Imagine you want to go from point A to point B. The distance between them is infinite (that is, there is an unmeasurable amount of distance between both points, which never ends).

So you wanna go to point B. How long does it take? It depends of the speed, right? So how long it takes if our speed is the speed of light? It takes forever, right? Because there is an infinite amount of distance to cover...

But... what if our speed is also infinite? :eek:

Then, we could find the time by dividing the speed by the distance?

time to get to B= infinity/infinity

How much is that? :confused:


I think the answer is 0. Why? Because the measurement is always infinite. For instance, I could measure everything in meters and minutes. Then, the answer would be 1 minute? Or 1 year? That would make no sense. But when the answer is 0, then the measurement used is irrelevant and the whole thing makes sense, because if you are infinitely fast, you are capable of getting anywhere within 0 time!


So... it takes us 0 minutes/hours/days/years/months to move between points A and B if they are infinitely apart and our speed is infinite!

:eek:

A distance between two points can't be infinite. If there are two points, there is a finite distance.

Two things:

1) If the distance is infinite, it will take an infinite amount of time to get from point A to point B

2) Infinity/Infinity is undefined, and undefinable.

A distance between two points can't be infinite. If there are two points, there is a finite distance.
If the universe is infinite, I cannot see how distance between two points CANNOT be infinite! :eek:

Two things:

1) If the distance is infinite, it will take an infinite amount of time to get from point A to point B
No. My point is that if your speed is also infinite, then it won't take any time at all! :bugeye:

2) Infinity/Infinity is undefined, and undefinable.
Undefined just means that it cannot be comprehended. Nothing in the universe is undefined. :eek:

No. My point is that if your speed is also infinite, then it won't take any time at all! :bugeye:

What's so strange about it?

It's not strange. My point is that people don't see that! :eek:

Ok, is this your scenario?

An object (pretend such exists) travels an infinite distance with an infinite velocity, then the time it takes to get from point A to infinity is zero?

Lets see... oo (distance)= oo*0 (rate * time) = 0. What? You do know that infinity*zero makes no sense, right?

Undefined in mathematics means it makes no sense. I want to know how you can comprehend something that has no logical basis. It's like telling me one day God cannot be understood, then the next you explain the unexplainble because "God wanted it that way." That makes no sense.

Firstly, the universe may not be infinitely large. An infinite anything is a finite everything. It creates enough time/space/energy ect. for anything to occur. In other words, something comes from nothing. When this happens, all rules of cause and effect (aka. traveling from point c to point d inbetween A and B) are impossible.
It is an interesting idea. You are right because time does not exist in an infinite realm. So, yes, there would be no cause and effect (time) when one travels at infinite "speed" in an infinite universe.

Ok, is this your scenario?

An object (pretend such exists) travels an infinite distance with an infinite velocity, then the time it takes to get from point A to infinity is zero?

Lets see... oo (distance)= oo*0 (rate * time) = 0. What? You do know that infinity*zero makes no sense, right?

Undefined in mathematics means it makes no sense. I want to know how you can comprehend something that has no logical basis. It's like telling me one day God cannot be understood, then the next you explain the unexplainble because "God wanted it that way." That makes no sense.
I know the Tao. :eek:

Firstly, the universe may not be infinitely large.
That's irrelevant to this thread. In this thread, the universe is postulated as infinite.

An infinite anything is a finite everything. It creates enough time/space/energy ect. for anything to occur. In other words, something comes from nothing. When this happens, all rules of cause and effect (aka. traveling from point c to point d inbetween A and B) are impossible.
It is an interesting idea. You are right because time does not exist in an infinite realm. So, yes, there would be no cause and effect (time) when one travels at infinite "speed" in an infinite universe.
Good thinking. :)

I know the Tao. :eek:

Interesting...

Firstly, the universe may not be infinitely large. An infinite anything is a finite everything. It creates enough time/space/energy ect. for anything to occur.

How is this so? Space itself cannot be infinite? As far as we can tell, there is a finite amount of energy in the universe, but this does not say anything about the size of the space which contains the energy.

In other words, something comes from nothing. When this happens, all rules of cause and effect (aka. traveling from point c to point d inbetween A and B) are impossible.
It is an interesting idea. You are right because time does not exist in an infinite realm. So, yes, there would be no cause and effect (time) when one travels at infinite "speed" in an infinite universe.

I guess the same thing I said.

'Infinity' is a concept that, as far as i can tell, doesn't exist in reality. It's a comfort used to explain things which are near impossible to grasp --such as the "end and beginning of time" or the "end or beginning of 'space.'" If one thinks back to the beginning of the universe, we all feel that surely something existed a year before that. ex: Because all humans have feelings like "well there MUST be something after the edge of the universe," the concept of infinity was born. In a way, the concept of 'infinity' is analagous to the concept of 'God'; its hard to grasp the concept of a beginning without a time before that, and so both the concepts of 'infinity' and 'God' give us the an answer to a nearly incomprehensible question. 'Infinity' answers this question by saying that the universe has existed forever and will exist forever (in some way, shape, or form), and 'God' gives us the answer that there is some logical and omnipotent being that has existed and will exist forever.

But how does this apply to the paradox of 'infinity'?
-- Being that 'infinity' is a human generated concept that has no true application in reality, it falls apart when it co-exists with other laws and rules that rely on a finite universe with finite amounts of matter and energy. However, 'infinity' is such a comforting answer and explanation that it becomes a concept that is incredibly hard to throw out. Nevertheless, by continuing to accept it as true, it continues to contradict other, more solid, laws --and thus puts on the image of a paradox.

'Infinity' is a concept that, as far as i can tell, doesn't exist in reality.

infinity does exist.
there is no end to the number line.

What? What happened to what I wrote!!!!! :eek: :bugeye:

What? What happened to what I wrote!!!!! :eek: :bugeye:
i don't know, but when i replied to this thread possumking was the first post, as if he started the thread.

infinity does exist.
there is no end to the number line.


Math and reality are much different, my friend. Math uses perfects, whereas reality does not. A circle in a math textbook is assumed to be perfect --as is any shape, dimension etc.

In reality, however, a perfect circle, weight, or dimension are non-existent. Hell! Even the kilogram that is used to define kilograms is still fluctuating in weight.


EDIT: I can still see all the posts.

EDIT: I can still see all the posts.
One of my posts is missing. I objected your argument. So.... I guess I will just comment on the following...

Math and reality are much different, my friend. Math uses perfects, whereas reality does not.
How do you know?

A circle in a math textbook is assumed to be perfect --as is any shape, dimension etc.

In reality, however, a perfect circle, weight, or dimension are non-existent.
The manifestations of the circle are not always perfect. Plato talked about that, if I can recall it correctly...
However, planets are pretty much perfect spheres, considering the atmosphere, of course.
Regardless, that does not disprove infinity.

Hell! Even the kilogram that is used to define kilograms is still fluctuating in weight.
How?



Ok... let me rephrease what I had said in a condensed way...

How many numbers are between 0 and 1? If you keep dividing it over and over again, there will always be a smaller number. You can say that the smallest number is 0.000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000 00000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000 00000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000 0000000000000000000000000000000000001 but then I can reply and say that the smallest is 0.000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000 00000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000 00000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000 00000000000000000000000000000000000001 (you may count the additional 0 if you wish :D). And so on. Now you will probably say "oh that;s just math, it is not reality". Well, math is based on reality. If you pick up a piece of space-time, you can divide it. Now keep dividing it. It will never end. There will always be more and more to divide. A piece of absolute undiviseble space-time is absurd! Because if you look closer to it, it will look bigger anyways!

Think about it. You look at an ant. You perceive the ant as something very small. But the ant, perceives itself as "normal" sized and you as big. Now keep going smaller and smaller. Even if you pick up an extremely small point, it could still look like the size of the universe, to an even much smaller point! :eek:

Reality is abusurd... :eek:

Well Truthseeker... math started as a way to represent reality... but it soon took off into it's own perfect reality.

Math and reality are much different, my friend. Math uses perfects, whereas reality does not. A circle in a math textbook is assumed to be perfect --as is any shape, dimension etc.

i understand what you are saying but you got to admit that numbers are real and they have no end, or a beginning as far as that goes.

The manifestations of the circle are not always perfect.

not in reality no but when a math text talks about a circle it is assumed to be perfect. only in a mathbook will circumference/diameter=pi

Well Truthseeker... math started as a way to represent reality... but it soon took off into it's own perfect reality.
No no no no....

Your brain cannot process infinity. That's why you don't understand it.
There is no undivisable matter out there. There is no "atom". You can keep dividing everything over and over again and never get anywhere.

The universe is a huge blob of energy. This energy varies in intensity and flow throughout the universe. What creates our perceptions are the subtle differences in energy. The differences in intensity creates all the different objects that we see while the flow of the energy creates the fluctuation that we perceive as causality.

Behold the universe :cool:

Math and reality are much different, my friend. Math uses perfects, whereas reality does not.


How do you know?

How do I know? Are you kidding me? A math textbook tells you that a wall is 5 feet tall. In reality, is the wall 5 feet tall exactly? NO! No matter how closely you measure the wall, it will never land directly on the 5 foot mark. This is because the 5 foot mark itself has a distance. It is not a point (which is another invention of mathematics).

Math is purely a logical and theoretical construction of reality. While math is based on the assumption of perfects, its numbers are close enough to those in reality that it can act as a useful tool in many ways.

A circle in a math textbook is assumed to be perfect --as is any shape, dimension etc.

In reality, however, a perfect circle, weight, or dimension are non-existent.

The manifestations of the circle are not always perfect. Plato talked about that, if I can recall it correctly...
However, planets are pretty much perfect spheres, considering the atmosphere, of course.
Regardless, that does not disprove infinity.

Hot damn! My point exactly. The manifestation of a circle in REALITY is different that that in MATH. A math textbook regards a sphere as always being perfect --"A three-dimensional surface, all points of which are equidistant from a fixed point." In reality however, a perfect sphere does not exist whereas a sphere of another definition (a planet) does. You say that this doesn't disprove infinity --but did I ever say it did? I said that citing the number-line does not prove the existence of infinity --because the number-line has no pure application in reality.
Hell! Even the kilogram that is used to define kilograms is still fluctuating in weight.

How?

Well, the kilogram used to define kilograms is encased in a theoretical vacuum. (It can be seen here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kilogram ) However, no vacuum is perfect and 100% leak proof. Atoms from the kilogram have undoubtedly shed since it was deemed the "true kilogram." Do you see what I mean?


Ok... let me rephrease what I had said in a condensed way...

How many numbers are between 0 and 1? If you keep dividing it over and over again, there will always be a smaller number. You can say that the smallest number is 0.000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000 00000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000 00000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000 0000000000000000000000000000000000001 but then I can reply and say that the smallest is 0.000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000 00000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000 00000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000 00000000000000000000000000000000000001 (you may count the additional 0 if you wish :D). And so on. Now you will probably say "oh that;s just math, it is not reality". Well, math is based on reality. If you pick up a piece of space-time, you can divide it. Now keep dividing it. It will never end. There will always be more and more to divide. A piece of absolute undiviseble space-time is absurd! Because if you look closer to it, it will look bigger anyways!

Think about it. You look at an ant. You perceive the ant as something very small. But the ant, perceives itself as "normal" sized and you as big. Now keep going smaller and smaller. Even if you pick up an extremely small point, it could still look like the size of the universe, to an even much smaller point! :eek:

Unfortunately, logic can be very deceiving. What you are saying may be very logical --but it is very unproved. You are having the EXACT type of feeling that I mentioned my post before my previous one. The concept of infinity entered the minds of humans for just this reason -as a comfort. Because the idea that you may not be able to divide something for infinity is utterly incomprehensible, one immediately assumes that you can. Yet at the same time, dividng for infinity requires an infinite amount of energy. An infintie amount of energy is widely believed not to exist, and there is plenty of research to back this up.

Another example of this is light speed. It is logical to assume that you can go a infinite number of mph, but it is almost universely accepted by scientists that there is in fact a universal speed limit (light speed). This was shown in Einstein's relativity.

No no no no....

Your brain cannot process infinity. That's why you don't understand it.
There is no undivisable matter out there. There is no "atom". You can keep dividing everything over and over again and never get anywhere.

Unfortunately there is. It's called the Plank length. Nevertheless, my previous post shows how using logic is very dangerous.

If the universe is infinite, I cannot see how distance between two points CANNOT be infinite! :eek:


Ok...let me put this into a different scenerio for you. You have a circle its 10 feet wide, you put 2 points in the circle, not on the edge, are you ever gonna reach 10 feet? No.

Now pretend the circle is infinitly wide, you put 2 points into it, its going to be a defined distance since its 2 points. Now if you put it on the edge of the circle, which is infinite, then you can say the distance is infinite. The only problem is your saying the edge exists, and for the edge to exist the circle cannot be infinitely long, therefore the points can never be place there.

Now if your talking about one side of the universe with the other, your taking into assumption a defined spot, for there to be a defined spot it cannot be infinite. To deal with infinity you must deal with the undefined, and when you do so guess what...the answer will still be undefined.

No no no no....

You are disagreeing with me about the fact that math started as a way to represent reality and it's situations? Land area calculation? Ancient economies? Counting sheep?

Your brain cannot process infinity. That's why you don't understand it.
There is no undivisable matter out there. There is no "atom". You can keep dividing everything over and over again and never get anywhere.

My brain cannot understand infinity or all humans? I think I have a fairly good grasp of what infinity "feels" like and how it "looks." Spatial reasoning? Lateral thinking? Logic?

And from what I understand about science, there does seem to be a point one cannot divide distance any further. However, this thread is not about physics.

How do I know? Are you kidding me? A math textbook tells you that a wall is 5 feet tall. In reality, is the wall 5 feet tall exactly? NO! No matter how closely you measure the wall, it will never land directly on the 5 foot mark. This is because the 5 foot mark itself has a distance. It is not a point (which is another invention of mathematics).

Math is purely a logical and theoretical construction of reality. While math is based on the assumption of perfects, its numbers are close enough to those in reality that it can act as a useful tool in many ways.
That's silly. It's completely possible for a wall to measure exactly 5 feet. And if it doesn't, you can always approximate. So what? That doesn't make math less real at all!

Hot damn! My point exactly. The manifestation of a circle in REALITY is different that that in MATH. A math textbook regards a sphere as always being perfect --"A three-dimensional surface, all points of which are equidistant from a fixed point." In reality however, a perfect sphere does not exist whereas a sphere of another definition (a planet) does.
First of all it is possible. Second of all, approximations don't make math less real at all! Still applies.

Math creates a base by which we can work. Reality is based on math.

You say that this doesn't disprove infinity --but did I ever say it did?
Did you look at the title of the thread?

I said that citing the number-line does not prove the existence of infinity --because the number-line has no pure application in reality.
Prove.

Well, the kilogram used to define kilograms is encased in a theoretical vacuum. (It can be seen here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kilogram ) However, no vacuum is perfect and 100% leak proof. Atoms from the kilogram have undoubtedly shed since it was deemed the "true kilogram." Do you see what I mean?
Again, irrelevant...



Unfortunately, logic can be very deceiving. What you are saying may be very logical --but it is very unproved. You are having the EXACT type of feeling that I mentioned my post before my previous one. The concept of infinity entered the minds of humans for just this reason -as a comfort. Because the idea that you may not be able to divide something for infinity is utterly incomprehensible, one immediately assumes that you can. Yet at the same time, dividng for infinity requires an infinite amount of energy. An infintie amount of energy is widely believed not to exist, and there is plenty of research to back this up.
If the universe is infinite and energy is everywhere, then it follows that the total amount of energy is infinite!

Another example of this is light speed. It is logical to assume that you can go a infinite number of mph, but it is almost universely accepted by scientists that there is in fact a universal speed limit (light speed). This was shown in Einstein's relativity.
That is hardly a limit. Some particles are said to break that limit. Neutrinos and tachyons, for instance.

The concept of infinity entered the minds of humans for just this reason -as a comfort.
Infinity comforting!?!? :eek:
Hardly! :D
Geez, you are a strange fella! :p

Unfortunately there is. It's called the Plank length. Nevertheless, my previous post shows how using logic is very dangerous.
No no no! Gotta read carefully about Planck lenght. PL just gives you a limit of measurement accuracy. Beyond that point, the measurement is uncertain. PL does not put a limit to division.

Ok...let me put this into a different scenerio for you. You have a circle its 10 feet wide, you put 2 points in the circle, not on the edge, are you ever gonna reach 10 feet? No.

Now pretend the circle is infinitly wide, you put 2 points into it, its going to be a defined distance since its 2 points. Now if you put it on the edge of the circle, which is infinite, then you can say the distance is infinite. The only problem is your saying the edge exists, and for the edge to exist the circle cannot be infinitely long, therefore the points can never be place there.

Now if your talking about one side of the universe with the other, your taking into assumption a defined spot, for there to be a defined spot it cannot be infinite. To deal with infinity you must deal with the undefined, and when you do so guess what...the answer will still be undefined.
I suppose...
But the trick is... there are an infinite amout of numbers between 0 and 1... ;)

You are disagreeing with me about the fact that math started as a way to represent reality and it's situations? Land area calculation? Ancient economies? Counting sheep?
I don't disagree with you on that.

My brain cannot understand infinity or all humans? I think I have a fairly good grasp of what infinity "feels" like and how it "looks." Spatial reasoning? Lateral thinking? Logic?
Man, I'm sure you have a much better grasp then most people! :p
But the human brain doesn't seem to have been designed to deal with infinity.

And from what I understand about science, there does seem to be a point one cannot divide distance any further. However, this thread is not about physics.
There's no such point. That's the point of the thread. (Well, one of them.)

I suppose...
But the trick is... there are an infinite amout of numbers between 0 and 1... ;)

A number is an idea --it has no mass. When you write the '5' you are simply writing a symbol that represents the number '5.' Saying that there are an infinite amount of numbers between 0 and 1 really is very vague. Do you mean an infinite amount of numbers you can think of? Infinite amount of numbers that are writable, sayable, thinkable, countable?

Surely you cannot write an infinite amount of numbers. You cannot say an infinite amount of numbers. And in all practicality, there probably a finite number of countable anything in the universe. It's highly likely that there is a maximum "smallness" that something can be --just as there is a maximum speed limit. While these sorts of limits are illogical, human logic isn't always correct.

There's no such point. That's the point of the thread. (Well, one of them.)

Why do you say that there is no such point? Where are you basing this claim from? Let me guess...Logic?

A number is an idea --it has no mass. When you write the '5' you are simply writing a symbol that represents the number '5.' Saying that there are an infinite amount of numbers between 0 and 1 really is very vague. Do you mean an infinite amount of numbers you can think of? Infinite amount of numbers that are writable, sayable, thinkable, countable?
Yes, all those.

Surely you cannot write an infinite amount of numbers. You cannot say an infinite amount of numbers. And in all practicality, there probably a finite number of countable anything in the universe. It's highly likely that there is a maximum "smallness" that something can be --just as there is a maximum speed limit. While these sorts of limits are illogical, human logic isn't always correct.
If human logic isn't always correct, why should I ever listen to you? ;)

Yes, human logic isn't always correct. That's why the universe is infinite. ;)

Why do you say that there is no such point? Where are you basing this claim from? Let me guess...Logic?
Yes. And observation.

Imagine you want to go from point A to point B. The distance between them is infinite...

A distance between two points can't be infinite. If there are two points, there is a finite distance.

If the universe is infinite, I cannot see how distance between two points CANNOT be infinite! :eek:

c7ityi is correct, you cannot have two points with an infinite distance between them (at least in Cartesian space I won't pretend to play with other geometries). Infinity is not a number it is a concept.

The two points bound the line between them which makes the distance finite and thus not infinite.

~Raithere

The brain perceive the distance as finite. Doesn't mean it IS finite.

The brain perceive the distance as finite. Doesn't mean it IS finite.No. Geometrically it is a line segment and bound by it's endpoints Infinity, by definition, is unbound.

Essentially you're are trying to give end points to infinity; you can't.

Imagine it this way: Plot point A. Now travel an infinite distance to plot point B... you'll never stop because you can never reach infinity. If at any point you decide to stop and plot point B you've only traveled a finite distance no matter how far or fast you travel.

~Raithere

How do I know? Are you kidding me? A math textbook tells you that a wall is 5 feet tall. In reality, is the wall 5 feet tall exactly? NO! No matter how closely you measure the wall, it will never land directly on the 5 foot mark. This is because the 5 foot mark itself has a distance. It is not a point (which is another invention of mathematics).

Math is purely a logical and theoretical construction of reality. While math is based on the assumption of perfects, its numbers are close enough to those in reality that it can act as a useful tool in many ways.



Hot damn! My point exactly. The manifestation of a circle in REALITY is different that that in MATH. A math textbook regards a sphere as always being perfect --"A three-dimensional surface, all points of which are equidistant from a fixed point." In reality however, a perfect sphere does not exist whereas a sphere of another definition (a planet) does. You say that this doesn't disprove infinity --but did I ever say it did? I said that citing the number-line does not prove the existence of infinity --because the number-line has no pure application in reality.


Well, the kilogram used to define kilograms is encased in a theoretical vacuum. (It can be seen here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kilogram ) However, no vacuum is perfect and 100% leak proof. Atoms from the kilogram have undoubtedly shed since it was deemed the "true kilogram." Do you see what I mean?



Unfortunately, logic can be very deceiving. What you are saying may be very logical --but it is very unproved. You are having the EXACT type of feeling that I mentioned my post before my previous one. The concept of infinity entered the minds of humans for just this reason -as a comfort. Because the idea that you may not be able to divide something for infinity is utterly incomprehensible, one immediately assumes that you can. Yet at the same time, dividng for infinity requires an infinite amount of energy. An infintie amount of energy is widely believed not to exist, and there is plenty of research to back this up.

Another example of this is light speed. It is logical to assume that you can go a infinite number of mph, but it is almost universely accepted by scientists that there is in fact a universal speed limit (light speed). This was shown in Einstein's relativity.

but how do we know if light speed is really the fastest speed in the universe? perhaps it's simply the fastest observed phenomenon/matter/energy/whatever in the universe. there are a few things left in the universe that are as yet unstudied. dark matter for example. black holes. are those ideas only figments of our imagination created to comfort us?

No. Geometrically it is a line segment and bound by it's endpoints Infinity, by definition, is unbound.

Essentially you're are trying to give end points to infinity; you can't.
Well, how many numbers are there between 0 and 1?

Define number, Truthseeker. What do you mean by "between?" I could say zero and be able to back it up.

Errr... any decimal number that is greater then 0 but less then 1...:eek:

Well, how many numbers are there between 0 and 1?That a distance may be infinitely divisible (mathematically at least) does not mean that the distance is infinite. You're just reworking Zeno's Dichotomy paradox.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zeno's_paradoxes#The_dichotomy_paradox

Additionally, remember that math is a logical system and is not itself reality. That we run into various paradoxes indicates a limitation of the system and/or our ability to accurately describe the world within the system not a problem with the world. In particular, the concepts of zero and infinity are problematic.

~Raithere

Yes. And observation.

Jeeze. You, I know for a fact, should know that there is a much different universe on the (hard to observe) quantum level; logical observation of the macro world doesn't tend to agree with the "micro" world. :eek:

That a distance may be infinitely divisible (mathematically at least) does not mean that the distance is infinite. You're just reworking Zeno's Dichotomy paradox.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zeno's_paradoxes#The_dichotomy_paradox

Additionally, remember that math is a logical system and is not itself reality. That we run into various paradoxes indicates a limitation of the system and/or our ability to accurately describe the world within the system not a problem with the world. In particular, the concepts of zero and infinity are problematic.

~Raithere

Boyakasha! Finally someone who is thinking like me!

but how do we know if light speed is really the fastest speed in the universe? perhaps it's simply the fastest observed phenomenon/matter/energy/whatever in the universe. there are a few things left in the universe that are as yet unstudied. dark matter for example. black holes. are those ideas only figments of our imagination created to comfort us?

Hey, I am not here to give explanations for scientific equations. As of now, I am just merely a reporter of the findings of science. The speed of light as a "speed-limit" was derived from Einstein's equations --equations that many scientists view as fact. Just like myself, and probably 99.9% of the members, I do not know that math for much of what I preach. I do not deny the possibility of something going faster than the speed of light, and I am also quite intrigued by seemingly incongruent observations to the theory (see double-slit experiment and EPR paradox). One thing I know, however, is that the idea of light-speed being a universal speed limit was not created as a comfort. Do you really think that Einstein slaved over his theories and equations to create a comfort --and that scientists produced supporting evidence only as a comfort? i mean C'mon.

Infinity is a concept with no correlation to reality as currently understood by GR & QM. Planck length is indeed a limit on how small you can divide something. Smaller does not make sense as you would have a black hole. Information cannot travel faster than the speed of light. The universe itself does not "go on forever".

Does this mean these are indeed hard limits? Or does our understanding of reality simply break down at this point? I'm not sure.

Hey, I am not here to give explanations for scientific equations. As of now, I am just merely a reporter of the findings of science. The speed of light as a "speed-limit" was derived from Einstein's equations --equations that many scientists view as fact. Just like myself, and probably 99.9% of the members, I do not know that math for much of what I preach. I do not deny the possibility of something going faster than the speed of light, and I am also quite intrigued by seemingly incongruent observations to the theory (see double-slit experiment and EPR paradox). One thing I know, however, is that the idea of light-speed being a universal speed limit was not created as a comfort. Do you really think that Einstein slaved over his theories and equations to create a comfort --and that scientists produced supporting evidence only as a comfort? i mean C'mon.

humans will do almost anything to comfort themselves and make sense of what they can't understand... :eek:

in all seriousness, i ask because i want to understand. don't condemn me for my curiousity. what you see as assinine could very well be a justified idea. how many centuries was the earth flat, as a fact. how many centuries did the earth exist at the center of the universe? how long was man earthbound?

just want to express myself like anyone else, dude... :D

Errr... any decimal number that is greater then 0 but less then 1...:eek:


Try again.

That a distance may be infinitely divisible (mathematically at least) does not mean that the distance is infinite. You're just reworking Zeno's Dichotomy paradox.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zeno's_paradoxes#The_dichotomy_paradox

Additionally, remember that math is a logical system and is not itself reality. That we run into various paradoxes indicates a limitation of the system and/or our ability to accurately describe the world within the system not a problem with the world. In particular, the concepts of zero and infinity are problematic.

~Raithere
From the link...
"Zeno's paradoxes are a set of paradoxes devised by Zeno of Elea to support Parmenides' doctrine that "all is one" and that contrary to the evidence of our senses, the belief in plurality and change is mistaken, and in particular that motion is nothing but an illusion."
The guy was obviously a genious. Unfortunately, people are still not ready to accept the Truth... :rolleyes:

Jeeze. You, I know for a fact, should know that there is a much different universe on the (hard to observe) quantum level; logical observation of the macro world doesn't tend to agree with the "micro" world. :eek:
I know. You think my observation does not include the micro?

Does this mean these are indeed hard limits? Or does our understanding of reality simply break down at this point? I'm not sure.
Oh. Wow. You answered your own quesiton, haven't ya?;)

From the link...
"Zeno's paradoxes are a set of paradoxes devised by Zeno of Elea to support Parmenides' doctrine that "all is one" and that contrary to the evidence of our senses, the belief in plurality and change is mistaken, and in particular that motion is nothing but an illusion."
The guy was obviously a genious. Unfortunately, people are still not ready to accept the Truth... :rolleyes:

I hope you do not fall for Zeno's paradox as truth. Look at his assumption. He ASSUMES that the sum of the infinite series (1/2 + 1/4 + 1/8 + ...) is infinite.

No no no no...

The sequence is infinite, but the sum of the parts are finite because the size of the parts decreases indefinetely! :eek:

My claim is that the sequence is infinite.

The sequence is infinite, but the sum of the parts are finite because the size of the parts decreases indefinetely! :eek:

So you are saying 1/2 + 1/4 + 1/8 + ... = infinity?

My claim is that the sequence is infinite.

What do you mean? The number of terms is infinite or the sum is?

Let me try to demonstrate it with the following graph

C:\Documents and Settings\All Users\Documents\infinity.bmp

Damn! I need some place to upload my pictures to! :bugeye:

So you are saying 1/2 + 1/4 + 1/8 + ... = infinity?

What do you mean? The number of terms is infinite or the sum is?
The number of terms is infinite.

Upload your picture to photbucket.com - it's free.

And big deal if the series is infinite with regard to the number of terms.

Wait... I haven't been able to find a username to register yet... :bugeye:

:eek:

Ok... here it is...

http://i77.photobucket.com/albums/j50/Non-Sequitur/infinity.jpg

What? Explain your graph.

So you are saying 1/2 + 1/4 + 1/8 + ... = infinity?



What do you mean? The number of terms is infinite or the sum is?

i don't understand the graph...or the argument to be honest. but what he's saying is the half of the equation before the = is infinite while the sum will be decidedly finite because each consecutive term becomes less and less as the series continues ie 1/2>1/4, 1/4>1/8, 1/8>1/16 and so on. :D

... :confused: 1/2 + 1/4=3/4 + 1/8=7/8 + 1/16=15/16 etc., etc...hummmm...
seems that the eventual answer would come out to be (x-1)/x...what does that mean?

Truth,
"Oh. Wow. You answered your own quesiton, haven't ya? "

So you think things can be infinitely small, large, fast, etc.? Can you think of a scenario where this is not the case? Call it a thought experiment...

My hunch tells me there are limits due to the basic properties of space-time in our universe. For instance, if you tried to cut something planck length in half, you would wind up with planck length. Simply cannot be done. Course, I could be wrong.

i don't understand the graph...or the argument to be honest. but what he's saying is the half of the equation before the = is infinite while the sum will be decidedly finite because each consecutive term becomes less and less as the series continues ie 1/2>1/4, 1/4>1/8, 1/8>1/16 and so on. :D

Umm... tell me where half of the expression is in 1/2 + 1/4 + 1/8 + ...

Like maybe he means (1/2 + 1/8 + 1/32 + ...) + (1/4 + 1/16 + 1/64 + ...)?

... :confused: 1/2 + 1/4=3/4 + 1/8=7/8 + 1/16=15/16 etc., etc...hummmm...
seems that the eventual answer would come out to be (x-1)/x...what does that mean?

Well the limit of (x-1)/x at x=infinity is 1.

From the link...
"Zeno's paradoxes are a set of paradoxes devised by Zeno of Elea to support Parmenides' doctrine that "all is one" and that contrary to the evidence of our senses, the belief in plurality and change is mistaken, and in particular that motion is nothing but an illusion."
The guy was obviously a genious. Unfortunately, people are still not ready to accept the Truth... :rolleyes:You can't escape the problem that easily. The problem is that Zeno's premises lead to a static universe. The concept presented of illusory motion is self-defeating; you can't have even the illusion of motion unless something changes to create the illusion of motion and something exists in time to perceive this illusory change. The problem of stasis is a recurring one regarding concepts of infinity.

My claim is that the sequence is infinite.Irrelevant. It doesn't change the distance. All it means is that you can (theoretically / mathematically) divide a unit into an infinite number of sub-units.

Ok... here it is...

http://i77.photobucket.com/albums/j50/Non-Sequitur/infinity.jpgIf you're adding halves here your graph is wrong, it should be a curve not a straight line. Each proceeding fraction is smaller than the next and your curve should round off and never reach the limit... it doesn't just go shooting off to infinity.

If you're just adding all real numbers I don't understand the point because it has nothing to do with measuring distance.

The problem in the real world is that as you proceed into quantum distances position, momentum, and causality become uncertain. Essentially the whole thing blurs out in quantum indeterminacy. In this case, the Universe is quantized, there is no such thing as infinite divisibility and the mathematical concept of an infinite number of dimensionless points is simply a fallacy.

~Raithere

You can't escape the problem that easily. The problem is that Zeno's premises lead to a static universe. The concept presented of illusory motion is self-defeating; you can't have even the illusion of motion unless something changes to create the illusion of motion and something exists in time to perceive this illusory change. The problem of stasis is a recurring one regarding concepts of infinity.
Change is constant.

If you're adding halves here your graph is wrong, it should be a curve not a straight line. Each proceeding fraction is smaller than the next and your curve should round off and never reach the limit... it doesn't just go shooting off to infinity.
That's not the point of the graph. The graph shows a picture of infinity. The point of the graph is that finity is a whole and infinity is the relationship between the parts and the whole. When the whole is undevided, there are no parts. That is one side of the graph. When the whole is "completely" divided, you get other side of the graph- infinite number of parts, with no whole. That also shows a relationship between nothingness an infinity, and how infinite parts can add to a whole. Also take into account that the whole is defined by you. You define the object in question. For instance, you could define the object as a computer and take a look at the parts of the computer.

If you're just adding all real numbers I don't understand the point because it has nothing to do with measuring distance.
Everything has distance. Even 1/1000mm...

The problem in the real world is that as you proceed into quantum distances position, momentum, and causality become uncertain. Essentially the whole thing blurs out in quantum indeterminacy. In this case, the Universe is quantized, there is no such thing as infinite divisibility and the mathematical concept of an infinite number of dimensionless points is simply a fallacy.
Quanta IS infinitely divisible.

So you think things can be infinitely small, large, fast, etc.? Can you think of a scenario where this is not the case? Call it a thought experiment...
No.

My hunch tells me there are limits due to the basic properties of space-time in our universe. For instance, if you tried to cut something planck length in half, you would wind up with planck length. Simply cannot be done. Course, I could be wrong.
Well, read my explanation on Plack lenght somewhere in this thread! ;)

Quanta IS infinitely divisible.

Have you actually seen something that small? You are thinking abstractly, not reality. I think math is more like "in theory this or that exists" but does that have to apply to reality? No.

There is a shape, called Gabriel's horn. It has an infinite surface area and infinite length, but it's volume is finite. Where can I find one of these in reality? And you cannot argue that it is non-constructable because it is, in math. Just like "the smallest length." In math, it can be constructed such that the distance between 0 and 1 can be infinitely divisible, but does that have to apply to reality? Just like Gabriel's horn, not necessarily.

Change is constant.Agreed. Not sure how you reconcile the two ideas though, perhaps you were being sarcastic about Zeno.

That's not the point of the graph. The graph shows a picture of infinity. The point of the graph is that finity is a whole and infinity is the relationship between the parts and the whole. When the whole is undevided, there are no parts. That is one side of the graph. When the whole is "completely" divided, you get other side of the graph- infinite number of parts, with no whole. That also shows a relationship between nothingness an infinity, and how infinite parts can add to a whole. Also take into account that the whole is defined by you. You define the object in question. For instance, you could define the object as a computer and take a look at the parts of the computer.I'm not sure what your getting at here. The terms "parts" and "whole" are problematic. It sounds like you're equating the concept of infinity with the idea of unity.

Everything has distance. Even 1/1000mm...Nevermind.

Quanta IS infinitely divisible.No, they're not. That's the point of the theory. It means that even if distance is theoretically infinitely divisible anything you might use to measure the distance (e.g. matter or energy) is restricted to certain indivisible values.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quanta

~Raithere

Agreed. Not sure how you reconcile the two ideas though, perhaps you were being sarcastic about Zeno.
I wasn't being sarcastic.

I'm not sure what your getting at here. The terms "parts" and "whole" are problematic. It sounds like you're equating the concept of infinity with the idea of unity.
Given the existance of infinity, infinity would be the whole while finity would be the parts.

No, they're not. That's the point of the theory. It means that even if distance is theoretically infinitely divisible anything you might use to measure the distance (e.g. matter or energy) is restricted to certain indivisible values.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quanta
By definition (from the site):
"In physics, a quantum refers to an indivisible and perhaps elementary entity. "

That's brilliant. You don't know what it is so you call it a name. Then you use your tools to determine what is it. What are those tools? The Planck units. And as I said earlier, the Plack units don't give us absolute limits- they gives us a limitation of our understanding. Beyond those numbers, we simply cannot understand, our brains cannot process it. So basicaly, when we look at a black hole, we don't say that it doesn't exist and there is nothing in it- we say that we are simply unable to understand it due to a limitation of our own subjective capacity of understanding. So the quantum is the smallest particle we are capable of understanding.

I wasn't being sarcastic.Then how do you reconcile change with a static universe?

Given the existance of infinity, infinity would be the whole while finity would be the parts.Problem is we don't know if anything is infinite.

That's brilliant. You don't know what it is so you call it a name. Then you use your tools to determine what is it. What are those tools? The Planck units. And as I said earlier, the Plack units don't give us absolute limits- they gives us a limitation of our understanding. Beyond those numbers, we simply cannot understand, our brains cannot process it. So basicaly, when we look at a black hole, we don't say that it doesn't exist and there is nothing in it- we say that we are simply unable to understand it due to a limitation of our own subjective capacity of understanding. So the quantum is the smallest particle we are capable of understanding.It's not a limit of comprehension it appears to be a physical limitation. A quanta is the smallest unit of energy that seems to exist. You can't get half a photon; you either have a photon or you don't.

~Raithere

Then how do you reconcile change with a static universe?
Which static universe?

Problem is we don't know if anything is infinite.
We can infer it from philosophical reasoning and logic.

It's not a limit of comprehension it appears to be a physical limitation.
It is a limit of comprehension. The Plack lenght, for instance, is based purely on the ability (or rather inability) of black holes to hold information.

A quanta is the smallest unit of energy that seems to exist.
What energy are you talking about? Do you consider space-time energy?

You can't get half a photon; you either have a photon or you don't.
Huuumm... maybe...
What's the size of a photon?

Which static universe?

Well if you are serious about Zeno's paradox as being true (which it isn't), then it IMPIES a static universe. You are implying the Zeno was correct AND that the universe is in constant motion. Both cannot be true, they are contradictory.

Umm... tell me where half of the expression is in 1/2 + 1/4 + 1/8 + ...

Like maybe he means (1/2 + 1/8 + 1/32 + ...) + (1/4 + 1/16 + 1/64 + ...)?


he wrote: 1/2 + 1/4 + 1/8...= infinity. bear with me here. :o the equation wasn't in quotations and each successive fraction was half of its predecessor. i was only trying to add it up to a point so i could see where it was going and it seemed to end up as 1/x + 1/(x*2) + 1/(x*4) + 1/(x*8) + etc...= (x - 1)/x...have i just totally made an ass of myself or did you follow where i was going? :(

Well the limit of (x-1)/x at x=infinity is 1.

:bugeye:
i was pretty good at highschool math and didn't go on to take college math. i'm a mechanic. sue me. but if you would be so kind as to explain how infinity minus 1 (possible?) over infinity equals 1?
:D

:bugeye:
i was pretty good at highschool math and didn't go on to take college math. i'm a mechanic. sue me. but if you would be so kind as to explain how infinity minus 1 (possible?) over infinity equals 1?
:D

(x-1)/x

(1-1)/1 = 0
(2-1)/2 = 1/2
(3-1)/3 = 2/3
(4-3)/4 = 3/4
(1000-1)/1000 = 999/1000

See how it get's closer to one?

Infinity - any number = infinity.
infinity - infinity = undefined
infinity*0 = undefined
...

You could also do this:

(x-1)/x = 1 - 1/x

As the magnitude of x gets bigger, the magnitude of 1/x gets smaller and smaller every time... all the way to zero.

Imagine you want to go from point A to point B. The distance between them is infinite (that is, there is an unmeasurable amount of distance between both points, which never ends).

So you wanna go to point B. How long does it take? It depends of the speed, right? So how long it takes if our speed is the speed of light? It takes forever, right? Because there is an infinite amount of distance to cover...

But... what if our speed is also infinite? :eek:

Then, we could find the time by dividing the speed by the distance?

time to get to B= infinity/infinity

How much is that? :confused:


I think the answer is 0. Why? Because the measurement is always infinite. For instance, I could measure everything in meters and minutes. Then, the answer would be 1 minute? Or 1 year? That would make no sense. But when the answer is 0, then the measurement used is irrelevant and the whole thing makes sense, because if you are infinitely fast, you are capable of getting anywhere within 0 time!


So... it takes us 0 minutes/hours/days/years/months to move between points A and B if they are infinitely apart and our speed is infinite!

:eek:

To me, unmeasurable does not necessarily equate to infinite. The distance between point A and point B is finite in that the distance has boundaries... with the boundaries being point A and point B. An infinite universe has no boundaries but there are finite distances between points in the universe.

I get this sense that TS means that with zero size, the space in zero-dimensions collapses in itself and "on the outside" is infinity... sort of like two cones meeting at a point , parallel to eachother, and this point is a point on a plane. The cones are perpendicular to this plane. At the point is zero, but it is the union of two spaces, infinite in size.

Well it is not exactly what I am thinking but I do not know how to explain my thought :rolleyes:

Well if you are serious about Zeno's paradox as being true (which it isn't), then it IMPIES a static universe. You are implying the Zeno was correct AND that the universe is in constant motion. Both cannot be true, they are contradictory.
Not really. A movie is made out of a series of still images. Same applies here.

Dark matter is the overtime accumulation of those "still images"...

To me, unmeasurable does not necessarily equate to infinite. The distance between point A and point B is finite in that the distance has boundaries... with the boundaries being point A and point B. An infinite universe has no boundaries but there are finite distances between points in the universe.
Yes.

I get this sense that TS means that with zero size, the space in zero-dimensions collapses in itself and "on the outside" is infinity... sort of like two cones meeting at a point , parallel to eachother, and this point is a point on a plane. The cones are perpendicular to this plane. At the point is zero, but it is the union of two spaces, infinite in size.

Well it is not exactly what I am thinking but I do not know how to explain my thought :rolleyes:
You may have gotten it... but you sound confused...:D

You may have gotten it... but you sound confused...:D

No, I am not confused. I know exactly what you mean... however it is hard to put my mental images into words when they are not even images like we see in movies or photographs.

I am not endorsing your idea, I am just stating that I see what you are talking about.

Not really. A movie is made out of a series of still images. Same applies here.

Dark matter is the overtime accumulation of those "still images"...

Well think of it this way...

Zeno's paradox states that it is impossible to move from point A to point B because you must first move 1/2 the distance, than 1/2 of the remaining distance, and then 1/2 of the remaining distance... ad infinitum.

However look at it like this: To even move the FIRST 1/2 distance, you must travel 1/4 of the distance from A to B... but before you can even do that, you must travel 1/8 of the distance from A to B... ad infinitum.

So, as you see... you cannot even make the initial movement from A... that is, you are STUCK AT A.

If you are moving in frames, then you must move a finite distance to get from one frame to the next. This takes time. If not, then we would move from A to B in zero time.

The entire distance is infinite. But the distance between 1/2 and 1/4 is finite. ALso, we do not occupy an infinite distance per se. In fact, we do occupy it if you look from far away enough... :eek:

You are making little sense and I have a feeling you have contradictory views that you think are true.

Which static universe?Absane has already addressed this above.

We can infer it from philosophical reasoning and logic.Reason and logic must bend to the weight of evidentiary support. The fact of the matter is that we do not know. Infinity is a concept... and an incomplete concept at that as by its very definition it cannot ever be grasped but only vaguely approximated (mathematically or conceptually). To insist that the concept somehow mandates reality is absurd. It is no more reflective of reality than the notion that 1 - 1 = 0... the terms are symbolic, not actual.

It is a limit of comprehension. The Plack lenght, for instance, is based purely on the ability (or rather inability) of black holes to hold information.No. The Planck length is the distance at which quantum effects can no longer be ignored... essentially the point where the GR calculations break down.

http://www.physlink.com/Education/AskExperts/ae635.cfm

What energy are you talking about? Do you consider space-time energy?

Clearly, in Einstein's model, increasing the intensity of the incident radiation would cause greater numbers of electrons to be ejected, but each electron would carry the same average energy because each incident photon carried the same energy. [This assumes that the dominant process consists of individual photons being absorbed by and resulting in the ejection of a single electron.] Likewise, in Einstein's model, increasing the frequency f, rather than the intensity, of the incident radiation would increase the average energy of the emitted electrons.

Both of these predictions were confirmed experimentally. Moreover, the rate of increase of the energy of the ejected electrons with increasing frequency, which can be measured, enables one to determine the value of Planck's constant h.

The photoelectric effect is perhaps the most direct and convincing evidence of the existence of photons and the 'corpuscular' nature of light and electromagnetic radiation. That is, it provides undeniable evidence of the quantization of the electromagnetic field and the limitations of the classical field equations of Maxwell. http://www.physlink.com/Education/AskExperts/ae24.cfm

~Raithere

We can infer it from philosophical reasoning and logic.



People spent years in antiquity using philosophical reasoning and logic to "infer" what happens when one reaches earth's edge and what lives on earth's underbelly.

Asserting that matter or time is indivisible becomes a completely groundless assertion. Remember, human logic is not infallible.

infinity mathematicly and logically = rabbit = null = god = "infinity"

infinity mathematicly and logically = rabbit = null = god = "infinity"

What? At least say something that makes sense.

infinity makes sense? how

Look closely at your post. Pretend you are me. Does it make sense?

infinity mathematicly and logically = rabbit = null = god = "infinity"

I agree with Absane. Turn your ideas into relatively coherent sentences --not stupid jibberish.

Unless...you just have twisted mathematical and logical answers. Explain how infinity equals rabbit. Then explain how rabbit equals null and how null equals god and how god equals ""infinity.""

Well what is getting me (besides the jibberish like rabbit = god) is null = infinity

What? Mathematically.. you are saying {} = card N (if you want to use that infinity...).

People spent years in antiquity using philosophical reasoning and logic to "infer" what happens when one reaches earth's edge and what lives on earth's underbelly.
Big Bang was inferred. Brane Theory is inferred. Quantum physics is inferred. Damn, anything below an atom or above the sky is inferred! :eek:

Asserting that matter or time is indivisible becomes a completely groundless assertion. Remember, human logic is not infallible.
Which is why I always invite people to doubt the above assertions.

You are making little sense and I have a feeling you have contradictory views that you think are true.
I don't think you understand what I'm saying.

As I said, the sequence is infinite, but the sum is finite.
Also, there is finity within infinity. If you take a portion of infinity, you have finity. Infinity makes no sense from an external point of view- it is undefined. But from within infinity, you perceive it as finity.

Big Bang was inferred. Brane Theory is inferred. Quantum physics is inferred. Damn, anything below an atom or above the sky is inferred! :eek:

The problem with saying the Earth is flat is that you cannot derive laws using this theory to explain the universe in a consistant fashion. And as far as I know, M-theory, string-theory, quantum theory, ect., they all can use used to explain the universe in a fairly consistant way.

I don't think you understand what I'm saying.

And that is a problem on your part.

As I said, the sequence is infinite, but the sum is finite.

This is true. We agree on something.

Also, there is finity within infinity.

Just so you know, 'finity' is not a word. That is, unless you mean this (http://www.logarithmic.net/pfh/finity).

If you take a portion of infinity, you have finity.

Your statement is not true. If you mean it in a way other, then explain it further. A subset of infinity can be finite or infinite.

Infinity makes no sense from an external point of view- it is undefined. But from within infinity, you perceive it as finity.

I have no idea how to make sense of this sophomoric theory. Explain. You do realize you are dealing with an INTP, right? ;)

The problem with saying the Earth is flat is that you cannot derive laws using this theory to explain the universe in a consistant fashion.
Actually, it used to, just like Newtonian laws were good enough while we were exploring the solar system (well, aside from some bizarre imbalances in the orbit of Mercury). :cool:

Actually, it used to, just like Newtonian laws were good enough while we were exploring the solar system (well, aside from some bizarre imbalances in the orbit of Mercury). :cool:

Where did the sun go every night? Where does the moon go? Why does the moon look round? How can the sun's rays reflect off the moon much as they do on a sphere? Where did volcanos come from? How can China have sun light but not France at the same time?

So what? What's the point of those questions?

They are in response to your claim that the "flat earth" theory could explain natural phenomena.

Just so you know, 'finity' is not a word. That is, unless you mean this (http://www.logarithmic.net/pfh/finity).
Yeah, whatever. What is the noun then?

A subset of infinity can be finite or infinite.
Yes. Did I say that is not true?

I have no idea how to make sense of this sophomoric theory. Explain. You do realize you are dealing with an INTP, right? ;)
Well, ok :D

Imagine the universe is infinite. You look at the universe from outside. What do you see? Well, that is undefined, because by definition, there is no "outside" of infinity. But if you look from within infinity, you observe finity, regardless of where you are in the universe. For a matter of fact, even if you keep going farther and farther away from galaxies and everything, you still observe finity, regardless of the infinity of the universe.

In other words- from an internal perspective, infinity will always be perceived as finite.

Well... unless you understand that size is relative to the observer that is perceving the object in question. Because you have to remember that whatever we perceive is always compared to other objects that we perceive. For instance, you say that an ant is small when you compare it to an elephant, but you say it is big when compared to an atom.

Yeah, whatever. What is the noun then?

You tell me what "finity" means. I am not a dictionary.

Yes. Did I say that is not true?

You said, and I quote: If you take a portion of infinity, you have finity.


Well, ok :D

At least you know what you are dealing with

Imagine the universe is infinite. You look at the universe from outside. What do you see?

Imagine an infinite 2D universe. Look at it from the outside, that is in the third-dimension. What do you see? An infinite universe in 2D. You are stuck looking at n-dimensions from and n-dimension perspective.

Well, that is undefined, because by definition, there is no "outside" of infinity.

Technically, infinity is boundless. By your definition, infinity can be bounded but it is impossible, realistically or not, to observe from outside this border (pending it exists).

But if you look from within infinity, you observe finity, regardless of where you are in the universe.

Depends on where you are.

For a matter of fact, even if you keep going farther and farther away from galaxies and everything, you still observe finity, regardless of the infinity of the universe.

No response.

In other words- from an internal perspective, infinity will always be perceived as finite.

One can see into the infinite. Imagine two perfect mirrors parallel to eachother. What do you see (in theory)?

You said, and I quote: If you take a portion of infinity, you have finity.
Yes, and you said that finity and infinity are both subsets of infinity- and I agreed with you. So? What's the difference here?

Imagine an infinite 2D universe. Look at it from the outside, that is in the third-dimension. What do you see? An infinite universe in 2D. You are stuck looking at n-dimensions from and n-dimension perspective.
So? What's your point? As I said, you can't observe infinity from outside infinity because that is impossible. Infinity goes on forever- it has no boundaries.

Technically, infinity is boundless. By your definition, infinity can be bounded but it is impossible, realistically or not, to observe from outside this border (pending it exists).
I never said infinity can be bounded. And yes, it is imossible to observe it from the outside, which is why it is considered "undefined" from an external point of view.

Depends on where you are.
Oh really? How about an example?

One can see into the infinite. Imagine two perfect mirrors parallel to eachother. What do you see (in theory)?
Well, yes, but you cannot see the whole of infinity. As I said before, our brains cannot process that amount of information. That just proves my point! ;)

Yes, and you said that finity and infinity are both subsets of infinity- and I agreed with you. So? What's the difference here?

Look at the logical structure of your statement. And define finitity... I like how you dodged that.


So? What's your point? As I said, you can't observe infinity from outside infinity because that is impossible. Infinity goes on forever- it has no boundaries.

The point is that from my example, I am clearly observing infinity. You are arguing from the viewpoint of a human and only what a human can actually see is the real-world. Are we really that arrogant that we think all that exists is what a human can see with his five-sense?


I never said infinity can be bounded. And yes, it is imossible to observe it from the outside, which is why it is considered "undefined" from an external point of view.

I never said that you claim infinity to be bounded. I am simply fixing your definition. Why is it impossible to view from the outside?


Oh really? How about an example?

Again, you are stuck looking at the universe from YOUR point of view. Drop the idea.


Well, yes, but you cannot see the whole of infinity. As I said before, our brains cannot process that amount of information. That just proves my point! ;)

See?

As I said before, our brains cannot process that amount of information. That just proves my point!

Another groundless assertion, but lets not get distracted by this. Continue reading.


Big Bang was inferred. Brane Theory is inferred. Quantum physics is inferred. Damn, anything below an atom or above the sky is inferred! The big bang theory was mathematically inferred and is supported by a HEAP of evidence. How can quantum physics as a whole be inferred? That's like saying paleontology is inferred. Sure elements and thoeries of quantum physics are inferred but they are also supported by a HEAP of evidence. Your inference that matter and time are infinity divisible is supported by barely any evidence, and is in fact opposed by much evidence.

To further my point, I quote from wikipedia: "[T]he pioneering work of Max Planck (1858-1947) in the field of quantum physics suggests that there is, in fact, a minimum distance (now called the Planck length, 1.616 × 10−35 metres) and therefore a minimum time interval (the amount of time which light takes to traverse that distance in a vacuum, 5.391 × 10−44 seconds, known as the Planck time) smaller than which meaningful measurement is impossible."

This basically means that any application of either general relativety or of quantum mechanics breaks down at either plank time or plank length. The fact that nonmeaningful and arbitrary answers are produced at shorter lengths or time intervals implies that matter and time is in fact indivisible at a certain point.

Infinity is an extremely interesting concept. It also makes you think about things like zero, nothingness, being, space, time, and so on.

Strictly speaking, going infinitely fast isn't possible. The highest speed of a material object always must be less than that of light, while that of light itself is exactly the value of c (photons are massless). As for space and time being infinitely divisible, quantum mechanics also appears to prevent that from happening because of the uncertainly principle, which only allows for a 'Planck time' and a 'Planck length' to exist.

Is the universe infinite in size? Possibly. Empirical evidence does seem to suggest it may well be so.

Is being infinite? Are all beings merely part of an infinite yet simple One? Spinoza's very beautiful intellectual concept of the universe held all things to be modal occurences of a single infinite substance. Plotinus believed in a One above being which had a sort of qualitative infinity. Georg Cantor identified an 'absolute' infinite.

Infinity is a rich area for philosophical, logical, mathematical and scientific investigation. It is also quite beautiful. Personally I don't have an issue with the Infinite existing in a real sense, though mystical admiration of it I would leave in silence.

On Parmenides himself, while he believed Being was One and unitary and eternal and unchanging, I don't think he believed it was infinite. Many Greeks actually believed infinity or the 'unlimited' indicated some kind of deficiency because what was perfect could be defined and was limited.

As he says in his poem:

" How could what is (being; to eon) perish? How could it come to be (be born)?

20 For if it came to be, it is (was) not, nor if it is ever about to come to be.

21 In this way coming to be has been extinguished and destruction is not heard of.

22 Neither is it divisible, since it is all alike (like);
(OR:..., since all is alike (like);)
Nor is it in any way more in any one place, which would keep it from holding itself together;

24 Nor is it in any way less; but all is full of what is (being; eontos).

25 Therefore all is continuous; for what is (being; eon) comes near to what is (being; eonti).
(OR:Therefore it is all continuous; for...)

26 But unmoving in limits of mighty bonds

27 It is without beginning and without cease, since coming to be and destruction

28 Wandered very far off, and (but) true assurance pushed them away.

29 Remaining the same and in the same place (way), it lies by (according to) itself

30 And thus it stands fast on the spot, for mighty Anankē (Necessity)

31 Holds it in bonds of limit, which shuts it in all around (on both sides)."


Parmenides sense of Being is strongly limited and divisible, and therefore definable. While One and eternal, it has definition and form, which he identifies with a sphere.

"But since a limit is outermost, it (i.e., what is) is completed (perfected),

43 From every side like the bulk of a well-rounded sphere,

44-45 In all ways equally balanced from the middle, for it is necessary that it be neither something greater nor something smaller in one way or another (in this or that);"
Nor does what is (being; eon) not exist, which would prevent it from attaining

47-48 To the same thing; nor is what is (being; eon) such that it could be more than (of) what is (being; eon) in some way (place) and less in another, since it is all (since all is) inviolate.

49 For from all sides (in all ways) equal to itself, it proves to be uniformly within limits."

This identification of Being as a perfect sphere was also common to Xenophanes (a contemporary of Parmenides).

Plato in his dialogues does not say explicitly that the Good or any other Form is infinite (though eternal and unchanging) and Aristotle argues strongly against infinity in his works, including Physics and Metaphysics. Plotinus hinted the One was infinite though he didn't say so explicitly, rather emphasizing it was not bounded to quantity (as the One is above number). It was really the later Platonists and especially the Christian theologian/philosophers like Gregory of Nyssa, who explicitly began to argue Being/God was infinite and undefined, to defend God's mystery against precise definition or else to maintain the hyper-transcendence of the 'One.' (This is particularly the case in Proclus and Iamblichus).

Is the universe infinite in size? Possibly. Empirical evidence does seem to suggest it may well be so.

Are you sure that empiricle evidence has suggested this? The big bang theory clearly presents a finite universe, as do the many experiments which show an expanding universe. The idea of a static, infinite universe, according to my knowledge, was thrown out a long time ago.

Are you sure that empiricle evidence has suggested this? The big bang theory clearly presents a finite universe, as do the many experiments which show an expanding universe. The idea of a static, infinite universe, according to my knowledge, was thrown out a long time ago.

Well, as I have thought.. the universe is much more than what is contained inside of it. Not that I am agreeing with him or disagreeing with you, but it's my thought.

*sigh... here is a discussion about the problems with the Big Bang...
http://www.sciforums.com/showthread.php?t=51188

In that thread, posted by Cris...

"Problems with The Big Bang.

Top 10 problems (Meta Research).

A short list of the leading problems faced by the big bang in its struggle for viability as a theory:

1. Static universe models fit the data better than expanding universe models.
2. The microwave "background" makes more sense as the limiting temperature of space heated by starlight than as the remnant of a fireball.
3. Element abundance predictions using the big bang require too many adjustable parameters to make them work.
4. The universe has too much large scale structure (interspersed "walls" and voids) to form in a time as short as 10-20 billion years.
5. The average luminosity of quasars must decrease with time in just the right way so that their mean apparent brightness is the same at all redshifts, which is exceedingly unlikely.
6. The ages of globular clusters appear older than the universe.
7. The local streaming motions of galaxies are too high for a finite universe that is supposed to be everywhere uniform.
8. Invisible dark matter of an unknown but non-baryonic nature must be the dominant ingredient of the entire universe.
9. The most distant galaxies in the Hubble Deep Field show insufficient evidence of evolution, with some of them apparently having higher redshifts (z = 6-7) than the faintest quasars.
10 If the open universe we see today is extrapolated back near the beginning, the ratio of the actual density of matter in the universe to the critical density must differ from unity by just a part in 1059. Any larger deviation would result in a universe already collapsed on itself or already dissipated.

Ref: - http://www.metaresearch.org/cosmolo...0BBproblems.asp

Top 30 problems (Meta Research 2002).

http://www.metaresearch.org/cosmology/BB-top-30.asp

Is the universe expanding? Expansion has not yet been observed.

http://www.metaresearch.org/cosmolo...eABeginning.asp"

Is the universe expanding? Expansion has not yet been observed.


Absolute, 100% bullshit. Ever heard of redshift? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Redshift . Is this not an observation?

"Redshift typically occurs when a light source moves away or towards an observer, analogous to the Doppler shift which changes the frequency of sound waves. While redshift has a number of terrestrial uses (e.g. Doppler radar and Radar guns), it is famously employed in astronomy where it is used as a diagnostic in spectroscopic astrophysics to determine information about the dynamics and kinematics (i.e. movement) of distant objects. Most famously, redshifts are observed in the spectra from distant galaxies, quasars, and intergalactic gas clouds to increase proportionally with the distance to the object. This is generally considered to be one of the major forms of evidence that the universe is expanding, supporting the Big Bang model."

For further detail look at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hubble_Law.

Absolute, 100% bullshit. Ever heard of redshift? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Redshift . Is this not an observation?

"Redshift typically occurs when a light source moves away or towards an observer, analogous to the Doppler shift which changes the frequency of sound waves. While redshift has a number of terrestrial uses (e.g. Doppler radar and Radar guns), it is famously employed in astronomy where it is used as a diagnostic in spectroscopic astrophysics to determine information about the dynamics and kinematics (i.e. movement) of distant objects. Most famously, redshifts are observed in the spectra from distant galaxies, quasars, and intergalactic gas clouds to increase proportionally with the distance to the object. This is generally considered to be one of the major forms of evidence that the universe is expanding, supporting the Big Bang model."

For further detail look at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hubble_Law.
*sigh...
I provide you with links containing clear evidence of many problems associated with the Big Bang and this is how you respond? :rolleyes:

No. Redshift does NOT imply expansion.
Here's an example:
http://www.metaresearch.org/cosmology/QuasarsNearVersusFar.asp

This is about as stupid as it can get. I thought this was about Zeno's paradox... now it is about the size of the universe and the validity of the Big Bang.

And TS, reply to my post before all this... please.

*sigh...
I provide you with links containing clear evidence of many problems associated with the Big Bang and this is how you respond? :rolleyes:

No. Redshift does NOT imply expansion.
Here's an example:
http://www.metaresearch.org/cosmology/QuasarsNearVersusFar.asp


While I do agree that the big bang theory still may be incomplete and with possible holes, it is supported by such overwhelming evidence that any "new theory" would without a doubt not replace it, but instead need to incorporate it. In addition to that, throwing an article at me that was written by some miniscule dissident of relativity shows nothing. You read his ideas and assert them as fact? What about Einstein's Relativity? Has the great mind of Tom Van Flandern undone these theories and the empericle evidence that greatly supports each? Please, before basking in your "*sighs" of self-righteous, shit-eating confidence try opening your eyes.

could someone tell me if this theory (one i thought of but may already exist paired with the fact that i have very limited knowledge of astronomy :D ), since you guys are on the subject of the big bang, holds any water?
okay. i read in a magazine article that most scientist are leaning toward the fact that universe will continue to expand until all energy and matter are reduced to trace gases and radio waves. now blackholes swallow everything around them right? blackholes also have gravity (duh). would it be possible for all the matter and energy in the universe to eventually end up in one black hole or another and then all the black holes gravitate toward one another until one megablackhole exists. but just as this megablackhole is coming together the density of it becomes so great that the tiny, incredibly dense particle of matter at its center "overloads" and explodes outward, effectively creating another big bang?

just a thought.

Has the great mind of Tom Van Flandern undone these theories and the empericle evidence that greatly supports each?
The "evidence" tells what you want it to tell. You can create a model, but that is just one model.

Anyways... I just proved my point in this thread... cheers!

could someone tell me if this theory (one i thought of but may already exist paired with the fact that i have very limited knowledge of astronomy :D ), since you guys are on the subject of the big bang, holds any water?
okay. i read in a magazine article that most scientist are leaning toward the fact that universe will continue to expand until all energy and matter are reduced to trace gases and radio waves. now blackholes swallow everything around them right? blackholes also have gravity (duh). would it be possible for all the matter and energy in the universe to eventually end up in one black hole or another and then all the black holes gravitate toward one another until one megablackhole exists. but just as this megablackhole is coming together the density of it becomes so great that the tiny, incredibly dense particle of matter at its center "overloads" and explodes outward, effectively creating another big bang?

just a thought.
I'm sure a lot of people had thought of that already- including me...

And TS, reply to my post before all this... please.

And again.

I'm sure a lot of people had thought of that already- including me...

:( sorry, dude. just asking. :D

:( sorry, dude. just asking. :D

I've thought about it... and something tells me it does not have to happen.

My question is... what can be the strongest black hole? Assuming there is a finite amount of "stuff" out there that can create a black hole... how strong can it get?

I've thought about it... and something tells me it does not have to happen.

My question is... what can be the strongest black hole? Assuming there is a finite amount of "stuff" out there that can create a black hole... how strong can it get?

i have noooo idea. you're the smart one. :rolleyes:
seriously, though. it would seem to me that a black hole, as powerful and "hungry" as it is, can only hold so much before it exceeds its...what is the word for it? i have very limited astronomy vocabulary. the event horizon is the point at which a foreign object begins to be drawn in, right? :D

i have noooo idea. you're the smart one. :rolleyes:

Clever one.

seriously, though. it would seem to me that a black hole, as powerful and "hungry" as it is, can only hold so much before it exceeds its...what is the word for it? i have very limited astronomy vocabulary. the event horizon is the point at which a foreign object begins to be drawn in, right? :D

What tells you this?

The event horizon consists of points in space that the escape velocity is c.

could someone tell me if this theory (one i thought of but may already exist paired with the fact that i have very limited knowledge of astronomy :D ), since you guys are on the subject of the big bang, holds any water?
okay. i read in a magazine article that most scientist are leaning toward the fact that universe will continue to expand until all energy and matter are reduced to trace gases and radio waves. now blackholes swallow everything around them right? blackholes also have gravity (duh). would it be possible for all the matter and energy in the universe to eventually end up in one black hole or another and then all the black holes gravitate toward one another until one megablackhole exists. but just as this megablackhole is coming together the density of it becomes so great that the tiny, incredibly dense particle of matter at its center "overloads" and explodes outward, effectively creating another big bang?

just a thought.
Over aeons, even black holes will probably "evaporate" due to quantum tunneling of one of a virtual particle pair, across the event horizon.

The event horizon consists of points in space that the escape velocity is c.

okay. so can a blackhole's mass ever exceed its event horizon or will the even horizon increase with the size of the blackhole?

Over aeons, even black holes will probably "evaporate" due to quantum tunneling of one of a virtual particle pair, across the event horizon.

:eek: what is this "quantum tunneling" you speak of?

okay. so can a blackhole's mass ever exceed its event horizon or will the even horizon increase with the size of the blackhole?

What do you mean? Can it's size exceed the event horizon? No.

As far as I know, we do not have definite proof that they exist... because we never experienced its effects. However, mathematical models suggest they do.

okay. so can a blackhole's mass ever exceed its event horizon or will the even horizon increase with the size of the blackhole?
The size of the BH is the event horizon. It's size is directly related to the mass of the hole, so you are correct - the event horizon increases with the mass of the BH and they can get as big as you want. And according to physics, there is no "particle" at the center of a black hole, but a "singularity". This is a dimensionless point that exhibits nothing but gravity, spin, and a magnetic field(?). What that really means is that physics essentially breaks down in its description of what happens under such intense compression of matter due to gravity. Infinities appear in the equations.

Quantum tunnelling across the event horizon was first theorized by Hawking. The basic idea is that since space is known to be teeming with virtual matter-antimatter particle pairs all of the time, a pair that appears precisely at the event horizon can become seperated due to the quantum uncertainty of position and momentum and one half of the pair can escape the hole while the other is swallowed by it. The energy carried away by the surviving particle represents a tiny reduction in the mass of the hole by E = mc². Does this help?

The size of the BH is the event horizon. It's size is directly related to the mass of the hole, so you are correct - the event horizon increases with the mass of the BH and they can get as big as you want. And according to physics, there is no "particle" at the center of a black hole, but a "singularity". This is a dimensionless point that exhibits nothing but gravity, spin, and a magnetic field(?). What that really means is that physics essentially breaks down in its description of what happens under such intense compression of matter due to gravity. Infinities appear in the equations.

Quantum tunnelling across the event horizon was first theorized by Hawking. The basic idea is that since space is known to be teeming with virtual matter-antimatter particle pairs all of the time, a pair that appears precisely at the event horizon can become seperated due to the quantum uncertainty of position and momentum and one half of the pair can escape the hole while the other is swallowed by it. The energy carried away by the surviving particle represents a tiny reduction in the mass of the hole by E = mc². Does this help?

:bugeye: yes. so then, it isn't possible to have a megablackhole explode from an exess of matter. :( man, i thought i had it.

:bugeye: yes. so then, it isn't possible to have a megablackhole explode from an exess of matter. :( man, i thought i had it.

Intuition tells me: no.

:bugeye: yes. so then, it isn't possible to have a megablackhole explode from an exess of matter. :( man, i thought i had it.
Sorry, no.

ah, well. i can always start my own cult of bull. :D

Sorry, no.

Oh, I was right? lol.

But wait! The prediction is that as the hole "shrinks" the amount of radiation will increase exponentially until the microscopic hole explodes in a burst of gamma rays. You still get a nice explosion out of the deal.

*whiny* yeeeaah...but it's not the same as the big bang.

:p

http://www.sciforums.com/showthread.php?p=1083625#post1083625
http://www.sciforums.com/showthread.php?p=1083625#post1083625

The opposite of this:
http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/infinity
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Infinity

LOL... that is the laziest definition I have ever seen.

I want you to write a definition in your own words or find a definition that is in agreement with your arguments. Also, what about my other points?

I want this thread to keep going :)

I am sad now... I want to continue this :(