Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]

Groups > sci.math > #648498

Re: Which makes more sense: a finite or infinite universe?

Cross-posted to 2 groups.

Show all headers | View raw

Ross Finlayson wrote:
> On 10/31/2026 01:48 PM, Ross Finlayson wrote:
>> On 10/31/2026 11:49 AM, The Starmaker wrote:
>>> That is an old number..(you probbly found that number on old websites.)
>>>
>>> It is my understanding the new number is 26.7 billion years.
>>>
>>>
>>> You probbly need permission to change the number from 13.6 billion to
>>> 26.7 billion. Do you know who to ask for permission??
>>>
>>>
>>> Ross Finlayson wrote:
>>>>
>>>> On 10/30/2026 08:45 PM, The Starmaker wrote:
>>>>> Ross Finlayson wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>> On 10/30/2026 02:14 PM, The Starmaker wrote:
>>>>>>> Ross Finlayson wrote:
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> On 10/29/2026 09:44 PM, The Starmaker wrote:
>>>>>>>>> amirjf wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> Which makes more sense: a finite or infinite universe?
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> Cheers
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> 'In the beginning,.."
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> "In"
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> in
>>>>>>>>> /in/
>>>>>>>>> preposition
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>         expressing the situation of something that is or appears
>>>>>>>>> to be
>>>>>>>>> enclosed or surrounded by something else.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Beginning
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> to start
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> infinite has no beginning or end.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> So, most likely your universe is finite.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Eternity since forever.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> A few hundreds years ago, Earth was 6,000 years old.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> By a hundred years ago, the dinosaurs lived millions
>>>>>>>> of years ago.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> In the 1960's, the Universe was 3 billion years old.
>>>>>>>> In the '80's, it was 6-10.
>>>>>>>> By the Y2K, it was more than 13.6 billion years old,
>>>>>>>> and it got 200 million years older every year.
>>>>>>>> Then, JWST at least doubled that.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> At this rate, it will be arbitrarily old, soon enough.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Also "particles" get an order of magnitude smaller
>>>>>>>> every few years, with "NIST PDG CODATA" and
>>>>>>>> "running constants".
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> So, according to science, its age/size is going to infinity,
>>>>>>>> and its grain is going to smooth.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Most likely you are afraid of infinity and continuity.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Okay, let's start at 'the beginning'...
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> I count 1,2,3,4,5,6------13.6 billion
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Infinity has no beginning.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> How can I start a count???
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Do I start counting before the beginning??
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> i'm not good at math...
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> The Starmaker -- To question the unquestionable, ask the unaskable,
>>>>>>> to think the unthinkable, mention the unmentionable, say the
>>>>>>> unsayable,
>>>>>>> and challenge the unchallengeable.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> 0 + 0, infinity - 0, 0 + 1, infinity - 1, 0 + 2, infinity - 2, ....
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Count toward the middle.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Shirley you must have heard of Zeno's arguments,
>>>>>> showing that your finite counting can never achieve
>>>>>> completion, then Polly you had pre-calculus and learned
>>>>>> the definition of the inductive limit, after being told
>>>>>> that the "atoms" of the unit line segment didn't exist,
>>>>>> the infinitesimals, though calculus was called infinitesimal
>>>>>> analysis for hundreds of years.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Then, when induction _fails_, and only deduction _suffices_,
>>>>>> then it's related to particular templates of geometric examples
>>>>>> about the geometric series here or Zeno's arrow, or otherwise
>>>>>> the geometric series, when deduction _completes_ then that's
>>>>>> a "super-classical" reasoning, that anybody has, who ever figured
>>>>>> out that finite arguments may _fail_ in the infinite, and that
>>>>>> the _infinite_ for the _continuous_ lives in the numbers,
>>>>>> and the geometry, and the physics.
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> Is 13.6 billion the age of the universe?
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> That's an estimate, like half-life carbon-dating doesn't say much
>>>> about the early Bronze Age.
>>>>
>>>> Shirley you had geometry in school, where points and lines were
>>>> two different things yet define each other how they relate.
>>>>
>>>> Then in pre-calculus class there was given Zeno's "paradoxes"
>>>> before learning about the limit.
>>>>
>>>> Then you learned the FTC's after the IVT and the trapezoid rule,
>>>> and then after various accounts of particular infinite series
>>>> their limits (sums) like the geometric series, learned various
>>>> derivatives and anti-derivatives of smooth functions, after
>>>> learning about functions and smooth functions.
>>>>
>>>> Then about whether aliens who never heard of Euclid could
>>>> arrive at geometry the mathematics after a "spiral-space-filling-curve"
>>>> as a natural continuum, has at least that most people are familiar
>>>> with "drawing a line" as extending a point to another point with
>>>> a line in the middle, and "scribbling a dot" as drawing a little
>>>> circle with at least once putting pencil to paper.
>>>>
>>>> Then, for example, at some point somebody told you what a "set"
>>>> was, as a collection of things, then with regards to "element-of"
>>>> being the relation of a set, that "contains" is the relation of
>>>> a class, that "in" is probably your most usual geometric association
>>>> to association of relation, Venn diagrams and the like.
>>>>
>>>> Zeno, though, first of all makes for that there's the infinite,
>>>> and for the continuous, all such accounts of "classical expositions
>>>> of the super-classical", being an example.
>>>>
>>>> Then of course that goes a bit further to "the fundamental question
>>>> of metaphysics" and "why is there something rather than nothing".
>>>> (The Bible starts that way, twice, in Genesis 1:1 and John 1:1.)
>>>>
>>>> Then the Atman and Brahman of the Vedas gives accounts of
>>>> perspective & projection.
>>>>
>>>> Before Wallis' lemniscate was the usual sign for "infinity"
>>>> and "mathematics", it was a spiral like a spiral space-filling curve,
>>>> which shows up in cave drawings since before recorded history.
>>>>
>>>> Anyways continuity and infinity are real.
>>>
>>
>> "If you have to ask, ...", then perhaps it helps to have
>> some key terms to help broaden the perspective from usual
>> inductive accounts of the invincible ignorance of inductive
>> inference the impasses, crevasses, and chasms, about why
>> somebody like Mirimanoff or Skolem long ago broke open the
>> ordinary set theory.
>>
>>
>> Hm, you appear to have learned something.
>>
>> Perhaps if you put my video essays on random and let
>> them background-noise a few hours or days you'll wise up a bit.
>>
>>
>> Zeno crosses Zeno's bridge every day,
>> Aristotle won't be made a fool,
>> and Hegel won't be made a liar.
>>
>>
> 
> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paul_du_Bois-Reymond
> 
Most of my peers avoided anything computer-programming. I avoid anything 
Fourier transform. It's probably because the science of Fourier totally 
discards what your 'gut' feeling can tell you. As I understand it, it's 
like sampling some sequence every 1,000 units.

While Fourier has nothing to do with 'gut' feeling, the difficult 
science of magnetics and electro-magnetics on the other hand does. I 
think if I ever go back to school this should be my focus. While my 
peers flunked out here & there & all over, I got a perfect score on the 
final. What this stuff is about is a so-called threshold quantity or 
ratio that talks about the strength and actions of the fields.

Electromagnetism has "levels" much like water. A small amount causes 
static cling. More causes magnets to lift objects. More heats materials. 
More creates sparks and plasma. More still rearranges chemistry, 
penetrates atoms, and eventually accelerates particles to near light 
speed. The underlying force is the same in every case; only the energy 
scale changes.

Ionization threshold

This is one of the most important thresholds in nature.

Add enough energy and electrons are stripped from atoms.

Examples:

Neon signs
Lightning
Welding arcs
Plasma globes

Now matter behaves very differently because some electrons are free 
rather than bound to atoms.

You have crossed from ordinary gas into plasma.
-- 
Sometimes I just feel like I need to get away
A place where I can be by myself, all alone
I kinda lay down in the back yard
Watch the leaves fall down on my face

Back to sci.math | Previous | Next — Previous in thread | Next in thread | Find similar | Unroll thread

Thread

Re: Which makes more sense: a finite or infinite universe? The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> - 2026-10-30 14:14 -0700
  Re: Which makes more sense: a finite or infinite universe? Ross Finlayson <ross.a.finlayson@gmail.com> - 2026-10-30 18:31 -0700
    Re: Which makes more sense: a finite or infinite universe? The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> - 2026-10-30 20:45 -0700
      Re: Which makes more sense: a finite or infinite universe? Ross Finlayson <ross.a.finlayson@gmail.com> - 2026-10-31 07:06 -0700
        Re: Which makes more sense: a finite or infinite universe? Ross Finlayson <ross.a.finlayson@gmail.com> - 2026-10-31 07:37 -0700
        Re: Which makes more sense: a finite or infinite universe? The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> - 2026-10-31 11:49 -0700
          Re: Which makes more sense: a finite or infinite universe? Ross Finlayson <ross.a.finlayson@gmail.com> - 2026-10-31 13:48 -0700
            Re: Which makes more sense: a finite or infinite universe? Ross Finlayson <ross.a.finlayson@gmail.com> - 2026-10-31 14:06 -0700
              Re: Which makes more sense: a finite or infinite universe? Blaine <cactus_DAC@yahoo.com> - 2026-11-01 15:44 -0700
                Re: Which makes more sense: a finite or infinite universe? Ross Finlayson <ross.a.finlayson@gmail.com> - 2026-11-01 17:06 -0800
                Re: Which makes more sense: a finite or infinite universe? Ross Finlayson <ross.a.finlayson@gmail.com> - 2026-11-01 17:20 -0800
                Re: Which makes more sense: a finite or infinite universe? Ross Finlayson <ross.a.finlayson@gmail.com> - 2026-11-02 01:25 -0800
      Re: Which makes more sense: a finite or infinite universe? The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> - 2026-10-31 21:28 -0700
        Re: Which makes more sense: a finite or infinite universe? Ross Finlayson <ross.a.finlayson@gmail.com> - 2026-11-01 07:17 -0800
          Re: Which makes more sense: a finite or infinite universe? The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> - 2026-11-01 11:39 -0800
          Re: Which makes more sense: a finite or infinite universe? Blaine <cactus_DAC@yahoo.com> - 2026-11-01 15:36 -0700

csiph-web