Desription and arguement - el Infinite

in fact if the cavity is not existant then your infinitesimals have reached zero and that is against teh rules yes?

SO lets rephrase the question:

How do you apply the principle of infinitesimals when magnifying a sphere by infinity?
How do you avoid equaling zero at it's center?

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

Quantum Heraclitus:

You kind of lost me here. What?

Why do we need to have an inverted sphere to begin with? Also, a sphere with zero-volume is...not a sphere. You're redefining the object as you go along.

I agree to some extent.

...Why would there be a cavity of zero?

The problem again is that you keep on misdefining a sphere.

A volumeless sphere is a circle. The definition of a sphere is a three dimensional circle - that is one which has volume.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

damn interesting dev. PJ damn interesting...haven't had this much fun in ages.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

Quantum Heraclitus:

What do you mean zero at its center?

Where you magnify a sphere infinitely, you'd come upon an infinitesimal distance. I don't know what more you want me to elaborate here?

 

Quantum Heraclitus:

Interesting, but we're in kind of mushy circumstances.

 

why distance PJ?
we are talking about magnifying an entire sphere.

we are talking about a 3 dimensional solid object there is no distance beside the diamter of the sphere. Magnify it as much as you like the diameter of the sphere will still be the same.

 

Quantum Heraclitus:

A segment of the sphere magnified infinitely will get you a spot of matter that is infinitesimal. "An infinitesimal distnace".

Yes. The diameter will never cease to be one inch or ten feet or whatever the case might be. But you'd be dealing with going further and further into the pieces that make such up.

 

try this:
if you take our light cone diagram you will note that it is rendered as a 3 dimesnional joining of two cones past and future.
Accordingly if you magnify the center infinitely you wil still find the cones still touching. yes?

 

but it's a three dimensional distance not a two dimensional distance.
The distance to the surface of the sphere has to be equal in all aspects of our infinitesimal

 

Quantum Heraclitus:

They have a "present" between them. But assuming the two cones are touching, magnifying it infinitely should have them still touching, yes.

What do you mean "to the surface of the sphere"?

 

Quantum Heraclitus:

You made a mistake. Radius is half a sphere (or circle). Not diameter. D = x is wrong in the picture.

R = X is what you meant.

And I agree: Every thing from the center to the surface of a sphere has to be equal in all directions. That is the definition of a sphere. But what are you getting at? Why are you saying there must be a cavity?

 

d = distance

 

Quantum Heraclitus:

Why......must be there a cavity there?

A sphere needn't have a cavity in ordre for its center point to radiate outwards equidistantly from every center.

 

regardles of how much you magnify the sphere the distances being equal force the cavity to exist as a inverse sphere.

 

I don't understand your reasoning for that whatsoever.

Why?

 

exactly!
but for your infinitesimals to be true there must be a cavity. Other wise infinity runs all the way to zero....see?

Do you want zero to be at the center or do you want infinitesimals to be at the center?

 

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

 

It'll take a while PJ for it to sink in...it aint easy...I've been contemplating dimensionalism for nearly 15 years so for me it seems easy...

 

So our infamous Higgs Boson has been revealed....ha
The Higgs boson (sometimes informally referred as the God particle) is a hypothetical massive scalar elementary particle predicted to exist by the Standard Model of particle physics. It is the only Standard Model particle not yet observed, but would help explain how otherwise massless elementary particles still manage to construct mass in matter. In particular, it would explain the difference between the massless photon and the relatively massive W and Z bosons. Elementary particle masses, and the differences between electromagnetism (caused by the photon) and the weak force (caused by the W and Z bosons), are critical to many aspects of the structure of microscopic (and hence macroscopic) matter; thus, if it exists, the Higgs boson has an enormous effect on the world around us.

As of July 2008, no experiment has directly detected the existence of the Higgs boson, but this may change as the Large Hadron Collider (LHC) at CERN becomes operational. The Higgs mechanism, which gives mass to vector bosons, was theorized in 1964 by Peter Higgs,[1] François Englert and Robert Brout,[2] working from the ideas of Philip Anderson, and independently by G. S. Guralnik, C. R. Hagen, and T. W. B. Kibble.[3] Higgs proposed that the existence of a massive scalar particle could be a test of the theory, a remark added to his Physical Review letter[4] at the suggestion of the referee.[5] Steven Weinberg and Abdus Salam were the first to apply the Higgs mechanism to the electroweak symmetry breaking. The electroweak theory predicts a neutral particle whose mass is not far from the W and Z bosons
wiki

 

Quantum Heraclitus:

No, I don't. As that makes no sense.

You're giving a value to zero by letting it interrupt the sphere. The infinitesimal would be the central point without any "inverse sphere".

The central point would be 0,0,0 on a grid. But it would be an infinitesimal segment of distance. You could not magnify to zero, no.

I all ready told you: If they are touching, there is no infinitesimal space between the two points of the cones. If they are not touching, there is. The light cone has three things: Past, present, and future. That is why they are not touching in a light cone situation.

I rather feel like the apple hitting Newton's head at this point: I don't grasp what all the fuss is.

How is all of this occuring? You are running away from us mentally here and not begging us tofollow.