Descriptive Set Theory

2005-10-06 Thread daddycaylor
I've been looking a little into what there is on-line about descriptive set theory, a relatively new field. It seems that with the questions about cardinality and descriptions on this list, that descriptive set theory (Polish spaces being an important element) would be useful, if not essential.

Fwd: Re: ROSS MODEL OF THE UNIVERSE - The Simplest Yet Theory of Everything

2005-10-06 Thread John M
Note: forwarded message attached. ---BeginMessage--- Jesse and George: the cobbler apprentice speaketh: you, mathematically high-minded savants look for a primitive realization of 'negative mass' etc, while you find it natural to use negative numbers. If I was 185lb last week and now 180 lb,

Re: ROSS MODEL OF THE UNIVERSE - The Simplest Yet Theory of Everything

2005-10-06 Thread Russell Standish
On Thu, Oct 06, 2005 at 08:08:13PM -0400, Jesse Mazer wrote: This idea looks like it's pretty similar to LeSage's pushing gravity theory--there's an article on it at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/LeSage_gravity which points out fatal flaws in the the idea. It's also discussed in the second

Re: ROSS MODEL OF THE UNIVERSE - The Simplest Yet Theory of Everything

2005-10-06 Thread George Levy
Jesse wrote Well, you're free to define "negative mass" however you like, of course--but this is not how physicists would use the term. When you plug negative values of mass or energy into various physics equations it leads to weird consequences that we don't see in everyday life, such as the

Re: ROSS MODEL OF THE UNIVERSE - The Simplest Yet Theory of Everything

2005-10-06 Thread John M
--- Jesse Mazer [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: John M wrote: Jesse and George: SNIP JeMa: Well, you're free to define negative mass however you like, of course--but this is not how physicists would use the term. When you plug negative values of mass or energy into various physics

Re: ROSS MODEL OF THE UNIVERSE - The Simplest Yet Theory of Everything

2005-10-06 Thread Russell Standish
I'm not really confusing the two, but the idea is so imprecisely put it probably seems as though I do. The Dirac equation has both positive and negative energy solutions. The Dirac solution to the negative energy solutions was that they are all present as an unobservable Dirac sea. If you pop a

Re: ROSS MODEL OF THE UNIVERSE - The Simplest Yet Theory of Everything

2005-10-06 Thread Jesse Mazer
George Levy wrote: Jesse wrote Well, you're free to define negative mass however you like, of course--but this is not how physicists would use the term. When you plug negative values of mass or energy into various physics equations it leads to weird consequences that we don't see in