On 4 Mrz., 05:24, quasi <qu...@null.set> wrote: > Frederick Williams wrote: > >quasi wrote: > >> netzweltler wrote: > > >> >Meaning, that the notion of infinite speed is nonsense, > >> >right? > > >> Well, I surely don't know how to make sense of it (but > >> I'm willing to be educated). > > >Would it do to say that if a material object moved a non-zero > >distance instantaneously, then it moved with infinite speed? > > So let's say a particle starts at x=0 on the x-axis and moves > at infinite speed to the right, arriving "instantaneously" at > x=1. But then it also arrives at x=2 just as instantaneously. > In fact, it arrives at every positive x-value in the same > instant. So what is the position of the particle at time t=0? > And where is the particle at time t=1?
At finite speeds x=0, x=1, and x=2 are adjacent, at infinite speed these points are coincident.
> It seems to me that the concept of infinite speed violates the > intuitive notion of time and space -- that is, it goes against > the notion that any given particle at a given time has one and > only location in space. I think that intuitive notion is so > compelling that it should not be abandoned so casually.
You think transfinite mathematics is intuitive?
> Thus, I would forget about infinite speed unless I could be > convinced that the advantages of having such a concept outweigh > the blatant disadvantage of losing our intuitive notions > (essentially axiomatic notions) about time and space. > > quasi