studiot

So will you please answer my question about the term bounded? You did introduce it.

? ?

I don't care either way. But I do believe in critical analytical thinking.

Yes of course, but Where does the gravitational field come from? I hope you are not being facetious.

I am guessing that you have read a populist maths book about 'infinity' and found the Ancient Greek ideas which they used to avoid their difficulties with the subject. I am trying to help you see the next two and a half thousand years of development of mathematical and logical thinking where many great men have considered this problem. When you are categorizing things into a binary (two way) choice it is important to choose the correct one to define. Everything else in then defined as being 'not the basis of definition'. In this case infinite is a very difficult thing to define since it is open ended. So the correct way is to define finite first. The you define everything that does not meet this definition as not finite or 'infinite' That avoids the wooly words. The only problem with this approach is when you have tried to divide up a subject hat naturally has more that 2 distinct categories. Does this help move forward?

So you are claiming that the gravitational energy of a body is given by Einstein's relation E = mc2 ? Gosh that is quite a difference from the classical value.

Thank you. So by within bound do you mean has a boundary? If so, is that boundary part of whatever is finite or not part of it? What is beyond that boundary? If not what does within bound mean?

You don't know, I don't know. As far as I know nobody knows. I am not attacking you I am pointing out the narrow viewpoint that is leading to presumptive hasty conclusions not based on reason. There are many such inconsistencies between parts of the Bible, parts of the Christian teaching, (which are not the same) and other evidence that archeological sources can provide. Examining all this in the cold light of reason was the beauty of my friend's course. All I said was that I can't believe the Romans had proper no tax records for one insignificant town in an insignificant part of their empire, near the height of their powers, when they had good records before and after and for other places.

It's not a matter of opinion it is a matter of definition. Gravity is the simplest classical field so with reference to that one, consider a single particle with mass. Now state please what it's gravitational energy is without reference to a test particle.

I can't see how you can reasonably draw that conclusion. The Gospel of Luke is not a Roman document. But we do have various stories from various occupied peoples (and Romans themselves) to the effect that not only were the Romans great chroniclers, they were also efficient tax collectors and that they kept meticulous (for their time) tax records - some of which are still available in Museums and other repositories of historic material. They had a record of Joseph (or people like him), so why would they not have had a record of Jesus, if he existed?

Blind Faith huh? OK Bye.

So what, most of the 'Bible', was written several hundred years before Jesus was born. Are you claiming that there were no Roman tax records for Jesus? So are you interested in the content of that course or do you just want to sneer at it?

I will try one more time to get a response, before reporting the OP for lack of engagement with questions. Danny please tell me your exact definition of finite?

I can't believe that the Romans wrote nothing detailed about Christianity and Christ after the Roman emperor 'converted' the empire to Christianity.

Unlike some I am not above learning from others, in fact I am pleased you have told me something I didn't know or spot, though I tried to look it up. Thank you. +1

A good summary +1

No one is preventing you answering my question or continuing our conversation.

And what language were those 'Gospels' written in? And who wrote them and where were they written and what did the Romans write about those people and............ And for my friend, what else is in the Bible (depending upon which one you take). Some of the answers were very suprising. Perhaps you should look at this formal course?

Thank you MigL +1 So you have the test object and the source of the field.

Well this is a step up. You didn't answer me at all in your thread that was closed, if I remember correctly. Here you have actually answered me, but, for the life of me, I can't make out any relevance or connection between the passage of mine you quoted and your apparent reply?

Did it? I thought the evidence was the Helios drove across the sky in his fiery chariot, and went to bed at night. This was much more 'obvious' that going round an Earth. There are/have been always competing theories that fall in and out of favour as better information is obtained. So what?

Yes indeed, but a massive (= a body with mass) is not a field. And the question was Swansont has already made this point to someone else. The field is needed because (classically) it is the medium of interaction between two or more bodies.

What please do you mean by a bible historian? A friend I went to school with spent his working life as a family solicitor, playing the local church organ for recreation. When he retired he went on to do an MSc in Bible Study at a college of London University, for interest. What is this I asked?, you are not religous. He said that the course was not about the religious substance of the Bible, it was a an analytical study of the book from a historical/archaeological and point of view, comparing what was in it with other known material from the region and times and of course with itself. Looking over his shoulder as he progressed, I was amazed by the truly scientific nature of the course and the conclusion reached and taught. I learned many things. So what sort of person is you bible historian? Would he or she survive such a course?

I like the analogy. +1

So the title says it all. Why do Pharmacists use a very different definition of valent from Chemists? Is this a good idea?