[dleviwing]

Farsight;
You need to read that link before making such ridiculous comments. You seem to be ignoring the details of the wikipedia link. Why do you keep trying to explain electromagnetic waves with the fundamentals of electricity; are you an electrician?

Profpat:
Wrong answer! Just one that many believe. If it doesn't involve measurement, it's not science. That's why theories are not science until empirical date is produced to support them.

[Profpat]

Profpat:
Wrong answer! Just one that many believe. If it doesn't involve measurement, it's not science. That's why theories are not science until empirical date is produced to support them.

Hi David;

It was more of a comment to your question, not an answer. Something only to think about.

Question: How many dimensionless point particles can come from a dimensionless point?

Answer: An infinite number ( None of which really exist in our 3 dimensional reality because they're dimensionless.) Get the point?

Best to you,

Pat

[analog]

Hey Prof,

From my very limited understanding, any three dimensional object could be considered a point particle if it's shape, size, and structure are irrelevant in a given context, and could also be defined as a particle whose compositional details are too small to be detected by current experiments.

Being as point particle is synonymous with elementary particle in particle physics, I interpret this as a representation of the resolution at which we are currently limited by our measurements and understanding.

Even a seemingly proven framework built from point particles could have a more fundamental underlying three dimensional resolution at which it operates at the absolute scale; much like a valued framework derived from uncertainty could possibly have a deeper deterministic foundation from which it emerges; thus easing our minds from stressful thoughts of infinities, as now interaction resolutions become a governed attribute, and effect can be understood by merely understanding cause at all scales and resolutions.

Just my opinion.

regards,

Tim

[Profpat]

I believe you are right in your assuption analog.

[Felix Schrodinger]

Originally Posted by analog

Even a seemingly proven framework built from point particles could have a more fundamental underlying three dimensional resolution at which it operates at the absolute scale; much like a valued framework derived from uncertainty could possibly have a deeper deterministic foundation from which it emerges; thus easing our minds from stressful thoughts of infinities, as now interaction resolutions become a governed attribute, and effect can be understood by merely understanding cause at all scales and resolutions.

Hi Tim

Absolutely!

regards
Felix

[Profpat]

Since no one offered a definition of science, let me post one from my internet research:

Science Definition



The word science comes from the Latin "scientia," meaning knowledge.
How do we define science? According to Webster's New Collegiate Dictionary, the definition of science is "knowledge attained through study or practice," or "knowledge covering general truths of the operation of general laws, esp. as obtained and tested through scientific method [and] concerned with the physical world."
What does that really mean? Science refers to a system of acquiring knowledge. This system uses observation and experimentation to describe and explain natural phenomena. The term science also refers to the organized body of knowledge people have gained using that system. Less formally, the word science often describes any systematic field of study or the knowledge gained from it. What is the purpose of science? Perhaps the most general description is that the purpose of science is to produce useful models of reality.

[dleviwing]

Hi Profpat;
The key word here is “KNOWLEDGE” but some seem to think that “OPINION” is synonymous. Sometimes it’s hard to tell the difference when those opinions comes from our most educated people in the field of physics. The phrases “scientist believe” and “scientific opinion is” are often not stated or are often just ignored.

BTW: Isn’t a dimensionless point particle coming from a dimensionless point similar to the number of angles on the head of a pin?

[Profpat]

Originally Posted by dleviwing

Hi Profpat;


BTW: Isn’t a dimensionless point particle coming from a dimensionless point similar to the number of angles on the head of a pin?

Yes according to my research an infinite number of angels can dance on the head of a pin.

In this context several of them like to respond to theological concepts by asking, "And when will the church resolve the issue of how many angels can dance on the head of a pin?" No reason to write Pope Benedict about that. For the benefit of humanity, I am going to settle this issue once and for all. Angels, like dreams, are immaterial things. They don't have a bodily existence. Consequently they do not take up actual space. Therefore an infinite number of angels can dance on the head of a pin. Of course the atheist may laugh and say that angels don't exist. But equally obviously the atheist doesn't know that. His premise that they don't is just as faith-based as the believer's premise that they do. And given the premise that there are spiritual beings called angels, my conclusion follows inevitably. You see, my atheist friends, it's a simple matter of logic.


Best to you David,

Pat

P.S. Notice how the author states the an atheist belief in that angels don't exist is just as faith based in a believers faith that they do exist.

[Graybeard]

Originally Posted by Profpat

Yes according to my research an infinite number of angels can dance on the head of a pin.

P.S. Notice how the author states the an atheist belief in that angels don't exist is just as faith based in a believers faith that they do exist.

Atheists don't believe that 'angels' don't exist, they say there is no evidence for their existence or their non-existence. There is no evidence for or against the statement that there is a bottle of Mouton Rothschild 1982 Claret orbiting the dog star. But I have faith there is ..... is this a likely supposition, do the laws of physics intimate such a supposition is likely?

Then why would anyone suppose angels. Science rightly says that in the absence of evidence why consider such extremely unlikely suppositions that lead to no change in the current paradigm ... even if they did exist.

cool bananas ... greg

[Profpat]

Actually Greg I have no idea whether angels exist or not. However if you do believe, that requires an act of faith: Additionally, if you DON'T believe in angels that also requires an act of faith. This is what the author I believe was trying to say.

I DO believe in GOD and admit that requires an act of faith.

Best to you,

Pat

P.S. If you are an atheist that also requires an act of faith, that God does not exist. Only an agnostic is open to both possibilities and therefore does NOT require faith.