Infinite sets' application to relativity in physics

[jaketodd]

Can I go ahead with my thoughts on this, or will my reasoning get shot down because it may qualify as a "personal theory"? My reasoning comprises how continuous spacetime is either impossible, or the necessity of infinite sets, and the Absolute Infinite.

Thanks,

Jake

 

[Dale]

Everything that we discuss on PF must come from the professional literature. So if your ideas are published in the peer reviewed professional literature then we can discuss them here. Just link to the proper journal reference so that everyone knows what is being discussed.

 

[jaketodd]

Everything that we discuss on PF must come from the professional literature. So if your ideas are published in the peer reviewed professional literature then we can discuss them here. Just link to the proper journal reference so that everyone knows what is being discussed.

Well, a lot of the ingredients to my conclusions are pretty basic, and wouldn't have a whole paper written about it. For instance, the fact that any number divided by infinity is undefined.

Please advise,

Jake

 

[fresh_42]

Well, a lot of the ingredients to my conclusions are pretty basic, and wouldn't have a whole paper written about it. For instance, the fact that any number divided by infinity is undefined.

Please advise,

Jake

Well, sometimes it's a thin line between a question or discussion and a personal theory. The former is allowed, the latter is not. For instance in your example "any number divided by infinity is undefined" is as itself an obvious truth. Division means multiplication with an inverse element, and infinity is nowhere near the elements of, e.g. the multiplicative group of a field. It doesn't belong there and is usually only used as an abbreviation of a more complex matter, and not always the same!

Another example is your thread title: "Infinite sets' application to relativity in physics"
Without further discussing it, because we do not allow it, the phrase either doesn't make any sense, as sets are no physical objects, or it is trivial, as almost entire physics deal with real or complex numbers, parameterizations with a continuous time variable, infinitely many transformations and so on and so on, all of which are infinite sets. I seriously doubt, no, I know, there is nothing of value in between these two points of view.

So chances are high, that you think about a very special construction which eventually isn't found neither in mathematical or physical textbooks nor in any scientific journal, which we require to be the case in order to be debatable on PF. The reason for it is, that we in general do not want to deal with people who found a way to cut an arbitrary angle in three equal parts by compass and ruler, or have a proof of the Goldbach conjecture or have found a GUT. It simply occurs far too rare to waste time on it. And if, they would certainly not end up on a public internet forum. I'm not saying, your theory belongs to this category. I cannot know. We just decided not to discuss such theories. There are already plenty of places on the internet, which cannot be taken serious. We want to be serious. Existing science is hard enough to fully understand, so we want to provide help for those, who try hard to get there. This leaves no room for questionable contents.

I'm sorry, if this is not what you expected us to be, but we learned that this is the better approach on the long run to foster real science.

 

[Dale]

Please advise

You have been advised.

 

[jaketodd]

So infinite sets couldn't, for example, be applicable to how many points there are in volumes of continuous spacetime? Or, they could, but discussing that here is forbidden?

 

[Dale]

Please see post two. Such things can certainly be discussed here under the condition described in post 2: all posts must be consistent with the professional scientific literature. I should mention that the professional literature includes standard textbooks as well as peer reviewed journals.