Total Posts:13|Showing Posts:1-13
Jump to topic:

Does Physical infinity exist? (yes I'm back)

chui
Posts: 507
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/3/2016 11:56:59 AM
Posted: 9 months ago
At 3/3/2016 9:25:38 AM, TREssspa wrote:
Share your views, ( then only I can reveal what I intend to ask).

Hint : You can simply say nope.

When a car accelerates from stationary there is a moment when there is a resultant force on the car so the car is accelerating but it is stationary. This must be true or no stationary object can ever start moving.

This moment must be infinitely small.

Quantum physics is often used by the un-educated as a counter claim to this argument. But quantisation does not apply here because the car does not need to be in a potential well, we can imagine it is in space and has a rocket engine. Similarly Planck time and Planck length do not put limits on space and time either so do not apply.
Floid
Posts: 751
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/3/2016 12:32:09 PM
Posted: 9 months ago
At 3/3/2016 9:25:38 AM, TREssspa wrote:
Share your views, ( then only I can reveal what I intend to ask).

Hint : You can simply say nope.

How would you propose to measure it if it did? Scientifically all we could possibly say is that there is something too big or too small for us to measure given current technology.
TREssspa
Posts: 567
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/3/2016 12:42:19 PM
Posted: 9 months ago
At 3/3/2016 12:32:09 PM, Floid wrote:
At 3/3/2016 9:25:38 AM, TREssspa wrote:
Share your views, ( then only I can reveal what I intend to ask).

Hint : You can simply say nope.

How would you propose to measure it if it did? Scientifically all we could possibly say is that there is something too big or too small for us to measure given current technology.

Floid, how small something can be? Is there a limit?
Floid
Posts: 751
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/3/2016 1:52:36 PM
Posted: 9 months ago
At 3/3/2016 12:42:19 PM, TREssspa wrote:
At 3/3/2016 12:32:09 PM, Floid wrote:
At 3/3/2016 9:25:38 AM, TREssspa wrote:
Share your views, ( then only I can reveal what I intend to ask).

Hint : You can simply say nope.

How would you propose to measure it if it did? Scientifically all we could possibly say is that there is something too big or too small for us to measure given current technology.

Floid, how small something can be? Is there a limit?

Plank's constant seems to be the smallest unit of energy possible and as such provides a constraint on how small something can be.
Fkkize
Posts: 2,149
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/3/2016 3:41:26 PM
Posted: 9 months ago
At 3/3/2016 11:56:59 AM, chui wrote:
At 3/3/2016 9:25:38 AM, TREssspa wrote:
Share your views, ( then only I can reveal what I intend to ask).

Hint : You can simply say nope.

When a car accelerates from stationary there is a moment when there is a resultant force on the car so the car is accelerating but it is stationary. This must be true or no stationary object can ever start moving.

This moment must be infinitely small.

When anything lying on a surface/ surrounded by liquid/ gas is accelerating it has to overcome a static friction specific to the materials in question.
This friction is a measurable force and it is not infinitely small.

Maximum Static Friction = coefficient of friction * normal force

For example, the static friction of a 1 kg steel block on a flat steel surface is

F = 0.15 * 1 kg * 10 m/s^2 = 1.5 N (approximately)
: At 7/2/2016 3:05:07 PM, Rational_Thinker9119 wrote:
:
: space contradicts logic
chui
Posts: 507
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/4/2016 3:05:49 PM
Posted: 9 months ago
At 3/3/2016 3:41:26 PM, Fkkize wrote:
At 3/3/2016 11:56:59 AM, chui wrote:
At 3/3/2016 9:25:38 AM, TREssspa wrote:
Share your views, ( then only I can reveal what I intend to ask).

Hint : You can simply say nope.

When a car accelerates from stationary there is a moment when there is a resultant force on the car so the car is accelerating but it is stationary. This must be true or no stationary object can ever start moving.

This moment must be infinitely small.

When anything lying on a surface/ surrounded by liquid/ gas is accelerating it has to overcome a static friction specific to the materials in question.
This friction is a measurable force and it is not infinitely small.

Maximum Static Friction = coefficient of friction * normal force

For example, the static friction of a 1 kg steel block on a flat steel surface is

F = 0.15 * 1 kg * 10 m/s^2 = 1.5 N (approximately)

Thanks for the non-sequitur
Peternosaint
Posts: 1,166
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/5/2016 1:31:03 AM
Posted: 9 months ago
At 3/3/2016 11:56:59 AM, chui wrote:
At 3/3/2016 9:25:38 AM, TREssspa wrote:
Share your views, ( then only I can reveal what I intend to ask).

Hint : You can simply say nope.

When a car accelerates from stationary there is a moment when there is a resultant force on the car so the car is accelerating but it is stationary. This must be true or no stationary object can ever start moving.

ME: Is this the same, or similar to a fly hitting a loco head on, the fly stops, and heads in reverse, so the loco must stop as well?

OR, Throwing a ball in the air, there comes a time it must stop to start falling?

This moment must be infinitely small.

Quantum physics is often used by the un-educated as a counter claim to this argument. But quantisation does not apply here because the car does not need to be in a potential well, we can imagine it is in space and has a rocket engine. Similarly Planck time and Planck length do not put limits on space and time either so do not apply.

Your question: Does physical infinity exist, is like saying does nothing exist, IMO, but ask the mob, I know nuffin'.
chui
Posts: 507
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/7/2016 9:49:38 AM
Posted: 9 months ago
At 3/5/2016 1:31:03 AM, Peternosaint wrote:
At 3/3/2016 11:56:59 AM, chui wrote:
At 3/3/2016 9:25:38 AM, TREssspa wrote:
Share your views, ( then only I can reveal what I intend to ask).

Hint : You can simply say nope.

When a car accelerates from stationary there is a moment when there is a resultant force on the car so the car is accelerating but it is stationary. This must be true or no stationary object can ever start moving.

ME: Is this the same, or similar to a fly hitting a loco head on, the fly stops, and heads in reverse, so the loco must stop as well?

Only if the fly and the loco are infinity rigid which they are not. Yes the fly stops, or more properly the centre of mass of the fly stops, but the fly is being squashed so the loco does not need to stop.

OR, Throwing a ball in the air, there comes a time it must stop to start falling?

This moment must be infinitely small.

Quantum physics is often used by the un-educated as a counter claim to this argument. But quantisation does not apply here because the car does not need to be in a potential well, we can imagine it is in space and has a rocket engine. Similarly Planck time and Planck length do not put limits on space and time either so do not apply.

Your question: Does physical infinity exist, is like saying does nothing exist, IMO, but ask the mob, I know nuffin'.

I am basically saying that although there are not any physical example of uncountably large infinite qunatites eg infinite number of stars, there are physical examples of infinitesimally small intervals.
slo1
Posts: 4,318
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/7/2016 3:23:42 PM
Posted: 9 months ago
At 3/3/2016 11:56:59 AM, chui wrote:
At 3/3/2016 9:25:38 AM, TREssspa wrote:
Share your views, ( then only I can reveal what I intend to ask).

Hint : You can simply say nope.

When a car accelerates from stationary there is a moment when there is a resultant force on the car so the car is accelerating but it is stationary. This must be true or no stationary object can ever start moving.

This moment must be infinitely small.

The speed of force propagation is inhibited by the materials, but i'm not certain why you don't feel that interaction exchange of energy is quantisized. Besides you can't know the position if you are measuring velocity and vice versa. More importantly you can't measure time with any degree of accuracy when measuring energy, thus a infinite small value of time makes no sense.

Quantum physics is often used by the un-educated as a counter claim to this argument. But quantisation does not apply here because the car does not need to be in a potential well, we can imagine it is in space and has a rocket engine. Similarly Planck time and Planck length do not put limits on space and time either so do not apply.
Tela
Posts: 79
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/7/2016 5:07:55 PM
Posted: 9 months ago
At 3/7/2016 3:23:42 PM, slo1 wrote:
At 3/3/2016 11:56:59 AM, chui wrote:
At 3/3/2016 9:25:38 AM, TREssspa wrote:
Share your views, ( then only I can reveal what I intend to ask).

Hint : You can simply say nope.

When a car accelerates from stationary there is a moment when there is a resultant force on the car so the car is accelerating but it is stationary. This must be true or no stationary object can ever start moving.

This moment must be infinitely small.

The speed of force propagation is inhibited by the materials, but i'm not certain why you don't feel that interaction exchange of energy is quantisized. Besides you can't know the position if you are measuring velocity and vice versa. More importantly you can't measure time with any degree of accuracy when measuring energy, thus a infinite small value of time makes no sense.

When you CAN measure something ( no matter how) its finite. When you can't then its infinite.

Infinite is outside the realm of Space - Time. It is arguably Not a part of mathematics.
chui
Posts: 507
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/8/2016 11:37:15 AM
Posted: 9 months ago
At 3/7/2016 3:23:42 PM, slo1 wrote:
At 3/3/2016 11:56:59 AM, chui wrote:
At 3/3/2016 9:25:38 AM, TREssspa wrote:
Share your views, ( then only I can reveal what I intend to ask).

Hint : You can simply say nope.

When a car accelerates from stationary there is a moment when there is a resultant force on the car so the car is accelerating but it is stationary. This must be true or no stationary object can ever start moving.

This moment must be infinitely small.

The speed of force propagation is inhibited by the materials, but i'm not certain why you don't feel that interaction exchange of energy is quantisized.

Quantisation is associated with being in a potential well. All the equations that solve for wave function are basically energy conservation equations with a term for potential energy. No potential means no quantisation, no standing wave pattern. An alternative meaning to this is that a freely moving object can have any velocity, position and acceleration. A particle in a well has permitted and non-permitted energy levels.

Besides you can't know the position if you are measuring velocity and vice versa. More importantly you can't measure time with any degree of accuracy when measuring energy, thus a infinite small value of time makes no sense.

Time and energy cannot be measured simultaneously, this is true. But why is there a need to measure? Any free object has a continuous energy spectrum with no quantisation.



Quantum physics is often used by the un-educated as a counter claim to this argument. But quantisation does not apply here because the car does not need to be in a potential well, we can imagine it is in space and has a rocket engine. Similarly Planck time and Planck length do not put limits on space and time either so do not apply.
slo1
Posts: 4,318
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/8/2016 2:46:29 PM
Posted: 9 months ago
At 3/8/2016 11:37:15 AM, chui wrote:
At 3/7/2016 3:23:42 PM, slo1 wrote:
At 3/3/2016 11:56:59 AM, chui wrote:
At 3/3/2016 9:25:38 AM, TREssspa wrote:
Share your views, ( then only I can reveal what I intend to ask).

Hint : You can simply say nope.

When a car accelerates from stationary there is a moment when there is a resultant force on the car so the car is accelerating but it is stationary. This must be true or no stationary object can ever start moving.

This moment must be infinitely small.

The speed of force propagation is inhibited by the materials, but i'm not certain why you don't feel that interaction exchange of energy is quantisized.

Quantisation is associated with being in a potential well. All the equations that solve for wave function are basically energy conservation equations with a term for potential energy. No potential means no quantisation, no standing wave pattern. An alternative meaning to this is that a freely moving object can have any velocity, position and acceleration. A particle in a well has permitted and non-permitted energy levels.

At car has a wave function, albeit very small. It's particles are in a potential well. The odds that a particular can tunnel outside it's well is also extremely extremely small, but every particular in that car will have potential. Just because something is large does not mean it disobeys quantum mechanics.

In your case you are just bypassing quantum mechanics, rightly so, as the calculations of a car as as a collection of particles would be too complex with our current computing power, but you also have to realize when using classical equations as a substitute they are approximations, thus a claim that an infinite small moment of time is innacurate.

Besides you can't know the position if you are measuring velocity and vice versa. More importantly you can't measure time with any degree of accuracy when measuring energy, thus a infinite small value of time makes no sense.

Time and energy cannot be measured simultaneously, this is true. But why is there a need to measure? Any free object has a continuous energy spectrum with no quantisation.



Quantum physics is often used by the un-educated as a counter claim to this argument. But quantisation does not apply here because the car does not need to be in a potential well, we can imagine it is in space and has a rocket engine. Similarly Planck time and Planck length do not put limits on space and time either so do not apply.