The Nature of Infinity

Discussion in 'General Philosophy' started by Magical Realist, Sep 25, 2012.

  1. Grumpy Curmudgeon of Lucidity Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    1,876
    Magical Realist
    No wonder you understand nothing, you can't even understand a simple declarative sentence. "I taught physics for 30 years." does not say anything about my teaching being 30 years ago, now does it? It's a common problem in your posts. And it indicates a certain level of cognitive problems, overall. And all the refresher courses I had to take in those 30 years kept me up to date. Besides, I read all the literature about what's going on in science, especially Astronomy and Cosmology. I may not know it all, but I certainly know much more than you do.

    Cyperium

    Actually, the speeds we are ever likely to reach will not be noticeably faster unless you are the navigator, marking it on a map. When we look through a telescope at long distances the things we see are travelling away from you at some fraction of light speed, but unless you measured the red shift with an instrument you could not see that speed. Only at the furthest distances would the light be noticeably redder. Unless you were travelling at 75% plus you really wouldn't notice the difference, except that your total transit time(subjective)would be less. This effect IS an illusion to the Universe at large, because the only one experiencing the effect is you and it is only subjective to your frame. Even subjectively, you do not see yourself as travelling above light speed, ever. And anyone smart enough to create the craft in the first place would know that it was time dilation, not superluminal speed.

    Grumpy

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

     
  2. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  3. Cyperium I'm always me Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    3,049
    The problem with calling it a illusion is that it is saying that it is not real. But it is real, the rate of your time is slower, so the rate you travel through any given distance during your time is faster. There is no rate of time that is somehow more true than any other. Your perspective is as real as any other, so if you reach a star that is 4 lightyears away in less than 4 years then you can say that you have travelled faster than the objective speed of light. If light had a subjective then it would travel at infinite speed as well, so you can never say that you travel faster than the speed of light as it would be measured by light itself (which would be the only true speed of light, the inherent speed of light).
     
  4. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  5. Grumpy Curmudgeon of Lucidity Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    1,876
    Cyperium

    The time dilation is real, the superluminal speed is not. To the Universe you traversed a distance at slower than lightspeed, no matter what your subjective experience is. Your subjective experience of time's passage still occurs within the timeframe of the Universe at large. And it is you who would experience a change in what you see as you approach lightspeed, and not the Universe. It would be obvious to you that it was you experiencing time dilation, you would not see anything indicating superluminal speed but you would see your speed affecting what you would see. Your subjective experience would be very strange and unusual, something unique to a frame travelling at near lightspeed that you will not see in any other frame. These effects make it plain that it is you who is in the unusual situation, not the Universe. All frames are relative, but not all frames are equally valid, even your subjective experience will make it plain to you that it is your time that is being dilated, not that you are travelling at faster than lightspeed. You will see that you went a distance at less than lightspeed, but you just experienced less time.

    You know, we don't see anything in the Universe larger than some particles travelling at anything close to a significant fraction of lightspeed. That is a situation that is likely to never change. Even the farthest galaxies seen receding from us at a speed approaching lightspeed is an illusion, it is distance growth, not speed through local space. But if you did get near lightspeed the Universe would look very different, making it plain to you that it is you in the unusual situation, that your frame of reference did not have the same validity to the Universe, thus not all frames are equally valid.

    Grumpy

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

     
  6. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  7. river

    Messages:
    17,307
    The Nature of infinity is based on the ability of energy and matter , to exist and the consequence of non-existence

    Mathematics is irrelevant
     
  8. Cyperium I'm always me Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    3,049
    I'm just saying that all frames are valid to themselves, not necessarily to the rest of the universe, but that said any frame is a part of the universe. I just think that it is a bit misleading to call it a illusion, I would rather say that it is a perspective that is only shared within that frame. From all we know the entire Universe is in such a frame of perspective which we all share (except for the unfortunate one travelling near the speed of light - oh how lonely he must be). So to make it clear, I'm not saying that relativity is false in any way, just that all frames are true to themselves. That people have aged four years while you reached the star in two years doesn't really matter to you, it is still true that you have reached it in two years of your own time even if no one else agrees.
     
  9. rr6 Banned Banned

    Messages:
    635
     
  10. rr6 Banned Banned

    Messages:
    635
    Infinite Set NOT

    An infinite set is such irrational nonsense.

    Non-terminating decimal is not infinite is also irrational nonsense.

    Infinite occupied space is irrational nonsense.

    All of these false infinities will need to be 'renormalized' if we to ever have a hope of them becoming rationally logical to larger finite set of humanity. imho

    So many of these so called scientifist or science people repeatedly talk nonsense day in and day out.

    Radio-activity has nothing to do with a radio.

    r6

    [/QUOTE]
     
  11. river

    Messages:
    17,307
    The Nature of infinity is not mathematically based

    It is based on energy and matter , infinite existence

    Any mathematical argument is moot
     
  12. rr6 Banned Banned

    Messages:
    635
    The more I think about the more cool this becomes. The non-occupied, infinite space being shaped, molded from within by the occupied space it embraces.

    This is like the womb expanding-- presumeably ---as the fetus grows, wobbling around as the baby moves and kicks, and then contracts to expel the baby.

    The non-occupied space is the background space. The womb membrane the gravitational space, and the fetus etc...the physical/energy stuff.

    gravitational spacetime contracts--- mass-attraction>IN< ---to expel to whatever ex photons( EMRadiation ).

    Non-occupied space-- true nothingness --- is irrelevant--- and that is how it should be --- tho more area of space is involved than the finite occupied space we call Universe.

    Integrity = finite/integrated/synergistic

    Non-integrity = infinite

    r6
     
  13. river

    Messages:
    17,307
    Irrelevant to the discussion
     
  14. rr6 Banned Banned

    Messages:
    635
    tori/ring clusters and macro-micro-infinite space

    One of the questions in these regards, is whether the macro-micro infinite non-occupied space, every gets between the parts of our occupied space

    If we have an occupied space, that can be represented by many tori/rings, that are all connected-- at least tangentally --- to at least one other tori/ring, in a type of complex pretzel-like cluster, can there exist macro-micro infinite space between some of this tori/rings?

    (( )) = tori/ring

    * = stuff/content

    (*( SPACE )*) = tori/ring as a solid i.e. the tube is stuff ergo quasi-solid tube/tori/ring scenario and we have space between the inner surface of toroidal tube/ring.

    SPACE (*( SPACE )*) SPACE ergo macro-micro infinite, non-occupied space, surrounds and embraces the toroidal tube.

    Then we have to ask ourselves, can the toroidal tubes expand contract, and if so, what is the mechanism that phenomena. Multiplication-by-division is one possibility.

    Another-- that may be related to multiplication-by-divsion ---is that the stuff/content, moves to the surface so that the diameter of the tube-- not the overall tori/ring ---becomes more narrow i.e. less volume/stuff/content inside the tube, and accumulates as the surface of the tube.


    (*.*( )*.*) i.e. here we have a toroial tube/ring with overall diametric value of 10. Inside we see the content/stuff inside the tube. If all that stuff divides and becomes the surface of the tube ex;

    (( )), perhaps the overall diameter of the torodial tube now has a value of 20 instead of 10 so the torus has expanded its overall diameter, by the stuff, subidiving and moving to the surface. Perhaps as quasi-physical gravity as ultra-high surface tension, because so much is now packed into a more narrow if not 2D like surface or surface only content.

    The nature of infinity is that it is moot, irrelevant our finite, occupied space we call Universe.

    r6
     

Share This Page