# The universe?

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

1. ### MacMRegistered Senior Member

Messages:
10,104
Persol,

Bullshit. Put this on your list. If the line has a starting point it cannot be infinite because I can always move the starting point 1 mm further away and add to it. You would now have infinity + 1mm.

Nice show top knotch scientist.

Knowing to believe only half of
what you hear is a sign of
intelligence. Knowing which
half to believe will make you a
genius.

3. ### PersolI am the great and mighty Zo.Registered Senior Member

Messages:
5,946
Good show of you lack of understanding of what 'infinity' means.

If I have a line that starts at 0, ang goes in one direction forever, how long it that line?

inifnity+1 is still infinity. No problem here. Just because you can add/subtract from something doesn't mean it isn't infinite.

Poor attempt Mac.

5. ### MacMRegistered Senior Member

Messages:
10,104
Lethe and Ryans,

http://www.nature.com/nsu/030630/030630-7.html

ANS: Just as predicted by UniKEF.

Persol,

ANS: See above: "Ditto" in spades. How is the shoe leather tasting?

Try some more:

Also from this same link in other articles:

Also suggested in UniKEF.

Also suggested in UniKEF.

Knowing to believe only half of
what you hear is a sign of
intelligence. Knowing which
half to believe will make you a
genius.

Last edited: Sep 28, 2003

7. ### PersolI am the great and mighty Zo.Registered Senior Member

Messages:
5,946
Wow, ONCE AGAIN making a baseless claim that you can't backup. At least you are consistent.

Flat out, what would the length of a line that goes on forever in one direction be? You don't have an answer, because the answer is 'infinity'.

8. ### AndersHermanssonRegistered Senior Member

Messages:
334
There are other ways of defining infinite. I found this on the web.

1. Bigger than any natural number N.
2. The length of a line extended indefinitely.

As you can see, the second definition also satisfies the first.
Most will agree on this.

9. ### MacMRegistered Senior Member

Messages:
10,104
Persol,

ANS: Wrong. To bad you have such a limited vision.

Please show us anywhere that it is stated that a line which has a starting point can be infinite.

What no comment on the physics articles?

Knowing to believe only half of
what you hear is a sign of
intelligence. Knowing which
half to believe will make you a
genius.

10. ### PersolI am the great and mighty Zo.Registered Senior Member

Messages:
5,946
Wrong. To bad you have such a limited vision.
You will notice that the people on this board who actually understand science will actually attempt to give reasons for why something is wrong.... while you just assume you are right, and just end up digging your own grave by saying stuff which you have no backup for.

Please show us anywhere that it is stated that a line which has a starting point can be infinite.
infinity + r = r + infinity = infinity

This talks about finding the initial point of an infinite line.

Just because you have an inifnite line, doesn't mean it can't have a border. The 'infinite' in 'infinite line' refers to the length. You have yet to show me how a point that starts at 0 and goes on forever is a length besides infinity. Even more simply, the notion of -infinity and +infinity exist to say you can start at a point and go an inifnite distance in a direction... thus having an infinite line. Once again, reading up on some integration would make this clear.

What no comment on the physics articles?
Do you think I still take time to read through anything you post with regards to UniKEF anymore? Purely from your quotes listed, they contradict you arguments that the chiral condensate was everywhere. But, I'm not addressing any more of your UniKEF posts, as you try once again to spread the garbage to another thread.

11. ### 1100fBannedRegistered Senior Member

Messages:
807
Infinity is not a number, How do you perform infinity + 1 mm?

12. ### ProCopValued Senior Member

Messages:
1,258
re 1100f

Basic charasteristics of the number is being comparable to other numbers:

infinity > 1 proves infinity to be a number 'cause 1 is a number.

13. ### PersolI am the great and mighty Zo.Registered Senior Member

Messages:
5,946
Re: re 1100f

I disagree. Being compared to a number, doesn't make something a number. Numbers are originally for counting. Inifnity it not. Also, inifnity follows almost none of the rules that apply to numbers. Infinity is most certainly a CONCEPT, as it's main use is in determining limits.

http://www.kuro5hin.org/story/2003/6/3/95744/71866

14. ### ProCopValued Senior Member

Messages:
1,258
RE Persol

Thanks for the (nice) link but I do my own reasoning. It would help me though if you would provide some examples of non numbers that can be compared to numbers.

15. ### PersolI am the great and mighty Zo.Registered Senior Member

Messages:
5,946
Well the first to mind is NULL. It is comparable to null in the same way as infinity. Yet is is the anti-thesis of a number (when used in math).

You could define a 'number' so that it includes infinity/null... but considering that they follow almost none of the rules a number (what math defines as a number) follow, it seems pointless to redefine 'number'. Nothing is changed by making infinite a number, and it requires redefinition of our mathmatical rules.

On a simpler sense, like I've said before, numbers are for counting/etc. You can not use infinity for this.

16. ### MacMRegistered Senior Member

Messages:
10,104
1100f,

ANS: You don't, that is why an infinite line cannot have EITHER a starting or ending point which could be added to or another finite line started or even a dot placed after it.

Knowing to believe only half of
what you hear is a sign of
intelligence. Knowing which
half to believe will make you a
genius.

17. ### MacMRegistered Senior Member

Messages:
10,104
Persol,

ANS: Talk is cheap and easy, I suggest you do the same. Talk about me not understanding Relativity, algebra, trig or geometry is nothing more than cheap talk.

I admit I do not do calculus (even though 40+ years ago I did some) but calculus is not required to have a sound understanding of principles and all the claims here otherwise is just BS.

ANS

ost the link. And if it says that then it is wrong by definition "Infinity" is larger than any number. It logically therefore cannot have an end or starting point which I can add to.

ANS: I just did. Wake up and stop spouting BS.

ANS: I don't need to read further than the definition of infinity. The rest is BS.

ANS: I knew you would cut and run when the going got tough.

Hard to explain how a Crackpot, with nuclear engineering, that can't do simple math, etc., has forseen so many new truths isn't it. Sort of makes all your BS attacks a bit awkward to explain.

In many many many ways my understanding has been and is superior to your pushing a pencil around doing calculus on such an ill concieved concept that you have.

As I have said many times math can define reality but it can't create it. You like to try and create reality and argue because you can show it mathematically it must be so. That is just plain stupid.

Math is a tool of science, it is not science in-of-itself. I have what you and many other here lack. the ability and common sense to see the forest through the trees and reject that which is clearly not mandated in favor of more reasonable conclusions which also still fit observation.

Knowing to believe only half of
what you hear is a sign of
intelligence. Knowing which
half to believe will make you a
genius.

Last edited: Sep 28, 2003
18. ### MacMRegistered Senior Member

Messages:
10,104
Persol,

We actually agree on something. The disagreement becomes when lyou attempt to turn infinity into something in physical reality. It isn't, it can't be by definition and doing so distorts reailty into pseudoscience which you seem to like to follow to the ends of the wacky extrapolations.

Your reality is based on a failure to limit the use and concept of infinity.

Knowing to believe only half of
what you hear is a sign of
intelligence. Knowing which
half to believe will make you a
genius.

19. ### PersolI am the great and mighty Zo.Registered Senior Member

Messages:
5,946
Originally posted by MacM
ANS

ost the link. And if it says that then it is wrong by definition "Infinity" is larger than any number. It logically therefore cannot have an end or starting point which I can add to.

By definition, something that goes on forever is larger then every number, regardless of where it starts. You should also understand that underlined words are links, and that the link was already posted. Finally, you should understand that regardless of how you 'think' infinity should be defined, it already is.

Persol: You have yet to show me how a point that starts at 0 and goes on forever is a length besides infinity.
MacM: I just did. Wake up and stop spouting BS.

No, you didn't. You have a line that starts 'here' and goes in 'that' direction forever. What is it's length? All you said is that it isn't infinity, but it is. Infinity is that sequence which never ends. Such as, if I divide 10 apples into piles of 0 apples each, how many piles can I make... an infinite number. You can add one to infinity, but you still have infinity. Adding to it has no meaning because it just keeps going anyhow.

Hard to explain how a Crackpot, with nuclear engineering, that can't do simple math, etc., has forseen so many new truths isn't it.

LMAO. Nice attempt to change the subject. Note that the article does not agree with UniKEF, but mearly suggests a different reason for expansion. It has nothing to do with aether, pushing gravity, or geometric effects. Everybody knows that something is needed to explain the effect. We also all know that UniKEF isn't it. You haven't 'foreseen' this 'truth' more than anyone else. First, it was widely known that something is needed to explain expansion. Second, nobody is claiming this is the 'truth', as it is currently only an option. They even state that the modifications they add could be do to any number of different effects.

In many many many ways my understanding has been and is superior to your pushing a pencil around doing calculus on such an ill concieved concept that you have.

Lol, but you are unable to demonstrate any of those ways? Are you going to try and tell us you understand reality better again?

As I have said many times math can define reality but it can't create it. You like to try anc create reality and argue because you can show it mathematically it must be so. That is just plain stupid.

You still don't get it do you? Math and science aren't meant to define reality, but to predict observations. If they do this, then mission accomplished. If not, then you look for the error. The first step to look for the error must be to understand the theory. You just skip this step.

Edit: spelling

Last edited: Sep 28, 2003
20. ### MacMRegistered Senior Member

Messages:
10,104
Persol,

Yes thanks for the link. It clearly demonstrates your lack of understanding about the subject you claim you are so excellent at.

From your post above regarding an infinite line:

So please stop posting these inappropriate applications of infinity and claiming you know what you are talking about. Infinity cannot be used as a measure of a line which has an end point at either end.

Knowing to believe only half of
what you hear is a sign of
intelligence. Knowing which
half to believe will make you a
genius.

21. ### PersolI am the great and mighty Zo.Registered Senior Member

Messages:
5,946
Originally posted by MacM
Your reality is based on a failure to limit the use and concept of infinity.
Have I ever claimed infinity actually exists? No. I've even stated several places that it can not, by definition, be observed. Inifnity is a concept that it used in itself as a border. You'd understand better if you understood limits.
http://calculus.freehomepage.com/cal015.htm
These uses are what infinity are for in science. If you think that we use them for some other purpose then you are mistaken.

Pay particular attention to the 'one-sided limits' section.

22. ### PersolI am the great and mighty Zo.Registered Senior Member

Messages:
5,946
Originally posted by MacM
Yes thanks for the link. It clearly demonstrates your lack of understanding about the subject you claim you are so excellent at.
You could at least attempt to read the link you idiot. The section you pulled the quote from was about repeating n=n+1 forever to get the set of real numbers. It was not in relation to infinity.

Funny how you have yet to answer my question. What is the length of the line?

23. ### MacMRegistered Senior Member

Messages:
10,104
Persol,

ANS: Show where I have ever said anything different.

ANS: So they say infinity cannot originate from a negative position.

ANS: And I say it cannot originate from any point. In the link they also said it is a concept where x approaches infinity but never reaces it. So your line is not infinite.

ANS: You should try reading, better yet understanding, your own references. "Forever" is not a term applicable to infinity. So stop making up your own rules and argueing about them with others.

As stated therein such graphs "Approach" infinity. They are not infinite. There is a difference. This isn't horseshoes where close counts.

Try again. But this time try to be honest not deceptive in your claims of knowledge.

Knowing to believe only half of
what you hear is a sign of
intelligence. Knowing which
half to believe will make you a
genius.