[guest39538]

I have no real idea what I am discussing here when we refer to epsilon, hopefully somebody will set me straight on epsilon.

BUT............I think it is something to do with numbers, my primary number would be 1=∞, my logic is telling me that 1 can be really small or infinitely large. 1 can be any length from 0 to infinitely , so epsilon must be 1=∞.

[Bored chemist]

I have no real idea what I am discussing here

Clearly.

[guest39538]

I have no real idea what I am discussing here

Clearly.

Then it should be an interesting learning curve.   According to definition on google search it is permitivity?

added - ok

permittivity
ˌpəːmɪˈtɪvɪti/Submit
nounPHYSICS
the ability of a substance to store electrical energy in an electric field.

I would of thought the electrostatic field was the energy (charge), rather than a substances ability to store electrical energy in an electric field. I believe that electrostatic fields are actually polarised magnetic fields , the field itself becoming ''ionised'' from the N-field.  Even a Dielectric field has an electrostatic field.   

So κ=ε0 and μ0 of free space.   

and κ=ε1 and μ1 of substance


A zero point charge occupying 1 zero space

However I am quite sure that q1 ''wraps'' itself around q2 to form N.  I am also thinking the HIgg's field is a dielectric field .

v=(N≠N)

p.s Just doodling some thoughts while I learn about epsilon.

[evan_au]

"Epsilon" is the Greek letter ε (lower case) or Ε (upper case), and it usually makes a short "e" sound

Mathematicians and Physicists use ε for various purposes (including permittivity in physics and electrical engineering).
- In reality, it can mean whatever you define it to mean
- But if your definition is internally inconsistent, don't expect anyone to pay attention to your definition

So please provide your definition, or a link to where you saw it used.

PS: 1 = ∞ is already a contradiction, so don't hold your breath waiting for the accolades
PPS: Please phrase the title as a question, as per the site guidelines to which you agreed when you signed up...

[guest39538]

"Epsilon" is the Greek letter ε (lower case) or Ε (upper case), and it usually makes a short "e" sound

Mathematicians and Physicists use ε for various purposes (including permittivity in physics and electrical engineering).
- In reality, it can mean whatever you define it to mean
- But if your definition is internally inconsistent, don't expect anyone to pay attention to your definition

So please provide your definition, or a link to where you saw it used.

PS: 1 = ∞ is already a contradiction, so don't hold your breath waiting for the accolades
PPS: Please phrase the title as a question, as per the site guidelines to which you agreed when you signed up...

I would of thought asking questions was for the main sections of the forum where of course I am excluded from posting in?
I do not believe I have in any way breached forum rules by not asking a question in the new theories section. 

I suppose this theory would be 1=∞

So there is no question other than what was epsilon which you answered. I have to ask questions during my theories because of my exclusion.

[guest39538]

1 = ∞ is already a contradiction

Quite provable it isn't a contradiction.

1mm
1cm
1inch
1yard
1 meter
1 mile
1 ly

How far can I extend 1?  I believe it is infinitely.   0 and 1 are boundaries . 1 can be expanded infinitely from any 0 point of the Universe. So epsilon would be X=0→1∞

Boundary 0 and boundary 1∞ being directly proportional in length and relative to the most distance away observable visible light  of each boundary.


epsilon.jpg (15.53 kB . 1015x625 - viewed 3715 times)

ε=var(X)

[evan_au]

Quite provable (1 = ∞) isn't a contradiction.

1mm
1cm
1inch
1yard
1 meter
1 mile
1 ly

This seems to be ignoring the fact that the units are just as important as the actual numbers.
1 inch is not equal to 1 yard (different units of length)
      In fact, 1 yard = 36 inches!
1 inch is  definitely not equal to 1 kilogram (different units: length vs mass)
      These cannot even be compared unless you refer to some conversion factor
      For example, in the metric system, 1 cubic centimeter of water weighs 1 gram (at a particular temperature & pressure)
      So the properties of water act as a conversion factor

This has not shown that 1 = ∞, even if you ignore the units.
So lets ignore the fact that values are different (not "="), and try to generalise:
- A finite amount of length in one units can be converted to a finite amount of length in different units*
- But this has not showed how a finite amount of length in one units can be converted into an infinite amount of length in different units.

So I am afraid that you haven't proven that "1 = ∞", and the contradiction still stands.

*Assuming that they are measured in the same frame inertial of reference.
- If they are in different frames of reference, some finite measure in length may appear to be a different finite length.
- Relativity does have some infinities, but we have not run into any real infinities yet, because our finite energy sources don't let us reach infinite energies.

[guest39538]

Quite provable (1 = ∞) isn't a contradiction.

1mm
1cm
1inch
1yard
1 meter
1 mile
1 ly

This seems to be ignoring the fact that the units are just as important as the actual numbers.
1 inch is not equal to 1 yard (different units of length)
      In fact, 1 yard = 36 inches!
1 inch is  definitely not equal to 1 kilogram (different units: length vs mass)
      These cannot even be compared unless you refer to some conversion factor
      For example, in the metric system, 1 cubic centimeter of water weighs 1 gram (at a particular temperature & pressure)
      So the properties of water act as a conversion factor

This has not shown that 1 = ∞, even if you ignore the units.
So lets ignore the fact that values are different (not "="), and try to generalise:
- A finite amount of length in one units can be converted to a finite amount of length in different units*
- But this has not showed how a finite amount of length in one units can be converted into an infinite amount of length in different units.

So I am afraid that you haven't proven that "1 = ∞", and the contradiction still stands.

*Assuming that they are measured in the same frame inertial of reference.
- If they are in different frames of reference, some finite measure in length may appear to be a different finite length.
- Relativity does have some infinities, but we have not run into any real infinities yet, because our finite energy sources don't let us reach infinite energies.

I never put that 1 inch is equal to 1 yard, I am sorry but you have misunderstood .  I was showing an increase in distance between 0 and 1, the units did not matter.
0-1
0--1
0----1
0-----1

There is no reason that the above could not be expanded infinitely like our ever expanding visual universe.

So I am afraid that you haven't proven that "1 = ∞" is a contradiction.



x=∞↔∞

0→1=∞←0←→1→∞

For something to have boundaries of finite, it has to be within/borderline infinite.

p.s infinite is not a number, it means without end. I can expand 0→1 without an end. i.e infinite

[guest4091]

Thebox;
Your fundamental mistake is, 'infinity' is not a number, but a condition or relation, 'without limit', i.e. it has no value.

[guest39538]

Thebox;
Your fundamental mistake is, 'infinity' is not a number, but a condition or relation, 'without limit', i.e. it has no value.

I know infinite is not a number but 1 is infinite.

[evan_au]

I know infinite is not a number but 1 is infinite.

Sorry, but 1 is quite finite.
It is the smallest non-zero integer.
It has the condition of being finite, bounded (an integer between 0 and 2) and specific (1).

So 1 does not equal infinity.

[guest39538]

I know infinite is not a number but 1 is infinite.

Sorry, but 1 is quite finite.
It is the smallest non-zero integer.
It has the condition of being finite, bounded (an integer between 0 and 2) and specific (1).

So 1 does not equal infinity.

No, we can expand 1 from zero infinitely.

[guest4091]

I know infinite is not a number but 1 is infinite.

Sorry, but 1 is quite finite.
It is the smallest non-zero integer.
It has the condition of being finite, bounded (an integer between 0 and 2) and specific (1).

So 1 does not equal infinity.

No, we can expand 1 from zero infinitely.

You are only redefining a different unit.

[guest39538]

∞

I know infinite is not a number but 1 is infinite.

Sorry, but 1 is quite finite.
It is the smallest non-zero integer.
It has the condition of being finite, bounded (an integer between 0 and 2) and specific (1).

So 1 does not equal infinity.

No, we can expand 1 from zero infinitely.

You are only redefining a different unit.

No I am not redefining a different unit, I am expanding 1 from 0 and the distance in my thoughts and mind  that I can expand one is an infinite amount of distance from 0 in a continual expanse.
It would be everlasting in expanding, so therefore 1=∞

[Bored chemist]

I am expanding 1 from 0 and the distance in my thoughts and mind

You are failing to convey it to any other mind.

[guest39538]

I am expanding 1 from 0 and the distance in my thoughts and mind

You are failing to convey it to any other mind.

Your mind is failing to comprehend it more like. 

Which 1 in the below is in the correct position?

0.1.1.1.1.1.1.1.1.1.1.1.1.1.1.1.1.1.1.1.1......................................

The answer is, they all are. 

How far can I extend the above?

The answer is , infinitely.

Understand that looking between the distance stars is

[jeffreyH]

One or unity is a whole thing. One apple, one planet, one universe. Except that if something is infinite then 'the whole thing' is unbounded. One cannot encapsulate the infinite since it is by definition finite and bounded. We can say we have defined one infinite line or one infinite plane. However that is more to do with set theory and infinite series than number theory.

[guest39538]

One or unity is a whole thing.

One infinity whole,

[guest39538]

x=y=z=∞

t=∞?

Δt=∞v

added- =∞t

 =∞t

 =∞t

c would be relatively not moving. huh?

p.s it does not matter how fast you travel you never reach the end.

added- I have ''battered'' my own head with this one, if something takes an infinite  time to get ''somewhere'' then relatively its velocity is 0.   This makes no sense but seems logically correct.

added- Relative to an infinite Universe nothing is moving. hmmmmmmm??

Forgive the punt but ''holy crap''.  Relative to an infinite Universe we do not have any dimension or exist but occupy the same space as one bit of data in a 0 point source, 0 point space.  Our entire visual Universe would be relatively a zero point energy. 

Hmmmm???

[guest4091]

if something takes an infinite  time to get ''somewhere'' then relatively its velocity is 0.

It never gets there!
You state infinity is not a number, then contradict yourself by using it in a math expression. Human society has no experience with anything infinite, so a definition is feeble at best.
You can't measure a stick that only has one end!