Ben Dhyan
Veteran Member
So are you saying that infinity can be quantified?
-
Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:- Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
- Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
- Access to private conversations with other members.
We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!
Quantum equation predicts universe has no beginning
- Thread starter Ben Dhyan
- Start date
- Status
Singularities occur in applied and pure mathematics quite independently of physics. Division by zero, for example. It isn't a geometric concept. Like most of mathematics, one can give geometric interpretations to many singularities, but this no more makes it "geometrical" than "volume" does iterated integrals.
...and you're done. Or you can try whatever you think you are saying to the singularity they create:
Or you can try your hand at "invert[ing] the terms" of the original singularity
(their solution)
It has been in more than one way. Again, context. The singularities (infinities) that the paper your link is based on are not all of the same kind, and singularities are perhaps the most trivial encounters with infinities. Not only can infinities be quantified in some contexts, but we can prove (actually, it was proven by Cantor well-over a century ago) that the infinities required in e.g., quantum physics are "larger" (have infinitely more elements/members/numbers/etc.) than the rational numbers (and the integers, and the counting numbers, etc.). Cardinality is one way to quantify infinities, but not the only way.
Gerald Kelleher
Active Member
You know, dealing with the relativists 20 years ago was a lot of fun but once I saw Albert's reason for 'warping space' I just couldn't take them seriously anymore much like Sibylline oracular pronouncements where a person is supposed to derive something meaningful where there isn't any. A game of sorts.
In an incredible two paragraphs ,written before stellar islands called galaxies were observed, it would look like an assault on the eyes for somebody living in the 21st century but again, the empirical clergy will weigh in with their own interpretation even though it is unintentionally hilarious or spectacularly naive -
"This view is not in harmony with the theory of Newton. The latter theory rather requires that the universe should have a kind of center in which the density of the stars is a maximum, and that as we proceed outwards from this center the group-density of the stars should diminish, until finally, at great distances, it is succeeded by an infinite region of emptiness. The stellar universe ought to be a finite island in the infinite ocean of space.
This conception is in itself not very satisfactory. It is still less satisfactory because it leads to the result that the light emitted by the stars and also individual stars of the stellar system are perpetually passing out into infinite space, never to return, and without ever again coming into interaction with other objects of nature. Such a finite material universe would be destined to become gradually but systematically impoverished."
Chapter 30. Cosmological Difficulties of Newton’s Theory. Einstein, Albert. 1920. Relativity: The Special and General Theory
Just funny and no further comment is necessary
Ben Dhyan
Veteran Member
I understand what you mean...not all people can detach from the mortal perspective of reality..That's more of a philosophical question. All I can say is that if you drop a brick on your foot it will hurt.
FearGod
Freedom Of Mind
Unimaginable the size of the space that was expanding for billions of years and what is beyond it, IOW what kind of reality beyond our universe,it is even hard to guess.
Ben Dhyan
Veteran Member
You talk of infinities....there can only be one infinity! We are talking about the infinite Cosmos...
Sort, of but without the "invert the terms" nonsense:
"Black holes are the only stellar objects that survive the dilapidation enforced by proton decay, and they inherit the universe during the subsequent Black Hole Era. In the darkness of this future epoch, the radiation produced by black holes through the Hawking mechanism powers the universe. As the black holes shine, they also lose mass, and must eventually evaporate. The largest black holes live the longest. But after 10^100 years, all of them will have made their explosive exits, and the universe changes its character once again.
After the black holes are gone, no stellar objects of any kind are left to light up the skies. Only the leftover waste products from the previous eras remain, and the universe slides into its Dark Era. The cosmic inventory is now extremely sparse, containing electrons, positrons, neutrinos, Dark Matter particles, and photons of stupendously long wavelengths. In the Primordial Era, the universe contained no stars – only particles – because it was too hot and too young. In the DarkEra in our distant future, the universe again has no stars – and only particles – because it is too cold and too old. These endpoints frame the story of our universe: Instead of evolving from ashes to ashes, or dust to dust, the cosmic timeline runs from particles to particles."
Adams, F. C. (2012). The Future History of the Universe. In Cosmic Update: Dark Puzzles. Arrow of Time. Future History (Multiversal Journeys) (pp. 71-118). Springer.
Prove it. Or refute the proof I gave in the link to my thread on infinities. And, as physics depends on your statement being false, explain why physics has been so successful (not to mention numerous other scientific disciplines which likewise rely on at least the basic distinction between denumerable infinities and those that are uncountable).
Gerald Kelleher
Active Member
The 'singularity' notions are both silly and dangerous for a functioning mind and I will put it in terms that most rational people can understand.
A person stands on the Earth's Equator turns from West to East at 1037.5 miles per hour and moving North to say New York, the latitudinal speed drops to about 735 miles per hour from West to East. Eventually you reach the North pole where there exists an actual point where West to East motion loses all meaning as the speed is zero. The person is not asked to dwell on that surface point where geometry ends and rotation begins and neither should any person be forced to consider a geometric entity where volume ends as a 'singularity'.
I did ask you to look at the non periodic arithmetic of the Pi proportion where the numerical string is balanced between order and chaos and there is no final digit in that can be determined in that series with a geometric proof provided . A final definite digit of the Pi value doesn't require yes/no answer beloved of mathematicians but the valuable information is in the balance between order and chaos that we live out our lives in and spread throughout nature.
Translation: you will incorrectly describe what you don't understand (while just about everybody will ignore you and look up the Wikipedia page on singularities anyway).
Actually what you did is define pi as the ratio of the circumference of a circle to a line, rather than to the circle's diameter, and then spouted a lot of other nonsense about things you don't understand. Also, periodicity isn't a matter of arithmetic.
Translation: I've quote-minded terms I don't understand but here they are inserted into a grammatically correct clause.
1) "Chaos" is popular mathematics/science for the most part, as it is such an ill-defined term that only Gleick's book has really kept in use while various iterations of "chaos theory" have received different terms/names in the technical literature (from when "chaos theory" was actually really used to catastrophe theory to dynamical systems to criticality to complex systems and the various mergings of these)
2) "Chaotic" systems are defined by order. True "chaos" (randomness) is boring and nobody cares about such systems. It is the capacity of even seemingly simple systems (such as a pendulum in 1D) to exhibit regular behavior that is unpredictable in that there are points in the phase space that define a transition to a very different regular behavior.
Pi is irrational. There is no final digit because this is true of all irrational numbers. There is no geometric proof necessary (and since the advent of topology and the proof that pi is also transcendental) even you notion of geometry is outdated. Also, geometric proofs aren't acceptable as they can lead to spurious conclusions.
Gerald Kelleher
Active Member
You guys have had a great run of things for as long as I can remember and nothing so funny as the idea of infinite density/ zero volume as a wonderful way to give 'nothing' geometric meaning. It is a form of intellectual graffiti,terrorism,anarchy or something in that vein.
The religious seem to like the kaboom ! of creation from an infinite density/zero volume point and then the recent addition of a timeline but that 'big bang' notion is mere wishful thinking at best and pure dumb at worse.
It is about as far away from astronomy and the satisfaction one gets from reasoning out different topics as it is possible to get and the worse thing about it is that the Christian Churches have joined in with your notions which makes me shake my head in exasperation .
Wish somebody else would see why these notions are toxic for the mind and not the high end reasoning that mathematicians project them to be instead of behaving like monkeys imitating the voodoo of your cult.
Scientists? Mathematicians? You're going to have to be more specific.
Really? Because there are some very good comedians, and personally I find the way in which you (implicitly) define "geometric meaning" in the nonsensical, laughable ways you do pretty darn amusing.
Whatever "the religious" do or do not like, I'm not religious.
...as astrophysics, theoretical physics, and cosmology get. Translation: the standard model isn't "astronomy" and thus your statement is akin to saying that neuroscience is about as far away from evolutionary biology as [insert irrelevant and nonsensical metric here] gets".
I bet. One thing that might help you is learning what the terms you refer to actually mean.
I don't know about toxic. Sure, you're notions are completely wrong and one might actually categorize them as psychotic (given an appropriate context, of course), but toxic? You're too hard on yourself.
Rick O'Shez
Irishman bouncing off walls
Rick O'Shez
Irishman bouncing off walls
Cosmologists will freely admit that there is much they don't know. The observations seem to be support the big bang theory though. I don't get the crusade you're on here.
^ That's almost embarrassing.
Gerald Kelleher
Active Member
I have to laugh at this 'cosmologist' business as if being an astronomer and putting observations in context had changed over the thousands of years it has be practiced in some shape or form.If you mean jargon fest junkies making a fool of themselves then fine but these 'no center/no circumference' ideologies such as big bang/black hole represent mathematicians being plain silly with fundamental principles . In astronomical matters there are a great deal of physical considerations to take into account so trying to construct a picture from the bottom up as mathematicians are want to do leads to these absurd notions. The intuitive or interpretative mind works differently as Pascal noted -
"These principles are so fine and so numerous that a very delicate and very clear sense is needed to perceive them, and to judge rightly and justly when they are perceived, without for the most part being able to demonstrate them in order as in mathematics, because the principles are not known to us in the same way, and because it would be an endless matter to undertake it. We must see the matter at once, at one glance, and not by a process of reasoning, at least to a certain degree. And thus it is rare that mathematicians are intuitive and that men of intuition are mathematicians, because mathematicians wish to treat matters of intuition mathematically and make themselves ridiculous, wishing to begin with definitions and then with axioms, which is not the way to proceed in this kind of reasoning. " Pascal
It was inevitable that mathematicians would create a 'big bang' narrative without paying attention to physical considerations, the same goes for the clockwork solar system of Newton, the idea that humans can control planetary temperature and things like that.
There is an alternative of course that restores astronomy to a meaningful and productive field of research without turning it into a theoretical junkyard and jargon fest as theorists have done.
You are confusing "astrology" with "astronomy" again.
Gerald Kelleher
Active Member
Big bang indeed !, more like a big joke.
I see the other guy fight for Lemaitre and the original idea that all galaxies are flying apart at a rate of 170 miles per hour -
"The new theory provides an explanation for one of the most extraordinary scientific facts ever discovered. Our telescopes show us that there are, out in space, millions of disk-shaped star-clusters known as extra-galactic nebulae. It is generally believed that our Milky Way is such an object and that our sun is but one of billions of stars that go to form it. One of the larger members of the class, the spiral nebula in Canes Venatici, is so far away that light from it takes almost a million years to reach us. Furthermore, observations indicate that every second it moves still farther away from our solar system by some 170 miles."
Blast of Giant Atom Created Our Universe | Modern Mechanix
It takes a dunce to ignore the solar system's galactic orbital motion of 155 miles per hour hence the speed of our solar system will affect how we see external galaxies that are coming into view as we move on a galactic carousel and those which are receding just like leaving any object behind . By analogy there is a huge difference in relative speeds when you are catching up to a car going in the same direction as opposed to the speed when meeting a car going in the opposite direction so a blanket 'all galaxies are receding at a common speed is silly,ridiculous or any other appropriate term.
The whole thing is rubbish from start to finish which leaves the historical and technical details how those 20th century dummies handed us a theoretical junkyard passed off as fact and astronomy.
Last edited:
- Status