Prev: Intersection of Complex Submanifolds (Incl. Self-Int.) ispositive
Next: Matrix with unit modulus roots - a sequel to "Name for matrix"-
From: Archimedes Plutonium on 31 Jul 2010 17:15


Robert L. Oldershaw wrote:
> On Jul 31, 12:30 am, Archimedes Plutonium
> <plutonium.archime...(a)gmail.com> wrote:
> >
> > When Democritus in ancient Greek times said " the only things
> > existing, are atoms",
> > he really meant it. If you believe it, then logic says the totality is
> > one big atom. So if
> > only atoms exist, then the Universe is both self similar and size
> > makes no difference.
> -----------------------------------------------------------------------
>
> Just a note: Democritus, Discrete Scale Relativity, and any natural
> philosopher worth his salt knows that nature's discrete self-similar
> hierarchy is unbounded, i.e., infinite.

Well I don't think any natural philosopher worth his weight in gold
ever
does well defining, as to the terms he/she means. Ask anyone in math,
philosophy, physics what they mean by " infinity". And the usual
answer is
"that which is unending, or, never ending." Sounds simple, sounds
obvious.
But it was obvious to Newton and all predecessors of Newton of
absolute-space
and absolute-time which special-relativity debunked.

Did you know, Robert, that no mathematician ever well defined what he
meant by
finite-number versus infinite-number. And left it up to each and
everyone to make up
their own personal definition. Talk about walking away from the prime
job of mathematics--
to well define.

So what is the true concept of infinity, when someone really puts some
effort into
a well-defined definition? It would have to come from physics and a
concept of "never ending"
is not a physical concept is it? What is in physics is that you reach
a point where you no longer are able to count in the large or measure
in the small, or go colder in the cold or go
hotter in the heat.

So Physics would say that Infinity is not these ghost or green dragon
of endlessness, just as
absolute time is a ghost or fluida as electricity a fluid is a ghost.
But Physics would say that
if we can no longer measure, or count or divide, then we reached
"infinity"

So a better definition of infinity is that at which Physics no longer
is able to measure or experiment, or where a force ends such as Strong-
Nuclear ends at nucleons of 253. It occurs in the large at 10^500 and
in the small at 10^-500 (probably occurs earlier than 10^-500 for the
small).

So, Robert, I suspect you have endorsed a concept of "infinity" with
out ever really thinking
hard and long about what infinity means. You assumed what it means,
just as Newton assumed absolute time.

If there is no more physics, since there is no more strongnuclear
force at 253! for elements
beyond 100, if there is no more physics, then the concept of infinity
ends there also. If Physics is gone at 253! then there surely is no
biology of people doing any mathematics.

So to a physicist who wants well-defined concepts, not some shoddy
concept that is taken for granted, would say that 10^500 is infinity.

And so you have a largest atom.

>
> Therefore there cannot be a "largest atom" and it is incorrect to say
> that the Universe is an atom. If you go looking for the "uber-atom"
> you are on a fool's errand because the sequence of ever-larger atoms
> is infinite and does not end.
>

This would be like Newton telling Poincare and Lorentz that they
cannot do
what they did, because they violate absolute space and absolute time.
When
in fact, Newton never had a well defined "what is space and what is
time."

Sorry, Robert, but you never well-defined "what is infinity".

Infinity is nothing magical. It is where Physics no longer exists.

It is where the Strong-Nuclear force no longer exists and that is
about 253!
of the Coulomb Interactions inside a nucleus.

WELL DEFINED Infinity : Infinity is where Physics ends in measuring,
experimenting or
where a force of physics ends.

I am afraid, Robert, that as Newton succumbed to a misconception of
Space and Time
in his physics, that you, Robert succumbed to a shoddy idea of what is
meant by
infinity. As if Infinity is more powerful as a philosophy idealogue,
than all of Physics.

I look at it the other way around, that we have zillions of silly
philosophers with zillions
of poor ideas and infinity as "never ending" is one of the classical
shoddy silly ideas.

Sure many fell prey to Fluidia as the electric juice or fluid and to
the Phlogiston as heat as a fluid. So many fell prey to those shoddy
ideas, probably because philosophers entered where
wise men feared to tread.

But now in our century, we finally release the philosophers and
mathematicians of their shoddy notion around "infinity" and set
infinity on its
true path. Infinity means the end of doing Physics and thus is about
10^500. Infinity is the boundary at which Phsyics no longer is
physics.

So, Robert, please help physics, not hinder physics from the silly
philosophers and mathematicians who have this ultra-idealism of what
everything means. Even their
twirling of hair-locks in their ivory towers while sipping coffee.


> If you want to say that there are an infinite number self-similar
> atoms that differ in discrete size scales ( ..., Atomic Scale atoms,
> Stellar Scale atoms, Galactic Scale atoms,..., that would appear to be
> more defendable.
>
> RLO
> www.amherst.edu/~rloldershaw

Well, Robert, you never had a theory of physics, but only have applied
the concept of
Fractals to physics. Applying a concept of math is not a physics
theory; it maybe a tool but
not a physics reality. Just as the scaffolding around quarks or the
scaffolding that Mendeleev
used to figure out the periodic table. Scaffolding is not physics, but
a aid.

I have a theory-- the Universe is one big atom, and thus your fractals
is a incidental side aspect of that theory. Atom Totality can produce
all of fractals, but fractals can not yield the
Atom Totality theory.

If your only objection to Atom Totality is "infinity", well, you never
really defined infinity to any
standard of good physics. You accepted and assumed the common notion
of "endlessness".

And if that is your only objection to the Atom Totality, then you have
no real objection. Notice how in Quantum Electrodynamics, by
renormalizing they get rid of the nuisance infinities. All of physics
should be getting rid of infinities of numbers larger than 10^500. But
to think that if Physics is no longer physics at 253! of
strongnuclear, why would any physicist
embrace silly mathematicians with their idea of endlessness, as if
anything can be counted
beyond 10^500 or that a world exists where you have a biology of
intelligent life to even have mathematics.

Remember, you have to have Phsyics to have biology and to have
mathematics is much further down the line. So why would anyone trumpet
mathematics with its silly notion of "endless" when physics puts
infinity at 10^500.


Archimedes Plutonium
http://www.iw.net/~a_plutonium/
whole entire Universe is just one big atom
where dots of the electron-dot-cloud are galaxies
From: Robert L. Oldershaw on 1 Aug 2010 00:19
On Jul 31, 5:15 pm, Archimedes Plutonium
<plutonium.archime...(a)gmail.com> wrote:
>
> So what is the true concept of infinity, when someone really puts some
---------------------------------------------------

Well, Galileo knew the basic properties of countable infinities.

Then Cantor developed the subject into rigorous mathematical theory.

To me the idea of truncating nature's hierarchy is repugnant, and the
desire to do so is most likely due to a lack of courage and an
anthropocentric prejudice.

Is the concept of the Metagalactic Scale "atom" undergoing a
catastrophic nuclear decay event causing complete ionization of the
"atomic" structure not a good enough model for the Big Bang? It is the
local [observable universe] that went Bang, not the global [Universe],
which is infinite and eternal.

RLO
www.amherst.edu/~rloldershaw
 | 
Pages: 1
Prev: Intersection of Complex Submanifolds (Incl. Self-Int.) ispositive
Next: Matrix with unit modulus roots - a sequel to "Name for matrix"-