Originally posted by anjuna
Hi, first of all I'm new. It's an honor to join ATS especially after my fiasco(s) with GLP.
Wonderful piece of art! I appreciate all the visuals and poetry! Would you mind if people shared it under more "sensationalized" titles?
What does that mean? I'm good with anyone sharing it, but what would a more sensationalized title look like?
I've been trying to "disprove infinity" all my life by trying to visualize it and "get there" somehow. (I counted a lot of sheep to put me to sleep as
I wonder how it ever got to be a cultural concept in the first place. Maybe just by wondering it we somehow get there?
People have always needed a label to attach to what they know, and especially what they don't know. I would imagine that each language has its own
term for unfathomable amounts of whatever it is that they can't calculate the amount of. Infinity has served the English speaking people in that
capacity, but the problem started when a majority of normal, non-scientific types began embracing the term as being a literal fact of physical
reality. That's happened again and again throughout human history.
I thought the Plank's length was only a representation of how small we can currently measure (implying in the future with more advanced tools
we might measure something smaller)?
This is what made the quantum such a "game changer". The term they use for the "stability" it established for anyone working with the laws of physics
and all general sciences was the "quantization" of reality. It set a definable, dependable sub-structure beneath everything, and it has allowed the
development of everything from computers to mathematical representations of sacred geometry to - well, pretty much everything that defines technology
in the 20th century. You can't build upon what you can't determine to be stable and dependable, and until Max Planck figured out that the quantum of
action exists - allowing the electron to "quantum jump" from one resting state to a new state (defined orbit within the structure of the atom) without
going into a death spiral into the nucleus, no such stable foundation was known to exist.
The quantum is not actually measurable, but that's because of the fact that all that exists as physical within each and every full contextual
environment (or reality confine) is built upon a quantized foundation. What would be used to measure such a foundation if the measuring technology is
also materially based on that same foundation. That said, we don't need to measure the quantum unit to know that it does exist, and that it does
provide structure and scale to what has progressively developed since the genesis of existence.
Have you seen any lectures by Nassim Haramein? Maybe he could help explain the concept better?
Thanks for the name I'll check him out.
I'm not an expert but in the past I was fairly good at math (and to a lesser extent physics). I say this because there seems to be a need for
two languages of math (maybe it's not the universal language)? The concept of "zero" was not always necessary in the past so I wonder if it could be
done away with also?
Both terms are useful. It's just important to have a clear understanding of what can and can't exist as physical. Reality is what it is, and while we
can conceptualize freely, we can't change the nature of what sits at the base of reality and provides it form and stability.
Then I got to thinking, what if zero and infinity are *almost the same yet opposites* (if that makes any sense) BUT/AND if we can conceptualize
(nearly) infinitely small and infinitely large, perhaps we need polar "charges" such as a "negative zero" and "positive zero" to go along with
"infinitely small" and infinitely large" especially for graphing coordinates.
Infinitely small can be used as a quick term, but the quantum completely eliminated that term as representing an actual physical property. For
graphics coordinates, it actually doesn't matter what term you use as long as the folks you are working with can understand what you're trying to
communicate to them. Language ends up being what people agree on. It varies depending on where you are and who you're communicating with.
*edit* By the way, I see that you're from Upstate New York. I'm from the Utica area. Herkimer, to be exact. Where are you from?
12/17/2012 by NorEaster because: (no reason given)