Search All of the Math Forum:

Views expressed in these public forums are not endorsed by NCTM or The Math Forum.

Notice: We are no longer accepting new posts, but the forums will continue to be readable.

Topic: +TRUE CORRECT MATH NEEDED by Physics in order to do the Table of
Elementary Physics Particles //page37-9

Replies: 0

 plutonium.archimedes@gmail.com Posts: 18,572 Registered: 3/31/08
+TRUE CORRECT MATH NEEDED by Physics in order to do the Table of
Elementary Physics Particles //page37-9

Posted: Nov 27, 2017 11:53 PM

Newsgroups: sci.physics
Date: Mon, 27 Nov 2017 17:50:52 -0800 (PST)

Subject: 1)TRUE CORRECT MATH NEEDED by Physics in order to do the Table of
Elementary Physics Particles //page37
From: Archimedes Plutonium <plutonium....@gmail.com>
Injection-Date: Tue, 28 Nov 2017 01:50:53 +0000

Alright, I need new true mathematics to solve the Table of Elementary Particles. What I am doing is similar to Mendeleev solving the Periodic Table of Chemical Elements, only I am doing it on the Elementary particles of physics.

Now, Old Physics had a really stupid and obnoxious application of a math rule, something they dreamed up from the gutter of their minds-- the threefold way in the silly Quark theory-- just obnoxious crank math, that went nowhere, achieved nothing, and sent thousands of would be physicists into a gutter of cranberry. I wanted to add that information so to warn the reader, that to solve the Elementary Particles of Physics, requires some NEW MATH, for the math at present current useage in physics is mostly wrong math, and to solve the Problem, I need CORRECT MATH.

Now there was something great in the math of the Periodic Table of Chemical Elements discovery of the 1860s, a math rule that is true, and not the pathetic ignorant threefold way. It is called the Octave Rule, and also in Quantum Mechanics the octet rule. It emphasizes the geometry structure of a octagon and is Extremely important in solving the Periodic Table of Elementary Particles, for once you notice that 8 Muons = 1 Proton and 9 Muons = 1 Neutron, well, you almost have the entire Table solved from that fact alone.

Now a brief history of the importance of 8 is outlined here::
>
> Alright, I am pretty sure I know how to solve this. What needs fixing.
>
> Imagine yourself as Mendeleev in the 1860s
>
> By the way-- Newlands gave a Law of Octaves and then Meyer also proposed a periodic table in 1860s
>
> But now, Law of Octaves fits nice with the Proton being 840 MeV rest mass and muon= Real Electron being 105 MeV rest mass, for you see the octave there? The proton is 8 muons in a octagon shape.
>

So, below, and in the next several pages, I am taking time out from pure physics and delivering TRUE MATH that is required to solve the Table of Elementary Particles.

Now one would think that mathematics is clean already, and just ready for physicists to pick up and make use of. The truth of the matter is, that almost all of mathematics as of 2017 needs a huge scrub down, and that 75% of mathematics is trash garbage, even the vaunted Calculus is built on falsehoods. So, with that said, I need a long list of pages correcting Old Math, for mathematicians as of 2017 are lazy corrupt and ignorant in ever cleaning up their act as scientists.

I begin these MATH Correction pages with a Number theory correction and with a Geometry correction. Because, well, if you look at the .51 MeV particle with -1 charge in physics, well, they used computers which uses binary number system. If all physics experimental data were done in Decimals not binary, then the .51 MeV would be .5 MeV, the speed of light would be 3.0 not 2.99, the proton, muon, neutron rest masses would be 840, 105, 945 MeV respectively. When physicists use a number system not Decimal, their numbers are not the numbers of Nature, but corrupted numbers.

1.) DECIMAL NUMBER SYSTEM is superior to all other number systems and the only system to be used in SCIENCE, especially physics.

Duality in math is because Physics is duality of Atomic theory-- particle versus wave, electricity versus magnetism, geometry versus numbers, etc.

Let us focus on Numbers, how to represent them, for in how to represent numbers can either destroy our understanding or allow us to understand fully and clearly. If we have the wrong representation of numbers, we cannot hope to fully understand them.

In the history of mathematics, one of the key discoveries was the Decimal Number System. But, even as of recently, 2017, most math professors, perhaps all except AP, thought that Number Systems never change the value of numbers, regardless of what system you use. And in the age of computers, the computer electronics favors binary system, with its electronic gate open or closed.

Trouble is, though, one number system is superior to all other number systems, the decimal system, and that representation of numbers, does in fact, affect their values.

The decimal number system is the only noncorrupt system, and all other systems have failures of number values.

The reason Decimal is superior, is because of the 231Pu Atom Totality demands a number system that has Clean-Pure Numbers as border endpoints. A clean-pure number is this progression
1
10
100
1000
10000
etc

and
.1
.01
.001
.0001
etc

A clean-pure number is a "1" digit followed by nothing but 0 digits. They make perfect endpoints as borderlines. And Decimal especially highlights clean-pure numbers since it is the use of two primes 2 and 5.

All other number systems have a 10 and 100, etc, but their 10 and 100 is not formed from the two primes 2 and 5.

Why 2 and 5 forming 10 is so special?

It is because all numbers and all geometry comes from the 231Pu Atom Totality. So that pi and 2.71? exist as special because 231 Plutonium has 22 filled subshells in 7 shells and only 19 subshells occupied at any one moment in time, giving 22/7 as pi and simultaneously giving 19/7 as "e".

The final answers as to why why why in science or math, all ends up with a feature of the 231Pu Atom Totality. And the reason for a Number System based on 2x5 is so special is because 231Pu is the 5f6 outer shell and so the 5 comes from that and the 2 comes from 2x3=6.

Did you know in math there is what is called magic-cubes::

If i look at the 231Pu Atom Totality and its 5f6

Then a 3by3 Array, best not call them matrix

Occurs for addition with 5 as center

2   7   6

9   5   1

4   3   8

So the 5f6 hints at trying 6 for center for multiplication

After playing around

18    1    12

4      6      9

3     36     2

For 216 in all rows columns diagonals

Also, interesting is that 216 + 15 = 231 as in 231Pu

The reason that MATHEMATICS even exists, in the first place, is because the Universe just one big atom with smaller atoms inside itself. And since atoms have Shape and Size, thus comes forth the creation of geometry. And since atoms are numerous, many and many atoms, thus is created Numbers, or commonly called Algebra.

The decimal number system is superior and unique to all other number system. Think of it as the "e" of logarithms. The logarithms with base 2.71?. is unique base and is a superior base for any logarithmic system. So the base-10 number system, the decimal system is unique and superior.

Why superior? Well for one, its representation does not corrupt number values. In binary, many numbers as fractions are distorted and corrupted. Not the whole numbers in binary, but once you need to use fractions, often they are distorted in true values.

Here is a recent report of a incident of number value distortion by binary (source stack overflow Internet)

> Found this one in stack overflow, bolstering the case i make that all systems except Decimal are crap
>

>> 50.05/0.05 is not precisely equal to 1001, which it should.
>>
>> I understand that the above problem arises because all decimal numbers can not be precisely
>>written down in binary. But it is very obvious that it will create problem at many places, is there a >>good way to take care of the above apart from rounding off?

You see, what happens in physics when you put all your arithmetic into a computer, especially large number data, and all that number crunching the computer goes through to give you a final answer. An answer that should be .5 not .51, an answer that should be 3.00 not 2.99, an answer that should be 137, not a fraction. An answer that should be 105, 840, 945, not 105.7, 833.--, 939.--. When you use a binary system in science, your math numbers never come out to the correct numbers that Nature has.

So, decimal representation is superior, not only for precision and nondistortion, but because only Decimals can deliver a Grid System in mathematics.

Grid Systems were discovered by me, AP, discovered or invented in May of 2013 as I was doing my first edition of a Calculus textbook on the sci.math Internet, and in order to do Calculus, for I needed empty space between consecutive points in Geometry in order to have a integral and derivative. You cannot have a Calculus and have a geometry of a continuum. This meant, I needed to have a Grid System of equally spaced points and empty space between those points, empty space between two consecutive points. You, the reader, will discover for yourself, that the only way you can have equally spaced points with empty space between points is the decimal number system.

There is only ONE Number System that can do a Grid System. Only the Decimal System can mirror reflect small numbers from large numbers and reflect large numbers from small numbers. Let me diagram what a Grid System is and the reader should automatically understand the Grid System.

Integer Grid
1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10 , 11, 12, etc etc

10 Grid
.1, .2, .3, .4, .5, .6, .7, .8, .9, 1.0, 1.1, . . , 9.9, 10.0  with math induction element being .1

100 Grid
.01, .02, .03, .04, . . , 99.98, 99.99, 100.00 with math induction element being .01

Only Decimal Number System can do a Grid, because only Decimal Numbers can mirror reflect the small number, the fraction and the large numbers-- whole numbers, and have a math induction element that builds all the numbers in a specific Grid.

Old Math Professors are corrupt in mathematics, for they never change their mistakes, for they never even acknowledge their mistakes, and they keep preaching fake math. They do this because they rather make money selling books of fake math, rather than spend the time to correct fake math. Professors of math are like any other greedy lazy person, get the most money from doing the least amount of work. Old math professors teach that all number systems deliver the same value of any number, and they teach that decimal is no better than binary or ternary etc. True math says that is false; true math says that Decimal System is the only system that delivers true value of numbers and is superior in allowing a Grid System, and all other number systems are junk.

So, here in physics, it matters whether your physics answers of math come from a computer using binary.

AP

2)TRUE CORRECT MATH NEEDED by Physics in order to do the Table of Elementary Physics Particles/ oval not ellipse /page38

2.) Now a second mathematics error affects physics tremendously in geometry. For mathematicians as of 2017 are blind and unable to recognize what is a circle from ellipse from an oval. And it is critical in Electricity Magnetism that a physicist be able to know if he/she is dealing with a circle, a ellipse or an oval, critical, and critical in doing the Elementary Particles of Physics, or physics in general, because if you cannot understand that you have an OVAL, not an ellipse in physics, well, you fail.

Conics = oval, 4 Experiments
4th experiment Re: -World's first proofs that the Conic section is an
Oval, never an ellipse// yes, Apollonius and Dandelin were wrong

1st EXPERIMENT:: Fold paper into cone and cylinder, (I prefer the waxy cover of a magazine). Try to make both about the same size, so the perspective is even. Now tape the cone and cylinder so they do not come undone in the scissor or paper cutter phase. A paper cutter is best but dangerous, so be careful, be very careful with paper cutter.  Make the same angle of cut in each. and the best way of insuring that is to temporary staple the two together so the angle is the same. Once cut, remove the staples. Now we inspect the finished product. Hold each in turn on a sheet of paper and with a pencil trace out the figure on the flat piece of paper. Notice the cylinder gives an ellipse with 2 Axes of Symmetry, while the conic gives a oval because it has just one, yes 1 axis of symmetry.
> >
>
> That was my first experiment.
>

Easy and fast experiment, and gets the person able to make more cones
and cylinders in a rush. Only fault I have of this experiment is that
it leaves a scissors mark-- a vertex so to speak. But it is fast and
easy. The proof is in the comparison. Now the cut should be at a steep
enough angle. If you cut straight across, both will be circles, so
make a steep cut.

>
>

> > 2nd EXPERIMENT:: get a Kerr or Mason canning lid and repeat the above production of a cone and cylinder out of stiff waxy paper (magazine covers). Try to make the cone and cylinder about the same size as the lid. Now either observe with the lid inside the cone and cylinder, or, punch two holes in the cone and cylinder and fasten the lid inside. What you want to observe is how much area and where the area is added to make a section. So that in the cylinder, there is equal amount of area to add upwards as to add downwards of the lid, but in the cone, the area upwards added is small, while the area added downwards is huge new area. Thus the cylinder had two axes of symmetry and is an ellipse, while cone is 1 axis of symmetry and is an oval.
>

This experiment is the best for it immediately shows you the asymmetry
of an axis, where the upward needs little area to fill in any gap and
the downward needs an entire "crescent shaped area add-on to the
circle lid.

3rd EXPERIMENT:: Basically this is a repeat of the Dandelin fake proof, only we use a cylinder. Some tennis balls or ping pong balls come in see through plastic cylinder containers. And here you need just two balls in the container and you cut out some cardboard in the shape of ellipse that fits inside the container. You will be cutting many different sizes of these ellipses and estimating their foci. Now you insert these ellipse and watch to see the balls come in contact with the foci. Now, you build several cones in which the ellipses should fit snugly. Trouble is, well, there is never a cone that any ellipse can fit inside, for only an oval fits inside the cones.
> >

This experiment is cumbersome and takes much precision and good
materials. It is just a repeat of the Dandelin work on this topic, and
one can easily see how the Dandelin fake proof is constructed-- he
starts off with assuming the figure is an ellipse. Which tells us, he
never had a good-working-model if any at all. For you cannot stuff a
ellipse inside a cone. You can stuff a ellipse inside a cylinder. So
this suggests the entire Dandelin nonsense was all worked out in the
head and never in hands on actual reality. So, in this experiment, we
give a proof that Dandelin was utterly wrong and that it is a cylinder
that you can stuff a ellipse sandwiched by two identical spheres-- one
upper and one lower.

The only amazing part of the Dandelin story is how an utterly fake
proof could have survived from 1822, and not until 2017 is it
thoroughly revealed as ignorant nonsense. One would think in math,
there is no chance such a hideously flawed proof could even be
published in a math journal, and if anything is learned from Dandelin,
is that the math journal publishing system is a whole entire garbage
network. A network that is corrupt and fans fakery.

> 4th EXPERIMENT:: this is a new one. And I have it resting on my coffee table at the moment and looking at it. It comes from a toy kit of plastic see through geometry figures, cost me about \$5. And what I have is a square pyramid and a cone of about the same size. Both see through. And what I did was rest the square pyramid apex on top of the cone apex, so the cone is inside the square pyramid. Now I wish I had a rectangular box to fit a cylinder inside the box. But this toy kit did not have that, but no worries for the imagination can easily picture a cylinder inside a rectangular box. Now the experiment is real simple in that we imagine a Planar Cut into the rectangular box with cylinder inside and the cut will make a rectangle from the box and a ellipse from the cylinder. Now with the cut of the square pyramid that contains a cone inside, the square pyramid is a trapezoid section while the cone is a oval section. If the cut were parallel to the base, the square pyramid yields a square and the cone yields a circle. This experiment proves to all the dunces, the many dunces who think a conic section is an ellipse, that it cannot be an ellipse, for obviously, a cone is not the same as a cylinder.
>
>

Now this 4th Experiment is a delicious fascinating experiment, for it
reveals to us another proof that the conic section is a oval. For the
square-pyramid section is a Isosceles Trapezoid, and what is so great
about that, is we can take a cone and place inside of the cone a
square pyramid and then place a second square pyramid over the cone,
so the cone is sandwiched in between two square pyramids.

Now the square pyramids are tangent to the cone at 4 line segments, 8
altogether for the two, and what is so intriguing about the tangents
is that it allows us to quickly develop a analytic geometry that the
cone section must be a oval in order for the two square pyramids to be
both isosceles trapezoids as sections.

Conics = oval, 2 proofs, synthetic, analytic

Synthetic Geometry & Analytical Geometry Proofs that Conic section =
Oval, never an ellipse-- World's first proofs thereof
by Archimedes Plutonium
_Synthetic Geometry proofs that Cylinder section= Ellipse// Conic section= Oval

First Synthetic Geometry proofs, later the Analytic Geometry proofs.

Alright I need to get this prepared for the MATH ARRAY of proofs, that
the Ellipse is a Cylinder section, and that the Conic section is an
oval, never an ellipse

PROOF that Cylinder Section is an Ellipse, never a Oval::
I would have proven it by Symmetry. Where I indulge the reader to
place a circle inside the cylinder and have it mounted on a swivel, a
tiny rod fastened to the circle so that you can pivot and rotate the
circle. Then my proof argument would be to say--when the circle plate
is parallel with base, it is a circle but rotate it slightly in the
cylinder and determine what figure is produced. When rotated at the
diameter, the extra area added to the upper portion equals the extra
hence a ellipse. QED

Now for proof that the Conic section cannot be an ellipse but an oval,
I again would apply the same proof argument by symmetry.

Proof:: Take a cone in general, and build a circle that rotates on a
axis. Rotate the circle just a tiny bit for it is bound to get stuck
or impeded by the upward slanted walls of the cone. Rotate as far as
you possibly can. Now filling in the area upwards is far smaller than
filling in the area downwards. Hence, only 1 axis of symmetry, not 2
axes of symmetry. Define Oval as having 1 axis of symmetry. Thus a
oval, never an ellipse. QED

The above two proofs are Synthetic Geometry proofs, which means they
need no numbers, just some concepts and axioms to make the proof work.
A Synthetic geometry proof is where you need no numbers, no coordinate
points, no arithmetic, but just using concepts and axioms. A Analytic
Geometry proof is where numbers are involved, if only just coordinate
points.

Array:: Analytic Geometry proof that Cylinder section= Ellipse//Conic
section = Oval, never ellipse

Now I did 3 Experiments and 3 models of the problem, but it turns out
that one model is superior over all the other models. One model is the
best of all.

That model is where you construct a cone and a cylinder and then
implant a circle inside the cone and cylinder attached to a handle so
that you can rotate the circle inside. Mine uses a long nail that I
poked holes into the side of a cylinder and another one inside a cone
made from heavy wax paper of magazine covers. And I used a Mason or
Kerr used lid and I attached them to the nail by drilling two holes
into each lid and running a wire as fastener. All of this done so I
can rotate or pivot the circle inside the cylinder and cone. You need
a long nail, for if you make the models too small or too skinny, you
lose clarity.

ARRAY, Analytic Geometry Proof, Cylinder Section is a Ellipse::

E
__
.-'              `-.
.'                    `.
/                         \
;                           ;
| G          c              | H
;                           ;
\                         /
`.                     .'
`-.    _____  .-'
F

The above is a view of a ellipse with center c and is produced by the
Sectioning of a Cylinder as long as the cut is not perpendicular to
the base, and as long as the cut involves two points not larger than
the height of the cylinder walls. What we want to prove is that the
cut is always a ellipse, which is a plane figure of two axes of
symmetry with a Major Axis and Minor Axis and center at c.

Side view of Cylinder EGFH above with entry point cut at E and exit
point cut at F and where c denotes the central axis of the cylinder
and where x denotes a circle at c parallel with the base-circle of
cylinder

|                              |
|                              | E
|                              |
|                              |
|x            c              |x
|                              |
|                              |
|                              |
|F                            |
|                              |
|                              |
|                              |

So, what is the proof that figure EGFH is always an ellipse in the
cylinder section? The line segment GH is the diameter of the circle
base of cylinder and the cylinder axis cuts this diameter in half such
that Gc = cH. Now we only need to show that Fc = cE. This is done from
the right triangles cxF and cxE, for we note that by Angle-Side-Angle
these two right triangles are congruent and hence Fc = cE, our second
axis of symmetry and thus figure EGFH is always an ellipse. QED

Array proof:: Analytic Geometry proof that Conic section= Oval// never ellipse

ARRAY, Analytic Geometry Proof, Conic Section is a Oval, never an ellipse::

A
,'"   "`.
/            \
C |     c       | D
\               /
` . ___ .'
B

The above is a view of a figure formed from the cut of a conic with
center c as the axis of the cone and is produced by the Sectioning of
a Cone as long as the cut is not perpendicular to the base, and as
long as the cut is not a hyperbola, parabola or circle (nor line).
What we want to prove is that this cut is always a oval, never an
ellipse. An oval is defined as a plane figure of just one axis of
symmetry and possessing a center, c, with a Major Diameter as the axis
of symmetry and a Minor Diameter. In our diagram above, the major
diameter is AB and minor diameter is CD.

Alright, almost the same as with Cylinder section where we proved the
center was half way between Major Axis and Minor Axis of cylinder,
only in the case of the Conic, we find that the center is half way
between CD the Minor Diameter, but the center is not halfway in
between the Major Diameter, and all of that because of the reason the
slanted walls of the cone cause the distance cA to be far smaller than
the distance cB. In the diagram below we have the circle of x centered
at c and parallel to base. The angle at cx is not 90 degrees as in
cylinder. The angle of cAx is not the same as the angle cBx, as in the
case of the cylinder, because the walls of the cone-for line segments-
are slanted versus parallel in the cylinder. Triangles cAx and cBx are
not congruent, and thus, the distance of cA is not equal to cB,
leaving only one axis of symmetry AB, not CD.

/  \A
x/  c  \x
B/         \

Hence, every cut in the Cone, not a hyperbola, not a parabola, not a
circle (not a line) is a Oval, never an ellipse.

QED

--Archimedes Plutonium

Physicists, no matter in what section of physics, whether astronomy, plasma physics, EM theory, thermodynamics, optics, you name it. If they are using incorrect, muddleheaded and fake math, that their subject is never going to be correct.

AP

3)TRUE CORRECT MATH NEEDED by Physics in order to do the Table of Elementary Physics Particles-- /Calculus & Infinity/page39

3. Why no continuum and no curves exist in Math, so that the Calculus
can exist, and does exist

Calculus is based upon there being Grid points in geometry, no
continuum, but actually, empty space between two neighboring points.
This is called Discrete geometry, and in physics, this is called
Quantum Mechanics. In 10 Grid, the first few numbers are 0, .1, .2,
.3, etc. That means there does not exist any number between 0 and .1,
no number exists between .1 and .2. Now if you want more precise
numbers, you go to a higher Grid like that of 100 Grid where the first
few numbers are 0, .01, .02, .03, etc.

Calculus in order to exist at all, needs this empty space between
consecutive numbers or successor numbers. It needs that empty space so
that the integral of calculus is actually small rectangles whose
interior area is not zero. So in 10 Grid, the smallest width of any
Calculus rectangle is of width .1. In 100 Grid the smallest width is
.01.

But, this revolutionary understanding of Calculus does not stop with
the Integral, for having empty space between numbers, means no curves
in math exist, but are ever tinier straight-line segments.

It also means, that the Derivative in Calculus is part and parcel of
the function graph itself. So that in a function such as y = x^2, the
function graph is the derivative at a point. In Old Math, they had the
folly and idiocy of a foreign, alien tangent line to a function graph
as derivative. In New Math, the derivative is the same as the function
graph itself. And, this makes commonsense, utter commonsense, for the
derivative is a prediction of the future of the function in question,
and no way in the world can a foreign tangent line to a point on the
function be able to predict, be able to tell where the future point of
that function be. The only predictor of a future point of a function,
is the function graph itself.

If the Calculus was done correctly, conceived correctly, then a
minimal diagram explains all of Calculus. Old Math never had such a
diagram, because Old Math was in total error of what Calculus is, and
what Calculus does.

The fundamental picture of all of Calculus are these two of a
trapezoid and rectangle. In fact, call the picture, the

FUNDAMENTAL THEOREM OF CALCULUS, Picture

Trapezoid for derivative as the roof-top of
the trapezoid, which must be a straight-line segment. If it is curved,
you cannot fold it down to form a integral rectangle. And the
rectangle for integral as area.

From this:
B
/|
/  |
A /----|
/      |
|        |
|____|

The trapezoid roof has to be a straight-line segment (the derivative)
so that it can be hinged at A, and swiveled down to form rectangle for
integral.

To this:

______
|         |
|         |
|         |
---------

And the derivative of x= A, above is merely the dy/dx involving points
A and B. Thus, it can never be a curve in Calculus. And the AB is part
of the function graph itself. No curves exist in mathematics and no
continuum exists in mathematics.

In the above we see that CALCULUS needs and requires a diagram in
which you can go from derivative to integral, or go from integral to
derivative, by simply a hinge down to form a rectangle for area, or a
hinge up to form the derivative from a given rectangle.

Why in Old Math could no professor of math ever do the Calculus
Diagram? Why? The answer is simple, no-one in Old Math pays attention
to Logic, and that no-one in Old Math was required to take formal
Logic when they attended school. So a person bereft of Logic, is never
going to find mistakes of Logic and think clear and think straight.

by Archimedes Plutonium

----------------

Borderline between Finite and Infinite

Now this mistake in not having a correct Infinity in math, affects the Calculus by a large measure, a large degree. It is impossible to have a correct calculus, when you have a bozo-kook understanding of what is infinity.

This is probably the biggest mistake in all of pure mathematics for it
affects all other mathematics. Of course the other sciences, especially physics rarely needs to know what the correct proper infinity is. However, it does show up frequently in the best physics-- quantum electrodynamics, in which it is
often used to eliminate infinities that crop up in calculations. This physics math procedure is called Renormalization-- getting rid of the infinities.

The trouble with Old Math, is, well, they were terribly shoddy in logic, in thinking straight and clear. For a logical person, knows, that if you have a concept of finite versus infinite, the only way to handle those two concepts is to realize a border must go between them so that you can tell if any given number is finite or infinite. Otherwise, there is no infinity, if there is no borderline.

There is only one way you can have a concept of finite, by having a
concept of infinity, and the only way you can have both, is that a
borderline exists between them.

I have pinpointed that borderline from tractrix-circle analysis, from
algebraic analysis of algebraic completeness, and from angles of
regular polyhedra. The borderline in microinfinity is 1*10^-604 and in
macroinfinity is 1*10^604.

The easiest way to see the borderline is to see where pi digits ends in a three zero digits in a row.

3.141592653589793238462643383279502884197169399375105820974944592307816406286 208998628034825342117067982148086513282306647093844609550582231725359408128481 117450284102701938521105559644622948954930381964428810975665933446128475648233 786783165271201909145648566923460348610454326648213393607260249141273724587006 606315588174881520920962829254091715364367892590360011330530548820466521384146 951941511609433057270365759591953092186117381932611793105118548074462379962749 567351885752724891227938183011949129833673362440656643086021394946395224737190 702179860943702770539217176293176752384674818467669405132000

Since the Universe 3rd dimension, one would suspect that where pi digits are there first three digits in a row of 000, that such would be the borderline at infinity.

Now, for physics, that infinity is 1*10^604 for large and 1*10^-604 for the small, makes perfect sense, since in physics, it is extremely, extremely difficult to find anything above 10^200 or smaller than 10^-200, to give the reader a sense of proportion.

If a physicists or other science goes to math for information and knowledge of infinity, well, what they see from mathematics by 2017 is nothing more than just piles of you know what.

AP