists measure the quantity of mass of > > these particles, > > Let's start with protons. Are you including protons in "these > particles"? > > > as they use more more energy to get a more accurate > > measurement, the measurement gets smaller, tighter within a range, but > > smaller. > > Are you asserting that measurement of proton mass has this property? > > > That's how those quantities are examined. > > For which particles? Are you asserting proton mass is measured this > way? > > > That only appears to take place upon the subatomic particles > > A proton is a subatomic particle. Are you asserting that your > description > above covers protons? If not, which specific particles are you talking > about? > > - Randy Randy, I have some very firmly held notions about the infinite, but am not much of a physicist. Why are you asking about the proton? The proton is comprised of three quarks and a gluon. We're talking the scale where "quantum weirdness" dominates, and measurement's been known to change values. In the center of a neutron star, it's a "neutron soup". Dalton: atom is billiard ball, Rutherford: atom is not a pudding, Socrates: atom is regular polyhedron. (The n-d unit infinitesimal is whimsically enough n-sphere and n-cube, most precisely.) Way out there are the immobile celestial spheres, bub. What do you think about the unit impulse function? How about the Delta function? Those are basically unrelated questions but I'm talking about mathematics. I agree that mathematics and mathematical physics are very closely related. I'm making sweeping statements about the nature of reality, so there, basically from a totally reductionist logical viewpoint that applies to all theory, including logical theories re everything. Okay, you're asking about protons, my answer is yes, I think so. I'm takling about the hadronic particles, the hadrons, and their implied constituent particles ad infinitum. I'm aware there are various experiments to determine the mass of an electron. I think you're asking me because you have something to tell me about that that I don't know. Ross
From: Randy Poe on 5 Nov 2005 17:14 Ross A. Finlayson wrote: > Randy Poe wrote: > > Ross A. Finlayson wrote: > > > Randy Poe wrote: > > > > Let's start with protons. Are you asserting that the more accurately we > > > > try to measure the mass of a proton, the closer to zero we will measure > > > > that value to be? > > > > > > > The experimental particle physicists measure the quantity of mass of > > > these particles, > > > > Let's start with protons. Are you including protons in "these > > particles"? > > > > > as they use more more energy to get a more accurate > > > measurement, the measurement gets smaller, tighter within a range, but > > > smaller. > > > > Are you asserting that measurement of proton mass has this property? > > > > > That's how those quantities are examined. > > > > For which particles? Are you asserting proton mass is measured this > > way? > > > > > That only appears to take place upon the subatomic particles > > > > A proton is a subatomic particle. Are you asserting that your > > description > > above covers protons? If not, which specific particles are you talking > > about? > > > Randy, I have some very firmly held notions about the infinite, but am > not much of a physicist. > > Why are you asking about the proton? Because you made a general statement about subatomic particles and I want to know what subatomic particles you think it applies to. A proton is a subatomic particle and your statements in connection with protons would be absurd. So I'm trying to pin you down, one particle at a time. As I asked (but you didn't answer) > > > > Let's start with protons. Are you asserting that the more accurately we > > > > try to measure the mass of a proton, the closer to zero we will measure > > > > that value to be? And as I asked again (but you didn't answer) > > Let's start with protons. Are you including protons in "these > > particles"? [snip 4 paragraphs of non-answer] > Okay, you're asking about protons, Indeed I am. > my answer is yes, I think so. You think that in measuring the mass of a proton, the more precise the experiment, the smaller the value of mass will be obtained, and that the proton mass appears to be essentially zero. Is that correct? > I'm > takling about the hadronic particles, the hadrons, and their implied > constituent particles ad infinitum. I'm aware there are various > experiments to determine the mass of an electron. Yes. To 3 significant figures, it is 511 keV in energy units (convert to Joules and divide by c^2 to get the value in kg). > I think you're > asking me because you have something to tell me about that that I don't > know. I'm asking you first of all because your statements are vague and you seem unwilling to answer specific queries about your general sweeping statements. Now that we have briefly settled on the proton, I'd like a citation of some page you think justifies this absurd claim about proton mass. - Randy
From: David R Tribble on 5 Nov 2005 17:35 David R Tribble wrote: >> On one side we have Tony, who believes infinite naturals exist but >> that the set of finite naturals is not infinite. On the other side >> we have Albrecht, who also does not believe the set of naturals is >> infinite but also does not believe infinite naturals exist. >> >> They are obviously both wrong, but for different reasons. >> It's amusing to see this kind of discussion. > Albrecht Storz wrote: > And in the middle > there is David R. Tribble > who is also not right > but has no insight > and thinks he is great > oh, what a fake. Cantor explained the infinite set And for that we are all in his debt But some cranks disagree With plain logic, you see And can't cope with sets that biject.
From: Ross A. Finlayson on 5 Nov 2005 17:35 Randy Poe wrote: > Ross A. Finlayson wrote: > > Randy Poe wrote: > > > Ross A. Finlayson wrote: > > > > Randy Poe wrote: > > > > > Let's start with protons. Are you asserting that the more accurately we > > > > > try to measure the mass of a proton, the closer to zero we will measure > > > > > that value to be? > > > > > > > > > The experimental particle physicists measure the quantity of mass of > > > > these particles, > > > > > > Let's start with protons. Are you including protons in "these > > > particles"? > > > > > > > as they use more more energy to get a more accurate > > > > measurement, the measurement gets smaller, tighter within a range, but > > > > smaller. > > > > > > Are you asserting that measurement of proton mass has this property? > > > > > > > That's how those quantities are examined. > > > > > > For which particles? Are you asserting proton mass is measured this > > > way? > > > > > > > That only appears to take place upon the subatomic particles > > > > > > A proton is a subatomic particle. Are you asserting that your > > > description > > > above covers protons? If not, which specific particles are you talking > > > about? > > > > > Randy, I have some very firmly held notions about the infinite, but am > > not much of a physicist. > > > > Why are you asking about the proton? > > Because you made a general statement about subatomic particles and I > want to know what subatomic particles you think it applies to. A proton > is > a subatomic particle and your statements in connection with protons > would be absurd. So I'm trying to pin you down, one particle at a time. > > As I asked (but you didn't answer) > > > > > Let's start with protons. Are you asserting that the more accurately we > > > > > try to measure the mass of a proton, the closer to zero we will measure > > > > > that value to be? > > And as I asked again (but you didn't answer) > > > Let's start with protons. Are you including protons in "these > > > particles"? > > [snip 4 paragraphs of non-answer] > > > Okay, you're asking about protons, > > Indeed I am. > > > my answer is yes, I think so. > > You think that in measuring the mass of a proton, the more precise > the experiment, the smaller the value of mass will be obtained, and > that > the proton mass appears to be essentially zero. Is that correct? > > > I'm > > takling about the hadronic particles, the hadrons, and their implied > > constituent particles ad infinitum. I'm aware there are various > > experiments to determine the mass of an electron. > > Yes. To 3 significant figures, it is 511 keV in energy units (convert > to > Joules and divide by c^2 to get the value in kg). > > > I think you're > > asking me because you have something to tell me about that that I don't > > know. > > I'm asking you first of all because your statements are vague and you > seem > unwilling to answer specific queries about your general sweeping > statements. > > Now that we have briefly settled on the proton, I'd like a citation of > some page > you think justifies this absurd claim about proton mass. > > - Randy Hi Randy, Here's some discussion from before: http://groups.google.com/group/sci.physics/browse_thread/thread/9f21de77c2125bdd/9c44c26fffc2838f That includes some links to explanatory material. As Bjoern Feuerbacher asks: "Where did you get that?" Excuse me if you thought I was trying to avoid the question. The closer you look at the subatomic particles, the smaller they appear to be, Randy. I address some other questions on sci.physics, sci.physics.relativity, sci.physics.particle, as I say I'm not much of a physicist, today. The newsgroups sci.physics.research and sci.physics.strings are moderated, by various parties and Lubos Motl. I'm a philosopher of mathematical logic. The universe is infinite, infinite sets are equivalent. Ross
From: Virgil on 5 Nov 2005 20:21
In article <1131230127.410346.6050(a)g43g2000cwa.googlegroups.com>, "David R Tribble" <david(a)tribble.com> wrote: > David R Tribble wrote: > >> On one side we have Tony, who believes infinite naturals exist but > >> that the set of finite naturals is not infinite. On the other side > >> we have Albrecht, who also does not believe the set of naturals is > >> infinite but also does not believe infinite naturals exist. > >> > >> They are obviously both wrong, but for different reasons. > >> It's amusing to see this kind of discussion. > > > > Albrecht Storz wrote: > > And in the middle > > there is David R. Tribble > > who is also not right > > but has no insight > > and thinks he is great > > oh, what a fake. > > Cantor explained the infinite set > And for that we are all in his debt > But some cranks disagree > With plain logic, you see > And can't cope with sets that biject. And the winner is.... David, by ten lengths and going away! |