Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

To: Junior; Fester Chugabrew
As long as "infinity" remains an abstract rather than concrete (i.e., with evidence) concept, it is not rational to invoke it scientific research.

Infinities should not turn up as real physical quantities. A death-knell for 19th-century classical physics sounded when a once perfectly good thermodynamics model was shown to predict that hot objects should radiate an infinite spectrum of energy. This was an obviously wrong prediction. People checked the work over and over. The math was fine. The model had been working up to then. For all that, it was wrong, as Max Planck finally showed in 1900.

In this century, Richard Feynman's Nobel was for "renormalizing" the equations of Quantum Electrodynamics (QED) so that they did not generate infinities. I don't remember much more than that about it, but my point is that infinity is more of a math concept than a physics one. If you start getting infinities in physics, you start wondering why you haven't been noticing them in the world around you.

263 posted on 03/15/2004 8:06:25 AM PST by VadeRetro
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 240 | View Replies ]


To: Junior
Consider this link for your archive: Yahoo's encyclopedia entry for "Evolution". Not bad as an introductory link for some of the creos we get around here. The copyright stuff at the bottom says it's from The Columbia Encyclopedia, Sixth Edition. Copyright © 2003 Columbia University Press.
265 posted on 03/15/2004 8:16:04 AM PST by PatrickHenry (A compassionate evolutionist.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 263 | View Replies ]

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article


FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson