no infinity

[Dingus Mungus]

One can not mathematiclly prove infinity, because as you said it never ends and we end rather quickly. Obviously and without arguement our lifes spans are much smaller than infinity. Though I must now point out that you have already acknowledged the existance of the function of infinity with your largest/smallest number explanation. Thats all I'm doing is acknowledging the function of infinity. By the very definition of infinity, no one will ever define it logisticly as no number or measuremnet could ever apply.

Untill you can show me the end of a infinite mathematical function I'm forced to still believe they continue on forever.

~Dingus Mungus

P.S. What evidence do you have that pi or prime numbers will eventually end?

[ring_theory]

The radii. simply draw a circle observe the circle is 2D. it has an inner radius and an outer radius. this is where the parallel postulate comes in. it is observed that the inner and outer radius will never intersect. they will always be parallel to each other. In a 3D form the radii is a ring it carries the same properties an inner radius and an outer radius. In addition the ring representing the radii and being a 3D form carries inherent properties. it has a top and bottom which is also parallel to each other and as the inner and outer radius the top and bottom will never intersect. in addition to these properties Pi is present on the surface of the entire form.

How this fits into infinity. The parallel path that never intersects is indeed infinity. If something, anything could travel a path indefinitely with no observable deviations in that path than it is indeed infinite. Unity is in part or whole the radius of the natural sine. if this is true than a ring is unity by form alone. over unity would be to simply spin the ring in an annular motion about it's pseudo axis. 

[wattsup]

@vondesastre

You need a differential in potential between the coils. If both coils are situated at the same lenght this difference will not be great in my view. On the other hand, if the top coil is to the left near the piezo on a shorter metal rod and the bottom coil to the right on the end of the bottom rod, it will create a greater difference in both coils potentials, thus creating a movement. The diode.... will this cost 1/4 watts? You would be best to try all your tests with or without the diode on the coils.

Also the diode on the load will cost you and I think it may hamper field movement between the load and the void.

Happy testing.

PS: I plugged my CBC onto my AM/FM radio. No reception so it can't be an antenna. Just jok'in. lol


@no infinity

If 0 equaled infinity and having total zero of something is impossible - then no infinity is correct. If 0 does not equal infinity, then all the numbers in the world, on either side of zero could not match infinity either. So the only logical answer left is 0 = infinity, but if total zero of something is impossible - then no infinity is correct again.

Infinity = never ending worries about infinity
No infinity = Closing the book on this subject
It's a no win question or trap.

[pauldude000]

"Untill you can show me the end of a infinite mathematical function I'm forced to still believe they continue on forever.

~Dingus Mungus

P.S. What evidence do you have that pi or prime numbers will eventually end?"

Dingus, your PS is the best question you have asked me. I hope my answer is satisfactory.

Mathematics is a tool. Pure and simple. It has to reflect reality in its useage to be of any defineable value. That is mathematics purpose for existance. However, any tool can be abused or manipulated. Mathematics in this manner can be related to a painters brush. A painters brush can be used to paint a truly awesome depiction of the wielder's view of reality, or it can be used equally absractly to portray something that either does not or cannot exist in nature, or is a horribly blurred and unuseable rendition.

Occasionally, as with the artist Escher, you end up with art that imitates reality quite closely, but has aspects within the picture which are impossible, while the rest of the picture in question dutifully reflects reality. These types of picture are, at first glance, quite realistic, until scrutinized closely. Mathematical paintings of reality are generally of this type. Unlike a mere painting though which can at best give a semblance of reality, mathematics paints a picture which we accept as the understood reality of our universe. It is the main tool which we use to describe reality. Therefore, in all aspects mathematics should in every case reflect reality, and reality mathematics.

Now I define reality as: The natural universe and everything existing in it both visible and invisible, past, present, and future, whether apparently material, energy, or force, or any aspect or combination thereof.

The problem with infinity in its relation to reality is that NOT ONE THING in reality has been demonstrated to be infinite. Not one. At any given point in time, everything from the amount of universal mass, the size of the universe itself, the numbers of any given particle, etc., etc., etc., are all finite. The universe is expanding, which it cannot do if infinite. The amount of matter, and therefore mass, of the universe has been shown to be decreasing, which cannot be true if the numbers of particles etc. were infinite, in which case the amount of universal matter and mass would be infinite.

Therefore, if you have a reality which is demonstrably finite, the tool which portrays said reality is therefore finite, as well as all useages of it which demonstrate reality. Therefore, to answer your question, all functions of mathematics are limited to reality, or are therefore nothing more usefull than absrtact art. Something which may appeal to the senses, but demonstrates no clear aspect of reality, and is unuseable in its representation thereof.

Prime numbers are limited to the largest APPLICABLE prime, if they reflect reality.

The largest number in mathematics is the largest APPLICABLE number.

Concerning either of the previous two, any number, prime or other, no longer reflects reality, but is in fact abstract in nature.

Concerning PI, all other real ratios deplete eventually, therefore I have more evidence that it eventually ends than I have that it doesn't, therefore can statistically state that it probably does end, even if I have not found where.

Nothing in nature is infinitely reducible, therefore nothing in mathematics is either.

No path in nature is infinite, as all have starting and ending points, even if these paths are from universal boundary to boundary. Not even the path of a circle is infinite, since said path IS THE CIRCUMFERENCE, and no circle is of infinite circumference, not even a circle encompassing the boundary of the universe itself.

That is why infinity is unfalsifiable. It has to be self referencing, since nothing reflects it, and it is nowhere referenced by anything real. It is, as I stated before, an abstraction of mathematics, and therefore useless as a concept in science, as science is by definition the study of the natural universe (reality).

I shall quote Wattsup, as he demonstrate the illogicality of the self referencing concept quite succinctly, and is right in that it is a mental trap.


"If 0 equaled infinity and having total zero of something is impossible - then no infinity is correct. If 0 does not equal infinity, then all the numbers in the world, on either side of zero could not match infinity either. So the only logical answer left is 0 = infinity, but if total zero of something is impossible - then no infinity is correct again.

Infinity = never ending worries about infinity
No infinity = Closing the book on this subject
It's a no win question or trap."

Paul Andrulis

[Super God]

The size of the universe could be infinite.  I mean, it's not like some wall is going to appear out of nowhere!  The only thing in this world that I can think of as infinite would be the size of our universe.  Certain theories on time travel yield an infinite number of parallel paths, but that's just a theory.  I think infinity is indeed a valid part of mathematics, but I'm no expert.