Infinity

[CraigS]

Originally Posted by bojan

Anyone have read Fred Hoyle's "Black Cloud"?
The person most affected by new ideas was Professor Kingsley (he didn't only went mad, he actually died... while if they had put the simple gardener into a learning machine instead (Joe Stoddard), all would have been fine :-)

Check out the YouTubes in the thread I just posted … get some popcorn (and a beer), and sit back and watch !! (They really are very good).

cheers

[renormalised (Carl)]

Haven't read it yet, but wouldn't mind grabbing a copy. Imagine a spacefaring, sentient being that consisted of a black cloud of particles.

[CraigS]

Originally Posted by sjastro

Engineers apply the end product but some poor bugger still had to solve the equations for you.

Steven

That should read 'youse' !


Cheers

[renormalised (Carl)]

Imagine a spacefaring, sentient being that consisted of a black cloud of particles.

Speaking of which.....

From plasma crystals and helical structures towards inorganic living matter

[CraigS]

Originally Posted by renormalised

Speaking of which.....

From plasma crystals and helical structures towards inorganic living matter

Wrong thread Carl .. should've been in the 'Anti-science Hysteria' thread.

Authored by Alvenic Russian poets, eh ?

Cheers

[renormalised (Carl)]

Originally Posted by CraigS

Wrong thread Carl .. should've been in the 'Anti-science Hysteria' thread.

Authored by Alvenic Russian poets, eh ?

Cheers

Maybe, but it's interesting nevertheless.

[CraigS]

Our analysis shows that if helical dust structures are formed in space, they can have bifurcations as memory marks and duplicate each other, and they would reveal a faster evolution rate by competing for `food' (surrounding plasma fluxes).
These structures can have all necessary features to form `inorganic life'.

This should be taken into account for formulation of a new SETI-like program based not only on astrophysical observations but also on planned new laboratory experiments, including those on the ISS.

In the case of the success of such a program one should be faced with the possibility of resolving the low rate of evolution of organic life by investigating the possibility that the inorganic life `invents' the organic life.

Man, they start with a model .. ie: organic life structures and functions ie: DNA reproduction, metabolism, etc and then apply an external field to crystal dust grains in plasma:

In experiments in gas discharges with a longitudinal external electric field forming striations, modulated cylindrical grain crystals were observed.

.. and then draw simularities with the straw-man analogy, (organic life), and then use it to recommend a SETI program ?

What to make of this ?

Cheers

[renormalised (Carl)]

Didn't say it was theoretically sound or even empirically correct, just that it was interesting (in the context of the novel "Black Cloud", and a sentient cloud of particles).

It's hard to make anything of it unless there have been further experiments and observations. What, though, if it's found to have veracity. They may have overstepped the mark with some of their statements, but the only way to confirm or deny their hypotheses and their implications is to repeat the experiments and to do the necessary observations.

If it's BS, then that's what it is. If not, well, then we have to start looking at the implications of their original finding and the further results.

I haven't read the article in full as yet, so I'm not going to comment on the veracity of the research.

[xelasnave]

I am not convinced that we can have infinitly small...infinity does not respond to subtraction or addition...clearly if something is infinitely small it could be added to and the impact could be noticed whereas infinitly big does not respond this way.
I dislike the Universe being described as infinite if we subscibe to a big bang start ...you cant double and redouble any number to reach infinite...any doubling can only amount to finite.
Driving thru the bush today it occurred to me even here on Earth no tradjectory could be observed without observing energy..photons come from an infinite number of tradjectories and I suspect there would be no tradjectory along which energy did not flow...
I am not trying to prove anything here (in support of you know what) but its something one does not think about and when you do ...well I find the prospect hard to get my head around thats all.

alex

[renormalised (Carl)]

Originally Posted by xelasnave

I am not convinced that we can have infinitely small...infinity does not respond to subtraction or addition...clearly if something is infinitely small it could be added to and the impact could be noticed whereas infinitely big does not respond this way.

Why not.....there's no physical law or principle denying it or preventing it from existing.

You can't add to something infinitely small and make it infinitely large, or any size at all for that matter. Adding an infinity to an infinity still only makes it an infinity. In defining a large and small infinity, you have to set an arbitrary point somewhere between the two that delineates between large and small. Remember what I wrote earlier, large or small are conventions of scale, not vector (numerical) conventions.

[xelasnave]

QUOTE=renormalised;744792]Why not.....there's no physical law or principle denying it or preventing it from existing.

You can't add to something infinitely small and make it infinitely large, or any size at all for that matter. Adding an infinity to an infinity still only makes it an infinity. In defining a large and small infinity, you have to set an arbitrary point somewhere between the two that delineates between large and small. Remember what I wrote earlier, large or small are conventions of scale, not vector (numerical) conventions.[/QUOTE]

Thanks Carl I didnt ignore what you said Carl but I guess I find infinitely small a more difficult idea..I try to visualise concepts in an imagined reality and go into a russian doll thinking with infinitely small...I mean how could they make such a small doll... large is an easier concept...I could see thinking about infinitely small sending one crazy whereas infinitely big less so ...

Sort of related trivia which some may or may not be aware of...the Sun over a year marks out the sign for infinity in the sky from our point of observation...I guess that would have been picked up very early ...must check when that symbol first appeared.

alex

[renormalised (Carl)]

Yep, that "sign" is the analemma...the path the Sun traces through the sky over the course of a year. Looks like the "infinity" symbol

I have no problems with visualising either small or large.

[xelasnave]

Originally Posted by renormalised

Yep, that "sign" is the analemma...the path the Sun traces through the sky over the course of a year. Looks like the "infinity" symbol

I have no problems with visualising either small or large.

It is a wise man who can imagine a stick without ends

alex

[renormalised (Carl)]

Originally Posted by xelasnave

It is a wise man who can imagine a stick without ends

alex

Not necessarily....just someone with a good imagination

[xelasnave]

Originally Posted by renormalised

Not necessarily....just someone with a good imagination

I often sit under the stars and try Carl (during long exposures you really dont have to do anyhting the gear does it all so there is time a plenty to think and look up)...and so I start following that stick and looking for an end takes you strange places ..I pierce countless objects with it..stars planets worlds that may or may not be there... I have poked it thru the edge of the universe but got lost when I found myself outside it.
But having got used to one stick I am now trying to see how many you can stick thru the universe...and find the number of sticks must be infinite...from a geometric point of view...and that is thru one point mmm how many points could we fit in the universe...

Been studying my math and it is great ..actually looking at infinity from that approach...sets etc.
But in so doing I can see the strenght of maths (the tests etc) must give one almost absolute confidence in it... the boundaries have been tested like no other science.

alex

[CraigS]

Originally Posted by xelasnave

Been studying my math and it is great ..actually looking at infinity from that approach...sets etc.
But in so doing I can see the strenght of maths (the tests etc) must give one almost absolute confidence in it... the boundaries have been tested like no other science.

Not only tested, but in many cases … proven (see theorem, axiom).
The principles and axiomatic proofs are repeated time and time again, everytime we derive a resultant, or develop technology/tools via mathematical logic.

Why, or how, anyone can think they can refute the rationale behind mathematical logic completely escapes me.

The application of this maths to the physical world, is a reasonable line of query.

Cheers

[xelasnave]

Originally Posted by CraigS

Not only tested, but in many cases … proven (see theorem, axiom).
The principles and axiomatic proofs are repeated time and time again, everytime we derive a resultant, or develop technology/tools via mathematical logic.

Why, or how, anyone can think they can refute the rationale behind mathematical logic completely escapes me.

The application of this maths to the physical world, is a reasonable line of query.

Cheers

I realized how I really am into numbers.. my math is not advanced but I use it.. I ran a business on math... thanks for the pointers Craig.

I am dangerous with any weapon in my hand but I would love to wield math with common sence as my shield.

alex

[renormalised (Carl)]

They think they can refute it, Craig, because they have absolutely no understanding of it in the first place. If they understood the logic, even something as simple as 1+1=2, they'd know why they can't refute the rationale.

[xelasnave]

How did the romans get by? You would have to run your budget counting on your fingers.
alex

[renormalised (Carl)]

Originally Posted by xelasnave

How did the romans get by? You would have to run your budget counting on your fingers.
alex

Their maths was a bit more complicated than that

In more ways than one!!!!

Thank god for the zero!!!