IET
Decrease font size
Increase font size
Topic Title: Careless Talk
Topic Summary: Our scientific progress is hampered by inability to form unambiguous communications
Created On: 24 January 2015 09:23 PM
Status: Read Only
Linear : Threading : Single : Branch
Search Topic Search Topic
Topic Tools Topic Tools
View similar topics View similar topics
View topic in raw text format. Print this topic.
 24 January 2015 09:23 PM
User is offline View Users Profile Print this message



kengreen

Posts: 437
Joined: 15 April 2013

To begin it is not reasonable to assign a boundary to Space if only because it requires a definition of that which is to be found without a boundary? If Space is boundless then we would normally apply the description that it is Infinite.

It is, in my belief, an axiom that an infinite Space must contain an infinite quantity of Matter? In turn this raises a serious question as to why an infinite amount of Matter does not pack an infinity of Space to its limit? The only resolution of this is that we have two different values of Infinity and that surely ranks as an absurdity?

The fallacy can reside only in the convenient work-around namely the invention of t infinite numbers? Whether one is greater than the other is not a question because there can be only one meaning. In truth we observe a very large quantity of Matter which is contained within a non-specific Space and have fallen into a snare that springs from the non-specific use of language? There exists a confusion when a Mind, derived and trained in finite quantities, attempts to evaluate very large (infinite) quantities and so adopts concepts such as Infinity and Zero to circumvent a blockage.

To attempt the unravelling of the Universe's mysteries it is necessary first to overcome such problems which means that language must be distilled to its purest form. The convenient work-around is not to be tolerated; in its place any and all problems must be investigated to exhaustion!

Both the quantities Zero and Infinity must be defined with the pernickerty exactitude demonstrated by Euclid. It is admitted that such a statement contradicts my own decree that mathematics cannot be used as a substitute for explanation but I regard Euclid's work as the foundation for the scientific progress but which, I believe, has ground almost to a halt during my lifetime. The much vaunted progress has been along cul-de-sacs such as demonstrated by modern Particle Physics which does no more than expand the "infinite series" of proposed Particles; I have always nurtured the suspicion that, to be meaningful, Particle Physics should be convergent rather than divergent.

Ken green capitalise
 24 January 2015 11:39 PM
User is offline View Users Profile Print this message



ectophile

Posts: 754
Joined: 17 September 2001

Most mathematicians have no problems with different sizes of infinity.

How many integers are there? There's an infinite number of them.

If I pick any two consecutive integers, how many real numbers are there between them? There's also an infinite number.

So how many real numbers are there in total? There's an infinite number of infinite numbers of them. It's a bigger infinity.

-------------------------
S P Barker BSc PhD IEng MIET
 25 January 2015 03:04 AM
User is offline View Users Profile Print this message



kengreen

Posts: 437
Joined: 15 April 2013

Well said, you have ably demonstrated my point.

Surely, by definition, there cannot be any number greater than Infinity? With respect I must pronounce your response as little more than unthinking twaddle? -
 25 January 2015 08:33 PM
User is offline View Users Profile Print this message



ectophile

Posts: 754
Joined: 17 September 2001

There's nothing "unthinking" about it. Mathematicians spend their entire careers thinking about such things.

It just doesn't happen to match your preconceptions.

-------------------------
S P Barker BSc PhD IEng MIET
 26 January 2015 12:40 AM
User is offline View Users Profile Print this message



kengreen

Posts: 437
Joined: 15 April 2013

indeed ectophile,

Once again you hit the nail fairly and squarely. The Achilles heel of physics philosophy today lies in the reliance on the "beautiful" mathematics on which its exponents spend their time contemplating each other's navels. Those skills in manipulating hieroglyphics are not tied to any particular philosophy; they float in that world where Black Holes swallow, were Time has an entity and where Universes struggle to maintain their distance from other Universes!

My call is for a return to plain and unequivocal English (UK) spiced with common sense.

Ken Green
Statistics

New here?


See Also:



FuseTalk Standard Edition v3.2 - © 1999-2017 FuseTalk Inc. All rights reserved.


..