Willem F Esterhuyse

We have photons going 0m in 0s so their speed is: 0/0 = infinity = 300 000 000m/s.

14 hours ago, studiot said:

More fully my question was if you have a field line coming from somewhere is it possible to have what I called electrical effects on one side but not the other ?

Yes, if you have two surfaces with a voltage applied over them.

14 hours ago, studiot said:

Can you have electric field lines in the space on side of a charge but not the other ?

Yes, if the field is cancelled on one side by other charges.

1.No they are 4 filed lines because field lines can't cross. In addition they must just tend to P.

2. The field lines are the small lines. They must start on charges and unless cancelled by other charges further away, they must have an effect to the left side, so the drawing is wrong.

Particles can't be smaller than a Planck length otherwise they would be too small to have a physical effect. We can't measure a displacement of space of less than the Planck length.

You would see that, if the lines were 1*Planck length thick, the charge would have to be distributed 1*Planck length from the point zero, thus not at the point. One cannot talk of charged distributed on a point.

The lines must have a thickness to be physically realizable. The lines can't be smaller than a space point (Planck length).

16 hours ago, exchemist said:

Ballocks. If they start from a common origin of course they don't cross.

They can be said to cross because they overlap at the point 0 (don't just tend to zero).

21 hours ago, exchemist said:

Diverging lines can perfectly well diverge from a common origin, surely?  

They can't cross each other, so they can't all have a common start point.

The electron must have divergent Electric Field Lines. If all the charge was located at a point then the field lines must originate a little way away from the point, where there is no charge. This is impossible.

If space accelerates in towards the center of Earth, where does it go?

The Earth is a ball. How can one side and the opposite side accelerate upwards (their local "up").

You can't will it to flap when the wind isn't blowing.

It is a geometric structure in the body, made of thought-objects.

14 hours ago, swansont said:

And the connection to cold is?

Mean free path is a minimum for objects at 0 K.

30 minutes ago, swansont said:

Can you explain what you mean by this? This is something new you’ve introduced, with no foundation.

The "mean free path" of molecules is not new (I may not have the term 100 percent equivalent). One can picture in mind molecules going around, bumping into each other and the walls of a container and easily see there can be no negative distance between them.

Especially talk of infinities are mental constructs with no physical proof that they exist.

Cantor proves the Reals are uncountable by constructing an infinite list of reals paired to a natural number. Such a list can be constructed conceptually in mind, but it cannot be physically produced to check that it exits. This is why I say mathematics is a Fairy Tale.

42 minutes ago, swansont said:

Can you add coldness to something that has its maximum amount of coldness? Why not?

No, because there is no negative free paths for molecules.

They postulated a quantity called "phlogiston". On a abstract level it makes sense.

1 hour ago, Genady said:

What do you refer to as "it"?

A general object.

2 hours ago, Genady said:

A larger quantity of coldness, where?

In body A.

1 hour ago, studiot said:

Are you going to answer my question ?

1 hour ago, studiot said:

The logic is: it gets to have a larger quantity of coldness. And water flows to make a larger quantity of water.

Then reason like Syllogism: replace "water" with "coldness" and  compare with the left sentence.

23 hours ago, Ghideon said:

Since this is speculations, what is your reasoning and arguments for making this claim?

The logic is: it gets to have a larger quantity of coldness. And water flows to make a larger quantity of water.

When something cools down it gets colder, hence it's coldness increased, so can't you say that coldness flowed into the warmness?

In this paper (see attached, last hint on the page included): "theta < kappa" means "theta is equivalent to <kappa" because "|P(theta)| = 2^theta <= |H(kappa)|". Is this wrong?

Ha, ha.

I can't quote it because it is in non ASCII letters. Paper: "The Foundations of Mathematics.pdf" at www.academia.edu.

I was mistaken, it does not say that.

I've read a paper wherein there is a definition and formula amounting to "there exist some y an element of the Empty Set". This is nonsensical because Empty Set = {x: x not= x}. there is no "y not= y".

I made an error: (true -> B) = B, (true -> B) not= true.