"No, an infinite number of zero sized points added (in one direction) will give a line of finite length."
Based on your response to Pat, Roger: "According to my perception of infinity, the infinite amount of points that will produce no length will be infinity0." the points would overlap - exclusion principle not applying - and there would be no direction, no?
Also, is it feasible that an infinite number of points could be contained within 2 units, or even 1 unit?
"thats all very interesting unfortunatly for me i am not a mathmatician but i would realy like to know how it realates to creation (please)"
Judging from the need for math, Swoarg, I think Roger is attempting to create a new principle for creation based on infinity multiplied by zero; God multiplied by zero equals the finite universe.
"god" multiplied by zero, equals the definition of "god"___Zero...
Lloyd
__________________ "To develop the skill of correct thinking is in the first place to learn what you have to disregard. In order to go on, you have to know what to leave out; this is the essence of effective thinking." Kurt Godel "Time and space are modes in which we think and not conditions in which we live." Albert Einstein "The uncertainty principle is an absolute, finite, universal constant." L.G. "The tick-tick-tick of the cesium atom is a sliding-time-scaler constant of all finite universal motion." L.G.
__________________ "To develop the skill of correct thinking is in the first place to learn what you have to disregard. In order to go on, you have to know what to leave out; this is the essence of effective thinking." Kurt Godel "Time and space are modes in which we think and not conditions in which we live." Albert Einstein "The uncertainty principle is an absolute, finite, universal constant." L.G. "The tick-tick-tick of the cesium atom is a sliding-time-scaler constant of all finite universal motion." L.G.
hi there
thats all very interesting unfortunatly for me i am not a mathmatician but I would realy like to know how it realates to creation (please)
thanks Swoarg
*** Those that contradict creation are evolutionists. However, in my discussions with them they all seem to avoid the question of beginnings: abiogenesis etc. They start with the assumption that there is something then try to explain the development of other things [the universe in a big bang, living beings etc] from that original entity, be it a point, a cell a chimp or whatever.
In discussing infinity and zero and their relation to the finite universe I hope to show mathematically how the finite universe can be derived from these two and that it can be derived only in this manner.
If this is done then in my view that will be proof that there is an infinite being separate and apart from our universe who is responsible for all being we know of in the finite world.
This sounds a lot like the number system that a professor at reading university came up with including the "number" that he defined as nullity. (I don't have a reference, but I'm sure a google search will return a plethora of sites).
*** I developed my theory independent of all however I can't say that there isn't someone who has the same theory or even that they haven't discovered it before I did.
When I mentioned my ideas to my former math professor he said it sounds like a theorem I think he referred to as "The Infinite Value Theorem". I have not yet looked up that theorem either but I will at some time.
Quote:
Who said the universe was finite?>
*** I am alleging that it is from my point of view and my understanding.
Quote:
Well, it is precisely the physics that says you can't do that! The special theory of relativity holds for inertial frames. There is no inertial frame that can travel at the speed of light, so the limit in the equations is precisely that: a limit that cannot be breached. FYI .
*** And I am contending that the physics that says that nothing but a photon can travel at the speed of C or above is incorrect. But even if only a photon can travel that fast then I am saying you must substitute 'c' for 'v' in the equation and that will give the divide zero error unless you adopt the math that I am now proposing.
Further, as I said probably in another thread, in the derivation of that equation Einstein correctly used the terms ( c - v) and (c + v) which is the velocity of light relative to a another particle or inertial frame. He nevertheless contradicted himself by stating that the velocity of light relative to any inertial frame is a constant equal to 'c'.
Unfortunately, when I reached that point in the derivation of the equation for lamda where there was the contradiction I ceased to go further so I cannot at this point tell whether the equation is of any real value to physics.
Quote:
Ok then, think of the sequence where .
*** It makes no difference: the field of infinite numbers relative to the finite numbers is analagous to the y-axis relative to the x-axis. No point on the x-axis (or no x value) is any closer to the y-axis or values than any other point. The y-axis can intersect the x-axis at any point: 0, 1,2...n. In like manner the infinite axis will intersect the finite axis at any point: infinity0 = 0, 1, 2...n.
Quote:
I'm not being dismissive; but if you come up with something new, then it is upon you to prove it; not me to prove/disprove it.
*** I was not asking for proof but information for my own edification.
Quote:
Ok, so the Laplace transform existence theorem goes something like this:
*** Ok, I will look at the link you gave and see if it adequately explains the meaning and use of the theorem. Thanks for the link.
Quote:
Finally, I have no special software for producing the maths; simply use [ math] and [ /math] tags (without the spaces) and type the equations in TeX. There is a thread in the "news and announcements" forum on this, if you are interested.
*** Ok, thanks for the likk again, i will look it up when I have time.
*** I browsed the link but I haven't been able to locate the part that deals with the conditions I quoted.
The conditions I referred to are general conditions of a function that are required to make it suited to the application of the Laplace Transform I think.
"No, an infinite number of zero sized points added (in one direction) will give a line of finite length."
Quote:
Based on your response to Pat, Roger: "According to my perception of infinity, the infinite amount of points that will produce no length will be infinity0." the points would overlap - exclusion principle not applying - and there would be no direction, no?
*** Firstly, there must be no overlap: if you are adding two lines each of length 1 m you will not allow the lines to overlap. The resulting length will be 2 m. The same applies to adding points which are effectivelt lines of zero length.
Secondly, with respect to direction, you need not have length to have direction if that is what you are thinking. So a point can have direction (direction has no magnitude, the magnitude of a vector is unrelated to its direction).
[ Just an aside this might be what the author of The Elegant Universe intends to say when he refers to rolled up dimensions: location and orientation/ direction are parameters that are required in addition to size/ length to fully describe an object in space. Location and direction can be viewed as rolledupdimensions in my view].
Finally, you say " the infinite amount of points that will produce nolength will be infinity0 ". As I hinted to earlier 10 x 0 = 0, 1 x 0 = 0 and 0 x 0 = 0 but 10 x 0 is not equal to 1 x 0 etc. This means that there is a field for the zeros as well.
If the 0 in infinity0 above is 10 x 0 then an infinite amount of these zeros will produce a line of length 10 and so on.
A line of nolength will only be produced if the 0 of infinity0 is 0 x 0. I am sure you can see the point I make here.
Quote:
Also, is it feasible that an infinite number of points could be contained within 2 units, or even 1 unit?
*** For reasons outlined above an infinite number of point laid out 'side by side and touching each other' will produce lines of lengths 2 units, 1 unit etc depending on the values of infinity and zero involved.
[quote] Judging from the need for math, Swoarg, I think Roger is attempting to create a new principle for creation based on infinity multiplied by zero; God multiplied by zero equals the finite universe.[ /quote]
*** This is a very accurate statement of what I am attempting to achieve. Thank you for that.
Linear Mode
