Jump to content

Conscious Energy

Senior Members
  • Posts

    125
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Posts posted by Conscious Energy

  1. 1 hour ago, studiot said:

    Some Mathematicians include zero some do not.

    Zero being a natural number, has nothing to do with that, some include it and some do not.
     

    If the information is perceivable in the natural physical reality than it’s part of the natural numbers. 
     

    As far as I am able to perceive, in every point of space I can take 0 at any time. 

    I think the physical value of 0 is distributed by SpaceTime ( the physical 4D empty set).

    Can a physically 0 entity (point of space) have minimal level of extent?

  2. 1 hour ago, ydoaPs said:

    Infinities come in different sizes

    I have difficulties to imagine that a 1cm3 space can contain more points that the whole universe has all together.
     

    I do not see how physically the whole Universe with all its distance could fit in 1 cm3 if it would be true. 
     

    Which law says a point has absolutely no space and a minimal length? How is it reasoned that a point of space has no physical extent?

    I can count distance and time with the natural numbers.
     

    Every point of space has a current moment of now.

    I think a point has a minimal extent since it has a local space of recognition by the local time of observation. Even it is the smallest physically recognisable Space by the shortest moment of Time. Some space will be there. If not and a point has absolutely no space by the time of observation why and how that is possible? 

     

     

  3. 24 minutes ago, Country Boy said:

    The problem is that you say  you are talking about mathematics but you are actually talking about physics.

    I think they are interconnected. 
     

     

    24 minutes ago, Country Boy said:

    You do not know what mathematics is and you do not know what physics is! 

    I don’t know imaginary math and physics.
     

    I am relative good with the math and physics of Natural Reality. 

    24 minutes ago, Country Boy said:

    There is "infinity" in mathematics

    This what I doubt if:

     

    24 minutes ago, Country Boy said:

    there is no "infinity" in physics.

     

    53 minutes ago, studiot said:

    Do you know what the natural numbers are ?

    Yes. 
    0 1 2 3 4 5 ….

    the ones in Nature I can count with. 
     

  4. 1 hour ago, Sensei said:

    Did you see photon at rest?

    Did you see anything at rest?
     

    An atom for example without our galaxies 660km/S  motion in the extragalactic frame of reference and the gravity it provides?

    Isn’t the volume of SpaceTime is the fundamental frame of reference? How this frame could be infinite if we have a present and not yet happened Future.
     

    How do you deny it is Finite? 
     

    How you prove SpaceTime is infinite and there is infinite amount of natural numbers to account every point of information of it? How can you have more (infinite) numbers than the information the universe provides? We can not account 0,000…01% of the universe. Why do you suppose it is infinite? 
     

    Numbers are a human invention we need energy invested to be able to account! There are no signs of infinite Energy or Matter. No signs of infinite Time or Space. 
     

    If I use every existing energy and matter to feed a device counts natural numbers, when the Universe is out of energy and matter my device stops and gives a limit to the counted natural numbers (worst case scenario). Our lack of accounting further the natural numbers won’t stop the Universe to provide more and more information. 

  5. 12 hours ago, joigus said:

    It depends on what you mean by "information", and on what you mean by "the system".

    Time is information

    The system is the Universe 

    Every macroscopic physical entity has an age since when it exist and the age is increasing by time. 
     

    Time is countable by natural numbers. Time is not infinite. It has a physical limit by the present, now. 

    11 hours ago, swansont said:

    Numbers don’t physically exist.

    True, but we count the members of the physical reality with math (natural numbers)

    Can I try to recognise and understand anything physical without math? 

  6. 9 hours ago, studiot said:

    I asked you to be mathematically precise.

    I try to be. There is a big difference between finite and infinite natural numbers.

    9 hours ago, studiot said:

    So please avoid mixing up mathematics and other topics, particularly physics.

    It is in the philosophy section.
     

    I avoid other topics. I think I am allowed to think with any parts of reality (space, time, energy, matter) and try to express them with math to answer such a difficult question.
     

    You could express where from you could have the energy matter and time to account every natural value of space, time, energy and matter. I understand it seems infinite.
     

    Since time is a natural physical limit, theoretically math can not be absolutely infinite. We have no chance to count every natural number because it’s overall number to account is more with every upcoming moment of time.  Sadly we do not know the exact age of time and the exact rate of empty space expansion by time. st0 —-> st1 ca 9 billion km/s (c2) to all direction, to know everything exactly. If the system is finite we can call its overall value 1. 

    You always measure under gravity in a local space and a relative time, what is impacting your measurement but not impacting the age of SpaceTime you measure within! 

    Or galaxy moves within the extragalactic frame of reference with 660km/s.
     

    There is space before and after on the path of a black hole, where in a 1 000 years time difference in the extragalactic frame of reference a photon path with a different path.  

    Or do you think that a black hole put an extra spin in the space it path?

    Can you help me with a physical example undeniably proves infinity? 

  7. 35 minutes ago, studiot said:

    Every (individual) Natural number is finite.

    But the collection of all natural numbers is infinite.

    How can the collection of all natural numbers be infinite if the numbers of physically recognisable entities are finite?
     

    Reality sure has a limit by Time Now —> the future not yet happened. 

  8. 15 minutes ago, swansont said:
    2 hours ago, Conscious Energy said:

    Space does not exist without time.

    Thought experiments to prove it.

    Again, not pertinent to the OP. 

    It has a link I think.
     

    Because if SpaceTime is a finite entity there is no way that any point of it would be absolutely infinite. Physically for sure.
     

    If something is physically finite, I do not see how that something could be mathematically infinite.?

  9. 19 minutes ago, swansont said:

    line segment in space, and noted that there are an infinite number of points in it

    How you prove, that segment of space has infinite points? 

     

    A point has a minimal space (extent), not? What proves a point has absolutely no space?


    You need time to determine the segment.

    You need time to count the points.

     

    19 minutes ago, swansont said:

    What does this have to do with anything?

    Space does not exist without time.

    Thought experiments to prove it.

  10. 7 hours ago, swansont said:

    No, the line is not time. You said space, and I meant space.

    If there is space, there is time.

    There is the timeline of Time (t0—>Tnow).
     

    It is a linear vector pointing to the Future. It is true in every point of space, independent a black hole or interstellar space exist in it.
     

    Of course the perception of current time in the local space is depending from: is it a black hole there or almost emptiness.
     

    The shifting black hole does not change the age of the space it is pathing through or alter the age of the galaxy it is existing in by being heavy. Or? How?

    What physical property space has which can be impacted by gravity?

    Isn’t gravity is the result of mass? —> the heavier object has bigger gravitational pull? Maybe big enough to pull even a photon or it’s wave distribution.

    How could we realise that photons and waves also has some minimal mass?

    What proves that a photon is absolutely mass less?

     

     

  11. 8 hours ago, swansont said:

    any finite, one-dimensional line segment

    The line is time and the one dimensional segment is a point of space.
     

    The shortest time we take the smallest space and we call it plank unit.

    If I record this smallest unit of space in a moment of time how is it possible that there are an infinite number of plank units to be count?

    If you try to count, you count on a 2D line of Time because of your physical reality related capabilities to measure.
     

    Time pass. Linearly forward pointing to the future within every point of space. 


    0D —> 1D —->4D (Space)Time. 

    0D = moment of time

    1D= point of space

    2D= line of space or Time within Space(Time) we can measure

    4D= 3D volume by 1D Time. The size of Natural Reality, Now.


     

     

     

     

  12. If I give every point of space, every electron and atom a natural number(by the time of existence)  I got a huge number, inexpressible, but still finite. Now.
     

    For every physical entity, even for the points of space, time will pass with every upcoming moment in the future, which again an add to the set of natural numbers I will not be able to count but countable. 
     

    I know that with every moment of time there is more information in the system.

    But how could it be infinite, if the Future numbers and the possibility to account them, not yet happened?
     

    Where are the physical signs of infinity? 

    Why are we counting infinite?

    Why don’t we count finite?
     

  13. On 9/15/2021 at 1:49 AM, Markus Hanke said:

    but you can see how test particles in free fall (ie only gravity acts on them) move in space as they age into the future.

    That is what I mean.
     

    I see fabric (particles) act upon mass (gravity) in a local spacetime. 
     

    I do not see how the elements of a zero set could give a path/route to anything, from as little as a wave, not to speak about a black hole, when space and time has no physically detectable attributes beyond data. 

  14. Spacetime itself is the volume and age of the Universe, Now. The only physical property of it is that it is measurable. Information.
     

    If space can have any other physical attributes like (dark or normal) energy or mass, that would mean, that the evolution of space by time is directly responsible for the creation of energy and mass. 
     

    For me time seems to be linear from t0-t(now), and any point of space is just an empty spot for something (wave…black hole) to exist in.
     

    Every physical entity is constantly shifting within space. Our galaxy including 100 million different sized black holes, with 600km/s.
     

    If something those black holes and huge suns should give a very strong curve to space, so when these black holes pass with 600 km/s, the curved space supposed to stay behind and we should see “glitches” in the path of the physical entities, filling up or passing by the previous spots of existence of those black holes.

    How can Space, what has no physical attribute, be curved?
     

    I just can’t see the fabric of space.
     

    I see the information every point of it contains: 0

    I can just see the space of fabrics (waves…everything) within space(time).

     

  15. From t0 Space expands 3D by Time? Must be a spherical shaped entity.

    Than the system must be finite at least from the point of spacetime (from t0 to t-now) , energy and matter. Or?

    But does space itself can be bent? How? 

    Does spacetime has any physical properties can be curved?

    Isn’t energy bends under the influence of gravity? Having a slightly curved extend, which is the local space of a physical entity in the moment of observation within the volume of the Universe. 
     

    I agree that curved physical entities (waves…everything) can exist within any point of space. 
     

    How the elements of a 0 set can be bent?

  16. 46 minutes ago, Phi for All said:

    Most definitions of "religion" involve supernatural facets (omnipotence, unobservable deities, etc). Since science is focused on the natural world (as you claim we should believe), I think your use of the term "best religion" wrt science is highly inaccurate.

    There were times when animals, planets or the sun were worshiped as gods. All natural entities. 

    When Science gave every answers on physical functions, how and why spacetime expands, what is the origion of energy, does the universe finite or infinte, discovered the answer on how the Universe begun exactly and why, realized all of the Laws of Nature, the religious aspects of science (for me) will deminish and we will be left with pure knowledge. I pray for this times to come. 

    Until that, it is up to me what and how I believe, It is my basic human right I think, if it harms no one.

    Definition of religious

     (Entry 1 of 2)

    1: relating to or manifesting faithful devotion to an acknowledged ultimate reality
  17. 3 hours ago, dimreepr said:

    I think, perhaps, it's the language; as Markus said in another of my topic's, if you understand the language of mathematics, you can just shut up and calculate and come to the same conclusion's as any other physicist.

    To avoid any ambiguity, I'm a philosophy convert.

     

    It is a bit difficult just to shut up calculate when some of the mathematical conceptions are impossible to prove physically, like infinity. 

  18. On 9/4/2021 at 6:41 PM, Istiak said:

    I am confused how should I pray. Should I believe a religion or it is OK to believe all religions?

    You should believe in Nature, and that Science is our best religion to explain it's functions

    My God is Nature itself. 

    I pray to Nature to help me with intelligence, freedom, responsibility, dignity, diligence, good will, faith, strength, love.

    The only place those metaphysical values can originate is Nature. 

    Praying for me is my own positive brainwash, against the storm of negative information, pours from 99% of the media outlets. 

  19. 2 hours ago, MigL said:

    Flight of fancy ,indeed.
    The observable universe has an 'edge', but it recedes as you move closer to it.
    ( it is always at the same distance )
     

    Correspondence of points is a useful tool when dealing with infinities.
    That doesn't mean areas are equal.
    So why would you need to prove it ( physically or otherwise ) ?

    If different length has equal point as Studiot pointed out than why wouldn’t that be true for areas?

  20. On 8/27/2021 at 12:21 PM, studiot said:

     

    Euclid Book 1 definitions 1,2 & 3.

    Another interesting property to consider.

    Here is a version of the sketch I asked you to draw.

    Although of different lengths, all three lines OA, OB and OC contain exactly the same number of points as shown by the dotted lines putting them into one-to-one correspondence.

    This can only happen with an infinite number of points if the lines are composed of 'planck lengths of equal length'

    lines1.jpg.2294913a39292a1a54f9b7ba12844fa9.jpg

    So you mean that 1 cm2 has exactly the same amount of “space points” as 1 km2 since both has infinite points of space in them.

    Does it mean that 1 cm2 = 1 km2 ?

    How you prove this physically?

     

×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue.