Michael F. D. Posted May 22, 2003 Share Posted May 22, 2003 Exists plenty of types of infinity in mathematician. We consider two of them. 1) Illusory infinity. This infinity of the expansion. This process of the endless multiplying of the zero. If a zero is absolute that this process will not change nothing. The Zero will be remain the Zero. For this reason interesting idea was invented. An absolute zero, in unknown effect, has ceased to be such in the some moment. Hereinafter this process had been applied to 3D space. But then it is necessary to acknowledge that it was received 3D number (??? !!!!) from absolute zero, for begining. Though such number is not possible to present, imagination of people has allowed to present product of one - continuously expanding 3D Space. For the scientific motivation of such model, it was happened to think up the ensemble of the props, which does not works. More exactly such a model leans onto illusion taken as reality. 2) Real infinity. It present the result of the process of endless dividing of any real number. This is infinity of reduction of the source value. Any a difference from absolute zero is endless. For this reason initial number can be as please small. The single necessities this existence of the absolute zero and such zero exists. This infinity is real. When considering these two varieties of infinity, for the reason buildings of such object as the universe, advantages of the second one is obvious with all standpoint. Though a compare of illusion with reality there is no point. So. Infinity is directed on inward, to absolute zero, but not on outward, to absurd. God does not allow the mistake unlike people. © 2003 Michael F. Dmitriyev Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JaKiri Posted May 22, 2003 Share Posted May 22, 2003 Whut? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Radical Edward Posted May 22, 2003 Share Posted May 22, 2003 Originally posted by MrL_JaKiri Whut? my sentiments exactly. I thought I would let you deal with it as your a mathematician type, and I prefer to run away from anything with infinity in it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JaKiri Posted May 22, 2003 Share Posted May 22, 2003 Well, the first one appears to have no meaning at all, and the second one tells us that dividing by zero is an undefined operation. As far as I can gather. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Radical Edward Posted May 22, 2003 Share Posted May 22, 2003 I thought that 1 was multiplying something by zero never gets you anywhere apart from zero, and you can do this an infinity times and never get anywhere (this infinity being an illusory infinity) the other one looks like you divide something by a real number infinity times and get a zero, this infinity being a real one.+ basically: R*(n0)=0 where n is illusory when you let it tend to infinity R1/nR2=0 where n is real when you let it tend to infinity. note that I am not using "real" in the mathematical concept of a real number, and I have no idea what he means by it, or illusory. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JaKiri Posted May 22, 2003 Share Posted May 22, 2003 You put it in symbolic form so it must be right! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Radical Edward Posted May 22, 2003 Share Posted May 22, 2003 you forgot to point out his error. If R2 is a real (in the mathematical sense) number as he described, then take the region 0:geq:|R2|:geq:1 and when n zips off to infinity, so does the result. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JaKiri Posted May 22, 2003 Share Posted May 22, 2003 What do you mean, his error? He only made one? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Radical Edward Posted May 22, 2003 Share Posted May 22, 2003 well admittedly there are others, but that one becomes rather transparent in a mathematical formalism, if you put your hand over the explanation of n. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Michael F. D. Posted May 22, 2003 Author Share Posted May 22, 2003 Originally posted by MrL_JaKiri Well, the first one appears to have no meaning at all, and the second one tells us that dividing by zero is an undefined operation. As far as I can gather. 1) ABSOLUTE ZERO ----> 3D number * T = 3D SPACETIME Here T - Time Limit T---> infinity 3D number - unknown type of number 2) mathematically Real number/ T -----> ABSOLUTE ZERO or physically d(TC - Entropy) /d T = Evolution Here TC - Time Cycle of universe Limit Evolution ----> ABSOLUTE TC=constant TC - entropy= FORCE for save of TC (all known and unknown yet phenomenas, such as gravity force, EM force etc.) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
fafalone Posted May 22, 2003 Share Posted May 22, 2003 From what I can gather he's saying lim x^2|x->:inf: is illusory and lim 1/x|x->:inf: is real. But the post if far to incoherent to figure out how he's applying this to the universe. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
fafalone Posted May 22, 2003 Share Posted May 22, 2003 Absolute zero is a theoretical condition, it does not actually exist anywhere in the known universe. The limit of "time" is not infinity if you're approaching zero; it's a planck time. d(TC - Entropy) /d T = Evolution What are you talking about!? Not that your equation makes any sense whatsoever, but entropy (S) is a scalar value so the derivative in of that with respect to T is 1. Evolution is not "1", this makes no sense whatsoever. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JaKiri Posted May 22, 2003 Share Posted May 22, 2003 what about d(TC)/dt? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
fafalone Posted May 22, 2003 Share Posted May 22, 2003 since C is constant that's 1. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JaKiri Posted May 22, 2003 Share Posted May 22, 2003 Originally posted by fafalone since C is constant that's 1. You implied that d('Entropy')/dt was 1, hence my confusion. Also HOW CAN EVOLUTION, WHICH IS A QUALITATIVE CONCEPT, HAVE A NUMERICAL VALUE? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
fafalone Posted May 22, 2003 Share Posted May 22, 2003 But the derivative of a constant is zero... not 1 and we can't even know absolute entropy... only change in entropy. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Michael F. D. Posted May 22, 2003 Author Share Posted May 22, 2003 Originally posted by fafalone Absolute zero is a theoretical condition, it does not actually exist anywhere in the known universe. The limit of "time" is not infinity if you're approaching zero; it's a planck time. d(TC - Entropy) /d T = Evolution What are you talking about!? Not that your equation makes any sense whatsoever, but entropy (S) is a scalar value so the derivative in of that with respect to T is 1. Evolution is not "1", this makes no sense whatsoever. Absolute zero exist in universe. It is the object was named "Black Hole". TC - this is Time Cycle. No speed of light "c" here. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
fafalone Posted May 22, 2003 Share Posted May 22, 2003 Originally posted by Michael F. D. Absolute zero exist in universe. It is the object was named "Black Hole". No. A black hole is not at absolute zero. and you said: "TC=constant", so your equation is always zero. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Michael F. D. Posted May 22, 2003 Author Share Posted May 22, 2003 Originally posted by MrL_JaKiri what about d(TC)/dt? This implies, that all temporary cycles (TC) of all the objects are synchronized by minimum cycle of time - Plank time. The universe exists in reality in the current of this minimum cycle of time only. This gives a spare in energy. It must be unmeasured less than in the event of unceasing existence. The unceasing processes this is wastfulness of energy. I believe that a nature is not so foolish. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
fafalone Posted May 22, 2003 Share Posted May 22, 2003 Completely incoherent babble. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Michael F. D. Posted May 22, 2003 Author Share Posted May 22, 2003 Originally posted by fafalone No. A black hole is not at absolute zero. and you said: "TC=constant", so your equation is always zero. Entropy is not constant. Consequently (TC - Entropy) this not constant too. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
fafalone Posted May 22, 2003 Share Posted May 22, 2003 The entropy of a system is expressed as a number, which is constant for a system. S = k log w, where k is Boltzmann's constant, and w is the number of possible states of a system, which is also constant. Hence the absolute entropy for a particular system is equal to a scalar number; and whether this number is changing or not, the cause of the change is not part of the equation, and hence the derivative is zero. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Michael F. D. Posted May 22, 2003 Author Share Posted May 22, 2003 Originally posted by fafalone Completely incoherent babble. Incoherent with than? Who can define of whose a glance is closer to reality ? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
fafalone Posted May 22, 2003 Share Posted May 22, 2003 Who can define what is it you of talking. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Michael F. D. Posted May 22, 2003 Author Share Posted May 22, 2003 Originally posted by fafalone The entropy of a system is expressed as a number, which is constant for a system. S = k log w, where k is Boltzmann's constant, and w is the number of possible states of a system, which is also constant. Hence the absolute entropy for a particular system is equal to a scalar number; and whether this number is changing or not, the cause of the change is not part of the equation, and hence the derivative is zero. Since a different objects interacts, that value of entropy changes. The process of regeneration TC of one object to account TC of other, can bring the importance of entropy in minimum for one object and in maximum for the other. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now