Not infinitely close to zero, but infinitely below zero, a whole
universe in the other direction. Possible?

On May 6, 9:47*am, Rushtown wrote:
Not infinitely close to zero, but infinitely below zero, a whole
universe in the other direction. *Possible?

-------------------
physics is not just mathematics!!

i dont think (intuitivly) that there is even something
below the Planck scale !!

ATB
Y.Porat
----------------------

On May 5, 11:47*pm, Rushtown wrote:
Not infinitely close to zero, but infinitely below zero, a whole
universe in the other direction. *Possible?

Sure, about 14 billion years ago.

On May 5, 11:00*pm, "Y.Porat" wrote:
On May 6, 9:47*am, Rushtown wrote:

Not infinitely close to zero, but infinitely below zero, a whole
universe in the other direction. *Possible?

-------------------
physics is not * just *mathematics!!

i dont think (intuitivly) that there is even something
below the Planck scale !!

ATB
Y.Porat
----------------------

There is no negative infinity but there is infinitely close to zero.
It is defined as 1/infinity.

Duration is infinitely divisable. This is the time continuum.

Mitch Reamsch

On May 6, 2:47*am, Rushtown wrote:
Not infinitely close to zero, but infinitely below zero, a whole
universe in the other direction. *Possible?

Congratulations! You just discovered negative infinity, something the
rest of the mathematical world has been aware of for centuries.

On May 6, 8:32*pm, "Autymn D. C." wrote:
On May 5, 11:47*pm, Rushtown wrote:

Not infinitely close to zero, but infinitely below zero, a whole
universe in the other direction. *Possible?

Sure, about 14 billion years ago.

------------------
it depends on what is your zero point of time mesuring

and btw mind you
time is relative motion dependant
it is not 'nature s invention'

Y.Porat
--------------------

On May 7, 3:20*am, Igor wrote:
On May 6, 2:47*am, Rushtown wrote:

Not infinitely close to zero, but infinitely below zero, a whole
universe in the other direction. *Possible?

Congratulations! *You just discovered negative infinity, something the
rest of the mathematical world has been aware of for centuries.

----------
yet you still didnt discover that in our universe
thetre is no negative time and no 'reverse of time '

and you didnt discover that physics
does not laways overlap everything in mathematics

and that any physics formula or equation
has its limits of validation
therefore there is no' infinitely small 'mass( for instance )

keep well
Y.Porat
---------------

On May 6, 1:47*am, Rushtown wrote:
Not infinitely close to zero, but infinitely below zero, a whole
universe in the other direction. *Possible?


Yeah, it's possible. In fact, possible is the perfect word because
anything "sub-Planck scale" has a probabilistic existence.

Relative to us on our scale...these things have a very low probability
of existing, and so they are percieved and observed to not exist.

On May 7, 3:29*pm, Huang wrote:
On May 6, 1:47*am, Rushtown wrote:

Not infinitely close to zero, but infinitely below zero, a whole
universe in the other direction. *Possible?

Yeah, it's possible. In fact, possible is the perfect word because
anything "sub-Planck scale" has a probabilistic existence.

Relative to us on our scale...these things have a very low probability
of existing, and so they are percieved and observed to not exist.
----------------------
your botom line seems reasonable to me
one of my conclusions from that is
**that there **is** a smallest amout of energy
or mass!!
and not as used tothink by parrots
that ther is no smallest mass of energy limit
actually the Greeks of a few thousand years ago
already go it (ideologically )
because they were not
crackparroters .....as 'smart' as today ....

ATB
Y.Porat
-----------------------

ATB
Y.Porat
-------------------



ATB
Y.Porat
---------------------

On May 7, 6:28�am, "Y.Porat" wrote:
On May 7, 3:29�pm, Huang wrote: On May 6, wrote:

Not infinitely close to zero, but infinitely below zero, a whole
universe in the other direction. �Possible?

Yeah, it's possible. In fact, possible is the perfect word because
anything "sub-Planck scale" has a probabilistic existence.

Relative to us on our scale...these things have a very low probability
of existing, and so they are percieved and observed to not exist.

----------------------
�your botom line seems reasonable to me
one of my conclusions from that is
**that there **is** a smallest amout of energy
or mass!!
and not as used tothink by parrots
that ther is no smallest mass of energy limit
actually the �Greeks of a few thousand years ago
already go it (ideologically )
because they were not
crackparroters .....as 'smart' as today ....

I was thinking of a science fiction story I read where the protaganist
was able to travel to another universe, full of galaxies and planets,
that was smaller than an electron.

The story used some (probably pseudo-scientific) explanation that
"These equations can also be solved to show an infinite number of
points, that can be visited, as one gets smaller and smaller" or "The
process of getting smaller can go on infinitely".

Another question---if there is "nothing" smaller than the Planck
scale, what type "nothing" is it?
Is it that true "nothingingness" that consists of no time, no space,
no ideas, no laws of nature etc.?, or is it just empty space?