[jeffreyH (OP)]

Mathematics is not religion. You do not have to take mathematics on faith. It is mathematics where proofs are found. Now go and prove a religion in the same way. You might as well punch smoke.

[jeffreyH (OP)]

https://www.bestphotosworld.com/beautiful-smoke-art-photography-examples/amp/

[petelamana]

JeffreyH, based upon your "conversation" thus far, I have nothing but respect for you opinion.  I am sorry if I struck a nerve, so to say.

Mathematics is, after all, a "religion."

My characterizing mathematics as a "religion", and note the quotations, was merely to acknowledge that there are some things we have to accept axiomatically.  That is, accepted even in the absence of proof.  That is all.

[jeffreyH (OP)]

@petelamana Apologies for the terse reply. I found your post very interesting.

[Colin2B]

@petelamanaI found your post very interesting.

Which is more than can be said for puppy’s ramblings. He still hasn’t explained 1/8 of infinity, im tempted to move his posts to new theories rather than clogging up bandwidth here.

[alancalverd]

For those interested in such things, it is worth noting that the volume created by rotating a hyperbola around its asymptote is finite, but the surface area is infinite. This is of enormous importance to the paint industry: you can cover an infinite area of, say, steel sheet, with a gallon of paint, then cut it up and make, say, a red car, or even a million red cars,  with just one gallon of paint!

[evan_au]

Consider an n-sphere

One of the hypotheses on which string theory is based is that the universe has 10 dimensions, but we don't see most of them because they are "rolled up" very tightly (much smaller than the radius of a proton).

So in these (hypothetical) dimensions, the n-sphere (or n-ellipsoid) would have a quite finite and very small radius.
See: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/String_theory#Extra_dimensions

[puppypower]

Mathematics is not religion. You do not have to take mathematics on faith. It is mathematics where proofs are found. Now go and prove a religion in the same way. You might as well punch smoke.

Actually there is one very fundamental mathematical operation that needs to be taken with faith. This is division by fractions. If I have one gallon of gas and divide that by 1/10, I get 10 gallons of gas.  This operation violates energy conservation since it adds gas out of nowhere. If this violation of energy conservation was valid, then the operation would need to be a magic trick, with a hidden compartment, so we can add the extra nine gallons, when nobody is paying attention.

Let me look at this closer; If I have one gallon of gas and divide it by 10, I separate that one gallon into 10 equal parts, each with 1/10 gallon. This can be done in reality and makes perfect sense. If I apply this division logic to the one gallon divided by an 1/10, I separate the one gallon into 1/10 equal parts, to get a new total of 10 gallons? How is that done and how does it avoid violating energy conservation? Could it be done in the lab? Would dividing a gallon of high and low octane gas by a 1/10 takes different amounts of energy? The operation is based on a procedure that needs faith and cannot be done in the lab. It will have the same success, as making God appear in the lab.

The Lorenz factor in Special Relativity uses this faith procedure. The procedure, itself, could create devotion. The real point I am making is convention does not always have to make sense, if we all go along.  Math does not have to reflect the limits of reality, if we all agree to ignore the shortcomings. Imagine if science required all math operators and assumptions run a tangible experiment, to show the operation, by itself, can be done in reality.

This is subtle, but this magic in math is useful and is needed to escape reality, into the world of human imagination so we can make synthetics and improve on nature. A sky scraper is not natural but is helped by math.

@petelamanaI found your post very interesting.

Which is more than can be said for puppy’s ramblings. He still hasn’t explained 1/8 of infinity, im tempted to move his posts to new theories rather than clogging up bandwidth here.

The concept of infinity was original defined, based on a universe perspective of a singular universe. To solve the problem at hand, I needed to change the limits of infinity,  to reflect the newer premises in science. I worked under the assumption there are multi-universes. These others universes, are not side-by-side, defining part of original infinity in our universe.  I assume they all overlap, in their own dimension, where each universe is unconscious of the others and therefore each can be used to define infinity, based on itself. Each universe is self absorbed, and sets conventions for infinity as though it is all there is; all it can see. We can't see the other universes, so each assumes they are the matrix by which infinity has it limits. Again, when our infinity convention was first cast into some, this applied to our own self absorbed universe.

The analogy that I saw is like layers in Photoshop. With layers in Photoshop, each layer can define an entire picture by itself. No layer is a fraction of a full picture, since all layers are the same size. These multi-universe layers are all stacked, each independent of the other. They can also be blended, so they all superimpose  in part,  or whole.

Since infinity in each layer is the limit convention, seen by each layer, a radius of infinity already extends to the limits in each layer. Therefore, it is not possible to define a sphere of diameter of 2r in any one layer, since that would mean double infinity, which is a contradiction in terms of the convention in each layer. The story should end there.

However, since I have many layers, with the inhabitants of each layers, self absorbed and assuming they can hold a full infinity, I can get a sphere of diameter 2r, by placing a fraction of the sphere; each fraction is of infinity size, in each layer. I we use eights spherical arc of radius infinity, one on each layer.

I would then take the layers, rotate each, and then blend all the layers, until what appears is the double infinity, contained in all the layers, but which looks like an infinite sphere of radium 1/2 infinity, in our layer. When you blend layers some things can be reinforced, and others can cancel, until we get the final sphere.

Photoshop layers can blend light/energy. Light/energy is the same stuff 99.999% of the observations of the universe are based on. This layer technique should work. If nature had natural blending layers, between others dimensions and our own, the light and energy signals would not just add or subtract, they can also multiply. What we would see, would not be what is there, in one self absorbed universe. It is a team effort. This is why we need the C ground stat, since this is the same in all universes.
 

[alancalverd]

Drivel.

[petelamana]

lol

[puppypower]

Drivel.

Let me do it this way. Say we have a cube 1M³. How many spheres of radius equal 1 meter can we place in that cube? The answer is less than one. If we took eight 1M³cubes in a 2x2x2 configuration, we could fit one sphere of radius 1 meter in the entire configuration. Each cube would have 1/8 of the sphere. This is where I got eight and 1/8.

Instead of plotting this in one universe; one layer, twice infinity in each of three directions, I stacked them as 8 layers so 1/8 is in of the eight layers. There are many ways to blend these different layers. I did it so the final image appears like the maximum sphere in our visible universe.  I saw not point in using an different universe as the standard.

I don't have a licensed copy of Photoshop, or else I would blend the layers, online, to show what happens when light from different sources blend. Since our universe now have another layer, called dark matter and energy, what are the blending consequences? We currently treat light and dark, matter and energy, as separate layers, but in Photoshop, separate layers make it hard to see both layers, since each layer will shield the others, You can see both layers, in partial, when they blend. It comes down to most of the data we collect for the universe is photos of light, which define layers at different distances.

My approach is science art. I present it to make people think.

[alancalverd]

The volume of a cube of 1 m radius is 4π/3 ≈ 4.2 m³. So what?

A sphere being infinitely symmetric, if you divide it into n portions by any symmetric means you wil end up with n pieces of v/n volume. So what?

[jeffreyH (OP)]

@puppypower In the past you have made the claim that c (a speed) is the 'ground state' of the universe. Try starting your education by learning what ground state means.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ground_state

[Bored chemist]

There would not be enough room in an infinite universe, for a sphere of infinite radius.

Not a problem; the surface of an infinite universe is an infinitely large sphere.
(Unfortunately, that also applies to an infinitely large cube, or (I think)  an infinitely large Mickey mouse balloon shaped universe.)


Is there a situation (apart from this trehad)  where the possibility or impossibility  of an infinitely large sphere actually matters?

[Colin2B]

My approach is science art. I present it to make people think.

No, at best it is waffle and it makes people think you have no idea what you are talking about.
In the 3 main sections of the forum we stick with current science, if you want to explore new theories or art do so in the appropriate sections.
Think carefully before your next post or you will be confined to the lighter and general discussion sections.