Infinity is a false value.

[Theifcom]

  To start I will say to explain as a start. Lets say you have a boss and he tells you to turn off and on a lamp an infinity amount of times for a hour. This is impossible . By lets say you divide the hour by 2 that means you turn it on a 30, then after that 45, than after that 52, than so on and so on. This is impossible to find the value of when the lamp is on or off.

  Now to explain why infinity is a false value. You see if we put a value in to anything with infinity there is a infant amount of outcomes but there is one thing that makes infinity a false value. Thanks to one man infinity is number that can never be used. Sir Isaac Newton. His law of matter that states that "matter can not be destroyed nor create," lets keep this is mind if nothing can be destroyed or created. So infinity is disproved as value by you can not created any matter so that means that nothing can be infant.

[Strange]

Infinity is not a value, so you are making a category error.

!

Moderator Note

Nothing to do with Relativity, so moved to Mathematics

 

[Theifcom]

5 hours ago, Strange said:

Infinity is not a value, so you are making a category error.

!

Moderator Note

Nothing to do with Relativity, so moved to Mathematics

 

Sorry new to this stuff.

[mathematic]

Don't confuse infinity, which is a math concept, with what is physically possible.

[Strange]

13 hours ago, Theifcom said:

Thanks to one man infinity is number that can never be used. Sir Isaac Newton. His law of matter that states that "matter can not be destroyed nor create," lets keep this is mind if nothing can be destroyed or created. So infinity is disproved as value by you can not created any matter so that means that nothing can be infant.

1. I think it was Lavoisier who first stated the law of conservation of mass, not Newton.

2. Since Einstein showed that mass and energy are equivalent, we know that the simple statement is not true (energy can be converted to matter and vice versa).

3. Even if it were true, I don't see why that means that nothing can be infinite. If the universe is (and always has been) infinite, then there is no need to create matter to have an infinite amount of it.

4. Mass-energy is not conserved on cosmological scales (because energy is dependent ton the frame of reference and there is no single frame of referencer the whole universe).

5. In fact, it appears that energy is created as the universe expands.

6. We cannot know if the universe is finite or infinite, but we know that infinity (infinities, in fact) exists in mathematics.

[Vishtasb]

On 6/30/2019 at 12:18 AM, Theifcom said:

infinity is number

infinity  is not a number or even a value! 

and i think there is no one can explain what "infinity" is. we just know how it behave. 

[Strange]

2 hours ago, Vishtasb said:

and i think there is no one can explain what "infinity" is. we just know how it behave. 

What it “is” is defined by its behaviour. Just like anything else in mathematics (such as the integers). 

[MotleyNoumenon]

On 7/3/2019 at 10:44 AM, Strange said:

What it “is” is defined by its behaviour. Just like anything else in mathematics (such as the integers). 

I would guess that this is "sort of weakly" formalised using model theory and categories.. Just curious.

However, back on topic: I agree with the others that there are definitional issues and the latter part makes no sense in the contexts that we are familiar with. Perhaps you could enlighten us on what kind of concepts you are talking about, and if they are not mathematical, i.e. defined within our framework, then i suppose this thread should really be in the philosophy section.

[Strange]

3 minutes ago, MotleyNoumenon said:

then i suppose this thread should really be in the philosophy section.

I pondered that initially. It wasn't (and still isn't) clear what the OP was discussing. Unless they come back and clarify, I'm just going to leave it here to die!

[geordief]

On 6/30/2019 at 10:10 PM, Strange said:

2. Since Einstein showed that mass and energy are equivalent, we know that the simple statement is not true (energy can be converted to matter and vice versa).

I am a little unclear about this.

 

If energy is (as I have learned) a property of things rather than a thing in its own right does it follow from your  statement that matter also is a property rather than a thing in its own right?

 

I am being too literalist (and OT)?

[Strange]

27 minutes ago, geordief said:

I am a little unclear about this.

 

If energy is (as I have learned) a property of things rather than a thing in its own right does it follow from your  statement that matter also is a property rather than a thing in its own right?

 

I am being too literalist (and OT)?

I would say that mass is a property, rather than a thing.

Mass is one of the properties of matter. The other main property of matter, I suppose, is that it occupies space (or has volume) which ultimately comes down to the fact that the particles that matter is made from are fermions and obey the Pauli exclusion principle!