Post by RLHPost by Odd BodkinPost by RLHPost by RLHPost by Odd BodkinPost by RLHPost by Odd BodkinI’m sorry but you are simply misinformed and at this point just repeating
your unjustified preconceptions.
Go on then. Define for me what a point is in the physical sense.
A physical thing can have mass, charge, spin, baryonic number, and a host
of other properties without having any volume. There is nothing about any
of those properties that requires volume, even conceptually.
Post by RLHPost by Odd BodkinPost by RLHYou cannot accurately (to an infinite level) place any point in the real
world. Ever. It always has to have some physical dimensions and an
approximate centre.
Having an uncertainty on a location is not the same thing as having a
volume. Conversely, being volumeless and pointlike does not imply being
able to locate it with perfect precision.
It is precisely like a volume. There is a given probability that the
'particle' will be within a given volume. No matter how hard we look
their is Brownian, thermal, noise so that even if we were to measure it
'now' it would not be the same as 'now'.
Sorry, but that is NOT the same thing. What you are doing is measuring a
distribution of its locations as measured at different times. This is much
different than being able, at one snapshot of time, to identify a point on
the boundary of the object and a different point that is unambiguously in
the interior of the object.
Post by RLHPost by Odd BodkinLikewise, Newton’s first law about constant motion does not hinge on
whether there is a measurement protocol with infinite precision to
establish that constancy numerically. This is a basic disconnect you have
about comparing experimental measurements against physical models.
Sure we work with approximate summaries instead. Good enough for
government work. Not quite the same thing we are talking about
Newton’s first law is not an approximation.
Post by RLHPost by Odd BodkinWhen you can come up with a PHYSICAL argument about why you think things
must have volume, then we can talk further.
How else do you describe the existence and location of any particle?
I’ve already told you. A particle has many measurable properties which are
not dependent on volume. Then all that is needed is a location. A location
is a SINGLE point, not a range of points.
Post by RLHPost by Odd BodkinPost by RLHSame goes for distance between points and the time and/or space between
sample points (dT, dP). Everything is limited by the precision you use,
i.e. the number of decimal place you wish to write/store. Beyond that is
a mystery. Just as Nyquist said.
All analogue curves are continuous. All recording of or interaction with
them, by humans or by nature, is digitised/sampled by that action. Not
digitalised, digitised. That is a step wise integral of the underlying
function resolved at elementary particle spacing or other, higher,
measuring levels. That is the thermal chaos within which we live and work.
Those are properties that make no sense unless associated with a
specific mass approximately located around a particular point on a
particular path at this particular instant in time.
All work is an approximation. We are c^2 worse at detecting small change
in mass as we are in small changes in energy. That is such a big gap
than most work is done by determining energy lost rather than mass lost.
See above about the need to attach properties to specific items. A line
of movement is a series of points though. Normally called a line.
P.S> If you would like to give me a precise and accurate constant for c
we can really get down to work.
And why can you not google it? It is a nine-digit integer in meters per
second. Note that when I say it is an integer, that means all the places
to the right of the decimal point are zero. It is therefore as precise and
as accurate as you could ask for. It’s as precise as the number 42.
9 digits! Is that all you've got?
Please pay attention. It is 299792458.00000000000000000000... m/s. It is an
exact integer, with a precision of an infinite number of digits.
Post by RLHAnd how accurate is the second and meter also? What error band/volume
does it now have, overall?
Looks like we have a probability/uncertainty 'volume' right there.
I’ll repeat: uncertainty in a position does not constitute volume. If I
tell you that the top of Mount Everest has an elevation of 29029’ +/- 2’,
this does not mean that the tip of the mountain occupies the space between
29027’ and 29031’.
Post by RLHThat would be 42.000......0, +.....5, -....5 to you.
No. There IS NO LSB for an integer. You can inaccurately represent that
number with an LSB in a computer, but that is a limitation of your
imperfect implementation and not a limitation on the precision of the
number. Don’t confuse the limits of your implementation with the limits of
reality.
Post by RLHIntegers are in reality truncated/rounded floats both in computing and in
maths and floats are a number range of very long integers with
imprecision and uncertainty built in!
All constants and variables in an equation can be replaced by a
1.000......0, +.5, -.5 which will create a unit dimensioned space and
scale with a raw uncertainly built in. Better constant approximation can
be found by examining the next few digits below the precision you are
using. The precision you choose sets the accuracy you can then obtain.
Practical noise, cone angle and error limits what you can require or determine.
I recognise that there is no such thing as absolute size, absolute
distance, absolute position, absolute precision, absolute accuracy, zero
errors and zero noise in anything we do. I think Newton did also. You
seem to want to ignore them just because you are 'pure'.
Another couple of things for you to think about.
Given that the ratio of the number of atoms encountered in a few
milliseconds in a relatively thick gas in the atmosphere compared to a
few tens to thousands of light years in the near vacuum that is
inter-stella and inter galactic space is probably very variable. What is
to stop red shift as being nothing more than the same thing we see at
sunset and sunrise compared to noon?
The red in a sunset is what’s left over from the sideways scattering of
bluer light.
What you will notice with the light in a reddened sky is that there is
still a hydrogen absorption line exactly where you see it from a
terrestrial source. In other words, the light is reddened but not shifted.
From stars and galaxies, the absorption lines are actually displaced to
longer wavelengths. Thus it is more than just reddening. It is a redSHIFT.
I’m dismayed that you did not know this.
Post by RLHAlso, Space and Time as we normally use them are 2 sides of the same thing.
I can say "I take 1 pace forward per (1) second" or "It takes me 1 second
for each (1) pace forward". They are identical in meaning and effect.
--
Odd Bodkin -- maker of fine toys, tools, tables