Overunity.com Archives

since a very young age i stumbled across a very unusual mathematical inconsistancy in equations explaining or rather trying to express physical phenomena

first i always found it odd whenever calculating any vector giving me the conclusion x=infinity

second   pie= 3.14.................   what alway bugged me is not the fact that pie=3.14....... but the endless (.......) that always follows

third equations concluded by x=o

nevertheless all of humanity abides dearly and without ever questioning these inconsistancies... which make the basis of mathematical calculation even amongs our most renoun mathemmaticians.

lets take the fist case scenario  >>>  in many years of computing and calculations i found out that x can never equal infinity for the most simple of facts kown to man that is we have a decimal type of looping system intended to adress mathematical representation of our physical world. this consists of 0123456789
i definitly dont see infinity in there ...do you?  thus we are facing definit flaw in our mathematical system >>> a minimum of two flaws possibilities arise since infinity is neither a value nor a fact but only the expression of the inability to get a concrete value thus a non value. any equation in existance abides by an excepionless law of equations >>>  lefthand side must always equal rigthhand side of the eqation. infringing this law means that maybe we made a mistake in geting the complete set of values from the observed physical phenomena or we all too simply aplied got got the equation wrong in the first place as x cannot equal a non value. maybe a third possibility mihgt be that our counting system is incomplete or flawed to the point where we have reached a dead end in our mathematical system thus our inability to go anywhere furthur. this will then explain why there is such a slowdown of consistent progress in any of our fields of development. in my opinion >>> developing a means for us to get a tangible value for any infinite equation would solve many of our standstills with nature and the universe as a whole. i guess that it would be the gratest discovery of mankind ever. even grater than the discovery of the wheel or man in space. so to imagine that such small inconsistancy as ifinity in a small equation holds down mankind... isnt it pathetic. humans need to change their way of thinking  and start from scratch out of the box we are surounded by so much energy in the universe yet we are barely able to harness at such a high and ineficient cost so little . its just like being surounded by/ nearly drowning / in drinking water and yet patheticaly dying of thirst because we dont know how to open our mouth.

as for the rest i'l get to that in a later writing

till then waiting comments from you on the subject

the endless(.......) Or rather natural integer. Isn't well understood among the mathematical community. the primary mistake was the turning of unity from 0.999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999 also =0 an additive identity to =1 simply to make unity a multiplicative identity. This works for calculations pertaining to many things man made and does effectively work for formulation bordering natural anomalies. However when dealing with natural integers such as pie 3.14..... which is indeed an infinite path when vectors and rotational mass are concerned . A condition of unity in the form of =0 will often be the result. In Basic mathematics this is *nil* which is correct. However when implementing complicated formula =0 Is unity in the sense of unity is in part or whole the radius of a natural sine, an infinite path in the sense of a loop, circle, orbital path, pie in 3D, certainty of a complex of vectors with a given velocity,  a radius as a whole in general a ring. To see this it is simple. take a rubber o-ring hold it with your forefinger and thumb using both hands left hand at the 9oclock, right hand at 3oclock >O<. What you are holding is unity in it's simplest form. any one vector is preceded and followed by the other on a certain orbital path inherent by form alone. Twist one hand away from you and the other to you. You should see the o-ring take the form of infinity indicating it is indeed an infinite path.

now throw the o-ring like a frisbee spinning the form. Understand that it is believed that the true forces involved in throwing the frisbee and it's flight times are directly attributed to aerodynamics. It is simple to disprove this by simply not spinning the frisbee as you release it. aerodynamics is not the primary medium of suspension and flight times. It is the spinning mass. If we look at the universe around us we see huge spinning masses such as the the planets spinning while traveling around their seemingly infinite path. We see rings around some planets indicating a ring is a natural formation.

http://www.ace.gatech.edu/experiments2/plateau/plateau.html Implicating fluid dynamics may have a hand in it!   

   

   

formula=0
thus  0=0 in convetional maths is balanced and correct.
however these are mere scalars poorly representing or desperately trying represent real coplex vectorial hapenings
by that if i say an object not moving in space has 0 velocity thus 0 acceleration is only a poor mathematical mimic of that same object as in real life situation there does not exist any object with 0 velocity.
for the simple reason that its part of this physical universe and as we know every thing in it is in constant motion (perpetual motion)
therfore the object with 0 velocity is only an assumption from the only observer's standpoint and not being a such fact. thus desperately trying to force fiction into reality

further more stating infinity goes against all laws and theories of conservation of energy.
cause if there is infinte energy in the universe that means that perpetual motion is a fact and not a speculation. therfore that there is indeed a point where universe ends and that it could be calculated as there would be infinite mater too.if you (by any means)try to apply laws of consevation of energy having infinite energy+ infinite mater = no space hence 0=0   no creation/no destruction of energy.

but matter needs space at least for the mear fact of existance that means it has to have a point of end so does energy
laws of conservation of energy are only a mad man's one dream to be able to explain only part of he could see or could understand.... as for the rest of >>> we just followed the path because we could not explain otherwise .

i would only speculate that if the universe is in constant expansion that means that the energy in it has a finite amout as well as a finite amount of mass and space therfore enrgy and mass are being created. but its only a fact that we don't have the tech to see it infact our most sofisticated equipments on the planet can only detect a ridicule gap in the electromagnetic spctrum maybe there are other types, who knows.
but how can a blind born man state and describe the color of his dead mother's eyes.
any attempt would be mear speculation from his part.(boolshit)

therefore how could we blindly state such laws when we cant even undurstand the little we see.

i belive enrgy is being created from scratch in our universe but we dont have any means to see it happen
i'm not saying that i have any ready answer and cannot prove my claim

but in the old days some few people believed the earth was round(none could prove it at the time) when all the rest of the planet thought it was flat. general politico/religious at the time wanted in to be flat. was it true??

i understand that this is simplified maths but i've tried the so much of the complex one with no thrugh roads
but as sherlock holmes said when you've tried all imaginable plausible scenarios but could not get a definte conclusions the one must try to find the answers in the most improbable scenarios the answer should be there.

hmm try http://www.jimblog.net/wp-content/uploads/sacredtexts/eso/som

Topic Summary
Posted on: Today at 07:51:42 AMPosted by: FreeEnergy 
Insert Quote
hmm try http://www.sacred-texts.com/eso/som

---------------------------------------------------------------------

i guess thats a bit too implausible ::)
i'm in no way talking spirituality :D
it neither the place nor that lost
in other words you are short minded and would never be able grasp what am saying

and my advice to you >>> stop those nonsense beliefs
they woulb save you a lot of money :P

never be able to grasp? no wonder this is  "no infinity". ;)

Edit - oh and I don't have to pay to visit http://www.sacred-texts.com/eso/som it is all free.

you calling me short minded? when you say "no infinity"?

peace

Actual Infinites cannot exist in a finite universe.

Quote from: ken_nyus on August 15, 2007, 09:23:13 AM
Actual Infinites cannot exist in a finite universe.

We are finite beings. so it's pretty difficult for us to imagine a infinite state or a near infinite state in what we believe is a finite universe.

I agree. If all things around us are finite, is difficult to imagine the infinite. However, if we find that the infinite has a limit, what it will have beyond this limit? Oh, God! This cause me migraine!  ???

Energy cannot be created nor destroyed but can only change form.

Energy = Infinity

Just my opinion :)


peace

 :o

Nothing in this universe exists. Everything is Illusion. Ilusion optical.
The light is real. Our eyes see only reflected pigments
Our eyes can see only a frequency expectral. The true reality, we cannot see.
That everything is a game of God, where we are the protagonists.

::)

Quote from: brnbrade on August 15, 2007, 04:45:30 PM
:o

Nothing in this universe exists. Everything is Illusion. Ilusion optical.
The light is real. Our eyes see only reflected pigments
Our eyes can see only a frequency expectral. The true reality, we cannot see.
That everything is a game of God, where we are the protagonists.

::)

edit-
If nothing is all that exists then nothing would be the result.
No need for illusions, games, mediums, etc. 

Also it depends on what you think "Reality" or "God" is.

peace

Quote from: brnbrade on August 15, 2007, 04:45:30 PM
:o

Nothing in this universe exists. Everything is Illusion. Ilusion optical.
The light is real. Our eyes see only reflected pigments
Our eyes can see only a frequency expectral. The true reality, we cannot see.
That everything is a game of God, where we are the protagonists.

::)

Welcome to the Matrix!

(sorry! I cant resist!)

Quote from: Doug56 on August 15, 2007, 05:31:11 PM

Quote from: brnbrade on August 15, 2007, 04:45:30 PM
:o

Nothing in this universe exists. Everything is Illusion. Ilusion optical.
The light is real. Our eyes see only reflected pigments
Our eyes can see only a frequency expectral. The true reality, we cannot see.
That everything is a game of God, where we are the protagonists.

::)

Welcome to the Matrix!

(sorry! I cant resist!)

;D cool ;D

was thinking about this when I wrote this

hey guys .... my initial intent when writing this stuff was in no way to excite religious, paranormal etc wonderers.
cause i find it a bit hard >>> explain: why my car is running on petrol ...aaahh>> look in the bible  and find the answer
(((( well, i looked and damn... as much as a believer i can be striving but no where in the bible were answers to why my car was running on this stupid petrol)))) instead i grabed the manufacturers schematics & data sheets >>>>and guess what??? there were tons of answers (( do you get my piont))

this is an overunity forum dedicated in finding new energy means and not new spiritual guidance >>>for the latter please go to the apropriate site. ((( quote from the bible " and god said help yourself and god will help you)))

i am trying to respect your spiritual and paranormal beliefs so please do the same for me and be as most as you can >>>contextual<<< as you can, that would realy healp the humanity as a whole.

thak you very much

Quote from: vondesastre on August 15, 2007, 08:19:50 PM

cause i find it a bit hard >>> explain: why my car is running on petrol ...aaahh>>

Because has great game of government and industrial interest behind this.
But, we are here to modify that.


peace

If the universe is infinite then wouldn?t the amount of mass also be infinite
And also gravity.The only governor holding it all together being the speed of light and the ?speed? of time.

the premise goes something like this, that the universe is
infinite in size, contains an infinite amount of matter, and also
has an infinite gravity. matter density unknown. at any point there
would an apparent "size" due to at some point gravity would red shift
light to zero, an event horizon.So at different points, the
universe covers different areas of space (even overlapping) and red shift would be due to
gravitational "pull" away from us.

Quote from: ken_nyus on August 15, 2007, 09:23:13 AM
Actual Infinites cannot exist in a finite universe.

Interesting thread, a few thoughts to consider:
Maybe the Universe is a big as our sensory abilities can perceive, and our mental abilities can comprehend.
What we think something ?Is?  is as important as what we think it ?Is Not?.  One concept defines the other?both are constructs needed to create points of reference in understanding.

For a person that has been born blind, what is the meaning of light? What are colors? Lack of experiential database leaves the brain unable to fully comprehend the simple concept of light... in this case that is?

don't worry it's all good bro.
i love you all.
i apologize if i offended anyone.

peace friends.

Imagine a univers where dimensions were created by reaction between other dimensions. Such as a dimension where length will collide with width creating an infinite bend in space.

Quote from: HopeForHumanity on August 16, 2007, 03:30:35 AM
Imagine a univers where dimensions were created by reaction between other dimensions. Such as a dimension where length will collide with width creating an infinite bend in space.

woah




lol

That which is now has always been before and is always to come to eternity.

- present
- past
- future

Oh, I guess I will explain the infinite bend in space.

When I said that length and width collide I ment that length took on the placement of width but kept it's properties, because they both kept their properties they will try to act like they were ment to do, create a line in there assigned direction, but because they are sharing the same "area"  they create an infinitly small spiral bending the properties of space.

It's hard to imagine, but don't physicaly think about length and width, think about them as just elements, they can be anything, it does not matter whether they are a straight line or not, they just have to carry out thier properties. So the property of length is the oppisite, they will both pull in oppisite directions but with no where to go, so they "spin" and "bend", they do it at a constant increase reaching infinity. ;)


EDIT: Could this be what physicists call a blackhole, with extreme mass causing the collide?

Google:
Universal Laws.

hey guys 

after numerous calculations and synthesys>>> i think i found us a way to get real free energy

>> stay tuned

i will be needing as much feedback as possible from you

lets do it together

i guess that this is the purpose of this forum anyway :)

i stand on grounds that >>  many of our predecessors have opened ways but they all got stuck in their single lined research thus were unable to see the bigger picture

question

>> does any body know the complete composition of quartz and any other better piezo electric
as we may need a natural resonator

lets just dump away any artificial frequency generator for the mear fact that it needs energy to run>> thus we may still have to input energy that we should pay (cant count as free energy if we have to feed in)

am not talking about bending physics laws but plainly harnessing a small tiny fragment of the energy we are already nearly drowning in. as i was trying to express at the begining of my thread

i know for a fact that we bathe in torrents of energy
and that natural energy exits at many levels >>> light, sound,gravity and magnetism(to my observations these two are not enregies but resultants of some form of primal energy but lets not break convetional laws of physics and assume that they are), radiation , many types of natural vibrations>>>too many to state (other sujestions are welcome)
>>>all we need to do is to tune in just like a radio station pick up the energy

then modulate or demodulate it accordingly in order to get a manageble source
to be able to convert it into usable energy

it is my observation that until now we humans have been irrespectful with nature, trying in each and every of our technologies to bend, stretch and mold its resourses to our only liking and each time it faught back>>> dont get me wrong am no tree hugging type i only say that if we want to succeed in free energy we have to think otherwise

am an extremely critical type, never afraid to state facts and only facts from all broad picture facts and not only those that suit me

therfore with that perspective i have noticed that in each and every of the free energy aproaches have all failed due to the above mentioned problem >>> they all kept doing the same mistakes over and over again.... that is mecanics >>tried to do it mecanicaly electricians >>electrically   electronicians >>>and so forth.

nature does not know mechanics nor electrics nor hydrolics nor thermodynamics neither of our concepts to be more exact.
nature is a whole and is made of tiny bits and pieces of whole concept
pulling one or the other and we disturb the whole as it is in eqilibrium just as a mathematical equation must always be in equilibrium in order to get right

therfore we need to think ways of integrating our needs in the whole and puting every thing in equilibrium
and its only then that we could see free energy
as before we ever existed nature was running on something, all of its needs had been  supplied by some source of energy

and lots of it too

integrating our needs into the whole ... then the rest will simply be taken care of

>>>>

I have been reading your thread. I don't look to religion to make me a free energy machine and I have been looking over many various free energy machines (they might work; I don't know). I am also not a very advanced mathematicians. I'm interested in you theory and how you might tap free energy.

So far you have only been saying that there is no infinity... You mentioned something about quarts and what frequency it resonance. What it the idea your thinking of. You have been very cryptic in you explanations. Your last post you said we are bathed in a lot of energy. You are correct, Nikola Tesla also stated this and he built a radiant energy collector.

Just spit out what your plan is!

ps. If a system is in equilibrium you cannot extract energy from the system. It must be in disequilibrium. (correct me if I am wrong)

Stallman

Yeah...you said you had some great plan or idea for free energy.  How about we cut to the chase here and get the cards on the table?  What is your idea?

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)

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

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.  ;D

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

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.

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

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.

Where a piezo quartz removes little current electric.
It is a natural resonator, but, has to stimulate with other energy.
Energy is relative.

Which you this speaking?

Electric
Mechanical
Caloric

Really, the universe is quite so. Full of energy, in different forms.

How do you stimulate those mini bits without spending another energy?

My little CBC coil made that.
Many criticized as an antenna. hahaha...

@vondesastre

I read your statement about peizo electric phenomenas. I also see that you don't believe in infinity. You should read about 13hours TDM theory. He states that our dimension in finite and he also states that the are infinite scale universes. You might like his theory (or not).

My point to this is that your peizo electric phenomena might be explained in a different way than you think. From my knowledge peizo electric phenomena when a quartz rock or any other type of piezo rock is squished. Everytime you apply preasure to quartz is smash electrons out. Your jars tempeture might rise and fall during the day making the pressure change and also your meter readings. Yes what you are doing is over unity. I'm just not sure that it can be economical.

An idea for your peizo rocks is to make and oscillating lever design. Look for it on the forms its suppose to amplify kenetic energy which in turn can smash your rock into producing electricity.

Stallman

ps. Bleach is a cool show. Can't wait till 137 comes out.

now i guess that somone finally strats to see from above a is having a small idea of wat am talking about it terms of energy

brnbrade  >>> your cbc coil is in fact an antena >> depending on the stand point just as piezos are as well il be getting to that shortly .
this means that they both seem to spit energy out of the blue

piezos dont need human intervention in order to pulsate small amaounts of energy

and in fact i was thinking more about the 3 energies at the same time but specially setup

and this leads us to our first practical experiment>>>

the above setup should give out 1 to 2 v @ +/- 1 w
coils made of 50 to 100 turns low resistence light wieght magnetic wire and should also be mass matched
diodes 1n914 or equvalent frequency diodes
prongs 300mm/15mm/1.5mm to 2mm hard steel

Very interesting
I liked that  :)

small correction needed to the lay out
about the capacitor

care should be taken as diode on the output side may sufur damage

any electromagnetic and/or mechanic disturbance even minute will generate an output

in fact i just blwe up several output diodes the when dorped the pliers on the workbench or during construction phase

needs much refining

Interesting setup you have there.  I wonder if you could take a photo of your device, for us to see.  I need some coils, but I will try and make one of these things, as it sounds very feasible.  What happens when you put a magnet near it?

@vondesastre

Very Interesting.
That is not new, but it was readjusted in an interesting way.

Ask

Which output energy?

1 w ?


regards

>>light to my piont <<

a basic off the shelf piezo igniter will produce some 6 to 8 kv on a strike(am talking 1 igniter = 2 parallel piezo elements  Diameter: Φ6 mm * Length: 12mm industry standard)

without any power input a same piezo ingiter will give off +/- 0.01 to 0.02 v

my target is to simply colect any mechanical or electromagnetic fluctuation that crosses the aparatus volume

i never sayd to be creating something totaly new (i dont have a $$$$$$$$ lab at my disposal :-[)
but just to bring a new perspective :)

further more >>> this is only part of the whole setup

it would be very nice to get some help from all of you anyway >>> fact is i really need it

eg: i ve asked an open question in an ealier post about if somebody knew the chemical composition and strucural latice of quarts or any other piezo >>> :-[ but till now all i ve got is more questions and criticism on my aproach
(i dont see the point in sharing with others if no one shares >>>am no mother thresa)
i hope to see some change

@vondesastre

When will we see prototypes small scale?

regards

I think that there has to be an infinity because dividing any number by zero yields an infinite value.

x/y=z

As y approaches zero, z approaches infinity :D

Quote from: Super God on August 20, 2007, 10:34:10 PM
I think that there has to be an infinity because dividing any number by zero yields an infinite value.

x/y=z

As y approaches zero, z approaches infinity :D

That is interesting. However, if let us examine the truth of the statement by demonstrative logical example:

If true then 5/0 = infinity
If true then 3/0 = infinity
If true then 5 = 0 * infinity
If true then 3 = 0 * infinity

Therefore we start to see a problem, as both statements cannot be true. Which is the truth then 0 * infinity = 5, or 0 * infinity = 3?

Or are you stating that it is an equivalency thing..... which would yield 5 = 3, since 0 * infinity is equivalent to 0 * infinity ........

ALL division problems are falsifiable through built in mathematical functions.

For instance, multiplication can be falsified with addition

3 * 2 = 5 (falsifiable statement)
2 + 2 + 2 = 6 (equivalent function demonstrating first statement false. In this case addition.)

You notice that 2 added to 2 a total of 3 times, is to state the multiplication of 2 * 3. It is a different means of stating the SAME thing, but in long hand. It is solved by linear computation.

2 + 2 = 4
4 + 2 = 6

Let us examine this relationship to 5 = 0 * infinity

0 + 0 = 0
0 + 0 = 0
0 + 0 = 0
(do I need to go on? Even an infinite number of additions of 0 to 0 will ever reach anything but 0 .....)

Now, what is 0 * 5? Why it is 0!
What is 0 * 3? Again, it is 0!
What is -5 * 0? Yes 0!
what is .5 * 0? AGAIN 0!

NOW WHAT IS 0 * infinity? ....... 0 .......

Therefore, 5 = 0 * infinity states that 5 = 0 ..... Is that a balanced equation?????

What it demonstrates is that infinity cannot correspond to any real number, since all built in mathematical falsification techniques merely do not matter to the adherents of the concept. The concept is prettier than the truth.

Truly, I challenge anyone to mathematically PROVE the mathematical concept of infinity mathematically, as I will state again "extraordinary claims require extraordinary proof".......... (All other truthfull mathematical concepts can do such.)

I can prove why x/y=z, can you? It will be an interesting debate at the very least for all!

Paul Andrulis

pi, prime numbers, parallel postulate, and the best for last:
Take any positive or negitive number and divide it by 2, forever...
It'll never stop dividing. No matter how many times your try...

Untill you find an end to these "infinite" phenomenon its all theory.

You don't have to understand infinity to see its function.
~Dingus Mungus

http://primes.utm.edu/
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Parallel_postulate
http://www.1729.com/blog/ZeroDividedByZero.html
*** http://pi.ytmnd.com/ ***

Quote from: Dingus Mungus on August 24, 2007, 07:11:27 AM
pi, prime numbers, parallel postulate, and the best for last:
Take any positive or negitive number and divide it by 2, forever...
It'll never stop dividing. No matter how many times your try...

Untill you find an end to these "infinite" phenomenon its all theory.

You don't have to understand infinity to see its function.
~Dingus Mungus

Good points! Some of this I have dealt with already previously in this thread, but I will reiterate. Some of these are new arguments.

First, concerning PI, there is absolutely no proof that it is infinite. None whatsoever. We have not found the end of the progression, but that does not mean that at the ten thousandth or even millionth decimal point it does not end. If it ends, it it not by definition infinite. You see the problem?

Second, concerning parallel postulate, is it possible to have a warp in space time which will bring these two lines infinitely close, which is the definition of intersection?  ;D

Lastly, the divide by 2 and prime number problems, of which the answer is the same. I stated to the effect previously that "infinity" is a derivation of the imagination, and only has relevance according to pure mathematics. For instance, you did not mention another of the same type, namely what is the largest number possible, of which the answer is non-sequiter, since you can envision the largest number you can envision, then just add 1.

Infinity is purely an abstract concept, with no reflection in reality by which we can judge the truth of the statement. Abstract concepts are the only statements made by the mouth of man which tend to be non-falsifiable. My challenge was made tounge in cheek, since even with "prime numbers" and the "divide by 2 rule", it would require more than your life span to prove the concept mathematically true, WHICH NO ONE HAS EVER DONE!  ;) There is a point which you have to truthfully state you ASSUME but you do now KNOW.

Also, by definition  infinity is both the largest number possible, and has no end. These are actually two definitions which are incompatible, as EITHER it is the largest number possible (of which cannot be increased by any means), OR it has no end.

Yet, I can legitimately state mathematically x = 5 * infinity which increases the number falsifying the first definition.

I can also with equal mathematical legitimacy by currently accepted rules state x/0 = infinity, or x = 0 * infinity, which yields the only possible number for x in a self limited equation as x = 0, which means infinity is either 0 or 1 (0/0=0 practicle or 0/0=1 purely mathematical under x/x=1), which effectively puts a definitive limit to infinity, thereby falsifying the second definition.

Neither definition can be therefore true. Something is clearly wrong, since infinity is used as both variable and constant at the same time, and cannot fulfill the basic rules of valid mathematical functions in that any equation using infinity is by definition either unbalanced or self negating.

It exists my friend, only in our minds for those numbers which are too grand for us to comprehend, in a rather poorly formulated manner.

ALL THEORIES are falsifiable, and infinity itself is still but a theory.  ;D The rules of falsification apply.

To mathematically prove anything, you have to use math, not other equally abstract and unfalsifiable concepts such as infinite progression such as primes, infinite division by 2, or infinite anything. These are all self referencing, when trying to prove infinity.

That is why this will never be proven MATHEMATICALLY, though it's mathematical useage is easily disproven mathematically , because the only means to prove infinity is abstract self-reference, which has never been stated as acceptedly valid as a means of proof for ANY theory.

To put this in perspective, I cannot prove the validity of a private theory by saying "because my theory says so". I have to demonstrate mathematical or observeable extraneous proof, and preferrably both in quantity, for the purpose of allowing others to mathematically and logically examine and determine its applicability to reality. (the principle of falsification)

I shall broaden the scope, and loosen the inherent restrictions, of the challenge. Prove infinity, by utilizing EITHER mathematics or observeable reality, with the clarification that your proof must not be self referencing in the manner described above.

I have read many posts here, and I think most are up to the challenge, though I truly do not think any will accomplish this. (Not because of intelligence, which many demonstrate in quantity from my observations, but due to my perceived inherent impossibility of the task.

PLEASE NOTE that I am not attacking nor insulting anyone. I am attempting to give you a concept upon which you may challenge both myself and yourselves as well, with some healthy mental debate.

TO WHAT PURPOSE? If infinity is truly not applicable to reality, then the various concepts based upon its inclusion (such as say the speed of light acceleration "barrier", etc...) are self falsified. It will improve science as a whole.

Paul Andrulis

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?

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. 

@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.

"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

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.

I would have to disagree with your assumption of the finite universe. A little knowledge of quantum mechanics and virtual particle theory would tell you that the things holding reality together are infinite as far as science can determine. Virtual particles pop in and out of existence on demand to perform most of what consider work or energy. This is mostly theory, but we must look at our past and see that we're never 100% right, just on the right track. Most of our fact is estimation, as in not exact and only applies to that which we have physically confirmed.

To not believe in infinity is quite paradoxical when considering existence at all. It's much like the chicken and the egg. If the big bang came from _____, then how long was ____ there? What came before _____? When everything in the "finite" universe slows down and gets cold due to entropy, then what happens to it? How long will it all just sit there? Will it ever go away? Doesn't it require a lot of energy to destroy or remove all of reality? How do you destroy the left over energy when all mass is converted to energy? How long will that energy exist for? Finite thinking is understandable but not scientific... Infinity is a concept that can't be properly explained with words or numbers. You see the function of infinity all around you everyday, I know you do, but we will never physically see it or understand it.

An interesting debate, but much like a god, infinity can not really be proved one way or the other at this point in the human existence.

~Dingus Mungus

G'day all,

At the risk of sounding like a complete idiot, doesn't the whole confusion arise because we have been taught to treat zero and infinity as numbers, which they are not.

Now I don't deny the usefulness of this approach, calculus wouldn't work otherwise. In terms of function this approach makes sense.

We say that any integer divided by zero equals infinity. But does it??

If we think of zero as what it really is, namely nothing, and if we substitute the word nothing for zero in the equation it is no longer logical because any integer divided by nothing leaves the integer intact.

If you turn the equation 500 divided by zero equals infinity around it should become infinity multiplied by zero equals 500.

Does it?

I don't think so. Any multiple of nothing, even an infinity of them, is still nothing.

This makes only sense if you use 42 as the integer, in which case the answer yields the key to Life, the Universe and Everything.

Source: Douglas Adams, The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Universe. :-)

Worth thinking about??

Hans von Lieven

The reason why

5/0=0
3/0=0
0=5
3=0
5=3

appears to be false or contradictory is because of the frame of reference you are applying to the value zero

Hans states correctly  "If we think of zero as what it really is, namely nothing,"

however this statement does not impart the full meaning of zero.

Math deals with all subjects in an absolute sense. The absolute value of zero is actually the absence of anything, the absence of everything.
It is the exact opposite of all that is. If you can imagine the distance between nothing and everything then you have clearly failed to space them far enough apart. The inverse is also true, you have failed to recognize that there can be no space between something that does not exist and something that does.

When examined from this perspective, the value of 0 is infinitely less than the value of 1 or any qauntity. It is not simply 1 unit less because that would leave something to be examined. 0 nullifies the existence of any number.

Carried further 0 is also infinitely greater than everything that is. "Nothing" is the proverbial +1 ad infinitum. If nothing is discovered it becomes part of everything, proving that it was something.  

In this same sense the value of 1 and of any number is infinitely greater than the value of 0.

Math amazingly recongnizes this relationship. And when asked a question about everythings relationship to nothing it gives the following reply:

IF 5/0= 0
IF 3/0= 0
THEN   5=3 , 5=0

By interacting "everything" with "nothing" math shows clearly the relationship between the 2.

5 is = to 3  from 0's perspective because both numbers are equally greater/lesser than the existence of nothing.

5 is = to 0 from maths perspective because they are equally probable.

Mathematics does not acknowledge its own existence as definitive proof that it does not exist. It should however be noted that it gives "nothing" very few comments seeing as how it only mentions 0 once but talks about everything forever. 12344567891011121314151617181920212223242526272829......

For anyone that doubts my analysis please review the following proof of infinity:

IF 5/0 = 0
IF 3/0 = 0
THEN 5=0 , 3=0 , 5=3

"Proper use of Mathematics doesn't lie. Its just the way people interpret the answers math provides that mucks things up."
Sky

Quote from: pauldude000 on August 24, 2007, 03:18:17 AM

Quote from: Super God on August 20, 2007, 10:34:10 PM
I think that there has to be an infinity because dividing any number by zero yields an infinite value.

x/y=z

As y approaches zero, z approaches infinity :D

That is interesting. However, if let us examine the truth of the statement by demonstrative logical example:

If true then 5/0 = infinity
If true then 3/0 = infinity
If true then 5 = 0 * infinity
If true then 3 = 0 * infinity

Therefore we start to see a problem, as both statements cannot be true. Which is the truth then 0 * infinity = 5, or 0 * infinity = 3?

Or are you stating that it is an equivalency thing..... which would yield 5 = 3, since 0 * infinity is equivalent to 0 * infinity ........

ALL division problems are falsifiable through built in mathematical functions.

For instance, multiplication can be falsified with addition

3 * 2 = 5 (falsifiable statement)
2 + 2 + 2 = 6 (equivalent function demonstrating first statement false. In this case addition.)

You notice that 2 added to 2 a total of 3 times, is to state the multiplication of 2 * 3. It is a different means of stating the SAME thing, but in long hand. It is solved by linear computation.

2 + 2 = 4
4 + 2 = 6

Let us examine this relationship to 5 = 0 * infinity

0 + 0 = 0
0 + 0 = 0
0 + 0 = 0
(do I need to go on? Even an infinite number of additions of 0 to 0 will ever reach anything but 0 .....)

Now, what is 0 * 5? Why it is 0!
What is 0 * 3? Again, it is 0!
What is -5 * 0? Yes 0!
what is .5 * 0? AGAIN 0!

NOW WHAT IS 0 * infinity? ....... 0 .......

Therefore, 5 = 0 * infinity states that 5 = 0 ..... Is that a balanced equation?????

What it demonstrates is that infinity cannot correspond to any real number, since all built in mathematical falsification techniques merely do not matter to the adherents of the concept. The concept is prettier than the truth.

Truly, I challenge anyone to mathematically PROVE the mathematical concept of infinity mathematically, as I will state again "extraordinary claims require extraordinary proof".......... (All other truthfull mathematical concepts can do such.)

I can prove why x/y=z, can you? It will be an interesting debate at the very least for all!

Paul Andrulis

Funny...

so "infinity" should not exist because we count in finite numbers, that's what it boils down to?

Did nobody explain to you that the entire idea of finite numbers is equally problematic?
After all, we can simply assume that there are finite numbers, like 1, 2, 3 etc...
But if we think about it, where exactly does 1 end and 2 begin? Is these something like a "zone" in which the value is 1, and the next "zone" where the value is 2? Generally it is agreed that we van use decimals to indicate sub-values. That's how we get 1.1, 1.2, 1.3, etc. Ok, so the "end" of 1 is at 1.9, and the "start" of 2 is at 2.0? Or is the "end" of 1 at 2.0 and the "start" of 2 at 2.1? Generally it is agreed that 2 "starts" at 2.0, but who can say that is actually, absolutely, the case?
And where exactly is the "end" of 1 then? Is it at 1.9, or at 1.99, or at 1.999? Think about it: there is NO "end" to 1. The "start" of 2 lies right after 1.9999999999999999999(-> to infinity).
So in fact our finite number system that works well when we are counting numbers of apples and cows and large tangiable worldly things like that, seems to fall apart upon close scrutiny. The nice and exact finite numbers turn out to be an illusion.

It is not a matter of infinity not existing. It is a matter of finity not existing, combined with the cognitive dissonance created by our inability to conclusively and directly observe inifinity in our everyday experiences.

Similarly, the value "zero" does not actually exist. Zero is actually the absence of something. It is in fact the symbol invented to signify the absence of a certain presumed value in a certain context. So in a way it is the expression of the logical concept of "not existing" in a way that can be used in calculations.
But in reality we cannot count something that does not exist. It either is, and then can have quantity, or it does not, in which case quantity is meaningless.
In fact, if we return to the process of attempting to determine where an exact numerical value "starts" and "stops" like seen above, we will quickly learn that we can keep counting down from 1 forever without actually ever reaching zero. The farther we count down, the smaller the quantity becomes, to infinity.

Again, it seems infinity is real, and our exact numeric system of natural numbers is not.
Clearly we must admit that the collection of numbers in existance is certainly not N, the collection of all Natural numbers, but at least it is R, the collection of all Real numbers. Which is infinitely large, as I have tried to show.

In fact, I believe this automatically gives rise to the collection of all imaginary numbers as well.
Which means "infinity" and things like pi, phi, the square root of -1, etc, are just as real as any other number, even though we cannot count them in exact numbers of apples. ;)

Hello all!
I am really only trying to help here, so please do not take this as me being a jerk.

I’m a mathematics major in school(just a few more classes, woohoo!) and I can tell you there is nothing wrong with our number system. Did you know there is more than one infinity and that some are larger than others? Sure, we use different symbols for different infinities that aren’t 0123456789. There are an infinite number of infinities between 0 and 1. Trust me, finite minds can understand infinities. Sure, it’s a horrible mindf**k at first, but we eventually do. If you want to understand infinities, study the work of Georg Cantor. Study some Real Analysis, Set Theory and Number Theory too. If you can understand a basic derivative in Calculus 1, you understand infinity using our number system.

As for Pi, it is not an integer. It is an irrational real number. Its decimal representation is infinite. It is a simple ratio of a circle’s circumference to its diameter.

Don’t get too philosophical with this stuff guys. It really isn’t anything to philosophize about.

Quote from: timmy1729 on December 02, 2008, 10:57:45 AM
Did you know there is more than one infinity and that some are larger than others?

I must have slept thru class that day lol...but then, I'm still trying to wrap my head around how all points on a circle are equidistant fom all other points on the same circle   :-\

Quote from: timmy1729 on December 02, 2008, 10:57:45 AM
Hello all!
I am really only trying to help here, so please do not take this as me being a jerk.

I’m a mathematics major in school(just a few more classes, woohoo!) and I can tell you there is nothing wrong with our number system. Did you know there is more than one infinity and that some are larger than others? Sure, we use different symbols for different infinities that aren’t 0123456789. There are an infinite number of infinities between 0 and 1. Trust me, finite minds can understand infinities. Sure, it’s a horrible mindf**k at first, but we eventually do. If you want to understand infinities, study the work of Georg Cantor. Study some Real Analysis, Set Theory and Number Theory too. If you can understand a basic derivative in Calculus 1, you understand infinity using our number system.

As for Pi, it is not an integer. It is an irrational real number. Its decimal representation is infinite. It is a simple ratio of a circle’s circumference to its diameter.

Don’t get too philosophical with this stuff guys. It really isn’t anything to philosophize about.

sure, nearly infinite, truly infinite, infinitely infinite. the indian mathematicians knew this long before your schools started teaching 'math majors'...
infinity simply makes one bullet proof, ie: any number can be divided, so if i stand at X distance from you and shoot a bullet (arrow) at your face, that distance X can be continually divided by two (as the bullet approaches you) till infinity and the bullet (arrow) never hits you, this is an ancient idea as well... so you wanna take a bullet (arrow) for your math?   ::)
numbers were invented for kings and high priests to count their money, nothing more. adapt it to what ever you wish, philosophize even, it is what it is.

Quote from: WilbyInebriated on December 02, 2008, 11:58:03 AM
sure, nearly infinite, truly infinite, infinitely infinite. the indian mathematicians knew this long before your schools started teaching 'math majors'...
infinity simply makes one bullet proof, ie: any number can be divided, so if i stand at X distance from you and shoot a bullet (arrow) at your face, that distance X can be continually divided by two (as the bullet approaches you) till infinity and the bullet (arrow) never hits you, this is an ancient idea as well... so you wanna take a bullet for your math?   ::)
numbers were invented for kings and high priests to count their money, nothing more. adapt it to what ever you wish, it is what it is.

That bullet proof argument is old philosophy and utter nonsense. Yes, the distance can be divided infinitely and the bullet will have to travel each minute distance, but it does travel those distances. And the types of infinities I meant were countably infinite(such as Aleph-null) and uncountably infinite(such as Real numbers).

Without that "math" and those "numbers", you wouldn't have that computer to type on, the power to run it, or pretty much everything you interact with on a daily basis.

All I was trying to do was correct a mistake that I saw looking around the forums. I am a math major who is almost done and I'm 29 years old. I know what I'm talking about. You can either take my advice or leave it. But you all are making a mountain out of an ant hill with a misunderstanding of the ant hill.

Quote from: Neolystic on December 02, 2008, 11:30:05 AM
I must have slept thru class that day lol...but then, I'm still trying to wrap my head around how all points on a circle are equidistant fom all other points on the same circle   :-\

How about that the infinite set of irrational numbers is LARGER than the infinite set of rational numbers? That'll get the ol' mind-motor running.

Quote from: timmy1729 on December 02, 2008, 12:49:23 PM
That bullet proof argument is old philosophy and utter nonsense. Yes, the distance can be divided infinitely and the bullet will have to travel each minute distance, but it does travel those distances. And the types of infinities I meant were countably infinite(such as Aleph-null) and uncountably infinite(such as Real numbers).

so the quantum zeno effect is nonsense then? archimedes and aristotle are nonsense then as well? the only nonsense i see here is your delusions of grandeur about math majors...
mathematics still hasn't resolved how i ever get from a to b if there are an infinite amount of 'places' between... go ahead and try, bigger men than you have failed. if you meant aleph null, THEN SPECIFY ALEPH NULL.
"communicating badly and then acting smug when misunderstood is not cleverness" -randall munroe

Quote from: timmy1729 on December 02, 2008, 12:49:23 PM
Without that "math" and those "numbers", you wouldn't have that computer to type on, the power to run it, or pretty much everything you interact with on a daily basis.

irrelevant

Quote from: timmy1729 on December 02, 2008, 12:49:23 PM
All I was trying to do was correct a mistake that I saw looking around the forums. I am a math major who is almost done and I'm 29 years old. I know what I'm talking about. You can either take my advice or leave it. But you all are making a mountain out of an ant hill with a misunderstanding of the ant hill.

also irrelevant.
my, aren't you pretentious. honestly, i don't really care what you did on who. i took calc and trig in 10th and 11th grade and more in college 20 odd years ago, big whoop. i can do math as well as you. you paid someone to teach you math and now you assume yourself an authority? i guess you would have to wouldn't you? have to make such an assumption to rationalize paying someone to teach you math  ;)
i think i'll leave it until you can explain to my satisfaction how i ever get from a to b if there are an infinite amount of 'places' between. i'm not making anything but an observation that you can't reconcile...

Quote from: WilbyInebriated on December 02, 2008, 01:07:15 PM

so the quantum zeno effect is nonsense then? archimedes and aristotle are nonsense then as well? the only nonsense i see here is your delusions of grandeur about math majors...
mathematics still hasn't resolved how i ever get from a to b if there are an infinite amount of 'places' between... go ahead and try, bigger men than you have failed. if you meant aleph null, THEN SPECIFY ALEPH NULL.
"communicating badly and then acting smug when misunderstood is not cleverness" -randall munroe
irrelevant
also irrelevant.
my, aren't you pretentious. honestly, i don't really care what you did on who. i took calc and trig in 10th and 11th grade and more in college 20 odd years ago, big whoop. i can do math as well as you. you paid someone to teach you math and now you assume yourself an authority? i guess you would have to wouldn't you? have to make such an assumption to rationalize paying someone to teach you math  ;)
i think i'll leave it until you can explain to my satisfaction how i ever get from a to b if there are an infinite amount of 'places' between. i'm not making anything but an observation that you can't reconcile...

So, I take it you don't buy the sum of an infinite series argument against it then?

Quote from: timmy1729 on December 02, 2008, 02:52:45 PM
So, I take it you don't buy the sum of an infinite series argument against it then?

since there are several questions i posed to you that you have NOT answered yet, why should i humor you with a response?
as i said, i think i'll leave it until you can explain to my satisfaction how i ever get from a to b if there are an infinite amount of 'places' between.

Quote from: WilbyInebriated on December 02, 2008, 01:07:15 PM

so the quantum zeno effect is nonsense then? archimedes and aristotle are nonsense then as well? the only nonsense i see here is your delusions of grandeur about math majors...
mathematics still hasn't resolved how i ever get from a to b if there are an infinite amount of 'places' between... go ahead and try, bigger men than you have failed. if you meant aleph null, THEN SPECIFY ALEPH NULL.
"communicating badly and then acting smug when misunderstood is not cleverness" -randall munroe
irrelevant
also irrelevant.
my, aren't you pretentious. honestly, i don't really care what you did on who. i took calc and trig in 10th and 11th grade and more in college 20 odd years ago, big whoop. i can do math as well as you. you paid someone to teach you math and now you assume yourself an authority? i guess you would have to wouldn't you? have to make such an assumption to rationalize paying someone to teach you math  ;)
i think i'll leave it until you can explain to my satisfaction how i ever get from a to b if there are an infinite amount of 'places' between. i'm not making anything but an observation that you can't reconcile...

Man, if I had a mastery of the English language, I would be an English major instead. You think I’m a complete idiot. Well, you’re probably right, due to the school systems I attended and the quality of education they provided. So, yeah, compared to about 99% of people on this board I am a blathering idiot. I don’t need you to remind me that my degree won’t be worth anything when I graduate. I am well aware of that. That will be the most expensive worthless piece of paper I will ever own and it probably won't get me a damn thing.

I really was only trying to help. But, I guess I’m too much of a ‘tard to be of any use. It’s guys like you that remind me why I wasn’t a social person for many years. You couldn’t simply PM me and tell me I was wrong and why and politely ask me to stay out of this thread. Had you, I would’ve deleted my post myself and never looked at it again. No, you had to publicly try to humiliate me using everything I said against me. So, your wish is granted. I’ll stop “trying to help.”

I do feel sorry for you though. It must be hard going through life with such a hateful and sadistic attitude.

Quote from: timmy1729 on December 02, 2008, 05:12:31 PM
Man, if I had a mastery of the English language, I would be an English major instead. You think I’m a complete idiot. Well, you’re probably right, due to the school systems I attended and the quality of education they provided. So, yeah, compared to about 99% of people on this board I am a blathering idiot. I don’t need you to remind me that my degree won’t be worth anything when I graduate. I am well aware of that. That will be the most expensive worthless piece of paper I will ever own and it probably won't get me a damn thing.

I really was only trying to help. But, I guess I’m too much of a ‘tard to be of any use. It’s guys like you that remind me why I wasn’t a social person for many years. You couldn’t simply PM me and tell me I was wrong and why and politely ask me to stay out of this thread. Had you, I would’ve deleted my post myself and never looked at it again. No, you had to publicly try to humiliate me using everything I said against me. So, your wish is granted. I’ll stop “trying to help.”

I do feel sorry for you though. It must be hard going through life with such a hateful and sadistic attitude.

i never said you're a tard. i did say you were a bit pretentious and i stand by that. popping in saying "i'm a math major, trust me".
i don't know it rubbed me the wrong way. engineers do it to me all the time too. its funny when you ask them if its fun to drive train after they say trust me, i'm an engineer ;)
i apologize.
you did offer some good advice in georg cantor and to study some real analysis, set theory and number theory too. most people are too afraid of math. i was a bit one sided earlier in not mentioning that.

Quote from: WilbyInebriated on December 03, 2008, 03:14:38 AM
i never said you're a tard. i did say you were a bit pretentious and i stand by that. popping in saying "i'm a math major, trust me".
i don't know it rubbed me the wrong way. engineers do it to me all the time too. its funny when you ask them if its fun to drive train after they say trust me, i'm an engineer ;)
i apologize.
you did offer some good advice in georg cantor and to study some real analysis, set theory and number theory too. most people are too afraid of math. i was a bit one sided earlier in not mentioning that.

Accepted.

I do have a talent for coming across as an arse without knowing it.

Speaking of Cantor and infinity, I attached a comic you might find amusing.

Idk but I thought it was pretty basic to define in which system
we're going to work before we start discussing the meaning of the variables...?
What seems to be happening here is a discussion of whether or not a
system of infinity maths accords with a system of integer maths, aka
natural numbers theory?

Isn't that a bit like firt saying that swimming and writing are two completely different
things, and then later trying to prove that writing is not possible when you swim,
or that swimming is not possible while writing?
Ok, the analogy is a bit flawed but I think you'll see what I mean?

And the argument that infinity cannot be real because nothing has ever been observed
that is proven to be infinite seems like an invalid argument for two reasons:
1) the basic logic premisse, basically most easily put
"We have not yet seen any swans that are not white, therefore all swans must be white,
therefore black swans do not exist." is false reasoning. There may well be black swans that
we just haven't seen yet but may see in the future.
2) How would you prove something is infinite when the natural world as we know and experience
it appears to us to use a system of natural numbers aka positive integers?
How would a fish prove the existance of salt crystals if he spends his life under water where salt
crystals never form? Ok, again flawed analogy but perhaps you'll get the point. ;)

That said, I think but can of course not prove that infinity math is real, just like imaginary numbers
math and irreal numbers math is real. It can be used to describe and calculate things that have
direct connections to physcal implementations in our reality.
But like imaginary numbers we can't find a tangiable, physical example of a measure of units
that equates to an imaginary, irreal, or infinite number in our world of real and natural integers.

A bit like the total impossibility to determine both location and momentum of a quantum particle,
while in our everyday, physical, macroscopic world it is damn well possible to determine both
location and momentum of a car, airplane, meterorite, whatever.
Big difference. Does that make quantumphysics untrue?
Or do we simply have to admit that there is no scale- nor system- invariant measurement system,
and possibly also no scale- nor system- invariant maths?

Like I said, I don't know. ;) ;D

Quote from: timmy1729 on December 03, 2008, 08:26:14 AM
Accepted.

I do have a talent for coming across as an arse without knowing it.

Speaking of Cantor and infinity, I attached a comic you might find amusing.

LMFAO... take me to the aleph garden  ;D
thats hilarious, first time seeing that cartoon. thanks for the laugh in my day.

Quote from: vondesastre on August 14, 2007, 08:08:54 PM

i definitly dont see infinity in there ...do you?  

Infinity, by definition, regards any aspect of space or time that cannot be measured. When the boundries of the universe are unknown, if any at all, that is infinity. Measuring or knowing a point in the future when time stops is equally unknowable, therefore infinite. And if ever a smallest point in nature or particle of matter is ostensibly determined, it will be possible to divide it further, if not physically, certainly philosophically.

Much as science struggles to explain myriad fundamental aspects, properties and realities that surround us in the macroscopic and microscopic realms, what science does not know nor can explain is quite a lot. The classic dilemma - that more answers lead to more questions.

Quote of the day:  "Infinity is a really, really long time - especially toward the end."

Quote from: Koen1 on December 03, 2008, 11:46:31 AM
Idk but I thought it was pretty basic to define in which system
we're going to work before we start discussing the meaning of the variables...?
What seems to be happening here is a discussion of whether or not a
system of infinity maths accords with a system of integer maths, aka
natural numbers theory?

Isn't that a bit like firt saying that swimming and writing are two completely different
things, and then later trying to prove that writing is not possible when you swim,
or that swimming is not possible while writing?
Ok, the analogy is a bit flawed but I think you'll see what I mean?

And the argument that infinity cannot be real because nothing has ever been observed
that is proven to be infinite seems like an invalid argument for two reasons:
1) the basic logic premisse, basically most easily put
"We have not yet seen any swans that are not white, therefore all swans must be white,
therefore black swans do not exist." is false reasoning. There may well be black swans that
we just haven't seen yet but may see in the future.
2) How would you prove something is infinite when the natural world as we know and experience
it appears to us to use a system of natural numbers aka positive integers?
How would a fish prove the existance of salt crystals if he spends his life under water where salt
crystals never form? Ok, again flawed analogy but perhaps you'll get the point. ;)

That said, I think but can of course not prove that infinity math is real, just like imaginary numbers
math and irreal numbers math is real. It can be used to describe and calculate things that have
direct connections to physcal implementations in our reality.
But like imaginary numbers we can't find a tangiable, physical example of a measure of units
that equates to an imaginary, irreal, or infinite number in our world of real and natural integers.

A bit like the total impossibility to determine both location and momentum of a quantum particle,
while in our everyday, physical, macroscopic world it is damn well possible to determine both
location and momentum of a car, airplane, meterorite, whatever.
Big difference. Does that make quantumphysics untrue?
Or do we simply have to admit that there is no scale- nor system- invariant measurement system,
and possibly also no scale- nor system- invariant maths?

Like I said, I don't know. ;) ;D

I know this is a really old post to which I am replying, but I thought this was worthy of noting.


The ultimate problem with infinity, in a nutshell, is that it is purely a logical construct.


I can travel at 60 mph over an infinity of points only due to the fact that all logical constructs are themselves constrained to reality. Reality does not change for a logical construct. When trying to prove the validity of a logical construct of any sort, I must first demonstrate it's validity and applicability to the real world. Infinity fails this most basic of principles, as it can neither be measured, approached, or demonstrated in any form. The supposed restrictions which it should place are absent. For instance Wilby's bullet argument.


If infinity as a real world constant or ratio did exist, I could not trace a circle, walk a line, or measure anything, as all of these would require infinite time to accomplish, having to traverse an infinite distance representing an infinite number of points. If there is an infinite division between two microseconds, then time itself cannot pass.


I did not choose this subject lightly, nor broach it carelessly without first examining it closely. In all logical cases infinity invariably fails. It is a pretty notion, but it is science fiction, and not demonstrable science fact. The concept was derived without the application of either critical thought or scientific methodology.


It is an illusion.

Quote from: Loner on February 01, 2013, 08:11:58 PM

This could easily be considered a philosophical discussion, if you see where I'm heading...

Inifinity would not be infinite if it did not include it's own exclusion.  ;)

Gwandau