Speed of light

[aristarchusinexile]

I mean... at c, time dilation becomes infinite, length contraction becomes infinite.

leave these lame excuses for the weak inverse of these infinite quantities is 0 - pretty much finite number - so you can still operate with numbers to certain extent.

I can't get past an image of 0 being infinite .. finite beginning with 1.

[bystander]

I can't get past an image of 0 being infinite .. finite beginning with 1.

How is zero infinite? Nothing seems pretty finite to me.

[aristarchusinexile]

I can't get past an image of 0 being infinite .. finite beginning with 1.

How is zero infinite? Nothing seems pretty finite to me.

You're right, bystander, it's difficult. Except that nothing can have no boundaries ..

(Oops - an edit necessary here - "Except that nothing has no boundaries .. or, nothing has no boundaries."

This is a (monumental?) revelation for me. Actually, since running to the big dictionary at this library five minutes ago and looking up 'finite', and putting it in relationship to 0 .. I'm stunned.

[Qev]

Mathematically zero, being an even, unsigned real number, is most certainly finite. In the parlance of physics, 'finite' seems to be used to refer to any value that is not infinite or not zero, which I guess is their way of saying "a knowable, existent quantity of something".

leave these lame excuses for the weak inverse of these infinite quantities is 0 - pretty much finite number - so you can still operate with numbers to certain extent.

Still doesn't get you anywhere, though, since under those conditions time and distance don't even exist.

[makc]

well, that's a matter of perspective, and I think yours needlessly widens a gap between particles of zero and non-zero rest mass. why think that 1st ones do not have these attributes of reality that all other matter known to date does?

edit: a possible resolution of the paradox could be that, given "all the time it needs", up to the end of the world, if any, every photon must hit something and be absorbed. but I have no idea if that can be proven mathematically.

[makc]

on the count of 0 and finite and dictionaries, I like this one:finite = limited. when you measure something, there's that limit, that allows you to say "this thing is X units" and then, when it changes beyond this limit, "this thing is no longer X, but Y units". the limit separating 0 from not 0 is very similar to that separating 1 from not 1, or Pi from not Pi, etc, so I see no motivation to call 0 infinite.

[aristarchusinexile]

I'm edified that you guys are even considering this topic.

My thoughts: '0' is language for 'nothing' - in theory 'nothing' can exist anywhere and has no borders .. so if it exists it exists everywhere .. infinite. Whereas '1' can exist only at one place .. if it exists at two places it is '2', each place well defined and bordered .. finite.

Also, I've been stuck on particle-antiparticle image lately .. and In math, I can't get over the thought that for every plus number (1) there is a minus number (-1) which reduce or expand all numbers to '0'. (I guess I can't separate what I see as realities into number realities and particle realities .. to me they are the same reality. Last night while pondering all of this, and still this morning, I can't shake the image that all numbers are contained in '0' for instance,
( -987654321 to the thousandths power ) + ( 987654321 to the thousandths power ) .. resulting in 0 - being the only infinite number.

Further - it all makes sense of Pascual Jordan's, "A star could be made out of nothing at all, because at the point of '0' volume its negative gravitational energy would precisely canel out is positive mass energy." This statement is said to have caused Einstein to stop in his tracks as he was crossing a busy street, causing traffic to stop for him and (I think it was Bhors who had told him Pascual's statement).

All energy contained in '0' ? And is this what happens inside a Black Hole? And is this what brings into existance the roughly spherical voids? I don't know if I'm excited about these thoughts, or overwhelmed.

[bystander]

My thoughts: '0' is language for 'nothing' - in theory 'nothing' can exist anywhere and has no borders .. so if it exists it exists everywhere .. infinite. Whereas '1' can exist only at one place .. if it exists at two places it is '2', each place well defined and bordered .. finite.

Using your logic , nothing can not exist anywhere, for if it existed anywhere, then it would be anything. If it existed everywhere, then it would be everything. It can only exist nowhere, for if it exists somewhere, then it must be something and can no longer be nothing at all.

[aristarchusinexile]

My thoughts: '0' is language for 'nothing' - in theory 'nothing' can exist anywhere and has no borders .. so if it exists it exists everywhere .. infinite. Whereas '1' can exist only at one place .. if it exists at two places it is '2', each place well defined and bordered .. finite.

Using your logic , nothing can not exist anywhere, for if it existed anywhere, then it would be something and no longer be nothing at all.

Greetings, Bystander. My time on this computer may be short because I see my Bubble Expansion thread has been locked, with suggestion made I take my ideas to alternative forums; so I may be close to being disassociated from the forum again. Whoever is last to leave please turn out the

I can only examine my logic through the results of a test I took while applying successfully for an electronic data processing job in the 70s .. the second highest score in the company's history .. the highest score attained by the person who became my supervisor. That logic tells me If 'nothing' cannot exist, then '0' also cannot exist. However, I agree that if 'nothing' existed within something .. then it becomes part of something ..and no longer nothing. However, if everything exists within nothing (?) .. (Voila - this is realtime now .. two people are conversing in this employment resource room I am in, and one of them just said, "A whole lot of nothing is still nothing".) 8)

[makc]

I can only examine my logic through the results of a test I took while applying successfully for an electronic data processing job in the 70s .. the second highest score in the company's history .. the highest score attained by the person who became my supervisor.

No offends, but that must be very bad company. Otherwise why do you use public library computer 40 years after? (btw that makes you over 60 (with striking similarities to few other members here)) edit: wait, it's employment resource room computer now?

That logic tells me If 'nothing' cannot exist, then '0' also cannot exist.

your logic fails you here, because 'nothing' and '0' are only related to each other as much as letters and pictures are in this thing.

[apodman]

... it may take hundreds of years ... people may not exist ...

Are we headed for a fast end? Do you have a date in mind?

... IF these aliens ... have developed Time Travelling machine ... why wouldnt they use it ...

If they go to all the trouble to develop it, they will probably use it. Unless alien logic is, uh, alien.

---

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Voyager_Golden_Record

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pioneer_plaque

Truly these artifacts are the time machines.

[astrolabe]

Hello All,

May I wade in? I do not believe that 0=nothing for a second. Zero is a thing and it is the equivalent of a singularity and it has borders- that being the plusses and minuses,positives and negatives, tops and bottoms and whatever else that singularity separates. Override zero and one gets annihilation or worse- computers that couldn't calculate the density of an ounce of dirt even knowing its mass and volume. Oh well, there's always cave art.

[Superdoc]

Hi,

I didn mean to say we wont exist in next hundreds of years, i was just pointing out that the Present people would not exit for the next hundreds of years, but anyway ther r many other ways one can think about this, i dont want to drill it any further.

[bystander]

Nothing

• Nothing is a concept that describes the absence of anything at all. Colloquially, the concept is often used to indicate the lack of anything relevant or significant, or to describe a particularly unimpressive thing, event, or object. It is contrasted with something and everything. Nothingness is used more specifically as the state of nonexistence of everything.
  
  In mathematics, nothing does not have a technical meaning. The number zero is often used interchangeably with the term. It could also be said that a set contains nothing if and only if it is the empty set, in which case its cardinality (or size) is zero. In other words, the word nothing can be an informal term for an empty set.
  
  In physics, the word nothing is not used in any technical sense either. A region of space is called a vacuum if it does not contain any matter, though it can contain physical fields. In fact, it is practically impossible to construct a region of space that contains no matter or fields, since gravity cannot be blocked and all objects at a non-zero temperature radiate electromagnetically. However, even if such a region existed, it could still not be referred to as nothing, since it has properties and a measurable existence as part of the quantum-mechanical vacuum.

Nothing is unbounded only in the sense that there is not anything to bind.

[bystander]

Finite

• Having a finite number of elements: finite set
  
  Being a finite number, so not equal to ±∞; all real numbers are finite
  
  Having a finite size
  
  In a stronger sense, being a value that is neither infinite nor infinitesimal or zero; in this sense all real numbers except 0 are finite
  
  In physics jargon, finite can mean either non-infinite or nonzero

In the first three cases, I would consider zero to be finite, definitely not infinite.

In the last two cases, zero is not finite, but neither is it infinite.

[aristarchusinexile]

No offends, but that must be very bad company. Otherwise why do you use public library computer 40 years after? (btw that makes you over 60 (with striking similarities to few other members here)) edit: wait, it's employment resource room computer now?

Bob's reply - Hi Makc. Striking similarities to "a" few other members here, or "few" other members? Regardless, I am in good company. Part of my physical heritage is Rom .. Gypsy .. and I can't seem to live in one place very long, about 1 1/2 years before I have to move on. Needless to say, that lifestyle doesn't make for success in employment. And Yes, I alternate between Employment Resource Centres and the public library .. as well as a couple other places which provide public computers .. this one inparticular is not strict about official use. I have no internet at home because I can't afford it, and wouldn't have it if I could afford it because of the unnecessary expense, hassles with viruses, upgrades, connecting and reconnecting because of my frequent moves to new locations. One more thought, my logic declared to me a long time ago that there was more to life than what could be measured by the $ sign - and despite my relative poverty, I do a lot of travelling, a three month canoe trip three summers ago .. a six week paddle four summers ago .. a three month moped trip two summers ago. I would appreciate the prize which comes with by bubble expansion theory winning the Nobel, though, but I don't think I'm going to write the paper as has been suggested by a luminary on the forum (I hope you catch the humour there). So, now you know a little more about me .. feel free to tell me your life stories.

your logic fails you here, because 'nothing' and '0' are only related to each other as much as letters and pictures are in this thing.

Bob's reply - Yup - I thought of the non-relationship/relationship of symbols and connected meaning last night, without much insight, and after looking at your link I suggest an a '0' could have been symbalized by an upside down owl .. but it comes to me now that the vacancy in the centre of the line in a zero symbolizes what the 0 stands for .. now, how the little tail in the 'Q' fits into the picture is a puzzle. Language has a long history .. the capital 'O' (Oh - not numerical) for instance, symbolizes the shape of the mouth when saying 'Oh'. The word 'Mom' could easily be derived by 'Mmm' sound a sound a baby makes when hungry and excited at the thought of breast feeding. I have three daughters so know a tiny bit about babies. Also, as a poet (not a widely known one, but recognized as a poet by my peers .. I'm going to a Slam tonight) sounds and letters and words are one of my mental exercises.

[aristarchusinexile]

Finite

• Having a finite number of elements: finite set
  
  Being a finite number, so not equal to ±∞; all real numbers are finite
  
  Having a finite size
  
  In a stronger sense, being a value that is neither infinite nor infinitesimal or zero; in this sense all real numbers except 0 are finite
  
  In physics jargon, finite can mean either non-infinite or nonzero

In the first three cases, I would consider zero to be finite, definitely not infinite.

In the last two cases, zero is not finite, but neither is it infinite.

A special thanks for this post, Bystander .. as I was feeling a bit uncomfortable living in a big Zero.

[aristarchusinexile]

on the count of 0 and finite and dictionaries, I like this one:finite = limited. when you measure something, there's that limit, that allows you to say "this thing is X units" and then, when it changes beyond this limit, "this thing is no longer X, but Y units". the limit separating 0 from not 0 is very similar to that separating 1 from not 1, or Pi from not Pi, etc, so I see no motivation to call 0 infinite.

This is good .. except I see O as remaining O know matter how many numbers are added to it, because as a number appears on the positive side, a number must (or so it seems to me at this point) appear on the negative side as well .. cancelling each other out. In effect, nothing can be added to or taken away from O. I hope this discussion doesn't aggravate anyone .. I don't want to be seen as arguing for the sake of arguing. My computer time is much too limited for that, and I have no desire of that nature as well. Peace is above all things my goal.

[aristarchusinexile]

If they go to all the trouble to develop it, they will probably use it. Unless alien logic is, uh, alien.

Apodman - you have thrown in another ingredient in the recipe of possibilities. You must be a heck of a cook. At least, I hope I'm attributing this to the right poster.

[aristarchusinexile]

Hi All,

I came up with this thought or u can call it an idea, Its known that there is a satellite thats in space travelling into deep space displaying Human image and voice of the human species that we're peaceful.., it may take hundreds of years or more to reach any alien world but IF these aliens are far superior and have Sophisticated Technology for instance they might have developed Time Travelling machine like we think we will also be able to do that, and why wouldnt they use it to come back to this Time if they're well known that the people may not exist since it has been so long it had reached to them.

Regards,

Yeah - those peaceful images were sure well done, weren't they .. a real ruse (snicker snicker).

[Doum]

Nahhh, it's all those aliens that did not understand. Bad mistake for them. That's all. They pay for it. Uhh what do you see in the meassage we send ? I'm watching O-O

[Qev]

I believe that the 'sum of all integers' is one of those undefined values, since it doesn't converge to any particular value. You have something like this:

0 + 1 + (-1) + 2 + (-2) + 3 + (-3) +...

The sum of the first two terms is 1, the sum of the first three terms is 0, the sum of the first four terms is 2... basically, as you continue the summation the result diverges, and as such, has no sum.

[aristarchusinexile]

Nahhh, it's all those aliens that did not understand. Bad mistake for them. That's all. They pay for it. Uhh what do you see in the meassage we send ? I'm watching O-O

I think the message was, "We have some swamp in the Antararctic for sale. Pay now, take possession next century." Stupid aliens will probably fall for it, drill now five feet and strike a few trillion cubic tons (cubed) of nice cool oxygen which they will sell to us .. HEY! Where's that deed!

[aristarchusinexile]

From the Bootes Void discussion:

"Great post on a fascinating topic, but I do have a minor correction. You say “Particles of matter, having much more mass than both photons and neutrinos, would of course get pulled towards the walls of the void.” In fact, a particle inside a hollow spherical shell, with all mass evenly distributed at the exterior of the shell, experiences no net gravitational force.

I didn't say that, although your quoting makes it appear so. Of course, it's true, but I don't see the relevance. This only applies to the interior of a perfect spherical shell, where the shell walls are of uniform density, and- very important- there are no external gravity fields. That doesn't remotely describe any place in the Universe. Even if you found a single spherical void surrounded by a shell wall, the fields from the rest of the Universe wouldn't be magically canceled. It would only be the material in the wall itself that contributes no net gravitational force on an interior object.

Sorry the post wasn't clearer, Chris, I was quoting from another source, which I thought I included a reference to. I did not intend representing it as coming from you. I think we should always remember, though, that we have only seen and understood a minute part of the uiverse, so we really shouldn't say "That doesn't remotely describe any place in the universe."

[Chris Peterson]

I think we should always remember, though, that we have only seen and understood a minute part of the uiverse, so we really shouldn't say "That doesn't remotely describe any place in the universe."

We don't know what part of the entire Universe we have seen, because we don't know how much larger than the observable Universe the entire Universe actually is. It's possible (but unlikely) that we've actually seen most of the Universe.

I'm not sure it really matters, however. The only part of the Universe that can influence us is the observable Universe- the rest is outside our range of causality. So while the unseeable part of the Universe is of possible interest to philosophers, it holds little for science.