Originally posted by: MrDudeMan
I've entertained the thought that this thread was legitimate and actually had a purpose, but at this point you are simply being ignorant. Basically what you've established is that you know more about "theory" and "understanding the universe" than the rest of humanity, including some of the best mathematicians and scientists to have ever lived. If anyone disagrees with your so-called profound ideas, you instantly put them down and claim they can't see what you can see. It really puts that thing about you calling other people arrogant and narrow minded into perspective. I'll end with this: you are obviously not open to discussing ideas outside of your realm of understanding, which seems to be the majority, but you will readily ask ambiguous questions to again be given the chance to assert your opinion.
Originally posted by: Seer
And the concept, much less theory, of infinity is supposed to invalidate the all of existence by making "everything nothing"? Tell me exactly how THAT isn't bunk.
Your example, but changed.
If I move from A to B on your infinite number line, I am now in a different position. That is a fact, plain and simple. I am now A-B units from my starting point. What a surprise. A != B. Fact, indisputable. The existence of an infinite number of numbers to the left and right of either A or B does not change that simple undeniable fact that A != B. Relative to the end of the numberline (+ and - infinity), my position has not changed. But relative to any other single point, my position has.
So, lets say the universe is infinite, or that there are infinite universes, or whatever. If I move my fist from the side of my body to your face, will you still say my fist hasn't moved and is in fact in the same position as it always was?
This is what you have been saying (paraphrased):
Duuuude, everything is nothing. Because, infinity, yeaaaaah. How do you know you actually exist? Whoah.
WTF???? No one in their right mind would claim math is the answer to everything!!!! PLEASE PLEASE PLEASE show me where we have said this!!!
Originally posted by: Blouge
I highly recommend reading the book "Where does Mathematics come from". "Infinity" boils down to the metaphor for the results of repeating some operation indefinitely - results that could never be achieved in practice, but can still be imagined.
>true "infinity" has no starting point
I disagree. Maybe your definition of "infinity" differs from the norm. Suppose I write a "0" on the ground (or mark that space in some other way). Then I walk a meter, and write a "1", then another meter and write a "2", and so on. Eventually I'll have travelled an infinity of meters. The "0" position was the starting point. This is infinity with a starting point.
There is a limit to how far north you can travel on Earth - the north pole. But you don't encounter some kind of brick wall when you reach there. Thinking in 3D space it's easy to understand how the Earth is a sphere, but if you knew only of 2D maps then this could be awkward and confusing. Similarly, I think if there is a physical limit to our universe (spatial or temporal), it will be easy to understand if you think in more than 4 dimensions. You can work with a model of the universe in a fewer number of dimensions than 4 to make the problem even easier. It could go on forever, but it could also loop back on itself or there could be a barrier, in the form of a repulsive gravitational field that can't be passed through. The last possibility is similar to an ant trying to crawl out of the bottom of a jar. The glass wall gets too steep.
> Doesn't infinite scaling make more sense if you consider our universe a point on an infinite number line, rather than a container for that number line?
Both views make equal sense to me. You can also have the infinite universe be contained within a point on a second infinite number line, which exists within another point on a third infinite number line. I'm not sure if the concept is useful, but I find it quite sensible.
BTW, the book I mentioned above uses the compactness theorem from mathematics to define a new kind of infinity - a huge integer, called H.
This is a bit off-topic, but there is another great book "The Five Ages of the Universe" that talks about how, assuming the universe continues to expand, matter will become more and more sparse as the universe ages. Eventually everything will decay and the universe will seem pitch black and totally empty. However, if you view it on larger and larger time and space scales then the universe will always remain an interesting place. I think this is a good example of infinite scaling.
Originally posted by: Blouge
>>Originally posted by: EricMartello
>Exactly... no responce!!
>/thread
Did you have anything to contribute to the discussion? Or are you just trolling?
Originally posted by: sao123
I purposefully ignored them because they are nonsencial questions without merit or purpose to the question of infinity.
however...
Your theory is flawed and without meaning...
the measurement of time, space, or any property is incapable of being performed if the measuring entity does not have 2 things... a sensory perception capable of quantifying the item to be measured, and a standard to compare it to.
Your infinite number line concept does not conform to the above statement. Zero has been *arbitrarily chosen* as the standard, it could have been any other value, but whatever that value might have been, once a standard has been set, you can measure the distance from that point. I can give you a finite piece of string and a ruler marked 1, 2, 3, 4, 5 and you can measure the string. The string is 4. 4 what? inches? centimeters? seconds? hogaboos? Removing the *arbitrary standard* of the 0 reference point is what makes the numberline meaningless, not the fact that it is infinitely long.
Your time concept exibits the same behavior, there is a point called the present, by which all things can be arbitrarily measured as being past or future, and a quantified means to describe it with.
Infinite scaling - the universe as we know it and measure it have at its very substance & canvas, basic units which are "discrete units", it is not continuous as you would believe. Eventually you will find the smallest particle, even the smallest unit of space, which there is no emptyness between them. Call them packets, pixels, whatever, the canvas of 3 dimentional existence is in discrete units.
the videogame analogy is nonsensical. *as a programmer* a video game is a non concious entity which can do nothing more than its defined propertys allow it to. Time will not pass for a videogame, unless it is given a semiphore equivolent, and a reference point to measure it against. This would be no differenct than asking a 2 dimentional drawing how deep are you? **of course the drawing will look at you nonsensically and say, what the hell is deep?**
ah but to your questions:
- It is probable that our Universe has physical bounds that limit its size. What might be BEYOND those bounds?
As in the above example (of the 2 dimentional drawing), in order to exceed the defined limits of 3 dimentional space, one must define a 4th spacial dimention. No matter what you call it, this is the only way to go outside of the defined 3 dimentional existance.
Assuming it is possible at all, Everything which is exclusively in our universe exists with at least 1 or more of the following:
1)A 4th or higher spacial dimention value of 0.
2)The lack of a perception for quantifying the 4th or higher spacial dimention.
3)The lack of a reference in the 4th or higher spacial dimention.
- Is it possible for there to be absolute nothingness, not even space? What would we call that state?
0 Dimentional non-existance, or
4th or higher spacial dimentional existance with at least 1 of the following:
1)zero values for the LWH spacial dimentions
2)The lack of a perception for quantifying the LWH spacial dimentions.
3)The lack of a reference in the LWH spacial dimentions.
- Doesn't infinite scaling make more sense if you consider our universe a point on an infinite number line, rather than a container for that number line?
The universe is the defined boundaries for the existance of LWH dimentional space. Nothing can exist 3 dimentionally without being inside of the LWH defined universe.
Both views of the universe make sense, but neither applies to infinite scaling.
I return to my roots...
If I have a point, which is defined as a singular discrete unit..
Then compare it to an infinite number line which has infinite points. I can see infinity.
Now compare it to an infinite 2 dimentional plane. I now have infinite number lines of infinite points. This is still clearly more points than the first.
now compare it to an infinite 3 dimentional space. I now have still infinitely more points than I had before.
While infinity is a concept and not a number, it still clearly has both a quantifiable perception, and a reference, therefore it is measureable and comparable. As long as you have those 2 properties, meaning has been established.
Originally posted by: Blouge
>a zero is no different from the set containing one and only one banana.
So you're saying zero is equal to one? Hmm, I guess I'm not advanced enough for that that branch of mathematics yet.
>A set in mathematics, the simplest mathematical construct which all mathematics comes forth from
Yet more nonsense. You can just as easily frame all of mathematics in terms of operations on an abacus. Mathematics does not come from, and has been around MUCH longer than sets. Sure, you can build things out of sets but there are arbitrary, awkward, and meaningless side effects like the ordered pair (0,1) = {0, {0,1} } = {0, {0, {0, {0}} } = the integer 2. Does the ordered pair (0,1) really equal 2? Whether it's a truth or not depends entirely on how you go about shoehorning things into being described by the sets.
Furthermore, as I explained above, there are many set theories, no "set theory". Please tell me, out of the many conflicting set theories, which one all of mathematics "comes forth from"?
BTW, a point is a much simpler construct than a set. Even a toddler can understand a point. Sets can be quite perplexing: open vs. closed, ininite, uncountable, self-referential, etc. When you are have a set fetish you wind up with awkward definitions of continuity that disagree with geometry (e.g. xsin(1/x) is not geometrically continuous) and elaborate defintions for limits and calculus that confuse people when infinitesimals suffice and are easily understood by everyone (everyone understands what a speck is) including Newton and Leibniz.
>Infinity is not something you can perform operations on, such as: multiplication, division, subtraction, addition
Sure you can, 1 / infinity = 0:
http://mathworld.wolfram.com/Infinity.html
Originally posted by: EricMartello
Originally posted by: sao123
I purposefully ignored them because they are nonsencial questions without merit or purpose to the question of infinity.
however...
Your theory is flawed and without meaning...
the measurement of time, space, or any property is incapable of being performed if the measuring entity does not have 2 things... a sensory perception capable of quantifying the item to be measured, and a standard to compare it to.
You would be 100% correct here, but I'm not really talking about measuring anything, am I? It's like you 1/2 understand what I'm saying. Yes, measurement is based on reference...as for "sensory perception", if you mean our ability to observe then that's subjective. Our perception of "reality" is very, VERY narrow...we're trying to think beyond our perception of reality here.
Your infinite number line concept does not conform to the above statement. Zero has been *arbitrarily chosen* as the standard, it could have been any other value, but whatever that value might have been, once a standard has been set, you can measure the distance from that point. I can give you a finite piece of string and a ruler marked 1, 2, 3, 4, 5 and you can measure the string. The string is 4. 4 what? inches? centimeters? seconds? hogaboos? Removing the *arbitrary standard* of the 0 reference point is what makes the numberline meaningless, not the fact that it is infinitely long.
The infinite number line example is a lead-in to the main concept here, Infinite Scaling. I never disputed reference points. You can certainly choose a point or more on the number line, using them as reference to measure position on the line...but that's not what I'm talking about.
Your time concept exibits the same behavior, there is a point called the present, by which all things can be arbitrarily measured as being past or future, and a quantified means to describe it with.
Please refer to my video game example with the timedemo, on the first page somewhere in the upper part. I'm leaning toward time not existing at all...but just as we can do with the number line, we can use a clock to create reference points and measure duration between the points. Think about it tho, our units of time are pretty much arbitrary in the first place. What IS a second? What is defining any increment of time? Nothing, it's just generally accepted that a second is a second. We created time. Time most likely does not exist beyond the scope of our human perceptions.
Infinite scaling - the universe as we know it and measure it have at its very substance & canvas, basic units which are "discrete units", it is not continuous as you would believe. Eventually you will find the smallest particle, even the smallest unit of space, which there is no emptyness between them. Call them packets, pixels, whatever, the canvas of 3 dimentional existence is in discrete units.
Now THIS is something I'd like to see some 3rd party support on. You are saying that at some point, space ceases to exist and therefore nothing can exist within this space. I still see space as a constant, which is to say that it stays the same on any point along the infinite scale. What you're saying implies a "digital" universe, which would mean that we could map out everything using whole numbers on a very, very big XYZ graph...
the videogame analogy is nonsensical. *as a programmer* a video game is a non concious entity which can do nothing more than its defined propertys allow it to. Time will not pass for a videogame, unless it is given a semiphore equivolent, and a reference point to measure it against. This would be no differenct than asking a 2 dimentional drawing how deep are you? **of course the drawing will look at you nonsensically and say, what the hell is deep?**
A lot of what you say boils down to. "If we can't think of it, it doesn't exist. If we did think of it, chances are it's real." You say that the video game character is not subject to time, because he is not AWARE of time? Are you equating awareness to existence? Just because we're not aware or something does not mean it doesn't exist - and simply because we've defined structure to allow ourselves to be aware or something, doesn't mean that it does exist (time).
Even so, you didn't follow me on that video game example. Even if YOU or I, as sentient beings aware of time, were in that game with a stopwatch, that time demo could run at 20 FPS or 1000 FPS and in both cases, would seem the same to us. Also, if we were a part of that existence, each time the time demo played back, we would feel that it was the first time, even if it was played hundreds of times.
To the individual who is watching the timedemo on the computer screen, the duration can vary. On a slow computer, maybe it takes 3 minutes...on a fast one, it's done in 30 seconds.
A form of time dilation, you might be tempted to say?
I'd say no. I think that time dilation simply shows that time as some sort of physical element of the universe doesn't exist. It's only a tidbit of our imagination, that we use to further limit our understanding. I have a bit more to say on this, later.
ah but to your questions:
- It is probable that our Universe has physical bounds that limit its size. What might be BEYOND those bounds?
As in the above example (of the 2 dimentional drawing), in order to exceed the defined limits of 3 dimentional space, one must define a 4th spacial dimention. No matter what you call it, this is the only way to go outside of the defined 3 dimentional existance.
Assuming it is possible at all, Everything which is exclusively in our universe exists with at least 1 or more of the following:
1)A 4th or higher spacial dimention value of 0.
2)The lack of a perception for quantifying the 4th or higher spacial dimention.
3)The lack of a reference in the 4th or higher spacial dimention.
Interesting, and definitely possible. But this raises other questions. What if within our universe, there are entities that can only exist in 1 or 2 dimensions, and not 3? Would we be able to measure or perceive the entities of lesser dimensions? What happens to 3D space when a 4th spatial dimension is added? It could be that additional spatial dimensions allow for different forms of existence, but they're mutually exclusive of each other.
- Is it possible for there to be absolute nothingness, not even space? What would we call that state?
0 Dimentional non-existance, or
4th or higher spacial dimentional existance with at least 1 of the following:
1)zero values for the LWH spacial dimentions
2)The lack of a perception for quantifying the LWH spacial dimentions.
3)The lack of a reference in the LWH spacial dimentions.
But isn't a dimension something in itself? Also makes me wonder, is it possible for something to manifest and exist within absolute nothingness, thereby changing it from nothing into something?
- Doesn't infinite scaling make more sense if you consider our universe a point on an infinite number line, rather than a container for that number line?
The universe is the defined boundaries for the existance of LWH dimentional space. Nothing can exist 3 dimentionally without being inside of the LWH defined universe.
Both views of the universe make sense, but neither applies to infinite scaling.
I've never disputed that our universe is without boundaries. In one of my more recent posts, I have (for now) decided to use an inverse infinite ray to describe infinite scaling within the bounds of our universe.
I return to my roots...
If I have a point, which is defined as a singular discrete unit..
Then compare it to an infinite number line which has infinite points. I can see infinity.
Now compare it to an infinite 2 dimentional plane. I now have infinite number lines of infinite points. This is still clearly more points than the first.
now compare it to an infinite 3 dimentional space. I now have still infinitely more points than I had before.
While infinity is a concept and not a number, it still clearly has both a quantifiable perception, and a reference, therefore it is measureable and comparable. As long as you have those 2 properties, meaning has been established.
This is correct in terms of coordinate space, but if the graph spans infinitely on XYZ axis, it's still subject to the same irrelevance as the number line. No matter what your coordinates are within this space, you'll never move or change true position. This is a great precursor to a new idea I've concocted about time dilation, as well as what we perceive as distance.
What you referred to in your link was the limit, as x approaches infinity, 1/x.
a point; it is a dot that is usually a small circle to the unaided eye.
I can recommend several texts to help you.
Mach argued that, in a completely empty universe, a bucket full of water when spun on its axis, is indisinguishable from the same bucket when it not spinning. And therefore
spinning or not, the water would stay flat, in an otherwise completely empty universe.
Einstein refuted this argument finally stating that spacetime was the absolute entity which provides the reference, and that in a completely empty universe the water in a spinning bucket would not stay flat.
Electrons exist in exact energy bands
yet all things seem to point to the theory that all matter, energy, and even space/time are not continuous, instead they come in inidivudal packaged units.
Originally posted by: EricMartello
I'd say no. I think that time dilation simply shows that time as some sort of physical element of the universe doesn't exist. It's only a tidbit of our imagination, that we use to further limit our understanding. I have a bit more to say on this, later.
Originally posted by: sao123
Im not sure how you define same and different in your explaination. From a far away view (top down) the view would look the same, but if you examine it in closeness a difference would indeed exist.
Nevertheless, It seems to me that your last point is arguing Mach's View on Newtons bucket paradox.
A bucket of water when spun, the water will form a concave surface and curve up against the walls, in a non spinning bucket the water will obviously stay flat.
Newton claimed that the bucket when spun in a completely empty universe, would continue to exhibit the concave water surface becasue there was an ether, against which all motion could be measured.
Mach argued that, in a completely empty universe, a bucket full of water when spun on its axis, is indisinguishable from the same bucket when it not spinning. And therefore
spinning or not, the water would stay flat, in an otherwise completely empty universe.
H formulated a theory that with no point of reference, (complete emptyness) in principal you can not tell motion or acceleration from non-motion.
Einstein refuted this argument finally stating that spacetime was the absolute entity which provides the reference, and that in a completely empty universe the water in a spinning bucket would not stay flat.
------
Indeed also most if not all of the universe supports "a digital universe" though I dont like the name, the concept is discrete mathematics. All things seem to exist in exact discrete units.
Electrons exist in exact energy bands, and jump from one band to the other when the become exited, without passing through the intermediate space.
Particle charge is always found in integer unit multiples of the elementary electrical charge. Particle spin is always found exact multiples of the spin constant 1/3.
Light behaves as a photon when it interacts with matter.
there are many more examples of this and probably better ones too, many of which i dont remember or am just too tired to think of, yet all things seem to point to the theory that all matter, energy, and even space/time are not continuous, instead they come in inidivudal packaged units.
Originally posted by: blackllotus
I'm not sure how you can claim this. Not only can we measure time, but we can predict its passage relative to other objects. Time may pass at different speeds from different reference frames, however I don't see how that is relevant. Even if we were in a video game where lag or other phenomenon in the gamer's world affected how fast the game runs, every second of my life would still seem to be the same length to me. Different to the gamer maybe but that doesn't mean that time doesn't exist.
Originally posted by: Blouge
What you referred to in your link was the limit, as x approaches infinity, 1/x.
Why beat a dead horse, Estrella? The supporting link is clear enough: 1/infinity = 0 "can be made rigorous using the limit concept". If you have more insight to add, perhaps you should let Wolfram know.
a point; it is a dot that is usually a small circle to the unaided eye.
Yes, I agree. Points are small circles, of infinitesimal size, and they touch on the number line. Or points can be of zero size and not touching. Both interpretations are valid and useful. IMHO the former interpretation is more useful, and is more easily understood.
I can recommend several texts to help you.
Really? For your edification, I provided several links and book mentions in my posts. What are your boooks? Where are your links??
Mach argued that, in a completely empty universe, a bucket full of water when spun on its axis, is indisinguishable from the same bucket when it not spinning. And therefore
spinning or not, the water would stay flat, in an otherwise completely empty universe.
Einstein refuted this argument finally stating that spacetime was the absolute entity which provides the reference, and that in a completely empty universe the water in a spinning bucket would not stay flat.
Not true. Einstein himself coined the name "Mach's Principle", and it was an inspirations in his development of relativity:
"Einstein?before completing his development of the general theory of relativity?found an effect which he interpreted as being evidence of Mach's principle. We assume a fixed background for conceptual simplicity, construct a large spherical shell of mass, and set it spinning in that background. The reference frame in the interior of this shell will precess with respect to the fixed background. This effect is known as the Lense-Thirring effect. Einstein was so satisfied with this manifestation of Mach's principle that he wrote a letter to Mach expressing this:
"it... turns out that inertia originates in a kind of interaction between bodies, quite in the sense of your considerations on Newton's pail experiment... If one rotates [a heavy shell of matter] relative to the fixed stars about an axis going through its center, a Coriolis force arises in the interior of the shell; that is, the plane of a Foucault pendulum is dragged around (with a practically unmeasurably small angular velocity)."[3]"
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mach's_principle
Notice how Einsteins refers to the "fixed stars", not "absolute" spacetime. In an empty universe, sans fixed stars, Mach's Principle is of paramount importance.
Electrons exist in exact energy bands
No, according to QM they exist in energy bands of E + or - deltaE, where deltaE is inversely proportional to the measurement duration (deltaT). It's called Heisenberg's uncertainty principle. Also, according to relativity, the majority of the electron's energy is in its mass/kinetic energy, in the form mc^2, where m is the relativistic mass. This energy varies continuously and non-linearly as a function of the velocity of the observer. So the energy of the electron is not at all a simple thing. Both QM and relativity suggests that the electron energy is NOT a "digital" thing that comes in discrete units.
yet all things seem to point to the theory that all matter, energy, and even space/time are not continuous, instead they come in inidivudal packaged units.
Unfortunately we only understand about 4% of the known energy/matter in the universe, the other 96% of it being dark. The newly discovered particle, the axion, might help here, though.
Over the years, this question has generated much controversy. Initially, Einstein thought that general relativity fully incorporated Mach's principle. In fact, in 1913, as Einstein was furiously working to put the final pieces of general relitivity in place, he wrote Mach an enthusiastic letter in which he described how general relativity would confirm Mach's analysis of Newton's bucket experiment. And in 1918, when einstein wrote an article enumerating the three essential ideas behind general relativity, the third point in his list was Mach's principle. Butgeneral relativity is subtle and it had features that took may years for physicists, including einstein himself, to appreciate completely. As these aspects were better understood, Einstein found it increasingly difficult to fully incorporate Mach's principle into general relativity. Little by little, he grew dissillusioned with Mach's ideas and by the later years of his life he came to renounce them.18
Originally posted by: EricMartello
Are you talking about the differences in perspective, i.e. when you get really close to a monitor or TV screen, all you see is pixels, so you need to move away to see an image? I'm not sure what that is in reference to.
Im referring to your infinite number-line / infinite plane / infinite volume. You claim that if you move, nothing has changed, and therefore it is still the same. Sure, if you view an infinite plane from far away, and there is movement, it may appear as you have not moved. However examining close up, there are definat markers that your position has changed.
I read the article on wikipedia about Mach's principle and I'm not sure how this fits in to what I'm talking about. What I gathered is that Einstein used some ideas that this guy Mach came up with, in order to give some sort of reference point to measure motion within his own general relativity theory.
This spinning bucket thing isn't the way I'd word it tho. It's more like, if you take a bucket and put a ball in it, like a soccer ball, then spin that ball around, it will cause the water to spin and rise up against the sides of the bucket. It's the mass within the bucket that spins, not the bucket itself. That is how Einstein visualizes the relationship of large bodies of mass within space...and he visualizes space as a plane, I think.
Now I've already stated that I'm not sold on time as being a component of this universe, or anything other than our own invention...so space-time...nah.
I dont trust wikipedia as a source. if you want to read about Mach's bucket to the same understanding i have come to, then read Brian Greene's The Fabric of the cosmos.
the other understanding of Mach's Prinicple is that if you take a rope with 2 weights and sping it, the rope will pull tight. Mahc claims that in a completely empty universe, the rope will not pull tight, because spinning is indistiguishable from not spinning. IE how could you really tell without a reference?
You claim that if you move between 2 points in 3d infinite space, your new position is indistuishable from your previous one, after all you're still at the center.
Its the same theory repackaged.
Originally posted by: sao123
Im referring to your infinite number-line / infinite plane / infinite volume. You claim that if you move, nothing has changed, and therefore it is still the same. Sure, if you view an infinite plane from far away, and there is movement, it may appear as you have not moved. However examining close up, there are definat markers that your position has changed.
I dont trust wikipedia as a source. if you want to read about Mach's bucket to the same understanding i have come to, then read Brian Greene's The Fabric of the cosmos.
the other understanding of Mach's Prinicple is that if you take a rope with 2 weights and sping it, the rope will pull tight. Mahc claims that in a completely empty universe, the rope will not pull tight, because spinning is indistiguishable from not spinning. IE how could you really tell without a reference?
You claim that if you move between 2 points in 3d infinite space, your new position is indistuishable from your previous one, after all you're still at the center.
Its the same theory repackaged.
That is one of your problems - you don't understand what "theory" means to scientists.I'm gonna look into this H business. It might be able to help me elevate this from concept to theory.
Originally posted by: Estrella
Ok, I see a lot of misdirection in this thread hopefully, I can clear up some misconeptions.
Infinity is a number.
Originally posted by: DrPizza
Are you referring to my sig? 0.999999...=1!
OP,That is one of your problems - you don't understand what "theory" means to scientists.I'm gonna look into this H business. It might be able to help me elevate this from concept to theory.
Now, to respond to your initial post in this thread:
0 is not the center of the number line (as you seemed to state there was a problem with), however, it is generally referred to as the center out of convenience, not necessity. Thus, you're right, but wrong at the same time.
Time isn't infinite - it began with the big bang.
"complex over-my-head math..." Calculus isn't *that* complex. It's pretty simple actually; most of my students comment that it's surprisingly simple compared to my pre-calculus course. Over your head? Well, you said it, not me. But, calculus has been around for hundreds of years. Perhaps if the concepts of limits are over your head, then continuing a lengthy thread about the subject is about as productive as me having a lengthy thread about brain surgery.
Infinite scaling? Your entire theory is based on something like "infinite scaling"?? Start by googling Zeno's paradox. See how they solved that one.
Also, as far as your "empty space" that you mentioned above (and later, you said this has nothing to do with quantum mechanics), well, I've got some bad news for you... Once you get down to a really really tiny scale, little particles pop into and out of existence constantly and randomly; always in nice little pairs - a particle and an anti-particle. So, I'm not sure what this "empty space" you're referring to actually is.
Originally posted by: DrPizza
Originally posted by: Estrella
Ok, I see a lot of misdirection in this thread hopefully, I can clear up some misconeptions.
Infinity is a number.
Nope. It's not.
Originally posted by: DrPizza
Are you referring to my sig? 0.999999...=1!
OP,That is one of your problems - you don't understand what "theory" means to scientists.I'm gonna look into this H business. It might be able to help me elevate this from concept to theory.
Now, to respond to your initial post in this thread:
0 is not the center of the number line (as you seemed to state there was a problem with), however, it is generally referred to as the center out of convenience, not necessity. Thus, you're right, but wrong at the same time.
Time isn't infinite - it began with the big bang.
"complex over-my-head math..." Calculus isn't *that* complex. It's pretty simple actually; most of my students comment that it's surprisingly simple compared to my pre-calculus course. Over your head? Well, you said it, not me. But, calculus has been around for hundreds of years. Perhaps if the concepts of limits are over your head, then continuing a lengthy thread about the subject is about as productive as me having a lengthy thread about brain surgery.
Infinite scaling? Your entire theory is based on something like "infinite scaling"?? Start by googling Zeno's paradox. See how they solved that one.
Also, as far as your "empty space" that you mentioned above (and later, you said this has nothing to do with quantum mechanics), well, I've got some bad news for you... Once you get down to a really really tiny scale, little particles pop into and out of existence constantly and randomly; always in nice little pairs - a particle and an anti-particle. So, I'm not sure what this "empty space" you're referring to actually is.
Originally posted by: EricMartello
Originally posted by: DrPizza
Are you referring to my sig? 0.999999...=1!
OP,That is one of your problems - you don't understand what "theory" means to scientists.I'm gonna look into this H business. It might be able to help me elevate this from concept to theory.
I absolutely do understand what scientists expect from a solid theory, and in time, my theory may or may not "work" for them. As long as it works for me, that's all I care about.
Now, to respond to your initial post in this thread:
0 is not the center of the number line (as you seemed to state there was a problem with), however, it is generally referred to as the center out of convenience, not necessity. Thus, you're right, but wrong at the same time.
Time isn't infinite - it began with the big bang.
The OP was the seed, things have grown and a lot has been said since then. You should read it, if this topic interests you.
Right or wrong doesn't even come into the picture here, Pizza, nothing has been proven or disproven. At best, you can agree or disagree.
Zero is the only "number" on the INFINITE number line that has a relevance, because it is the opposite of infinity.
Time isn't anything, it didn't begin with the "big bang" (also a theory), it began with the human mind, and that's the ONLY place time really exists.
"complex over-my-head math..." Calculus isn't *that* complex. It's pretty simple actually; most of my students comment that it's surprisingly simple compared to my pre-calculus course. Over your head? Well, you said it, not me. But, calculus has been around for hundreds of years. Perhaps if the concepts of limits are over your head, then continuing a lengthy thread about the subject is about as productive as me having a lengthy thread about brain surgery.
We're not talking about math here, so much as we are discussing concepts.
Infinite scaling? Your entire theory is based on something like "infinite scaling"?? Start by googling Zeno's paradox. See how they solved that one.
My understanding of existence is based on my theory of "Infinite Scaling". Zeno's paradox, from what I briefly skimmed on wikipedia, is sticking with distance and not scaling. You are free to disagree with anything I said, but I think you should make an effort to understand it first. Read the whole thread, if you really are interested.
Also, as far as your "empty space" that you mentioned above (and later, you said this has nothing to do with quantum mechanics), well, I've got some bad news for you... Once you get down to a really really tiny scale, little particles pop into and out of existence constantly and randomly; always in nice little pairs - a particle and an anti-particle. So, I'm not sure what this "empty space" you're referring to actually is.
I don't recall saying much, if anything about "empty space". As this thread has progressed, I have only stated that I feel that space is a constant in regards to Infinite Scaling. Please quote what I said, so I know what you are referring to.