Null Physics anyone?

[BFM]

HII clouds are already neutral; they're a mix of free protons and free electrons with (except in very special circumstances) no charge separation at all. No charge separation, no voltage, no lightning.

Protons and electrons do not, contrary to popular belief, instantly recombine into neutral atoms; the actual observed (and theoretically understood) behavior is very complex and depends on three-body effects (an e- and and p+ to combine, and some third atom in the vicinity as a sort of catalyst). Moreover, most HII is in fact very hot, far above the ionization temperature.

This of course is all under the strictest parameters. Lets Assume that the clouds cool at some point and the cooling happens at an uneven rate the electrodynamics of said system would function differently, if said system functioned like a sterling engine. I have one, its neat to watch.

 

[ben m]

I believe a discussion should have a natural progression, jumping around might muddy the waters to much to have a useful dialogue.

Let's suppose, hypothetically, that we were to spend 10 pages of thread discussing Witt's pseudo-math with you. Let's suppose further that he was right on the whole business and that anything proven in the opening chapters of his book was, in fact, mathematically true. Is that clear? This is a standard approach to counterfactuals.

If we allow all of that, exactly what part of the preceding cosmology muddle would become un-muddied? White dwarfs? Thermodynamics?

If you meant to say "Personally, I'd rather talk about 0 and Infinity than about cosmology" please just say so.

 

[ben m]

This of course is all under the strictest parameters. Lets Assume that the clouds cool at some point and the cooling happens at an uneven rate the electrodynamics of said system would function differently, if said system functioned like a sterling engine. I have one, its neat to watch.

Listen, a stirling engine works for straightforward and identifiable reasons; this bit here is a thermal barrier which makes this gas over there adiabatic during thus-and-such stroke. There isn't some magic process whereby "uneven heating can do whatever you think would be most interesting".

 

[BFM]

Let's suppose, hypothetically, that we were to spend 10 pages of thread discussing Witt's pseudo-math with you. Let's suppose further that he was right on the whole business and that anything proven in the opening chapters of his book was, in fact, mathematically true. Is that clear? This is a standard approach to counterfactuals.

If we allow all of that, exactly what part of the preceding cosmology muddle would become un-muddied? White dwarfs? Thermodynamics?

If you meant to say "Personally, I'd rather talk about 0 and Infinity than about cosmology" please just say so.

If I am to understand you correctly, you are not wanting to was your time for an unknown outcome to partially cover a subject. If that is the case, I can honestly look forward to the time we shall spend in this discussion. Pull no punches good sir, just avoid the face

Getting back to the beginning, I have partially laid out my case for my understanding of his null concept. We should maybe come to terms with what is and isn't in agreement here.

 

[Reality Check]

Getting back to the beginning, I have partially laid out my case for my understanding of his null concept. We should maybe come to terms with what is and isn't in agreement here.

"what is and isn't in agreement here" with what?

If you mean mathematics then nothing in the first 4 chapters is in agreement with any form of mathematical logic.

ETA: To quote Ben's review

Chapter 1 is where Witt lays out a series of "proofs" derived from what he calls the "Null Axiom". That axiom is: "Existence sums to nonexistence" (pg. 28)---something that Witt calls self-evident after a page of invalid set theory. The central mistake, if I had to identify one, is the claim that "X does not exist" is the same as "everything except X exists". This is utter baloney, whether in formal logic or in set theory or in daily experience. That particular failure shouldn't bother us too much, in this detail-oriented review, because it will never come up again. Nothing in the rest of Witt's book appears to derive from this non-axiom axiom.

If the axiom that you use to derive theorems are wrong then by definition the theorems are wrong. Add in the fact that Terrence Witts "theorems" are doubly wrong since they are not actually theorems (they do not have mathematical proofs).

 

[BFM]

Listen, a stirling engine works for straightforward and identifiable reasons; this bit here is a thermal barrier which makes this gas over there adiabatic during thus-and-such stroke. There isn't some magic process whereby "uneven heating can do whatever you think would be most interesting".

I am not claiming it to make it do what i need it magically to do. There is some good work out there showing that pressure waves induce ionization. See the cooling work done at RPI, using a sterling engine to refrigerate using pressure waves. Where do you not see a charge separation occurring during this process? If it hasn't been lab tested, it might make a nice tabletop setup.

 

[BFM]

"what is and isn't in agreement here" with what?

If you mean mathematics then nothing in the first 4 chapters is in agreement with any form of mathematical logic.

Can we please have a 2 sided conversation where you address my prior statements about null sets? Did what I put forward fall on deaf ears?

 

[Reality Check]

Can we please have a 2 sided conversation where you address my prior statements about null sets? Did what I put forward fall on deaf ears?

What prior statements about null sets (sets with no members) ?

 

[BFM]

Well, here goes comes the pitch. Boolean logic is a quite powerful tool, and can by brute force, display the words you are reading. I would suggest reading /wiki/Boolean_logic and than make bold mathematical statements discounting that I need to define nothing, and prove addition. The math is simple, however, in a physicist toolbox, the concept of zero is missing. Take absolute zero. Have you ever seen it? you can get damn close, but a nice limit equation has a nice fit and excludes the possibilty, so does all practical theory. Therefor ZERO is not in your included set.

I am going to go eat dinner. I will be back.

The statement where I ask you to consider removing the ownership of zero as a physical state.

 

[Reality Check]

The statement where I ask you to consider removing the ownership of zero as a physical state.

What physical state "owns" zero? What has this got to do with null sets? What has this got to do with mathematics? What has this got to do with physics? What has this got to do with Terrence Witt's book?

 

[BFM]

If our language constrains us, I apologize, owns might be the wrong word used hastily but,

What physical state "owns" zero? - Exactly. You made his point. not one can claim that title

This is the first piece of yoga you need to do.

What has this got to do with mathematics?

The second would be to venture into the defined world of boolean logic. It's math, not just for programmers as popularly thought. It arose before the first modern computer.

What has this got to do with Terrence Witt's book?

If you can hit the first two poses, than things get a little clearer.

What has this got to do with physics?

Everything

 

[Reality Check]

If our language constrains us, I apologize, owns might be the wrong word used hastily but,

What physical state "owns" zero? - Exactly. You made his point. not one can claim that title

This is the first piece of yoga you need to do.

What has this got to do with mathematics?

The second would be to venture into the defined world of boolean logic. It's math, not just for programmers as popularly thought. It arose before the first modern computer.

What has this got to do with Terrence Witt's book?

If you can hit the first two poses, than things get a little clearer.

What has this got to do with physics?

Everything

Are you proposing a new form of mathematics where zero does not exist?
What application does this have in physics?

What has Boolean logic got to to with it? Zero exists in Boolean logic.

You are in the wrong forum for yoga. This is science, mathematics, technology and medicine.

ETA:
Maybe your "poses" are fashion poses ?

 

[Reality Check]

What physical state "owns" zero? - Exactly. You made his point. not one can claim that title

I can think of one physical state that "owns" zero - the range of possible temperatures. Just because we cannot get to absolute zero does not mean that it does not exist. Also many temperature scales include zero, e.g. 0 degrees Celsius.

There are also velocities of 0, accelerations of 0, neutral particle (charge = 0), etc.

 

[BFM]

Are you proposing a new form of mathematics where zero does not exist?
What application does this have in physics?

What has Boolean logic got to to with it? Zero exists in Boolean logic.

You are in the wrong forum for yoga. This is science, mathematics, technology and medicine.

Ha Ha ha. If you don't appreciate the occasional color, just let me know. I only use it to lighten the mood.

No new math proposed here. Zero does exist. Just not as a physical property that can be measure. OK?

If you permit that Zero is not in the set of numbers you and I can measure, how do we treat it. Boolean logic allows for sets to form, and unary operation allows me to say this - Zero is the complementary set of all real numbers.

 

[BFM]

I can think of one physical state that "owns" zero - the range of possible temperatures. Just because we cannot get to absolute zero does not mean that it does not exist. Also many temperature scales include zero, e.g. 0 degrees Celsius.

There are also velocities of 0, accelerations of 0, neutral particle (charge = 0), etc.

Stop trying to be so damn cute. Einstein might have your head with the velocity and acceleration quote. Don't be so LOCAL. I believe we are both aware of the path here.

 

[Reality Check]

Ha Ha ha. If you don't appreciate the occasional color, just let me know. I only use it to lighten the mood.

No new math proposed here. Zero does exist. Just not as a physical property that can be measure. OK?

If you permit that Zero is not in the set of numbers you and I can measure, how do we treat it. Boolean logic allows for sets to form, and unary operation allows me to say this - Zero is the complementary set of all real numbers.

Citation please: Where in Terrence Witt's book does he state that there is no physical property that has the value of zero?

Zero does exist and as a physical property that we can measure. How many balls are there in a bag of balls that does not contain any balls?
Is it 1? Is it -1? Or is it a integer between 1 and -1?

 

[Reality Check]

Stop trying to be so damn cute. Einstein might have your head with the velocity and acceleration quote. Don't be so LOCAL. I believe we are both aware of the path here.

Then you are wrong: You are aware of some path in your head that only you know about.

Please re-derive all of physics without zero quantities.
I suggest that you start with Newton's laws, e.g. what happens to F=ma when the acceleration is zero?

 

[Reality Check]

If you permit that Zero is not in the set of numbers you and I can measure, how do we treat it. Boolean logic allows for sets to form, and unary operation allows me to say this - Zero is the complementary set of all real numbers.

Real Numbers include zero.
Measurable numbers also include zero. Or if you really want to say that the value zero cannot be measured exactly then you have to extend this to all numbers, e.g. 1, 1/3, pi, etc. All physical quantities that are measured in experiments and observations have uncertainties.

Have fun creating a mathematics on which to base physics in which no numbers can be measured.

Boolean logic does not "allow for sets to form". Set theory sets. Boolean logic is a restricted case of set algebra .

 

[BFM]

Citation please: Where in Terrence Witt's book does he state that there is no physical property that has the value of zero?

Zero does exist and as a physical property that we can measure. How many balls are there in a bag of balls that does not contain any balls?
Is it 1? Is it -1? Or is it a integer between 1 and -1?

Counting is not a physical measure, my good sir. It is a numerical measure.

Wherein his book it lies not, of a statement on physical properties with an absolute zero.

I am making such statements to offer support for the math and theories he has laid before you. You have not addressed the math I have laid out for you, only partially agreeing to it "Just because we cannot get to absolute zero does not mean that it does not exist." Mr. Check, methinks you are arguing with me for the sake of argument. I only move to exclude zero from the set of numbers you get to play with. so please tell me what's is so wrong with that.

 

[BFM]

Stop trying to be so damn cute. Einstein might have your head with the velocity and acceleration quote. Don't be so LOCAL. I believe we are both aware of the path here.

The path being an argument.......