Subject: Re: Miracle pipe remedy!!!
From: caseydon@icsi.net (Casey Donovan)
Date: Sat, 14 Sep 1996 19:48:26 GMT
X-No-Archive: Yes
With careful choice of words "Michael D. Painter"
wrote:
>Casey Donovan wrote in article
><323a13af.421034178@library.airnews.net>...
>> X-No-Archive: Yes
>>
>> With careful choice of words Paul Greenwood
>> wrote:
>>
>> >I have recently fallen victim to the expensive task of replacing parts
>in
>> >my central heating boiler because of a build up of limescale rendering
>> >the heat exchanger useless!
>> >
>> >I have seen on the market a device which claims to eliminate this. As
>far
>> >as I can see, it is just a magnet which wraps around the cold water
>feed.
>> >I cannot see any way in which this could possibly work - but, being an
>> >engineer I will not dismiss it until I really know whether it is a load
>> >of crap or not.
>> >
>> >CAN ANYBODY SHED ANY LIGHT ON THIS???
>
>I saw a similar gadget but it seemed to imply that it was using ultrasonics
>in some form to actually break up the stuff. This is effective under some
>conditions, could it be here?
Michael, you appended your response to mine, but deleted my
"contribution". No problem, just a little confusing. I reckon you
hadn't received the original post.
I have no experience with attempting to make boiler feedwater
non-scaling with an ultrasonic device, but I would be extremely
skeptical. The problem is, the feedwater does not contain scale! It
only contains dissolved salts which precipitate after the water
chemistry is altered by thermal decomposition of carbonates and by
concentration as steam is evaporated from the water.
If you could somehow vibrate the whole boiler with ultrasonic
frequencies, I reckon you -might- reduce the tendency of the
precipitates to adhere to the heated surfaces. But wouldn't that
require a lot more energy than you could pull from a wall socket, and
a lot bigger device than any I've seen? Many of these devices don't
even have to be plugged in! Of course, the best ones have a red light
on them, to tell you they're working.
Subject: Re: What is the Theory of Relativity?
From: throopw@sheol.org (Wayne Throop)
Date: Sat, 14 Sep 1996 19:34:25 GMT
::: glird@gnn.com (glird)
::: The (truly mythical) "rest frame" is simply Einstein's empty space,
::: the one in which light has a definite velocity c.
:: throopw@sheol.org (Wayne Throop)
:: Except of course that Einstein said no such thing; he said light has
:: a definite velocity c in coordinate systems as set up per definition
:: of time interval given earlier in the paper.
: glird@gnn.com (glird)
: As usual, Throop, you misquote and/or misrepresent Einstein. As you
: have repeatedly been told, HE said: "[We will] introduce another
: postulate ... namely, that light is always propagated in empty space
: with a definite velocity c] which is independent of the state of
: motion of the emitting body."
That is from the introduction; Note "We will [] introduce [] a postulate",
followed by an informal description of the postulate he *will* introduce.
When he actually gets around to formally stating the postulate (as opposed
to informally talking about doing so) he clearly states that he is talking
about velocity of light as distance/time in reference frames constructed
in a specific way.
Einstein never said there is a special rest frame,
and indeed spent many words stating that a special rest frame
is not necessary. Light has "the definite velocity c" in
ANY reference frame.
: How come, Throop, you ALways omit Einstein's qualifying clause.
I don't always omit it. Why does glird always go back to what
Einstein said informally in the introduction, instead of what he
said with more precision and rigor in the body of the paper?
: Because being a Minkyite, you don't know what it meant, namely, that
: light has "the DETERMINED velocity c" as measured in the moving system
: if and only if the system's clocks have the timelag offsets compared
: to each other, hand inserted by Einstein's method of setting them to
: measure c' = c-v = c+v = c.
No, it meant that Einstein was speaking informally in an introduction,
and he later specified more precisely what he meant by "speed in empty space";
namely, he meant distance/time in coordinate systems with clocks set
in a specific way.
: Since it is useless to argue with someone who consistently and
: deliberately twists his leader's words in order to prove his own
: misconceptions "right", i will answer another of your comments, here,
: and then argue with you no more.
Yes, it is hard to communicate with glird and bjon, who so consistently
misunderstand what Einstein so clearly said.
:: The disk disorts WRT the rest frame. It is an ordinary disk WRT the
:: co-moving frame. Which is exactly why it Einstein-synchs the clocks.
: Siggghhh... the spinning disk is LINEARLY moving with the observers'
: frame but is NOT at rest "WRT the co-moving frame".
If by this, glird means the disk rotates in the frame in which
its center is at rest; well, duh! I did not mean to imply
that it did not. So, let me rephrase:
Consider two frames: the "rest frame" WRT which glird wishes to
synchronously set two clocks, and the "comoving frame" WRT which the
center of the disk does not translate. The disk will be distorted
in the rest frame, and a line drawn on the disk which remains
straight during rotation in the co-moving frame, does not remain
straight during rotation of the disk as viewed in the in the rest
frame. In fact, a line scribed on the disk will bend just enough
(again, "bend" as considered from the rest frame) to Einstein-synch
clocks started simultaneously with contact with its endpoints.
: Try to understand what you read before trying to characterize it. oh
: well why expect a Minkyite to do that?
Glird might profit by his own advice, but why would anybody
expect a glirdyite to do that?
Consider what's happening to a bit of disk on the rim, as the disk
translates and spins. If the translation proceeds "towards noon",
then "at 3" the velocity of this bit is v-epsilon, and "at 9"
it is v+epsilon. The length contraction of that bit of disk
(in the rest frame) varies with time, because of this effect,
much the way lift on a helicopter blade varies with time.
The disk necessarily distorts because of this.
Or consider what's happening to the line itself. As it passes 12 and 6,
it has, in essence, a differential perpendicular velocity component;
which means it describes a curved line in the rest frame (see the
section on rods and perpendicular motion in Wheeler and Taylor's
"Spacetime Physics".
: Instead, Minky attributed them to the way we measure "space and time"
: AND NOTHING ELSE. {A gift from below .}
Well, that's not quite what "Minky" did, so apparently glird doesn't
understand "Minky" in the first place.
--
Wayne Throop throopw@sheol.org http://sheol.org/throopw
throopw@cisco.com
Subject: Re: SR Unproved, Unproveable but not Inconsistent
From: Keith Stein
Date: Sat, 14 Sep 1996 20:47:48 +0100
In article <51eole$9ed@news-e2d.gnn.com>, glird writes
>
>In article Ilja
>Schmelzer wrote:
>>Probably not as easy, you have to synchronize the clocks before
>>and to compare them after, you have to make a lot of accurate
>>calculations about the trajectory of Mir and the influence of
>>other variables.
> oh it's much easier than that:
> Hello, Mir. What time is it up there? Two o'clock. Good, we just
>set our Earth clock to "two o'clock." [Since this initial setting
>of the ground clock already included time-in-transit of the Mir
>report, this delay is already factored into the setting of the
>ground-clock. Four months later]: Hello, Mir. What time is it up
>there? It's 3:12:09. [The earthlings look at THEIR watch and it
>says 3:12:12"] Hello, Mir. Your clock is running slow. q.e.d.
>
Well that's sort of how they do it with the GPS satelites glird,
and no, it's not good enough. At best you could prove that the clock
at a higher gravitational potential and velocity appears to run at a
different rate when veiwed from the ground, but i don't know anyone who
doubts that. What i really do want to know glird is:-
" Do the clocks in space REALLY run at a different rate ? "
For this we need a Hafele and Keating type experiment, were adjacent
clocks are compared first on earth, and again after spending different
amounts of time in a space lab. I read somewhere that H&K;'s initial
intention was to use a satellite, but they had to make to with jetting
around the world due to buget limitations. False economy that ! This
experiment is going to have to be done eventually,and sooner the better,
i think.
--
Keith Stein
Subject: Re: Announcing New Theory of Gravity
From: gcodner@lightlink.com (Jerry Codner)
Date: Sat, 14 Sep 1996 16:07:20 -0500
In article <51brhi$9t5@geraldo.cc.utexas.edu>, candy@mildred.ph.utexas.edu
(Jeff Candy) wrote:
> OX-11 wrote:
>
> |> > Due to continued popular demand, I am announcing the availabity of my
> |> > theory: Analysis of Gravity in Mass-Energy Systems, for whoever would
> |> > care to read it. This should be an interesting read for whoever wants to
> |> > know where gravity comes from, not just what it is: Newton described the
>
> Anthony Potts responded:
>
> |> It comes from big things, like the earth, and the sun.
> |>
> |> Next crank please move to the front of the queue.
> |>
> |> Only one theory debunked at a time, please.
>
> Any chance OX-11 is related to Ann Elk?
>
> -------------------------------------------------------------------
> Jeff Candy The University of Texas at Austin
> Institute for Fusion Studies Austin, Texas
> -------------------------------------------------------------------
Ann Elk's theory was at least a good theory, it was her own and it hit the
nail on the head. No brontosaurs have been found that were not small at one
end, getting larger toward the middle and then small again at the other end.
Jerry Codner
gcodner@lightlink.com
_________________________________________
"This new learning amazes me. Could you
explain again how sheep's bladders may be
employed to prevent earthquakes"
Subject: Re: Meforce?
From: virdy@pogo.den.mmc.com (Mahipal Singh Virdy)
Date: 14 Sep 1996 20:48:44 GMT
Please keep in perspective that these are my raw thoughts. They are in
the process of development. I may have made simple errors here or there.
You can correct me or I shall let them just stand for now. Sorry, but
that's just the truth about real-time writing. Must return to real-time
TV watching now. The Great Books on TLC. Neat stuffs. Enjoy.
In article <518b9h$d4r@newsbf02.news.aol.com>, LBsys wrote:
>Im Artikel <513puv$3uk@tel.den.mmc.com>, virdy@pogo.den.mmc.com (Mahipal
>Singh Virdy) schreibt:
>
>>Ultimately, meforce = d(sqrt(me))/dt is a real mathematical statement
>>which comes into existence (i.e., can be formulated) from the
>>application of E=mc^2 and f=pdot where pdot=="change in momentum". My
>>question to the physics community is: Why? Not only "why", but has
>>someone else already been to this realm of thought and found it to be a
>>unproductive tract of intellectual real estate?
>
>Hm. As I can't follow you mathematical reasoning (but take it for granted
>to be right) I of course don't know how you suddenly jump to "meforce =
>d(sqrt(me))/dt". Even worse, I just wouldn't know what it might mean.
>Could you put it in words trying to be very understandable? Or even
>better: give an example?
If you concur that d(xy)=ydx+xdy=0 leads to xy=constant, then
d(me)=edm+mde=0 me=constant.
I make the observation that edm-mde=0 implies d(me)!=0.
Hence the phrase "me always changes".
Without the math/physics, that phrase is merely poor English grammar!
;-) Unless of course you're John Lennon or some other witty chap...
After noting that d(me)!=0 I began to consider what "me" might
represent. By performing dimensional analysis, it ocurred to me that
"me" had units of momentum-squared. Hence the sqrt operater. This
momentum changes with time's passing. And Newton's Law says if momentum
changes, there's a force causing the change. I was wowed! This was back
in 1987. Long long time ago.
Still, there are very subtle tricks taking place within this entire
derivation that they might at first look like serious errors in
reasoning. But I never heard that physics had to be reasonable. ;-)
What could |meforce>=|d(sqrt(me))/dt> mean? Honestly, right now I have
no idea. I'm just considering the possibilities, if any.
In general, Newtonian forces are a vectorial entity. Each force vector
ever considered in a physics class points in a certain direction in
space. This applies to gravity, Lorentz force-fields, strong and weak
interactions. I myself am more familiar with the gravity and Lorentz
type forces --- because of my experience base.
Right now, the pull of gravity on my body has a well-defined direction.
|meforce> is different. It is along the time-axis. And it isn't really a
push/pull type of interaction. It requires the passage of time to occur
in ordered to "act". Btw, this is all very speculative physics. But bear
in mind, I didn't concoct the mathematics. I merely applied the known
rules. One might argue that I misapplied the rules! Still, I've never
had anyone seriously challenge or debate the formulation. I myself
haven't found in flaw that invalidates the |meforce> hypothesis. Trust
me, I've tried. Perhaps I am blinded by own *scientific* expectations?
Here's a simple example. Consider a free particle with mass m. If m
is in motion, its velocity maybe v. This means its KE=mv^2/2.
so, me=m*e=m*KE=m*mv^2/2=(mv)^2/2.
sqrt(me)=mv/sqrt(2).
d(sqrt(me))/dt = d(mv)/dt * (1/sqrt(2)) = "meforce"
Recall that f=d(mv)/dt is Newton's Formula and has no sqrt(2) factor.
The fact is, if no Newtonian force acts on the free particle, its
velocity will never change. Yet, the particle has a temporal
trajectory line. It is by default moving forward in time.
But my thesis isn't about recovering Newton's Laws from the |meforce>
formulation. Hell, we already know Newton's Laws why do we need another
way of rederiving 'em. ;-) Indeed, the Langrangian Method performs one
successful reformulation already.
Because of the temporal Nature implied by |meforce>, one has to allow
that classical Newtonian notions of force don't apply here. |meforce>
isn't necessarily about accelerating "mass" particles. Still, I contend
one can rederive Newton's Laws from |meforce>. I think I've done so
already and it's mostly about mathematical acrobatics. I mean, I already
know what the target equations are so I can "force" my manipulations to
go that way. So I quit trying to do so (for now).
% Perhaps I mean to say "...one can extend Netwon's Laws ..."?
% For those who don't know TeX, "%" signifies a comment to the
% author himself and it doesn't show up on the printed document.
In my conception of "me", m=sum of all mass in a closed system
e=sum of all energy in a closed system
Energy comes in two "material" forms --- matter and radiation.
The KE and PE are a consequence of the spatial configuration of all the
matter and radiation in the closed system. The Universe is by definition
a closed system. The instantaneous estimate of "me" would require a
great deal of observational and computational work.
The basic thing to note is that "me" is a scalar parameter. It is the
distribution function of the matter*energy in a closed system. By
making the differential formulation
me(t+dt) - me(t)
---------------- = "meforce" == |meforce> == ... other notations
t+dt - t
One gets an operative procedure for estimating empirically the temporal
change in the "me" parameter. I contend, that this empirical formulation
is unique to the Universe and it hints at a |meforce> which acts along
time's arrow. This is a rather extraordinary claim. More likely than
not, I'm just DREAMin'. No problem for mua ;-).
A more advanced treatment would be me(x,y,z;t). In this way, one
considers the distribution of the mass-energy-field is Spacetime. And
this treatment is already well understood mathematically.
Surely, these are all conceptual foundations for the idea of |meforce>.
My only claim for drawing attention to it is that the two foundations of
modern physics {\em leads} to this conceptualization. I'm puzzled that the
mathematics of physics should *allow* this formulation. It really does
give one a new way of considering the connectedness of the Universe.
I'm not deliberately being vague. I seem to have no choice!
Copyright 1996 M. Virdy % Please don't think me rude for this :-)
% I'm just hoping to make a living...
Mahipal |meforce> http://www.geocities.com/Athens/3178/
Subject: Re: Creation VS Evolution
From: fdever@airmail.net (frank dever)
Date: Sat, 14 Sep 1996 21:01:41 GMT
aplus@mauigateway.com (Marvin) wrote:
>aklein@villagenet.com (Al Klein), #include
>
>
>><>> I've also
>><>>heard that the odds of the big bang creating all the prerequisites of a
>><>>life sustaing planet is comparable to a print shop exploding and the
>><>>debris forming a dictionary.
>><>
>><>Assuming that you exploded one print shop per second for 11 billion
>><>years, the odds would be pretty good, wouldn't you say?
>Actually if you look at probablility therory the odds are close to
>zero (in any time frame not approaching infinity). Given infinite
>time anything is possible-BUT we know the universe has only been
>around a finite amount of time. Random causation as a creative force
>is a joke- it doesn't work in nature, it doesn't work in science, it
>doesn't even work in theory. And it requires a lot more faith than
>the simple and practical observation that creation demands a creator.
>In Christ,
>
>Marvin C.
>
><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><>
>Alternate E-Mail: Aplus1@juno.com
>><>><>><>><>><>><>><>><>><>><>><>><>><>><>><>
>1 John 4:10 Herein is love, not that we
>loved God, but that he loved us, and sent
>his Son to be the propitiation for our sins.
><><<><<><<><<><<><<><<><<><<><<><<><<><<><<><<><><>
>We've got to take it to extremes,
>standing on the edge, not living inbetween,
>Walk with Christ for all to see,
>telling broken hearts that God can intervene,
>We've got to take it-to extremes. (DeGarmo & Key)
"Cover me! I'm going out for milk!"
><><<><<><<><<><<><<><<><<><<><<><<><<><<><<><<><<><
>Member ICCC
When the tough get going, the weak get screwed.
Subject: Re: Help with Euler's Formula
From: Peter Diehr
Date: Sat, 14 Sep 1996 17:17:20 -0400
Michael Weiss wrote:
> Peter Diehr writes:
>
> There are extensions to cover convex surfaces with holes drilled thru them;
> you basically add a term for the order of the surface. A surface without
> holes is of order 0, so the extra term vanishes.
>
> The generalization is this: v-e+f = 2-g, where g is the genus of the
> surface (g=0 for a simply connected surface). (By the way, I'm
> assuming a surface without boundary--- let's just say that's part of
> the definition of "surface".) 2-g is called the Euler characteristic
> of the surface.
>
> The genus of a compact surface is the number of independent closed
> curves you can draw on the surface. If you drill n holes in a convex
> body, you get something whose surface has genus 2n. For example, a
> torus (surface of a doughnut or inner-tube) has genus 2. If you
> imagine your torus the way most people do, then one of the two
> independent curves goes round it horizontally, the other vertically.
> Which hints at the connections with linear algebra. An excellent
> reference for this, including the Kirchoff stuff, is Bamberg and
> Sternberg, _A Course in Mathematics for Students of Physics_.
>
This book has been recommended to me before, and I spent an evening
browsing. I really must set aside some time before I'm old and gray!
Best Regards, Peter
Subject: Re: What is the Theory of Relativity?
From: bjon@ix.netcom.com (Brian Jones)
Date: Sat, 14 Sep 1996 21:32:18 GMT
jpb@msi.com (Jan Bielawski) wrote[in part]:
>Another thing perhaps worth repeating here is that SR in fact does not
>depend in any way on any notion of clock synchronisation. It can
>be stated entirely in terms of single clocks and light signals.
>The definition of synchronisation is a bit of "fat" which allows
>us to use bits of algebra (aka. "the Lorentz transformation") in order
>to make quantification easier.
>That's why any discussion of "real/unreal synchronism" in the context
>of SR is a waste of time: SR doesn't use it; it's introduced only to
>calculate things more easily.
>--
>Jan Bielawski
>#****************************************************************************#
>+DISCLAIMER: Unless indicated otherwise, everything in this note is personal +
>+opinion, and not an official statement of Molecular Simulations Inc. +
>#****************************************************************************#
Let's see...
The most important (and ONLY) "still open" part (actually,
ramification) of this important (fundamental) theory of physics is:
***********************************************************************
***All inertial observer's get the same speed for light.***
***********************************************************************
The only possible way this can occur in the unidirectional case is
IF and only if all clocks are set precisely per Einstein's famous
definition of clock synchronization.
Gosh, Jan, did I say "synchronization"? Well, bless my soul!
And this is a minor topic?
SRT actually demands the above, and if observers find a
variable one-way lightspeed, SRT is "outta here."
In light of these simple facts, the above from Jan is simply
ludricrous at best.
Einstein's definition (given at the very start of his seminal
SRT paper) is the only thing that's still theoretical as far as
anything regarding SRT is concerned. We all know that the
MMX (Michelson-Morley experiment) had a null result, in
accordance with SRT. We all know that clocks slow in full
accordance with SRT. We all know that rods contract, and
mass varies in accord with SRT. All of these must happen if
SRT is to remain alive. That's because each of these is
simply a CAUSE of a null result for one or more motion-detection
experiments. (For example, clock slowing caused the KTX null
result in 1937, thereby allowing SRT to remain alive.)
As of today (September 14, 1996 A.D.), there 's only ONE thing
left (that anyone knows of) that could possibly "kill" SRT, and
that is IF light's ONE-WAY (two-clock, clocks must be synchronized
in some way, despite Jan's silly statement above that a synch def.
is mere "fat," and trivial as hell) is one day found to be NOT c.
(The roundtrip, one-clock speed is OUT because per direct experiment,
it's "c" always. More on this below.)
And we have taken a good first step toward this anti-SRT experiment
when we recognize that the ONLY reason light's 1-way speed is "c" in
his theory is by his definition, not Nature's. Nature says not a
word about what light's 1-way speed must or should be. It is only
Einstein's opinion that causes it to be "c" in SRT.
Since Nature has no natural value for light's 1-way speed (as She does
for its roundtrip speed --- by shrinking rods and slowing clocks to
force it to come out as "c" for all), we, just as did Einstein, can
make up our own definition of synchronization. If he can, we all
have a perfect right --- he's no better than anyone else in that
sense.
Of course, he was a better physicist than most, and we are "in his
territory," so we have to be careful. And, just as he properly did,
we must present an exact method whereby clocks can easily be set
precisely per our little definition. (Herr Einstein used light
signals as the simplest way to start his clocks, the very thing whose
measured speed is involved in his definition. Circular, yes, but
Einstein openly admitted this, with the excuse that it's the only
definition available, since no one has given us a method for truly
setting clocks.)
However, this is really a mechanical type of problem, not purely a
theoretical physics type. It calls for a good mechanical or
experimental mind, not an einsteinian type theoretical mind.
As it turns out, Mr. "glird" has just this mechanical type of mind,
and he has come up with a simple way to carry out "his" (actually
Newton's and Galileo's, et.al) definition of synchronization, and THIS
one yields a variable one-way speed for light, contradicting SRT, and
so disproving the only theoretical part of it that remains.
But by disproving SRT's constant measured speed for 1-way light, one
actually has done away with the core of SRT, its claim that all future
optical experiments shall have null results, just as did the MMX and
the KTX.
That is, if we use "glird's" experiment to detect our absolute motion,
we will know exactly how fast we're moving thru space at all times,
and we can CORRECT for those nasty things above that are in harmony
with SRT's claim. We can correct for clock slowing because we know
the formula that applies, and the only unknown in it is V, our
absolute speed. Similarly, we can correct for mass increase,etc.
So the synchronization of clocks is FAR from trivial (as per Jan).
It is indeed the KEY to the whole ballgame.
KISS-TPP will set clocks according to Newton's definition of
synchronization. The clocks will all read the same, or be absolutely
synchronized. Then, when one uses such clocks to measure the speed
of a passing light ray, one will obtain the correct answer, not
Einstein's "manufactured" or "by opinion" answer. (It is E's opinion
that we should all get "c" because this matches his theory. One can
hardly blame him for this. )
If a light ray passes you, and you are moving at half the speed of
light, you and the ray are physically meeting each other (just as in
the case of two cars) at 1.5c. Einstein's clocks are pre-set by him
to make this speed come out to be "c" when two E-set clocks are used
to measure this ray's speed relative to an einsteinian observer.
All one has to do is use a light ray to adjust the clocks beforehand
to get this "c" value, and then anytime another light ray passes these
clocks, of course the ray's "measured" "speed" will turn out to be
"c."
If clocks are NOT set per E's definition, then they won't yield "c"
for a light ray's measured speed (one-way of course).
So all we have to do to disprove SRT (core theory - see above) is to
somehow get two clocks absolutely (or "Newtonianly") synchronized.
It's that simple.
--BJ
Subject: Re: p-adics in quantum mechanics or any physical law
From: Jim Kelly
Date: Sat, 14 Sep 1996 17:20:43 -0500
Archimedes Plutonium wrote:
>
> I am searching for where p-adics are in quantum mechanics, such as say
> N, L, MsubL , MsubS
>
> I know many of you scientist will not have heard of the p-adics before
> or know little about them
>
> What I need is some area of physics or physical chemistry where p-adic
> integers are necessary and where the Natural number integers are not.
>
> I may be surprized in that it comes not from QM at first but from say
> optics or some other place in physics.
>
> I have the hunch that any day it will be reported where the p-adic
> integers are essential in physics. I need to know this for its
> importance to mathematics is just as important if not more so than for
> physics because it will start to straighten-out the math community.
>
> This is a very good premiss to abide in: If a piece of mathematics
> is useful and used in physics, then that math is true math. The reverse
> is even more true. That if a piece of mathematics has no use to physics
> and no forseeable use to physics, chances are that such math was a fake
> and phony. Examples of this are Cantor transfinite infinities, higher
> dimensional Poincare conjecture, Langlands- Taniyama -Shimura
> conjectures.
> In short, all true math connects with physics.
>
> Are there any physicists out there who are well versed in p-adics who
> know of an area of physics that requires the p-adics as opposed to the
> Naturals?
How well do p-adics handle infinites? If they could, renormalization
would be unnecessary in QFT.