Does infinity exist?

[dad]

If you were still interested in this claim, this paper provides an excellent introduction to stellar nucleosynthesis. The first two sections (I-II) are likely to be most relevant.

http://authors.library.caltech.edu/10255/1/WALrmp97.pdf

Notably: "Modern cosmological models of big bang nucleosynthesis are tuned to produce [Deuterium, Helium-3, Helium-4] and some [Lithium-7] to fit observations of these species in very metal-poor stars and other astrophysical sources."

I looked at the pdf....interesting. The feeling I had though was that they didn't know what they were talking about. I was reminded of the solar neutrino problem though, that is a good one. Your whole stellar evolution model resides on huge beliefs and assumptions. It also seems circular. You mention Deuterium, Helium-3, Helium-4 and metal poor stars and big bang what iffing nucleosynthesis. Not a lot of meaning.


As wiki points out "Nucleosynthesis is the process of creating new atomic nuclei from pre-existing nucleons (protons and neutrons)."

Creation was an act of creating without the pre existing. Also we need to ask what, if anything pre existed the atomic stuff we see, and under what space and laws it existed in, and exists now!

Nice try. No cigar.

 

[Farinata]

I looked at the pdf....interesting. The feeling I had though was that they didn't know what they were talking about. Your whole stellar evolution model resides on huge beliefs and assumptions. It also seems circular.

Haha I know it can seem that way when first learning about it. Maybe you could expand on why it seems circular at first glance? My quote wasn't intended to provide a complete explanation but more a taste of what was inside the pdf and a jumping off point for discussion in general.

As wiki points out "Nucleosynthesis is the process of creating new atomic nuclei from pre-existing nucleons (protons and neutrons)."
Creation was an act of creating without the pre existing.

My response was aimed directly at the claim that most of the elements comprising us were made in stars aka stellar nucleosynthesis. All that's saying is that the very vast majority of elements heavier than Lithium were forged (have their origin) in the interior of stars. Rather poetic if you ask me. If you want to talk about where the lighter elements came from that ultimately got turned into the heavier elements we can do that too but it's a different discussion.

 

[dad]

Haha I know it can seem that way when first learning about it. Maybe you could expand on why it seems circular at first glance? My quote wasn't intended to provide a complete explanation but more a taste of what was inside the pdf and a jumping off point for discussion in general.

Well, if one looks at stuff in deep space, and then tries to figure out how we could get that stuff on earth, from a nuclear reaction, or decay, or etc, then one is being circular indeed. That is unless one knows first that the same laws and the same time and space and etc exist there.

My response was aimed directly at the claim that most of the elements comprising us were made in stars aka stellar nucleosynthesis. All that's saying is that the very vast majority of elements heavier than Lithium were forged (have their origin) in the interior of stars.

Right, and that is nonsense, wrong, and foolish.

Rather poetic if you ask me. If you want to talk about where the lighter elements came from that ultimately got turned into the heavier elements we can do that too but it's a different discussion.

Doesn't matter it all exists in your fantasy. The way you would explain that is based on the same error, using present state forces and laws in and around earth.

That is a woulda coulda shoulda exercise and a loooong what if stack of scenarios ALL resting on the wrong unsupportable godless premise.

 

[Farinata]

Well, if one looks at stuff in deep space, and then tries to figure out how we could get that stuff on earth, from a nuclear reaction, or decay, or etc, then one is being circular indeed. That is unless one knows first that the same laws and the same time and space and etc exist there.

I assume, at least going by your avatar, that you accept Einstein's theory of relativity? Well part of special relativity is the invariant speed of light. When we're looking into the night sky, we're seeing light coming from objects at many different points in time because light takes a certain amount of time to traverse a certain distance. If the laws of the universe operated differently, we would expect to see the same phenomenon close by vary from the phenomenon far away (because the far away phenomenon's light has taken years to reach us). But we don't see that. Our sun fuses hydrogen by the same laws as other far away stars. If the far away stars fused hydrogen differently, our universe would look a lot different.

Right, and that is nonsense, wrong, and foolish.

Please link the peer reviewed paper refuting stellar nucleosynthesis or at the very least casting doubt on it as a theory.

That is a woulda coulda shoulda exercise and a loooong what if stack of scenarios ALL resting on the wrong unsupportable godless premise.

Again, please state explicitly what those assumptions are that you think are untenable. What astrophysics and the study of elements has to do with god, and why you insist on mentioning a "godless premise", I haven't the slightest clue. Science doesn't ask those questions; it simply considers phenomena and attempts to explain it. God could exist or not exist, but in either case we have a working explanation for the origin of the heavy elements from lighter elements.

 

[Wiccan_Child]

I assume, at least going by your avatar, that you accept Einstein's theory of relativity?

EDIT: To clarify, dad doesn't, in any way, believe in Relativity. He believes in some notion that all of science is only potentially viable here and now, not far away or back in time. He says that, after the Flood, the physical and spiritual laws separated and modern science can't probe any further back than that, nor probe far away in the sky with any real accuracy. This 'present state' is why he refers to science as PO science - it applies to the Present Only. Another term for it is 'fishbowl' science.

In any case, no, he doesn't believe in Relativity. The very idea!

 

[dad]

EDIT: To clarify, dad doesn't, in any way, believe in Relativity.

What idiotic darness is this? Of course I do. Just remember that relativity is only relative to the present near earth state.

He believes in some notion that all of science is only potentially viable here and now, not far away or back in time. He says that, after the Flood, the physical and spiritual laws separated and modern science can't probe any further back than that, nor probe far away in the sky with any real accuracy. This 'present state' is why he refers to science as PO science - it applies to the Present Only. Another term for it is 'fishbowl' science.

In any case, no, he doesn't believe in Relativity. The very idea!

Heck, unless we in the fishbowl can disprove the notion that energy equals mass times the speed of light, why not accept it?? Just learn your limits.

 

[dad]

I assume, at least going by your avatar, that you accept Einstein's theory of relativity? Well part of special relativity is the invariant speed of light. When we're looking into the night sky, we're seeing light coming from objects at many different points in time because light takes a certain amount of time to traverse a certain distance.

No.

We are seeing light in our sphere or area and state. You seem to assume that time extends as we know it here all across the universe! Proof?

If the laws of the universe operated differently, we would expect to see the same phenomenon close by vary from the phenomenon far away (because the far away phenomenon's light has taken years to reach us).

Nope. If space is different then we can't know how far a star is therefore how long it takes to reach us!

But we don't see that. Our sun fuses hydrogen by the same laws as other far away stars. If the far away stars fused hydrogen differently, our universe would look a lot different.

Nope. Our sun has some hydrogen outside it that we see and have made silly theories as to how the sun works.

Please link the peer reviewed paper refuting stellar nucleosynthesis or at the very least casting doubt on it as a theory.

It is not supported. Therefore it need not be refuted. Support it her...now..if you can...or it fails fails fails.

Again, please state explicitly what those assumptions are that you think are untenable.

Time...space...forces...laws....existing far far away from earth, for starters!

What astrophysics and the study of elements has to do with god, and why you insist on mentioning a "godless premise", I haven't the slightest clue.

Then learn something here. God created the universe. So when you claim it sailed out of a silly imaginary little speck that is godless in the extreme.

Science doesn't ask those questions; it simply considers phenomena and attempts to explain it.

It attempts to explain using our space our time our laws...etc.

God could exist or not exist, but in either case we have a working explanation for the origin of the heavy elements from lighter elements.

Nope. You have a grasping at straws theory based solely on earth state physical only realities.

 

[Farinata]

No. We are seeing light in our sphere or area and state. You seem to assume that time extends as we know it here all across the universe! Proof?

You might want to look into a few experimental tests of special and general relativity. There are many popular examples but I'll just state a seminal one. Willem de Sitter, back in the early 1900s, studied pairs of orbiting binary stars. Specifically, he looked at whether the light coming off the stars differed in speed depending on whether a star was approaching or receding. He found no such difference. In a classical Newtonian world, you would expect the two speeds to differ but relativity says the speed of light is the same regardless of the reference frame from which you observe it.

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/9/9a/SitterKonstanz.png

He repeated this test for many different systems and came to the same conclusion. So we have evidence outside our solar system for light being a certain invariant speed. We can do similar experiments on earth to measure the speed of 'earth light' and we come up with the same value. Thus we have physical evidence that the speed of light is the same regardless of location (there are much deeper theoretical reasons for why it shouldn't differ but I've tried to confine the discussion here to direct measurements).

Nope. If space is different then we can't know how far a star is therefore how long it takes to reach us!

Calculating the geometry of space is actually a very advanced topic and one that might be beyond my ability to impart the little knowledge I have. If you want to discuss it, I'll try my best but I can't promise perfect comprehension.

Nope. Our sun has some hydrogen outside it that we see and have made silly theories as to how the sun works.

Well you haven't really answered the point but just to clarify are you denying that fusion is the source of the sun's power? Besides that fitting all the evidence, we've recreated fusion here on earth in multiple locations many different times...(see e.g. JET, the future ITER project, etc...) Or is solar fusion fundamentally different from earth fusion? If so, in what way? Can you quantify in what way solar fusion is different from any fusion we might attempt to create on earth? And what predictions you could make by such a quantification? If you can't, then it's not clear that what you're talking about is really science.

It is not supported. Therefore it need not be refuted. Support it her...now..if you can...or it fails fails fails.

It is very well supported in the scientific community. If you don't like, you're more than free to come up with a competing theory that fits all current observations.

Time...space...forces...laws....existing far far away from earth, for starters!

I'm seeing a deeper issue here so I thought I'd just take a minute and say why I think that sort of epistemological skepticism is uninteresting. It's the same sort of skepticism that says you can't prove the earth wasn't created yesterday and all your memories from before that period are implanted artificially (the so called Omphalos hypothesis). I can't definitively prove that's not how it happened but what explanatory value does that have? What else can you intelligently say after stating such a position? It's a fun sort of "what if" question but you can't really do anything after saying that all reality is the imaginings of a brain in a vat.

If that's the route you're taking, then science (or the Bible for that matter) can't definitively prove anything. If we want to move into the realm of Christian theology, under such a standard of proof you wouldn't be able to show that Jesus isn't actually Satan in disguise and his miracles are just elaborate hoaxes. You can't prove that the Bible isn't actually a demonic text designed to lead souls astray. What we deal with as humans with incomplete information are theories that suit the best available evidence and observation. The best available evidence points to stellar nucleosynthesis for the origin of the heavy elements.

Then learn something here. God created the universe. So when you claim it sailed out of a silly imaginary little speck that is godless in the extreme.

Again, you can believe that God created the universe. Stellar nucleosynthesis (and big bang nucleosynthesis) is completely agnostic on the issue of God. Both propositions can be treated entirely separately.

 

[dad]

You might want to look into a few experimental tests of special and general relativity. There are many popular examples but I'll just state a seminal one. Willem de Sitter, back in the early 1900s, studied pairs of orbiting binary stars. Specifically, he looked at whether the light coming off the stars differed in speed depending on whether a star was approaching or receding. He found no such difference. In a classical Newtonian world, you would expect the two speeds to differ but relativity says the speed of light is the same regardless of the reference frame from which you observe it.

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/9/9a/SitterKonstanz.png

How did he determine a star was receding or approaching? Redshift? If redshift means something else in deep space, then he better get back to the drawing board!

He repeated this test for many different systems and came to the same conclusion. So we have evidence outside our solar system for light being a certain invariant speed. We can do similar experiments on earth to measure the speed of 'earth light' and we come up with the same value. Thus we have physical evidence that the speed of light is the same regardless of location (there are much deeper theoretical reasons for why it shouldn't differ but I've tried to confine the discussion here to direct measurements).

Same mistake in different areas of the sky!

Calculating the geometry of space is actually a very advanced topic and one that might be beyond my ability to impart the little knowledge I have. If you want to discuss it, I'll try my best but I can't promise perfect comprehension.

It actually doesn't really work. We would need a 3D space so to speak for it to work.

Well you haven't really answered the point but just to clarify are you denying that fusion is the source of the sun's power?

I am saying I don't know. Can you prove it?

Besides that fitting all the evidence, we've recreated fusion here on earth in multiple locations many different times...(see e.g. JET, the future ITER project, etc...) Or is solar fusion fundamentally different from earth fusion?

Well, missing neutrinos aside, how do you know what goes on inside the sun?

If so, in what way? Can you quantify in what way solar fusion is different from any fusion we might attempt to create on earth? And what predictions you could make by such a quantification? If you can't, then it's not clear that what you're talking about is really science.

Hey, I assume that the laws we know only existed several thousand years. They also will cease to exist soon. Therefore how the sun works now, and did work and will work are separate questions. But sticking to how it works now...do you know? Proof?

It is very well supported in the scientific community. If you don't like, you're more than free to come up with a competing theory that fits all current observations.

Well name an observation or three that needs a fit? Is it really all that hard to do?

I'm seeing a deeper issue here so I thought I'd just take a minute and say why I think that sort of epistemological skepticism is uninteresting. It's the same sort of skepticism that says you can't prove the earth wasn't created yesterday and all your memories from before that period are implanted artificially (the so called Omphalos hypothesis).

I finds empty claims of knowing uninteresting. Either you do...or not. If so, show us. Looking at the earth we know plenty about the surface. However almost nothing about the deep inside. All you think you know is religion...belief..assumption based. Soo now you want to claim the sun's innards are in your back pocket of knowledge??

I can't definitively prove that's not how it happened but what explanatory value does that have?

No you can't. Pipe down.

What else can you intelligently say after stating such a position? It's a fun sort of "what if" question but you can't really do anything after saying that all reality is the imaginings of a brain in a vat.

I can say you are busted.

If that's the route you're taking, then science (or the Bible for that matter) can't definitively prove anything.

The bible is not about proof. And science is a small fry that is too small to matter in the big issues.

If we want to move into the realm of Christian theology, under such a standard of proof you wouldn't be able to show that Jesus isn't actually Satan in disguise and his miracles are just elaborate hoaxes.

Or maybe he was your mom? Come on now. If we question so called science you want to lose it completely??

The best available evidence points to stellar nucleosynthesis for the origin of the heavy elements.

No. The best earth law based attempts to explain it are all you have available. If the laws applied, you would have a leg to stand on.

Again, you can believe that God created the universe. Stellar nucleosynthesis (and big bang nucleosynthesis) is completely agnostic on the issue of God. Both propositions can be treated entirely separately.

No. The magic creator speck that vomited out the entire universe is not neutral. It is a fantasy that was piped from hell to man, to doubt God and creation. 'did God realllly say He created the universessssss? no, actually he did not reallly do it, the little hot soup did it, and long before the bible indicates...'

 

[Farinata]

How did he determine a star was receding or approaching? Redshift? If redshift means something else in deep space, then he better get back to the drawing board!

But you don't need to know whether it's receding or approaching because the light emitted whether receding or approaching is observed to travel at the same speed! In principle, if you did care about approaching/receding, you don't even need to use redshift. You can look at how the star's luminosity changes over the orbital period or simply by bare observation looking at transits and eclipses of one star by the other (like how the moon 'blots out' the sun during a solar eclipse). The latter method, along with looking at the transited star's luminosity, is one method by which exoplanets orbiting other stars are discovered

I am saying I don't know. Can you prove it?

If you don't know, and don't seem to have studied the issue very thoroughly, why do you insist on claims in direct contradiction to the unanimous opinions of experts who have devoted their careers to the same? I'm not saying argument from authority is logically valid but you're putting quite a stock in your own opinion without even a seeming margin of inquiry.

Well, missing neutrinos aside

Those neutrinos actually aren't 'missing' anymore. This problem has since been resolved with the discovery of neutrino oscillation.

how do you know what goes on inside the sun? Hey, I assume that the laws we know only existed several thousand years. They also will cease to exist soon. Therefore how the sun works now, and did work and will work are separate questions. But sticking to how it works now...do you know? Proof?

Like all things in science: observation, deduction, and evidence. We can look at the sun's mass derived from gravitation. We can look at the spectral lines to get a hint of composition. We can study the solar wind. We put all this information together, see if it can fit coherently and make accurate predictions about things we don't already know. The more in line those predictions are with subsequent observations, the more we trust it as a theory. The less in line, the less we trust it and search for alternatives. The current theory is that the sun is fusing hydrogen primarily via a process called the proton-proton chain reaction.

Well name an observation or three that needs a fit? Is it really all that hard to do?

I'm sorry but didn't you just say, and I quote, "Nope. Our sun has some hydrogen outside it that we see and have made silly theories as to how the sun works." I'm not the one purporting to challenge the scientific status quo. If you think our current theory of how the sun works by nuclear fusion is so preposterous, please put forward at the very least a comparable alternative.

All you think you know is religion...belief..assumption based. Soo now you want to claim the sun's innards are in your back pocket of knowledge??

There isn't a scientist worth his salt that is closed to challenging fundamental theories of science provided that you have evidence to back up those assertions. Show us some evidence contradicting established scientific teachings and we will most certainly have something to talk about.

No you can't. Pipe down.

I can say you are busted.

Irrelevant self-congratulation that fails to broach my serious point about radical skepticism (and your very one-sided use of it).

The bible is not about proof.

So glad we can find something to agree on.

And science is a small fry that is too small to matter in the big issues.

Aaaannnnd you lost me again. We were getting on so well.

Or maybe he was your mom? Come on now. If we question so called science you want to lose it completely??

I hope you know that I'm not being intentionally bombastic there. If you can say that stars a few light years away operate by different laws that conspiratorially work so as to make it look like those laws are actually the same as the physical laws on earth then why is it impermissible for me to say: Jesus did in fact turn water into wine at Cana but it had nothing to do with God or him being divine; the laws of the universe simply operated differently back then for him alone. I have as much claim to exasperation and saying 'Come on now' as you do. Please prove that the laws of the universe were not different 2000 years ago, which is the natural origin of all of Jesus' miracles.

No. The magic creator speck that vomited out the entire universe is not neutral. It is a fantasy that was piped from hell to man, to doubt God and creation. 'did God realllly say He created the universessssss? no, actually he did not reallly do it, the little hot soup did it, and long before the bible indicates...'

The Pope, Catholics, and millions of other Christians of different sects and denominations accept the current scientific cosmology. Hell the big bang theory had its main start under a Belgian priest! Why is it an issue for you but not for all of them? You don't have to renounce a belief in God to accept obvious facts about reality.

 

[Theofane]

Does infinity exist?

Have you ever seen two mirrors reflecting each other? Or better yet, walked through a hall of mirrors?

The number Pi is an infinite number.

 

[dad]

But you don't need to know whether it's receding or approaching because the light emitted whether receding or approaching is observed to travel at the same speed!

That's what you think. Explain how you arrived at that conclusion?

In principle, if you did care about approaching/receding, you don't even need to use redshift. You can look at how the star's luminosity changes over the orbital period or simply by bare observation looking at transits and eclipses of one star by the other (like how the moon 'blots out' the sun during a solar eclipse). The latter method, along with looking at the transited star's luminosity, is one method by which exoplanets orbiting other stars are discovered

Ha. What a scream. Luminosity?

"Radiant energy is the energy of electromagnetic waves.[1] The quantity of radiant energy may be calculated by integrating radiant flux (or power) with respect to time .."

Radiant energy - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

So time is part of what you claim. Now I might ask if what we see here near earth in the way of energy of electromagnetic waves represents earth waves and energy far away? If you say it does, how do you KNOW?

If you don't know, and don't seem to have studied the issue very thoroughly, why do you insist on claims in direct contradiction to the unanimous opinions of experts who have devoted their careers to the same? I'm not saying argument from authority is logically valid but you're putting quite a stock in your own opinion without even a seeming margin of inquiry.

They are dolts. Uninformed speculators. Religious nuts.

Those neutrinos actually aren't 'missing' anymore. This problem has since been resolved with the discovery of neutrino oscillation.

Ha. So now you want to get into this?

"During the neutrinos' 93-million-mile journey from the Sun to the Earth, the researchers said, about two-thirds change into other varieties that are more difficult to detect."

Sun's Missing Neutrinos: Hidden in Plain Sight - New York Times

Now if you want to prove that neutrinos switch flavors, go ahead. Can you show us where most of these change from the sun to here? Just asking...

Like all things in science: observation, deduction, and evidence. We can look at the sun's mass derived from gravitation.

And..? What about it??

We can look at the spectral lines to get a hint of composition.

Hint?? I think you need more than a hint.

We can study the solar wind.

And..?? What about it??

We put all this information together, see if it can fit coherently and make accurate predictions about things we don't already know. The more in line those predictions are with subsequent observations, the more we trust it as a theory. The less in line, the less we trust it and search for alternatives. The current theory is that the sun is fusing hydrogen primarily via a process called the proton-proton chain reaction.

Ha. Tunneling is part of what is required. Now we are getting near the fringes of science.

"Friedrich Hund was the first to take notice of tunnelling in 1927 when he was calculating the ground state of the double-well potential.[4] Its first application was a mathematical explanation for alpha decay, which was done in 1928 by George Gamow and independently by Ronald Gurney and Edward Condon.[5][6][7] The two researchers simultaneously solved the Schrödinger equation for a model nuclear potential and derived a relationship between the half-life of the particle and the energy of emission that depended directly on the mathematical probability of tunnelling."

Quantum tunnelling - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


The probability of tunneling depends on the laws of the universe and forces that are in place. Therefore...unless our earth laws were in place in the inside of the sun you are whistling in the dark! You do not know that.

I'm sorry but didn't you just say, and I quote, "Nope. Our sun has some hydrogen outside it that we see and have made silly theories as to how the sun works." I'm not the one purporting to challenge the scientific status quo. If you think our current theory of how the sun works by nuclear fusion is so preposterous, please put forward at the very least a comparable alternative.

No need. Either we know or not. Your hypothesis is cloudy, and unsupportable.

There isn't a scientist worth his salt that is closed to challenging fundamental theories of science provided that you have evidence to back up those assertions. Show us some evidence contradicting established scientific teachings and we will most certainly have something to talk about.

The different state future and past do not contradict this state! They share certain realities. But it is through strange quantum mechanical claims and flavor changes caused by...who really knows...and etc etc ...that you try to make your theories fly.

Aaaannnnd you lost me again. We were getting on so well.

No problem, in other words physical only temporal earth state science is a small player in the big scheme of things.

I hope you know that I'm not being intentionally bombastic there. If you can say that stars a few light years away operate by different laws that conspiratorially work so as to make it look like those laws are actually the same as the physical laws on earth then why is it impermissible for me to say: Jesus did in fact turn water into wine at Cana but it had nothing to do with God or him being divine; the laws of the universe simply operated differently back then for him alone.

Peter and Luke and etc were not at your star. They were at Cana. Reality...it can be your friend.

I have as much claim to exasperation and saying 'Come on now' as you do. Please prove that the laws of the universe were not different 2000 years ago, which is the natural origin of all of Jesus' miracles.

They were not. History is good enough to rule that out 2000 years ago.

The Pope, Catholics, and millions of other Christians of different sects and denominations accept the current scientific cosmology.

They are wrong. Shamefully wrong.

Hell the big bang theory had its main start under a Belgian priest!

He was wrong.

Why is it an issue for you but not for all of them? You don't have to renounce a belief in God to accept obvious facts about reality.

You will renounce your belief system of so called science. Not me. Evermore.

 

[Wiccan_Child]

Have you ever seen two mirrors reflecting each other? Or better yet, walked through a hall of mirrors?

The number Pi is an infinite number.

Not in mathematical parlance, it isn't. It's transcendent, which means it is irrational and non-repeating, but it's not, strictly speaking, 'infinite' .

 

[Elendur]

Have you ever seen two mirrors reflecting each other? Or better yet, walked through a hall of mirrors?

The number Pi is an infinite number.

Regarding the mirrors, the only way you will see an infinite number of reflections is if the observation is centered so that the line of reflection is orthogonal against both mirrors and no obstruction. Therefore it is physically impossible to observe an infinite loop based on two mirrors.

Not in mathematical parlance, it isn't. It's transcendent, which means it is irrational and non-repeating, but it's not, strictly speaking, 'infinite' .

I think he meant 'infinite' as in not terminating.
All rational numbers are either terminating or repeating, I don't know if that goes both ways or not though (that irrational numbers are non-terminating and/or non repeating).

If you could help me out with that I would be grateful

 

[Wiccan_Child]

I think he meant 'infinite' as in not terminating.

Probably

All rational numbers are either terminating or repeating, I don't know if that goes both ways or not though (that irrational numbers are non-terminating and/or non repeating).

If you could help me out with that I would be grateful

Irrational numbers are all non-terminating, but some repeat - the decimal form of 5/9 is 0.555..., which is both non-terminating and repeating. Some, such as pi, are both non-terminating and non-repeating. Some are non-terminating (goes on forever), non-repeating (basically random), but somehow don't contain every sequence of numbers - which, intuitively, you'd think they must have.

 

[Theofane]

Not in mathematical parlance, it isn't. It's transcendent, which means it is irrational and non-repeating, but it's not, strictly speaking, 'infinite' .

It goes on forever, doesn't it?

 

[Elendur]

Probably


Irrational numbers are all non-terminating, but some repeat - the decimal form of 5/9 is 0.555..., which is both non-terminating and repeating. Some, such as pi, are both non-terminating and non-repeating. Some are non-terminating (goes on forever), non-repeating (basically random), but somehow don't contain every sequence of numbers - which, intuitively, you'd think they must have.

Thank you!

 

[[serious]]

Probably


Irrational numbers are all non-terminating, but some repeat - the decimal form of 5/9 is 0.555..., which is both non-terminating and repeating. Some, such as pi, are both non-terminating and non-repeating. Some are non-terminating (goes on forever), non-repeating (basically random), but somehow don't contain every sequence of numbers - which, intuitively, you'd think they must have.

5/9 IS rational. He was right. Rationals, as I learned them, were all numbers that could be expressed as a/b where A and B are integers and B=/=0.

EDIT: as far as irrationals that don't contain certain sequences, I can see that. I could imagine a number such as .10100100010000100000... or some other pattern like that such that there will never be a 2 in any spot.

 

[Wiccan_Child]

5/9 IS rational. He was right. Rationals, as I learned them, were all numbers that could be expressed as a/b where A and B are integers and B=/=0.

You're absolutely right - I meant to give 5/9 as an example of a repeating, non-terminating decimal, but obviously it looks like I@m saying 5/9 is an irrational repeating, non-terminating decimal.

And yes, any number expressed as a fraction of two integers a/b, where b isn't zero, is rational.

Which, incidentally, can be used to prove that any repeating decimal is rational: if the repeating sequence is n digits long, then that decimal can be represented as that sequence as an integer divided by 10[sup]n + 1[/sup] - 1.

So, 0.558796355879635587963... is a sequence '5587963', which means n equals 7, which means 10[sup]n + 1[/sup] - 1 is 9,999,999 (the divisor is always lots of nines), which means 5587963/9999999 = 0.5587963...

Mysterious!

EDIT: as far as irrationals that don't contain certain sequences, I can see that. I could imagine a number such as .10100100010000100000... or some other pattern like that such that there will never be a 2 in any spot.

I always liked to think of pi, but with all the 1's turned to 2's.

Somewhat related, Cantor's Diagonal is an interesting example of a 'constructed' decimal. Curse you, infinity!

 

[Farinata]

That's what you think. Explain how you arrived at that conclusion?

Already answered this above.

Ha. What a scream. Luminosity?

"Radiant energy is the energy of electromagnetic waves.[1] The quantity of radiant energy may be calculated by integrating radiant flux (or power) with respect to time .."

Radiant energy - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

So time is part of what you claim. Now I might ask if what we see here near earth in the way of energy of electromagnetic waves represents earth waves and energy far away? If you say it does, how do you KNOW?

You can't just arbitrarily say that time may act differently; you have to explore the implications of saying that. Unless you can quantify how time is different, and how that might affect observation, then we're not talking science. Science is chiefly empirical; ideas fall or rise but data is paramount. If time did work differently "out there", our observations of luminosity, the speed of light, redshift, etc... would all be different from what we observe now. The hypothesis that space-time is isotropic and homogenous is one that is constantly and consistently validated by experiment.

They are dolts. Uninformed speculators. Religious nuts.

The sure sign of an open and unbiased mind.

Ha. So now you want to get into this?

"During the neutrinos' 93-million-mile journey from the Sun to the Earth, the researchers said, about two-thirds change into other varieties that are more difficult to detect."

Sun's Missing Neutrinos: Hidden in Plain Sight - New York Times

Now if you want to prove that neutrinos switch flavors, go ahead. Can you show us where most of these change from the sun to here? Just asking...

You don't like it or find it inelegant therefore it's not true?

Ha. Tunneling is part of what is required. Now we are getting near the fringes of science.

"Friedrich Hund was the first to take notice of tunnelling in 1927 when he was calculating the ground state of the double-well potential.[4] Its first application was a mathematical explanation for alpha decay, which was done in 1928 by George Gamow and independently by Ronald Gurney and Edward Condon.[5][6][7] The two researchers simultaneously solved the Schrödinger equation for a model nuclear potential and derived a relationship between the half-life of the particle and the energy of emission that depended directly on the mathematical probability of tunnelling."

Quantum tunnelling - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

The probability of tunneling depends on the laws of the universe and forces that are in place. Therefore...unless our earth laws were in place in the inside of the sun you are whistling in the dark! You do not know that.

Again, you can't just assert that physical laws are different, you have to say how and what that would mean for experiments that would attempt to explore the phenomenon. All evidence, including the few non-comprehensive phenomenoa I listed earlier, agree with the sun fusing hydrogen as its main power source so this is all a big Russell's teapot.

No need.

I did not see that one coming.

Either we know or not. Your hypothesis is cloudy, and unsupportable.

Manichean thinking.

The different state future and past do not contradict this state! They share certain realities.

How you know this I'd love to know. Sounds like you're just making stuff up to suit your beliefs.

Peter and Luke and etc were not at your star. They were at Cana. Reality...it can be your friend.

Can you prove that Cana existed 2000 years ago? Can you prove that the natural laws near Earth were the same 2000 years ago? Can you prove Peter and Luke were historical persons?

They were not. History is good enough to rule that out 2000 years ago.

History? Well that sounds like something based on a bunch of faulty assumptions: Can you prove that historical persons writing things on documents were trustworthy? Can you prove those historical persons even existed? Can you prove those documents weren't corrupted, either by accident or intentionally? Can you prove you're actually not a brain in a vat and I'm just a horrible doubting figment of your imagination?