The concept of infinity

[Strange]

12 hours ago, ecstaticdancer said:

At least mine is falsifiable... just need someone to do the experiments.

What have you said that is falsifiable? What experiments are you proposing? What quantitative results do you expect?

[Phi for All]

12 hours ago, ecstaticdancer said:

All those theories are as speculative as mine!

This makes me think you have the wrong idea about what a theory is. Theory is as good as it gets when it comes to scientific explanations.

[ecstaticdancer]

On 5/9/2019 at 9:48 AM, Strange said:

What have you said that is falsifiable? What experiments are you proposing? What quantitative results do you expect?

You would have to watch my YouTube videos.

https://m.youtube.com/playlist?list=PLReMG9UJjkqyM8xyIoIaaK2eYCJsoPAhQ

 

On 5/9/2019 at 3:41 PM, Phi for All said:

This makes me think you have the wrong idea about what a theory is. Theory is as good as it gets when it comes to scientific explanations.

Yet String Theory goes by that name and is not falsifiable as far as I know. If it makes you feel better I will call it a conjecture.

[studiot]

11 minutes ago, ecstaticdancer said:

You would have to watch my YouTube videos.

https://m.youtube.com/playlist?list=PLReMG9UJjkqyM8xyIoIaaK2eYCJsoPAhQ

 

Yet String Theory goes by that name and is not falsifiable as far as I know. If it makes you feel better I will call it a conjecture.

 

A word of advice.

The mods here are very tolerant, but you are tweaking the noses of not one but two moderators

If you continue I predict your dance here will be very short.

[Phi for All]

8 minutes ago, studiot said:

The mods here are very tolerant, but you are tweaking the noses of not one but two moderators

I'm not sure why this would have more weight than comparing String theory with more mainstream theories in terms of speculation, or his own ideas with String theory. He can disagree with moderators all he wants as long as he's not breaking rules, but he's still going to be wrong about Sting theory being as speculative as his own idea.

[zapatos]

3 minutes ago, Phi for All said:

as long as he's not breaking rules

I think studiot was referring to ecstaticdancer sending us to his Youtube page instead of answering the question.

[Phi for All]

2 minutes ago, zapatos said:

I think studiot was referring to ecstaticdancer sending us to his Youtube page instead of answering the question.

You're probably right. It's hard to trust videos. I'm sure there's a lot of good information out there, but discussing videos on a forum like this is a real hassle. At least with the written word, you can scan for validity before committing to reading the whole paper, and you can quote specifically with great accuracy. And with videos, you never know if the whole point is science or to increase the number of hits for the channel.

[Strange]

1 hour ago, ecstaticdancer said:

You would have to watch my YouTube videos.

Video is pretty much the worst medium for presenting a scientific theory. Can't you describe it here (with, you know, words and math)?

[ecstaticdancer]

3 minutes ago, Strange said:

Video is pretty much the worst medium for presenting a scientific theory. Can't you describe it here (with, you know, words and math)?

Understand that. Have great difficulty composing a scientific paper, emotional blocks etc, if I do I shall present it here as a new topic.

That being said, the videos average about 10 minutes.

3 minutes ago, Strange said:

 

 

[Phi for All]

16 hours ago, ecstaticdancer said:

Have great difficulty composing a scientific paper, emotional blocks etc,

Like video, a scientific paper can be produced and edited until it conveys exactly what you want it to. There should be little emotional involvement, if any. 

16 hours ago, ecstaticdancer said:

That being said, the videos average about 10 minutes.

And I could take a look at a paper and tell in about 30 seconds if the writer knows what they're talking about.

[Strange]

On 5/10/2019 at 9:45 PM, ecstaticdancer said:

Understand that. Have great difficulty composing a scientific paper, emotional blocks etc, if I do I shall present it here as a new topic.

You don't need to write a scientific paper, just outline what the idea is.

On 5/10/2019 at 9:45 PM, ecstaticdancer said:

That being said, the videos average about 10 minutes

Apart from the fact that it would be much quicker to read the same information, watching videos is a major inconvenience for me, even on those rare occasions when they are worth it.

[ecstaticdancer]

On 5/11/2019 at 2:53 PM, Phi for All said:

And I could take a look at a paper and tell in about 30 seconds if the writer knows what they're talking about.

And I can tell when someone is lying before they open their mouth.

[StringJunky]

4 hours ago, ecstaticdancer said:

And I can tell when someone is lying before they open their mouth.

Ten minutes is too much of someone's life only to to find it wasn't worth that ten minutes. It's bad enough reading some of the stuff.

[Strange]

On 5/10/2019 at 7:56 PM, ecstaticdancer said:

You would have to watch my YouTube videos

I started watching the first one. After 5 minutes of irrelevant background (in which time, I could have read the textual version of every video) you assert, with no justification that the universe is a dimpled sphere "like a golf ball". This is contradicts current cosmology and has no theoretical or evidential basis.

I'm afraid I don't have the time or patience to sit through hours of this to try and find your falsifiable experiment. So why not just tell us what it is?

[Phi for All]

On 5/12/2019 at 7:30 AM, ecstaticdancer said:

And I can tell when someone is lying before they open their mouth.

What if they're just misinformed? Ignorant guesses aren't lies, they're just lacking information. 

I don't see the benefits of your superpower in this situation.

[StarKnight]

The way I see it is: infinity signifies something with no end, something so mind-boggling vast that if a mind were ever to truly comprehend the concept of infinity, they would instantly go insane. The human brain is simply not capable of understanding such immense proportions. Example: Think, really think about the value of Pi. No matter how many numbers after the decimal point you know, there is always one more. The farther you get into infinity, the more there is.

[Phi for All]

2 hours ago, StarKnight said:

The way I see it is: infinity signifies something with no end, something so mind-boggling vast that if a mind were ever to truly comprehend the concept of infinity, they would instantly go insane. The human brain is simply not capable of understanding such immense proportions. Example: Think, really think about the value of Pi. No matter how many numbers after the decimal point you know, there is always one more. The farther you get into infinity, the more there is.

I think "really think about" and "truly comprehend" are fallacious phrases (No True Scotsman). We can easily allow ourselves to be boggled by enormity in temporal or spatial relations, or we can grasp them at an accessible level. Imagine being in a spaceship that travels your entire lifetime, and you're immortal. 

[zapatos]

I comprehend infinity. I don't know why people think it is such a hard concept. And I'm only rarely accused of being insane.

[Strange]

4 hours ago, StarKnight said:

Think, really think about the value of Pi. No matter how many numbers after the decimal point you know, there is always one more.

But those extra digits become increasingly insignificant. So you will never need the value of pi to more than a dozen of so digits. And it is easy to imagine a number slightly larger than 3. So this doesn't;t really have anything to do with infinity.