physics / maths
-
- Posts: 1057
- Joined: Wed Jan 19, 2011 8:07 am
physics / maths
There any real evidence that infinity exists such as
a mathematical proof for example : and if there is not
then is it not therefore presumptuous and unscientific for
a mathematician or physicist to automatically assume it does
According to Einsteins Special Theory Of Relativity nothing
can travel faster than light : galaxies however are accelerating
from each other beyond that speed : this does not violate Relativity
but since we are part of one such galaxy it follows that any movement
within it must also be beyond light speed [ if moving in the same direction ]
So as I sit here typing this out I must be moving at beyond light speed too : in the
same way that I am also moving at 67 000 mph as that is the rotational axis speed of
Earth : if this reasoning however is not logical then where exactly is the flaw in this theory
Has time always been linear and if not why
And why cannot it have existed before the Big Bang
What is the difference between a Theory a Law and a Principle
Why is it that infinity minus infinity should equal infinity instead of zero
If time can exist in a Universe that is devoid of matter how can it be measured
Why cannot the Theory Of Gravity be referenced in the equation of the Standard Model
If only four elementary particles are needed to create a Universe what purpose do the rest serve
How can one infinity which is quantitatively less than another infinity still be infinite :
such as for example the infinity of positive numbers compared to the infinity of all numbers
This letter has appeared in Psychology Now : Is it true as it infers Einstein is wrong :
I think Professor Tallis is right to be suspicious in Issue 87 of the mathematicians habit of
treating their tools as though they were real : A good example is Special Relativity, accounts of
which give the impression that time slows or speeds up according to your relative velocity : it doesn t
What we experience is due to atoms exchanging messenger particles, the most familiar of which are photons :
That particles of light travel at the speed of light is a tautology but if the recipient is travelling at the speed of light
a message will never arrive : With out an exchange of particles, nothing happens : atomic clocks for instance, don t tick
a mathematical proof for example : and if there is not
then is it not therefore presumptuous and unscientific for
a mathematician or physicist to automatically assume it does
According to Einsteins Special Theory Of Relativity nothing
can travel faster than light : galaxies however are accelerating
from each other beyond that speed : this does not violate Relativity
but since we are part of one such galaxy it follows that any movement
within it must also be beyond light speed [ if moving in the same direction ]
So as I sit here typing this out I must be moving at beyond light speed too : in the
same way that I am also moving at 67 000 mph as that is the rotational axis speed of
Earth : if this reasoning however is not logical then where exactly is the flaw in this theory
Has time always been linear and if not why
And why cannot it have existed before the Big Bang
What is the difference between a Theory a Law and a Principle
Why is it that infinity minus infinity should equal infinity instead of zero
If time can exist in a Universe that is devoid of matter how can it be measured
Why cannot the Theory Of Gravity be referenced in the equation of the Standard Model
If only four elementary particles are needed to create a Universe what purpose do the rest serve
How can one infinity which is quantitatively less than another infinity still be infinite :
such as for example the infinity of positive numbers compared to the infinity of all numbers
This letter has appeared in Psychology Now : Is it true as it infers Einstein is wrong :
I think Professor Tallis is right to be suspicious in Issue 87 of the mathematicians habit of
treating their tools as though they were real : A good example is Special Relativity, accounts of
which give the impression that time slows or speeds up according to your relative velocity : it doesn t
What we experience is due to atoms exchanging messenger particles, the most familiar of which are photons :
That particles of light travel at the speed of light is a tautology but if the recipient is travelling at the speed of light
a message will never arrive : With out an exchange of particles, nothing happens : atomic clocks for instance, don t tick
A MIND IS LIKE A PARACHUTE : IT DOES NOT WORK UNLESS IT IS OPEN
- Gallstones
- Supreme Absolute And Exclusive Ruler Of The World
- Posts: 8888
- Joined: Wed Feb 24, 2010 12:56 am
- About me: A fleck on a flake on a speck.
Re: physics / maths
Whether "everything known" continues or comes to an end, infinity has to exist because there will be a persistence of something or a persistence of nothing--forever.
But here’s the thing about rights. They’re not actually supposed to be voted on. That’s why they’re called rights. ~Rachel Maddow August 2010
The Second Amendment forms a fourth branch of government (an armed citizenry) in case the government goes mad. ~Larry Nutter
The Second Amendment forms a fourth branch of government (an armed citizenry) in case the government goes mad. ~Larry Nutter
- JimC
- The sentimental bloke
- Posts: 74175
- Joined: Thu Feb 26, 2009 7:58 am
- About me: To be serious about gin requires years of dedicated research.
- Location: Melbourne, Australia
- Contact:
Re: physics / maths
The expansion of space-time may well be beyond light speed, but Einstein's limit applies to entities within the framework, not the framework itself...
Nurse, where the fuck's my cardigan?
And my gin!
And my gin!
-
- Posts: 1057
- Joined: Wed Jan 19, 2011 8:07 am
Re: physics / maths
A good answer Gallstones
Simple and profound though
I should just correct one thing
There is currently no such thing
as absolute nothing which is ironic
in discussing infinity as that would be
an infinity in itself : I tend to agree with
you though it can not be proven : for all we
know when this Universe dies a parallel one may
emerge as a mirror image of this one where nothing
does exists : now as to whether nothing can be something
is not a question I can answer : some of the more cerebral ones
here though may be able to shine some light on that particular paradox
Simple and profound though
I should just correct one thing
There is currently no such thing
as absolute nothing which is ironic
in discussing infinity as that would be
an infinity in itself : I tend to agree with
you though it can not be proven : for all we
know when this Universe dies a parallel one may
emerge as a mirror image of this one where nothing
does exists : now as to whether nothing can be something
is not a question I can answer : some of the more cerebral ones
here though may be able to shine some light on that particular paradox
A MIND IS LIKE A PARACHUTE : IT DOES NOT WORK UNLESS IT IS OPEN
- Xamonas Chegwé
- Bouncer
- Posts: 50939
- Joined: Thu Feb 26, 2009 3:23 pm
- About me: I have prehensile eyebrows.
I speak 9 languages fluently, one of which other people can also speak.
When backed into a corner, I fit perfectly - having a right-angled arse. - Location: Nottingham UK
- Contact:
Re: physics / maths
Time does not speed up or slow down. Time has no motion at all. It is a dimension. You might as well say that "up" speeds up while "backwards" slows down as say that time changes speed. What changes due to relativistic effects is the movement of objects through time.
Everything travels at lightspeed, not only light; the difference is that, for massive particles, part of that travel is through the dimension of time. Photons have no mass and do not move through time at all - all of their motion is through the 3 spacial dimensions. Change the relative velocities of two objects and their relative velocities through time change - this is real - clocks run slower on Earth than in geostationary satellites and this has to be constantly adjusted for.
Everything travels at lightspeed, not only light; the difference is that, for massive particles, part of that travel is through the dimension of time. Photons have no mass and do not move through time at all - all of their motion is through the 3 spacial dimensions. Change the relative velocities of two objects and their relative velocities through time change - this is real - clocks run slower on Earth than in geostationary satellites and this has to be constantly adjusted for.
A book is a version of the world. If you do not like it, ignore it; or offer your own version in return.
Salman Rushdie
You talk to God, you're religious. God talks to you, you're psychotic.
House MD
Who needs a meaning anyway, I'd settle anyday for a very fine view.
Sandy Denny
This is the wrong forum for bluffing
Paco
Yes, yes. But first I need to show you this venomous fish!
Calilasseia
I think we should do whatever Pawiz wants.
Twoflower
Bella squats momentarily then waddles on still peeing, like a horse
Millefleur
Salman Rushdie
You talk to God, you're religious. God talks to you, you're psychotic.
House MD
Who needs a meaning anyway, I'd settle anyday for a very fine view.
Sandy Denny
This is the wrong forum for bluffing

Paco
Yes, yes. But first I need to show you this venomous fish!
Calilasseia
I think we should do whatever Pawiz wants.
Twoflower
Bella squats momentarily then waddles on still peeing, like a horse
Millefleur
- mistermack
- Posts: 15093
- Joined: Sat Apr 10, 2010 10:57 am
- About me: Never rong.
- Contact:
Re: physics / maths
Firstly, I think the bit about the rotational speed of the Earth is wrong.
That would make a day less than an hour long. I haven't checked, but you might be referring to the orbital speed there.
I've never liked relativity myself, as representing reality. I think it's a way of mathematically modelling reality which works perfectly, to me it's more of a tool than an explanation.
When it comes to infinity, that's something else that I've wondered about, and it always seems to end up that you CAN have infinity, but only an infinity of nothing.
Divide one by zero, and you get infinity. Divide ten by zero, and you get infinity.
But divide anything by something, no matter how small, and you don't get infinity.
People have tried to give examples of infinities in other threads, and when you boil them down, they are always infinite quantities of nothing. ie, they have divided something by an infinitely small quantity, ( zero) or they have simply multiplied by infinity somewhere.
That would make a day less than an hour long. I haven't checked, but you might be referring to the orbital speed there.
I've never liked relativity myself, as representing reality. I think it's a way of mathematically modelling reality which works perfectly, to me it's more of a tool than an explanation.
When it comes to infinity, that's something else that I've wondered about, and it always seems to end up that you CAN have infinity, but only an infinity of nothing.
Divide one by zero, and you get infinity. Divide ten by zero, and you get infinity.
But divide anything by something, no matter how small, and you don't get infinity.
People have tried to give examples of infinities in other threads, and when you boil them down, they are always infinite quantities of nothing. ie, they have divided something by an infinitely small quantity, ( zero) or they have simply multiplied by infinity somewhere.
While there is a market for shit, there will be assholes to supply it.
- mistermack
- Posts: 15093
- Joined: Sat Apr 10, 2010 10:57 am
- About me: Never rong.
- Contact:
Re: physics / maths
Is that actually correct? I would have expected it to be the other way round.Xamonas Chegwé wrote: clocks run slower on Earth than in geostationary satellites and this has to be constantly adjusted for.
While there is a market for shit, there will be assholes to supply it.
- Xamonas Chegwé
- Bouncer
- Posts: 50939
- Joined: Thu Feb 26, 2009 3:23 pm
- About me: I have prehensile eyebrows.
I speak 9 languages fluently, one of which other people can also speak.
When backed into a corner, I fit perfectly - having a right-angled arse. - Location: Nottingham UK
- Contact:
Re: physics / maths
It is correct.mistermack wrote:Is that actually correct? I would have expected it to be the other way round.Xamonas Chegwé wrote: clocks run slower on Earth than in geostationary satellites and this has to be constantly adjusted for.
The clocks they send into geostationary orbit are made to run slower then normal so that they are in synch with "our" time when in space. They would lose time here on Earth but, when in geostationary orbit, they keep time with us. If the same clocks were in a more distant orbit, they would gain.
A book is a version of the world. If you do not like it, ignore it; or offer your own version in return.
Salman Rushdie
You talk to God, you're religious. God talks to you, you're psychotic.
House MD
Who needs a meaning anyway, I'd settle anyday for a very fine view.
Sandy Denny
This is the wrong forum for bluffing
Paco
Yes, yes. But first I need to show you this venomous fish!
Calilasseia
I think we should do whatever Pawiz wants.
Twoflower
Bella squats momentarily then waddles on still peeing, like a horse
Millefleur
Salman Rushdie
You talk to God, you're religious. God talks to you, you're psychotic.
House MD
Who needs a meaning anyway, I'd settle anyday for a very fine view.
Sandy Denny
This is the wrong forum for bluffing

Paco
Yes, yes. But first I need to show you this venomous fish!
Calilasseia
I think we should do whatever Pawiz wants.
Twoflower
Bella squats momentarily then waddles on still peeing, like a horse
Millefleur
- mistermack
- Posts: 15093
- Joined: Sat Apr 10, 2010 10:57 am
- About me: Never rong.
- Contact:
Re: physics / maths
But surely that means that the faster the clock is moving, the faster it runs.Xamonas Chegwé wrote:It is correct.mistermack wrote:Is that actually correct? I would have expected it to be the other way round.Xamonas Chegwé wrote: clocks run slower on Earth than in geostationary satellites and this has to be constantly adjusted for.
The clocks they send into geostationary orbit are made to run slower then normal so that they are in synch with "our" time when in space. They would lose time here on Earth but, when in geostationary orbit, they keep time with us. If the same clocks were in a more distant orbit, they would gain.
I thought it was the other way round?
While there is a market for shit, there will be assholes to supply it.
- mistermack
- Posts: 15093
- Joined: Sat Apr 10, 2010 10:57 am
- About me: Never rong.
- Contact:
Re: physics / maths
I just had a look, and it seems that we were both a bit right and a bit wrong.
The clocks on Earth go slower, not because of relative motion, but because of the gravitational field of the Earth. In orbit, the pull of gravity is less, and the clocks speed up.
They DO slow a bit due to their faster relative speed, but that is outweighed by the greater speeding up of the gravitational effect.
They lose about 7 microseconds per day due to relative motion, but gain about 45 microseconds per day due to the difference of the gravitational field. That's why they have to be set about 38 microseconds slower than Earth clocks.
The clocks on Earth go slower, not because of relative motion, but because of the gravitational field of the Earth. In orbit, the pull of gravity is less, and the clocks speed up.
They DO slow a bit due to their faster relative speed, but that is outweighed by the greater speeding up of the gravitational effect.
They lose about 7 microseconds per day due to relative motion, but gain about 45 microseconds per day due to the difference of the gravitational field. That's why they have to be set about 38 microseconds slower than Earth clocks.
While there is a market for shit, there will be assholes to supply it.
- Xamonas Chegwé
- Bouncer
- Posts: 50939
- Joined: Thu Feb 26, 2009 3:23 pm
- About me: I have prehensile eyebrows.
I speak 9 languages fluently, one of which other people can also speak.
When backed into a corner, I fit perfectly - having a right-angled arse. - Location: Nottingham UK
- Contact:
Re: physics / maths
You weren't "a bit right and a bit wrong" - you claimed clocks should run faster on Earth - you had it completely backwards!mistermack wrote:I just had a look, and it seems that we were both a bit right and a bit wrong.
The clocks on Earth go slower, not because of relative motion, but because of the gravitational field of the Earth. In orbit, the pull of gravity is less, and the clocks speed up.
They DO slow a bit due to their faster relative speed, but that is outweighed by the greater speeding up of the gravitational effect.
They lose about 7 microseconds per day due to relative motion, but gain about 45 microseconds per day due to the difference of the gravitational field. That's why they have to be set about 38 microseconds slower than Earth clocks.
And the gravitational effects are still relativity.
A book is a version of the world. If you do not like it, ignore it; or offer your own version in return.
Salman Rushdie
You talk to God, you're religious. God talks to you, you're psychotic.
House MD
Who needs a meaning anyway, I'd settle anyday for a very fine view.
Sandy Denny
This is the wrong forum for bluffing
Paco
Yes, yes. But first I need to show you this venomous fish!
Calilasseia
I think we should do whatever Pawiz wants.
Twoflower
Bella squats momentarily then waddles on still peeing, like a horse
Millefleur
Salman Rushdie
You talk to God, you're religious. God talks to you, you're psychotic.
House MD
Who needs a meaning anyway, I'd settle anyday for a very fine view.
Sandy Denny
This is the wrong forum for bluffing

Paco
Yes, yes. But first I need to show you this venomous fish!
Calilasseia
I think we should do whatever Pawiz wants.
Twoflower
Bella squats momentarily then waddles on still peeing, like a horse
Millefleur
- mistermack
- Posts: 15093
- Joined: Sat Apr 10, 2010 10:57 am
- About me: Never rong.
- Contact:
Re: physics / maths
I was exactly a bit right and a bit wrong. Unlike you, I pointed out that a faster moving clock runs slower.Xamonas Chegwé wrote: You weren't "a bit right and a bit wrong" - you claimed clocks should run faster on Earth - you had it completely backwards!
YOU had it completely backwards !
However, I didn't know that the gravitational effects were great enough to cancel that out, and make the space clock run faster. And neither did you. You got your reasoning completely wrong. And I quote :
No mention of gravity, the real reason why clocks run slower on Earth.Xamonas Chegwé wrote: Change the relative velocities of two objects and their relative velocities through time change - this is real - clocks run slower on Earth than in geostationary satellites and this has to be constantly adjusted for.
You've obviously read that clocks run slower on Earth, remembered that fact parrot fashion, but without understanding the reason why. I'm glad I've been able to help you.
I would have thought that thanks were in order, but never mind.
By the way, your attempt to gloss over getting it wrong, as in
is a bit pathetic.Xamonas Chegwé wrote: And the gravitational effects are still relativity.
You never mentioned the gravitational effect till I enlightened you, so don't pretend that you knew it.
While there is a market for shit, there will be assholes to supply it.
- nellikin
- Dirt(y) girl
- Posts: 2299
- Joined: Tue Feb 23, 2010 5:47 am
- About me: KSC
- Location: Newcastle, Oz
- Contact:
Re: physics / maths
WRT to infinity: we learnt in maths that infinity isn't so much an entity as a concept - i.e. the concept that there are a never ending number of numbers, because you can always add (or subtract) a one to a number. Negative numbers don't actually exist either (or when did you last have minus 6 kg of cheese in your fridge?). As such, comparing 'one infinity' with another (i.e. positive infinity to positive and or negative infinity) is merely comparing 2 concepts, not compraing to actual existing entities - I don't see the problem here. That said, infinity can be used in maths to see, for example, if series converge as they approach infinity. Irrational numbers (square root of minus one) are also employed to calculate rational answers in engineering designs (e.g. in static or structural problems), even though they don't actually exist, their solutions do...
To ignore the absence of evidence is the base of true faith.
-Gore Vidal
-Gore Vidal
- mistermack
- Posts: 15093
- Joined: Sat Apr 10, 2010 10:57 am
- About me: Never rong.
- Contact:
Re: physics / maths
I'm not too sure about the negative numbers bit. We had a frost of about minus three a few nights ago.nellikin wrote: Negative numbers don't actually exist either (or when did you last have minus 6 kg of cheese in your fridge?).
Course you wouldn't get those in Newcastle. But you might dive to minus ten metres above sea level.
While there is a market for shit, there will be assholes to supply it.
-
- Posts: 1057
- Joined: Wed Jan 19, 2011 8:07 am
Re: physics / maths
The measurement of temperature
or sea levels is artificial as it is using
maths which is an abstract discipline so
in that respect those reference points do
not exist : so if humans had not evolved to
level of comprehension necessary for them to
understand maths then minus three degrees or
minus ten metres would be meaning less and all
they would be able to ascertain then would be if it
was merely cold or deep not how cold or deep it was
or sea levels is artificial as it is using
maths which is an abstract discipline so
in that respect those reference points do
not exist : so if humans had not evolved to
level of comprehension necessary for them to
understand maths then minus three degrees or
minus ten metres would be meaning less and all
they would be able to ascertain then would be if it
was merely cold or deep not how cold or deep it was
A MIND IS LIKE A PARACHUTE : IT DOES NOT WORK UNLESS IT IS OPEN
Who is online
Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 3 guests