Infinity

[Epsilon=One]

Let there be LIGHT . . .
and, before that . . . Infinity.
(If no image appears below, "Click" your browser "Refresh" icon.)
http://i.g2d.us/cantor.jpg
This post is in memoriam: Georg Cantor [1845-1918]

Infinity is the fundamental source of all energy within the Universe; which by definition must be conserved; therefore, said energy oscillates . . . never parting from its source; as, its source, Infinity, can be neither added to nor subtracted from.
We might characterize the history of mathematics for the greater part as the history of the struggle of human thought with the concept of infinity.
.........-C. H. van Os, "Handbook of Mathematics," 1963,
...................................English translation by I. N. Sneddon, pg 4.
Being able to fully perceive "nothing"/"nil," which is the attribute of a singularity from within Reality, (www.101123.com/R) is very difficult; as, there are no comparable percepts.

Such is a singularity . . . quintessential simplicity; yet, such is the source of all the variety of the total environment in which we exist. It is this singularity that is referred to as Infinity.

By definition: there can be only one singularity. And, thus Infinity is the only absolute; as well as, the only provable, because Infinity can not be disproved.

Infinity is the locus of a limit that can be approached, but not reached from Reality. (www.101123.com/R)

Infinity is a manifestation of speed; not distance, or size.

The infinite and the infinitesimal, which are infinite speed and motionlessness, are not found within Reality; (www.101123.com/R) thus, being beyond Reality, (www.101123.com/R) they are Infinity.

Thus, as a singularity: the locus of the infinite and infinitesimal are congruent; and, are often referred to as the Duality of Infinity.
Infinity, within Conceptualism (www.101123.com/C) is referred to with many words that have slightly different connotations; however, all have the identical meaning. The words are such as: ONEness, motionlessness, maximal speed, singularity, absolute, UnReality . . . even god; and so on.

Infinity is indefinable; however, most subtly, the effects of Infinity are discernable by a careful examination of the most fundamental manifestations of all that which exists.

Perhaps, what is most counter-intuitive about Infinity; and, at the same time, of the utmost importance, for an understanding of the structure and Triquametric motion (www.101123.com/TM) of seminal phenomena (www.101123.com/SM), known popularly as "dark" energy (www.101123.com/DE), is that: Infinity, from within Reality, (www.101123.com/R) is approachable at three, congruent points, heuristically referred to as an Infinity line (www.101123.com/IL); or, more saliently:

The effects of Infinity simultaneously manifest within Reality, to and from, infinite sets of three points . . . infinitely.
To solve any problem that
has never been solved before,
you have to leave the door
to the unknown ajar.

-Richard Feynman
Nobel Laureate Physicist.

©Copyright 2005-2008 by Brunardot. All rights reserved.
Terms: PhysicsMathForums.com, Brunardot, and Pulsoid Theory must be cited.
Sorry! This Thread has not been completed.
Please Bookmark and return to this site often.

If there is an immediate need for information,
please e-mail directly at the below "Click" link.

Please note that any private correspondence
may be edited and anonymously posted unless
requested otherwise.

Every effort will be made to expedite a reply
with the requested information.Please ask questions. :)With questions it’s possible to know if
comments are logical and convincing;
or whether clarification is required.

http://1.g2d.us/e.gifhttp://2.g2d.us/e.gifhttp://3.g2d.us/e.gifhttp://4.g2d.us/e.gifhttp://5.g2d.us/e.gif
http://6.g2d.us/e.gif
If images don’t display, "click" the Refresh Icon.

[Mr. Robin Parsons]

© Mr. Robin Parsons Kingston Ontario Canada MMV

Best I ever came up with, is that it is Inconcievable, sorta 'provably' so, by it's very definition, just that we live in a Finite place, and use little else other then Concepts, so the reality of "Inconcievable' is short for, seemingly, lots of people.

If it were a Space you were to experience, well, one of two ways, it is either Completely Dark, with no references, or it is Flooded with so much light that all you would see would be BLINDING (Sorry, no, I am not shouting, it is emphasis/emphasizing for/from me) light flooding your retina's to the Point where you again would 'see' not a thing, again, with No references.....

There is a posting, in the other forum, on it...I'll go get some of it, for tommorrow.....

[Epsilon=One]

© Mr. Robin Parsons Kingston Ontario Canada MMV

Best I ever came up with, is that it is Inconcievable, sorta 'provably' so, by it's very definition, just that we live in a Finite place, and use little else other then Concepts, so the reality of "Inconcievable' is short for, seemingly, lots of people.

If it were a Space you were to experience, well, one of two ways, it is either Completely Dark, with no references, or it is Flooded with so much light that all you would see would be BLINDING (Sorry, no, I am not shouting, it is emphasis/emphasizing for/from me) light flooding your retina's to the Point where you again would 'see' not a thing, again, with No references.....

There is a posting, in the other forum, on it...I'll go get some of it, for tommorrow.....

I find no difficulty reconciling our concepts. Just wanted to make sure we were on the same page.

Old words our the very devil. When I CAPITALIZE, italicize, mix foNTS, etc., I usually intend a specific meaning that I have attempted to define in Conceptualism.

[Mr. Robin Parsons]

© Mr. Robin Parsons Kingston Ontario Canada MMV

This is what I had originally posted at that site, somethting that I had (God's Grace) Come up with back in 1999 while I was Living in Calgary, Alberta...it has been "released" concerning Copyright so anyone can copy and or use it

(prefferably acknowledgeing the Author, Me! Mr. Robin Parsons, oherwise it is free to use)

http://www.astronomyphysics.com/read.php?f=35&i=126&t=44

Author: Mr. Robin Parsons (---.kingston.net)
Date: 09-27-02 07:49

It is about a simple as this, it is a childs joke, Q?; How many sides to a circle?
Answ; Two (2) inside and outside!

That is actually the definition of a delineated space, and that is also the reality of every single thought that has passed through your head, they are delineations of space.

The definition of infinity is "Un-delineated" space, so we can clearly see that infinity is NOT a thought that can arise in your head.

Simple!


--------------followed by the arguement

Author: Mr. Robin Parsons (---.kingston.net)
Date: 09-28-02 09:12

As the definition, according to encarta, is 'limitless', the answer I have used, undelineated space is correct.

What is really states is that infinity is something that you cannot draw a picture of, as all drawings are delineations of space, LIMITATIONS, and the definition of infinite is un-limited.

Ergo, my explaination stands

Telling me about singularities is telling me about something that is well defined, and can be circumscribed, or drawn, even if the scale is impossible to etch out in reality, it is still visible.

Try it this way, imagine looking at the entire surfact of a sphere all at once, you can realise that you would 'see' nothing as it would appear flat to you, without definition, as in undefined, or un-delineated.

Thanks,

[Epsilon=One]

http://www.astronomyphysics.com/read.php?f=35&i=126&t=44

I had noted your responses in this forum; thus my inquiry to you.

We're in basic agreement. Each with our own words; same concept, I believe.

Telling me about singularities is telling me about something that is well defined, and can be circumscribed, or drawn, even if the scale is impossible to etch out in reality, it is still visible.

The above seems a bit contradictory; or maybe, it's time for some sleep (Been working on Ultron Ellipse Arrays all night . . . 16+ digits).

I don't define singularity such that a plural is possible. This is very important to the fundamentals of Pulsoid Theory.

This statement confuses me a bit, "...impossible to etch out in reality, it is still visible." I agree with the first part; not the latter; though, with much effort I can describe Infinity by stating what it is not.

I'm pleased that someone cares enough to respond. Thanks again for your time.

[Mr. Robin Parsons]

Originally posted By Epsilon=One
(SNIP)We're in basic agreement. Each with our own words; same concept, I believe.(SNoP)

Interesting way of putting it, as what I expound is that it is NOT a concept, inconcievable....


Originally posted By Epsilon=One
The above seems a bit contradictory; or maybe, it's time for some sleep (Been working on Ultron Ellipse Arrays all night . . . 16+ digits).

I don't define singularity such that a plural is possible. This is very important to the fundamentals of Pulsoid Theory.

This statement confuses me a bit, "...impossible to etch out in reality, it is still visible." I agree with the first part; not the latter; though, with much effort I can describe Infinity by stating what it is not.

I'm pleased that someone cares enough to respond. Thanks again for your time.

O.K. so, a Singularity is something, a 'thing' therefore/ergo "concievable", infinity is In-concievable/Un-concievable...no thoght, no delineation of space...like I had put in one of the Writings, "Philosophy of the edge" 'space' with NO references, to anything, anywhere...if I were to place anyone in that space, move them from (imaginary) point A to point B, they wouldn't know that they had moved, no inertial reference, no other spatial reference, nothing but, well as the piece went, "you" (Anyone that would experience that space, as being placed, therein) and the self referential ability/reality of Humans...leads to the Proverbial question of "Inner reality" and, are any of us, really, totally, alone, on the Inside of ourselves?

These two topics, Infinity, outer reality, and Inner reality, God, are really just one question, but no one can prove that we all experience/Live the same thing (inside and out) as that is, ALWAYS, simply subjective attestament....ergo Belief.

Again, Sorry, I've been so slow at responding, computer time, and the time I am spending Volounteering at community service(s)....

Funny, to me, Exposes Gravity as something that can actually be viewed, sorta Like I am the Guy who Brought Gravity "out into the Light" for all to see, and not a Sound, not an exppression of Interest, in me, (Or what I write) from any news agency, news organization, media outlet, on the face of the ENTIRE planet, that's just gotta tell everyone/anyone, well, something, something really clear, about me, and about what has been going on (or especially what has NOT been going on) in my life.

Tell me, who do you think has the ability to Keep "all of this" ergo "Me" (AKA Mr. Robin Parsons) suppressed?

P.S. That last question is Rhetorical...I (God's Grace) already know who, From within me, too, cause E.G.O. Everybodies Got One

[Epsilon=One]

These two topics, Infinity, outer reality, and Inner reality, God, are really just one question, but no one can prove that we all experience/Live the same thing (inside and out) as that is, ALWAYS, simply subjective attestament....ergo Belief.

Again, Sorry, I've been so slow at responding, computer time, and the time I am spending Volounteering at community service(s)....

No need to apoligize. At least you respond. No one else does.

The subject of your reply requires much more thought than I can manage today.

I will prioritize it for a full discussion as soon as possible.

[Mr. Robin Parsons]

No need to apoligize. At least you respond. No one else does.

The subject of your reply requires much more thought than I can manage today.

I will prioritize it for a full discussion as soon as possible.

And thank you, too....please take your time....life in Meant to be Enjoyed whenever possible....well, and Legal.....

[Epsilon=One]

And thank you, too....please take your time....life in Meant to be Enjoyed whenever possible....well, and Legal.....
You are so correct about life. Our purpose is knowledge and enjoyment.

I might add . . . by minimizing the need for faith of any stripe.

P.S. Off the subject of this thread; I'm starting to fill in the posts of Pulsoid Theory. My effort This afternoon (http://www.physicsmathforums.com/showthread.php?t=199).

[ste]

The effects of Infinity simultaneously manifest within Reality, to and from, infinite sets of three points . . . infinitely.

I do not understand how you see infinity or the infinitesimal as a point on a line, as if one could reach or attain that point. To me they are limits... Approachable, but never attainable. Therefore, they cannot be geometrically represented because they are infinitely far away from the confines of our line.

And why three points? Why are there two infinity points, and doesn't this contradict the definition of a singularity? Define the infinitesimal, and explain how it contrasts with Infinity. Does the energy travel through seminal motion in one direction down the infinity line, where it eventually dissipates back into Infinity at the other end?

If energy is to be conserved, why should it oscillate at all? Why would it not just remain within Infinity, seperate from the Reality we perceive?

Are these "sets" you refer to Infinity Strings?

See additional Infinity Line Questions (physicsmathforums.com/showpost.php?p=7437)

[Epsilon=One]

I do not understand how you see infinity or the infinitesimal as a point on a line, as if one could reach or attain that point.The line is heuristic; it is of infinitesimal "thickness."

To me they are limits... Approachable, but never attainable.My point, exactly

Therefore, they cannot be geometrically represented because they are infinitely far away from the confines of our line.Not so. The line, being heuristic and infinitesimally "thick" is "within" Infinity.

And why three points?Because, heuristically, the infinitesimal is the center point and the ends symbolize the infinite at the ends of infinite lines.

Why are there two infinity points, and doesn't this contradict the definition of a singularity?They are heuristic; and, no; there is no contradiction; as, the points are heuristic.

Define the infinitesimal, and explain how it contrasts with Infinity.They are the same place. Please study Infinity (www.CQthus.com/PT/I); as I have continually carped.

Does the energy travel through seminal motion in one direction down the infinity line, where it eventually dissipates back into Infinity at the other end?No. Your concept/analogy is not accurate.

If energy is to be conserved, why should it oscillate at all?Conservation and oscillation are not related.

Why would it not just remain within Infinity, seperate from the Reality we perceive?Because deceleration/acceleration of all oscillations manifest as speeds other than infinite or infinitessimal.

You must understand the fundamental concepts of Pulsoid Theory before being concerned with the most fundamental concepts of evolved manifestations. Either accept evolved conclusions or first comprehend/understand the fundamental concepts.

Are these "sets" you refer to Infinity Strings?No. Don't confuse what is heuristic with actual phenomena.

[ste]

I suppose I hadn't truly made such a distinction between heuristic and existent. Where should I draw the line? Where does the symbolism of PT end, and direct explanation of phenomena begin?

[Epsilon=One]

I suppose I hadn't truly made such a distinction between heuristic and existent. Where should I draw the line? Where does the symbolism of PT end, and direct explanation of phenomena begin?I make an effort to label all that is heuristic as heuristic.

Should there be ambiguity or doubt, please precisely advise.