The universe?

True infinity has no end (on all sides).

If you reverse (dismantle) the proces of infinity you must not come to a border of a set ( eg.: pos. numbers, starting anywhere (eg 10), going up (11,12 - infinity), if you reverse direction at some point eg (2.000.000.000.), your done: you cannot go past 0)
 
english is my native tongue.

now try to follow me here:

i mentioned dark energy. you said "lethe, check out MOND, it accounts for dark energy". i said: "MOND does not account for dark energy, it accounts for dark matter. they are not the same thing." my point was: MOND does not say that dark energy is not required. it says that dark matter is not required.
Click to expand...


ANS: Sorry but you are wrong. Do I need to go find the paper and give you a link?

MOND does deal with dark matter but its conclusion was that it showed Dark energy was no longer required.


dark energy has nothing to do with MOND, MOND never said that dark energy was not required.
Click to expand...

ANS: It sure did. and I will be posting the link to the paper.


now what happened after that?
Click to expand...


:confused:

Knowing to believe only half of
what you hear is a sign of
intelligence. Knowing which
half to believe will make you a
genius.
 
Hello JR. Infinity/2 = infinity. Afraid that such is in conflict with a line of infinite length containing all length.
With respect of your post, even numbers with disregard for odd numbers is sub infinite. There is always another even number after the last even number. Even numbers with regard for odd numbers is half a set of numbers or half a set of numbers less one. An infinity containing an infinity is infinite codswallop. The contained infinity is sub infinite.

Stating wrong as you did with only trumpery justification was puzzling.

Advice. Take in what Procop says about true infinity having no end and then take time out to define inside your self what you believe infinity to be and come back to the discussion about space being finite or otherwise. Digits are not an expression of infinity is what procop is saying. A frog halving successive jumps and jumping half way across a room with a first jump takes an infinite amount of jumps to reach the other side of the room. Integers come into the description of the progression. They do not enter the description of infinity. Its as procop says. If you want to understand the nature of space, work on these sorts things JR. You started off OK by assessing that infinite distance would contain all distance so quite happy to continue with your education. Digits are not an expression of infinity is your lesson for the day.
"It is the mark of an educated mind to be able to entertain a thought without accepting it." - Aristotle. Apply this to your infiinity within infinity thought. Don't rally back trying to pick holes where there wasn't one.



Regards
Leeaus
 
leeaus:

<i>Infinity/2 = infinity. Afraid that such is in conflict with a line of infinite length containing all length. </i>

Afraid you don't know what you're talking about.

<i>With respect of your post, even numbers with disregard for odd numbers is sub infinite.</i>

Wrong. There is an infinite number of even numbers.

<i>There is always another even number after the last even number.</i>

There is no last even number.

<i>Even numbers with regard for odd numbers is half a set of numbers or half a set of numbers less one.</i>

Sloppy language, but maybe.

<i>An infinity containing an infinity is infinite codswallop.</i>

Wrong again. Go and learn some maths.

<i>The contained infinity is sub infinite.</i>

That's a contradiction in terms.

<i>Stating wrong as you did with only trumpery justification was puzzling.</i>

Puzzling if you know no maths.

<i>Advice. Take in what Procop says about true infinity having no end and then take time out to define inside your self what you believe infinity to be and come back to the discussion about space being finite or otherwise.</i>

Thanks, but I don't think I'll waste any more time on this.

<i>If you want to understand the nature of space, work on these sorts things JR. You started off OK by assessing that infinite distance would contain all distance so quite happy to continue with your education.</i>

I'm quite confident I already have significantly more education than you, leeaus.

<i>Digits are not an expression of infinity is your lesson for the day.</i>

I don't recall ever saying they were.

<i>"It is the mark of an educated mind to be able to entertain a thought without accepting it." - Aristotle. Apply this to your infiinity within infinity thought. Don't rally back trying to pick holes where there wasn't one.</i>

There was one, but obviously the explanation went completely over your head.

Never mind.
 
Originally posted by Lethe.
i mentioned dark energy. you said "lethe, check out MOND, it accounts for dark energy". i said: "MOND does not account for dark energy, it accounts for dark matter. they are not the same thing." my point was: MOND does not say that dark energy is not required. it says that dark matter is not required.

Replied by MacM:
ANS: Sorry but you are wrong. Do I need to go find the paper and give you a link?

MOND does deal with dark matter but its conclusion was that it showed Dark energy was no longer required.
Click to expand...
Click to expand...

Go on, please show us all the link.

MOND was developed before the evidence for Dark Energy so never dealt with it. Some one may have adressed the issue later but it is a bolt on idea.

Last I saw a recent Hubble observation provided evidence MOND was incorrect. Could have been CHANDRA though.
 
JR It was requested that you didn’t rally back trying to pick holes where there wasn’t one. Infinity inside infinity is a nonsense.

A line of infinite length would encompass all distance. (leeaus)

Ok so far. Do continue... (JR)

If you cut a line of infinite length in half, each half still has infinite length. (JR subsequently)

Most anyone can see your mind is ticking over with nothing firm or fixed in it about the nature of infinity. Judging from some of the petulance in your last post, you know this as well. The bluster is a give away.

One half of the cut in half in half infinite line is not going to contain the other half is it. Therefore neither half is of infinite length. Your mistake and also your contradiction in mathematical reasoning.

The advice was well intended. Take it. Infinity can only be approached. You treat infinity as existing. Give up on the boasting. Your contradiction puts you well out of your depth. Show a bit of character, admit to your self that you have contradicted your self and move on from there into the world of infinity not actually existing, but being a process of getting to something that doesn't exist. May the better team win the grand final this afternnon.

Regards
Leeaus
 
thed,


MOND was developed before the evidence for Dark Energy so never dealt with it. Some one may have adressed the issue later but it is a bolt on idea.

Last I saw a recent Hubble observation provided evidence MOND was incorrect. Could have been CHANDRA though.
Click to expand...


ANS: I agree with both your statements. I have to acknowldge that I only saw that said in one link of many that I have viewed on MOND. It may not be a valid statement but my point is that it isn't something I made up or misunderstood (which has been implied here) so I will find it and post 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.
 
leeaus:

Take a line marked off with distances, with zero in the centre, positive distances to the right and negative to the left.

This line extends to infinity in both directions from zero.

Cut the line in half at zero. Now you have two halves, both of infinite length, one extending an infinite distance to the right and another extending an infintie distance to the left.

Do you agree?
 
Originally posted by lethe


note that the equations that govern the geometry of the cosmos tell us that flatness is an unstable state for the universe. therefore if there is even the slightest deviation from flatness, then the universe should not stay flat.
Click to expand...

Agree with much of what you say lethe, but why do you suppose flatness is an unstable state?

by "equations that govern" you very likely mean the Friedmann equations

the simplest Friedmann eqn model adjusted to fit the WMAP data uses positive cosmol. const = 0.73

Back in days (pre 1998) when people ordinarily assumed Lambda = 0 then, you are right, zero curvature was not considered stable!

But with a big fat positive Lambda zero curvature is an ATTRACTOR. Even as you and I are speaking, space is getting flatter (if it is not already perfectly flat)

The math explaining why inflation (my sources speak of 60 "e-foldings", not "ten-foldings" but it doesnt matter) flattens space is the same math that applies to the present situation with Lambda a dominant percentage of the total energy density so, if you wish to think of it that way, we live in a new (currently much slower) inflationary era
 
RE:JR

Take a line marked off with distances, with zero in the centre, positive distances to the right and negative to the left.

This line extends to infinity in both directions from zero.

Cut the line in half at zero. Now you have two halves, both of infinite length, one extending an infinite distance to the right and another extending an infintie distance to the left.
Click to expand...



If you had an infinite circle and cut it into two pieces (in the middle) What would you have then? Two infinite halve circles or two infinite full circles?
 
RE: 2inquisitive

Infinite circle is the space which an infinite line needs to turn 180 degrees.
 
Re: RE: 2inquisitive

Originally posted by ProCop
Infinite circle is the space which an infinite line needs to turn 180 degrees.
Click to expand...
=============================================
I still have a problem picturing it in my mind. If a 360 degree circle
were formed, wouldn't it still have to have an "outside" along the
circumference, and thus, not be infinite?
 
Hello JR. The return to non personal interaction is noted.

With respect of your latest post, obviously it is not agreed that distances emanating in opposite directions are each infinite. Such is the crux of the pointed out contradiction of your rationale from a prior Leeaus post.

The direction you now espouse is the idea of negative and positive numbers, not opposite directions of distance emanating from a point in length, width or breadth. (Mathematical rules of + X + = + and - X - = + do not apply to distance. They apply to a concept of real and unreal numbers. Negative number direction towards infinity does not relate to positive number direction towards infinity. Negative numbers are a sub set of positive numbers, not an equivalent or equal and opposite set.)



The earlier given advice was well intended. It is not known as to who you are. However 40 days and 40 nights in the desert to mould your intellect would or should render you anew with respect of considerations about infinity. Or the equivalent thereof.

The main point being missed by the JR persona at this stage is opposite directions mean distance is not an infinite quantity.

Succinctly, the answer to your question is there is not agreement about equal and opposite infinite distances. An infinite distance encompasses all distance. Otherwise it is not infinite distance.

Regards

Leeaus
 
Originally posted by MacM
my point is that it isn't something I made up or misunderstood (which has been implied here)
Click to expand...

I don't think anyone said you made it up. They said you where wrong, possibly based on a good knowledge of what MOND is, or is not. Wrong != made up.

so I will find it and post it.
Click to expand...

Please do. I have been trying to find the paper I read saying MOND was disproved but with little success. Sure I read it on hubblesite.org.
 
RE:2inquisitive

I still have a problem picturing it in my mind. If a 360 degree circle
were formed, wouldn't it still have to have an "outside" along the
circumference, and thus, not be infinite?
Click to expand...


My Statement (from an above entry) (S) was:

True infinity has no end (on all sides).
Click to expand...

let's have a look at it in some detail:

an infinite line does not comply with S (it complies only with its length but it has a not-endless side alongside its length thus 1 d cannot accomnodate infinity as understood in S).

If we take a circle created by turning an infinite line it seems to comply with S in perimeter size but it doesn't comply because its 2 d and its depth must be infinite too thus also 2 d doesn't allow an endless object to exist.

So we come to a 3 d ball. Can it have "an outside" and still be infinite? I do not thing so: we have the concept of curved space to help us out here: there is no outside of our universe and the universe can go on expanding infinitely....
 
leeaus,


The earlier given advice was well intended. It is not known as to who you are. However 40 days and 40 nights in the desert to mould your intellect would or should render you anew with respect of considerations about infinity. Or the equivalent thereof.

The main point being missed by the JR persona at this stage is opposite directions mean distance is not an infinite quantity.

Succinctly, the answer to your question is there is not agreement about equal and opposite infinite distances. An infinite distance encompasses all distance. Otherwise it is not infinite distance.
Click to expand...

:D

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


Good show.
 
thed,

Please do. I have been trying to find the paper I read saying MOND was disproved but with little success. Sure I read it on hubblesite.org.
Click to expand...


ANS: I have also read several papers that challenge MOND.

More than support it.

I guess my point here is that it is getting old to have others claim I can't read, etc.

The actual case is that there is a large volume of differing opinion out there and anyone can post opposite views in the form of claimed science to contridict anyone.

One of the better papers in my mind stated the occomplishments and the current shortcomings and merely said it remains to be seen if MOND can patch the theory. Which is the same thing Relativity is doing.

Knowing to believe only half of
what you hear is a sign of
intelligence. Knowing which
half to believe will make you a
genius.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top