End of Infinity

Discussion in 'General Philosophy' started by Votorx, Aug 13, 2005.

  1. rr6 Banned Banned

    (O) = Finite....)( = Iinfinite....<> = Infinite.... oo = Infinite

    QQ, first of all my reply above was poorly expressed. So I correted it as follows;

    The only infinities is the;

    1) concepts of infinity, and,

    2) infinite non-occupied space beyond,

    3) our finite occupied space we call Universe of fermions and bosons or any combination thereof.

  2. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement

    to hide all adverts.
  3. Quantum Quack Life's a tease... Valued Senior Member

    A simple way to clear this up is to ask you a few questions to ponder upon:

    How much time is involved in any zero point on a time line?

    How much time does the "NOW", present moment, HSP etc last for?
    How long does any given t=0 last for?
    at t= 0 (duration=0), d = ?
  4. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement

    to hide all adverts.
  5. rr6 Banned Banned

    Time Not Zero

    I thought I laid out my viewpoints fairly clearly.

  6. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement

    to hide all adverts.
  7. Quantum Quack Life's a tease... Valued Senior Member

    well you are going to have to take this up with all the physics guys. cause when they use t=0 they refer to a moment of time that has zero time duration.
    That fact that this is beyond your comprehension as being paradoxical, is not surprising as it is to the Physics guys as well....
    They invented a Planck length just to get past it if I am not mistaken.

    At t=0, distance must = 0

    As according to Einstein/Minkowski space time time is directly related to distance
    The amount of time duration of a HSP at any given moment is zero.
    So at t=0 the universe does not exist unless time duration is greater than zero.
    This is why I stated:
    For an infinite volume to exist time duration must be greater than zero.

    It is only a continuum of movement that allows infinite volume at any given t=0
    This is why "absolute rest" is a big no no. [ even for a Planck length ]
    Then they finally came up with the Uncertainty Principle which was formulated, I believe, in part, as a way of expressing this paradox of t=0 then d=0 and Quantum Mechanics as a field of study and research really took off....

    So in a nut shell,

    Infinite volume is dependent on infinite time [duration]

    If I am not mistaken this is a fact of Einstein/Minkowski space time:

    If "distance" equals infinity then "time" also must equal infinity.
  8. Layman Totally Internally Reflected Valued Senior Member

    t = 0 and d = 0 is nowhere even close to either one of them both being infinity.
  9. Quantum Quack Life's a tease... Valued Senior Member

  10. Layman Totally Internally Reflected Valued Senior Member

    You where talking about when time and distance is infinity by saying that they are both a value that is the farthest from it.

    I don't know if you saw the other thread of the Koch Snowflake. The perimeter is infinity and the area is finite. This was proven mathematically. Without knowing the shape of the universe there are many different solutions that you could find, and t = 0 and d = 0 would be the farthest from it.
  11. rr6 Banned Banned

    "Distnce" + 5 feet not Infinity

    Remember QQ, your initial statements I replied to made rationally logical sense. It was only in the latter half that you made comments that appear to contradict your initial ones in the same post.

    Agreed and I dunno, but I do recall in those early days the research kept giving them infinite answers and infinity - irrational ergo they cannot or could not then deal with irrational infinities, so they invented 'renormalization', so they could deal with them. Feyman may have something to do with 'renormalization'.

    We can have a conceptual distance and a conceptual time. A vector has magnitude( quantity and momentum ) and direction( trajectory ).

    Time and zero are like holy and war. Dichometies or opposites or some other word to say they don't mix in same conceptual rational sentence.

    A volume to me inherently means finite or more specifically clarified as macro-finite volume ergo a finite boundary and finite area within the volume, tho there can be argument made for micro-infinite space within a given macro-finite volume. Fuller allows for micro-infinite occupied space( somethingness ). I do not.

    I allow for micro-infinite non-occupied space, that is why I state the exception above in regards to volume being macro-finite but we can conceptualize a micro-infinite space which really is just a conceptual exercise. imho.
    That I agree with. Energy/physical cannot be created nor destroyed ergo eternally dynamic/motion time existent duastions of this that and the other or any combinations thereof.

    That makes sense, i.e. if they get infinite results then they figure they can never really no for sure what is happening i.e. the can not see or calculate taht whcih they cannot see ergo cannot calculate rationally.
    Personally I believe their infinities lead into ultra-micro state of events/interrelationships called gravitational spacetime.

    So in a nut shell, Infinite volume is dependent on infinite time [duration].

    Ahh, eternal existent = eternally reoccurring of finite time/temporal events as fermions, bosons and gravity or any combination thereof.

    But here again above your convoluting infinite space with eternal time.

    Infinite is to space i.e. infinity is beyond a finite space

    as eternal is to finite time.

    Time exists eternally but we observe it only in discrete quantum events.
    QQ, 5 feet is a distance and it is not infinite. At best we can only argue that the space between the beginning and end at 5 feet can conceptually be stated as having a conceptual micro-infinity, but in no way a macro-infinity.

    Since we live in a finite, physical/energy/occupied space Universe, that has limits of micro-infinite subidvision. Since gravity is the weakest bosonic force, it is presummed and stated by one theoretical scientist( Lee smolin ) that it would take a particle accelator the size of our solar system to every harness enough power to pop-out a graviton from the gravitational spacetime field.

    I believe there is a limit to the ultra-micro size/quantity values that the macro-finite Universe, we subdivide itself as a graviton.

    Lee Smolin predicted humans would quantify--- not quantize ---a graviton by approximately 2015. I believe I know the static shape of a gravition already and that can be extrapolated to a dynamic shape.

    I do not have any idea how to go abut quantifying gravity using geometry.

  12. Quantum Quack Life's a tease... Valued Senior Member

    @rr6, just curious,

    Can I Ask?

    Why do you feel that finite space can not be apart of, or included within infinite space?
  13. river

    Infinity is really about the existence of energy and matter and the consequence and the implications of both non-existing for infinity
  14. rr6 Banned Banned

    Past( causal )-Present( eternal )--future( resultant ) = Time Two Types

    Sure QQ, you can ask me anything. Our finite occupied space( physical/energy ) is emrbaced by--- i.e. surrounded by ---infinite non-occupied space.

    So QQ, the tangent too each other ergo both are included in the more generalized concept of 'space' i..e we have infinite space that is divided into to two catagories at the top of the cosmic heirarchy;

    Infinite non-occupied sapce embracing finite occupied space. This should not be a difficult concept to grasp.

    Had another thought regarding your infinite time as follows;

    Time of Two Types--metaphysical concepts/mind/intellignce and physical/energy/events/phenomena

    Past( causal actions ) - Present( eternal NOW ) - Future( resultant effects )

    Past composed of finite set of event/phenomena( frequency/vibration ) within a given conceptual time line/frame.

    Present( eternal NOW ) --conceptual ergo non-dimensional( ergo zero-0 ) or conceptual dimension

    Future( resultant effects ) -- composed of a finite set of events/phenomena( frequency/vibration ) within a given conceptual time line/frame.

    As I recall, Brian Green in his book " The Elegant Universe" he expressed time as a whole 3D universe, that has been sliced into 2D frames kinda of like freezing framing time of a 3D universe into several 2D sliced frames over time so in sequence, so each 2D time frame is a cross section of the finite whole Universe as an eternal NOW place.

    Your t= 0 or infinity is what I see as the eternal NOW which has no dimension.

    This kind of goes along with ideas of a critical limit where a mass/object/thing is either falling into one system and out of another of vice versa.

    Another way of saying this, is that all vectors of Universe are a trajectory that has some amount of arc/curve in them. Over short enough distances it may become more difficult to ever discern such arc/curve of any trajectory, yet it can be no other way.

    The only other option is the the trajectory oscillates between both systems ergo a zig-zag, but even then there eventual has to bean overall falling into one left or right system. imho

    The critical limit is the equlibrium which we never have for individual phenomena of Universe or Universe in whole. imho

    Equlibrium means no motion, ergo eternal NOW or eternally between left or right ergo no arc/curve trajectory, no charge, no temperature, no color, no mass etc...i.e. Universe and all of its part eternally exist becuase of being disequilbrious oscillations between left-righ, in-out, expand-contract, pos-neg charge etc........

  15. Quantum Quack Life's a tease... Valued Senior Member

    hmmm.. an interesting take on it all...
  16. rr6 Banned Banned

    2D Slice Your Graphic

    Hi QQ, another thought. We could consider your 2D circle in two differrent ways;

    1) the T=0 line between the two tangent curves/acrcs is and edge on view of 2D time frame slice of 3D Universe.

    2) turn your 2D circle graphic 90 degrees so that we are looking at it from on edge,

    in this latter sense it then becomes the t=0 2D plane of existence at the critical limit of being between the past or backwards or obverse<-

    or -> forward, future resultant.

    In some ways your graphic kind of presents what I believe a 2D cross section would like, tho not exactly.

    I see our finite physical Universe being composed of great-circle-like tubes/tori/rings/doughnut, that are tangent on their outer outside convex-like side, to other tori,

    and or tangent on their inner, concave-like side likewise to other tori/rings.

    In this way all rings are tangent so interrelated and specifically related to ultra-micro gravitational spacetime being the ultra-micro, ultra-close packing of gravitonic surface-nodal/events.

  17. benjifrank Registered Member

    I also need regarding it..Some of my friends are also involved in this sector and they are so happy. They've suggested me to join this industry also. Keep sharing it.
  18. river

    Infinity is about the infinite existence of energy and matter

    It has nothing to do with geometry or mathematics

    Since without energy and matter there would be no shapes on which to base geometry or mathematics on
  19. rr6 Banned Banned

    Fabric of The Cosmos

    See Brian Greene's Fabric of the Cosmos for ideas of 2D sliceing-of-time.

    Gravitational spacetime( occupied space ) = fabric/web/membrane/net that surrounds/embraces every ferminoic and bosonic particle and our finite Universe( occupied space ).

    The question becomes, what happens to the graviatation set that embraces the particle, when the particle transforms into another particle?

    ( ) = gravity

    O = particle

    ( O)


    Fading past-----)(---dawning future Fuller quote

    (Y) = 2D slice of as 2D expression of the eternal NOW i.e. a 2D slice of our finite 3D Universe( occupied space )


Share This Page