I can debunk "Infinity" in less than 8 minutes

page: 18
8
<< 15  16  17   >>

log in

join

posted on Dec, 21 2012 @ 02:45 AM
link   

Originally posted by Kashai
Math is not flawed it shows that Infinifty is a part of nature, get over it....


Any thoughts?


Math is not flawed. It is our understanding of math that is flawed.

A equation that is set up correctly is not flawed. But its interpretation of what it represents can be flawed.

I agree that some people have problems wrapping their head around the infinite. But for these people to state that non of us can wrap our heads around it. Is a flawed assumption. They have no write to speak on my behalf or our behalf.

The problem with people who don't understand is that they have no grounds to believe what we are trying to tell them. These people often have to lean on some one who has made a name for him self within the field. And they use some one else's information to argue against us. Very often these people don't understand the source they are using. Because initially they weren't able to wrap their heads around the idea of the infinite.




posted on Dec, 21 2012 @ 06:25 AM
link   

Originally posted by Kashai



Many view the NDE as the precursor to an afterlife experience, claiming that the NDE cannot be adequately explained by physiological or psychological causes, and that the phenomenon demonstrates that human consciousness can function independently of brain activity.[81] Many NDE-accounts seem to include elements which, according to several theorists, can only be explained by an out-of-body consciousness. Michael Sabom reports a woman who underwent surgery for an aneurysm, and who reported an out-of-body experience that she claimed continued through a brief period of the absence of any EEG activity. [82][82] In another account, from a prospective Dutch NDE study,[17] a nurse removed the dentures of an unconscious heart attack victim, and was identified by him as the one who removed them, although patient was in a coma and undergoing cardio-pulmonary resuscitation at the time.


en.wikipedia.org...

Under the Search "Clinical research and Near Death Experience there are many more links. The problem is that 3 to 4 minutes after the heart stops, there is no real brain activity that can account for these experiences. Beyond the apparent religious experiences of these patients they are able to remember events that clinically, it was impossible for them to experience. Events like conversation between ambulance drivers about a football game or specifics about the conditions of other patients in the emergency room. This from a heart attack victim, who had been picked up 7 minutes after his or her heart attack at home.

Given human as actually finite that would be impossible but it is not.

Any thoughts?
edit on 20-12-2012 by Kashai because: modified content


Sentience is a very different discussion that infinity. Sentience is a capacity for specific point-of-view conscious awareness of self relative to both environment and timeline. It sure as hell isn't infinite in nature. I totally believe in the permanent survival of sentience upon the death of the brain that brought that sentience into physical existence. To my own research, that's been very well documented. Still, its existence doesn't affect the debate concerning the existence of physical infinity. They are completely unrelated and the nonexistence of physical infinity doesn't impact the existence of physical sentience as a permanent emergent quantity.



posted on Dec, 21 2012 @ 06:45 AM
link   

Originally posted by Kashai
Math is not flawed it shows that Infinifty is a part of nature, get over it....


Any thoughts?


Math is the employment of Set Logic to determine the relative nature of determinable potentials. Math is inherently finite as a result. Math uses the term Infinity as a placeholder label, since some calculations are not worth pursuing if by doing so, one would lose the main focus of a specific pursuit through inadvertent (and permanent) digression. Pi is a a good example of such a calculation. As an incalculable quantity, it serves its purpose within the confines of related calculations, even though it is undeterminable as a definitive quantity. Mathematicians avoid falling into a trap of crippling digression by labeling Pi as "infinite" so as to note that its exact quantity has not been determined. Since Pi is only a conceptual factor - not represented within the material realm by anything physically tangible - its representation within a mathematical formula as having infinite properties is not an actual violation of the tenets of physical reality. Mathematicians know this and simply treat the terms "infinity" and "infinite" as part of their industry jargon, when using them to label formulaic items like Pi.

If you take the time to read up on this stuff - as I did before I committed my assertions to music and rhyme and footage montage - then you'll discover that what I'm telling you here about how "infinity" relates to the field of mathematics is true. Mathematicians have never considered infinity to actually exist as physical in nature.



posted on Dec, 22 2012 @ 08:26 PM
link   
reply to post by spy66
 


Physicist work with infinities all the time it is "part and parcel" of the day to day life of being a Physicist. In that context perhaps you should have taken that possibility into consideration.



posted on Dec, 22 2012 @ 08:46 PM
link   
reply to post by NorEaster
 


That does not negate the fact that conceptually and in relation to society beyond math the subject has been seriously considered and investigated.

The Brain During Cardiac Arrest

The heart is not merely a pump at a considerable fraction of a second is also charges and discharges electricity.

To be clear 10 seconds after the heart stops there is a cessation of brain electrical activity. This means that any process's that could occur are chemical in nature. So while the brain is such a situation is capable of absorbing oxygen for at most 4 minutes? It can no longer process information equivalent to a dream or hallucination.


In the case of experiences of life after death in a clinical setting. Anything that is done to a patients, even removing there dentures is documented, so is well the name of the person responsible for doing that.

Further reading

Lets be clear, this is a well documented issue and life after death is life. If you are at issue with that might I suggest you work 10 years as a Doctor ,in an emergency room, in a major hospital of any major metropolitan area. That would be enough time to insure you were exposed to these experiences.

Events that are confirmed as clinical findings

Any thoughts?
edit on 22-12-2012 by Kashai because: added an modified content



posted on Dec, 23 2012 @ 09:49 AM
link   

Originally posted by Kashai
reply to post by NorEaster
 


That does not negate the fact that conceptually and in relation to society beyond math the subject has been seriously considered and investigated.

The Brain During Cardiac Arrest

The heart is not merely a pump at a considerable fraction of a second is also charges and discharges electricity.

To be clear 10 seconds after the heart stops there is a cessation of brain electrical activity. This means that any process's that could occur are chemical in nature. So while the brain is such a situation is capable of absorbing oxygen for at most 4 minutes? It can no longer process information equivalent to a dream or hallucination.

In the case of experiences of life after death in a clinical setting. Anything that is done to a patients, even removing there dentures is documented, so is well the name of the person responsible for doing that.

Further reading

Lets be clear, this is a well documented issue and life after death is life. If you are at issue with that might I suggest you work 10 years as a Doctor ,in an emergency room, in a major hospital of any major metropolitan area. That would be enough time to insure you were exposed to these experiences.

Events that are confirmed as clinical findings

Any thoughts?
edit on 22-12-2012 by Kashai because: added an modified content


I thought I made it clear that I believe in human life after death. I think I also made it clear that - to my own research into the matter - human life after death is not related to the subject of physical infinity. Not at all. The human being is an emergent system that is brought into existence as a result of (on this planet, anyway) the confluence of the Homo Sapiens system, the material realm system as a whole, the Homo Sapiens social system, and the ongoing influence of the emerging human being as the gestating system that it is until the death of the Homo Sapiens brain. This suggests that the human being has a definite genesis that can be detailed and quantified, which eliminates any association with the concept of physical infinity which has been defined as having no limits or boundaries of any kind - which would have to include limits on physical existence, either initiation or demise, if the qualities of limitlessness and boundlessness are fully descriptive of what physical infinity involves.

You seem to be having a very different debate than the one that I have presented within this thread.



posted on Dec, 23 2012 @ 09:51 AM
link   

Originally posted by NorEaster

I thought I made it clear that I believe in human life after death.


That's funny!!! Life after death??
What is death then??
Life is eternal.

Death is a myth.
edit on 23-12-2012 by Itisnowagain because: (no reason given)



posted on Dec, 23 2012 @ 09:59 AM
link   

Originally posted by Kashai
reply to post by spy66
 


Physicist work with infinities all the time it is "part and parcel" of the day to day life of being a Physicist. In that context perhaps you should have taken that possibility into consideration.



And yet, this is the way that Infinity is employed within the field of Physics.


Theoretical applications of physical infinity

The practice of refusing infinite values for measurable quantities does not come from a priori or ideological motivations, but rather from more methodological and pragmatic motivations. One of the needs of any physical and scientific theory is to give usable formulas that correspond to or at least approximate reality. As an example if any object of infinite gravitational mass were to exist, any usage of the formula to calculate the gravitational force would lead to an infinite result, which would be of no benefit since the result would be always the same regardless of the position and the mass of the other object. The formula would be useful neither to compute the force between two objects of finite mass nor to compute their motions. If an infinite mass object were to exist, any object of finite mass would be attracted with infinite force (and hence acceleration) by the infinite mass object, which is not what we can observe in reality. Sometimes infinite result of a physical quantity may mean that the theory being used to compute the result may be approaching the point where it fails. This may help to indicate the limitations of a theory.

This point of view does not mean that infinity cannot be used in physics. For convenience's sake, calculations, equations, theories and approximations often use infinite series, unbounded functions, etc., and may involve infinite quantities. Physicists however require that the end result be physically meaningful. In quantum field theory infinities arise which need to be interpreted in such a way as to lead to a physically meaningful result, a process called renormalization.

en.wikipedia.org...


I checked that page's history and these statements were not challenged. This is exactly how the concept of physical Infinity is actually employed by physicists. Certainly not as an accurate description of physical reality in any sense of what that might suggest. I invite your rebuttal, but only if it is presented with reliable sourcing. This item took only 20 seconds to find. I have full confidence that I can find more robust sourcing if need be.
edit on 12/23/2012 by NorEaster because: (no reason given)



posted on Dec, 25 2012 @ 04:46 PM
link   
reply to post by ImaFungi
 


It's not possible. Infinity is a man made concept to deal with complex mathematical problems. You'll never complete pi, but we still use it daily to the best of our ability.

Is there ever an infinite amount of anything in the universe? Probably not (probably), but infinity is a mathematical system used for calculated simple things, it's not really a measurement. There can't really be 0 of anything either.

edit on 25-12-2012 by badconduct because: (no reason given)



posted on Dec, 25 2012 @ 07:08 PM
link   
reply to post by NorEaster
 



Actually death could be a event where consciousness begins to relate to its wave state, in relation to the substance, matter wave state. Life as we understand it could equivalent one side to a coin where the
existence we experience after death is also a part of existence as we understand it.

From a different perspective....



which is not what we can observe in reality. Sometimes infinite result of a physical quantity may mean that the theory being used to compute the result may be approaching the point where it fails. This may help to indicate the limitations of a theory.


This is why conservative physics cannot explain quantum mechanics. This means that when it comes to certain measurements a scientist is placed in the position where he needs to accept the fact he or she is addressing infinities.

One example being that Sir Isaac Newtons work cannot be used to explain black holes.



Physicists however require that the end result be physically meaningful. In quantum field theory infinities arise which need to be interpreted in such a way as to lead to a physically meaningful result, a process called renormalization.




Renormalization is the following:
1.
at the first step the particle IS NOT considered as a point-like object. Physicists say that it has a size λ and perform all calculations for this "sizable" object. Of course, no infinities appear.

2.
at the second step physicists separate those terms that depend on λ (the "size" of the particle) from those terms that do not depend on λ .

3.
The terms that do not depend on the λ have some independent physical meaning and are relevant for describing some (but not all!) properties of the particles. They are accurately calculated.

4.
at the next step the size of the particle is made smaller and smaller, i.e. λ is approached to zero. Those terms that depend on λ are divergent, i.e. when you approach λ to zero they grow by infinity. The truth is that these terms are not used for anything, they are simply dropped. So, the goal of renormalization procedure is to separate finite terms from the equations and get rid of other divergent terms.


So, by using renormalization we can make the model "free" of divergences, but still we cannot use it for calculating some important properties of the particles. For instance, the mass and the electric charge of the particle cannot be calculated, because the model gives us no criteria to identify these quantities. Moreover, the particles that are known to have different masses (such as electron and muon) are indistinguishable in terms of this model.

And one more thing: renormalization procedure works for some theories (such as electrodynamics), but it does not work for others (such as quantum chromodynamics used to describe protons and neutrons). The theories where it doesn't work are called "non-renormalizable".




The basic idea can be summarized in one sentence: renormalization is the analysis of mathematical objects whose fractal dimensions at small distances are either different from what you expect because of nonlinear interactions, or incipiently different from what you expect, so that the naive scaling is modified by logarithms.


physics.stackexchange.com...

Friend the only thing you have proven is that you have a belief system.

Any thoughts?






edit on 25-12-2012 by Kashai because: added content



posted on Dec, 26 2012 @ 01:11 AM
link   

Originally posted by badconduct
reply to post by ImaFungi
 


It's not possible. Infinity is a man made concept to deal with complex mathematical problems. You'll never complete pi, but we still use it daily to the best of our ability.

Is there ever an infinite amount of anything in the universe? Probably not (probably), but infinity is a mathematical system used for calculated simple things, it's not really a measurement. There can't really be 0 of anything either.

edit on 25-12-2012 by badconduct because: (no reason given)


Not in this universe,, but what the universe is, is a part of infinity.



posted on Dec, 27 2012 @ 06:43 PM
link   

Originally posted by Kashai
reply to post by NorEaster
 





which is not what we can observe in reality. Sometimes infinite result of a physical quantity may mean that the theory being used to compute the result may be approaching the point where it fails. This may help to indicate the limitations of a theory.


This is why conservative physics cannot explain quantum mechanics. This means that when it comes to certain measurements a scientist is placed in the position where he needs to accept the fact he or she is addressing infinities.



No, when it comes to certain measurements a scientist is placed in the position where he (or she) needs to accept the fact that a measurement cannot be made. In most cases, a measurement that cannot be made is an ancillary measurement, and is not germane to the validity of a central tenet of a specific theory. The true size of an expanding universe from instant to instant is an example of an immeasurable measurement that - while conceptually mentionable within many theories - is not germane to the validity of any of the theories that it appears within. In such cases, the term "infinite" serves to indicate that this specific measurement is acknowledged to exist, but it also acknowledged to be beyond anyone's capacity to establish. This is what they mean when they refer to "infinity" as a placeholder term.



posted on Dec, 27 2012 @ 07:39 PM
link   

Originally posted by NorEaster

Originally posted by Kashai
reply to post by NorEaster
 





which is not what we can observe in reality. Sometimes infinite result of a physical quantity may mean that the theory being used to compute the result may be approaching the point where it fails. This may help to indicate the limitations of a theory.


This is why conservative physics cannot explain quantum mechanics. This means that when it comes to certain measurements a scientist is placed in the position where he needs to accept the fact he or she is addressing infinities.



No, when it comes to certain measurements a scientist is placed in the position where he (or she) needs to accept the fact that a measurement cannot be made. In most cases, a measurement that cannot be made is an ancillary measurement, and is not germane to the validity of a central tenet of a specific theory. The true size of an expanding universe from instant to instant is an example of an immeasurable measurement that - while conceptually mentionable within many theories - is not germane to the validity of any of the theories that it appears within. In such cases, the term "infinite" serves to indicate that this specific measurement is acknowledged to exist, but it also acknowledged to be beyond anyone's capacity to establish. This is what they mean when they refer to "infinity" as a placeholder term.


The issue of why anyone would be unable to establish an understanding of infinity is arbitrary. Data from the WMAP presents that the Universe is Infinite and this specifically related to its nature. From the context of a "placeholder term," the reality is that a test of population would be what made it fact. Like actually testing the "Universe" to determine if in fact gravity (as we understand it) is consistent. You see there is no way to test gravity, everywhere, and prove it is consistent with current models.

You assume that if infinity exist is must be some where and not every where....why?

There is actually today no valid reason to conclude the the Universe is not infinite.....

Otherwise you should contact NASA...and offer your data as to why it should be considered otherwise,


Based upon what test of this "Universe," can you offer confirmation of your results???

The idea that Planks results will be altogether different that WMAP suggest some kind of Dementia.


Any thoughts?
edit on 27-12-2012 by Kashai because: added content



posted on Dec, 28 2012 @ 08:57 PM
link   




Any thoughts?





new topics
top topics
 
8
<< 15  16  17   >>

log in

join