The universe?

Discussion in 'Physics & Math' started by god-of-course, Sep 20, 2003.

  1. MacM Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    10,104
    James R.,

    This is not an arguement for or against either view but more of a question.

    I still tend to see this issue as a function of interpretation of the precise meaning of the definition. I understand that mathematicians accept your interpretation but I see nothing in writting that explicitly addresses this alternative interpretation over common language meaning which would prohibit that interpretation.

    My question becomes this.

    Assuming for a moment that the general interpretation were invalid and a clarification or mandate were issued that the strictest interpretation by common word usage became imposed in infinity which resulted in a Ray or line which has a starting point were discounted as being infinite.

    What impact would that have on physics in general? Could not some other term other than infinity be crafted, i.e. - some astronomical arbitrary number based on where n is the largest finite number being considered such as n^1,000 be substituted for infinity used in calculus limits that would still sufice for the purpose of mathematics?

    Knowing to believe only half of
    what you hear is a sign of
    intelligence. Knowing which
    half to believe will make you a
    genius.
     
  2. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  3. malkiri Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    198
    You're certainly entitled to your opinion.

    If infinity exists in terms of a number, then feel free to tell us what that number is.

    I didn't compare zero and one. I compared one and infinity. You tried to argue as follows:
    I'm telling you that just because you'll never reach infinity doesn't mean it doesn't exist.

    I'm trying to show you that your reasoning is superficial and essentially meaningless because it can apply to values other than one. If you assume your reasoning is accurate and I apply it to 2, then that means 'all numbers are contained in 2' as well.

    An odd interpretation of 'integrity.' Then are we to assume 2 is infinity? That would at least answer your question about whether it's even or odd.
    I am addressing the question. I'm telling you that there is no concrete number at which infinity begins.
     
  4. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  5. geodesic "The truth shall make ye fret" Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    1,002
    No, no one wants to call any number of the form x/y irrational, as long as x and y are rationals in their lowest form.

    This will probably be my last post, becase if this doesn't work, nothing will - here is a proof that an infinite number of objects does not necessarily mean all objects

    Take all integers from 1 to infinity
    apply to them the formula (-1^n)*(n+(-1+(-1^n))/2)/2
    This forms the sequence 0,1,-1,2,-2,3,-3...etc.
    Check this on a spreadsheet if you're not sure

    Anyway, this formula shows a one-to-one correspondence between the positive integers to infinity, and all integers from minus infinity to infinity. Therefore, it shows that a set of numbers that does not contain all numbers can be infinite.

    As a less algebraic proof, we take that the integers are infinite, and that the rationals are infinite. BUT the rationals contain the integers, an infinite set, yet not all rationals are infinite.

    Leeaus, either you can see that this is an irrefutable proof, or else you should stop talking about things you don't understand.
     
  6. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  7. thed IT Gopher Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    1,105
    Give in now, It's easier.
     
  8. chroot Crackpot killer Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    2,350
    You smart folks would be welcome over at www.physicsforums.com, where the moderators actually actively get rid of these kinds of crackpots so that meaningful discussion (not 26 pages of rambling bullshit) can take place.

    - Warren
     
  9. leeaus Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    265
    Hello Malikiri

    The concept of infinity exists in terms of numbers if you allow that a human being gets tired of counting. Otherwise forget it. To an auto counter, the finite never ends. leeaus

    If infinity exists in terms of a number, then feel free to tell us what that number is. Malikiri

    The definition of infinity if it exists has been referred to on this thread several times. Infinity: An unbounded quantity greater than every real number...

    They are the terms. It was all there before you.

    I'm telling you that just because you'll never reach infinity doesn't mean it doesn't exist. malikiri

    Acquaint your self with a mirage.

    I'm trying to show you that your reasoning is superficial and essentially meaningless because it can apply to values other than one. If you assume your reasoning is accurate and I apply it to 2, then that means 'all numbers are contained in 2' as well. malikiri

    It means your 2 was really 1.

    There is no "last number before infinity." If there was such a number, there would be a value that's 2 greater than that, and thus greater than infinity. Infinity is by definition greater than all numbers. It again makes no sense to ask this sort of question. malikkiri

    If you analyze this with integrity, 1 is the last number before infinity. You are not addressing the question of where the finite gives way to the infinite. (leeaus)

    An odd interpretation of 'integrity.' Then are we to assume 2 is infinity?

    Malikri going the wrong way to satisfy a prejudice in favour of the existence of infinity. “Then we assume that infinity only exists as a progression of finite numbers” is what you should have stated.

    (The last number before infinity is finite. Any number that follows a finite number is a finite number. Therefore the number that follows the last number before infinity is finite.
    Thus we are force to conclude that infinity only exists as a progression of finite numbers.)

    Regards
    leeaus
     
  10. leeaus Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    265
    Hello Geodisic
    The confusion between distance and numbers needs avoiding. It you want the reasons happy to give.
    Regards
    leeaus
     
  11. leeaus Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    265
    Hello CHroot

    The question of whether or not space is finite or infinite is a genuine question. Agreed about the rambling.

    Regards
    leeaus
     
  12. chroot Crackpot killer Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    2,350
    This thread has nothing to do with the finiteness of space, you fuckwit. When I read your half-digested drivel, I alternate between wanting to laugh and wanting to punch you in the throat.

    - Warren
     
  13. leeaus Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    265
    Hello Chroot

    Doubt if you would be the best advert about for your alternate physics forum.

    This thread has nothing to do with the finiteness of space

    If length is finite, then obviously space is also finite.
    There is no empirical evidence of anything infinite. It is all just assumption.

    Logic supports the universe being within finite length, width and breadth.

    JRs proof wants both zero space and infinite space to exist.

    Bother are entirely unobserved and unobservable concepts.

    Finite space, though, is going to be the b all and end all if the sections of a divided length are necessarily finite on account of neither section encompassing all distance.

    Each dimension represents length and each dimension intersects the other two, pretty straight forward that space is finite.

    You should be neither chuckling or pharynx punching when viewing a forum like this. You should be thinking.

    Regards

    leeaus
     
  14. geodesic "The truth shall make ye fret" Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    1,002
    Please, go ahead, I'm just through laughing at your homepage.
     
  15. ProCop Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    1,258
    Re chroot

    Ever heard of brainstorming?
     
  16. 1100f Banned Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    807
    Re: Re chroot

    brainstorming is when people talk about something they understand.
    I remind you for example the the definition of rationnal numbers is that a rational number isobtained by the ratio of two rationnal numbers. If someone tells you that 1/3 is an irrationnal number, then you cannot do brainstorm with him. Let him first go and learn primary school definitions.

    Last post from me on this stupid thread.
     
  17. leeaus Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    265
    Hello Geodesic.

    Distance is always 1 unit. Numbers get into ideas of numbers beyond 1, parts of numbers and all sorts of non descript stuff.

    When the question is about the possibility of infinite distance, numbers and ideas about numbers only serve as red herrings. One unit of distance can be a billion light years, whatever you want, but whatever finite distance you describe it is one finite unit.

    By now you can see how JR used numbers to represent distance in his proof. Which may or may not be OK but it means that all his proof says is an infinite set of points is his infinite distance.

    The addition of two finite distances was immaterial to what he was saying.

    If he had of said of it like it is without the numbers subterfuge, it is quite easy and non argumentative to see he was just saying infinite distance exists because of the suspected truth of the series 1,2,3 …… infinity.

    You understand now why numbers are not useful to the question of whether or not infinite distance exists.

    Regards
    leeaus
     
  18. leeaus Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    265
    Hello 1100f

    This what leeaus defined as an irrational number.

    An irrational number occurs when you divide an integer by another integer and the answer keeps on going.

    If leeaus had of thought about it a little more he may have given a more precise answer.

    If you are having trouble differentiating between numbers with distance you are probably best off out of this thread anyway.

    Alternatively tell us what irrational numbers have to do with distance.

    Regards
    leeaus
     
  19. gMan Registered Member

    Messages:
    21
    I see you ppl have argued over 25 long pages over infinity and still cant get to a point. Interesting to read but seriously u guys need to chill and puff :m: that way youll think better

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

    . I have to agre some terminology and mathematics that you use i cant grasp but everyone keeps biting around the bush

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

    .
     
  20. geodesic "The truth shall make ye fret" Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    1,002
    (Deep Sigh)

    NO, this is called a rational number. An irrational number cannot be represented by dividing one integer by a second integer. That is the definition.

    The important thing about an irrational number, is that it has no exact decimal value, ie an infinite number of digits after the decimal point, and that there is no pattern to the digits after the decimal point.

    If you are going to continue on this thread, please note that Maths is an exact science, so if you're going to be using these fuzzy, changing definitions if and when they suit you, maybe you should stop pretending to be intelligent.

    I'm not sure I understand your claim about distance, Leeaus. I agree that all distances are equal to 1 unit, as long as you don't compare any of the distances, and you define a 'unit' as the length of any object. If we make comparisons, then what does your system say?

    Also, doesn't your system mean that all vector quantities have magnitude 1?:bugeye: You must have passed out during that maths lesson.
     
    Last edited: Oct 21, 2003
  21. malkiri Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    198
    That's not a number, that's a definition. If you agree that that definition is accurate, then I fail to see how you can think you can express infinity 'in terms of numbers.' Any number you express it as will be less than some other number.

    I'm aware of mirages. Infinity is not one, as you can never reach it, and it doesn't disappear the further you move towards it.

    I say it means your 1 was really 2, 3, 4, and any other number you can conceive. Not because of some magical property of 1, but because of a basic failing in your reasoning.

    I only went in the direction you pointed me. You were the one who said '1 is the last number before infinity.' If this is the case, then certainly 2 is infinity, and 3 is greater than infinity.

    Only in your mathematics. In the accepted system of mathematics, there is no 'last number before infinity,' so your argument fails at the first step.
     
  22. geodesic "The truth shall make ye fret" Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    1,002
    What's the circumference of a circle with radius of length 1 unit?
     
  23. lethe Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    2,008
    this thread now has the highest number of replies and of viewings of any thread in the physics and math forum. i am disappointed. it really shows that the crackpots are not the real problem on this forum. keep up the good work.
     

Share This Page