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 1 of 2  [1] 2  Next page →

#675173 — Which makes more sense: a finite or infinite universe?

Which makes more sense: a finite or infinite universe?

Cheers

[toc] | [next] | [standalone]

#675174

On 10/27/2026 10:12 PM, amirjf wrote:
> Which makes more sense: a finite or infinite universe?
>
> Cheers

Kelvin says "infinite".

If zero exists, infinity exists.


"Finite" makes simpler theories, yet, nature doesn't care.

Can't have "continuous" without "infinite".


Neither is falsifiable: science doesn't say,
yet mathematics isn't merely science.


Many have said finite, they've always been proven wrong.

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

#675176

On 28/10/2026 07:12, amirjf wrote:
> Which makes more sense: a finite or infinite universe?

Both makes perfectly sense: if one is true then the other is false.
But both are something that we cannot imagine. We cannot really
imagine anything infinite, nor a finite unverse that as no edge,
nor an edge of the universe, nor non-existence of any universe.

-- 
Mikko

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

#675179

On 10/28/2026 10:21 AM, Mikko wrote:
> On 28/10/2026 07:12, amirjf wrote:
>> Which makes more sense: a finite or infinite universe?
> 
> Both makes perfectly sense:


Oppositely, both have no.
You can assert  this or that - no conclusions,
no consequences, no significance.

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

#675202

On 10/28/2026 02:21 AM, Mikko wrote:
> On 28/10/2026 07:12, amirjf wrote:
>> Which makes more sense: a finite or infinite universe?
>
> Both makes perfectly sense: if one is true then the other is false.
> But both are something that we cannot imagine. We cannot really
> imagine anything infinite, nor a finite unverse that as no edge,
> nor an edge of the universe, nor non-existence of any universe.
>

There are other dogmas than "can't comprehend the infinite",
or "the total", or "the absolute", though of course for
mathematics it involves the paradoxes of identity, induction,
quantification, _infinity_, and continuity.

Then, the "super" natural is still "super" natural, about
the ineffable, or the omni, or the supreme, also.

A usual account of mathematical ideals then has besides
straight lines and perfect circles also the origin,
and "point at infinity", accessible to the mind.

So, it's mathematics that _owes_ physics more and better
mathematics of the infinite.

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

#675206

On 10/28/2026 08:27 AM, Ross Finlayson wrote:
> On 10/28/2026 02:21 AM, Mikko wrote:
>> On 28/10/2026 07:12, amirjf wrote:
>>> Which makes more sense: a finite or infinite universe?
>>
>> Both makes perfectly sense: if one is true then the other is false.
>> But both are something that we cannot imagine. We cannot really
>> imagine anything infinite, nor a finite unverse that as no edge,
>> nor an edge of the universe, nor non-existence of any universe.
>>
>
> There are other dogmas than "can't comprehend the infinite",
> or "the total", or "the absolute", though of course for
> mathematics it involves the paradoxes of identity, induction,
> quantification, _infinity_, and continuity.
>
> Then, the "super" natural is still "super" natural, about
> the ineffable, or the omni, or the supreme, also.
>
> A usual account of mathematical ideals then has besides
> straight lines and perfect circles also the origin,
> and "point at infinity", accessible to the mind.
>
> So, it's mathematics that _owes_ physics more and better
> mathematics of the infinite.
>
>

Kelvin is pointedly clear in his opinion "can't not be infinite",
then for example for accounts like Fritz London, who is a great,
with super-fluidity then super-conductivity, then often usual
accounts of the "super" like super-symmetry, basically are
reflections well enough on space-inversion (which is the
inverse of the segment of the radius), about the hyperbolic
(x = 1/y), and so on.

One of Einstein's quotes about "there are two things infinite,
the universe and stupidity, not sure about the universe",
may make it so that somebody with infinite stupidity simply
has an infinite universe, also. So, it's unfortunate that
that's the most well-known quote about the infinite in physics.

Yet, anybody who says "Universe" automatically invokes "Infinity".
Then, lesser accounts are usually enough given to be talk about
"Worlds".

Anyays retro-finitists and reductionists of the partial variety:
they're wrong (or ignorant, which science won't have, since
"The Science" includes _all_ the data).

So, Fritz London is a great sort of physicist.



About continuity and infinity in the 21'st century,
well, there's me, ....

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

#675371

Mikko <mikko.levanto@iki.fi> wrote or quoted:
>Both makes perfectly sense: if one is true then the other is false.
>But both are something that we cannot imagine. We cannot really
>imagine anything infinite, nor a finite unverse that as no edge,
>nor an edge of the universe, nor non-existence of any universe.

  I can't imagine 37 black dots on white paper.

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

#675550

On 10/28/2026 2:21 AM, Mikko wrote:
> On 28/10/2026 07:12, amirjf wrote:
>> Which makes more sense: a finite or infinite universe?
> 
> Both makes perfectly sense: if one is true then the other is false.
> But both are something that we cannot imagine. We cannot really
> imagine anything infinite, nor a finite unverse that as no edge,
> nor an edge of the universe, nor non-existence of any universe.
> 

Think of the border of, say, the Mandelbrot set, or any fractal. For 
some fractals, the "set" from afar is finite indeed. But, try to zoom in 
on a border... Its infinite indeed... ;^)

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

#675551

On 11/2/2026 3:28 PM, Chris M. Thomasson wrote:
> On 10/28/2026 2:21 AM, Mikko wrote:
>> On 28/10/2026 07:12, amirjf wrote:
>>> Which makes more sense: a finite or infinite universe?
>>
>> Both makes perfectly sense: if one is true then the other is false.
>> But both are something that we cannot imagine. We cannot really
>> imagine anything infinite, nor a finite unverse that as no edge,
>> nor an edge of the universe, nor non-existence of any universe.
>>
> 
> Think of the border of, say, the Mandelbrot set, or any fractal. For 
> some fractals, the "set" from afar is finite indeed. But, try to zoom in 
> on a border... Its infinite indeed... ;^)

Some fractals you can zoom out forever, and zoom in forever.

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

#675554

Chris M. Thomasson wrote:
> 
> On 11/2/2026 3:28 PM, Chris M. Thomasson wrote:
> > On 10/28/2026 2:21 AM, Mikko wrote:
> >> On 28/10/2026 07:12, amirjf wrote:
> >>> Which makes more sense: a finite or infinite universe?
> >>
> >> Both makes perfectly sense: if one is true then the other is false.
> >> But both are something that we cannot imagine. We cannot really
> >> imagine anything infinite, nor a finite unverse that as no edge,
> >> nor an edge of the universe, nor non-existence of any universe.
> >>
> >
> > Think of the border of, say, the Mandelbrot set, or any fractal. For
> > some fractals, the "set" from afar is finite indeed. But, try to zoom in
> > on a border... Its infinite indeed... ;^)
> 
> Some fractals you can zoom out forever, and zoom in forever.



when you zoom in forever where do the boundaries go to? 


beyond your computer monitor to another dimension??

 a dimension not only of sight and sound but of mind; a journey into a
wondrous land whose boundaries are that of imagination. Next stop … the
Twilight Zone



"Toto, I’ve a Feeling We’re Not in Kansas Anymore," 



-- 
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]

#675556

In article <6AE9281E.2110@ix.netcom.com>,
 The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> wrote:

> Chris M. Thomasson wrote:
> > 
> > On 11/2/2026 3:28 PM, Chris M. Thomasson wrote:
> > > On 10/28/2026 2:21 AM, Mikko wrote:
> > >> On 28/10/2026 07:12, amirjf wrote:
> > >>> Which makes more sense: a finite or infinite universe?
> > >>
> > >> Both makes perfectly sense: if one is true then the other is false.
> > >> But both are something that we cannot imagine. We cannot really
> > >> imagine anything infinite, nor a finite unverse that as no edge,
> > >> nor an edge of the universe, nor non-existence of any universe.
> > >>
> > >
> > > Think of the border of, say, the Mandelbrot set, or any fractal. For
> > > some fractals, the "set" from afar is finite indeed. But, try to zoom in
> > > on a border... Its infinite indeed... ;^)
> > 
> > Some fractals you can zoom out forever, and zoom in forever.
> 
> 
> 
> when you zoom in forever where do the boundaries go to? 
> 
> 
> beyond your computer monitor to another dimension??
> 
>  a dimension not only of sight and sound but of mind; a journey into a
> wondrous land whose boundaries are that of imagination. Next stop … the
> Twilight Zone

Well played.  You just blew my mind.   :-)

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

#675553

Chris M. Thomasson wrote:
> 
> On 10/28/2026 2:21 AM, Mikko wrote:
> > On 28/10/2026 07:12, amirjf wrote:
> >> Which makes more sense: a finite or infinite universe?
> >
> > Both makes perfectly sense: if one is true then the other is false.
> > But both are something that we cannot imagine. We cannot really
> > imagine anything infinite, nor a finite unverse that as no edge,
> > nor an edge of the universe, nor non-existence of any universe.
> >
> 
> Think of the border of, say, the Mandelbrot set, or any fractal. For
> some fractals, the "set" from afar is finite indeed. But, try to zoom in
> on a border... Its infinite indeed... ;^)


infinite...numbers
are all in the mind.

projected infinity.

Have you seen the writings of a crazy persron? It's infinite crazy...


it gets smaller and smaller and smaller




-- 
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]

#675178

amirjf <amirjfnin@aim.com> wrote or quoted:
>Which makes more sense: a finite or infinite universe?

  I am not able apply to idea of "to make sense" to the universe here.
  The universe does not seem to care whether it makes sense to us, just
  think of quantum theory!

  But I think before modern cosmology, people often imagined finite
  spheres around the world. Since everything you have ever seen is
  finite, it would be natural to assume that everything is finite.
  Infinity belongs to math, not physics, and there it could be seen
  as a kind of simplification.

  Camille Flammarion seems to have imagined that the dome with
  the stars has an edge, so is finite, beyond which is the world
  of the abstract laws guiding it (my interpretation).

  (The Flammarion engraving shows a traveler who pokes his head and
  shoulders through the star-studded "firmament" [the solid dome
  of the sky]. By doing so, he looks out at the wondrous cosmic
  machinery, swirling fires, and suns of the Empyrean realm beyond.
  [Though many people mistake it for a Renaissance-era woodcut from
  the 1500s because of its antique style, its historical origin defi-
  nitely dates back to 1888.])

  In general relativity, you cannot look at coordinates to measure
  physical lengths, but must instead use the metric tensor.
  Near a black hole's event horizon coordinate-lengths can become
  infinite while the physical length according to the metric
  remains finite. Conversely, true physical infinities in the
  metric do occur at the central gravitational singularity.

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

#675180

On 10/28/2026 10:28 AM, Stefan Ram wrote:
> amirjf <amirjfnin@aim.com> wrote or quoted:
>> Which makes more sense: a finite or infinite universe?
> 
>    I am not able apply to idea of "to make sense" to the universe here.
>    The universe does not seem to care whether it makes sense to us, just
>    think of quantum theory!

The theories of your bunch of idiots and
the universe are not quite the same, even
if both don't care about having any sense.

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

#675184

amirjf <amirjfnin@aim.com> wrote:

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

FYI, the Universe doesn't care about us making sense of it,

Jan

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

#675185

On 10/28/2026 1:40 PM, J. J. Lodder wrote:
> amirjf <amirjfnin@aim.com> wrote:
> 
>> Which makes more sense: a finite or infinite universe?
> 
> FYI, the Universe doesn't care about us making sense of it,

And since it doesn't - an idiot physicists
will also not care whether his moronic
mumble has some sense or not. Logical,
isn't it?

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

#675209

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

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

#675211

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, ....

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

#675215

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".

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

#675219

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.

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

Page 1 of 2  [1] 2  Next page →

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

csiph-web