**I'm trying to decide if infinity can exist in more than one way. I've narrowed the possibilities to the following:**

**1) Infinity as defined in The Scientific Worldview -- there is no smallest particle or no largest particle. The universe is infinite in both directions. As a consequence of this assumption, there must be an infinite number of particles in the universe. This assumes infinity in smallest size, largest size, and in space.**

**2) A smallest particle exists; however, an infinite number of these smallest particles could fill an infinite universe. This assumes infinity in largest size and in space, but not in smallest size. Some proponents of standard particle theory believe this.**

**3) A smallest particle exists, and a largest collection of mass exists; however, the particles fill an infinite volume of space. This assumes infinity in space, but not in size.**

**Obviously, you agree with 1. My question is this.... Do you see logical flaws (contradictions) in the other two definitions of infinity?**

**Regards,**

**Steve**

Answer:

Numbers 2 and 3 have several logical flaws:

1. No smallest particle could exist. Such a “particle” would no longer be a “part” icle. It would not be a “part” of the universe. It could only be imagined. INFINITY assumes that every xyz portion of the universe can be infinitely subdivided, much in the way it is modeled in calculus. There can be no partless parts. A smallest particle would have to contain either empty space or solid matter, neither of which has ever been found. The existence of a smallest particle would remove the most essential part of the INFINITY assumption: the question begging. This is the most important element in the univironmental “definition” of matter: Matter is that which contains still other matter. Furthermore, without microcosmic infinity no evolution could occur. The fundamental “particles” or atoms of the atomists were filled with solid matter. Each was identical to all the others. Any variation would have meant that one atom had a “part” or portion that was different from the others. Thus it could not be considered fundamental (this is what happened when real atoms were found to have varying numbers of neutrons, protons, and electrons). A universe containing identical fundamental particles doesn’t evolve because the collisions of the particles only take on the ideal form envisioned in Newton’s laws of motion. There can be no internal absorption of matter or motion (see neomechanics in TSW) and the fundamental particles therefore remain the same forever. With infinite subdividability, however, each particle is unique, forming combinations with other unique particles upon convergence and the resulting exchange of matter and motion. There is no other way of constructing a universe.

2. Consupponible with microcosmic infinity is macrocosmic infinity, the combination of the two being the UD assumption of INFINITY. This likewise means that there can be no largest agglomeration of matter. Indeed, galaxies, galactic clusters, and superclusters are a necessarily partial confirmation of this assumption. Such a “hierarchal” universe is a logical consequence of INFINITY and our definition of matter. None of this is especially surprising when viewed in a practical sense from our position in the “middle” of it all: everything we know consists of other things and is part of still other things.

All of this is why I am so impressed with your “Unified Cycle Theory.” It clearly shows that the universe is interconnected at all scales, from what we can assume to be the infinitely small to the infinitely large.

## 2 comments:

Glenn, if the universe is infinite, how can the energy-density (whatever that is) be finite? What are your thoughts on finite energy-density.

Another good one…

Energy is a calculation. Specifically, E=mc2. Thus, for energy density to be infinite, mass would have to be infinite. Mass is the resistance of a portion of the universe (a microcosm) to impacts from the macrocosm. Practically and specifically, we measure mass by weighing a microcosm in a gravitational field. The gravitons in the field produce collisions described by F = ma = mg, where g is the gravitational constant. The force (F) needed to change the velocity of a mass (m) becomes increasingly large as mass or mass density increases. The macrocosm in any one place, however, has a limited capacity to provide the special microcosms (gravitons) able to do this job. This limited capacity is due to the fact that no two portions of the infinite universe are identical (RELATIVISM). At some point, the variations among individual gravitons become so great that they cease being gravitons—they become something else altogether. The same is true for any other microcosm. We can release some of the motion of the submicrocosms within a particular microcosm, as we do with atomic fission and fusion, but we cannot yet release the motion of subsubmicrocosms (e.g., the ether particles within the electron) to our benefit. Such a process would have to be described by an E=mv2 equation in which mass was defined, not by the graviton flux, but by still smaller supermicrocosms that hold the graviton and ether particles together. Most likely, we never will be able to release the motion of the submicrocosms within ether particles. Even if we did, there always would be some point beyond which the release of that motion would be impossible for us. Therefore, even though the theoretical density of matter in motion is infinite, it never would be possible to harvest more than a tiny fraction of the motion contained within an xyz portion of the universe.

Hello Glenn,

Based on what you wrote, wouldn't the following statement put the concept of energy-density into better perspective?

In an infinite universe (with infinite mass), the total energy-density is also infinite. However, for all practical purposes, we only measure energy-density in localized areas -- thus always producing localized, finite estimates of energy-density.

Regards,

Steve

I agree that in an infinite universe (with infinite mass), the energy-density is also infinite. However, we are only able to measure the energy-density applicable to a particular univironment, that is, a particular microcosm having particular submicrocosms within a particular macrocosm having particular supermicrocosms. This necessarily results in finite energy-density estimates. Developing tools to measure at a lower submicrocosmic level would yield increases in energy-density estimates, which likewise would be finite. Nevertheless, it would be impossible to measure an infinite number of sublevels that would yield an infinite energy-density estimate.

Post a Comment