I went when I was really young. I think I mainly visited resorts and amusement parks.
Infinity….
-
Being pragmatic by nature, I don’t like these kind of questions. I personally like ones based in reality, not mathmatical theory. Oh well.
Where did your name come from. Moses?
-
Well, I had a friend who called himself Jesus. So I donned the name Moses, and that is history :P
-
Just be careful…cause if you blink, you might miss the fact that it is now 1 sec past noon.
SUD
but this is a relative noon. A noon that we created. How do we know that it is not a fraction of the temporal distance to the real noon - the one that we will never reach? Just because you call it “noon” doesn’t mean that it really is so.
Oh this hurts my head. Time to go cycling :) -
“In fact there is a lot of exemple of infinity. You won’t see a lot of Aleph 0, but a lots of Aleph 1 !”
Herrn FinsterniS,
My knowledge of science and mathematics is very limited, but I have come to believe that infinity can only exist in one’s mind. I have only witnessed potential infinity, not actual infinity. Can you please correct me if I am wrong?“but this is a relative noon. A noon that we created. How do we know that it is not a fraction of the temporal distance to the real noon - the one that we will never reach? Just because you call it “noon” doesn’t mean that it really is so.”
I tried to solve this equation myself, but I also ran into some of Sir Crypt’s questions. I do not think you can ever traverse an infinite number of sets.
-
@TM:
Herrn FinsterniS,
My knowledge of science and mathematics is very limited, but I have come to believe that infinity can only exist in one’s mind. I have only witnessed potential infinity, not actual infinity. Can you please correct me if I am wrong?Then you would side with Poincaré…
Well, the time continuum and the space continuum can be consider an exemple of infinity as you can always divide any time/space by 2 (or any other numbers…). If you cannot divide an X distance by 2, then an atom that move does’nt move, it teleport itself between X and X+1 because there is nothing between X and X+1… Also an atoms is made from an infinity of side; like any sphere, circle, curve… Infinity is potential when when we look at numbers, but in time and space it is more problematic.
-
@TM:
Herrn FinsterniS,
My knowledge of science and mathematics is very limited, but I have come to believe that infinity can only exist in one’s mind. I have only witnessed potential infinity, not actual infinity. Can you please correct me if I am wrong?Then you would side with Poincaré…
Well, the time continuum and the space continuum can be consider an exemple of infinity as you can always divide any time/space by 2 (or any other numbers…). If you cannot divide an X distance by 2, then an atom that move does’nt move, it teleport itself between X and X+1 because there is nothing between X and X+1… Also an atoms is made from an infinity of side; like any sphere, circle, curve… Infinity is potential when when we look at numbers, but in time and space it is more problematic.
having trouble with this one. I can readily imagine atoms, however they are more like little planets with orbits around them, at the same time, their centers are not necessarily completely spherical - only somewhat, depending on their atomic number. The orbitals, of course made up of electrons, are not spherical either, but may be in a variety of shapes depending upon valencies, etc.
-
They do not need to be sperical, they only need to have a curve somewhere in their design, a cylinder is’nt a sphere it still got an infinity of sides. Any curse is made of an infinity of side, if you take a sphere, or a cylinder, well any kind of geometric form with curve; you well get an infinity of side.
If we look at the geometric form composign the mouvement of an electron around the atom, what would we get ? 4 sides ? 6 sides ? or an infinity of sides because it is a curve ?
-
No because this topic :lol:
Spock!..…Spock! -
They do not need to be sperical, they only need to have a curve somewhere in their design, a cylinder is’nt a sphere it still got an infinity of sides. Any curse is made of an infinity of side, if you take a sphere, or a cylinder, well any kind of geometric form with curve; you well get an infinity of side.
If we look at the geometric form composign the mouvement of an electron around the atom, what would we get ? 4 sides ? 6 sides ? or an infinity of sides because it is a curve ?
fair enough.
the orbit of the electron does tend to be circular, and the atoms tend to be represented as spherical (although i’m not sure they exactly are that).And Ghoul - that’s enough “logic-seeking” out of you. You know this is an illogical series (although based on a pseudo-logic given imaginary circumstances . . . ).
-
@cystic:
They do not need to be sperical, they only need to have a curve somewhere in their design, a cylinder is’nt a sphere it still got an infinity of sides. Any curse is made of an infinity of side, if you take a sphere, or a cylinder, well any kind of geometric form with curve; you well get an infinity of side.
If we look at the geometric form composign the mouvement of an electron around the atom, what would we get ? 4 sides ? 6 sides ? or an infinity of sides because it is a curve ?
fair enough.
the orbit of the electron does tend to be circular, and the atoms tend to be represented as spherical (although i’m not sure they exactly are that).And Ghoul - that’s enough “logic-seeking” out of you. You know this is an illogical series (although based on a pseudo-logic given imaginary circumstances . . . ).
Hehe :lol:
-
@cystic:
the orbit of the electron does tend to be circular, and the atoms tend to be represented as spherical (although i’m not sure they exactly are that).
Not really :)
The “orbit” idea is the so called Bohr-model of atoms. It is the very very first quantum model.
And it’s wrong :)
if the electrons really orbited the nucleus like planets the sun, then we would have a lot of trouble, explaining why this constantly accelerated charge does not emit em-waves all the time, lose energy by that and drop into the nucleus.
As well: There are many states for electrons, where they don’t have any angular momentum: they don’t “fly around”.Bohr’s picture is nice, for a first understanding, but you should always remember that it is actually wrong (even if you can explain some things through it).
-
@F_alk:
@cystic:
the orbit of the electron does tend to be circular, and the atoms tend to be represented as spherical (although i’m not sure they exactly are that).
Not really :)
The “orbit” idea is the so called Bohr-model of atoms. It is the very very first quantum model.
And it’s wrong :)
if the electrons really orbited the nucleus like planets the sun, then we would have a lot of trouble, explaining why this constantly accelerated charge does not emit em-waves all the time, lose energy by that and drop into the nucleus.
As well: There are many states for electrons, where they don’t have any angular momentum: they don’t “fly around”.Bohr’s picture is nice, for a first understanding, but you should always remember that it is actually wrong (even if you can explain some things through it).
yeah, that’s what i thought.
also different electrons in different shells have different patterns, etc. -
Bohr was overrated
-
@cystic:
also different electrons in different shells have different patterns, etc.
That’s true. But nicely enough: any filled shell will have perfect rotational symmetry
@TG:
Bohr was overrated
No, i have to disagree strongly here.
Bohr was the one who “invented” the first quantum theory.
Rough and ad hoc, but imagine how much suffer and pain it must have been to throw over board the old, accepted and loved paradigm that there are no “jumps” in nature.
That’s what i most respect him for.
(and you can see, really noone on this board has done that so far :) ) -
Einstein was overrated, he was a big exemple of conformism. He never accept the random part of quamtum physic and it take some time before he accept the idea of a dynamic universe.
-
No, i have to disagree strongly here.
Bohr was the one who “invented” the first quantum theory.
Rough and ad hoc, but imagine how much suffer and pain it must have been to throw over board the old, accepted and loved paradigm that there are no “jumps” in nature.
That’s what i most respect him for.
(and you can see, really noone on this board has done that so far)Nah, can’t really respect anybody who has theory named after him.
Suggested Topics
