Infinity

[Blouge]

 

[EricMartello]

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.

OK, look at most of your responses, and even most of the responses in general. They are not thoughtful, they are written with the intent of invalidating what I said. I've replied by attempting to be more clear about my thoughts on this matter, but it seems that people here are too deep-set in their way of thinking to consider other possibilities.

This whole thread consists of ideas outside my understanding - the difference is that I can accept that, but seems most people here cannot...rather, they attempt to play it down by bringing up similar but unrelated concepts that they can understand. It's like entering a discussion about cars, but since you don't know about cars, you start talking about the computer in the car.

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.

A theory is a concept that more than one person agrees with.

If you are on an infinite number line, ALL numbers are invalidated. You just don't get this, do you, despite it being stated multiple times. You can travel anywhere you want on this number line, and your REAL position never changes. Your A to B example is using LIMITS A and B, which therefore means you are no longer on an infinite number line. You are within points A and B! Even if we use your example, you may have points of reference to indicate your relative change in position, but as I keep on telling you, your REAL position remains unchanged.

Now take this concept and move from number line to 3D space, and you end up with infinite scaling. "But Eric, our universe is not infinite." True, but this concept extends beyond the scope of this universe to included IT and whatever contains the universe itself. The universe is just a point on an infinite scale...therefore, nothing!

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?

If your fist moves as slow as you think, you'll probably be knocked out long before your fist ever moves - so your fist never changes position. Our perception of reality is disconnected from the facts of existence. Reality is our little bubble...and where did I say that I believe the universe is infinite?

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!!!

Not quite what I'm saying, but if that's what you've been "understanding" then it's clear to me why you're so upset.

Since almost every response has attempted to use some sort of mathematical rationale to debunk my little idea here, it was sort of implied that math had all the answers, and any type of "thinking" without math is "nonsense".

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.

Yes! Infinity is a concept in math that is essentially imagined. I know math people don't like the ambiguity that imagination presents.

>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.

It makes sense, but what if you try to count down to zero from infinity back to the starting point? But there is something to this infinite ray, and I'll talk about it more down below.

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.

If the universe requires more than 3 dimensions to understand, wouldn't that apply for everything within it? Yes, the Earth is a 3D sphere floating in 3D space, but going BEYOND earth and you end up in 3D space. How do we jump from 3D space everywhere, till we get to the "edge" of the universe, and suddenly we need to introduce an extra dimension to define the universe's boundaries? I'm not saying it's improbable, but in this universe a lot of things seem to be systematic, one way or another, and the addition of a dimension changes the system at a fundamental level.

I like the gravitational field statement. That really makes it seem like were all captives inside this place. (Actually, we are. We haven't even gone too far beyond earth) Whatever is keeping this universe "together", and imagining we could traverse whatever boundary is keeping us in here...what would complete this analogy:

Space:Earth as ______:Universe

That's what I'm still wondering about. It may be that this analogy is wrong, and that the Universe isn't a "container" but more like a light post within an infinite void of nothing.

> 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.

Yes, if we assuming that each "point" on this scale has an infinite scale within its boundaries...this just gave me a new idea: Taking your infinite ray example, it makes A LOT of sense to me, to define our universe as an inverted infinite ray.

The value 0 would be assigned to the physical bounds of this universe, and then you have an infinite ray which describes scaling within the universe, but still allows for our universe to have physical extents. It does contradict the planck value, I don't agree that there is some inherent limit on physical length - space is so far the only constant I've noticed within infinite scaling. It wouldn't matter if our universe was physically a billion lightyears wide, or just a few millimeters - the amount of "data" that could be contained within this space is essentially unlimited due to the scaling effect.

BTW, the book I mentioned above uses the compactness theorem from mathematics to define a new kind of infinity - a huge integer, called H.

I'm gonna look into this H business. It might be able to help me elevate this from concept to theory.

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.

Yes, it is. It also allows for the possibility that the universe isn't separate from anything, rather the "big bang" is just something that happened within a relatively massive "void". I wonder what would be like, if detonated a nuke, but our relative scale to the explosion was on the subatomic level. It might be a lot like what we see now when we look into outer space.

Blouge, your post has been what I was hoping for with this whole thread. See, I already got two fresh, new* ideas just from talking about this with you:

- Use an inverse infinite ray to describe infinite scaling WITHIN our universal bounds, with 0 defining the universal boundaries and the ray "counting" to infinity with negative integers. The ray points to the "center" of the universe, be it physical or theoretical, and the increments are referring to change in scale, NOT distance. This also works in with the big bang theory, which is cool.

- Universe itself may not be an enclosure, rather it can be likened to a bright light post in an infinite void of nothingness. Then again, that void itself may be the universe and there may be something beyond THAT. hahaha...gotta love infinity, things just keep on coming.

*disclaimer: ideas are new to me, not claiming I am the first to think of them.

 

[Blouge]

>I'm gonna look into this H business. It might be able to help me elevate this from concept to theory

Cool. FYI, the infinitesimal value 1/H means there are infinitely many numbers around each real number. For example, Pi - 2/H, Pi - 1/H, Pi + 1.05/H, etc. This group of infinite numbers forms what's called a "monad" around the real number, in this case, Pi. There are no other real numbers within this monad. The monad is adjacent to and touches the next real number's monad. You can define additional lower levels of infinitesimals, such as 1 / (H squared). You can also go in the opposite direction and define additional infinitely large numbers, H squared, H cubed, etc. If those aren't large enough you can use H to the power of H. This is just one form of the branch of mathematics is known as "nonstandard analysis":

http://mathworld.wolfram.com/NonstandardAnalysis.html

"the angle at which the nonstandard analyst looks at the axioms of analysis provides for an average case reduction in complexity that provides shorter proofs of various results, and will one day lead to the proof of a result which is not accessible to classical mathematics without nonstandard methods, precisely because its classical proof is too long to write down in the length of time humans will reside on Earth.

In addition, in the nonstandard analysis community, there is a growing number of results that are not being translated into standard results, because the intuitive content of certain theorems is greater and/or clearer when left in nonstandard terminology."

The infinitesimal numbers were used all the time early on in calculus as they are very convenient. Mathematicians disliked them and eliminated them for a century or two, and tried to stick to "rigorous" mathematics only. It turns out that logic (the compactness theorem) can be used to introduce the infinitesimals and they are rigorous. They are no less valid than these numbers: numbers above three (I believe these are simply lumped together as "many" in some cultures), zero, negative numbers, irrationals, transcendentals, imaginary numbers, and transfinite numbers (ordinal and cardinal).

 

[Blouge]

 

[sao123]

Originally posted by: EricMartello

Exactly... no responce!!


/thread

 

[MrDudeMan]

 

[Blouge]

>>Originally posted by: EricMartello
>Exactly... no responce!!
>/thread

Did you have anything to contribute to the discussion? Or are you just trolling?

 

[sao123]

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?

Read the entire thread much?

I was expecting a responce to my answers to the questions... after all he did complain because i actively ignored them earlier in the thread.

 

[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.

 

[Estrella]

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

What they will teach you in a university which is very general and is typically widely accepted, with varying notation since it is the one area of mathematics where practically everyone has their own.

What you referred to in your link was the limit, as x approaches infinity, 1/x. Limits are not an equality statement. It is what does the number approximate to once you start heading in the given direction to a specific point on a number line(plane, and higher dimensions). And they went to say that informally one over infinity is zero because they know it is an equivalence relationship and not otherwise.

Yes, toddlers are not taught about sets because they are an abstraction. A set, although not the first ever thought of in mathematics, can describe all of it. From sets you can make operations on sets, create relations, mappings(functions), and so on. Symmetry is easily described algebraically(why Descartes was so important).

And your babble about a point. Yes, we all understand what a point is but, most people's conception of a point is wrong. A point is an abstraction to represent one and only specific place. Once you draw a point, on let's say a blackboard, it ceases to be a point; it is a dot that is usually a small circle to the unaided eye.

I can recommend several texts to help you. This is several upon several pages of mathematics which I cannot cover in any sort of depth where many others have said it better than I. Please consult a good text in your studies.

 

[sao123]

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.

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.

 

[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.

 

[blackllotus]

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.

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.

 

[EricMartello]

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

Einstein was looking for a skeleton that just isn't there, or isn't as structured as he had hoped it would be. His ultimate goal was to understand everything, but he failed to consider everything...that includes a lot of things, all in the same thought.

Motion, distance, appearance...things we can sense as humans...are limits. Earlier in this thread, I had people saying things to the effect of "How is everything nothing, if I just wrote this message. It's something!"

The answer, just like the question, is dynamic in nature. Yes, to the person who wrote a message on the computer they can feel and know is "there", it's something...but let's invoke the scale and slide on down to the subatomic level.

Does your computer exist as a computer at that level? Does the message you wrote exist at that level? It does, and at the same time, it doesn't. Futhermore, (still on subatomic level) did anything really change because you wrote that message? Did matter or energy manifest or vanish as a result of your interaction with your computer? The answer here is...maybe.

Just as you can scale infinitely within the universe and beyond, what is important to consider is that everything that "happens", happens along the entire span of the scale, at the same "time". I don't like to say time, but it makes it easier for us to understand.

A little more about time - if we are measuring it, and keeping in mind that what happens on the infinite scale happens simultaneously, it would seem that some things move faster than others. It creates the illusion of motion...but really, nothing is moving.

- Due to the Infinite Scale, so no matter where you "are" on this scale, you never move. This applies to everything, not just us.

- Time does not exist, but we can perceive events occuring at a given rate, due to the fact that the scale is unified - that is, everything on the scale exists within the same 'universe' - things such as motion, time and physical interactions appear to happen (but never actually do).

- They only way to really understand this, is to apply the concept to what you believe to be "real". You may then discover that it doesn't really exist, beyond your own perceptions.

------
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.

You know what, at first the idea of a "digital universe" didn't really seem to mesh with my "Infinite Scaling" idea, but the more I think about it, the more it could actually work. Considering what I wrote above about everything essentially being "static", that would really coincide well with infinite scaling, because for something to be digital you have to have a rigid structure that allows for predictability and repeatability. Naturally, the universe could be infinitely digital, which does work with the concept of infinite scaling.

Now we're getting somewhere!!!

 

[EricMartello]

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.

The notion of time is based on dynamic references, which pretty much kills its existence as a universal component, but not just that, there is no set foundation for time. Units of time are completely arbitrary, furthermore, *existence* does not require time - only we do, because we could not understand or comprehend that everything that can happen, does, and does so simultaneously.

Time does exist as something we can perceive (part of our reality), but it does not exist as a part of the universe - something like "space-time" would fall under the category of "part of the universe".

 

[sao123]

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.

I dont necessarily trust anything written on wikipedia, however as the source for my information... I do however cite Brian Greene's book The Fabric of the Cosmos as a source. Einstein eventually rejected Mach's Principle.

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

18...Citing a 1954 letter written from Einstein to a colleague, which stated "As a matter of fact, One should no longerspeak of Mach's principle at all."

 

[sao123]

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.

 

[EricMartello]

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.

The infinite number line, plane and coordinate space are simplistic examples I presented to help others visualize the concept of infinite scaling. Distance and movement do not exist beyond our perception of them, just as many things do. That's the trick to understanding "everything", I believe. We need to go beyond what we can observe and actually consider everything, not just bits and pieces at a time.

In what you are stating as motion, I am pretty sure that you and most people will be thinking of YOUR apparent motion - you as a human...but when you consider the Infinite Scale, the definition of what "you" are vanishes, because you must consider ALL scales simultaneously when determining "motion". In essence, you really don't move.

If considering the Infinite Scale is a little too much, and for most it is, myself included, then just pick an extreme reference point and try to visualize what happens. I stated this example above, but here it is slightly modified:

You just typed a response to my post, clicked "reply" and it appeared here on this site, which you view with your monitor. From your position on the Infinite Scale, and within your limits of perception, THAT is what happened...and for all intents and purposes, yes "something" happened. Now, try to visualize that same process of replying on the atomic level. If you could "see" what was going on, you would not see anyone typing, you would not see a monitor displaying information and you would not be reading what I am writing. In fact, what we consider "structured information" (the English language) doesn't exist! Once you step outside of your realm of perception, that what which is taken for granted to be "real" becomes very ambiguous. If I existed as a sentient being ON the atomic level, the universe would be a VERY different place to me. If, as that being, I were to create physics theories, they would be very different, if not contradictory to our own - yet we occupy the same "space" in the same "universe". Wow! Think about it.

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.

I don't think it's quite the same theory repackaged, because one of the keys to understanding my theory is to completely bypass the limits human perception. I realize that circumvents scientific method, but I'm pretty sure that I'm onto something here.

 

[Estrella]

"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."-blouge

Nothing that wolfram does not know, just what you do not. They know 1/infinity is 0 as a generalization. They know that using an immeasurable quantity, which infinity is, cannot be calculated. However, we do know that as infinity in R+ goes to infinity+ the limit of 1/x will go to zero. Limits are not equality statements! With operations you must know your quantity. We do not know inifinity to be a definite quantity. I too agree that for a generalization one can say 1/infinity is zero. But, if left just as aforementioned, it would not be sufficient. Kind of like that guy with the sig 0.999999999.......!=1.


Books you requested:
Basic Algebraic Systems by Richard Laatsch
Calculus with Analytic Geomoetry by Howard E. Campbell & Paul F. Dierker
Mathematics: From the Birth of Numbers by Jan Gullberg
Encyclopedic Dictionary of Mathematics (Second Edition) by The Mathematical Society of Japan
Mathematical Methods for Physics and Engineering by K.F. Riley, M.P. Hobson, and S.J. Bence

 

[DrPizza]

Are you referring to my sig? 0.999999...=1!

OP,

I'm gonna look into this H business. It might be able to help me elevate this from concept to theory.

That is one of your problems - you don't understand what "theory" means to scientists.

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.

 

[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.

 

[EricMartello]

Originally posted by: DrPizza
Are you referring to my sig? 0.999999...=1!

OP,

I'm gonna look into this H business. It might be able to help me elevate this from concept to theory.

That is one of your problems - you don't understand what "theory" means to scientists.

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.

 

[Estrella]

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.

Payments may be higher for vehicles garaged in Alaska.

EDIT: OOPS, wrongp copy and paste

I fixed it. I knew I would fvckvp somewhere. Thx

 

[Estrella]

Originally posted by: DrPizza
Are you referring to my sig? 0.999999...=1!

OP,

I'm gonna look into this H business. It might be able to help me elevate this from concept to theory.

That is one of your problems - you don't understand what "theory" means to scientists.

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.

Where is the thread on your sig? Could it not be represented as I put it? "!=" meaning not equals, like in Computer Science.

 

[Estrella]

Originally posted by: EricMartello

Originally posted by: DrPizza
Are you referring to my sig? 0.999999...=1!

OP,

I'm gonna look into this H business. It might be able to help me elevate this from concept to theory.

That is one of your problems - you don't understand what "theory" means to scientists.

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.

After reading half the stuff you put up OP, would you rather argue about philsophy or mathematics?