Ernest Sparks

Friar,
I believe I should leave the statement as it is. It says what I mean.
Ernie

Darth Dane

Did anyone mention Pi?

You have an infinite number by all accounts, it has afaik be calculated to 50 million digits after the comma!.....and counting


The infinite has been found in Pi

It describes a circle and a sphere. Both considered as perfect shapes.


Edit: And the next post is number.....42




DD - Infinite Spliff

sourdough

I always thought that the Universe is eternal and infinite,
also since most common shape in nature is circle ,wouldn't it make sense that Universe itself is circular also?

Bob K

Darth Dane:

Darth Dane:Pi is infinite only in the sense that the Arabic numbers used in mathematics does not permit a final decimal number in a few decimal places.

Nevertheless, since pi is the ratio of the diameter of a circle to its circumference, and the circumference is a finite number, meaning if the circumference were a string, or wire, and were 'uncircled,' that string/wire would have a finite length and therefore a finite dimension and therefore a finite number, and, therefore, pi, regardless of the problems of divisions using Arabic numbers, is a finite number.

Also, if we require a point on or inside a circle or on or inside a a sphere to have finite dimensions, then there is no infinity to either the circle or the sphere; instead, there will be a finite number of 'dimensioned' points, points given dimensions.

Then, if we create a rule, such as once traveled a dimensioned point cannot be traveled again, then we will not find an infinite number of paths around/inside a circle or a sphere, hence there is no infinity which can be assigned a circle or a sphere as a geometrical object; an object which comprised of matter/energy and which is a circle or a sphere would have the infinity of the duration of its component matter/energy, but, again, no infinity associated with its geometry.

Bob K

Shadowy Man:

Bob K:Shadowy Man:From thermodynamics we get the fact that matter/energy is infinite in duration but finite in quantity.

Either you agree that this is a scientific fact, or you do not.

If you do not, then don't read on.

If you do, then read on.

When space is defined as infinite in volume, unbounded in dimensions of length/width/height/depth/etc., and infinite in duration, then we have the infinite volume of space and the finite quantity of matter/energy as facts of the universe.

The finite quantity of matter/energy cannot completely fill the infinite volume of space.

In those areas of space in which there is no matter/energy we will find pure vacuums, defined as absolutely no matter/energy present, as absolutely nothing there, other than emptiness, a vacuum.

Finite space, space limited in volume, does not exist.

For every clump of matter/energy claimed to be closed space and therefore limited space there will always be a 'beyond,' and that 'beyond' is the area of space which contains no matter/energy, no force fields, etc.

There may exist in the totality of the volume of space a finite number of clumps of matter/energy, each clump being a finite quantity unto itself, and these clumps of matter/energy may be spaced so far apart that they do not communicate with each other, meaning that they do not exchange light and the information light can provide, nor gravity and the information gravity can provide, no action-at-a-distance resulting from gravity or energy force fields, etc.

Remember that the sum total of matter/energy is a finite number.

This gives us an understanding of the nature of the infinite volume which is space and which is a pure vacuum absent the presence of matter/energy.

Thus, where do we find pure vacuums? In the areas of space in which we find no matter/energy present.

Of course, when we are present in an area of space, then critics could claim that that area of space, that particular local volume of space, has matter/energy, us, we who are comprised of matter/energy, present, but the fact nevertheless remains that except for the matter/energy which is us, of which we are comprised, in a local volume of space we would find no other matter/energy, of any kind, and, therefore, we would surmise, conclude, that absent us, absent the matter/energy we are comprised of, then there would be a pure vacuum present in that local area, that finite volume, of the infinite volume of space.

One more time: Where do we find pure vacuums? In the areas of space in which we find no matter/energy present.

Bob K

eh:

eh:As Mozart wrote only those musical notes which he needed to express his musical ideas, I write only those words which I need to express my philosophical ideas clearly, at least clearly to my personal satisfaction.

eh:The concept of space as infinite volume which is a pure vacuum except for those areas in which we find matter/energy is the correct concept and understanding of space. All else is nonsense.

Space is the place/volume of infinite/unbounded physical dimensions and duration in which all else, including time and physics, occurs, exists, and is a pure vacuum except for those places in space in which matter/energy is present. Matter/energy, remember, is finite in quantity though infinite in duration, therefore matter/energy cannot be present in all areas of space, only in limited and finite areas of space.

With this concept of space there is no manner in which space is dependent upon time or the presence of matter/energy.

But this concept of space is not my only contention with the mythical cosmology of physics.

The concept of time as the use of invariable time-intervals to measure the occurrences of events in sequences of events, history, is another.

The concept of time is an abstract concept available to all organisms and machines who/which have the need to measure the occurrences of events in sequences of events and therefore have the intelligence and capability to choose an invariable time-interval for a unit of time, a unit of time-measurement, a unit for the measurement of time, and to ensure that there is no variation of the unit of time/time-measurement/etc.

Physicists do not appear to have an accurate and therefore true concept of time and an understanding of its related principles nor of the techniques needed to establish and measure absolute/universal time, which include the requirement for invariable time-intervals, so there can be no variation of the measurement of time because of variable time-intervals, so everywhere and anywhere time is the same when the same invariable time-interval is used.

Where I have observed that Einstein was happy to use variable time-intervals in his theoretical formulations and thereby appear to negate Newton’s concept of universal/absolute time and in this negation produce a blend of the spatial and temporal realities in the concept of spacetime, I call attention to the fact that the key element in the concept of time is the time-interval which is necessary for a unit of measurement of time, the fact that there are two kinds of time-intervals, the variable time interval, and the invariable time-interval, the fact that when invariable time-intervals are used the measurement of time is everywhere the same in the universe, no exceptions, the fact that invariable time-intervals give us the basis of universal/absolute time, and that there is a mysticism herein found in physics based upon the erroneous assumption that all time is measured/measurable only by variable time-intervals which leads to various sillinesses such as time being distorted if clocks using variable time-intervals are subjected to changes of velocity/gravity.

Bob K:eh:Here are several dictionary definitions of ‘thing’:

The American Heritage Dictionary

Thing: 1. Something that exists; an entity. 2. A tangible object. 3. An inanimate object. 4. A creature. 5. Things: possessions; belongings. 6. An article of clothing. 7. A thought or notion. 9. A piece of information. 10. A matter to be dealt with. 11. A turn of events. 12. Things: The general state of affairs; conditions.

The Merriam-Webster Dictionary:

Thing: 1. A matter of concern; affair. 2. State of affairs. 3. Event; circumstance. 4. Deed; act. 5. A distinct entity. 6. An inanimate object distinguished from a living being. 7. Possessions; effects. 8. An article of clothing. 9. Detail; point. 10. Idea; notion. 11. Something one likes to do; specialty.

The Random-House Dictionary:

Thing: 1. A material object without life or consciousness. 2. Things: Matter or affairs. 3. An action or deed. 4. A particular or detail. 5. A useful object, method, etc. 6. Things: (A) Clothing or apparel; (B) Personal belongings. 7. A living being or creature. 8. A thought or statement. 9. Informal: A peculiar attitude or feeling. 10. Slang: Something special that one feels disposed to do, as in “to do your thing.” 11. Informal: To have hallucinations, as in ‘to see or hear things.”

Webster’s New World Dictionary:

Thing: 1. Any matter, affair, or concern. 2. A happening, act, incident, etc. 3. A tangible or inanimate object. 4. An item, detail, etc. 5. Things: (A) Personal belongings; (B) Garments. 6. A person, as in “a poor thing.” 7. A point of contention; issue. 8. An irrational liking, fear, etc. 9. What one wants to do or is adept at [doing], as in to “do one’s own thing.” 10. To have hallucinations, as in “to see things.”

--End Dictionary Definitions of ‘Thing’--

And here are dictionary definitions of ‘nothing.’

The American Heritage Dictionary:

Nothing: 1. No thing; not anything. 2. No significant thing. 3. No portion. 4. Insignificance, obscurity. 5. A person or thing of no consequence. 6. Absence of anything perceptible; nonexistence. 9. Zero; in no way or degree; not at all.

The Random-House Dictionary:

Nothing: 1. No thing or not anything. 2. No matter of any kind. 3. A complete absence of something. 4. Something or someone of no importance. 5. A zero quantity. 6. For nothing: (A) Free of charge; (B) For no reason; (C) To no avail. 7. To think nothing of: (A) To treat casually; (B) To regard as insignificant. 9. In no respect or degree.

The Merriam-Webster Dictionary:

Nothing: Pronoun: 1. No thing. 2. No part. 3. One of no interest, value, or importance.

Nothing: Adverb: Not at all; in no degree.

Nothing: Noun: 1. Something that does not exist. 2. Zero. 3. A person or thing of little or no value or importance.

Nothing: Adjective: Of no account; worthless.

Webster’s New World Dictionary:

Nothing: Noun: 1. No thing; not anything. 2. Nothingness. 3. A thing that does not exist. 4. A person or thing considered of little or not importance. 5. A zero.

Nothing: Adverb: Not at all; in no way.

Expressions:

For nothing: 1. Free. 2. In vain. 3. Without reason.
To think nothing of: 1. To attach no importance to. 2. To regard as easy to do.

The Harper-Collins Dictionary of Philosophy (Peter A. Angeles, ed.):

Nothing: Not any thing; the denial of existence or of an existent. Opposite to something, thing, anything, everything.

The Oxford Dictionary of Philosophy (Simon Blackburn, ed.):

Nothing: The non-existence of all things; a concept that can be frightening, fascinating, or dismissed as the product of the logical confusion of treating the term ‘nothing’ as itself a referring expression instead of a quantifier. This confusion leads the unwary to think that a sentence such as ‘nothing is all around us’ talks of a special kind of thing that is all around us, when in fact it merely denies that the predicate ‘is all around us’ has application. The feelings that lead some philosophers and theologians, notably Heidegger, to talk of the experience of Nothing, is not properly the experience of nothing, but rather the failure of a hope or expectation that there would be something of some kind at some point. This may arise in quite everyday cases, as when one finds that the article of furniture one expected to see as usual in the corner has disappeared. The difference between existentialists and analytical philosophers on the point is that whereas the former are afraid of Nothing, the latter think that there is nothing to be afraid of when actions are specified in terms of doing nothing: saying nothing may be an admission of guilt, and doing nothing in some circumstances may be tantamount to murder ... . Other substantive problems arise over conceptualizing empty space and time.

--End Dictionary Definitions of ‘Nothing’--

In Operational Physics, I require the term ‘thing’ to be specified operationally, by an operational definition, to be an object, a unity, comprised of matter/energy and of longer duration than related events.

If you want to discuss an idea/thought/notion/matter/affair/issue/X which exists/piece of information/turn of events/general state of affairs/conditions/event/circumstance/distinct entity/inanimate object/possessions/belongings/effects/clothing/detail/point/something someone likes to do/action/deed/attitude/feeling/hallucinations/incident/contention/irrational liking or fear/reference to a person, as in “a poor thing”/etc., then I want you or anyone else to be specific, including being redundant, if necessary, for clarity.

Space, not being comprised of matter/energy, is not a thing, not an object. It is an unbounded area/arena/location/place/theatre/volume/etc. which is a pure vacuum, a vast emptiness, except for those areas in which there is the presence of matter/energy.

Bob K:eh:First of all, where do I claim that space is nothing?

The problem herein is that most of the definitions tend to describe a thing as an object, unity, etc. comprised of matter/energy, which space is not. Calling a vacuum a thing is calling a vacuum an object comprised of matter/energy and I therefore want to avoid this kind of error-of-thinking.

This is, then, my choice, to limit the term ‘thing’ in physics to be defined as an object comprised of matter/energy which has a duration in time and in space longer than related events.

This contrasts nicely with the conception of an event as a relationship among things.

If you want to be specific and do not want to use the term ‘thing,’ then specify a _____ (?) comprised of matter/energy to be an object instead using the term ‘thing’ when you intend for ‘thing’ to mean an object, and, otherwise, if you intend otherwise, then specify how you define ‘thing,’ so we will all know and we can avoid confusions, if possible.

Darth Dane

So by definition, everytime we use Pi, it is only approximated, and thus not exactly the value Pi. meaning now there is a small difference.

In the arabic numbers, is it infinite or finite?


We have all this space between everything else, so at the "end" of the universe space will continue anyways. But nothing will be defined because there is no atoms or some such to be defined by it. But space continues. So when we see th espace between atoms, we are staring at that which is infinite. problem with humans is that most of humans can´t see that small..or that big. But we are staring at it all the time.


"Lift the stone and I shall be there"






DD - Space Spliff

eh

OK, you don't need to repeat yourself here. We have all heard your definition of space a million times, so I'm sure we can we move along without being reminded.

Great. So know we can agree that 'nothing' is negation of existence, right? So space cannot be 'nothing' in the traditional definition of 'thing', since it clearly exists.

Cleary, this is where confusion arises. If you want to refer to space as an asbolute vacuum where there is matter - just say it. But calling it nothingess brings up problems, since even where there is no matter, this 3D vacuum clearly exists.

But that is not the traditional definition of 'thing'. That being said, the word 'nothingness' seems to be inappropriate, and it will cause confusion. I think for clarity, vacuum is a better word.

I've seen you say space is nothing in several threads, including this one. Do these quotes sound familiar?

Space IS the nothingness I think it is

Whose definition claims space is a thing?

I certainly have not defined space to be a thing.

So which is it?

Now if you want to claim that space is not a physical 'thing' in the sense that it is not made of energy or matter, there wouldn't be anything logically wrong with that. But science says the vacuum is full of energy.

I think the real problem is the fact that scientists still call a vacuum a vacuum, but the definition of a vacuum in 2002 is very different than the definition they held in 1900. Such vacuums are filled with energy that cannot be removed, and the modern definition seems to be the ground state of a system. QM says such a ground state cannot be zero.

I think calling a vacuum 'devoid of energy' will suffice.

eh

Wow, I did not know that. Tell me which law states energy must be finite?

Also, tell me which law says that energy density is conserved.


Yet QM says such a vacuum is impossible, due to the uncertainty principle. Are you going to claim QM is nonsense, or do you know of a way around that?

I think critics would actually point out that QM forbids such pure vacuums from existing, and might mention experiments that validate this. Here is a link on the history of the the vacuum:

http://users.erols.com/iri/ZPENERGY.html

So it seems that a vacuum would only be possible in a universe where the laws of physics are different.

Shake

Well, to merely label Pi as infinite makes it no better than the decimal expansion for, say, 1/3 (or countless other examples).

The Calculus depends on application of the infinite (limits, integration, etc).

Earlier, I was going to write a small piece about Zeno's paradox, and how to get around physical infinities, but this seems trivial in comparison to some of the discussion here.