| Topic: |
Science > Physics |
| User: |
"Patrick Powers" |
| Date: |
05 Sep 2004 02:04:16 AM |
| Object: |
Where does an infinitely large gorilla sit? |
Everywhere he wants to.
.
|
|
| User: "John T Lowry" |
|
| Title: Re: Where does an infinitely large gorilla sit? |
05 Sep 2004 08:52:14 PM |
|
|
Actually, since he already occupies all space, he has no choice where to
sit.
John Lowry
Flight Physics
"Patrick Powers" <frisbieinstein@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:9511688f.0409042304.37d5cc05@posting.google.com...
Everywhere he wants to.
.
|
|
|
| User: "robert j. kolker" |
|
| Title: Re: Where does an infinitely large gorilla sit? |
05 Sep 2004 09:17:23 PM |
|
|
John T Lowry wrote:
Actually, since he already occupies all space, he has no choice where to
sit.
Not true. There are infinite subspaces which are not all of space.
Infinite does not meen maximal.
Bob Kolker
.
|
|
|
| User: "Edward Green" |
|
| Title: Re: Where does an infinitely large gorilla sit? |
07 Sep 2004 09:54:20 PM |
|
|
"robert j. kolker" <nowhere@nowhere.net> wrote in message news:<2q1vlrFqbr15U1@uni-berlin.de>...
John T Lowry wrote:
Actually, since he already occupies all space, he has no choice where to
sit.
Not true. There are infinite subspaces which are not all of space.
Infinite does not meen maximal.
He may in fact be one dimensional -- merely infinitely long. In which
case, he can be curled up inside a nutshell.
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Spaceman" |
|
| Title: Re: Where does an infinitely large gorilla sit? |
05 Sep 2004 09:57:24 PM |
|
|
"robert j. kolker" <nowhere@nowhere.net> wrote in message news:2q1vlrFqbr15U1@uni-berlin.de...
} Infinite does not meen maximal.
What a load of *****.
<LOL>
.
|
|
|
| User: "Igor" |
|
| Title: Re: Where does an infinitely large gorilla sit? |
06 Sep 2004 02:28:34 PM |
|
|
"Spaceman" <Spaceman@realspaceman.com> wrote in message news:<omQ_c.382337$%_6.85507@attbi_s01>...
"robert j. kolker" <nowhere@nowhere.net> wrote in message news:2q1vlrFqbr15U1@uni-berlin.de...
} Infinite does not meen maximal.
What a load of *****.
<LOL>
Oh, now we're an expert on infinity, are we? That's pretty funny
considering you can't even understand how finite numbers work!
.
|
|
|
| User: "Spaceman" |
|
| Title: Re: Where does an infinitely large gorilla sit? |
06 Sep 2004 02:52:07 PM |
|
|
"Igor" <thoovler@excite.com> wrote in message news:d434b6c6.0409061128.3ce20b56@posting.google.com...
} "Spaceman" <Spaceman@realspaceman.com> wrote in message news:<omQ_c.382337$%_6.85507@attbi_s01>...
} > "robert j. kolker" <nowhere@nowhere.net> wrote in message news:2q1vlrFqbr15U1@uni-berlin.de...
} > } Infinite does not meen maximal.
} >
} > What a load of *****.
} > <LOL>
}
}
} Oh, now we're an expert on infinity, are we? That's pretty funny
} considering you can't even understand how finite numbers work!
Where do you see me saying I am an expert on infinity?
Do you always see things that are not there like that?
.
|
|
|
| User: "Morituri-Max" |
|
| Title: Re: Where does an infinitely large gorilla sit? |
06 Sep 2004 03:19:46 PM |
|
|
Spaceman wrote:
} Oh, now we're an expert on infinity, are we? That's pretty funny
} considering you can't even understand how finite numbers work!
Where do you see me saying I am an expert on infinity?
Right here...
} > } Infinite does not meen maximal.
} >
} > What a load of *****.
You say it is ***** without showing any math, so you seem to be expressing
the opinion of an expert to a layman..
R I A W G
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Eric Gisse" |
|
| Title: Re: Where does an infinitely large gorilla sit? |
05 Sep 2004 11:37:54 PM |
|
|
On Mon, 06 Sep 2004 02:57:24 GMT, "Spaceman"
<Spaceman@realspaceman.com> wrote:
"robert j. kolker" <nowhere@nowhere.net> wrote in message news:2q1vlrFqbr15U1@uni-berlin.de...
} Infinite does not meen maximal.
What a load of *****.
<LOL>
Take a math class, spaceshit.
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Morituri-Max" |
|
| Title: Re: Where does an infinitely large gorilla sit? |
06 Sep 2004 12:25:22 AM |
|
|
Spaceman wrote:
"robert j. kolker" <nowhere@nowhere.net> wrote in message
news:2q1vlrFqbr15U1@uni-berlin.de...
} Infinite does not meen maximal.
What a load of *****.
<LOL>
RIAWG
Reality is a Word Game
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "robert j. kolker" |
|
| Title: Re: Where does an infinitely large gorilla sit? |
06 Sep 2004 03:33:39 PM |
|
|
Spaceman wrote:
"robert j. kolker" <nowhere@nowhere.net> wrote in message news:2q1vlrFqbr15U1@uni-berlin.de...
} Infinite does not meen maximal.
What a load of *****.
<LOL>
Consider Euclidian 3 space. A line (the whole line, not just a segment)
is an infinite subpace but it is not maximal because the line lie in a
set of co-axial planes. Now chose one of those planes. That plane is not
maximal because it is a proper subset of the space.
There are unbounded subsets of the space which are not the whole space.
Make it easy. The entire plane is spanned by two perpendicular lines,
call them X and Y. The line X is infinite in length yet is a just small
part of the space.
Bob Kolker
.
|
|
|
| User: "Mike" |
|
| Title: Re: Where does an infinitely large gorilla sit? |
08 Sep 2004 04:49:28 AM |
|
|
"robert j. kolker" <nowhere@nowhere.net> wrote in message news:<2q3vtbFr3nt0U1@uni-berlin.de>...
Spaceman wrote:
"robert j. kolker" <nowhere@nowhere.net> wrote in message news:2q1vlrFqbr15U1@uni-berlin.de...
} Infinite does not meen maximal.
What a load of *****.
<LOL>
Consider Euclidian 3 space. A line (the whole line, not just a segment)
is an infinite subpace but it is not maximal because the line lie in a
set of co-axial planes. Now chose one of those planes. That plane is not
maximal because it is a proper subset of the space.
There are unbounded subsets of the space which are not the whole space.
Make it easy. The entire plane is spanned by two perpendicular lines,
call them X and Y. The line X is infinite in length yet is a just small
part of the space.
Bob Kolker
I thought a gorilla is 3-D so all this talk above is meaningless word
game. An infinite 3-D object occupies the whole of Euclidean space. If
we assume dimensionality is not a matter of convention but our
universe has actually dimensions, and if we further assume it's a
Euclidean universe, then an infinite gorilla is maximal and sits on
itself.
Mike
.
|
|
|
| User: "Edward Green" |
|
| Title: Re: Where does an infinitely large gorilla sit? |
08 Sep 2004 07:51:00 PM |
|
|
(Mike) wrote in message news:<9c1b39be.0409080149.58a14fac@posting.google.com>...
"robert j. kolker" <nowhere@nowhere.net> wrote in message news:<2q3vtbFr3nt0U1@uni-berlin.de>...
Spaceman wrote:
"robert j. kolker" <nowhere@nowhere.net> wrote in message news:2q1vlrFqbr15U1@uni-berlin.de...
} Infinite does not meen maximal.
What a load of *****.
<LOL>
Consider Euclidian 3 space. A line (the whole line, not just a segment)
is an infinite subpace but it is not maximal because the line lie in a
set of co-axial planes. Now chose one of those planes. That plane is not
maximal because it is a proper subset of the space.
There are unbounded subsets of the space which are not the whole space.
Make it easy. The entire plane is spanned by two perpendicular lines,
call them X and Y. The line X is infinite in length yet is a just small
part of the space.
Bob Kolker
I thought a gorilla is 3-D so all this talk above is meaningless word
game.
Ah. And the infinite gorilla himself is not? Intriguing. :-)
An infinite 3-D object occupies the whole of Euclidean space.
But that is not so! Let a tapering 3d object occupy all of a first
unit cube, 1/2 of an adjacent unit cube, 1/3 or the next adjacent unit
cube and so forth. His total volume will be infinite, but unless you
happen to fly into his thin form, you would hardly notice him. Space
could in fact accomodate an infinite number of such infinite gorillas.
If
we assume dimensionality is not a matter of convention but our
universe has actually dimensions, and if we further assume it's a
Euclidean universe, then an infinite gorilla is maximal and sits on
itself.
You are wrong! Wrong, wrong, wrong!!! And then some. ;-)
Mike
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "robert j. kolker" |
|
| Title: Re: Where does an infinitely large gorilla sit? |
08 Sep 2004 06:52:06 AM |
|
|
Mike wrote:
I thought a gorilla is 3-D so all this talk above is meaningless word
game. An infinite 3-D object occupies the whole of Euclidean space. If
we assume dimensionality is not a matter of convention but our
universe has actually dimensions, and if we further assume it's a
Euclidean universe, then an infinite gorilla is maximal and sits on
He still could be a flattened thing does not fill all of space. Consider
a pair of surface (symmetric with each other) and asymptotic to the x-y
plane in three space. Sort of like a pair of tentns that have a peak at
(0,0,1) and (0,0,1) and droop down to the x-y plane asyptotoically in
all directions. You can generate such "tent" by taking an asymptoic
curve on the x-z pland and rotating it.
Bob Kolker
.
|
|
|
| User: "Timo Nieminen" |
|
| Title: Re: Where does an infinitely large gorilla sit? |
08 Sep 2004 06:20:26 PM |
|
|
On Wed, 8 Sep 2004, robert j. kolker wrote:
Mike wrote:
I thought a gorilla is 3-D so all this talk above is meaningless word
game. An infinite 3-D object occupies the whole of Euclidean space. If
we assume dimensionality is not a matter of convention but our
universe has actually dimensions, and if we further assume it's a
Euclidean universe, then an infinite gorilla is maximal and sits on
He still could be a flattened thing does not fill all of space. Consider
a pair of surface (symmetric with each other) and asymptotic to the x-y
plane in three space. Sort of like a pair of tentns that have a peak at
(0,0,1) and (0,0,1) and droop down to the x-y plane asyptotoically in
all directions. You can generate such "tent" by taking an asymptoic
curve on the x-z pland and rotating it.
Why not the simple example of a half-space (eg x > 0)?
--
Timo Nieminen - Home page: http://www.physics.uq.edu.au/people/nieminen/
Shrine to Spirits: http://www.users.bigpond.com/timo_nieminen/spirits.html
.
|
|
|
| User: "robert j. kolker" |
|
| Title: Re: Where does an infinitely large gorilla sit? |
08 Sep 2004 08:26:56 PM |
|
|
Timo Nieminen wrote:
Why not the simple example of a half-space (eg x > 0)?
Why not indeed.
Bob Kolker
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Spaceman" |
|
| Title: Re: Where does an infinitely large gorilla sit? |
06 Sep 2004 03:40:37 PM |
|
|
"robert j. kolker" <nowhere@nowhere.net> wrote in message news:2q3vtbFr3nt0U1@uni-berlin.de...
} Make it easy. The entire plane is spanned by two perpendicular lines,
} call them X and Y. The line X is infinite in length yet is a just small
} part of the space.
So now you actually believe in smaller than Plank length?
.
|
|
|
| User: "Gregory L. Hansen" |
|
| Title: Re: Where does an infinitely large gorilla sit? |
06 Sep 2004 07:38:40 PM |
|
|
In article <9X3%c.12654$vy.1437@attbi_s52>,
Spaceman <Spaceman@realspaceman.com> wrote:
"robert j. kolker" <nowhere@nowhere.net> wrote in message
news:2q3vtbFr3nt0U1@uni-berlin.de...
} Make it easy. The entire plane is spanned by two perpendicular lines,
} call them X and Y. The line X is infinite in length yet is a just small
} part of the space.
So now you actually believe in smaller than Plank length?
You sort of have to believe in quantum mechanics, first, before you
can believe in the Planck length. Do you believe in the Planck length?
But the Planck length really comes under the heading of numerology. A
bunch of fundamental constants thrown together that happen to work out to
units of length. Maybe that means something, maybe it doesn't. I vote
for doesn't. At least, not in the sense of a shortest possible length,
although it might be worth something as an energy regime of quantum
gravity.
--
"When the fool walks through the street, in his lack of understanding he
calls everything foolish." -- Ecclesiastes 10:3, New American Bible
.
|
|
|
| User: "Spaceman" |
|
| Title: Re: Where does an infinitely large gorilla sit? |
06 Sep 2004 07:46:34 PM |
|
|
"Gregory L. Hansen" <glhansen@steel.ucs.indiana.edu> wrote in message
news:chivug$7s3$2@hood.uits.indiana.edu...
} You sort of have to believe in quantum mechanics, first, before you
} can believe in the Planck length. Do you believe in the Planck length?
I believe it exists, but not as the shortest length possible like
they worship it as but merely as the smallest capable measurement
that can be made by today's standards.
If infinity has it's way,
There are an infinite amount of shorter than plank lengths.
:)
.
|
|
|
| User: "Gregory L. Hansen" |
|
| Title: Re: Where does an infinitely large gorilla sit? |
07 Sep 2004 08:50:38 AM |
|
|
In article <Kx7%c.255066$8_6.225159@attbi_s04>,
Spaceman <Spaceman@realspaceman.computer> wrote:
"Gregory L. Hansen" <glhansen@steel.ucs.indiana.edu> wrote in message
news:chivug$7s3$2@hood.uits.indiana.edu...
} You sort of have to believe in quantum mechanics, first, before you
} can believe in the Planck length. Do you believe in the Planck length?
I believe it exists, but not as the shortest length possible like
they worship it as but merely as the smallest capable measurement
that can be made by today's standards.
I believe the Planck length is considerably smaller than anything we can
measure by today's standards.
If infinity has it's way,
There are an infinite amount of shorter than plank lengths.
:)
--
"Then they placed the ark of the Lord on the cart; along with the box
containing the golden mice and the images of the hemorrhoids."
-- 1 Samuel 6:11
.
|
|
|
| User: "Spaceman" |
|
| Title: Re: Where does an infinitely large gorilla sit? |
07 Sep 2004 04:41:15 PM |
|
|
"Gregory L. Hansen" <glhansen@steel.ucs.indiana.edu> wrote in message
news:chkebe$o68$2@hood.uits.indiana.edu...
} I believe the Planck length is considerably smaller than anything we can
} measure by today's standards.
So,
you are saying we never measured a planks length in reality,
but all the supposed smarties already think it is the smallest length?
<LOL>
That is funny Greg.
If they have never even measured such a length,
why would they say it is the smallest at all?
.
|
|
|
| User: "Gregory L. Hansen" |
|
| Title: Re: Where does an infinitely large gorilla sit? |
07 Sep 2004 08:19:22 PM |
|
|
In article <%Vp%c.393128$%_6.74173@attbi_s01>,
Spaceman <Spaceman@realspaceman.computer> wrote:
"Gregory L. Hansen" <glhansen@steel.ucs.indiana.edu> wrote in message
news:chkebe$o68$2@hood.uits.indiana.edu...
} I believe the Planck length is considerably smaller than anything we can
} measure by today's standards.
So,
you are saying we never measured a planks length in reality,
but all the supposed smarties already think it is the smallest length?
<LOL>
That is funny Greg.
If they have never even measured such a length,
why would they say it is the smallest at all?
Like I said, they threw a bunch of fundamental constants together,
that worked out to units of length. Those included the gravitational
constant, G, and Planck's constant, h. And I'm sure there was a c or two
in there. And they thought there must be something significant to it.
There is some motivation, since G is a natural scale for gravitational
effects, h is a natural scale for quantum effects, etc. But the
significance is really speculative.
I don't think the scientists themselves take it all that seriously. But
somehow, sometimes people seem to take speculative physics more seriously
than the physicists that produced it.
--
"Is that plutonium on your gums?"
"Shut up and kiss me!"
-- Marge and Homer Simpson
.
|
|
|
| User: "Mike" |
|
| Title: Re: Where does an infinitely large gorilla sit? |
08 Sep 2004 04:55:20 AM |
|
|
(Gregory L. Hansen) wrote in message news:<chlmmq$78s$1@hood.uits.indiana.edu>...
In article <%Vp%c.393128$%_6.74173@attbi_s01>,
Spaceman <Spaceman@realspaceman.computer> wrote:
"Gregory L. Hansen" < > wrote in message
news:chkebe$o68$2@hood.uits.indiana.edu...
} I believe the Planck length is considerably smaller than anything we can
} measure by today's standards.
So,
you are saying we never measured a planks length in reality,
but all the supposed smarties already think it is the smallest length?
<LOL>
That is funny Greg.
If they have never even measured such a length,
why would they say it is the smallest at all?
Like I said, they threw a bunch of fundamental constants together,
that worked out to units of length. Those included the gravitational
constant, G, and Planck's constant, h. And I'm sure there was a c or two
in there. And they thought there must be something significant to it.
There is some motivation, since G is a natural scale for gravitational
effects, h is a natural scale for quantum effects, etc. But the
significance is really speculative.
I don't think the scientists themselves take it all that seriously. But
somehow, sometimes people seem to take speculative physics more seriously
than the physicists that produced it.
The is another alternative. You need some education. Aloing with
spaqceman and the others. Go as a group, you get a better price.
Mike
.
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Morituri-Max" |
|
| Title: Re: Where does an infinitely large gorilla sit? |
08 Sep 2004 12:45:56 AM |
|
|
Spaceman wrote:
If they have never even measured such a length,
why would they say it is the smallest at all?
R I A W G
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Morituri-Max" |
|
| Title: Re: Where does an infinitely large gorilla sit? |
06 Sep 2004 07:56:47 PM |
|
|
Spaceman wrote:
There are an infinite amount of shorter than plank lengths.
Ahh the old greek "theory" that you can reduce a grain of sand by half of it's
volume an unlimited number of times and it will always get smaller..
R I A W G
.
|
|
|
| User: "Spaceman" |
|
| Title: Re: Where does an infinitely large gorilla sit? |
06 Sep 2004 08:05:05 PM |
|
|
"Morituri-Max" <newage@sendarico.net> wrote in message news:jH7%c.10139$It2.7639@fe2.texas.rr.com...
} Spaceman wrote:
}
} > There are an infinite amount of shorter than plank lengths.
}
} Ahh the old greek "theory" that you can reduce a grain of sand by half of it's
} volume an unlimited number of times and it will always get smaller..
Yup,
That silly math stuff says you can devide by 1/2 infinitely.
what's the matter, you don't believe mathematical outcomes?
Do you think we have equipment that can detect smaller than
plank length stuff at all yet?
.
|
|
|
| User: "Morituri-Max" |
|
| Title: Re: Where does an infinitely large gorilla sit? |
06 Sep 2004 08:26:09 PM |
|
|
Spaceman wrote:
Yup,
That silly math stuff says you can devide by 1/2 infinitely.
what's the matter, you don't believe mathematical outcomes?
R I A W G
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Oriel36" |
|
| Title: Re: Where does an infinitely large gorilla sit? |
07 Sep 2004 12:02:28 PM |
|
|
(Gregory L. Hansen) wrote in message news:<chivug$7s3$2@hood.uits.indiana.edu>...
In article <9X3%c.12654$vy.1437@attbi_s52>,
Spaceman <Spaceman@realspaceman.com> wrote:
"robert j. kolker" <nowhere@nowhere.net> wrote in message
news:2q3vtbFr3nt0U1@uni-berlin.de...
} Make it easy. The entire plane is spanned by two perpendicular lines,
} call them X and Y. The line X is infinite in length yet is a just small
} part of the space.
So now you actually believe in smaller than Plank length?
You sort of have to believe in quantum mechanics, first, before you
can believe in the Planck length. Do you believe in the Planck length?
But the Planck length really comes under the heading of numerology. A
bunch of fundamental constants thrown together that happen to work out to
units of length.
The guys in the early 20th century screwed with your heads that much
that you don't know what to believe.All that fine tuning to give a
precise geometric lenght and then you decide that it is nothing more
than a bunch of constants.
http://physics.nist.gov/cgi-bin/cuu/Value?plkl|search_for=all!
That's the madness,no man can live with a contradiction but apparently
you and your colleagues made an industry out of it,the price of your
self congratulation and hero worship is an intellectual death that I
don't think anyone else would pay that price.
Maybe that means something, maybe it doesn't. I vote
for doesn't. At least, not in the sense of a shortest possible length,
although it might be worth something as an energy regime of quantum
gravity.
So this is what you mean from a typical garden variety physicist -
"The Planck length is the scale at which classical ideas about gravity
and space-time cease to be valid, and quantum effects dominate. This
is the ‘quantum of length', the smallest measurement of length with
any meaning.
And roughly equal to 1.6 x 10-35 m or about 10-20 times the size of a
proton."
I love these things because they have the air of authority but they
wither with simple reasoning based on the diameter,circumference and
Pi.As you are intellectually dead ,don't worry about it.
The justification for the Planck lenght is given in terms of physical
distance,geometry in other words.
The Planck lenght is also a diameter so it is possible to create a
circumference from that diameter.The ratio between the planck lenght
and its circumference is the Pi value of 3.1415....
If you can create a circumference from a diameter you can also create
a radius half the original Planck lenght otherwise it is tantamount to
saying that Pi is a rational value.There is no determinate
lenght/diameter where the Pi begins and ends and that is a fact.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Spaceman" |
|
| Title: Re: Where does an infinitely large gorilla sit? |
07 Sep 2004 04:45:44 PM |
|
|
"Oriel36" <geraldkelleher@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:273f8e06.0409070902.294c52d3@posting.google.com...
} The guys in the early 20th century screwed with your heads that much
} that you don't know what to believe.All that fine tuning to give a
} precise geometric lenght and then you decide that it is nothing more
} than a bunch of constants.
Yup,
sadly...
They even created the constant speed of light, even though it varies.
and acts more like sound then they will admit, yet they are finding out now..
:)
<snipped rest just to save space since I already know that stuff.>
:)
.
|
|
|
| User: "Morituri-Max" |
|
| Title: Re: Where does an infinitely large gorilla sit? |
08 Sep 2004 12:46:48 AM |
|
|
Spaceman wrote:
They even created the constant speed of light, even though it varies.
and acts more like sound then they will admit, yet they are finding out now..
Re*al*ity Is A *Word* G*a*me
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Morituri-Max" |
|
| Title: Re: Where does an infinitely large gorilla sit? |
06 Sep 2004 06:56:08 PM |
|
|
Spaceman wrote:
So now you actually believe in smaller than Plank length?
R I A W G
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Related Articles |
|
|
