| Topic: |
Science > Physics |
| User: |
"Nick" |
| Date: |
27 Oct 2005 01:04:33 AM |
| Object: |
Infinity a Concept |
The largest and the smallest are just concepts.
.
|
|
| User: "Happy Hippy" |
|
| Title: Re: Infinity a Concept |
04 Nov 2005 12:56:12 PM |
|
|
Nick wrote:
The largest and the smallest are just concepts.
There is no largest or smallest.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Happy Hippy" |
|
| Title: Re: Infinity a Concept |
05 Nov 2005 04:09:55 PM |
|
|
Happy Hippy wrote:
Nick wrote:
The largest and the smallest are just concepts.
There is no largest or smallest.
Not only is the Universe infinite in extent,
at any place in it, it
is infinite in 'depth'.
By this I mean; smaller and smaller structures
are present- to an infinite degree.
Don't try to get it all in your
head at once. Look at it obliquely or it
just makes your head hurt.
John
.
|
|
|
| User: "Ross A. Finlayson" |
|
| Title: Re: Infinity a Concept |
06 Nov 2005 02:08:40 AM |
|
|
Happy Hippy wrote:
Happy Hippy wrote:
Nick wrote:
The largest and the smallest are just concepts.
There is no largest or smallest.
Not only is the Universe infinite in extent,
at any place in it, it
is infinite in 'depth'.
By this I mean; smaller and smaller structures
are present- to an infinite degree.
Don't try to get it all in your
head at once. Look at it obliquely or it
just makes your head hurt.
John
Infinite sets are equivalent.
In the null axiom theory, the ur-element is dually minimal and maximal.
There are no axioms, that's coincidentally all axioms all the time
because it's dually minimal and maximal.
It's kind of like where parallel Euclidean lines on a plane never meet,
in a non-Euclidean sense they do, and in some non-Euclidean sense the
line meets itself and makes a large circle. From zero around to
infinity, that's also negative infinity, or zero, again. That's
similar to a computer microprocessor's register, sequence of bits:
binary digits, with representing either of signed or unsigned
quantities. The square root of negative one is complex.
The universe is infinite, infinite sets are equivalent.
There are smaller and smaller structures, but as you look closely at
one, it gets smaller, it seems.
That has to be made up somewhere. Obviously, classical analysis is
perfect and solves almost every system you can see with your eye or
feel with your hand, or put in your pipe. You should probably carry
some extra fuel than you think you'll need on that 727.
Temperature is measured in Kelvins. They go from zero to infinity, an
unsigned quantity. Less than absolute zero is basically higher than
any finite temperature.
The superstrings of string theory have many characteristics of
mathematical infinitesimals.
It's an SU(NxN) gauge theory.
Ross
--
Ross A. Finlayson
Finlayson Consulting / Apex Internet Software
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "David R Tribble" |
|
| Title: Re: Infinity a Concept |
08 Nov 2005 09:58:28 AM |
|
|
Happy Hippy wrote:
Not only is the Universe infinite in extent,
at any place in it, it
is infinite in 'depth'.
By this I mean; smaller and smaller structures
are present- to an infinite degree.
Then I guess we can just ignore all that stuff about Heisenberg
and the Planck scale.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Happy Hippy" |
|
| Title: Re: Infinity a Concept |
09 Nov 2005 02:17:10 PM |
|
|
David R Tribble wrote:
Happy Hippy wrote:
Not only is the Universe infinite in extent,
at any place in it, it
is infinite in 'depth'.
By this I mean; smaller and smaller structures
are present- to an infinite degree.
Then I guess we can just ignore all that stuff about Heisenberg
and the Planck scale.
No.
I'm saying there are smaller Planck scales.
Our Planck scale sets the limits for *our*
structures. This is why all protons are the same size.
It's like fractals. Same structure. Different size.
Size is relative.
John
Galaxy Model for the Atom
http://users.accesscomm.ca/john/
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "" |
|
| Title: Re: Infinity a Concept |
27 Oct 2005 10:15:56 AM |
|
|
Nick wrote:
The largest and the smallest are just concepts.
Everything in the human mindscape is just a concept.
.
|
|
|
| User: "" |
|
| Title: Re: Infinity a Concept |
28 Oct 2005 01:56:44 AM |
|
|
You are just a concept. then. Let me point this loaded 44 magnum at
your head.
.
|
|
|
| User: "" |
|
| Title: Re: Infinity a Concept |
28 Oct 2005 08:43:56 AM |
|
|
wrote:
You are just a concept. then. Let me point this loaded 44 magnum at
your head.
A head is not an element of the human mindscape, though a model of a
head in the form of a human concept can be. You're confusing the object
that exists outside the mind with its mental image representation
inside the mind.
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "PD" |
|
| Title: Re: Infinity a Concept |
27 Oct 2005 09:45:55 AM |
|
|
Nick wrote:
The largest and the smallest are just concepts.
Yes and no.
It's not obvious, for example, that a space or time dimension may be
modeled by the real number line.
It's not obvious that between any two points A and B in *real* space,
where a distance can be defined between them, there is another point C
between A and B where the distance between A and C is less than between
A and B.
Most physical models today *assume* this is true, but it's not plain
that it IS true, and there are emerging models that assume explicitly
that it is not true.
PD
.
|
|
|
| User: "" |
|
| Title: Re: Infinity a Concept |
27 Oct 2005 08:42:58 PM |
|
|
PD wrote:
Nick wrote:
The largest and the smallest are just concepts.
Yes and no.
It's not obvious, for example, that a space or time dimension may be
modeled by the real number line.
It's not obvious that between any two points A and B in *real* space,
where a distance can be defined between them, there is another point C
between A and B where the distance between A and C is less than between
A and B.
Most physical models today *assume* this is true, but it's not plain
that it IS true, and there are emerging models that assume explicitly
that it is not true.
PD
xxein: While I cannot disagree, some models are more completely
describable within an order.
What this order is, is determined by us and our measurements. But we
do not know whether our measurements can be trusted to be objective, or
are simply subjective, or a mix.
So, I'll ask you to define an objective measurement.
But slightly easier than that, don't you think that G, M, R tells a
different story than what we actually measure? We have to bend time
and distance to comply. And then we have to meld them into a 'theory'.
So what is your best guess?
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Related Articles |
|
|
