So why does the physics community simply not adopt it instead of wasting its time trying to unify General Relatively and Quantum Mechanics
Do you really think that there is a conspiracy here as you have suggested in the past or could you simply be overlooking any flaws in RM : AO
Remember that there is no such thing as a perfect theory in science
Bets are force by intimidation in intellectual pursuits.
I can’t see the difference in people are shoving in line and causing a force or if a force of gravity is pulling them down. I don’t see a necessary distinction. It seems like you’re using particles to cause forces if I am understanding you properly. And particles are things that enforce their space accordingly, which causes the force.
I definitely understand your objection to forces. No need to explain further. They are mysterious and I can’t claim I understand them.
I don’t buy dark matter.
If we had an infinitely large box, nothing could fit inside because there would be no coordinates for it. The box would have no center and no edge, so it’s like saying the box is infinitely small or as if it doesn’t exist at all.
If we had infinite memory, we couldn’t remember anything because we would have no addressing capability.
If you stumbled upon a line that is infinitely long, where would you define the center and how would you find it again? It would have no end, no middle, and no use for anything.
Infinitely and zero are tied together because the only thing there can be an infinite amount of is nothing.
Infinity is a construct of imagination, like math, and doesn’t exist in reality. By definition, it will always be one-bigger than anything that exists until it leaves the realm of existence. It’s fantasy by definition.
So saying particles can be infinitely divisible leaves no room for existence on any finite level because there will be no distinction between this level or that level. Why do we exist on this particular level when there are an infinity of smaller particles beneath us? And if we did, by virtue of infinity, then we necessarily exist infinitely-many times on infinitely-many smaller scales.
And if there are an infinity of particles beneath us, then it seems the line would not end with us and there would still be an infinite amount of larger particles above us, so why are we in the middle and how could anyone define a middle? How can we be the end of an infinite chain? That seems a self-defeating statement.
As soon as anyone proposes infinity to explain existence, they would seem to be shooting themselves in the foot because infinity definitely implies non-existence due to lack of distinction from one bit of existence and another. Infinite spaces, timelines, whatever, cannot have coordinates because there is no edge or middle.
An infinitely long line would not actually exist in a finite universe so it would be impossible to stumble upon one
The universe could extend infinitely into the past but it would still not be a long enough distance for such a line
The only place where infinity can definitely be found is in mathematics where physical limitations do not apply
Because the real number line extends to infinity in both directions and has zero placed at the absolute centre
Exactly right. Now, if lines are defined, as in traditional geometry, as being un-ending, then how could they exist in the universe? Therefore straight lines must be curves or else they would terminate. My theory is the universe is so incredibly vast that no curvature could ever be detected, but it would have to be curved, nonetheless, just to make sense.
It can’t extend infinitely into the past for the same reasons as there can’t be infinitely long lines: there would be no distinction of one moment from another: there would be no beginning, no center, and no end.
Imagine a line of progressively bigger particles extending to infinity in both directions. Where are we in that line? Which particle is the size you think we ought to be? Which set of the infinitude of particles is the size of your chosen particle relative to? There is no way to pick. There is no distinction and no reason for you to pick one particle over another since they are all relevant to the same infinite set. It’s like asking which number is closer to infinity: 1 or 1000000000? They are both equally close and no number has any distinction from any other number relative to the infinite set.
Correct.
The real number line is finite or it wouldn’t have a center. It’s like asking where the center of the circumference of a circle is; there is no reason to pick one place over another. Any place can be the center and any point of reference is equally valid.
Folks like to use infinity to explain things because it has an inherent mystical allure because so few really understand what it means. People say “As finite beings, we can’t understand infinity, therefore what I say is true.” Hogwash… we invented it. It may take a great deal of pondering, but it can be understood.
What I mean by an infinitely long line is one that would extend to infinity in both directions not just one
The set of reals is infinite as they go on for ever so the real number line is infinite
Zero is the only non negative non positive integer any where on the real number line
Every integer to the left of it is negative and every integer to the right of it is positive
This makes it totally unique and it is why it is in the very centre of the real number line
The real number line is horizontal so cannot be compared to the circumference of a circle
Haha 
I never even thought about the word “afflated” (partly because it is obsolete). My “afflate” (not “afflated”) refers to;
Afflate == Affectance Oblate, a ruffly spherically shaped portion of affectance. A typical light photon is an example of an extremely large afflate. The afflates that I use are hundreds of times smaller than an electron (which is itself vastly smaller than a light photon).
An afflate is not a physically discrete thing to itself. An afflate (in this usage) is somewhat like a handful of a cloud in the sky that you are focused on in order to watch or perhaps like a drop of water in an ocean. Neither the cloud nor the ocean is sliced like a pie. A slice of pie isn’t a slice until it is actually sliced away from the whole. Afflates are merely used for program emulation purposes, “virtual photons” of affectance. The universe has no actual afflates despite its people being afflated. 
You keep trying to jump into the middle and claiming the nonsense of the storyline. I could also explain that actually nothing is “moving” in the sense that you believe.
What is actually happening is that at every point in space, the potential-to-affect, PtA (aka “electric potential”) is being increased or decreased in a propagating succession. The only thing that moves is the peaks and valleys, like ocean waves swelling up and down. The water molecules in a water wave are seldom moving to the sides. A “propagating affect” is merely a wave or pulse raising or lowering each successive PtA point in space. The only thing moving is the peaks and valleys.
And that is even true with mass particles. The center of the particle reforms slightly offset from where it was as all of the PtA peaks and valleys shift about getting reformed. There is nothing pulling or pushing. There is no lateral motion of anything other than the wave and pulse peaks as they reform throughout the noise.
And that, I call a migration, not at all a force. And certainly not a force from a mass millions of miles away.
Yes, but as I said, you are trying to guess at what to believe from the middle of the story. You need a little background.
You could say that nothing could fit outside of it, but “inside”?? Why do you need coordinates to fit something inside a box? Are you inside the Milky Way? How did you get there without coordinates?
You are BORN “inside” the infinite box. You know not where. And if you are sane, you have no need to care. What makes you think that there must be a center??? 
That is true.
But that is nonsense. How did you get infinitely small out of infinitely large?
Again … what is wrong with “starting” from where you are? It seems a bit silly to me to say that because I don’t know where the beginning of the road is, I have no idea what I saw along the way. If you can’t remember your birth, can you not remember anything of your life? It seems like a silly proposition. You don’t have to know anything about the ends, including whether they even exist.
Really?
So if you are walking across a dessert and stumble across a highway, you would have no use for it at all? You wouldn’t know where the center point was. You might have no idea to or from where it leads. But hell, marking it would seem pretty easy. You can pee, can’t you?
Quite the opposite. Absolute nothingness is absolutely impossible (which is why the universe has no option but to be infinitely large - there cannot be nothingness out side of it).
Again, you are guessing from stepping in the middle. And in this case, guessing quite wrongly.
You obtain a finite by dividing an infinite by an infinite. If there are an infinite number of points along a line and you traverse an infinity of them, you have traveled a finite distance. The universe has an infinite past. It got to where it is because it has been proceeding for an infinite amount of time.
Yep, an infinitely long line in one direction is like a circle that doesn’t connect lol
Yes but ocean waves are caused by the force of the wave; the water doesn’t cause the wave.
So the PA results in the illusion of force?
Your animations remind me of a drop of water flowing into a larger drop by a kind of capillary action specific to liquids composed of molecules. What evidence is there that the effect would occur on such smaller particles?
Ok, fill me in.
There can be no ‘here’ without ‘there’. I’m inside the milky way because the galaxy is finite and I have a distinctive reference point. Infinite volumes do not have one point distinctive from another leaving no space to exist in. “Infinite volume” is an oxymoron. All volumes must be finite.
If there is no center, then there is no point distinctive from any other point.
Neither has an edge or center or any distinct points. The only thing there can be infinite amount of is nothing, so an infinite amount of nothing is equal to an infinitesimal amount of nothing.
If the ends do not exist, then there is nothing distinctive about my current location. Since there is something distinctive about my location, then the ends must exist. I exist only because I have previously not existed. Existence has no meaning without the contrasting background of nonexistence.
Highways are finite. Show me an infinite one and I’ll show you one that has no use. Highways have milemarkers designating where we are. On an infinite highway we’d always be infinitely far from the end no matter how far we drive.
Well, ‘nothing’ has no meaning without ‘something’. There is an infinite amount of nothing surrounding the finite universe of ‘somethings’. Something and nothing are codependent originations; neither can exist without the other. The universe must exist as some sort of hyperspace where there is no edge and no such thing as straight lines because if there is an edge, then the universe must exist inside of something and it wouldn’t be the universe but a smaller section of a larger universe. Clearly, outside the universe is nothing and infinite amounts of it. We can have all the infinities of zero that we wish.
How do you know I am wrong?
Saying a ruler can be divided an infinite number of times is a construct of imagination. It does not exist in reality.
It’s like saying a hypotenuse is equal to the sum of the two sides because the hypotenuse can be said to be an infinite progression of decreasing orthogonal steps until the steps are not perceptible. That’s not realistic.
It could not have had an infinite past because the steps that led to this moment would have occurred infinite numbers of times and no moment would have any distinction from any other moment in time. If time were infinite, there could be no time… for the same reason there can be no infinite volume or infinite lines or infinite anything except nothing.
Only because we say so. It’s a construct. In reality no such thing could exist.
Yes and all numbers add to zero. 1-1+2-2+3-3… = 0 Therefore 0 is the largest number?
Interesting video:
[youtube]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=emlcwyvnsg0[/youtube]
Only because the line is not really infinite, but finite on a piece of paper while asking the reader to “imagine” it goes to infinity. Most folks simply draw the line out longer and disregard further inspection into what that actually means. Once you take in the totality of an infinite line, all points of origin lose significance. There is no such thing as a center of an unending line. It’s an oxymoron.
Wedding rings symbolize eternity because they have no end. Useful comparisons can be made.
Btw, I appreciate everyone challenging me on the infinity concept. I am not frustrated or bothered and actually welcome more of it. The best way to solidify the truth and eliminate rubbish is to endure the fire of inspection.
Not a problem.
But that seems to be totally senseless. How can you justify that claim?
You seem to be saying that throughout history, no one has ever been able to utilize space or territory because they have never known where the center of the universe was. Its just silly. Please justify.
And realize that even those claiming the Big Bang and the expanding universe do not claim that there is any center. Those theories are mostly double talk, but no one that I know with any credentials claims a center to the universe even when they claim it to be finite. If it is finite, then yes, there must be an approximate center. There is no way around that. So where is the center?
Again, how do you justify “no distinct points” from the idea that there are no edges???
It has nothing to do with knowing the center, as in being conscious of it, but more to do with a center not being possible. And if the center is not possible to define, then NO point is possible to define.
Yes, the big bang people say there is no center, which makes no sense to me. For that reason, I’m not clear on their logic but it has something to do with “inflation” and they use the analogy of a loaf of bread to explain it. Regardless, it would still seem to have a center. Alan Guth originated the inflation idea and he’s no dummy, but claims no center. I don’t get it.
“He is currently serving as Victor Weisskopf Professor of Physics at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology. Along with Alexei Starobinsky and Andrei Linde, he won the 2014 Kavli Prize “for pioneering the theory of cosmic inflation.”[1]” en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alan_Guth
A line with no ends has no center. It’s an oxymoron. So how does any other point exist with distinction if a center is fundamentally impossible? If a center is impossible, how is any distinctive point possible? If you can’t say where a center is, then how can you say where any other point is? The center should be the easiest point to find, yet it’s impossible.
You’re saying that any arbitrary point on an infinite line can be a starting point and every other point can be relative to that point. I understand what you’re saying, but you have to realize what you are doing is “imagining” it works that way. You’re starting with a finite line, defining a point and other points relative to that one, then drawing the lines out very far in your mind and asking what is wrong with that picture. Well, it’s incomplete. If you can still picture a center to your line, then what you’re seeing doesn’t reflect infinity. This is the part where they say “finite minds cannot grasp infinity” because they really can’t. What you have to do is work with what you know to be true about infinity and that is no point has any distinction from any other point just like 1 and 10000000 are equally close to infinity. It’s hard for us to grasp that idea too, but it’s defined to be true and not observed.
Do you accept that no volume can be infinite? If you do, then what is different about a line? A volume can’t be infinite because there is no edge. If you have a bowl of water with no edge, then you don’t have a bowl of water. An infinite volume would contain the whole universe and then keep going until it became ubiquitous, at that point it loses meaning due to lack of contrasting background of nonexistence. A singularity of a codependent pair cannot exist in a ubiquitous form. It would be yang consuming yin. Infinity is so big that it grew itself out of existence, but that’s the very definition we gave it; infinity is one-bigger than anything that exists.
The same can be said of time… if time were infinite, it would extend out of existence because there would be no “not-time”. If there is no not-time, then there is nothing for a point in time to be relative to just like in the case of volume being relative to not-volume. If there is no not-volume, then there is no volume.
Let’s say, for sake of argument, that the big bang happened and all of our time is relative to that starting point. That was the point that started our evolution and then history as we know it unfolded until this moment right now. So then our existence is dependent on all of that time happening. Now remove the big bang and imagine time stretching back to infinity. Where in that timeline will you place the 14 billion years of time that we depend on to exist? You can’t put it at the beginning because there wasn’t one. You can’t put it in the middle because there isn’t any. You can’t put it in the first quarter or last quarter because there aren’t any quarters. Where will you put it and why? All you can say is an arbitrary point because one point has no distinction from any other point. But arbitrary points make no sense because there must have been a cause for the beginning of the 14 billion years. So it must be placed at the causal point, but where it is? And which of the infinite amount of them will you pick?
Nietzsche was smart enough to see the eternal recurrence but apparently wasn’t smart enough to see the absurdity of it… as if we’ve had this conversation infinitely many times before and are destined for an infinity to come.
From wiki:
[i]Nietzsche scholar Walter Kaufmann has described an argument originally put forward by Georg Simmel, which rebuts the claim that a finite number of states must repeat within an infinite amount of time:
Even if there were exceedingly few things in a finite space in an infinite time, they would not have to repeat in the same configurations. Suppose there were three wheels of equal size, rotating on the same axis, one point marked on the circumference of each wheel, and these three points lined up in one straight line. If the second wheel rotated twice as fast as the first, and if the speed of the third wheel was 1/π of the speed of the first, the initial line-up would never recur.[24][/i] en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eternal_r … g_argument
So if PI = 3, then the pattern repeats on the 6th rev of the 2nd wheel. That would correspond to 3 revs of the 1st wheel and 1 rev of the 3rd wheel. 3, 6, 1.
If PI = 3.14, then the pattern repeats on the 314th rev. 157, 314, 50
If PI = 3.142, then the pattern repeats on the 3142nd rev. 1571, 3142, 500
You see how it works? So the only reason it can’t repeat is the fact that PI can’t be quantified and therefore we could never tune the wheel to the proper speed. In other words, it can’t exist in reality, but only on paper. So we’re back to the infinite recurrence. And if an infinite number of explanations won’t convince you, I can’t imagine what will lol ← Joke 
I’ve been mulling this over for a long time and it’s not easy to articulate, but I’ll keep trying as you keep hitting me with questions.
Here is an article that may help theorangeduck.com/page/infinity-doesnt-exist
The largest number is the largest number you pick to write down.
This page does a good job of explaining that under the heading of “The Biggest Number” theorangeduck.com/page/infinity-doesnt-exist
Endless lines can’t have centers even if you start in the center and go each way to infinity. Mind boggling, but it’s true! Endless lines can’t have centers. So if you start in the center, then it can only mean that the center has ceased to be the center once you hit infinity. Therefore, it’s also true that every other point loses significant once you hit infinity… it all becomes meaningless.
Isn’t a circle with an infinite diameter a straight line?
So the curvature = 1/r = 0
It is commonly believed that the first examples of wedding rings were found in ancient Egypt. Relics dating to 6,000 years ago, including papyrus scrolls, are evidence of the exchange of braided rings of hemp or reeds between spouses. Ancient Egypt considered the circle to be a symbol of eternity, and the ring served to signify the perpetual love of the spouses. This was also the origin of the custom of wearing the wedding ring on the ring finger of the left hand, because the ancient Egyptians believed that this finger enclosed a special vein that was connected directly to the heart,[5] denominated in Latin the “Vena amoris”. en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wedding_ring#History
You seem to be insisting that the only way for a location to exist at all is in reference to an end point. With that theory, yes, if there is no end, there could be no locations. But where did that theory come from?
Regardless of the length of line upon which you stand, there is a left and a right. It wouldn’t matter whether the line was finite or infinite. The left from you and the right from you would be the same. That has nothing at all … nothing whatsoever, to do with the line having a center or end locations.
No. I do not. For a volume to be infinite, at least one of the dimensions would have to be infinite, but not all of them. An infinitely long cylinder would have an infinite volume.
Do you accept that there is a left and a right from you to any line you are standing on regardless of the length of the line?
All that you are saying is that an infinite volume could not be distinguished from any other infinite volume. But even that isn’t true. As stated above, there can be an infinite cylinder 1 inch wide and another 4 inches wide. They are separate entities. Your prior claim was that one could not know where the center of the cylinders is, but that has nothing to do with them being distinct from each other.
You seem to be suggesting that because you cannot imagine an infinite thing, no such thing can exist. The limits of your personal imagination determine reality?? I don’t think that you believe that, but that is what you seem to be implying.
If you do not believe that, then again explain to me why one cannot have, even though not totally envision, a line that starts just to his left, proceeds under his feet and continues to his left out of sight? And then being out of sight, he can guess that perhaps no matter how far he travels along that line from where he was, he will still have more of the line continuing toward his former left. Why is that impossible? How is it illogical?
That is not the definition of “infinite”. Infinite merely means “endless”.
No. Again, you are merely pointing out that time would not be able to be distinguished as a separate entity because there could be no separation. Who ever said that had to be a separation??
Not at all. You are still demanding that any location, whether along a line or through time, be referenced ONLY FROM a BEGINNING or END location. On a line, you already have a more-right and more-left. And in time, you already have a before and after. There need not necessarily be a beginning or end for either. So your logical argument cannot be dependent upon the connection between end locations and other locations.
Whether the lines are infinite has nothing to do with right or left, nor before or after. If there is a connection from the notion of right and left to the notion beginning and end, please spell it out step by step because you are repeating a non-sequitur, a logic fallacy.
I really couldn’t care less about prior attempts by philosophers. What you can or cannot understand right now is all that matters.
I can’t discuss and find agreement with people who have written articles, only with people who can communicate.
The way that I am seeing this right now is that you are affixed to a logical fallacy, specifically the non-sequitur; “if a point cannot be referenced from an end, it cannot exist”. For this to be resolved, you must fill the gap between those concerns of having end points and having any other points. That is the only resolve. And I do not believe that you can fill that gap, but I will keep listening for anything new to help fill it in.
It’s not a theory, but one aspect of the multi-faceted effort to explain the “theory” that infinity doesn’t exist. Obviously, it’s not going to be easy since the debate has been raging for centuries and to think I’m going to clear it up in a few posts is fairly ambitious.
An infinite line cannot have a center. So If you start in the center and draw lines both ways to infinity, then it can only mean that the center has ceased to be the center once you hit infinity. Therefore, it’s also true that every other point loses significance upon attaining infinity because every other point was referenced from where you began, in the center… therefore it all becomes meaningless.
You’re a computer guy… if you had an infinite memory stick, how would you address the memory? How would you tell the machine where to look?
If I had a finite stick, I would tell the machine to start at one end and work towards the other, but how would you handle an infinite stick? Because I have no idea how. There is no beginning or end and if you pick an arbitrary starting point, how will you tell the computer how to find it? Would you tell the computer to stab in the dark? “Attention computer! Find location at random for this information. Ok computer, please retrieve information stored in random location.” What are the odds of making that work? 1 out of infinity??? Without a reference point, there is no meaning to any location.
In that way, infinite memory is no memory. It’s like a unified duality where 2 codependent pairs unify into one entity. To actually have memory, you’d have to split the unity into a memory and no-memory duality by choosing a finite size. So to extrapolate that idea onto time, we could say that infinite time is the unification of time and no-time. In order to realize time, the singularity would have to be split into the duality of time and no-time by making time finite. The same applies to space.
So it has no bottom or top, therefore it’s not a volume. It’s not even an area.
They aren’t distinct because neither one exists. See answer above.
It’s not because of the fact that I can’t imagine what an infinite line looks like, but because I know what the properties of an infinite line would be. For instance I know that an infinite line cannot have a center. I know that L/2 = L. I know there is no evidence in reality to suggest infinity exists and quite a lot that suggests it doesn’t.
What’s the difference?
You’re arguing against duality? How could time exist if there was never a time without time? Time only has meaning if it has a beginning and an end.
A photon experiences no time or space as if the origin and destination were the in the same location, but if it had to cross an infinite amount of space, it could never arrive at the destination, so would the photon experience infinite time?
Therefore infinite spaces are not part of this universe. In the reference frame of the light that left the farthest galaxy this morning, it has already arrived instantly to earth even though it has 13 billion years to go to in our reference frame. In order to travel an infinite distance, it would have to arrive the moment it left which is impossible over an infinite distance.
Alright then. Let’s suppose you want to reference that point to this point. Now what is that point referenced to? Ultimately, you’re going to need a beginning and end unless you can circular-reference.
That’s sensible. Mainly I was looking for an opportunity to chuck that bit in there about the wheels since I went to the trouble of disproving it. It wasn’t meant to be an appeal to authority argument.
Anyway, don’t you think it’s a little ridiculous that we’ve had this conversation an infinite number of times already? How would something so silly even come about? Surely an infinite series of causality would have to, itself, have a cause. What caused the series of endless groundhog days? Is it a loop, like a broken record? If so, where did the loop come from? None of it makes sense to me and I can’t believe Nietzsche didn’t see it… or maybe he did when he called it “horrifying and paralyzing”. My guess is that if one is determined to find away around a god, you gotta do what you gotta do even if it’s horrifying and paralyzing. I don’t see how else to see it.
Then he says “The law of conservation of energy demands eternal recurrence." Ok, so there is a totality of energy recycling itself eternally. So where did that come from? Shit-loads of energy lying around in the middle of nothingness doing its thing making universes over and over eternally and that never made him wonder “wtf”?
I’m just trying to help you understand and that article may be of use towards that end.
There are a number of items mentioned to which I could respond, but I would like to narrow the discussion a bit so as to possibly make progress.
You responded to what I said as if hypnotized. I made a relevant statement and thinking that you might miss it, I repeated twice more throughout the post. And one of those times, I even bolded it as a question to you. And yet you totally ignored it in your response. That is odd behavior for which I can only think of 3 reasons, none particularly good. So I’m not going to get into the other details until we resolve what is going on here. I asked the following question:
Can you repeat the question back to me and give an answer? It is a yes or no question.
I do not believe you are interested in making progress; you are only interested in winning, which is transparent, or else you’d seize any opportunity to learn by reading articles I post and thanking me for the insight rather than reaming me and further chastising me for not jumping through your hoops.
I’ll answer your questions, but I’m not going to argue with you. I have no interest in making you believe anything. I realize you have years invested into your project and if it hinges on infinity existing, then go ahead and delude yourself into happiness. Don’t let me interfere.
Ad homs indicate you’re looking for a way out and have no intention of acknowledging my points. “Slander is the tool of the loser.”
Sure, if I’m standing at point 4 of a line of length 5, then there is a left and right. So what? Meaningless. To the left is 4 and to the right is 1. Or are you saying there are infinite centers on an infinite line? So what? Then there is no center. There is also an up and down off of the line. So what? Why would you even need to ask if I accept such an obvious thing? Do you accept that the sky is blue? Just silly.
You’ve glossed over oodles of good points I’ve made and focused on a hoop I failed to jump through. No different than FC latching onto a grammatical error to dismiss the underlying assertion. Underhanded tactics.
Your unjustified hyper-defensiveness has become very telling. There was no slander. When asked, I answered your questions. In good faith, I should expect for you to answer mine.
The “so what” is that the foundation of your argument has been that there is no distinction between any points unless the line is finite in length. And yet, it is clear that on the line, the point at your right foot and the point at your left foot are distinct from each other. And of course the entire rest of the line for as far as can be experienced will have similar distinctions between all points … regardless of any length issues.
Doesn’t that dismiss the notion that a line has no distinct points unless it has a finite length?