Recent content by dendros

Well, finitism by definition is the negation of infinity.

Now, I'm curious: what effects would such an impact have on the planet, given the above conditions? Would it be comparable to an asteroid impact?

Well, that is not my objection but of those who reject infinity in math. They seem to conflate our limits with math's limits.

I don't understand why is infinity a problem. Sure, it is not intuitive and sometimes it complicates things. But to negate the infinity of the set of naturals, for example, is like negating math since addition with 1 guarantees that a number can always be increased so there is not a last...

The spacetime "bubble" generated by the warp core of the vessel is what dictates geometry. You can say the energy of the warp core imposes that the spacetime metric around the hull is preserved so that an impact cannot deform the hull. Not because the hull is magically made indestructible but...

You missed the quotes. It was a figure of speech. If I say "the spacetime metric around the vessel is forcefully preserved so that deformations are impossible", is that better?

Well, in GR spacetime is something that is deformed by matter and energy. And theoretically such deformations can allow ftl travel (the alcubierre metric). The idea is simply to expand this concept to other applications, in that case it's used to enforce an unchanged geometry, that is, it's kept...

Not exactly this. The hull is not "immune to almost anything" and not exactly in a stasis field. Rather, it is in a region of spacetime whose geometry was made "rigid" by the warp bubble. It's not about time but about geometry. The hull does not experience an impact, the bubble does - and...

Considering that the set of integers (which are the simplest math entities) is infinite, I would say that yes, infinity is necessary in math. But I'm not a mathematician.

@Matterwave, notice the quotes around "rigid". Basically I'm saying the warp bubble preserves the geometry enclosed by it, in that sense it becomes "rigid". This means deformations are effectively forbidden. The vessel is basically an advanced alcubierre drive.

Of course this is fiction but I want to give it at least a semblance of realism. The high G's are not a problem, inside the sphere are dampening fields. The vessel is quite advanced, it has a warp core, onboard fabricators (they're not like star trek replicators, rather they convert matter into...

Let's imagine a scifi scenario in which a space vessel is falling on a planet due to a degraded state but remains functional enough to create an emergency warp bubble as a shield, basically the bubble makes the geometry of the vessel unchangeable in order to survive the impact. In other words...

@PeterDonis, thanks for clarification, I feel that I understand a bit better on that subject. But I feel the need to repeat a previous question I asked: if reality requires observers to exist then how did observers themselves appear, i.e how did they came into existence? By being themselves...

Thanks. In fact, I find the term "observer" to be a rather nebulous concept (is it a conscious entity, a particle, a device, is it microscopic or macroscopic, etc) but this could be due to my lack of knowledge, while it's probably much clearer to those that are knowledgeable in QM. That'a why...

I'm sorry for my badly put question. What I wanted to ask is: is an observer (in QM) and a frame of reference (in general physics, be it Newtonian or Relativistic) the same thing?