Activity Feed Forums New Models Infinity

  • Infinity

     Andy updated 1 week, 3 days ago 5 Members · 49 Posts
  • Andy

    Member
    November 30, 2020 at 5:57 pm

    I use a wide range of topics to convey my ideas, or theory if you’d like to call it that. I incorporate a little philosophy, a little basic math, logic, reason, history, and a few assumptions, etc. I don’t think science should be done in a vacuum. We rely on math for empirical data, but math is a tool, not an answer. It always takes a human being to derive meaning from a mathematical result. Math is not an answer, it’s the result of the question, or an unknown result promoted to a theory. Dark Energy for example.

    Understanding people, philosophy, culture and religion, etc., is every bit as important in our quest to understand the universe. They cannot be disregarded as irrelevant, try as we may to uphold the “idea” of the objective observer. Human beings are not objective creatures. We hold opinions and beliefs, possess deep emotion that most definitely sways our judgement in what we even communicate to others, and make a lot of assumptions to navigate the world around us. To think science is somehow above all that in their approach to understanding is naive. They’re bound to laws of nature, and the human condition in nature, just like everyone else, and nothing can remove unobjective scientists from the equation. It’s not even an option really. It is something every scientist should be amply aware of when they enter the field. People have opinions and hold beliefs. Everyone.

    Never does this become more apparent than in a comment David de Hilster made to one of my posts. Just pointing it out David. Nothing meant by it. “Be careful about being so sure”. Something to that effect. In other words, remain uncertain. I would argue, there is a time to weight your conclusions with certainty and uncertainty, but when those conclusions lead you to certainty, don’t be afraid to say it. I am certain, |0|<∞<|1|, is correct.

    Can anyone prove it wrong? No.

    We must weed out the bullshit in science, and to do that, you must understand people.

    Cantor is a great example. And I am not picking on religion here, or him, so don’t twist what I’m saying. Whatever someone needs to get them from A to B is fine with me. I neither agree, nor disagree. Religion isn’t all that bad as a concept, as far as family and community goes. I grew up in a very religious family.

    Cantor was not doing science or mathematics. Cantor was on a religious quest, or crusade. Cantor believed god spoke to him and gave him a religious mandate to reveal trans infinite numbers to mankind. Honestly, I don’t even know what a trans infinite number means, as I’m sure 99.999999% of the world population doesn’t either. Cantor was decidedly unobjective. He believed infinity was god. Naturally, Cantor was going to find a mathematical solution for infinity no matter what he did. He was an extremist religious fanatic. Clearly. God gave Georg Cantor math homework? Really?

    Back then, fanatical was okay. Even Leopold made the comment, “god made the integers, all else is the work of man.” Or something to that effect. Leopold did not agree with Cantor’s set theory one bit and found it all nonsense. Leopold was both right and wrong. But they both held strong beliefs.

    Numbers are an invention of mankind from around the 5th century BC. Indian mathematicians developed a base 10 redundant numeric system that was easy to understand and could be taught. They chose a base 10 system because it coincided with what mankind was already doing, counting on our fingers. If we had 4 fingers on each hand, it would have been a base 8 system, or 3 fingers, a base 6 system.

    Numbers were an invention, like a car, or an airplane, or a stapler. Although the invention of numbers was a huge leap forward in mankind, because it consolidated what we were all already doing on our fingers into one thing, numbers themselves don’t mean anything to the universe. Defining a consistent way to count gave us the ability to teach others how to count uniformly. Numbers were a disruptive technology that brought human beings together under one common language. Numbers were an invention of communication. A global language.

    Math was the discovery, not numbers. We notice we could perform fundamental math on our fingers. We could easily add, subtract, divide, and multiply within the space of 10 digits. And with this newly invented redundant numbering system, we realized math applied to that too no matter how big the number(s). We then needed ways to manage these larger numbers, so high-level mathematics were developed. Mathematics evolved around a solid useful invention of a base 10 numbering system. People could now communicate ideas numerically. It was disruptive.

    Numbers themselves weaved their way into the fabric of society and took on a whole new meaning. Religion wormed its way into the invention. Numerology is an excellent example of people being people. The lucky number 7 wouldn’t even be a thing if we had developed a base 6 numbering system.

    What’s important to note here, is that math was the true discovery of nature, because math is translatable to physical reality. The universe behaves mathematically. That discovery was the birth of true science. I would go as far as to say, that was the most significant discovery in all of mankind, hands down. Numbers? Meh.

    Throw out the invention and find the root cause of that mathematical link to the universe. In that lies the answer. And that’s exactly what I went looking for 35 years ago. It’s a stupid simple question. What is 0, and what is 1, in relation to the universe? It is the idea of something versus nothing that binds us to math, because all math can be done within the space of 0 and 1.

    0 and 1 is a linear problem, or more appropriately, a 1-dimensional problem. We have 3 1-dimensional problems working in tandem. Motion, Scale, and Time. Scale dictates both time and motion.

    The universe cannot and does not do random. Math could not work in a random space of 0 and 1. Math needs a 0, and a 1, and all the linear variables in between, because the universe is all the variables that lie between. It cannot be any other way.

    So, I must ask, does this, “infinity – a number greater than any assignable or countable number”, make sense to the universe?

    You can only come to one conclusion objectively. No. It is wrong.

    If that can be so wrong for so long, what else are we missing?

    3D space.

    Length, width and height, are an invention of man. It helped us build pyramids and houses. Dimension in mathematics does not imply physical structure. It only requires a minimum and maximum value of something, whatever that something is. We inserted scale into space, defining it by its length width and weight. We labeled it 3D space erroneously. And then Einstein dropped time on top, giving us a 4D universe. Nope, you can’t do that, because space is 1 thing, not 3 things. The fact that we see it as 3D is a function of time and motion, and together, all 3 dimensions of, space, time and motion, form 3D mass energy. That’s what we see and experience. What gives space dimensions is the same thing that gives matter dimensions, space, time, and motion. It is the only logical conclusion you come to, objectively.

    Everything else, is an invention of mankind.

    • Andy

      Member
      November 30, 2020 at 6:34 pm

      Slight irrelevant correction.

      Aryabhata

      Main numeral systems. The most commonly used system of numerals is the Hindu–Arabic numeral system. Two Indian mathematicians are credited with developing it. Aryabhata of Kusumapura developed the place-value notation in the 5th century and a century later Brahmagupta introduced the symbol for zero.

      Let’s just say, numbering has been around since humans could associated fingers to things and preform basic math. Once a more uniform universal numbering system was developed around the 5th century, and was adopted globally, things changed.

  • Andy

    Member
    December 2, 2020 at 1:09 pm

    I think it’s time to shatter the myth and mystique of dimension.

    I’ve come realize something very fundamental. No one knows what the hell dimension means. Not even me entirely until this very moment. It’s been staring at us forever, but I do think we ever appreciated the depth of the mathematical truth.

    I know that statement is true, because for years I’ve been asking the question. How do we define dimension? I felt stupid asking the question, because I thought it was something I should just know. String theory readily works in multiple dimensions. Quantum physics talks regularly about hidden dimensions and parallel universe. We have erroneously (and arguably I suppose) viewed space as 3D. I honestly did feel stupid asking the question. To my surprise, no one seemed to be able to answer the question coherently. And I thought I was the one having the issue, so I stopped asking.

    There is no definition of what constitutes dimension in physics anywhere.

    What is dimension?

    A dimension mathematically only represents one thing. It’s a finite line segment. On one end of the line, we have a minimum state, and on the other end, we have a maximum state.

    For example:

    0|————————–|1

    That’s a mathematical dimension. Simple enough to understand.

    There are 3 fundamental dimensions that make up the universe, space, time, and motion, and those dimensions subdivide into separate, or equal but opposite dimensions.

    For the total universe, I inserted space into the middle. Space can either exist, or not exist. If either state existed on its own, that state would be absolute. There would be nothing else. That’s not what we observe, because we exist.

    |1|–>–space–>–|0|

    Space is the top dimension, because it represents the material universe. Everything depends on space to exist. For a universe to exist within space, space needs to do something.

    Space needs mass for a universe to exist, so I added expansion and contraction.

    1|–>–contraction–>–|0 (matter)

    1|–<–expansion–<–|0 (space we traverse)

    Mass alone doesn’t mean anything without energy, so we need to add motion:

    0|–>–acceleration–>–|1 (matter)

    0|–<–deceleration–<–|1 (space we traverse)

    Then we must be able to perceive everything, so we insert time.

    1|–>–time fast–>–|0 (matter)

    1|–<–time slow–<–|0 (space we traverse)

    That could be considered 6 dimensions out of 1. These are the base fundamental dimensions that make up our reality. None of these can either be created nor destroyed. They are what drives existence.

    We can say the universe is 3D, but really, even that’s probably wrong in hindsight.

    The universe is an amalgamation of a multitude of sub dimensions, all subdivided from the base set. Each one of those sub-dimensions becomes important in understand the universe, from the physical world, to the cognitive world, to the emotion world, to the biological world, etc. The list could go on and on, depending on what it is we’re trying to understand. Dimensions are the variables in the problem. Understanding the state of each dimension helps us solve problems.

    For example:

    1|–>–cold–>–|0

    1|–<–hot–<–|0

    1|–>–short–>–|0

    1|–<–long–<–|0

    1|–>–uncertainty–>–|0

    1|–<–certainty–<–|0

    1|–>–entropy–>–|0

    1|–<–negentropy–<–|0

    1|–>–compress–>–|0

    1|–<–decompress–<–|0

    We could go on categorizing difference dimensions from this point, into things like, cognitive dimensions, emotional dimensions, physical dimensions, material dimensions, perceptual dimensions, etc., etc.

    I must question uncertainty as a principle in quantum mechanics. That’s more of a cognitive or emotional dimension, not really a physical property. It’s a contradiction in terms as a principle. Are we absolutely certain we are absolutely uncertain? It seems a little unproductive to me. The tail wagging the dog. A circular argument.

    Another thing I notice is that these sub-dimensions have an orientation. And they should.

    It’s ironic, because I can’t even see length, width, or height, as meaningful dimension. Short/long pretty much defines all of them. How we put multiple lengths together in a math problem is what becomes important in understanding the problem. Space isn’t really 3D, it’s 1D, but it has scale due to expansion and contraction. That’s what defines as something tangible. And with an arbitrary length, width and height, we can perceive what that scale means in relationship to something else. Its scale can define density, or its motion can define temperature, etc. There is a lot of facets to sub-dimensions.

    This is a new line of thought for me, so I’m still sorting it out in my mind.

    But it makes perfect dense. We’re multi sub-dimensional beings in a multi sub-dimensional universe derived from space, time and motion.

    • Andy

      Member
      December 2, 2020 at 1:58 pm

      –>– and –<– are intended as a direction of flow or motion. Not greater than or less than.

      And as always, I spotted several grammatical errors after the fact.

    • Andy

      Member
      December 2, 2020 at 3:12 pm

      Hidden dimensions?

      I don’t think that’s a legitimate term in science. There could be dimensions we aren’t aware of yet, or ones that haven’t been defined, but they wouldn’t be “hidden dimensions” necessarily. Out of range maybe. Everything is a derivative of space, which is 1-dimensional. The only thing we don’t know is how far out that line extends. If the universe is a series of waves, and I’m not saying it is or isn’t, with a universe existing within each wave, they wouldn’t be hidden per se, and they most certainly wouldn’t be any different from our own universal wave. To understand one wave is to understand all the others. The universe is a linear problem. There’s only so many things that can occur mathematically within a line. Additional relative universes maybe, but not hidden dimensions. It adds too much mystique to the problems in science. Great for science fiction, but not so great for science. In my humble opinion. We need to focus on the dimensions we can identify within our own universe.

  • Andy

    Member
    December 3, 2020 at 3:10 pm

    Whenever someone breaks down something fundamentally understood, it’s sure to meet resistance. I understand. Consensus forces us into a direction and it’s hard to convince anyone to turn around and head the other way. Right or wrong isn’t applicable. It reminds me of that psychological experiment, where they sat about 7 people down in room, with 1 being the subject of the experiment, and the others taking part in the experiment. The presenter showed everyone a set of lines, and everyone had to pick which one was the longest publicly. You could see the look of distress on the subjects face when he naturally followed the consensus and picked a shorter line, because everyone else did. He was always last to pick if I recall. Group think is a powerful influence on individuals.

    There’s no way to say this delicately, but we’ve been wrong about 3D space since the days of Einstein, and probably long before that. Even Einstein missed it. Einstein even added the 4th dimension of time on top of a flawed understanding of 3D space which rocked physics to its core. We’re still reeling from that added dimension. He made it 4D space-time, which we’re apparently traveling through. I’ve never met anyone that agrees with it, privately. In the mainstream, it is fully alive. Mainstream physics is like the cloud. It doesn’t really exist in any particular location. The idea of mainstream physics is an influence.

    3D space, as far as its physical dimensions go, doesn’t even make sense when you really think about it. Length, width, and height, are labels for a 1-demensional line. How you rotate that “3D” object changes the meaning of the labels. And for a perfectly square box, label assignment is entirely arbitrary. Length is an arbitrary term, which is based on an arbitrary measuring system, which is based on an arbitrary line segment of matter made up of trillions of random atoms. A meter for example, only means something to us, compared to other things that mean something to us.

    Space is one thing, not 3 things built on dimensions of, length x length x length. Space either exists, or it doesn’t. That’s a 1-dimensional problem.

    How it is perceived is a multi-dimensional problem, so if we’re going to be completely objective, how it is perceived requires hundreds, or even thousands of dimensions to define it, because everything that physically exists is derived from space. Picking 3 identical dimensions of length was arbitrary. 3D as is the currently implied meaning does not define space.

    Space is 1 dimensional. How we choose to perceive space requires countless dimensions.

    There was a scene in the movie, Moneyball, where the owner of the Boston Red Sox says, “The first guy through the fence always gets bloodied.” Paraphrasing a little. Basically he was saying, no one likes change, because it threatens the way they do things. It threatens their way of life. Great movie by the way. Highly recommend it.

  • Andy

    Member
    December 3, 2020 at 5:36 pm

    Another thought occurred to me.

    I think most people can agree motion is relative. That was pretty good insight by Einstein.

    However…

    I consider mass a relative condition, just like motion. What mass is depends on its motion, making the scale of mass a relative state. I propose we (matter) are contracting inward, while the space we traverse expands outward. That’s the gist of what I’m trying to explain.

    So…

    If the general consensus is that matter/motion is true, then by default, matter is a relative state, because motion cannot exist with matter, and matter cannot exist without motion, and energy does not exist without matter in motion. Matter meaning mass.

    Of course I extended the concept to space, claiming space itself has mass, because the space we traverse can only exist with motion, exactly like matter. No motion, no energy, no mass, no matter, no space to traverse. Motion is fundamental to the entire universe, because motion and space are an inseparable state of the entire universe. Matter/Motion – Space/Motion.

  • Andy

    Member
    December 4, 2020 at 2:47 pm

    Gravity.

    I’ve always liked this contracting relative mass theory, because it explains so much of the universe around us and is a very simple process and relatively easy to wrap your brain around. It’s the way it should be. Logical. No paradoxes. Mechanical. Simple to follow. The universe should not be as complicated as we make it out to be, because everything is a derivative of space. What space is doing becomes highly complex when viewed from our relative perspective, if you want to build something, like a combustion engine, or nuclear reactor. That’s not what I ever set out to do. I wanted a general understanding of how it all works.

    Gravity would look pretty much like Einstein’s dimpled universe, or rubber sheet, but the process needs to be set in motion. As matter contracts inward it pulls a void behind it, where the expanding mass of space gets pulled in to fill the void left behind. This creates an inverse wave in the mass of space, like a tsunami that never breaks, surrounding all matter. This is also what creates the vacuum of space, because the collapsing matter is gently tugging at the steady vacuum in the space we traverse. These dimples that are being created are low pressure or high vacuum points relative to the surrounding mass of space, and vacuum wants to be evenly distributed, naturally.

    Gravity is caused by the collapse of matter. Contraction is the action causing a reaction in the mass of space, causing gravity. It creates a downhill effect in the mass of space, which matter falls into at the inverse square.

    Or another way to look at it, steady mass loss creates gravity.

    Have you ever wondered how something like space, with 0 density in a motionless state, can transform into something like a diamond? Take two points in space and set them in motion inward. Technically, they would always be moving away from each other, held loosely together by the forces of nature. Gravity, nuclear-weak, nuclear-strong, magnetism, etc. But in that bond, they’re both trying to move away from each other as they accelerate inward at an ever-increasing rate. Relative to one another they appear constant in scale, as measured in a perfectly controlled vacuum. You can’t see what’s really happening because of relativity.

    Classical mechanics is the science of |1|>C, where Quantum Mechanics is the study of C>|0|. But classical mechanics stopped motion at C, and Quantum Mechanics stopped scale at a Plank Length. They’ve boxed themselves in to a finite limit far short of what’s really going on. Plank is a relative scale, and C is relative motion. You must always use the logical limits of both, which are |0| and |1|.

    What they’ve done works in defining a relative perspective of the universe, but perspective isn’t nature, it’s how we perceive nature. Nature would not make sense if we weren’t bound to a relative perspective. So, in that regard, it works fine for 99% of the things we want to build, or in sending someone to the moon, or in understanding basic motion from the outside as we perceive it. But in understanding the underlying reality it can’t work. The universe cannot be backward engineered using relative constants. That’s why we aren’t getting anywhere, and that’s why there’s a theory for every scientist that ever lived, all of them slightly different. There is no such thing as quantum gravity. There’s gravity. Yes, there’s gravity within gravity within gravity, which is just gravity at ever smaller and faster scales as we drill down inside the standard model, but it’s all one thing. Gravity. One process can define them all. Contraction.

    Yes, you can divide something in half forever, but you can’t cut something in half forever. That’s an Earth perspective. There is a limit. Water for example can only be divided until you’re left with two H20 atoms. That’s as far down as water can be divided. Anything more and it is no longer water. But you could divide the scale of water down forever (probably not forever technically), as long as your perspective of water never changed.

    Looks are deceiving.

    • Andy

      Member
      December 4, 2020 at 4:48 pm

      When I really give this a little more thought, I think gravity itself might be matter. The universe could simply be positive and negative vacuum. And that’s it.

    • Andy

      Member
      December 4, 2020 at 5:19 pm

      Of course that has to be the answer. An expanding vacuum state (positive vacuum energy) against a contracting vacuum state (negative vacuum energy). What else could motionless space do? The vacuum state ripples in waves.

      • Andy

        Member
        December 4, 2020 at 5:40 pm

        The outer wall of matter is the transition point between expansion and contraction. The outer wall of the universe is the transition point between vacuum and no vacuum. The universe just keeps expanding, pulling itself outward into the calm. Simple.

    • Andy

      Member
      December 4, 2020 at 6:58 pm

      Exactly as Steven Hawking’s once pondered. All the positive (vacuum) energy + all the negative (vacuum) energy = 0 (motion) energy.

      I kept isolating matter into a unique system, and then contracted it down as something different from the vacuum of space. I could never figure out what divided matter from space. I was treating it as an object with a defined or hard edge derived from space somehow.

  • Andy

    Member
    December 6, 2020 at 2:48 am

    How could we have missed that for so long?

    The entire universe is nothing but a vacuum. Of course it is!

    Think about it. What do we see when we peek inside an atom? 98% space, and 2 % something else. That 2% something else is the state between opposing vacuums, and that space, vacuum.

    Imagine a clear globe. On the inside is space, and on the outside is space, and both are the exact same state. Call it motionless space with a value of |1|.

    Now imagine that globe is expanding. The vacuum starts to rise inside the globe, but there is nowhere for that vacuum energy to go as it expands out, so the vacuum turns in on itself and becomes matter, contracting in response to the expansion. Contraction is the equal and opposite reaction to expansion. Contracting vacuum is matter, and expanding vacuum is space.

    All vacuums need to be sealed. It’s basic mechanics 101, and I’m not talking physics, I’m talking simple engineering mechanics. Nuts and bolts and cogs and gears. That motionless space surrounding the universe is that seal. It’s a variable seal. Space is absolutely perfect in form and structure. If it expands, it has to contract in response. There is nothing else it can do, because space occupies 100% of the entire universe. It must collapse, and shatter off into countless particles, all being drawn into the center.

    Vacuum is the perfect way to transfer energy from one state to the other. Vacuum is more or less absorbent, for lack of a better term.

    We’ve been calling space a vacuum for decades. Scientists assumed that was simply a property of space, but something has to cause a vacuum. Expansion is what causes vacuum.

    If you want to use the literary meaning of infinity to describe space as endless, fine. The mathematical version, no. It’s wrong. The state surrounding the universe is |1|. Motionless space is the absolute perfect vacuum seal. We expand into it giving the universe that we experience dimension. Outside the universe it’s a single end point.

    If the CNPS really wants to advance a theory, this is it. If you want to keep dabbling in tired light, and an infinite universe, and aether, etc, you will find yourselves on the wrong side of scientific discovery. Beyond all reasonable doubt, this is correct. This is what we observe the universe to be, a vacuum. Fits every observation as outlined in this post.

    I am not the guy to advance a formal theory. For me, this is as good as it gets. I don’t play in that sandbox. You guys have skills I do not possess. This is as far as I can take it.

    Someone is going to figure this out within the next few years. Seldom does anyone come up with an idea that isn’t already moving forward, or going to be advanced by someone else.

    This will take down Big Bang, and much of Einstein. This will turn physics on its head. Relativity is the physics of perception.

    Quantum physics is even wrong. Think about it. Planck set a limit of scale for energy at the Planck length. They think that is the smallest possible quanta of energy. Energy though, doesn’t really exist. Energy is motion, as Glenn Borchardt claims, and mass is space in motion. Space occupies 100% of the universe, and motion is what space does. All the space that we experience has to be in motion, both space, and matter. The Planck length is a relative limit of what matter can be at any given moment in time. It’s a limit of perception, just like relativity. There is an endless amount of space between a Plank length and |0|. Mathematically, that is absolutely true. Motion cannot be defined by a Planck length, and neither can space.

    Science is looking at the universe from a perfectly controlled vacuum state in a laboratory. They are looking at matter as one thing, and space as another thing. They are the same thing acting in an equal but opposite manner.

    We’re little vacuums forever collapsing inward in response to expansion.

    I don’t know what else to say. This is the answer we’ve all been looking for. It’s correct.

  • Nick

    Member
    December 7, 2020 at 2:53 am

    Since “Infinity” seemed to play a prominent role in a few recent CNPS presentations, it’s good that a forum discussion has been opened on that topic. Greg Volk has long been a strong advocate for making sure that terminology is used correctly and that when people discuss a topic, they agree on the key terminology, so that they are not talking at cross purposes. Throughout the ages, infinity was discussed by philosophers and mathematicians. The formal definition of “infinity” as an abstract math construct was popularized by Georg Cantor at the end of the 19th century and is the definition accepted by Academia. Basically, it says that “infinity is greater than any integer”. Admittedly, “infinity” can be used in an informal, watered down, colloquial way such as meaning “boundless”, “endless” or “an extremely large number of something”. However, I will stick with the formal, academic meaning of infinity as an abstract math construct.

    As such, by definition, “infinity” is not a valid construct for describing the real, physical world. I used to think, in an offhand way, that “time” might the one exception and might be considered “infinite”, however, I later realized that view was doubly invalid. However, if one uses “infinity” in the informal, colloquial sense, then the terms “infinity” can be used in physics, but one must make clear exactly what one’s personal use of the term means and that one is NOT using the formal academic definition of “infinity”.

    I see below that Andy has thought about this topic for many years, indeed decades, and has thought about it deeply. If I misrepresent him, Andy can correct me. However, it seems to me that Andy came to the same conclusion that I did, namely, one cannot use the formal definition of “infinity” and apply it to the physical world. In fact, he says that “infinity” is so inherently meaningless for the physical world, that it must be redefined for use in physics. So his redefinition of “infinity’ is along the lines of “infinity” means “an extremely large number of something”, but Andy provides much more rigor than that colloquial phrase. I have suggested to Andy that it might be clearer if he gave his “new” construct a new name rather than redefining “infinity”.

    However, before putting the above online, I thought it prudent to ask Dennis Allen, a retired math professor and author of “The Reality Oriented Mathematician”, if he thought “infinity” was applicable to physics and his view was 100% in sync with my view. Further, I spoke with a most respected member of the CNPS and that person agreed with my view as well.

    So, as critical thinkers, we must be sure to give proper analysis to this topic regardless of how firmly bound to one view or another we may be AND we must be clear about the meaning of the term “infinity” that we are using.

    Incidentally, as far as I have found, the term “infinitesimal” is defined in terms like:

    Adjective: extremely small (e.g., nanoscopic, barely perceptible, invisible to the naked eye

    OR

    Noun (MATHEMATICS) : an indefinitely small quantity; a value approaching zero.

    Thus, unless one is using the term “infinitesimal” with some other definition, “infinitesimal” is unrelated to the formal meaning of “infinity”.

  • Steffen

    Member
    December 20, 2020 at 12:37 am

    Hello, Andy,

    I’m new to this forum and I haven’t read all of this thread yet, but I noticed you treated space as if it was an object that could move, and contract, and not as a virtual thing/concept. How did you arrive at this assumption? I would like if you could clarify whether you are referring to the same concept as I do with that word.

    To me, space, like time, is not a physical object. Rather, everything in existence has a location. Locations are not physical objects, but rather properties thereof. Space is merely the generalisation of all possible locations. It is a generalisation of properties, and not an object itself. This is why it has to be infinite, because the property of location is not conceptually limited to any range of (absolute) values.

    To me, what you are referring to as space does seem more like something physical that permeates all of what I refer to as space, like a field, which assigns every part of space (as I mean it) a state of vacuum or matter (I’m over-simplifying things here for brevity), or maybe something which could be called an aether (although I am in no way familiar with other theories that use this name) which can take the form of vacuum or matter. I don’t think space (as I understand it) can move or stretch or contract, as it is nothing more than a coordinate system. However, if there is a field that permeates all of space, that should be able to move, contract, etc.

  • Andy

    Member
    March 23, 2021 at 12:27 am

    Hello Steffen,

    Sorry I missed this post. Never received an alert and just happened to see the notification.

    This is a very deep conversation, and I don’t want to overwhelm, so we’ll start slowly.

    In my view the only thing that physically exists is space. Everything else is a derivative. Why would anything else exist? And I think that’s the million dollar question no one is asking, and no one has an answer to. There is no logical reason for anything to exist but space. Space is the primary ingredient for a universe. It is also the only physical ingredient. It is the fundamental building block of existence as we perceive it. What space does is what makes a universe that we can experience. Space certainly isn’t nothing, but without motion it lacks dimension. Raw space is a motionless void. A singular dimensionless point of existence. Scale has no meaning. You cannot think in terms of size. Size or scale is a human concept. How big something is a relative term. Space, sans our universe, is only equal to itself. Its value is |1|, because it is only comparable to itself. It is not infinite, it is finite. |0| is the absence of space, which is not a possible state. Space always exists.

    |0|<∞<|1|

    Most importantly. Has science proven or observed anything to exist but space?

    No, they haven’t. Think about that. No one knows what energy is, yet 99% of the population believes we’re all made of energy, because science tells us e=mc^2. Has science produced a jar of this pure energy? No. That jar sitting on a shelf is filled with space. The atoms that make up that jar are filled with space. Space is all we have ever observed, or at least the motion of space is what we observe.

    I would have to default to Occam’s razor. Space is the only material ingredient. Everything we are is derived from the actions of space.

  • John

    Member
    April 12, 2021 at 3:48 pm

    I was recently questioned about an infinite universe. I like the math definition of infinity as increases without bound/end. I think that is how it is used in math equations. That is, the concept merely fills in an unknown in an equation. In physics it becomes a cop-out for have no model. (perhaps, this is a bit harsh.) SO, I ask what part in physics does the concept of “infinity” play in forming predictions and useful to humanity concepts?

    • Andy

      Member
      November 24, 2021 at 9:21 pm

      My apologies for not getting back to you John. Been a while since I’ve been on here and for some reasons I’m not getting notified of replies. I figured no one cared what I had to say.. 🙂

      You may like the math definition you propose, but it’s just one more definition to prove my hypothesis. Infinity is undefined in science, and literally meaningless as is currently understood.

      Here’s a quick search on another definition for infinity.

      Mathematics
      – a number greater than any assignable quantity or countable number (symbol ∞)

      That one violates the literary meaning of infinity as endlessness, because it states infinity is a great finite number. It is basically defining infinite as finite, invalidating both infinity and finite as meaningful mathematically.

      I have had debates where people have actually tried to use that definition against me as proof I was wrong and mathematics has it clearly defined. Does it mean anything to you?

      What roll infinity plays in humanity is one of the greatest question of all time. Did our universe have a beginning, and will it have an end?

      The way I see infinity is change. Infinity is the constant of change, where finite is the absence of change. My definition would be closer to yours than the commonly accepted version, because change is seen as a constant in the universe. It’s also what we observe everywhere.

      Finite being the absence of change has never been observed. What we do observe is finite transition points from one state to the next. The speed of sound or a supernova explosion, for example. Or my birth, and my death. Finite points within infinite change. Nothing ever sits on those finite points. Everything is always in motion.

      I think the universe is infinite not because of scale, but because the universe itself is a constant. It’s like the speed of light, but represents a constant rate of change not motion. Light in it’s own way represents constant change in position.

      Change. That’s how infinity needs to be defined. Scale is relative, and quantities are always an expression of finite points. There can be always be a change, but there can never be a finite value in terms of quantities. Particularly important when counting stars or planets. The number of either is always rising or falling. There is not such thing as an infinite quantity of X at any given moment in time.

  • Anonymous

    Deleted User
    May 4, 2021 at 10:15 am

    The Cisco TelePresence Solutions Specialist are the trained professionals in the networking field. The Solution Specialist is engaged in the assessment of network paths of rich media, estimating call-control design possibilities and configuring interoperability functions.

    The Cisco Solution Specialist performs the planning, design, implementation (PDI) and maintenance of Cisco TelePresence deployments.

    https://www.fieldengineer.com/skills/cisco-telepresence-solutions-specialist

  • Nick

    Member
    November 24, 2021 at 10:08 pm

    Andy, to me you wrote, ”
    You may like the math definition you propose, but it\’s just one more definition to prove my hypothesis. Infinity is undefined in science, and literally meaningless as is currently understood.

    Here\’s a quick search on another definition for infinity.

    Mathematics
    – a number greater than any assignable quantity or countable number (symbol ∞).

    I agree. “Infinity” is a formal math construct so I do use the formal math/academic definition which you correctly state does NOT map to science. There is no science definition of “infinity” other than the math definition. Because of that, you take on the task of redefining “infinity” for use in the sciences. Maybe you will or have come up with a definition for a useful construct in science, BUT it needs to be named something new (i.e., something other than “infinity) – especially where your parameters “constant” and “changing” are NOT integral to the construct of (math/academic) “infinity”.

    Separately, I’ll note that a colloquial or loose definition of “infinity” should NOT replace math’s exacting definition in science.

Viewing 16 - 27 of 27 replies

Log in to reply.

Original Post
0 of 0 posts June 2018
Now