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

Groups > sci.physics.relativity > #675173 > unrolled thread

Which makes more sense: a finite or infinite universe?

Back to article view | Back to sci.physics.relativity

Contents

  Which makes more sense: a finite or infinite universe? amirjf <amirjfnin@aim.com> - 2026-10-28 01:12 -0400
    Re: Which makes more sense: a finite or infinite universe? Ross Finlayson <ross.a.finlayson@gmail.com> - 2026-10-28 00:48 -0700
    Re: Which makes more sense: a finite or infinite universe? Mikko <mikko.levanto@iki.fi> - 2026-10-28 11:21 +0200
      Re: Which makes more sense: a finite or infinite universe? Maciej Woźniak <mlwozniak@wp.pl> - 2026-10-28 10:39 +0100
      Re: Which makes more sense: a finite or infinite universe? Ross Finlayson <ross.a.finlayson@gmail.com> - 2026-10-28 08:27 -0700
        Re: Which makes more sense: a finite or infinite universe? Ross Finlayson <ross.a.finlayson@gmail.com> - 2026-10-28 08:47 -0700
      Re: Which makes more sense: a finite or infinite universe? ram@zedat.fu-berlin.de (Stefan Ram) - 2026-10-31 13:25 +0000
      Re: Which makes more sense: a finite or infinite universe? "Chris M. Thomasson" <chris.m.thomasson.1@gmail.com> - 2026-11-02 15:28 -0800
        Re: Which makes more sense: a finite or infinite universe? "Chris M. Thomasson" <chris.m.thomasson.1@gmail.com> - 2026-11-02 15:30 -0800
          Re: Which makes more sense: a finite or infinite universe? The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> - 2026-11-02 16:17 -0800
            Re: Which makes more sense: a finite or infinite universe? Johnny LaRue <xxxxxx@yyyyyy.zzz> - 2026-11-02 20:20 -0500
        Re: Which makes more sense: a finite or infinite universe? The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> - 2026-11-02 16:10 -0800
    Re: Which makes more sense: a finite or infinite universe? ram@zedat.fu-berlin.de (Stefan Ram) - 2026-10-28 09:28 +0000
      Re: Which makes more sense: a finite or infinite universe? Maciej Woźniak <mlwozniak@wp.pl> - 2026-10-28 10:42 +0100
    Re: Which makes more sense: a finite or infinite universe? nospam@de-ster.demon.nl (J. J. Lodder) - 2026-10-28 13:40 +0100
      Re: Which makes more sense: a finite or infinite universe? Maciej Woźniak <mlwozniak@wp.pl> - 2026-10-28 13:47 +0100
    Re: Which makes more sense: a finite or infinite universe? HenryWilson <Hgw@home.com> - 2026-10-28 18:04 +0000
      Re: Which makes more sense: a finite or infinite universe? Ross Finlayson <ross.a.finlayson@gmail.com> - 2026-10-28 11:31 -0700
        Re: Which makes more sense: a finite or infinite universe? Ross Finlayson <ross.a.finlayson@gmail.com> - 2026-10-28 12:09 -0700
          Re: Which makes more sense: a finite or infinite universe? HenryWilson <Hgw@home.com> - 2026-10-28 22:37 +0000
            Re: Which makes more sense: a finite or infinite universe? Ross Finlayson <ross.a.finlayson@gmail.com> - 2026-10-28 17:31 -0700
    Re: Which makes more sense: a finite or infinite universe? HenryWilson <Hgw@home.com> - 2026-10-28 18:58 +0000
    Re: Which makes more sense: a finite or infinite universe? The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> - 2026-10-29 21:44 -0700
      Re: Which makes more sense: a finite or infinite universe? Ross Finlayson <ross.a.finlayson@gmail.com> - 2026-10-30 06:47 -0700
        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

Page 2 of 2 — ← Prev page 1 [2]

#675223

On 10/28/2026 03:37 PM, HenryWilson wrote:
> On Wed, 28 Oct 2026 12:09:27 -0700, Ross Finlayson wrote:
>
>> On 10/28/2026 11:31 AM, Ross Finlayson wrote:
>>> On 10/28/2026 11:04 AM, HenryWilson wrote:
>>>> On Wed, 28 Oct 2026 01:12:27 -0400, amirjf wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> Which makes more sense: a finite or infinite universe?
>>>>
>>>> Good question...and there are many more. In particular, "how can
>>>> 'energy'
>>>> be infinite?" How can energy exist at all? Is the physical just a
>>>> mathematical possibility?  Does there have to always be a beginning
>>>> and an end? Or is the whole show just psychological, like 'colour'?
>>>> Is our universe just a fractal order...or the n-dimensional equivalent
>>>> of a 'Klein bottle'?  After all, you can walk forever around a Mobius
>>>> strip or the perimeter of a 'Koch snowflake' without leaving you house
>>>> or reaching the end. The harmonic series sums to infinity and an
>>>> asymptotic process never reaches its limit. Maybe there a simple
>>>> answer like Newton's apple but which is beyond the ability of the
>>>> human mind to understand.
>>>>
>>>>> Cheers
>>>>
>>>>
>>> If you've studied quantum mechanics then you'll be familiar with
>>> something like "Born's infinite self-energy" and about "Feynman's
>>> renormalizable theories".
>>>
>>> Sometimes people say "Stern-Gerlach proved discreteness of the
>>> quantum", other times people say "Stern-Gerlach proved continuity of
>>> the quantum". People who say "continuous" have a model of "particles"
>>> as a conceit, like Einstein, people who say "discrete"
>>> have a closed world with no straight lines, right angles, or perfect
>>> circles (since the Planck length square its diagonal would be
>>> ir-rational).
>>>
>>> Then about something like "continuous quantum commutators" for the
>>> commutativity (and lack thereof, and the reduction) since Born's
>>> account of QM, then besides Reichenbach's account of relativistic QM
>>> for "Schroedingerians" like relativity has "Lorentzians" for
>>> "invariants" about "measure" and "the measure problem", besides
>>> Zitterbewegung and the tritterionic and super-symmetric flux and so on,
>>> "Born's infinite self-energy"
>>> never went away, and people who think it did are mistaken.
>>>
>>>
>>> Then in mechanics and "black holes" as "gravitational singularities"
>>> and otherwise the "naked singularities" and "cosmic censorship",
>>> well, like magnetic monopoles and otherwise accounts of singularities
>>> in a singularity theory, singularities in a singularity theory are
>>> branch in a multiplicity theory, then for "running constants" and so
>>> on, since as science has grown that it knows that particles get smaller
>>> and the universe gets larger (and millions of years older),
>>> every few years.
>>>
>>>
>>> Wertheimer has a pretty cool account of "space inversion", as does for
>>> example Graustein with "higher geometry".
>>>
>>>
>>> Of course art and drawing has known perspective and "point at infinity"
>>> since forever.
>>>
>>> Then these days there are "Cosserat continua" and so on, about
>>> Poincare's rough plane after Euclid's smooth plane, and about the
>>> Zollfrei metric for relativity, and that "there are everywhere closed
>>> infinitesimal time-like curves" while yet "there are nowhere closed
>>> finite time-like curves", then that usual accounts of "nulls"
>>> like "null geodesics" are half accounts of those
>>> openings/perestroikas/catastrophes.
>>>
>>>
>>> Physics has had at least several crises since the ultraviolet
>>> catastrophe, and physicists like Rutherford and Fermi known it's a
>>> continuum mechanics for nuclear and solid-state physics.
>>>
>>> It's a continuum mechanics, ....
>>>
>>>
>>>
>> For more of what I say, there's some hundreds lectures on my YouTube
>> channel talking about: reason, logic, mathematics,
>> science, and physics: particularly for a paleo-classical and post-modern
>> account that's super-classical and quite modern for _infinity_ in
>> mathematics and _continuity_ in mathematics,
>> for example about "the measure problem" and "the re-Vitali-ization of
>> measure theory" which demands an account since "Zeno's moving rows".
>>
>> A "finite universe" stops making sense when "physics is an open system".
>
> When I was a boy I used an analogue computer and an analogue phone and I
> listened to analog music.  I made analogue measurements...but I spent
> digital money on digitally sized clothes. Nowadays, just about everything
> has gone digital. Why?  Probably because digital is the natural and more
> efficient state.  That's why there is sand on a beach rather than one
> massive crystal.  Nature went digital years ago. 'Digital' is unlimited.
>

No, that's "finite element analysis".

Calculus (real analysis) isn't perfect with "finite differences".

It's especially so that some results of asymptotics in analysis
are anti-inductive and sometimes this is called "criteria of
convergence" and other times "emergence after convergence" when
usual naive sorts of "law of large numbers" as "law of small numbers",
which you have there, is ignorant "law of larger numbers" and "law of
largest numbers", about three distinct models of continuous domains:
line-reals, which is line-drawing and contiguous, field-reals, which
you were taught all through school and is very much after the
Pythagorean and for Eudoxus, and signal-reals, which is after Shannon
and Nyquist.

Then, fixing this up about things like "the measure problem",
_which is at least three different problems_, about
sampling/observer/measurement effects and also about quasi-invariant
measure theory
and "the re-Vitali-ization of measure theory", involves then not
only rehabilitating the foundations of real analysis about modern
mathematics, also the re-Vitali-ization of measure theory for
the quasi-invariant measure theory.


It's a continuum mechanics, ....

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#675214

On Wed, 28 Oct 2026 01:12:27 -0400, amirjf wrote:

> Which makes more sense: a finite or infinite universe?
> 
> Cheers

Good question...and there are many more. In particular, "how can 'energy' 
be infinite?" How can energy exist at all? Is the physical just a 
mathematical possibility?  Does there have to always be a beginning and an 
end? Or is the whole show just psychological, like 'colour'? 
Is our universe just a fractal order...or the n-dimensional equivalent of 
a 'Klein bottle'?  After all, you can walk forever around a Mobius strip 
or the perimeter of a 'Koch snowflake' without leaving you house or 
reaching the end. The harmonic series sums to infinity and an asymptotic 
process never reaches its limit. Maybe there a simple answer like Newton's 
apple but which is beyond the ability of the human mind to understand.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#675281

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.





-- 
The Starmaker -- To question the unquestionable, ask the unaskable,
to think the unthinkable, mention the unmentionable, say the unsayable, 
and challenge the unchallengeable.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#675315

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.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#675339

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.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#675343

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.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#675345

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?



-- 
The Starmaker -- To question the unquestionable, ask the unaskable,
to think the unthinkable, mention the unmentionable, say the unsayable, 
and challenge the unchallengeable.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#675376

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.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#675382

On 10/31/2026 07:06 AM, 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.
>
>
>
>

"Nobody likes a quitter", ....

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#675405

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.

-- 
The Starmaker -- To question the unquestionable, ask the unaskable,
to think the unthinkable, mention the unmentionable, say the unsayable, 
and challenge the unchallengeable.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#675408

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.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#675411

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

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#675464

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

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#675466

On 11/01/2026 02:44 PM, Blaine wrote:
> 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.


Hm.

"Criticality": is a concept, sort of like mathematical "emergence"
after mathematical "convergence", where one expects convergence to
always approach and never get farther away "the limit". Then,
emergence is a sort of account of where "the limit" exists that
it doesn't appear that "convergence" "converges".


If you take a circle and draw two circles in it, sharing a diameter
and of half the radius each, then drawing the orthogonal diameter,
divides the circle C_0 into two semi-circles, then proceeding apace,
the radius is halved ad infinitum until it reaches zero.

Then, the sum of the area outside the circles, is pi r_0 ^2 / 2 - pi
(r_0/2) ^2, so, there's the infinite series.

Sum_i=1^oo pi (r/(2^i-1))^2 - pi (r/(2^i))^2 = pi r^2

pi Sum_i=1^oo (r/(2^i-1))^2 - (r/(2^i))^2 = pi r^2

Sum_i=1^oo (r/(2^i-1))^2 - (r^2/(2^i))^2 = r^2

Sum_i=1^oo r^2/(2^(2i-2)) - r^2/(2^2i) = r^2

Sum_i=1^oo (r^2 2^2i - r^2 2^(2i-2) ) / ( 2^(2i-2) 2^(2i) ) = r^2

Sum_i=1^oo r^2 ((2^2i - 2^(2i-2) ) / ( 2^(2i-2) 2^(2i) ) = r^2

Sum_i=1^oo ((2^2i - 2^(2i-2) ) / ( 2^(2i-2) 2^(2i) ) = 1

Sum_i=1^oo ((2^2i - 2^(2i-2) ) / 2^(4i-2) = 1

Sum_i=1^oo 2^2i ((1 - 2^(0-2) ) / 2^2i 2^(2i-2) = 1

Sum_i=1^oo ((1 - 2^(0-2) ) / 2^(2i-2) = 1

Sum_i=1^oo (1 - 2^(0-2)) / 2^(2i-2) = 1

Sum_i=1^oo (1 - 1/4) / 2^(2i-2) = 1

Sum_i=1^oo 3/4 / 2^(2i-2) = 1

Sum_i=1^oo 3/ 2^(2i) = 1



Hm.

Compare this.

Sum_i=1^oo (1 / 2^i) = 1

Yet, the circumference of the outer circle and its contained circles,
is a constant, since circumference C = pi D, and the contained circles
with D_0 = D have that D_1 = D_0 / 2 and there are two of them, thusly
the circumference is a constant, since the isoperimetric property.

So, the limit of the circumference is a constant, while,
the limit of the subtracted area is the entire area.

Then, what emerges is that what results after all the bumps go to
smooth, is that pi D -> 2 D (or D, whether the diameter's measure
is counted on both sides).

pi-ratio space / pi-ratio measure



These sorts of things, where the infinite series adds up wrong,
have been known since Zeno as "Zeno's moving rows" or "the
windsprinters" I call it, then about Vitali's "split a unit line
segment into infinitesimal bits: now it adds back up to length 2",
then Hausdorff's "I made one for a 3-D ball instead of a 2-D line
segment", then Banach-Tarski re-wrote that in algebra instead of
geometry, while just saying Vitalie's was "non-measurable".



So, these are the sorts of things, that happen in the infinite,
the emergence, where the usual measure theory where the reals have
measure 1 and the rationals have measure 0, can't say, while yet
the accounts of Vitali's and Hausdorff's and since Zeno's, do say.


"re-Vitali-ize measure theory", sometimes these days
called "quasi-invariant measure theory".


Otherwise physics these days has a well-known "crisis"
called "the measure problem", which is at least three
kinds of problems.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#675469

On 11/01/2026 05:06 PM, Ross Finlayson wrote:
> On 11/01/2026 02:44 PM, Blaine wrote:
>> 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.
>
>
> Hm.
>
> "Criticality": is a concept, sort of like mathematical "emergence"
> after mathematical "convergence", where one expects convergence to
> always approach and never get farther away "the limit". Then,
> emergence is a sort of account of where "the limit" exists that
> it doesn't appear that "convergence" "converges".
>
>
> If you take a circle and draw two circles in it, sharing a diameter
> and of half the radius each, then drawing the orthogonal diameter,
> divides the circle C_0 into two semi-circles, then proceeding apace,
> the radius is halved ad infinitum until it reaches zero.
>
> Then, the sum of the area outside the circles, is pi r_0 ^2 / 2 - pi
> (r_0/2) ^2, so, there's the infinite series.
>
> Sum_i=1^oo pi (r/(2^i-1))^2 - pi (r/(2^i))^2 = pi r^2
>
> pi Sum_i=1^oo (r/(2^i-1))^2 - (r/(2^i))^2 = pi r^2
>
> Sum_i=1^oo (r/(2^i-1))^2 - (r^2/(2^i))^2 = r^2
>
> Sum_i=1^oo r^2/(2^(2i-2)) - r^2/(2^2i) = r^2
>
> Sum_i=1^oo (r^2 2^2i - r^2 2^(2i-2) ) / ( 2^(2i-2) 2^(2i) ) = r^2
>
> Sum_i=1^oo r^2 ((2^2i - 2^(2i-2) ) / ( 2^(2i-2) 2^(2i) ) = r^2
>
> Sum_i=1^oo ((2^2i - 2^(2i-2) ) / ( 2^(2i-2) 2^(2i) ) = 1
>
> Sum_i=1^oo ((2^2i - 2^(2i-2) ) / 2^(4i-2) = 1
>
> Sum_i=1^oo 2^2i ((1 - 2^(0-2) ) / 2^2i 2^(2i-2) = 1
>
> Sum_i=1^oo ((1 - 2^(0-2) ) / 2^(2i-2) = 1
>
> Sum_i=1^oo (1 - 2^(0-2)) / 2^(2i-2) = 1
>
> Sum_i=1^oo (1 - 1/4) / 2^(2i-2) = 1
>
> Sum_i=1^oo 3/4 / 2^(2i-2) = 1
>
> Sum_i=1^oo 3/ 2^(2i) = 1
>
>
>
> Hm.
>
> Compare this.
>
> Sum_i=1^oo (1 / 2^i) = 1
>
> Yet, the circumference of the outer circle and its contained circles,
> is a constant, since circumference C = pi D, and the contained circles
> with D_0 = D have that D_1 = D_0 / 2 and there are two of them, thusly
> the circumference is a constant, since the isoperimetric property.
>
> So, the limit of the circumference is a constant, while,
> the limit of the subtracted area is the entire area.
>
> Then, what emerges is that what results after all the bumps go to
> smooth, is that pi D -> 2 D (or D, whether the diameter's measure
> is counted on both sides).
>
> pi-ratio space / pi-ratio measure
>
>
>
> These sorts of things, where the infinite series adds up wrong,
> have been known since Zeno as "Zeno's moving rows" or "the
> windsprinters" I call it, then about Vitali's "split a unit line
> segment into infinitesimal bits: now it adds back up to length 2",
> then Hausdorff's "I made one for a 3-D ball instead of a 2-D line
> segment", then Banach-Tarski re-wrote that in algebra instead of
> geometry, while just saying Vitalie's was "non-measurable".
>
>
>
> So, these are the sorts of things, that happen in the infinite,
> the emergence, where the usual measure theory where the reals have
> measure 1 and the rationals have measure 0, can't say, while yet
> the accounts of Vitali's and Hausdorff's and since Zeno's, do say.
>
>
> "re-Vitali-ize measure theory", sometimes these days
> called "quasi-invariant measure theory".
>
>
> Otherwise physics these days has a well-known "crisis"
> called "the measure problem", which is at least three
> kinds of problems.
>
>

It's like the one where you're on a ski-trip with pseudo-Einstein,
and you get to the top of the mountain, and survey the course.
"How are we getting down, pseudo-Einstein?" "Gravity." "Which
way are we going?" "Straight down."

Then there's the one where pseudo-Einstein's playing marbles and dice.
He puts a marble up to his eye, and says "I see a die", it's a "cube-wall".

Then he notices the On High rolls a die, and it never stops rolling.

Pseudo-Einstein rounds dice.



How much is this 2i in this infinite series, pseudo-Einstein?
Oh, it's "double infinity".

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#675483

On 11/01/2026 05:20 PM, Ross Finlayson wrote:
> On 11/01/2026 05:06 PM, Ross Finlayson wrote:
>> On 11/01/2026 02:44 PM, Blaine wrote:
>>> 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.
>>
>>
>> Hm.
>>
>> "Criticality": is a concept, sort of like mathematical "emergence"
>> after mathematical "convergence", where one expects convergence to
>> always approach and never get farther away "the limit". Then,
>> emergence is a sort of account of where "the limit" exists that
>> it doesn't appear that "convergence" "converges".
>>
>>
>> If you take a circle and draw two circles in it, sharing a diameter
>> and of half the radius each, then drawing the orthogonal diameter,
>> divides the circle C_0 into two semi-circles, then proceeding apace,
>> the radius is halved ad infinitum until it reaches zero.
>>
>> Then, the sum of the area outside the circles, is pi r_0 ^2 / 2 - pi
>> (r_0/2) ^2, so, there's the infinite series.
>>
>> Sum_i=1^oo pi (r/(2^i-1))^2 - pi (r/(2^i))^2 = pi r^2
>>
>> pi Sum_i=1^oo (r/(2^i-1))^2 - (r/(2^i))^2 = pi r^2
>>
>> Sum_i=1^oo (r/(2^i-1))^2 - (r^2/(2^i))^2 = r^2
>>
>> Sum_i=1^oo r^2/(2^(2i-2)) - r^2/(2^2i) = r^2
>>
>> Sum_i=1^oo (r^2 2^2i - r^2 2^(2i-2) ) / ( 2^(2i-2) 2^(2i) ) = r^2
>>
>> Sum_i=1^oo r^2 ((2^2i - 2^(2i-2) ) / ( 2^(2i-2) 2^(2i) ) = r^2
>>
>> Sum_i=1^oo ((2^2i - 2^(2i-2) ) / ( 2^(2i-2) 2^(2i) ) = 1
>>
>> Sum_i=1^oo ((2^2i - 2^(2i-2) ) / 2^(4i-2) = 1
>>
>> Sum_i=1^oo 2^2i ((1 - 2^(0-2) ) / 2^2i 2^(2i-2) = 1
>>
>> Sum_i=1^oo ((1 - 2^(0-2) ) / 2^(2i-2) = 1
>>
>> Sum_i=1^oo (1 - 2^(0-2)) / 2^(2i-2) = 1
>>
>> Sum_i=1^oo (1 - 1/4) / 2^(2i-2) = 1
>>
>> Sum_i=1^oo 3/4 / 2^(2i-2) = 1
>>
>> Sum_i=1^oo 3/ 2^(2i) = 1
>>
>>
>>
>> Hm.
>>
>> Compare this.
>>
>> Sum_i=1^oo (1 / 2^i) = 1
>>
>> Yet, the circumference of the outer circle and its contained circles,
>> is a constant, since circumference C = pi D, and the contained circles
>> with D_0 = D have that D_1 = D_0 / 2 and there are two of them, thusly
>> the circumference is a constant, since the isoperimetric property.
>>
>> So, the limit of the circumference is a constant, while,
>> the limit of the subtracted area is the entire area.
>>
>> Then, what emerges is that what results after all the bumps go to
>> smooth, is that pi D -> 2 D (or D, whether the diameter's measure
>> is counted on both sides).
>>
>> pi-ratio space / pi-ratio measure
>>
>>
>>
>> These sorts of things, where the infinite series adds up wrong,
>> have been known since Zeno as "Zeno's moving rows" or "the
>> windsprinters" I call it, then about Vitali's "split a unit line
>> segment into infinitesimal bits: now it adds back up to length 2",
>> then Hausdorff's "I made one for a 3-D ball instead of a 2-D line
>> segment", then Banach-Tarski re-wrote that in algebra instead of
>> geometry, while just saying Vitalie's was "non-measurable".
>>
>>
>>
>> So, these are the sorts of things, that happen in the infinite,
>> the emergence, where the usual measure theory where the reals have
>> measure 1 and the rationals have measure 0, can't say, while yet
>> the accounts of Vitali's and Hausdorff's and since Zeno's, do say.
>>
>>
>> "re-Vitali-ize measure theory", sometimes these days
>> called "quasi-invariant measure theory".
>>
>>
>> Otherwise physics these days has a well-known "crisis"
>> called "the measure problem", which is at least three
>> kinds of problems.
>>
>>
>
> It's like the one where you're on a ski-trip with pseudo-Einstein,
> and you get to the top of the mountain, and survey the course.
> "How are we getting down, pseudo-Einstein?" "Gravity." "Which
> way are we going?" "Straight down."
>
> Then there's the one where pseudo-Einstein's playing marbles and dice.
> He puts a marble up to his eye, and says "I see a die", it's a "cube-wall".
>
> Then he notices the On High rolls a die, and it never stops rolling.
>
> Pseudo-Einstein rounds dice.
>
>
>
> How much is this 2i in this infinite series, pseudo-Einstein?
> Oh, it's "double infinity".
>
>


I have a very good opinion of pseudo-Einstein.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#675426

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?


It is my understanding the new number is 26.7 billion years.


yous guys gots to get your maths right...


-- 
The Starmaker -- To question the unquestionable, ask the unaskable,
to think the unthinkable, mention the unmentionable, say the unsayable, 
and challenge the unchallengeable.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#675442

On 10/31/2026 09:28 PM, The Starmaker wrote:
> 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?
>
>
> It is my understanding the new number is 26.7 billion years.
>
>
> yous guys gots to get your maths right...
>
>


Check back later, it'll change again.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#675455

Ross Finlayson wrote:
> 
> On 10/31/2026 09:28 PM, The Starmaker wrote:
> > 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?
> >
> >
> > It is my understanding the new number is 26.7 billion years.
> >
> >
> > yous guys gots to get your maths right...
> >
> >
> 
> Check back later, it'll change again.

I was hoping you had permission to change it by now...


ok, here's a easy one for you..it's about clocks!


If you have one clock here and
another clock there..

Which clock has the true time?







-- 
The Starmaker -- To question the unquestionable, ask the unaskable,
to think the unthinkable, mention the unmentionable, say the unsayable, 
and challenge the unchallengeable.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#675463

Ross Finlayson wrote:
> On 10/31/2026 09:28 PM, The Starmaker wrote:
>>>
>>> Is 13.6 billion the age of the universe?
>>
>>
>> It is my understanding the new number is 26.7 billion years.
>>
>>
>> yous guys gots to get your maths right...
>>
>>
> 
> 
> Check back later, it'll change again.
> 
> 
Do you guys have some cites about this? Last I heard was around 14 
billion years or so.
-- 
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

[toc] | [prev] | [standalone]

Page 2 of 2 — ← Prev page 1 [2]

Back to top | Article view | sci.physics.relativity

csiph-web