Mathematics Is Wrong. Here's Why.

This is clearly an exercise in futility.

It seems to me that the only thing this thread accomplishes is the opportunity for an ego to bluster.

Using infinity instead of zero is not viable mathmatically, as they are not the same concept.

It is like the visible light spectrum; white being the presence of all color (infinity) and black being the absence of all color (zero).

And even if this idea had some merit, other than a mental exercise, ATS is probably not the place to unveil your theory.

A new deck of 52 cards usually has two jokers. Likewise there are two jokers that bedevil physics -- zero and infinity. They represent powerful adversaries at either end of the realm of numbers that we use in modern science. Yet, zero and infinity are two sides of the same coin -- equal and opposite, yin and yang. "Multiply zero by anything and you get zero. Multiply infinity by anything and you get infinity. Dividing a number by zero yields infinity; dividing a number by infinity yields zero. Adding zero to a number leaves the number unchanged. Adding a number to infinity leaves infinity unchanged." Yet, the biggest questions in science, philosophy, and religion are about nothingness and eternity, the void and the infinite, zero and infinity.

Zero is behind all of the big puzzles in physics. In thermodynamics a zero became an uncrossable barrier: the coldest temperature possible. In Einstein's theory of general relativity, a zero became a black hole, a monstrous star that swallows entire suns and can lead us into new worlds. The infinite density of the black hole represents a division by zero. The big bang creation from the void is a division by zero. In quantum mechanics, the infinite energy of the vacuum is a division by zero and is responsible for a bizarre source of energy -- a phantom force exerted by nothing at all. Yet dividing by zero destroys the fabric of mathematics and the framework of logic -- and threatens to undermine the very basis of science.

The biggest challenge to todays physicists is how to reconcile general relativity and quantum mechanics. However, these two pillars of modern science were bound to be incompatible. "The universe of general relativity is a smooth rubber sheet. It is continuous and flowing, never sharp, never pointy. Quantum mechanics, on the other hand, describes a jerky and discontinuous universe. What the two theories have in common -- and what they clash over -- is zero." "The infinite zero of a black hole -- mass crammed into zero space, curving space infinitely -- punches a hole in the smooth rubber sheet. The equations of general relativity cannot deal with the sharpness of zero. In a black hole, space and time are meaningless."

"Quantum mechanics has a similar problem, a problem related to the zero-point energy. The laws of quantum mechanics treat particles such as the electron as points; that is, they take up no space at all. The electron is a zero-dimensional object, and its very zerolike nature ensures that scientists don't even know the electron's mass or charge." But, how could physicists not know something that has been measured? The answer lies with zero. According to the rules of quantum mechanics, the zero-dimensional electron has infinite mass and infinite charge. As with the zero-point energy of the quantum vacuum, "scientists learned to ignore the infinite mass and charge of the electron. They do this by not going all the way to zero distance from the electron when they calculate the electron's true mass and charge; they stop short of zero at an arbitrary distance. Once a scientist chooses a suitably close distance, all the calculations using the "true" mass and charge agree with one another." This is known as renormalization -- the physicist Dr. Richard Feynman called it "a dippy process."

The leading approach to unifying quantum theory and general relativity is string theory. In string theory each elemental particle is composed of a single string and all strings are identical. The "stuff" of all matter and all forces is the same. Differences between the particles arise because their respective strings undergo different resonant vibrational patterns -- giving them unique fingerprints. Hence, what appear to be different elementary particles are actually different notes on a fundamental string. In string theory zero has been banished from the universe; there is no such thing as zero distance or zero time. Hence, all the infinity problems of quantum mechanics are solved.

But, there is a price that we must pay to banish zero and infinity. The size of a typical string in string theory is the Planck length, i.e., about 10-33 centimeters. This is over a thousand trillion times smaller that what the most advanced particle detection equipment can observe. Are these unifying theories, that describe the centers of black holes and explain the singularity of the big bang, becoming so far removed from experiment that we will never be able to determine their correctness? The models of the universe that string theorists and cosmologists develop might be mathematically precise, beautiful and consistent and might appear to explain the nature of the universe -- and yet be utterly wrong. Scientific models/theories, philosophies, and religions will continue to exist and be refined. However, because of zero and infinity, we can never have "proof". All that science can know is that the cosmos was spawned from nothing, and will return to the nothing from whence it came.

reply to post by ElliotNoir

Inf + n = N ?! makes no sense...how do you figure?

Inf + n = (n commonly denotes a count of objects, or, in statistics, the number of individuals or observations)

The question is; why do you add "inf" to "n" ??

The reason is "n"is a finite variable. That means "n" had a different variable composition at an earlier stage.

0 is like the void. Non existence or maybe singularity. I under stand your angle but....

Wrong; 0 can not be the singularity, but "n" can be the singularity.

reply to post by smithjustinb


So then would zero be found to be a 'moving' point of reference in/on infinity?
The measurable qualities of mass (length-width-height) in a 3d perspective would then expand to a
(length-width-height-area-volume-weight-displacement-force-charge) against an uncalculated gravity 'around' said object, leaving then the gravity 'of the said object' to be calculated against its 'time' in form?

We would need to know the total amount of gravity available in all of the universe to calculate its true effect and characteristics on the universe.

And take into account that this would be with all "known' dimensions.
Should we find/prove an exact opposite universe and then another and another, then the case for infinity becomes even more valid (think fractal) BUT we have now a linear condition ,
ah ha , so if energy is neither created or destroyed (cyclic existence/renewal) how would this affect the linear model?
TIME?
All that has been is, and all that is has been?

(it's early sorry for the quick brain dribble)

Originally posted by smithjustinb
Mathematic understanding is flawed due to its one and only uncertainty that is to divide any number(n) by zero. In that operation, the answer is determined as undefined.

Any number divided by zero is said, in the current model of mathematics, to be “undefined”. In this thread, my purpose is to challenge the existence of zero and put infinity in its place. This is due to the fact that when examined closely, you see that zero and infinity operate very similarly as being a reference point for everything to arise.

Infinity and 0 are both immeasurable. 0 cannot be measured because there is nothing there to measure. Infinity cannot be measured because once a measurement has been attempted, there will always be something greater or smaller.

Infinity and 0 are both formless. 0 is formless for obvious reasons. Infinity is formless because if it had form, it would be rendered finite and thus not infinity.

Knowing this, you know that 0 +(n) = (n). Most people assume that infinity + (n) = infinity, but this is not true. The number (n) is a definition. It exists as something that is definable and it is finite. So the number (n) will arise from infinity in its own existence apparently separate from infinity. So infinity + (n) = (n).

So when you try to subtract (n) from infinity, you get -(n). When you try to subtract infinity from (n) you will get “negative infinity”. Negative infinity is still just infinity. Infinity must be understood to be the foundation of what everything comes from, of which all numbers can find their beginnings. When this kind of math is viewed in context, you see that there is no such thing as negative numbers. This obviously challenges conventional mathematics in a way that might render this style of math dysfunctional, but when viewed in context of reality as being energy, there is never a “0” and there is always “something”. Therefore, it would be more appropriate that we examine this form of mathematics and its implications very closely.

While 0 and infinity operate very similar, there are some differences, but I think these differences will serve in favor of infinity to better define the mathematical nature of reality in a way that zero never could. For instance, 0 times (n) is another way of saying you have 0 (n) times, and (n) 0 times. Either way, you will have zero. When you multiply infinity by (n), you get two answers. One way you are saying you have infinity (n) times and the other way you are saying you have (n) infinity times. One answer will look like (n) (n) (n) (n) (n) (n) (n) (n) (n) (n) (n) (n) (n) (n) (n)……etc. The other will look like a sideways 8.

Infinity is a starting point. I argue that infinity is THE starting point of the universe due to the fact that energy is neither created nor destroyed. So mathematically, energy looks like (energy) times infinity. So you have infinitely lasting energy, and you also have infinity. No matter the operation, infinity cannot be separated from anything. The existence of anything can be traced back to infinity and still has its connection with infinity.

Another operation to examine is the division operation. Like trying to divide (n) by 0 and getting an undefined answer, trying to divide (n) by infinity yields a peculiar outcome. Although peculiar, it is still a much more realistic occurrence. The nature of reality is AT LEAST 3 dimensional. You have three dimensions of length width and height. You have a 3d object, a plane, and a line. But you can go a step further and get down to a single point. A single point is very peculiar. It is peculiar because it is an indeterminable quantity. The minute you try to define it, there is always a point smaller. This single point’s mathematical operation looks like (n) divided by infinity. So you have a quantity that is infinitely small yet still on the positive end of real numbers no matter how small it gets. And of course you know when you divide infinity by (n), you still have infinity.

The point of this thread is not only to challenge the way we have been looking at mathematics, but also to help define the root of our existence as being some kind of infinity. 0 is always used as a reference, but when the reference of everything that exists is traced back to its beginnings, and it is determined to not have a beginning and there was never an absolute nothing, then it must be accepted that THE reference is not 0 and therefore all mathematics based upon counting from zero is inappropriate. Numbers arise from infinity in their own existence just like they do from 0. The difference is, when a number arises from infinity, it maintains its reference as being part of the operation and never separate from it so that any operation maintains its connection with infinity.

I hope all who read this don’t automatically dismiss this because it goes against everything you have known so far, but rather accept the possibility that what you have learned so far hasn’t necessarily been correct. I hope all who read this will seriously consider this form of mathematics as a realistic approach not only to mathematics, but also to reality.

yea this is not even wrong. if you are so convinced with your new found theory, go publish it. someplace other than ATS or other conspiracy sites.

let us know how it works out for ya.

Originally posted by shortyboy
ok let me see here so if I have five dollars and then spend five dollars I now have infinite Dollars?

lmao. how about this...i have a pocket with nothing in it. i put a dollar in. now...does that mean i have no dollars, or i have infinite dollars.

i like this guy's concept tho...let me head on down to Best Buy and see what they think of it.

This kind of reminds me of the "Big Bang."
First you have "nothing," and then it explodes

Zero is the incomprehensible limit for a value that is infinitely small. Infinity is the incomprehensible limit for a value that is infinitely large. One could argue that zero is negative infinity, but neither lie within the realm of real numbers.

Originally posted by CaptHowdy
Zero is the incomprehensible limit for a value that is infinitely small. Infinity is the incomprehensible limit for a value that is infinitely large. One could argue that zero is negative infinity, but neither lie within the realm of real numbers.

Then why concern them?
Why are they then considered products?
It does present itself as an awesome question.

Originally posted by zapr1943
This kind of reminds me of the "Big Bang."
First you have "nothing," and then it explodes

well that's conspiracy thinking in a nutshell. first you have nothing (0) then you add some more nothing (0 + 0), and somehow end up at 17. 0 + 0 = 17.

so i'm not seeing the big deal here...thankfully the poster has finally quanitified conspiracy thinking.

i'm grateful.

The reason we discuss 0 and "n" compared to/with the infinite is because there is a distance or a size between the variables.

The infinite is as large as it ever can be. Everything that exists (n) must be within the infinite space.

The distance "n" has to the infinite, is the expansion time of "n". In other words its the time it will take before finite existence stops expanding (becomes infinite).

That is the true distance between 0 and 1, or the infinite and "n".

This also means that "n" was formed by a contraction/compression by the infinite.

.

Originally posted by spy66
The reason we discuss 0 and "n" compared to/with the infinite is because there is a distance or a size between the variables.

The infinite is as large as it ever can be. Everything that exists (n) must be within the infinite space.

The distance "n" has to the infinite, is the expansion time of "n". In other words its the time it will take before finite existence stops expanding (becomes infinite).

that's too much like common sense. and we all know common sense is not allowed to exist here at ATS.

please move along.

Originally posted by lkpuede

Originally posted by spy66
The reason we discuss 0 and "n" compared to/with the infinite is because there is a distance or a size between the variables.

The infinite is as large as it ever can be. Everything that exists (n) must be within the infinite space.

The distance "n" has to the infinite, is the expansion time of "n". In other words its the time it will take before finite existence stops expanding (becomes infinite).

that's too much like common sense. and we all know common sense is not allowed to exist here at ATS.

please move along.

True

There is a big problem with this theory and that is: The infinite must be a true constant, so what made it form "n"
I guess that is where God comes into the equation. And some people just can add God in to the equation.

There is only one force that can change a constant and that is a different force. Like free will/awareness in this case.

reply to post by chr0naut


And let's not forget the exhaustive treatise: "Principia Mathematica". en.wikipedia.org...

I think the OP has a lot of studying left to do.

Don't hate zero, he deserves respect like any other number. PLEASE, watch it.

Originally posted by Smack
reply to post by chr0naut

 

And let's not forget the exhaustive treatise: "Principia Mathematica". en.wikipedia.org...

I think the OP has a lot of studying left to do.

you know he, like about 95% of people around these parts, just dream # up and then post it. it's makes no sense. it's 0+0+17. if he was so convinced about his theoy, he'd publish it. plain and simple. he, like anyone else, can put together a paper and submit it for peer review. he doesn't have to have a doctorate. he doesn't even have to have a GED. just put a paper together in the correct format and send it in.

but he won't do that...he'll sit all day and watch his post. see who else commented on it, so his day has some meaning.

however, at the end of the day, it will just be a bunch of words on the ATS forum that we can entertain ourselves with.

Originally posted by Aim64C
reply to post by smithjustinb

 

The farther along in math courses you get, the more you play with concepts of math and unreal/imaginary numbers.

I couldn't help but notice, in a number of my classes, the concept of 'i' being very similar to quantum superposition. I must admit that my discipline in math is quite poor - math tends to be rather magical to me until there are shapes or physical concepts for me to link it to (probably why I found Geometry to make child's play out of Algebra).

In either case, the only real correlation I can find between the concept of zero and the concept of infinity is that of non-attainability. To truly get nothing, you have to not have anything - including an observer to experience said nothing. To truly have infinity, you must be capable of bearing witness to everything within a continually expanding set of parameters ("Because it's the song that never ends... yes it goes on and on my friends...").

To go any deeper than that is to challenge math of the known and experienced universe with the philosophy of origins and status of the universe. I would wager the forum population with the education and disciplines in math to even hold such a conversation, competently, is a very select few. I would have to google the hell out of every post made, that is for sure.

But, we exist inside an infinity, we could not exist in nothing so there is a definable infinity as we experience it as apposed to nothing or zero.

I never liked maths anyway

Our universe is way more complicated than what a single equation with a lot of assumptions can tell.

i know i might come across as a real ball buster sometimes, but this isn't the case. i get so frustrated with this site sometimes. it's like the whole UFO/ET conversation that makes no sense whatsoever. i thought we was trying to get to the bottom of something that have very little to no evidence. but the evidence does exist. a little light in the sky does not an ET make...but to hear these people talk about it, that's all they need to see. then you got the whole Reptilian/Draconian crowd. all of their theories revolve around us. it's all about how great the humans are. all those great civilizations are at the service of humanity. and if that's not the case, then they all somehow need our great DNA to save their civilizations that have been in existance billions of years before earth was even a solid planet. couldn't possibly be that they are just civilizations just checking us out....just like we are just checking out Mars and Mercury and Vesta. no...that couldn't possibly be the case. they must be at the service of humanity.

just like the whole solar system revolves around earth. just like God gave his only begotten son. just for once i'd like to see somebody with some really good insight into these matters put his/her theories forth. just once.

The reason you have infinity rather than zero is not because they are the same but because infinity operates similarly to zero.

Infinity must first be understood not to indicate an infinitely large number, but rather an indication of no particular number with the potential of any number to arise from it. It is all-inclusive. That means there is 1,2,3,4,5,6, and so on. But none of these number are yet manifest because at the point of the manifestation of the number, the number would find itself arising in its own existence APPARENTLY separate from infinity but with its origin traceable back to infinity within the equation.

0 cannot do this. This is do to the fact that 0 is all-disclusive EVEN to itself. It is impossible to get something from nothing, but it is not impossible to get something from an all-inclusive formlessness and for that value to be equal to itself.

However, you may want to say that if you have 4 apples and you take away 4 apples, you have 0 apples. Infinity is formless. It is a potential. You have the potential for apples once you do not have any apples. That potential is formless. At the point of defining form, you render infinity finite. If you had 0 apples, you would not have that potential because you can't truly get something from nothing.

Now it appears that you have 0 apples, but that is because infinity is formless.

Objectively speaking, if you have two apples and you take away two apples, there are still two apples. It is just that from your subjective perspective, you appear to have none. But even that appearance coincides with the definition of infinity as being formless. So you do in fact have the unmanifest potential for any amount of apples to arise in which that designation is equal to itself. That is infinity.

0 is no potential.