Strange

What do you mean by "borders of the universe"? In current models there is no such border. Also, how do two points define a plane? I thought you needed three points to define a plane.

There is a subset who believe the fact it is complex and hard to understand means that it must be wrong. They expect (demand) the universe is simple enough to be understood by an average person.

That may not be a safe assumption! (But luckily there are others around who do.) That wave is the electron. The key point to get your head round is that an electron is not like a little bullet. You can think of it as spread out through space (with a probability of being at any particular location). It is the evolution of that non-localised nature of the electron that is described by the wave equations. And that is what allows it to be affected by the presence of the two slits: they change its probability of ending up at any particular location. See if you can find the videos of the QED lectures by Feynman on line. He was explaining this to a non-technical audience, so it is quite easy to follow. He describes it in terms of the electron taking every possible path through space (and time) with different probabilities. You sum all those probabilities to get the final result. So things that are not directly in the path can have affect. I think the problem with that is that you can't guarantee to send the electrons through only one slit. Unless the slits are very wide and/or very far apart. In which case you won't get an interference pattern anyway. In which case covering the other slit will have zero (or minimal) effect. p.s. Here's the the Feynman videos. He talks in terms of photons, but most of it applies equally to electrons. http://www.vega.org.uk/video/subseries/8

1. I didn't say anything about "proof of infinity". 2. I was referring to the "never get to the end" as a good definition of infinity. As you said that, I assume you admit that the decimal representation of pi has an infinite number of digits. So you agree that infinity exists. Please stop inventing things that you think other people believe. You are invariably wrong. You just make yourself look foolish.

As Galileo might have said: Eppure si rallenta

If you look at how the double slit experiment is done, to allow the "which slit" information to be obtained without destroying the photon they use entangled pairs of particles. So you have to figure out a way for the bow wave to be affected by the measurement of a remote photon - which might be so remote that it would require faster than light communication. (Which is impossible.) And then look at the quantum eraser, and the delayed choice quantum eraser versions of the experiment. These demonstrate that the non-locality that creates the interference pattern (by allowing the particle to go through both holes) is also non-locality in time. If you try and stick with a "mechanical" explanation of the experiment, then I think you have to imagine that your "bow waves" can also go back in time. (Which is really impossible.)

Including infinity? I thought everything existed. Everything except mathematics? This sort of sloppy argument is one of the reasons your pretentious, pseudo-philosophical posturing is so tedious. You clearly don't really know how to construct a logical argument so you just throw around words like "metaphysics" hoping it will make you look clever. That is a good definition of infinity. So it clearly does exist.

If it was an electron, it would not travel at the speed of light. And what is "speed of light frequency" anyway?

I assume the cladking response to that will be that no "real" oscillator has an infinite number of states. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/No_true_Scotsman

As "we" know so little, perhaps your belief that infinity doesn't exist in reality will turn out to be wrong. This sounds like another strawman. Can you provide any evidence that "most people" believe this? So, in summary: Cladking does not believe that infinity can exist in reality - but provides no evidence or rational argument for this. Nor any definition of "exist" or "reality". Cladking insists that everyone is wrong for mistaking their models for reality. But no one does this (except him). Cladking insists that everyone is wrong for thinking that infinity exists in reality because it appears in models. But no one does this (except him). Cladking insists that "we" know almost nothing (so this must include him). As there are simple examples where infinity could exist in reality (studiot's example, the universe could be infinite in extent, etc) it is clear that cladking's belief is purely an argument from incredulity (and, as he admits, ignorance) and can therefore be dismissed as unsupported and fallacious.

There was no question in that post. And, again, NO ONE IS CLAIMING THAT. Please stop the idiotic strawman arguments. You invent a stupid idea and then say "we" are wrong to believe it. This is irrational and/or grossly dishonest. And a little insulting.

I would say your understanding is correct, apart from: "This is then used as the basis for Quantum Theory." Quantum theory was developed manly on the basis of Planck's work on the black body spectrum and Einstein's work on the photoelectric effect. I think the results of the double slit experiment were predicted by theory before the experiment was first performed (but I could be wrong about that).

Dark matter is nothing to do with the expansion of the universe. There is no "wall".

Well, I think it is (part of) the reason why people might disagree about whether infinity exists in the real world or not. Because no one has defined what "exists" or "physical" or "real" means. So whether your continuum of states "physically exists" or not is the same question. (Which is why it is a really good example.) I can see the point that having a continuum of states means that there are ways in which infinity exists in nature. But I think others will say that that is not a "thing" which exists. Or it is not really infinite. Or ... (But let's see what the "finitists" come up with.)

It has an infinity of states available, but it will always be in a finite-valued state. So I'm not sure if that counts as a "physical realization of infinity" or not. (Those who claim that infinities cannot exist in nature will insist it isn't. )

I think that could be argued for the institutions of religion, but not for religion itself; the need (for some people) to believe in gods, or higher powers of some sort, seems innate.

How about this guy: http://gizmodo.com/this-candidate-for-president-claims-hes-traveled-throug-1773928996

Pretty much standard for "philosophy" on forums.

Sounds a lot like me (although I have managed not to acquire any formal qualifications despite completing several courses and doing very well in them).

This is one of the best non-technical explanations of this I have seen: https://profmattstrassler.com/articles-and-posts/particle-physics-basics/virtual-particles-what-are-they/ "The best way to approach this concept, I believe, is to forget you ever saw the word “particle” in the term. A virtual particle is not a particle at all."

No one else thinks that. So stop saying "we" when it is only you that believes such nonsense. No one is claiming any such thing. By constantly saying "we" and "us" you pretend you are characterising what others think. You are not. You are just making repeated strawman arguments. As you can see from the comments on this thread no one thinks that a model that returns infinity represents reality. I think you like to pretend that other people believe silly things like that so you can feel smugly superior. And then state the bleeding obvious as if it were some sort of insight. You shallow opinions are getting very tedious.

See post 6: And, of course, it is on the Wikipedia page you initially referenced. Please do not post anything else until you have calculated the position of the black hole for each star.

A similar analogy I thought of would the use of "bump mapping" in 3D graphics. This gives 2D surfaces a 3D appearance by modifying the surface normal at each point. This makes it look as if the height varies even though there is no deviation in that dimension.

Please show the details of your calculations that lead to this conclusion. Please provide references to all data sources used and the error bounds on your results. If you fail to do that, I will suggest the moderators close this thread and ban you as a time-wasting troll. Utter nonsense. Yes, it is quite old. Since then at least one other star has been observed to do a complete orbit. And more detailed estimates of the orbits have been made. No it isn't. Please stop making up nonsense. We do, indeed. So go and find out. Stop wasting our time with your ludicrous and ignorant guesswork.

No. If you read the referenced papers, instead of a summary on Wikipedia, you would see that all of stars were used to estimate the position of the black hole. For example: "Our main results are: all stellar orbits are fit extremely well by a single-point-mass potential to within the astrometric uncertainties" http://iopscience.iop.org/article/10.1088/0004-637X/692/2/1075 The significance of S2 is that it was the first star around the black hole to have its complete orbit observed. Please try and do a little bit of research instead making things up.