[opportunity]

So, China puts a drone on the dark side of the Moon.

https://news.yahoo.com/chinese-spacecraft-makes-first-landing-moons-far-side-041122426.html

Is that anything significant?

Does the dark side of the moon yield different results?

[andreasva (OP)]

Is that anything significant?

Chances are it's more of a political statement.  They were the first to land on the dark side of the moon, but most certainly not the first to write a song about it, and/or title the album that way, as did Pink Floyd in 1973. 

[andreasva (OP)]

Speaking of understanding the fundamental nature of our existence.

I had a thought related to aging several days ago.  I suspect the aging process is related more to physics than biology.  At conception, we are created at a specific moment in time, and the universe is in a specific state at that moment in time.  Our rate of change is dependent on our consumption and processing of energy.  Stop eating, you die, obviously.  The universes rate of change is constant, and we obviously can't keep pace with that, because our energy intake and processing would also need to be constant.  We aren't so much aging possibly, as much as we're losing compatibility with the universe over time.  Our specs, so to speak, were designed for a specific state of the universe, at a specific point in time, which will never be duplicated.  We are a unique, one of kind, finite creation.  As we age, we grow, until we hit a peak.  That's when we cross that line, and start to become adversely incompatible.  Things start to sag, and we lose density, etc, etc.  The only way to keep going is through procreation, with a brand new blueprint, more or less.  A slight design change.  That change is reflected somewhere in our DNA.

Anyway, just kind of a weird fun thought, but it does make sense on some levels.       

[Bored chemist]

So, China puts a drone on the dark side of the Moon.

Did you think you were posting that in a thread where it was related to the topic?

[andreasva (OP)]

Opportunity, would you mind deleting posts 176 and 180?  They're just taking up space with song lyrics and video's.  Thank you.

[Colin2B]

Opportunity, would you mind deleting posts 176 and 180?  They're just taking up space with song lyrics and video's.  Thank you.

@opportunity - you have been warned before about blocking people’s threads with sequences of contiguous posts, please go back over your posts and either remove them or combine them into a single post. Also, keep them relevant to the thread - that includes videos and links. We’ll give you a week to tidy up, otherwise we’ll view it as trolling.
Thanks

[andreasva (OP)]

Changing the mathematical definition of infinity is a bit more difficult than I anticipated, but if you ignore the literary and/or philosophical meaning, and just focus on the mathematical portion of its definition as applied to reality and science, it might be simpler to comprehend.

Never has this been more pronounced than in the lava lamp discussion of this thread.  No one seemed to be able to wrap there minds around the idea that a physical object could exist with an element of infinity.  Even though I describe infinity as an analog state simply undergoing the constancy of change.  We even know that lava lamp won't be here forever, because it is in a constant state of change, but the implications of infinity are so ingrained in our psyche, that we refuse to differentiate the literary meaning from reality.  That lava lamp is not finite, because the energy that makes up that lava lamp is not finite, and it is in a state of flux while it's a lava lamp.  Energy cannot be created or destroyed.  We associate the absolute definition to the meaning of a lava lamp, and readily call it a finite object, even though the underlying reality is entirely different.  It's just a clump of atoms.  The laws of physics say that energy will transform into another state.  We know this.  At least, I think we do.  It's not anymore finite than it is infinite in terms of human perception, it's a lava lamp, while we see it as a lava lamp.       

No one has ever been able to pin infinity down to anything specific.  The symbol itself was created in 1655, and represents a conjecture of infinity more so than anything, and that conjecture is wrong.  No one knows how to describe it mathematically, because it is not an element in mathematics.  Math can be used to identify the underlying analog nature of the problem, and that's about it.  Analog and digital are different, which is the difference between infinite and finite respectively.  They are equal but opposite states, where finite is the absence of change, and infinite is the constancy of change.           

Wiki
Infinity (symbol: ∞) is a concept describing something without any bound, or something larger than any natural number.

Google
a number greater than any assignable quantity or countable number (symbol ∞).

Webster
an indefinitely great number or amount

Cambridge
unlimited space, time, or amount, or a number large beyond any limit

Larger than any natural number?  What does that even mean in wiki?  A number is a number, and there is nothing unnatural about numbers.  Numbers are finite, not infinite, so referencing numeric values in the definition makes infinite=finite by default.  And technically, we created numbers, and had to imagine them in the process.  Infinity as described in the definition, can't even be considered an imaginary number, because it can't even exist in our own imagination.  And numbers can also be just as infinitely small, as they can large.  Every single definition ignores incrementally smaller numbers, and negative numbers.  You can either come to a finite solution numerically, or not.  If you come to a finite solution, than you might be able to look at something in a absolute manner, and that's about it, even though we know nothing is truly finite in reality.  Calculations that are not finite cannot be look at in an absolute manner, because that calculation remains in a state of flux indefinitely. Infinity is the constancy of change.

As I suggested earlier, infinity is a non absolute state, because it is more of a fluid condition undergoing constant change.   

Mans attempt to invoke a numeric definition was misguided.  It is clearly wrong.

We've solved pi to about 2 trillion decimal places, as near as I can tell.  Obviously using a super computer.  What if we can never build another super computer to exceed that resolution?  Would that mean infinity = pi?  Of course not.  We know there's another number in the resolution, but it's not officially an actual number until we resolve the next decimal place.  We know for a fact that the next number is finite, even though hypothetically, we couldn't resolve it.  Now that would be closer to an imaginary number, because we know how to get there, but it's not real until we build a bigger computer to resolve the next decimal place.  With infinity, we leap over human reasoning and mathematical logic and arrive at a finite conclusion, and simply say it's a really large number labeled ∞.  And that is an absurd way to arrive at a definition for just about anything, especially from a scientific and mathematical standpoint when trying to apply that concept to the universe.  It has to be a reasonable definition.   

Another thing too, is that the actual definition predates technology, and we had a very rudimentary understanding of the universe in general.  We didn't really understand waves like we do now.  Quantum Mechanics and relativity didn't exist.  We recently transitioned from analog electronics to digital.  The concept of analog and digital didn't really even exist back then.  That we may have figured it out now, should not be that hard to accept.  I am very familiar with both states, because it is common knowledge.  Hell, we even have holographic theory going on right now, which is based entirely on a digital existence.  Things have changed quite a bit since 1655.

Things change.  Meanings change. 

The only thing more difficult to understand from where I sit, is why the definition of infinity remains the same.   

Even back in time, there was some serious debate on the relevance of infinity in mathematics.

Leopold Kronecker (7 December 1823 – 29 December 1891) was a German mathematician who worked on number theory, algebra and logic. He criticized Georg Cantor's work on set theory, and was quoted by Weber (1893) as having said, "Die ganzen Zahlen hat der liebe Gott gemacht, alles andere ist Menschenwerk" ("God made the integers, all else is the work of man.").

Like I said, the magical flying spaghetti monster.   

Believing this, ∞, is some unimaginable numeric value, is a personal choice.   

This is a lead in to the next portion of this theory.   

[Bored chemist]

Changing the mathematical definition of infinity is a bit more difficult than I anticipated,

Not at all.
You can define it as 3 if you like.
But be careful to ensure that nobody thinks yo are using the real definition, or folk will get confused.

Also, redefining it doesn't help at all.

Larger than any natural number?  What does that even mean in wiki? 

Which word are you struggling with?

Things change.  Meanings change. 

Yes they do.
And they usually change in such a manner as to afford greater usefulness.
But your proposals don't do that, so your changes won't be adopted.

At this point, you are essentially be talking to yourself- and so you would be better off with a blog, than with a discussion site.

[andreasva (OP)]

Also, redefining it doesn't help at all.

I'll stick with Leopold Kroenecker's assessment, "God made the integers, all else is the work of man."

And I'll add to it.

Both of them, and an analog variable.

or folk will get confused.

And I suppose, "a number greater than any countable number," won't confuse anyone?

When .01>.001

I think they forgot something in these definitions, because that's a number less than, not greater than.

And Pi's not even a countable number, it's a calculated number.  Does that count too?

Sure, that's not going to confuse folks.     

And they usually change in such a manner as to afford greater usefulness.

And you think this, ∞, is useful in it's current form? 

Interesting.

If you want to believe in the magical flying spaghetti monster, that's a personal choice.  I won't stop you, like I can't stop you from reading this thread and making useless opinionated comments.

[andreasva (OP)]

There's a difference between time and space.  Time is change.  Space, is physical.  As Einstein said, space and time are woven into a fabric called space-time.  The physical property of space can be in one of 2 possible states, finite or infinite.  As I've said, 0, is the absence of dimension, or the absence of space.  This is a finite state lacking both space and time, because it's value is 0.  Without time, change in that state would be impossible, which is what makes finite, finite.  Clearly we are not 0.  The other possible state would be empty dimension, or space without time.  That value as I've stated is Ι1Ι.  Once time is woven into space, the universe immediately becomes infinite, because time represents continual change.  Every moment is different from the next, and space is woven into time, which makes space different every moment.  Time though, is a smooth gradient, and analog in nature.  As long as time moves forward, we cannot be finite by default. 

Infinity is the woven fabric of space-time in our universe, which results in the constancy of change. 

As I keep saying, there are only 3 possible values that can be assigned to the universe.  0, Ι1Ι, and ∞.

We discovered numbers, and expanded their meaning well beyond the simplicity needed to describe the universe.  As I keep stating, our universe can only be in one of two possible states, physically.  Finite, or infinite.  Finite lacks time.  Finite is the absence of change, where infinite is the constancy of change.   

x=x

The fact that a number sequence runs on forever is an indicator of change, and not relevant to physical scale as we understand it.  Our universe is a derivative of the whole, or Ι1Ι, and fractional at its core.  The greatest numeric value we can assign to the universe is Ι1Ι, not ∞.  Infinity numerically is an infinitely variable fractional state, because it is less than the whole.

So yes, as hard as it is to accept:

0<∞<Ι1Ι

I stand by my reasoning, because I know it is correct.

Our understanding of infinity is wrong.
   

[andreasva (OP)]

In our universe, we use things to compare things to other things.  A meter for example, is now a derivative of motion and time.  A kilogram owes its definition to a mass of platinum-irridium. 

In the absence of a universe as we understand it, there is nothing to compare.  And without time, change is meaningless.  All we can say mathematically about an empty universe void of time, is Ι1Ι, because it is only comparable to itself in x=x.  Infinity requires a comparison value, because every definition of infinity clearly specifies a preexisting condition to claim something is infinite.  It is deemed as greater than, or larger.  In an empty universe, x=x.   so the concept of infinity is rendered meaningless, because the only mathematical expression available is x=x.  There's no counting or quantities beyond Ι1Ι.  Counting itself also requires an element of time, as does the resolution of any infinitely deemed problem such as pi. 

In our universe, we define finite virtually in a time segment.  I'm 54 years and x number of days old as of today, for example.  I had a beginning, which is defined by my birth, and will eventually come to an end in my death.  In reality, there is only 2 mathematically finite moments in my life, which is defined by the very moment of conception, and in my death.  I move from the absolute finite value of 1 to 0 though time.  The clock does not stop moving for me, so change is constant.  Everything in between those 2 moments are a non-finite value, which makes those moments infinite in nature.

This is math in the purest sense of the word, because it is reality, not the virtual reality we create for ourselves mathematically. 

The universe itself cannot follow the same pattern of life and death as we experience, because we are a derivative state.  We are less than the whole, and experience the entirety of the universe in a finite manner, virtually. 

The fact that we even exist owes itself to a simple understanding of the reality of finite versus infinite states, and x=x.  This only leaves us one possible explanation for a universe.  The universe cannot be 0, or Ι1Ι, because both of those states are finite values.  That's all they can ever be.  The only remaining option is ∞.

All other numbers are a tool created by man used for manipulating the world around us, and to help us understand the reality in which we are immersed.  Reality only understands the basics of math, and we create the complexity.   

0<∞<Ι1Ι     

[Bored chemist]

And I suppose, "a number greater than any countable number," won't confuse anyone?

Well... the rest of us seem to be able to cope with it.

[andreasva (OP)]

Well... the rest of us seem to be able to cope with it.

I thought no one was reading this thread?   Aside from the 30 people that were reading it at the same time this morning, and you of course, apparently.

As usual, the reasoning behind your arguments amount to a cut and paste, and the assumption that, "us", meaning not "them", think it's weird.  Who is "us" anyway?  "They" that are not "them"?

In addition you seem to believe that:

Finite, is not really finite, mathematically. 

What exactly it means, I have no idea, and neither do you apparently. 
 

My argument is:

Finite really does mean finite mathematically.

So, when you can prove that 0≠0, get back with me.  I'm sure it'll be front page news. 

Your moniker suits you well, because it must get really boring knowing everything. 

Why are you still reading this thread, by the way?  Clearly you seem to have the universe all figured out, unlike the rest of the planet, including "them", that are not "us".     

[Bored chemist]

In addition you seem to believe that:

Finite, is not really finite, mathematically. 

It only seems that way to you.

[Bored chemist]

Why are you still reading this thread, by the way? 

I post replies pointing out mistakes.
That way people reading through the thread won't be misled into thinking you are actually correct.

[andreasva (OP)]

I post replies pointing out mistakes.
That way people reading through the thread won't be misled into thinking you are actually correct.

Oh, the science muṭawwiʿ guy.

The only problem is, you have no idea what's right or wrong, only what Google and Wiki tells you, judging by your argument.  Literally, all you've offered is a cut and paste from google for a definition on infinity, which dates back to around 1650, and a another cut paste about Olbers' Paradox from around 1850.  Oh, and the fact you believe it's weird.

That's all you got.

You also apparently speak for all of "us", whoever that "us" is.  You are like the spokesperson of the "us" crowd. 

I'm not wrong at all, because to prove me wrong you would have to prove that x≠x.

Finite really does mean finite to the universe.

Like I said, when you can prove 0≠0, get back with me. 

I stand by my reasoning.

0<∞<Ι1Ι

[andreasva (OP)]

Let's put this theory into mathematical perspective. 

If we had never created a full blown numbering system, and only understood 0 and 1 in the context of nothing versus something, there exists an infinite number of values between them as it stands now.  That would make this statement, 0<∞<Ι1Ι, a mathematical fact.  And really, when you think about it, even with our own numbering system there is an infinite number of values between each countable number.

0<∞<Ι1Ι  True
Ι1Ι<∞<Ι2Ι True (redundant)
Ι2Ι<∞<Ι3Ι True (redundant)

Keep in mind, we created numbers.  0 and 1 is more of an association between nothing and something in the absolute sense.  That's the fundamental basis of counting in general.  You have to understand the difference between something and nothing.  Those two numbers are natural numeric values as applied to reality, and both are finite and absolute. 

As I've suggested, the universe can only count to Ι1Ι naturally.  Space without time is a singular state in my view, and can be associated with the numeric value of Ι1Ι, like the absence of dimension can numerically be assigned the value of 0.  The universe naturally distinguishes the difference between something and nothing.  It most certainly doesn't understand numeric values in the literal sense, so any other number besides 0 and 1 is pretty much irrelevant to reality.     

This reasoning is perfectly valid, and I stand by it 100%.

0<∞<Ι1Ι

I am adhering to mathematical facts, that finite actually means finite, and x=x.  The universe cannot be finite, because finite is the absence of change.  Nothing would happen.  As I've said repeatedly, infinite is the inverse of finite, which results in the constancy of change.  Infinity is an equal and opposite reaction to exponentially opposing finite conditions.  The potential between 0 and Ι1Ι is infinite.  The universe is infinite, and our concept of infinity stands in error.   

Don't let anyone fool you.  Infinity is most definitely not a solved problem for the universe.  In fact, it's still a hot topic of open debate.  Any old theories that disprove it are based solely on a single concept of an infinite universe which contradicts itself from the start, in my assessment.  It claims a static (finite), infinite universe.  That makes finite=infinite, which is a fundamental flaw in the current concept of an infinite universe.  We're talking about infinity and the universe, so this version is not the only possible version by any stretch of the imagination.  There are other ways to look at an infinite universe, as I've clearly demonstrated.  All anyone is proving is that their concept of infinity won't work for a universe.  That's not a paradox, it's the wrong concept of an infinite universe.

[Bored chemist]

0<∞<Ι1Ι  True

No
Infinity is not less than 1
That's plain silly.

This reasoning is perfectly valid, and I stand by it 100%.

Nobody seems to agree with you.

[andreasva (OP)]

Infinity is not less than 1

You really need to quit trolling my thread.  You're not only wrong, you're annoyingly wrong.

Your inability to understand simple logic, and your inability to form an original thought outside google or wiki is not proof of anything, other than your own arrogance.  If you want to play the supreme science moderator, open your own science forum.  You're free to block anyone who doesn't conform to your understanding. 

I'll take this one step further.

0<∞<1 is a mathematical truth.

In mathematics, we reduce problems down to the fewest number of variables.  Considering our base 10 numbering system can be traced back to the 5th century, it's little wonder we became infatuated with numeric values over the centuries. 

I noticed a pattern in the numbers.

0<≈<1∞<2<∞<3<∞<4<∞<5<∞<6<∞<7<∞<8<∞<9.....

What you see is that ∞ only exists between between countable sets of integers.  Keep in mind, we invented a way to count continuously, so anything beyond 1 is superfluous, not reality.  Claiming we can count forever is the logical equivalent of claiming we can recite 10 letters of the alphabet forever, with a different grunt between each cycle.  It's literally meaningless in the context of the mathematical definition of infinity, which states:

"A number greater than any countable number."

Not only is this, 0<≈<1, mathematically accurate, infinity requires the integers before and after it to even exist.

You can obviously repeat the pattern as long as you'd like with our invented base 10 numbering system, but it never changes the fact that:

0<≈<1 is mathematically accurate.

As I said, mathematics is reducing the problem down to the fewest variables.  To understand infinity, you need to reduce the problem down to the fewest countable integers, 0 and 1.  The universe exists between 0 and Ι1Ι.  All other numeric values are superfluous information, and unnecessary to define infinity accurately. 

Our definition of infinity stands in error.  It is wrong.   

[Bored chemist]

0<∞<1 is a mathematical truth.

No.
It is not.

You really need to quite trolling my thread.

I think most people would say you are the troll.

infinity requires the integers before and after it to even exist.

There are no integers after infinity- by definition.

Our definition of infinity stands in error.  It is wrong.   

or you are wrong.
Which of those possibilities is more likely?
Do you really think you are cleverer than everyone else who has considered this  topic before?