Path: ...!Xl.tags.giganews.com!local-4.nntp.ord.giganews.com!news.giganews.com.POSTED!not-for-mail
NNTP-Posting-Date: Thu, 28 Nov 2024 18:52:02 +0000
Subject: Re: The Universe Is Not A Sphere (continuous domain, infinity and
 laws of large numbers)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.relativity
References: <fba4f14050cf7d238a88b4d7e3e88093@www.novabbs.com>
 <bf735594dff7dd8051c2646906cee9dc@www.novabbs.com>
 <31fff23251c0d103984b135dc57cbfd4@www.novabbs.com>
 <laednbN1xs_LfK76nZ2dnZfqnPcAAAAA@giganews.com>
 <6742e97c$0$527$426a74cc@news.free.fr>
 <eMednZITveAV8N76nZ2dnZfqnPSdnZ2d@giganews.com>
 <lqlikmF5mhU1@mid.individual.net>
 <I_SdneOpc6ce7tv6nZ2dnZfqnPWdnZ2d@giganews.com>
 <5e2dnXrvNpBLwtr6nZ2dnZfqn_qdnZ2d@giganews.com>
From: Ross Finlayson <ross.a.finlayson@gmail.com>
Date: Thu, 28 Nov 2024 10:52:04 -0800
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:38.0) Gecko/20100101
 Thunderbird/38.6.0
MIME-Version: 1.0
In-Reply-To: <5e2dnXrvNpBLwtr6nZ2dnZfqn_qdnZ2d@giganews.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Message-ID: <0NGdnY2ZT9tPJtX6nZ2dnZfqn_idnZ2d@giganews.com>
Lines: 197
X-Usenet-Provider: http://www.giganews.com
X-Trace: sv3-bBvA/IDr/PDhrb++v7Ihw816RcAoV4TmvmQt11H+X8Z2d/6mX6asgZLCRCf/nlpop7nL663VI4ock49!bWPLEtyVp1mFnEnzdDeGotdfMkM5qMAq3MnGqYdsQQoCpuB1CYHem+VySGn0YU49cUI7s1almg==
X-Complaints-To: abuse@giganews.com
X-DMCA-Notifications: http://www.giganews.com/info/dmca.html
X-Abuse-and-DMCA-Info: Please be sure to forward a copy of ALL headers
X-Abuse-and-DMCA-Info: Otherwise we will be unable to process your complaint properly
X-Postfilter: 1.3.40
Bytes: 9015

On 11/27/2024 10:07 AM, Ross Finlayson wrote:
> On 11/26/2024 05:18 PM, Ross Finlayson wrote:
>> On 11/26/2024 01:27 AM, Thomas Heger wrote:
>>> Am Sonntag000024, 24.11.2024 um 19:16 schrieb Ross Finlayson:
>>>> On 11/24/2024 12:53 AM, J. J. Lodder wrote:
>>>>> Ross Finlayson <ross.a.finlayson@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> On 11/12/2024 02:57 PM, LaurenceClarkCrossen wrote:
>>>>>>> Riemann was a brilliant geometer who made the elementary error of
>>>>>>> reifying space by claiming parallel lines could meet. Schwarzschild
>>>>>>> and
>>>>>>> Einstein carried through with that mistake, making people believe
>>>>>>> it was
>>>>>>> intelligent.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Art students know there's a point at infinity.
>>>
>>> 'at' and 'point' mean essentially the same thing.
>>>
>>> But it is, of course, wrong to assign a point to infinity, because
>>> infinity is not a point and it is impossible to be there (hence there is
>>> no 'at').
>>>
>>>
>>>>> A whole line at infinity of them, even,
>>>>>
>>>>> Jan
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> One idea about the quadrant is to shrink it to a box,
>>>
>>> It is also impossible to shrink infinity in any way, because infinity
>>> will remain infinitely large, even after significant shrinking.
>>>
>>>> given that the ray from origin (in a Cartesian space)
>>>> in x = y is an "identity dimension" and rather "original"
>>>> itself, then that the hyperbola, xy = 1 andx = 1/y and y = 1/x,
>>>> its corner, is parameterized to go out the identity line
>>>> and result in the limit connecting (0, \infty) and (\infty, 0).
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> inf = 1/0
>>>
>>> hence
>>>
>>> inf * 0 =1
>>>
>>> hence
>>>
>>> 0/inf = 1/inf²
>>>
>>> ;-)
>>>
>>> but infinity is also not a number!
>>>
>>>
>>> TH
>>> ...
>>
>> The "infinity, mathematical" is an interesting thing,
>> I enjoy studying it and have studied it since at least
>> thirty years, though also at least about forty-five
>> years ago the word "INFINITY" was in the language.
>>
>> Sort of like "ALL" and other universals - INFINITY
>> is always in the context.
>>
>> That "infinity-many iota-values either sum to or produce 1",
>> is the idea of standard infinitesimals that just like a
>> line integral and the line elements or path integral, in
>> a line, and path elements, makes that mathematical and
>> the mathematical physics particularly has infinity.
>>
>> Are you familiar with "mathematical formalism the
>> modern mathematics way: axiomatic set theory with
>> descriptive set theory in model theory"?
>>
>> See, here there are at least three models of continuous
>> domains, where the usual account of "set theory's" (really
>> meaning the "a standard linear curriculum" as with regards
>> to what "mathematical foundations", is, i.e. set theory
>> plus models of rationals after integers then LUB and
>> measure 1.0 furthermore axioms), the usual account, has
>> one, the Archimedean field reals, that here there are
>> first line reals, or infinitely-many constant iota-values
>> in a row, line-reals, then field-reals for example by
>> the standard formalism, then signal-reals, and getting
>> involved with real halving- and doubling- spaces that
>> taking individua of continua sometimes doubles and
>> sometimes halves, the real analytical character.
>>
>> So, I must imagine that you have each these three
>> kinds of continuous domains in your theory, as with
>> regards then to various law(s), plural, of large
>> numbers (infinities, actually, effectively, practically,
>> or potentially).
>>
>> Surely your mathematical physics for real analysis at some
>> point employs these three, not inter-changeable or
>> equi-interpretable, yet according to "bridges" or
>> "ponts" pretty much the integers or bounds, like they
>> are called the path integral or real numbers or
>> signal theory.
>>
>> Yes, no?
>>
>>
>
> Another one gets involved to have concentric cyclotrons,
> in opposite directions, then getting into helping illustate
> that electromagnetism's behavior of moving influence,
> that is not observed in light yet reflects particularly
> the electrical fields' contents, then with a neutral linac
> adjacent and across those, makes a rather simple idea.
>
>
> The advanced and retarded in the electromagnetic has a
> lot to do with the "opposites" in the fluid model,
> electrical current and liquid current, with regards
> the "opposite" meaning "super-classical" effects like
> skin effect versus core effect, then about curls and
> eddies and vortices about magnetic moments and poles,
> axoi and polloi, vis-a-vis the static, in electrodynamics,
> and static, in hydrodynamics.
>
> Anyways it's rather simple this configuration of experiment
> a "neutral linac and charged cyclotron" that sees arrived
> at achievable experiments with clearly obvious what would
> be "non-null".
>
>
> The Sagnac effect shows up a lot for light, Sagnac and Ehrenfest,
> "space-time wheel" type bits, that anyways once a "neutral linac",
> for example accelerated charged decaying particles that decay
> to neutral, makes a quite simple describe experiment.
>
> ... That would falsify, or not, space-contraction-linear,
> and, space-contraction-rotation, each.
>
>


Of course equipping mathematics with more and better and
true and real mathematics of infinities and infinitesimals
may automatically then make for equipping the physical models
with more real true things about continuity and infinity
in nature.

So, mathematics has a great linear curriculum, yet at the
same time the mathematics of infinity and continuity has
multiple perspectives, as it were, to fulfill, that there
are multiple mathematical models of a continuous domain,
and multiple law(s) of large numbers, and these things that
make for what "is" the continuous mani-fold, in what "is"
an un-bounded or in-finite universe.

Thusly, any theory of everything must need resolve all
the logical paradoxes first, then make the _replete_
of the mathematical "complete", for it to be that
otherwise it's easy to derive contradictions arising
from things like the line integral and motion itself,
in the physical model the physical interpretation.

So, physics for a long time made its great efforts in
finding methods, mathematical, that yet keep infinity
"out", yet, being that it's yet always a thing, that
========== REMAINDER OF ARTICLE TRUNCATED ==========