neilrowe
I think the universe is best described by:-
infinity - infinity = 0
That is for every positive there is a negative. For every matter there is an antimatter, for every action there is an equal and opposite reaction. In the beginning there was nothing. There must effectively still be nothing.
AlphaNumeric
Firstly, infinity - infinity is undefined, you can't say it's zero. Secondly, you've just 'created' an equation to suit your philosophy of the universe, not an all governing equation.

Having the view that there's always an opposite to everything is fine, but don't try to throw in an equation you think is profound but is actually BS just to try and validate your views.
Zephir
QUOTE (neilrowe+Oct 23 2006, 11:04 AM)
I think the universe is best described by: infinity - infinity = 0

By Aether Wave theory (AWT) the equation describing whole observable Universe is wave equation..
Knot of this world
There's always this...

http://www.spaceandmotion.com/cosmology-eq...n-of-cosmos.htm

Infinity is a non-equation as it cannot be measured.

k.
neilrowe
QUOTE (AlphaNumeric+Oct 23 2006, 10:08 AM)
Firstly, infinity - infinity is undefined, you can't say it's zero. Secondly, you've just 'created' an equation to suit your philosophy of the universe, not an all governing equation.

Having the view that there's always an opposite to everything is fine, but don't try to throw in an equation you think is profound but is actually BS just to try and validate your views.

In my ignorance I can't see anything wrong with it. Perhaps you would care to elaborate
Aireal
Neilrowe

As you might guess from the name, AlphaNumeric is real good at math, better than many here. I am not, but I think I can explain. There are more infinities than you suggest, and they are defined well, from a math viewpoint. You got infinity increasing, and infinity decreasing, but you also have negative infinities, even infinities with "imaginary" numbers.

So from his viewpoint, your formula is more of a philosophical statement, not a scientific one.
Guest_Confused2
When I was a student (many years ago) a lecturer announced that he was going to give us the ultimate equation .. the one that summed up everything that is known to physics THE EQUATION. He waited while we woke our friends up so they wouldn't miss anything. OK.

It's coming .. THE EQUATION

Exciting isn't it..

E-mc^2=0
F-ma = 0
etc.
Sum LHS = 0.

AlphaNumeric
The current 'ultimate equation' would be the Lagrangian which is the sum of the Einstein action for general relativity and the non-abelian fermionic QCD Lagrangian.

From that you can derive the behaviour of space-time, Maxwells equations and the quatum behaviour of light and the weak and strong nuclear forces along with all the known particles.

Obviously it's an incomplete picture, it's only half quantised (the Einstein action is classical) but considering it's a 1 line expression (if you write a little small) it's pretty powerful.
mott.carl
there are many degrees of infinite,including the cardinal and ordinal transfinite.
then infinite - infinite = 0 is impossible.can be zero as any numbers that are into of the continuum;and still have the imaginary numbers,that not is contained in the
continuum,but can be linked at the time,through of the connexions of the trnscendent numbers and imaginary,that are associated to the non-linearity or holes of manifolds( that are given by "cut" of dedekind-cantor;it is corresponds in the contiuum in two segments,that can be divided as "past" and "future"
neilrowe
To alphanumeric. I suspect you are a far better mathematician than me. How would you express mathematically what I'm trying to say?
AlphaNumeric
QUOTE (mott.carl+Nov 4 2006, 01:25 AM)
there are many degrees of infinite,including the cardinal and ordinal transfinite.
then infinite - infinite = 0 is impossible.can be zero as any numbers that are into of the continuum

Mott, shut up.
QUOTE (neilrowe+Nov 14 2006, 07:22 AM)
To alphanumeric. I suspect you are a far better mathematician than me. How would you express mathematically what I'm trying to say?
I wouldn't really express what you're trying to say because it's not a mathematical expression, it's more a philisophical statement.

If I had to be pushed to make a mathematical statement which sounds like your comment it would be :

For every X in the universe there exists a Y such that X+Y = 0.

I would emphasis that stating a point of view like that in a mathematical statement doesn't make it any more valid or profound.
the universal math equation is

e^(i*pi)+1=0

I think, where i=squareroot(-1)

cheers

Oriol

oriol.gallemi(at)a3e.org.es
a SSETI-ESA partner
---------------------
Be you, Be SPACE
---------------------
Nick
Quantities are always real numbers. There are no negative quantities. So negative numbers only exist relative to their larger absolute values.

A negative number is simply the operation of subtraction.
AlphaNumeric
Not so. You can have notions of negative curvature and negative energy where the negative sign is of vital importance because there positive version is actually something completely different.

The curvature of an open universe would be ever so slightly negative. The energy of virtual particle pairs splits into positive and negative parts. Certain physical trajectories of objects around black holes give them negative energy.
Nick
QUOTE (AlphaNumeric+Feb 12 2007, 09:05 PM)
Not so. You can have notions of negative curvature and negative energy

That's exactly what they are notions alone.
AlphaNumeric
You could argue that curvature isn't a physical thing but the negative energy of the systems I mentioned certain is a physical thing. Of course if you're just going to move the goal posts so that every time someone comes up with a counter example to your numerous misconceptions in physics, you're just being stupid. Just like that time you refused to believe Einstein had said something even when someone presented you with a published paper of his in his own words.
kaneda
Infinity is a mathematical concept with no place in the real world.
Gorgeous
QUOTE
Infinity is a mathematical concept with no place in the real world.

incorrect. mathematics exists to measure. what is infinite has no measure.

there can only be 1 infinite thing. and it has to be everywhere all the time so is also eternal.

g.
kaneda
QUOTE (Gorgeous+Feb 18 2007, 12:18 AM)

incorrect. mathematics exists to measure. what is infinite has no measure.

there can only be 1 infinite thing. and it has to be everywhere all the time so is also eternal.

g.

An infinitely long line one centimeter thick is not everywhere. An elastic band could be said to be infinitely long because it has neither beginning nor end.

If you cannot measure something, how can you know it is infinite?
Gorgeous
QUOTE (kaneda+Feb 18 2007, 08:13 AM)
An infinitely long line one centimeter thick is not everywhere. An elastic band could be said to be infinitely long because it has neither beginning nor end.

If you cannot measure something, how can you know it is infinite?

your post makes no sense whatsoever. you have obviously not thought about it in any great depth.

it is the ability to not be measured that makes a thing infinite. if you think about it there is only one thing that this can be and it must be everywhere all the time. you are also a tiny part of it. it is the final frontier because it doesn't have one.

g.
kaneda
Gorgeous. There is no need to accuse me of not thinking of something because of your inability to understand it. I will try to explain it better.

If something is infinite, it need not be all encompassing but only infinite in one of it's dimensions (infinitely long). Or you could have an infinite number of lollipops.

Travel in a car around a circular race track. How long will it take you to reach the end? Answer = forever, because it has no end.

If something cannot be measured, how can you know it is infinite and not just "near infinite"? By that statement we cannot know an infinite because we cannot measure it to be so.

How can something be the final frontier if it doesn't have one?
Gorgeous
QUOTE
If something is infinite, it need not be all encompassing but only infinite in one of it's dimensions (infinitely long).

firstly we do not observe anything 'infinitely long'. length is a measurement therefore not applicable in infinity as we have already agreed that it cannot be measured.

QUOTE (->
 QUOTE If something is infinite, it need not be all encompassing but only infinite in one of it's dimensions (infinitely long).

firstly we do not observe anything 'infinitely long'. length is a measurement therefore not applicable in infinity as we have already agreed that it cannot be measured.

Or you could have an infinite number of lollipops

no. you would have to have a medium for the lollipops to be in which was bigger than infinite. see? doesn't add up does it?

QUOTE
Travel in a car around a circular race track. How long will it take you to reach the end? Answer = forever, because it has no end.

complete nonsense. a circle is not infinite merely repetitive. a car needs petrol therefore has to stop. the race track itself will disintegrate in time. you will have died long before that. so, you posit an impossibility as a 'scenario' with credence.

QUOTE (->
 QUOTE Travel in a car around a circular race track. How long will it take you to reach the end? Answer = forever, because it has no end.

complete nonsense. a circle is not infinite merely repetitive. a car needs petrol therefore has to stop. the race track itself will disintegrate in time. you will have died long before that. so, you posit an impossibility as a 'scenario' with credence.

If something cannot be measured, how can you know it is infinite and not just "near infinite"?

see the lollipop explanation.

QUOTE
By that statement we cannot know an infinite because we cannot measure it to be so.

infinite by definition is unmeasurable. we cannot know the entirety of what is infinite but can deduce its properties necessarily.

QUOTE (->
 QUOTE By that statement we cannot know an infinite because we cannot measure it to be so.

infinite by definition is unmeasurable. we cannot know the entirety of what is infinite but can deduce its properties necessarily.

How can something be the final frontier if it doesn't have one?

its not a paradox. it is the reality that causes all things. many things appear 'paradoxical' or 'dualistic' at this stage. but they are the essence of why things are the way they are. in reality they all work together as a unity.

suggest you wander around in the solitude you claim for a while and take it in. knee jerk posting is a form of defence. while defending we cannot go forwards in our thinking. understand this with a better explanation and i will have no problem apologising.

g.
kaneda
Gorgeous. How do you deduce infinity and that it is not near infinity?

As to lollipops, double one an infinite number of times and it will be a lot less than if you double 2, 3, etc an infinite number of times.

As to the elastic band/racing track, I was trying to make you think instead of quoting.

As I am in Bangkok (where it is a mere 37.C) there is no solitude here outside my hotel room in this very busy city.

I don't think you have the capacity to apologise.
Gorgeous
QUOTE
I don't think you have the capacity to apologise.

I hope you find the capacity for solitude soon, my friend.

g.
kaneda
QUOTE (Gorgeous+Feb 22 2007, 01:42 PM)

I hope you find the capacity for solitude soon, my friend.

g.

No problem. Sorry too about being abrupt. It is very hot and sticky here and I'll be glad to get back home again though the forecast there is rain followed by more rain.
Hi Neil:

I appreciate the gist of what you're saying and accept it in the manner offered. However, there are some problems you need to consider:

Since infinity isn't a determinable value we can't say subtracting it from itself is equal to zero, or anything else for that matter. In a sense, it doesn't hold still long enough to permit being measured and thus can't be measured. It goes on indefinitely, at least in theory. We can't even say it's equal to itself. Because as soon as you attempt to do so, it would become finite which is contradictory.
AlphaNumeric: Firstly, infinity minus infinity is undefined, you can't say it's zero.

Mike: Agreed and well-done. You're off to a great start.

AlphaNumeric: Secondly, you've just 'created' an equation to suit your philosophy of the universe, not an all governing equation.

Mike: Now you've strayed off the path of accomplishing anything positive or useful at this point, which means you're wasting your time and every else's. He didn't create an erroneous equation to justify some philosophy of the universe. That contrivance only exists in your own mind being the result of arrogance.

His equation was invalid due to the lack of complete understanding of the notion of infinity. He's not alone in making that particular error. Anyone who's been fortunate enough to have had the opportunity of studying mathematics (such as yourself) for many years wouldn't have likely made his mistake. However most others which haven't had that advantage would (and often do) as you've seen occur previously, more than on this singular occasion. The failure to have a complete and thorough understanding of a particular subject doesn't make someone a bad or evil person, except to you and by your erroneous way thinking in that regard.

To crucify him for having made an honest mistake or for lacking only one part (where he may have gotten all the others right) regarding the meaning of infinity, is completely unjustified and unwarranted. Just as in the case of (someone) knit picking the fact (another) made a simple honest misspelling (typo) in one of their posts, which any human being can easily do.

It's not particularly very helpful or useful crucifying someone for having made such a simple honest error as that, is it? Nor does intentionally badgering and intimidating someone encourage and make them more receptive to seeing things your way and accept what you're trying to convey. Rather, it only turns them off and drives them away as it would any human being.

AlphaNumeric: Having the view that there's always an opposite to everything is fine, but don't try to throw in an equation you think is profound but is actually BS just to try and validate your views.

Mike: Now you've really gone completely off the deep-end and driven away nearly everyone (other than one or two of your admirers which I'm not presently one) with that absurdly abusive statement.

In point of fact, assuming there's always an opposite to everything (like you do with respect to QT) isn't fine. It's an entirely false assumption for the reasons pointed-out in today's thread entitled Time and the property of finality also appearing in the Space section of the forum. Further, he never claimed his equation was profound in any way whatsoever. That's an erroneous assumption you've inserted (once again) because of arrogance. Your use of profanity (abbreviated or otherwise) was completely unwarranted and uncalled for (as it most often would be) particularly in this setting and occasion.

Perhaps you can learn for this experience yourself, if you're willing to do so. Realize, if you'd taken the time to explain to him where his assumptions went awry and why (which you honestly started out doing but then strayed) without the chip on your shoulder you carry around at all times, he might very well have finished reading your reply all the way thru and gained from it. However, as most everyone does with your posts, he likely stopped reading and abandoned it, once he realized the intent of your reply was to attack and intimidate, rather than help explain and teach.

You of all people have a great potential to do a lot of good on this forum. But you continue to allow your personal biases and shortcomings (which everyone has) to overcome your better judgement and destroy any such possibility. I genuinely hope you'll try to work on those tendencies and get them completely under control. Scientists and researchers, more so than most any other professionals, must have the ability to completely divorce themselves from their personal biases and preferences, in order to achieve valid and unbiased results.

Finally, all of those decent things I said about you in the January 14th entry I made to your feedback profile are true and I genuinely meant every one them, as I believe you know. But realize, you destroy each and every one of those outstanding attributes when you allow yourself to get out of control and become abusive.

The day you can resolve those self-destructive tendencies I'll be your staunchest friend and admirer. You have my word on that. Further, I believe you have the capacity within yourself to do so, if you set your mind to it. Anyone who's worked as long and hard to learn the many things you have, must certainly have that potential.
psych0fred
I just have to throw in my two cents.

What you are talking is about is null. Infinity - Infinity = null, not zero. Maybe that will help paint a clearer picture.

I got this quote from Ghost in the Shell in which a Tachkoma droid is explaining the concept of God to a cyborg. The droid thinks their commander is concerned that the droids have attained individuality. It goes like this:

"You remember that existence of God thing that I had so much trouble understanding? Well guess what? I think I'm starting to grasp it now. Maybe just maybe it's a concept that similar to zero in mathmatics. In other words, it's a symbol that denies the abscence of meaning -- The meaning that's necessitated by the delineation of one system from a another. In analog that's God, in digital that's zero. What do you think? What I'm getting at is this: The basis of our design and construction is digital, right? So for the time being no matter how much data we accumulate none of us [droids] will ever have a ghost [soul] but for analog-based people no matter how many digital components you add on through cyberization or prothestics your ghost will never diminish. Plus because you have a ghost you can even die. You're so lucky. So tell me what's it feel like to have a ghost?"

This got me thinking and studying emergence, cybernetics, system theory, and network theory.

First, zero does not denote the abscence of meaning, just value, an dthey are not the same. Null is an important concept that is being overlooked. It's like we're talking about space as though it were nothing when it is something, so if you use that analogy space is zero and null is nothing. The catch is null is required as the "space" where numbers like zero can exist. It's the platform, the canvas, the landscape which defines the rules that math follows.

I know that's BS, but not because it isn't true, it's because the rules are defined by the contrast between null and zero, not zero and one. By contrast I specifically mean the delineation of one system from another - the delination of zero from null is what defines the equation for infinity, not the delineation of one from zero.

Visulaize the infinity symbol and imagine all mathematics are with in it. Everything outside of it, is null. Null is outside of inifinity, but zero one and mathematics are contained within infinity.

I think of null as the vacuum of space. Zero would be space, matter would be one. Throw the infinity symbol in and it looks like a black hole. Apply physics to that and it's a collapsing wave function, where the center of the symbol is where mathematics comes into contact with null. Where the reality of the universe is defined by the collpasing wave function of probability.

The delineation of one from zero defines what is confined within the landscape/realm/model of inifinity, not what's outside it. In a dynamic linearly perceived universe there is nothing outside of it, but if you look at the time before the universe existed on that perceived scale it takes you back to some place outside the universe - some null-space where the universe came into existence.

Spontaneously null may have spawned zero at the beginning, and the equation that defines that is what I think would be significant empirically. Beyond that, the equation when applied to one spawning from zero becomes a subjective analysis/appplication and the only ones that really matter as far as relevance to reality/the real world of applications. The catch is figuring out the equation for the dynamics of infinity, or more specifically the delineation of zero from null.

That's what I think at least. I'm hoping people smarter than me will see the truth in what I'm saying and run with it to more meaningful applied ends. I can explain more if needed, for what it's worth.
asdf
The universe is best described by 42
kaneda
psych0fred. Clue :

Add plus one trillion to minus one trillion and you get zero but not null. Zero has infinite capabilities providing both sides cancel out.
IAMoraes
QUOTE (Zephir+Oct 23 2006, 07:43 PM)
By Aether Wave theory (AWT) the equation describing whole observable Universe is wave equation..

I always said that!!!!!! Little square squared times little fork is obviously equal to zero!!!!

(Zephir, I hate to say this, more so when I am absolutely certain that you know much, much, much more physics and math than I ever will, but the theory of Aether is wrong if it implies the existence of a **third** physical universal basic alongside with space and matter. Period. The "equation" you speak of might do a good job of describing **evolution** someday, but not quite reality!)
mr x
It has already come to pass where the Universal Equation is discovered. However, the unfortunate reality is as such that humanity currently does not exist at a level whereby it's free sharing or exchange would be a sensible discourse to follow being that it still tethers itself to the sad belief that one equals one. When the future humanity truly learns the fundementals of measure-that is , to count- then and only then will it be appropriatte to pursue said endeavors with the neccessay reason, compassion and intelect required as a culture. end of line.
meBigGuy
I know it too, but I promised not to tell.
stgeorge
im looking for some one one here who knows something for real and not just a bunch of gibberish. i have a idea and i would like to bounce it off some one who can shed light on it from a more educated point of view.

stgeorge42@yahoo.com

Robittybob1
QUOTE (stgeorge+Jul 17 2012, 01:31 AM)
im looking for some one one here who knows something for real and not just a bunch of gibberish. i have a idea and i would like to bounce it off some one who can shed light on it from a more educated point of view.

stgeorge42@yahoo.com

Well put it on the site. There are some real knowledgeable people on this site.
Mekigal
QUOTE (stgeorge+Jul 17 2012, 01:31 AM)
im looking for some one one here who knows something for real and not just a bunch of gibberish. i have a idea and i would like to bounce it off some one who can shed light on it from a more educated point of view.

stgeorge42@yahoo.com

spit it out
AlexG
RC, you are an internet terrorist.
Mekigal
your persistent. I will give you that . Waste of talent really
Confused1
AlexG
QUOTE
These are not negotiable

Terrorist demands are always non-negotiable.
AlexG
Whining Troll continues his whines.

You don't often see delusion and obsession played out in public like this.
AlexG
whine, whine, whine...
Whitewolf4869
QUOTE (AlexG+Jul 21 2012, 08:30 PM)
whine, whine, whine...

Whitewolf4869
QUOTE (AlexG+Jul 21 2012, 07:02 PM)

Terrorist demands are always non-negotiable.

Doesn't Satin live down under?
Guest
Yawn.
Guest
Not apathy. Boredom.

Physforum is supposed to be a humour site isn't it?

Given the inability or lack of desire to clean the site up, the owner and moderator have abandoned it to the realm of crackpottery, science satire and slapstick humour.

Why do you wish to be reinstated after all?
Mekigal
Yeah I did see Roppener promote Sciforum
Confused1
QUOTE (Mekigal+)
Yeah I did see Roppener promote Sciforum
Are you really surprised? Often the best way to help drunks, lunatics and child molesters is to assist them to choose 'somewhere else' (aka "anywhere but here"). -C2.
NymphaeaAlba
QUOTE (Confused1+Jul 23 2012, 07:55 AM)
QUOTE (Mekigal+)
Yeah I did see Roppener promote Sciforum
Are you really surprised? Often the best way to help drunks, lunatics and child molesters is to assist them to choose 'somewhere else' (aka "anywhere but here"). -C2.

QUOTE (rpenner+)
I strongly urge you to move to a more reputable science forum.

Uh..excuse me, C1. He was suggesting it to me and I was only teasing. I really don’t drink but maybe three times a year. I’m definitely not a child molester. “Lunatic”…oh crap, I didn’t see that one…ur-uh-um-um-hmm…never mind.
Guest
Nice. An admission, or an apology?
Guest
QUOTE (Confused1+Jul 23 2012, 03:55 PM)
QUOTE (Mekigal+)
Yeah I did see Roppener promote Sciforum
Are you really surprised? Often the best way to help drunks, lunatics and child molesters is to assist them to choose 'somewhere else' (aka "anywhere but here"). -C2.

Church hierarchy like to move on their pedophiles too. You approve of lies and cover up instead of facing the consequences? You and rpenner and physforum are pedophile ring or something?
rpenner
All RealityCheck posts to be deleted. Thank you, Mr. Civility.