0 Members and 2 Guests are viewing this topic.

There's a lot more to this than what I have so far. I just can't seem to get out of this one topic. No matter how many times I explain it, or how many different ways I explain it, it all comes back to some 400 year old definition of infinity written by a bunch of dead mathematicians. I'm sure they were good at what they did way back when, but physics didn't really even exist at that point in time. They didn't have the benefits of information. They weren't doing science, they were doing math. I've spent 35 years listening to physicists and scientists trying to explain their view. They're all different. Some didn't believe C was a limit of motion. Some were off on holographic theory. Some didn't believe in space-time. Some believed in multiverses. Many, and I mean a lot, don't buy the Big Bang. They're all over the map. Main stream just keeps regurgitating the same old same old, reinforcing theory that is more than likely just plain wrong.

My theory cuts a path right through all the conflicts, borrowing pieces. It's a big puzzle. We know the math is right, so the most likely place for an error is in the reasoning, and conflicts. I'd love to move forward, but it's like walking through mud right now. I think the universe is way less complicated than we're making it out to be. We're either finite, or infinite, and the only way to figure it out is with logic. The problem is, logic requires consensus. Do you agree with the reasoning, right?

Think about this Bogie. What is finite to the universe? Absolute nothing, which we can assign a value of 0. That's the baseline for a finite universe, nothing. And because we're following mathematics, we also need a 1, and that's it. Math requires two opposing integers for comparison. The common denominator for a finite universe would be the absence of time. Ι1Ι = space without time, because change needs time. The only thing left is infinite. Infinity is the woven fabric of space-time, and neither 0 or 1 are present. No 3 states can occupy the same universe at the same time. And if we're following math, x=x. We're infinite, always have been, and always will be.

To me it seems so easy to arrive at the conclusion. But then again, I've had a 10 year head start on everyone here.

What will really cook some noodles around here is 3-dimensional motion and variable constants. Why not though? We can move 1 and 2 dimensions, why not all 3? I think 3-dimensional motion is key. That gives us a 1-dimensional direction of in and out, which is the flow of time. We flow inwards towards 0 from 1. Thermodynamics starts to play a big roll in defining the universe at that point. We shed massless energy, which flows out, mass energy flows in. It's a big continuous loop, with the universe running at 100% efficiency. It will never stop, and never age. Olber's heat death is the perfect solution for an infinite universe. All hot massless energy goes out. Cold mass energy goes in.Anyway, I haven't even gotten to all of that yet, and I'm not sure I want to jump in with both feet yet. I want to make sure this, 0<∞<Ι1Ι, is well defined.

A part of me feels, 1/0, may be the real answer. We're caught in an unresolvable math problem, and the answer is infinity.

Lol! If you think that 10 years of contemplation, study, learning, thinking, etc., is considered ample rigor to make your conclusions credible, what would you say was the normal or average length of time that noted science professionals who have gained stature in the scientific community over those 400 years have dedicated to science in order to gain their reputations? I would bet it was more like 30 plus years of intense immersion, but I don’t have the actual statistics.

A part of me feels, 1/0, may be the real answer. We're caught in an unresolvable math problem, and the answer is infinity. I take back all of my concerns and unnecessary, arrogant advice. You had the answer all the time; 1/0 is a simple definition of infinity, and I agree. Do you want to leave it at that, lol.

Sure it does, while you're calculating.

You are too hung on numbers. They don't mean anything to universe, only to us.

Numbers do not matter to the universe, only us.

That's the tricky thing about space-time. No two moments are the same. I'm willing to bet if you started calculating right now, you'd notice the decimal changing the longer you tried to resolve it. You can probably predict that change out to about 2.7 trillion decimal places. I think that's as far as they've gotten currently. I wonder where you'd be if you started on the problem yesterday...

Spent another 10 refining it.

Then I could say the same thing about you being too hung up on zero and one, since those are numbers too.

You keep trying to bait me, and it isn't working.

I'm redefining infinity

because it makes more sense to do so.

A completely imaginary number

« Reply #286 on: Today at 11:22:08 »

I have not plagiarized anyone else's concept here.

Quote from: andreasva on 28/12/2018 00:43:09I have not plagiarized anyone else's concept here.Nobody said you had.The problem is that if you change the definitions of words you can prove anything (as Kryptid and I have both pointed out) so it's meaningless.So, for example, If I want to prove that black is white, all I have to do is redefine "black " to mean something that reflects light.And them, for my "special" definition, black is white.True, but meaningless.

The universe is either finite, or infinite. Does it make sense to say that the universe is "a number greater than any countable number"?

That most certainly is not the same as redefining colors.

The "a number greater than any countable number" definition applies to infinity- which is a number

Pi is not infinite.It is not a number greater than any countable number because 4 is a countable number and pi is not greater than 4.

We determine something is infinite when we can't resolve it.

Do you want to retract that post?

Pi is a number, the Universe isn't.

Let me rephrase that slightly. 35 years total. 10 years ago is when I had that moment, when it clicked, and I saw it. Spent another 10 refining it. I suppose it was one of those Eureka moments. Rush of emotions, etc. I just saw it. Maybe a slight tweak. lol.... maybe a slight tweak. "and the continuous resolution is infinity."

You use the word resolution, saying, "And the continuous resolution is infinity.”Do use “resolution” in that sentence to mean “the continuous solution is infinity” or to mean “a continuously improving focus is infinity”?

Interesting question.I meant it more in the context of a continuous solution, but the word solution seems to feel more like there is one in my mind. I chose continuous resolution because there is no solution to the problem, which is what makes it infinite. No beginning, no end. x=x, and x=∞. Just a constant recycling of energy. However, I have imagined an increased focus apply to the nature of the problem as we drift inward. As galaxies become less relevant to each other over time, gravitational energy gradually shifts inward becoming more locally focused, possibly accelerating the process in the end game. It would increase at the inverse square over time, so it wouldn't be a straight line gain. Kind of like focusing a beam on a flashlight. Might have even described that on this thread somewhere, but I can't fully recall after so many post on a single topic. Why do you ask?

Just wondering if you have gone beyond the realization of what infinite means to you, and have connected it to the nature of the infinite universe in comparison to the observable portion in our Hubble view?

…We're starting to get a bit too philosophical for this thread though, so I'll leave it at that.