no infinity

[vondesastre]

hi stallman

i know its a bit scatered all over and am not too good at epressing the all of my ideas in writing either but i try to change that
what do no infinity, the enregy we reb in andb quartz have in common
well if you have any type of natural uncontroled source of energy it would radiate a sphere like geometry from the source outwards to be having smaller and smaller density per cubic units>>> this has to end somewhere in order to allow other sources to emerge and do the same therefor allawing a state of equilibrium in energy space and matter ratio
if not it would have been a simple non evolving block of every thing at the same time

what does quartz have to do with the above

infact am interested in piezo electric  as a small part of the  whole solution (we must start somewhere,dont we)

piezo materials present this unique chracteristic of emiting eletric impulses seemingly out of the blue
but i find that they are our best models in what i described in my earlier post

what i mean to say is that the enregy they get must come from somewhere i dont belive they produce it from nothing but rather >>> they are perfect vectors of conversion.

proving my piont:
since scool days i took apart the automatic piezo ignitor from a gas stove (thing any one can do with the piezo igniter from an old pocket lighter) and i connected  to a 914 diode in sreies with sensible galvanometre and put it on the table under a in a glass jar
and guess what >>> the setup shows 0.01to 0.08 v dancing constant till now(if thats not free energy then what is?) i know its not gigawats but it shows us the way
just try it and see for yourself

from my observation :
there must be a coorelation between the piezo chemical latice arrangement and its ability to convert oscilations to energy futher more  i suspect that earth natural oscillations have a great influance on the piezo (thus it just sits there in the whole and the rest is being taken care of naturally and no need to do as you stated>>>If a system is in equilibrium you cannot extract energy from the system. It must be in disequilibrium.<<< (correct me if I am wrong))

the free energy machine should respect some conditionals
1 it will not have a convetional energy input
2 should be self starting
3 contiuoust running (be careful>> am not  talking about perpetual motion)
4 the only stops should be user volontary (and not decaying work to a stop unless over loaded or accidental.)


sorry for any spelling mistakes(i usually get loads of them)

[pauldude000]

I truly cannot accept that I joined a forum to answer a single question... rofl. That will teach me to be inquisitive! 

After reading these entries, I have detected a frequently talked about but usually never witnessed oddity. A truly logical debate.

The problem I have pointed out to others on this before is common enough that I have given it a tentative name. "Escherian Mathematics". I named it this, as what the renouned artist Escher does on medium, is all too easily replicated in the pursuance of mathematics. You can build extremely pretty concepts, which do not, nor cannot, truly fit reality.

Mathematics, when applied to reality, has to fit the reality, and not the other way around.

For instance: You may have one or more "things", but you may not have a negative amount of "things". A negative number may be used to represent charge, state, or spin, but it cannot reflect reality when showing a lesser quantity than something. If you examine a hydrogen atom that has had its electron stripped away, you do not have a hydrogen atom with -1 electrons, you have an atom with 0 electrons, or an atom with 1 empty hole in the electron shell.

Concerning the path of a circle. If it was infinite, then both circumference and diameter would be infinite...... since the circumference IS the path.

Concerning the number of points in a line. If any given line truly had an infinite number of points, then it would require an infinite amount of time to step over an infinite amount of points, which would mean you could not walk a straight line. 

If the area of a mobious strip were truly infinite, then it would encompass an infinite amount of space.

Concerning the X/0 = infinity rule. It should not surprise anyone that the concept was formulated by a mathematician/philosopher (heavy on the philosophy). It breaks the basic rules of mathematics, in ALL instances (including 0/0 =1). Namely  that ANY division problem can be falsified with an equivalent multiplication.

For instance IS this true? 10/2=5 Why? 5*2=10 The inherent relationship between multiplication and division is inescapable, unless you wish to invalidate the mathematical system.

X/0= infinity therefore is equivalent to infinity * 0 = X, which shows then that X = 0 by definition since ANYTHING * 0 = 0. Since X can never be any number BUT zero by falsification when infinity is the result, then ONLY 0/0 can equal infinity....., and never can equal 1, since 1 is not infinity.........

Anything in reality divided by zero becomes a refusal to divide. Logical Experiment. Place ten oranges on your table. Divide them by 2. You have two piles of 5 right? Now, push those ten oranges together again, and divide them by zero. Are then the number of oranges exploding off of your table, rushing to fill the entire universe, infinitely expanding its borders, or do you still have ten oranges in a pile.......

You are now faced with the definition of "zero", and the definition of "divide equally". Zero, in mathematics is either a statement of absence, or a placeholder. Nothing more, nothing less. You cannot divide ANYTHING 0 times equally as an absence, or you are left with nothing. You cannot divide by a placeholder, as the concept is meaningless. The only logical outcome of a division by zero is then a logical refusal to divide. In essence, it is cancels out.

Inifinity is a concept nowhere demonstrable in nature. There are truly VAST unponderable numbers out there, which ARE demonstrable, but if you can even add 1 to them, they are not infinite. Inifnity is then purely a man-made construct, based upon a lack of evidence, and therefore IS based solely upon imagination.

PI... where it stops no one knows, but since we cannot say truly that it does continue on infinitely (Fantastic claims require fantastic evidence. Either it is falsifiable or it is not.), then we should just say so. WE HAVE NO CLUE WHERE IT STOPS.

I hope that this has either informed or entertained you.

Paul Andrulis

[HopeForHumanity]

Yes, you are very right, however, infinity can be negative and that fits reality, units can be infinitly divided. We have dimensions in our universe, if the dimensions permit an unlimited amount of direction, then all possible outcomes reach infinity(or continuing without end). If infinity means forever, then we can have a forever - 1, which is basicaly saying that the contiuing of that direction is always one unit smaller than the other infinite direction. If the mass of the universe is degrading, yet we are expanding, then we are being infinitly stretched making the difference between the length and width of space forever larger, yet we cannot percieve this because we are at an infinite level of perception, meaning that the difference between our percieved length and width forever increasing at a matched speed. If matter was finite, then we would percieve ourselves being stretched to the point of insanity.

[vondesastre]

thanks paul
it looks as though you have much better ways with words tha i do

your aproach reveals your sharpness of mind

thanks again

[pauldude000]

HopeForHumanity, you post some interesting concepts. Let us examine them one by one, as you posted many in a short space.

"however, infinity can be negative and that fits reality"

If inifinity is unfalsefiable outside of mathematics, then as I stated before, there is no proof to infinity. If there is in fact no such thing as infinity in reality, then it cannot be negative OR positive.

"units can be infinitly divided"

I am sorry, but I have to unequivicably state false here. This is another thing possible ONLY with pure numbers. Science states that the amount of matter in the universe is finite, as you point out further on. That means at any given point in time, there is a finite amount of any matter whatever the type. (Atoms, particles, etc.) Now, if you attempt to divide the entire amount of matter in the universe, then you will reach sooner or later, the quantum state as the smallest particle, at which any more division would convert it purely to energy. (IE quantum flux from where it came.) At this point, it is no longer divisible, therefore cannot be infinitely divisible.

"if the dimensions permit an unlimited amount of direction, then all possible outcomes reach infinity(or continuing without end). "

This is the only situation I have pondered, where it might truly be possible to demonstrate infinity. However, it is tenous at best, since no experiment has proven multiple dimensions that I know of. (This again falls under the Fantastic claim rule.) We have to be carefull not to confuse theory with reality. Theories are our tentative and changing assumptions of reality, and like mathematics must fit reality to be true.

"If infinity means forever, then we can have a forever - 1, which is basicaly saying that the contiuing of that direction is always one unit smaller than the other infinite direction"

Question: Do you believe in the big bang? If so, then this reality (universe) had a start, which logically implies it shall also end. IE. no proof of infinity due to entropy.

"If the mass of the universe is degrading, yet we are expanding, then we are being infinitly stretched making the difference between the length and width of space forever larger, yet we cannot percieve this because we are at an infinite level of perception, meaning that the difference between our percieved length and width forever increasing at a matched speed."

This is definately non-proven, or in fact proveable. Black holes at the center of each galaxy are ripping these galaxies back into their component energy. (Returning the matter to the Quantum Flux). However, we have no proof that we are exanding in such manner, nor CAN WE if we were!

Your concepts are quite logical in the current framework, but in this area the framework is at fault, not you. I was right there with you just a small number of years back. I was examining relativity, when I examined the infinite mass problem. This actually brought it to my attention. I am not an expert, nor do I claim to be. I am merely logical, with a habit of dabbling.