Infinity.

[socratus]

Does God So Love the Multiverse?
/ By Don N. Page . /

Monotheistic religions such as Judaism and Christianity affirm
that God loves all humans and created them in His image.
However, we have learned from Darwin that we were not created
separately from other life on earth. Some Christians opposed Darwinian
evolution because it undercut certain design arguments for the
existence of God. Today there is the growing idea that the fine-tuned
constants of physics might be explained by a multiverse with
very many different sets of constants of physics.
Some Christians oppose the multiverse for similarly undercutting other
design arguments for the existence of God. However, undercutting
one argument does not disprove its conclusion.
Here I argue that multiverse ideas, though not automatically
a solution to the problems of physics, deserve serious consideration
and are not in conflict with Christian theology as I see it.
Although this paper as a whole is {\it addressed} primarily
to Christians in cosmology and others interested in the relation
between the multiverse and theism, it should be of {\it interest}
to a wider audience.
Proper subsets of this paper are addressed to other Christians,
to other theists, to other cosmologists, to other scientists,
and to others interested in the multiverse and theism.

Does God So Love the Multiverse?
/ By Don N. Page . /
http://arxiv.org/abs/0801.0246
==========================.
#
And I ask: Does God So Love the Infinity ?
===============.
Best wishes.
Israel Sadovnik Socratus
=====================.

[Cerveny]

In case of a finite/limited real space we have two possibilities:
1. such space/"system" contains limited number of elements
2. such system contains unlimited number of elements
in such case mentioned elements must have had at least one nonzero property, so any part of space must have had infinite value of this property

In case of infinite real (not thought/mathematical) space we have to explore the question of its creation.
There are two possibilities:
1. such system lasts infinite long time - it means it was not be created
in this case is problem with "arrow" of the time / with second thermodynamic law
2. such space was created
in this case is problem with speed of its creation / with physical interpretation(sense) of its creation
=>
If something real exists it must be finite/limited and must contain limited number of elements

The unlimited number of space's parameters is a general philosophic/gnostic problem. In any case we simply cannot work (describe some system) with unlimited number of parameters.

[Cerveny]

And I ask: Does God So Love the Infinity ?
===============.
Best wishes.
Israel Sadovnik Socratus
=====================.[/quote]

My uncle used to say: "God cannot be everywhere and Devil never sleeps..."
Perhaps quantum principle expressed by speech of simple people :)

[Bernard]

Life is infinite, mathematics aside.

[socratus]

My question is: How did the idea of Multiverse arise?
My answer is:
It began in 1907 when Minkowski tried to understand
SRT and invented 4-D negative spacetime continuum
( some kind of multiverse ).
Nobody knows what Minkowski multiverse really is.
( you can see Minkowski multiverse in attachment)
#.
Poor young Einstein, reading Minkowski interpretation,
said that now he couldn’t understand his own theory.
Th. Kaluza agreed with Einstein and in 1921 tried
to explain SRT using 5D space- ( another kind of multiverse )
This theory was tested and found insufficient.
"Well", said physicists and mathematicians, -
" maybe 6D, 7D, 8D, 9D, 11D or 27D spaces will explain it".
And they had done it.
But………. But there is one problem.
To create new D space, they must add a new parameter.
Because it is impossible to create new D space without
a new parameter.
And they take this parameter arbitrarily
(it fixed according to they opinion, not by objective rules).
The physicist, R. Lipin explained this situation in such way:
"Give me three parameters and I can fit an elephant.
With four I can make him wiggle his trunk…"
To this Lipin’s opinion it is possible to add:
"with one more parameter the elephant will fly."
The mathematicians sell and we buy these theories.
Where are our brains? Where is the logic ?
#
If we don't know what 1+1 = 2
how can we know what 5+4 = 9 ?
And if we don't know what is 4-D negative Mincowski
multiverse how can we understand 11-D space
( string theory) and another kind of multiverse ?
=========.
Best wishes.
Israel Sadovnik. Socratus.
====…

[Cerveny]

The true physics ended with Einstein. The physics was conquered by mathematicians without any technical and physical sense after TR formulation. They put of questions “why?” and “how” and started hopeless, endless process of finding some infinities and nothings in the real world. Instead of wondering about the intertie, about the vacuum, about the superconductivity and mainly about the time (is it possible the time after the (local) point "now" already exists, as TR claims?) they are obscuring physics by very abstract mathematical (Platonic) ideas. Physics has become ugly, unreliable, distractive discipline.

It is necessary to stop ignore basic uncomfortable questions about physical space (vacuum), about inertia, about magnetic field, about the time...

[socratus]

The true physics ended with Einstein.
The physics was conquered by mathematicians without any technical and
physical sense after TR formulation. They put of questions “why?” and “how”
and started hopeless, endless process of finding some infinities and nothings
in the real world. Instead of wondering about the intertie, about the vacuum,
about the superconductivity and mainly about the time (is it possible the time
after the (local) point "now" already exists, as TR claims?) they are obscuring
physics by very abstract mathematical (Platonic) ideas.
Physics has become ugly, unreliable, distractive discipline.

It is necessary to stop ignore basic uncomfortable questions about
physical space (vacuum), about inertia, about magnetic field, about the time...

==.
‘ Since the mathematical physicists have taken over,
theoretical physics has gone to pot.’
/ Richard Feynman /
#
Mathematics may be defined as the subject where we never know
what we are talking about, nor whether what we are saying is true.
/ Bertrand Russell./
======== .
#
The Editor of the Australian magazine Cosmos asked,
‘ Is it time to call a spade a spade, and admit that theoretical
physics is heading down the wrong track? ‘
==.
It seems that you agree with them.

[Cerveny]

==.
‘ Since the mathematical physicists have taken over,
theoretical physics has gone to pot.’
/ Richard Feynman /
#
Mathematics may be defined as the subject where we never know
what we are talking about, nor whether what we are saying is true.
/ Bertrand Russell./
======== .
#
The Editor of the Australian magazine Cosmos asked,
‘ Is it time to call a spade a spade, and admit that theoretical
physics is heading down the wrong track? ‘
==.
It seems that you agree with them.

Certainly :)

Physics has been “killed“ by special theory of relativity, mainly by concept of time-space and Minkovski metrics. Following general theory of relativity added next odd stone to the ill physics’ mosaic by supposing the same antimatter’s gravitational behavior as “common” matter has.

Only Quantum mechanics that deals with thin phase border between the history and future brought the positive trend to physics. To be clear QM solves the interactions (measurements), the transition from eventuality to the reality, the transition from the future to the history, the gluing/growing new sediments of time…

[Bernard]

The question of what gravity is made of - .... is it even a physical force? That it affects physical matter is obvious. But s gravity representative of something outside of physics that bears upon the physical universe without having its origins within it- so too time and space? The lack of satisfying observation of black holes to date, and Einsteins prediction that they would not be observable, must by now have pointed out gravity as something hopelessly indefinable to us.

[Thundril]

The question of what gravity is made of -

What is a curve 'made of'? Or a triangulation?
One is an element of shape, the other an intellectual process defining a space. Neither of them has to be 'made of' anything. And neither does gravity.
.

[Cerveny]

The question of what gravity is made of - ....

Physical space (vacuum) has an elastic structure. Structural defects (elementary particles) cause deformation, strains that affect the other particle... The puzzle remains just the 4D regular structure of Universe on its growing surface - in 3D physical space (the time "now") - we are living in....

[Bernard]

Describing gravity as space then begs the question, what is space? Most of space lies unaccounted for... again, is what we do witness just the physical quality of something which is much more than physical in its totality! Is 4D, time, another element of that totality?

[socratus]

The question of what gravity is made of - ....
is it even a physical force?
That it affects physical matter is obvious.
But s gravity representative of something outside of physics
that bears upon the physical universe without having its origins within it-
so too time and space?
The lack of satisfying observation of black holes to date,
and Einsteins prediction that they would not be observable,
must by now have pointed out gravity as something hopelessly indefinable to us.

========.
The question of what gravity is made of - ....
Is equal to the questions:
What gives particles mass?
Where does the mass of the particle come from?
#
The physicists say that searching for the Higgs Boson –
- God particle - is needed vacuum
So, maybe, the vacuum gives mass to particles.
The cosmologist Rocky Kolb from University of Chicago wrote:
‘ Somehow, the energy is extracted from the vacuum and turned
into particles...Don't try it in your basement, but you can do it.’
So!
We try to understand ‘gravity’, ‘ Higgs Boson’, ‘dark mass / energy’
without know what vacuum is.
Do we have logic ?
==.

[Cerveny]

========.
The question of what gravity is made of - ....
Is equal to the questions:
What gives particles mass?
Where does the mass of the particle come from?
#
The physicists say that searching for the Higgs Boson –
- God particle - is needed vacuum
So, maybe, the vacuum gives mass to particles.
The cosmologist Rocky Kolb from University of Chicago wrote:
‘ Somehow, the energy is extracted from the vacuum and turned
into particles...Don't try it in your basement, but you can do it.’
So!
We try to understand ‘gravity’, ‘ Higgs Boson’, ‘dark mass / energy’
without know what vacuum is.
Do we have logic ?
==.

Searching of Higs Boson is an exhibition of helplessness, of frustration, of source wasting in physics. Yet, if something, that could be marked as Higgs boson appears (for a very, very short time) nothing will be changed for reasonable man. All big questions will remain and next controversial claiming will be added.

We are witnesses of lack of invention, lack of courage, lack of good sense, lack of management in physic. We need a new organization, committee, something as a representative, executive council of Physics. We need something as "case studies" concerning vacuum, concerning time after the "now", concerning QM... We need a really new "Emperor’s clothes"

PS: But mathematicians used to be very impractical people

[Cerveny]

There are no infinities in the real physical world. No singularities, no continuous physical medium, no continuous physical space, no continuous time... all infinities are only thought, only pure ideas...

http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/crux/ ... ng-physics
It has taken quite long time to find this :(
Follow "ultraviolet catastrophe" please:
viewtopic.php?f=12&t=9654&start=16