true. I was just making a silly pun about Aers contention how weight is always an approximation. If I have zero benzes [ counting] how much does the zero benze weigh [value] Obviously the weight of zero is not an approximation. Of course given my brain size this post has zero value..... Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!
Well considering you are weighing nothing, what is on the scale? The entire point of approximate measurments went high, high.. high high high, over your head. Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image! And forgive me for being dense, but can you spell out for me exactly what your pun was? !
of course it did. And so did my question about the absolute reductionism of a spacetime sphere....possibly being demonstrated by using pi as an anaolgy go over yours.....
Yes, and your claim that light doesn't travel and that dividing by nothing happens to be the same as dividing by 1 all went over my head... OR as I prefer, in one ear out the other... Your nonsense is mind boggling.
Aer: It was the same question I asked before, rephrased. You just didn't understand it the first time. What you have said is that in this case the answer could be anything from 199999 up to N/0 (whatever the value of that is). In your answer, you assumed that N/0 is infinity, which is what you were trying to prove in the first place, so you argument begs the question. N/0 remains undefined, or indeterminate, and your approximation argument doesn't take us anywhere useful.
unfortunately when you mix philosophy with physics it can lead to a cock up that's for sure..... Aer the light challenge still stands but I don't see any solid input from you. So maybe you would care to tell us how you can differentiate light from it's reflector thus justifying that light is a separate entity [ photon/wave] and not just a reflector event.??? Should be easy........
It was not. The first time, you said x could be between -.0001 and .0001, the second time it was between 0 and .0001. 0=-.0001? Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image! I applied the definition of N/0 as infinity when 0 is used in approximations. I did not "assume" anything. Wrong, I never set out to "prove" anything. I WAS ANSWERING YOUR QUESTION BY APPLYING the definition of N/0 as infinity when 0 is used in approximations You just failed to understand that the answer to your question was in no way intended to be a proof. You did not ask for a proof, WHY DO YOU THINK MY ANSWER IS GOING TO BE A PROOF?
QQ - your nonsense on the light issue was already addressed by myself and others in the appropriate thread in which you first brought it up. I am not going to talk about it here.
Aer, You accept that the definition of N/0 is undefined. You then say only if 0 is considered as an integer, right? Well, what else would 0 be? And what's this approximation stuff? What exactly are you trying to show with all of this?
James R, When I raised the issue that γ for a photon being 1/0 = ∞ as being incorrect and that γ must therefore be slightly incorrect, that is the denominator is just approximately 0 so that 1/0 can in fact be ∞, you had no problem with 1/0 (0 as an integer) being infinity when I did have a problem with such a notion because as I've said, 1/0 when 0 is an integer is undefined. What caused your sudden change of position? How do you now explain the energy of a photon from E=γmc<sup>2</sup>? By your own arguments here, you cannot use the ∞*0 equals some constant, without accepting my unsupported assertion that γ is slightly off and that the m term must be other than zero.
SL, read my post to James R. I've always been consistent on the 1/0 issue even before this thread came up Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!
Aer: Let me clarify. E=γmc<sup>2</sup> doesn't tell you anything useful for m=0 and v=c, because in that case γ is undefined. γ is not infinity for v=c. Saying that γ goes to infinity in the limit as v goes to c is mathematically not the same thing as saying γ is infinity when v=c. There was no change, but I may have been a little loose with my first explanation. You don't. You use E=pc=hf.
You bring up E<sup>2</sup> = (pc)<sup>2</sup> + (mc<sup>2</sup>)<sup>2</sup> now, but that was not your explaination then. It was: You may call that being loose, but what you said was very deliberate. "What is zero times infinity? In this case, it is a finite number"
I will also ask you, what is the definition for p? (yes, I already know the answer - and I want the mathematical definition, if you say "momentum" - I kill you Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image! ) Edit: While this question only needed to be rhetorical for a private conversion, there may be some reading this who are curious to know, so I will supply the answer: p = γmv Oh look - γ*m again... bugger shit. Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!
And before you explain the BS manipulations used to get E<sup>2</sup>=(pc)<sup>2</sup>+(mc<sup>2</sup>)<sup>2</sup> in which you are then required to forget the initial definition of pc and arbitrarily say it is hf. Shove it - I've see it before, it is as stupid as I just explained it in the forementioned sentence.
This is a real number: -1. This is not: (-1)<Sup>1/2</Sup>. Yet, imaginary numbers form a very important part of mathematics, and when it comes to physics, they form a very important part of our reality (in Relativity, for instance). So you're going to disregard them just because they're not Real Numbers? Why do you insist on sticking to real numbers anyway? And don't forget, the decimal expansion of pi consists of an <B>infinite</B> number of digits.
Aer: That was when we were waving our arms around. Now we're talking about rigorous maths. The conversation moved on. There were several pages of mathematical discussion. Remember? Exactly. Not much good for photons. E=hf is a result from quantum mechanics. Are you against quantum theory, too? My, what a rebel you are. Got anything better to offer than relativity and quantum mechanics?
I have no trouble being consistent, why do you find it so difficult? I think it may have something to do with your blind acceptance of unproven results. I guess that makes it not much good for anything else if what you are looking for is an exact rigorous solution. I have no problem with the result E=hf for a photon. I do have a problem with your BS argument that E=γmc<sup>2</sup> will give you the result ∞*0 and therefore doesn't tell you anything. True, it doesn't tell you much of anything, I agree. But how can you say γ=∞ without admitting that there is a slight error in the γ denominator such that 0 is only an approximation? You are being inconsistent here! Either 1/0 is undefined for an integer (as I say it is) or it is not, which do you agree with, me or noone? I pointed out a slight error and you think I am arguing for the overthrow of relativity because of this? I've told you my position on relativity plenty of times and never did I say that I believe relativity must be incorrect as currently formulated - only that it could be.
