On Saturday, September 14, 2019 at 3:03:38 PM UTC-6, John Clark wrote:
>
> On Sat, Sep 14, 2019 at 9:33 AM Alan Grayson <[email protected] 
> <javascript:>> wrote:
>
> >> There is no reason to think physics needs all the real numbers and 
>>> considerable evidence to think it does not. To my mind the strongest 
>>> evidence is that a physical Turing Machine is incapable of even 
>>> approximating most real numbers, I happened to have posted a proof of this 
>>> yesterday on the "Observation versus assumption" thread.
>>>
>>>>
>> *> Physics doesn't need all the real numbers, just some of them, say any 
>> continuous range of any variable; like the mass of the electron.*
>>
>
> The electron doesn't have a continuous range of mass. 
>

Sure, in OUR universe, but it might be a continuous variable when other 
universes are created. That was my conjecture, and it need not be mass, but 
other properties of other variables. AG
 

> And mass is the force on a object divided by its acceleration, but 
> acceleration 
> is the change in speed per unit of time and speed is the change in 
> positional distance per unit of time, so if neither time or space is 
> continuous then mass can't be either. 
>

Space and time could be continuous. Just because there's a lower limit on 
what we can measure, doesn't guarantee any inherent graininess. AG 

>
> > *Einstein's field equations use PI, and so do Maxwell's equations. *
>
>
> Physics theories may need PI but physics itself probably doesn't. PI has 
> been calculated to 31 trillion digits and even that is only an 
> approximation, but only 8 or 9 digits are needed to explain every physical 
> observation ever made, and the same thing is true for e.
>
> John K Clark
>

-- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
"Everything List" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email 
to [email protected].
To view this discussion on the web visit 
https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/everything-list/8d02ee81-73ed-4526-acda-2d051f9232c3%40googlegroups.com.

Reply via email to