Desription and arguement - el Infinite

now we are talking....hmmm creative synergy....is this not what all good discussions are about afterall?

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

Shall do...

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

Quantum Heraclitus:

I'm all about the thesis, antithesis, and synthesis, GWF Hegel stylez!

Representin' German Idealism!

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

Quantum Heraclitus:

How does this follow precisely?

I'm not really grasping the mechanism behind your argument.

 

Take a three dimensional sphere and think about it with the application of infinitesimal as you minimum size.
Magnify the sphere infiniitely and what do you get?
A cavity of zero must be formed in three dimensional spacetime.

 

the volume of the cavity can be expresed as a ratio of the infinitesimal, quite easilly I think...ahh! one day I am going to learn this new "language" called mathematics.

 

Basically, this cavity emerges because you say that an infinitesimal stops the cones?

 

maybe one of the math guys would like to offer some input at this point?

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

 

essentially yes as the infinitesimal must be greater than zero and in 3 dimensional space time this leaves us with a problem. A cavity must be formed.

In 2 dimensions this is not a problem such as when you talk about time and distance a cavity is not the outcome.
But in 3 dimensional substance or mass this poses as the only outcome I think although I have only been pondering a short while on it...

 

so guess what PJ .... we have just discovered "absolutely nothing"...if we subscribe to the infinitesimal.
Congratulations....champagne any one....

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

 

now there's a freebee if i ever saw one...ha

 

The problem with this theory that immediatly jumps to mind is this:

The supposed sphere of nothingness would have a spatial value. This is itself contradictory and also implies that you're making a spatial value beneath infinitesimal, which again attacks the defition of infinitesimal. If it is the smallest possible, then you cannot speak of further division.

Furthermore, in your picture of the infinite, you do not permit values greater than infinity. As such, if the two are the same, you ought to have the same "nothingness" popping up above infinity.

 

shit man I am not the one who is pushing the infinitesimals reality...you are...hey...don't blame me if 3 dimensional geometry has to be followed.

 

wow and that would be one hell of a big inverse particle yes? By golly.....please excuse the humor..it has been a tough day....
again it is not I that subscribes to the infinitesimal......so I am not responsible for it's outcomes.

 

If I take a cube that is hollow that has the sides size as infinitesimal^2, how much volume must the inside of the cube be?

 

if we can get some maths happening for our sphere I think we may be in for a really ironic surprise....hmmmmm does the figure pi have anything to do with it...just a hunch...mind you

 

Quantum Heraclitus:

It most certainly would be a very big inverse particle.

But let's phrase it like this: There is NOTHING beyond infinity. There is NOTHING smaller than infinitesimal.

The latter describes your system of "sphere o' nothingness" beneath infinitesimal. The former provides the proper basis, if we are going to start talking about spheres of infinitesimal nothingness, for revisiting your infinity cones.

1 infinitesimal. 1 * 1 * 1 = 1. We're going to assume "1" works okay for this, as infinitesimals don't have a numerical value like that. I think that is fair, as "1", in terms of the positive whole numbers, does represent the smallest value above 0.

Let's see....

Volume of a sphere = 4/3 * pi * r^3

The radius of the sphere would be infinitesimal.

Soooo....

4/3 * 3.1415 * 1

4/3 * 3.1415 = 4.18866...

So the sphere's volume is not infinitesimal if the radius is infinitesimal.

 

I'll be back later.

 

careful, The infinitesimal applies to the inner surface of our cavity and not necessarilly the radius or diameter.

 

Quantum Heraclitus:

You mean its volume?

A sphere with a volume of nothing is not a sphere. Spheres have volumes. This is tantamount to asking "what is a square that has no corners?"

This isn't the case, as we are once again dealing with a question of trying to divide the indivisible. You are asking once again "what is North of the North Pole"?

If this comes out to be so, we've certainly happened upon a serendipitious discovery.

I'm not seeing it, no. As again, my objection is that you're not applying the same principle to your infinite cones as to your infinitesimals, and that you are asking for disibility of the indivisible.