Let’s take a point that is not in motion. It has an infinitely small diameter, but it also has a center. Let us put another static point to our point. As much as we try to put them next to each other, there will always be space between them, because their diameters are infinitely small. But what about their centers? They will stand at each other at an infinite distance, as this distance will be just as the diameter of one point. So the two points touch each other. What’s happening?

Two points, placed side by side, form a system in which the points are touched and they do not touch each other. Assuming they are touching, it means that their diameter will not be infinitely small. If we say that they do not touch that the distance between their centers is larger than the diameter of the one point – so they are not next to each other. From this experiment we get that it is physically impossible to put two static points next to each other.

Let “cut” a finite cube of ideal space made up of points. This cube will contain an infinite number of points. From our cube we can “cut” another smaller one, which will also contain an infinite number of points, and so on. All these points do not stand next to each other.

So how are the points in the cube arranged? We said above that we can not physically put them together. If we put them at a certain distance between their centers, it means they are not infinitely much and the cube we have taken will not be a cube made up of points. Therefore, we can not also distribute these points physically in a particular place. We can not form a structure between them.

Our cube is composed of infinitely many points that are at infinitely small distances between each other. The spacing between them is as much as the diameters of the points themselves – infinitely small. Then what is there among them? There are infinitely small distances that are endless in number. When we sum these distances form finite distances – which “outline” the cube.

What is among points is something like a “space ocean” with a variable density of its substance. It is everywhere among the points and the points are everywhere in it. This is also the field that supports the rotation of the points around their axis after their initial rotation. In our case, the “space ocean” and the points are in full sync and static.

Our cube is actually the abstract space. His first and most important feature is absolute sync and static. Are there any other features? Can a self-generated movement occur?

Let’s twist a point around its axis in the center of our cube. Then the rotating point becomes with a finite size. The density of the “space ocean” around the rotating point will increase. By reducing the distance to the rotating point, the density will increase. The points in the cube around the rotating point will thicken as they can not touch each other. Increasing the distance to the rotating point will cause the static point density to decrease. But the system in our cube will no longer be static but dynamic.

But let’s go back to our static cube – before turning the point in the middle. We have found that the points in it are neither touching nor distributed over a specific distance. They are distributed over an infinitely small distance, and among them is the “space ocean.” How can the point in the middle rotate? How can such a propulsion be triggered? By applying force – by another movement.

I will be very happy if anyone understands everything in this post.

I have a small problem with the basic premise. Is there anything smaller than an ‘infinitely small’ diameter?

What then is the distance from a centre of a point to it’s outer extremity (the radius). The diameter is equal to 2 x the radius. If D = 2r and D is infinitely small how can this be when clearly there is an even smaller distance that can be defined as r? Using r as the smallest possible diameter you then have an infinitely regressing definition and you can never find a point that is so small that the diameter cannot be reduced by at least a factor of 2 while the point has a centre. The point has to have zero dimensions if it is infinitely small, which is then a bigger problem because an infinite number of nothings is still nothing, not something?

LikeLiked by 1 person

First of all, thank you very much for reading my idea!

You are the first person who understands what I mean! I am serious.

Another point is that you do not agree with me, which is good thing. It makes me to think and rethink my theories.

Infinity is not an easy thing. Some of the greatest mathematicians who have tried to understand and explain it are hospitalized in psychiatric clinics. I suppose that there are many “kinds” of infinities. Infinitely small is “something” (not “nothing”).

Well, it sound odd, but I think that the “real” points, which are infinitely small, exists in our real 3-D space. Sure I don’t have physical proof for that.

Thanks again!

LikeLiked by 1 person

You are very welcome. I have been thinking on a similar topic, that’s probably why we ‘agree’ (with differences). 🙂 I was using geometry and ‘filling/defining’ 3D space with either spheres (dots) or cubes.

You can have infinitely small spheres partially ‘filling’ space or you can have infinitely small cubes exactly filling 3D space (no gaps – all touching on one face exactly one other cube to infinity)

26 cubes (26 letters in English alphabet) touch any single cube: 6 face to face, 12 side to side and 8 corner to corner. With the original cube that makes a total of 27 cubes within one cube of each other.

With spheres you can only have 6 adjoining spheres in 2D and 12 spheres in 3D ‘filling up the space (with ‘gaps’!) making a total of 13 within 1 sphere distance of any sphere.

The 27 cubes form a 3 axis grid, all axes perpendicular to each other (the x, y and z axes in geometry/algebraic terms) while the 12 spheres actually align in 4 axes, all at 70.7 degrees, not 90 degrees, to one another! These axes are really 2D planes (infinitely expanding circles from a central common origin) more than a 1D axis as in x,y and z.

Infinity can be a very tricky thing to visualise or deal with in the physical world.

If you think of a ball of which the surface is one unit away from the exact centre, if you halve it’s size the surface is now half a unit away from the centre. halve it again and you have a ball 1/4 the size. Keep on halving it and you will never have a ball with distance to the centre of 0, but it will be very very close.

WE know that the distance you ‘lose’ from the original unit to the centre is = 1/2+1/4+1/8+1/16….etc and that the ‘Limit’ of this sequence is 1 but you never actually get to the limit, so that the distance you ‘lose’ minus the original distance (1 unit) never = Zero!

(It is just infinitely close)

LikeLiked by 1 person

Can you give a link to your post where you have been thinking on a similar topic?

LikeLike