Thought this might be an interesting question. Feel free to post why it was hard and/or what let you finally understand it.
jbriggs444 said:I recall thinking: "what if there is a systematic offset in time corresponding to distance in the direction of relative motion?" Could that resolve these difficulties? Then I turned around, looked at the Lorentz transforms and saw that very term staring me in the face. *facepalm*.
Do you mean you think that nothing is absolute? If so, then no, some things ARE absolute. Just as a simple example, the outcome of arithmetic is absolute. 2 + 2 (in base 10, just to be clear) has an absolute outcome. It's always 4.sadhappymusic said:Speaking of absolute did you know that this is also not absolute ?
Absolutely.sadhappymusic said:Speaking of absolute did you know that this is also not absolute ?
phinds said:Do you mean you think that nothing is absolute? If so, then no, some things ARE absolute. Just as a simple example, the outcome of arithmetic is absolute. 2 + 2 (in base 10, just to be clear) has an absolute outcome. It's always 4.
Could you elaborate on what this means? It sounds interesting.atyy said:I still don't understand (intuitively) why the bottom of the wheel does not move relative to the ground!
Does the second theory explain all the phenomena of the first one but has little in common with it?If it explains all the phenomena and provides explanation for new phenomena that the first does not it is a generalisation.But if it explains completely the same phenomena with the first I would say it is equivalent, but has a different statement.mcastillo356 said:"How do we know that, if we made a theory which focuses its attention on phenomena we disregard and disregards some of the phenomena now commanding our attention, that we could not build another theory which has little in common with the present one but which, nevertheless, explains just as many phenomena as the present theory?"
I need your help to understand these sentence, I thought I had understand: does it mean that if somebody states something inconsistent, this is, not in agree with something else, eg, previous studies, we can fall into a chain of failures? Is DanielMB trying to say that the concurrence of ##\pi## is yet to study?
I agree, and further it seems strange to me that cardinalities bump up in scale discretely according to simple formulas. It makes me wonder how intrinsic it is (beyond ZFC in general, and in nature).kyphysics said:I think different types of infinity are weird.
You can have infinity from 0 on up . . .
Then, you can have a "smaller" infinity from 1 on up. . .
Both are infinity, but one is larger than the other.
Have you studied any philosophy, Jarvis? I'm not a STEM major, but do have a social sciences and humanities background that includes philosophy (almost a minor of mine).Jarvis323 said:I also find uncomputable numbers strange. They are numbers which presumably cannot show up or play any role in a physical universe, unless the universe has an infinite state space going into determining a single value. And these numbers are the vast majority of numbers (small and big). They make up the vast majority of the interval from 0 to 1 for example. And they're implicitly part of our continuous physics models, even though they can't really be in the way they are in the model in reality.
It makes me think that maybe values are not complete separable objects in physical reality, but rather a single value, or physical realization of a real number, is something that must be distributed in space and time (perhaps infinitely in each dimension), and not only can we not measure them completely as an instantaneous thing, or completely in any sense, but we can't even talk about them completely or use them in applied math or physics.