Infinity

Approaching Infinity said:
So this is a 3d representation of something that would be better represented in 4 dimensions?
Right.
If we just take one half, we have a 2d circle.
No, we have one croissant.
Every 'point' on that circle extends in opposite directions, converging on a common point (every point on the circle 'touches' every other point). If we make that circle a sphere, then every 'point' on that sphere extends in opposite directions, also converging on a single point. Is that right? That sounds like what the Cs were saying about the nature of space. Travel long enough in one direction, and you end up where you began.
No. If you cut perpendicularly to the plane of the picture this round croissant, then you should get a circle. And you can make many such cuts (infinitely many of course). Now think of each of these circles being a sphere (you need fourth dimension to do it) and you get the real infinity.
I looked up Penrose diagrams on wiki, and it says that the x-axis is space and the y-axis is time. (This link shows a Penrose diagram of conformal infinity: _http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Penrose_diagram) So in Ark's diagram of infinity, do the 'circles' represent space and the conical projections represent time?
No. From the Penrose diagram in Wikipedia you can't really get any idea whatsoever how the infinity looks like. It is somewhat better in Penrose book "Road to infinity", but even from there you can't really get the idea. (I hardly can!).
 
Endymion said:
The idea of two infinities is a bit mind-boggling. I guess that the All is large enough for two infinities. Or is 'our' spacetime-containing infinity only relatively infinite?

Well, for us it is far away, at "infinity". For the light it is "just here".
 
I think the concluding remarks explain a lot:

Ark's paper said:
This paper has provided a mathematical analysis of algebraic and geometrical
aspects of the Minkowski space compactification. Some omissions, faulty
reasoning and lack of precision in the existing literature dealing with this
subject has been pointed out and analyzed in some detail.
In addition to the
standard compactification by adding a ”light cone and a 2-sphere at infinity”
also its double covering isomorphic to U(1) × SU(2) has been discussed. A
pictorial representation has been proposed and the corresponding ”Penrose
diagrams” have been derived. The role of the conformal inversion and the
representation of null geodesics has been touched upon as well. Applications
to flat conformal structures, including the normal Cartan connection and
conformal development has been discussed in some detail. In appendix A a
detailed discussion of the spaces of null lines in a general case of a pseudo–
Hermitian space Hp,q has been given. While this paper is pedagogically
aimed, with the hope of helping the students in understanding and relating
the various facets of the compactification, it contains also explicit formulas
and new results that are not found elsewhere.

In short, Penrose and Hawking were wrong.
 
Laura said:
I think the concluding remarks explain a lot:

Ark's paper said:
This paper has provided a mathematical analysis of algebraic and geometrical
aspects of the Minkowski space compactification. Some omissions, faulty
reasoning and lack of precision in the existing literature dealing with this
subject has been pointed out and analyzed in some detail.
In addition to the
standard compactification by adding a ”light cone and a 2-sphere at infinity”
also its double covering isomorphic to U(1) × SU(2) has been discussed. A
pictorial representation has been proposed and the corresponding ”Penrose
diagrams” have been derived. The role of the conformal inversion and the
representation of null geodesics has been touched upon as well. Applications
to flat conformal structures, including the normal Cartan connection and
conformal development has been discussed in some detail. In appendix A a
detailed discussion of the spaces of null lines in a general case of a pseudo–
Hermitian space Hp,q has been given. While this paper is pedagogically
aimed, with the hope of helping the students in understanding and relating
the various facets of the compactification, it contains also explicit formulas
and new results that are not found elsewhere.

In short, Penrose and Hawking were wrong.

So in other words, Ark is poised to turn the scientific field upside down?
 
ark said:
If we just take one half, we have a 2d circle.
No, we have one croissant.
Every 'point' on that circle extends in opposite directions, converging on a common point (every point on the circle 'touches' every other point). If we make that circle a sphere, then every 'point' on that sphere extends in opposite directions, also converging on a single point. Is that right? That sounds like what the Cs were saying about the nature of space. Travel long enough in one direction, and you end up where you began.
No. If you cut perpendicularly to the plane of the picture this round croissant, then you should get a circle. And you can make many such cuts (infinitely many of course). Now think of each of these circles being a sphere (you need fourth dimension to do it) and you get the real infinity.

So it's a hyper-croissant made up of infinite sphere cross sections. I don't quite understand it, but it sounds tasty!

"Be my daily croissant" and I will never go hungry...
 
ark said:
No. If you cut perpendicularly to the plane of the picture this round croissant, then you should get a circle. And you can make many such cuts (infinitely many of course). Now think of each of these circles being a sphere (you need fourth dimension to do it) and you get the real infinity.

What does one 'sphere' by itself represent?
 
EmeraldHope said:
So in other words, Ark is poised to turn the scientific field upside down?

He was writing very carefully. And he spent literally months going over and over and over this thing because he could hardly believe that Penrose was wrong. But, there it is.
 
Laura said:
EmeraldHope said:
So in other words, Ark is poised to turn the scientific field upside down?

He was writing very carefully. And he spent literally months going over and over and over this thing because he could hardly believe that Penrose was wrong. But, there it is.

I hope that will put him in line for a Noble prize in physics. :thup:
 
Vulcan59 said:
I hope that will put him in line for a Noble prize in physics. :thup:

Nope. It is not that important. What this paper, however, demonstrate is how easily experts in the field make mistakes because someone famous said something not very clearly, someone else misunderstood, and almost everybody else was too lazy to go through the tedious details and check.
 
Laura said:
And he spent literally months going over and over and over this thing because he could hardly believe that Penrose was wrong. But, there it is.
I do not think Penrose was wrong. He wrote several papers where he was dealing with this subject and they are not very clear. This is kind of his speciality. But other people, quoting Penrose, they were clear and they were evidently wrong.
 
ark said:
Nope. It is not that important. What this paper, however, demonstrate is how easily experts in the field make mistakes because someone famous said something not very clearly, someone else misunderstood, and almost everybody else was too lazy to go through the tedious details and check.

Sounds like exactly what happens in every sphere of activity on this planet. There may be a clear signal. The signal is 'heard' by someone unable to hear clearly. That person then passes it on, not as it was, but as they heard it. This continues, and, in the end, what is called the 'signal' does not resemble, at all, the original signal. Anything based on this 'signal' is askew from the start. This realm of confusion; upside down and inside out.
 
anart said:
Sounds like exactly what happens in every sphere of activity on this planet.

This can be understood in normal live, so to say. But in exact science? With the "robust peer-review procedures"? This is really spooky. Or so I think.
 
ark said:
anart said:
Sounds like exactly what happens in every sphere of activity on this planet.

This can be understood in normal live, so to say. But in exact science? With the "robust peer-review procedures"? This is really spooky. Or so I think.

Sort of pulls the rug out from under the idea of exact science, eh? It IS spooky!!!
 
kinda thinking out loud...when i stand in front of a mirror my reflection or my mind perceiving the reflection had to go through the processing of my physical eye function, and by doing so, creates what seems to be an opposite positioning, like for an example; when I use the mirror to put on a necklace that has a pearl clasp; it has a hook that requires one to slide into the clasp itself. I have the most difficult time doing this in front of a mirror. My movement had to readjust according to whether or not I'm using the mirror or not. You guys ever had similar experience? Well, this difficulty had me thinking and questioning; why is that so. It appears all other movements like up and down or moving side to side in large exposure is not difficult, but when it comes to minuscule movement of this type and have it reflected in the mirror it becomes difficult, or so it appears to me.

And than, there's this anomaly, I'm sure most of us have seen or heard about, where you take the right or left side of ones face image together, thereby producing a whole different appearance than the one one is familiar with.
Which than, leads me to think into the whole structure of the human body. Just looking at Ark's pictorial I imagine it can also be applied to the human body? Kinda like the famous painting of a man. I can't remember the name of it but i hoping you know which one I'm talking about. Which than, makes me ponder, the possibility that perhaps man himself might also be structured with this "doorway"...eg. Gurdieff's teaching of the magnetic center?

The more I think about this "doorway" the more I have the tendensity to lean towards possible macro to micro doorways(plural to singular or Visa Vera or maybe both simultaneously?) So, now the question for me, becomes how does one "doorway" effect change/s from or into a different doorway?

What if, 'technology' (anti-gravity?) is base on reflection/deflection much like a mirror, thereby producing somehow a slicing of or into a window or doorway?

This question than makes me think back into an experience I had. Now I can't prove my experience as an actual fact but for conversation sake, let's just say it's a possibility.

When I put myself into a semi-trance state of mind with determination and intent, I seem to be able to 'will' particular cloud (small ones) to dissipate. When my eyes start to see shadows around a particular cloud it signals that something is happening, in this case, the cloud gets smaller and smaller until my desire to eradicate it all occurs. Now one could say, it all occurs in my mind and not in actual physical reality. I took this into consideration, and so, I sort of put it into a test. I had my daughter try and do the same thing while I stood by as a witness and to my surprise, she was able to do the same thing. Of course, this testing is crude and no where near scientific, and the possibility of mass hypnoses & hypnotic suggestion explaining such an occurrence, I have to consider that fact. So my verdict is still undermined, but however and to my surprise, 'Elwood Babbitt in the book "Voices of Spirit by Charles H. Hapgood, mentions Elwood to have had such an experience.

And so, hows is it all related to Ark's post? Well, it occurs to me, and I kinda think, the aspect of/in "movement" might not be considered as well? Like this pictorial; is one side of infinity rotating differently than it's opposing counter part? if so, is there a pattern to these "movement/s" reflecting? & deflecting? effecting through the macro to micro of one infinity differ than another? and would it also bind into it's density as well?

I hope I didn't create to much noise on this thread but it is most interesting subject. My mind just keeps going and going... I just don't have the skill nor the energy to put it all done cohesively.

okiron
 
I found myself reading Ark's pdf, and as he said - its very
abstract to the layman. As I read it - I fell asleep in a mental
blackhole because there are just too many terms/concepts that
takes years of study, to recall, absorb, retain, and to understand
all of the mathematical terminology, symbols, rules, proofs and
so on. I recall how Laura felt about having to learn calculus at
the time the C's mentioned it to her, to study, and by now, I am pretty
sure with Ark's help, she has come a long ways forward? Kudos to Ark
for his attention to (the devil is in) the details!
 
Back
Top Bottom