Where is the limit of time?
Where is the limit of space?

Is there really a limit??? :bugeye: :bugeye: :eek:

What is zero?
...
What is infinite?

Is there really a difference? :bugeye: :bugeye: :eek:

In a black hole, for example; the sigularity is zero space-time or infinite space-time??:bugeye: :eek:

And how do you know it!?!?!?!? (If you do...)

Those questions are very important because we base everything we know on that...!!!!!!!

Let's go people...
Tell me... how do you dimensionally define quantity?

The limit is only your imagination. :p

On the other hand, singularities are mathematical impossibilities. You can't tell anything about a singularity because it's nonsensical to begin with. What you really need to do, is get a better theory that does not produce singularities. Then you could get a reasonable answer...

Um, and what do you mean, everything? I've just gone through a whole day without even once considering the potential infinity of spacetime.

overdoze,

On the other hand, singularities are mathematical impossibilities. You can't tell anything about a singularity because it's nonsensical to begin with. What you really need to do, is get a better theory that does not produce singularities. Then you could get a reasonable answer...

And if they exist? I mean... the theory of Black Holes are well explained through singularities. Only because it's mathematical "impossible" it doesn't mean that it's not true. If we are searching for something to originate an universe, space-time and so on, a singularity is perfect for that...! If a singularity can be explained by 0 and infinite space-time at the same "time", we have infinite possibilities in it... ;)

Um, and what do you mean, everything? I've just gone through a whole day without even once considering the potential infinity of spacetime.

All physics are based in space-time... :)

But they seem to be infinite... If they are not infinite, where do they finish? And if they finish, what there is beyond them? It's hard to talk about this because we are in the bounderies of our knowledge/imagination...:bugeye: :eek:

Nelson dear, why do I get the feeling that this is going to turn into a philosophical discussion?

Where is the limit of time?
Where is the limit of space?

Is there really a limit???

No, there isn't. It is infinite.

What is zero?

In its simplest form, zero is nothingness, zilch, nada.

More complex and involving imaginary and negative numbers, zero is simply another way of expressing quantity.

Zero is basically the lack of quantity.

What is infinite?

Everything. Think of somthing that goes on forever and never stops, like the symbol for infinity.

Is there really a difference?

Every difference in the world.

In a black hole, for example; the sigularity is zero space-time or infinite space-time??

Pardon? I think you need to do a bit more reading on black holes and singularitys. Or repeat the question a bit more clearly. :)

Let's go people...
Tell me... how do you dimensionally define quantity?

Huh?

You know the number 7? Infinity is not that.

You know the number 4? Zero is not that.

Sorry, it's a little bit funny. :)

i THINK he means that at a singularity its a single point but yet infinitly dence

am i right?

Xev,

No, there isn't. It is infinite.

So... Where is the limit!?!?!?!?:eek: :eek:

In its simplest form, zero is nothingness, zilch, nada.

More complex and involving imaginary and negative numbers, zero is simply another way of expressing quantity.

Zero is basically the lack of quantity.


Everything. Think of somthing that goes on forever and never stops, like the symbol for infinity.

So... where are they...?
I mean... if zero doesn't exist (everything exists...)
... and infinite is everything...
...are they really real...?

And you didn't get my idea...
Asguard is getting it, though... :)

Pardon? I think you need to do a bit more reading on black holes and singularitys. Or repeat the question a bit more clearly.

See my answer to Asguard...

Huh?

...
How do you put a quantity in something that is infinite and inexistent at the same time...


Asguard,

i THINK he means that at a singularity its a single point but yet infinitly dence

am i right?

Yes... you are pretty much there...:)

Explaining better...
A singularity is infinite warped space-time and yet it's so small that it can be represented by 0.

...
Imagine that you have lots of matter. The space-time is normal, so you can "see" the matter. However, if the space-time is folded millions of times and become an infinite nule "point", what is zero and infinite...?

It doesn't seems that there is a difference between 0 and infinite...

Nelson:
So... Where is the limit!?!?!?!?

As you would say:

THERE IS NO LIMIT!!!!!! ;)

So... where are they...?

Look around you. Infinity is everything. Zero is the lack of things. If I have an apple, and somone comes and takes it away, I have zero apples.

I mean... if zero doesn't exist (everything exists...)

Oh, it exists. See above.

...are they really real...?

Yes.

And you didn't get my idea...

Hate to be harsh, but that's 'cuz you need to improve your english.

How do you put a quantity in something that is infinite and inexistent at the same time...

"Inexistant" is not a word. You want "nonexistant".

Sorry dear, but you can't expect people to understand you if you do not use their language properly.

Now, what is infinite and nonexistant at the same time?

Explaining better...
A singularity is infinite warped space-time and yet it's so small that it can be represented by 0.

Umm, Nelson, where are you getting your information? Where is it represented by zero because it is small?

You see, beyond the singularity, the black hole is basically "out of the universe". It has nothing to do with size.

Here:
http://archive.ncsa.uiuc.edu/Cyberia/NumRel/BlackHoleAnat.html

http://imagine.gsfc.nasa.gov/docs/ask_astro/black_holes.html

It doesn't seems that there is a difference between 0 and infinite...

"Not much difference" hardly means "the same", hmmmm?

Asguard got my idea, you didn't...
The difference between you and him is that he has more brain cells or he can use his brain better than you.

It's all simple...

Note to self: Dealing with Nelson sober ≠ good idea. :D

Nelson dear:

It's all simple...

Yes, it is. A singularity is not part of our universe. It can be considered as zero because it has no affect on our observable universe.

Basically, the curvature of spacetime - it is infinite, congratulations on getting that right - is so extreme that that part of the universe "tears" away. Your understanding of the concept is rather limited by your lack of calculus or advanced physics.

You have a decent grasp so far, however, simply because the attributes of two things are simular does not make the essence of the two things the same.

Got it now? :)

Edit to ask:

What the fuck, Nelson, is "If you can't dazzle them with your brilliance, baffle them with your bullshit" your operating principle?

Perhaps, Mr."I've read 'A Brief History of Time', therefore I am a physicist", you ought to listen to what people who KNOW this subject tell you.

Or perhaps, drawing on your extensive sexual experience, you'd best tell us what triggers female orgasm? It's a question that has baffled the male mind for untold milenia.

Or perhaps you should listen to those more knowledgable and experienced than you. I don't care how tender your ego is, boy, you really ought to listen for once in your life.

Then again, learning english so you can converse intelligently might be a good start. After that I suggest learning a bit of logic.

Look boy, I don't mind your questions, but I do mind your lame-ass attempts at insults.

Please,
Grow the fuck up or shut the fuck up.

"So... Where is the limit!?!?!?!?"

Nelson, it is perfectly evident that you cannot get your head aroudn the idea of infinite. It is a difficult idea to comprehend at first, and I think this should prove to you that you are definetly not as smart as you think you are if yo udon't understand infinite.


"So... where are they...?
I mean... if zero doesn't exist (everything exists...)
... and infinite is everything...
...are they really real...?"

If I had zero bananas and you had infinite amount of bananas, who has more bananas? If I ate zero bananas and you ate infinite bananas, would there be a difference between how much we ate?



Edit:

Nelson, you have officially destroyed the English language to a point beyond repair. Saying that zero = infinite is like saying a car and an elephant are exactly the same.


"infinite: Having no boundaries or limits"

"zero: A cardinal number indicating the absence of any or all units under consideration."

By definition these two things are very different. The words represent two very different ideas.

Tyler,

Nelson, it is perfectly evident that you cannot get your head aroudn the idea of infinite. It is a difficult idea to comprehend at first, and I think this should prove to you that you are definetly not as smart as you think you are if yo udon't understand infinite.

Who said I don't know? I want YOU to answer it...:bugeye:

If I had zero bananas and you had infinite amount of bananas, who has more bananas? If I ate zero bananas and you ate infinite bananas, would there be a difference between how much we ate?

You don't understand cycles...

"infinite: Having no boundaries or limits"

"zero: A cardinal number indicating the absence of any or all units under consideration."

By definition these two things are very different. The words represent two very different ideas.

Is absence infinite? Is zero infinite?
Isn't infinite inexistant? If you have infinite, infinite is everywhere. So where is zero if infinite is everywhere...?:bugeye: :eek: :o :p :cool: :rolleyes:

Nelson:

Who said I don't know?

You did.

"What is zero?
...
What is infinite?"

You ASKED which means that you do not KNOW!

You don't understand cycles...

What are these cycles? Are you referring to Hindu cosmology?
What relevence do they have?
What physical significance do they have?

Is absence infinite? Is zero infinite?

Zero is the LACK of quantity. No, it's not infinite. You're confusing "infinite" with "undefined" and that has only to do with divsion.

Isn't infinite inexistant?

Inexistant isn't a word....

If you have infinite, infinite is everywhere. So where is zero if infinite is everywhere...?

Zero is the lack of quantity. The set of things we call "infinite" can contain "zero".

P.S: Lay off on the smilies, it's considered poor netiquette. I don't mind, but many people do. :)

quote:
Where is the limit of time?
Where is the limit of space?
Is there really a limit???
-----------------------------
Xev-> No, there isn't. It is infinite.

In our case we can not devide the space and time. They are all one-> spacetime. According to "A Brief History Of Time":D Spacetime is not infinite. And it is... To better understand this, here's a little graph* and an extract from the same bookI’d like to emphasize that this idea that time and space should be finite “without boundary” is just a proposal: it cannot be deduced from some other principle. Like any other scientific theory, it may initially be put forward for aesthetic or metaphysical reasons, but the real test is whether it makes predictions that agree with observation. This, how-ever, is difficult to determine in the case of quantum gravity, for two reasons. First, as will be explained in Chapter 11, we are not yet sure exactly which theory successfully combines general relativity and quantum mechanics, though we know quite a lot about the form such a theory must have. Second, any model that described the whole universe in detail would be much too complicated mathematically for us to be able to calculate exact predictions. One therefore has to make simplifying assumptions and approximations – and even then, the problem of extracting predictions remains a formidable one.

Each history in the sum over histories will describe not only the space-time but everything in it as well, including any complicated organisms like human beings who can observe the history of the universe. This may provide another justification for the anthropic principle, for if all the histories are possible, then so long as we exist in one of the histories, we may use the anthropic principle to explain why the universe is found to be the way it is. Exactly what meaning can be attached to the other histories, in which we do not exist, is not clear. This view of a quantum theory of gravity would be much more satisfactory, however, if one could show that, using the sum over histories, our universe is not just one of the possible histories but one of the most probable ones. To do this, we must perform the sum over histories for all possible Euclidean space- times that have no boundary.

Under the “no boundary” proposal one learns that the chance of the universe being found to be following most of the possible histories is negligible, but there is a particular family of histories that are much more probable than the others. These histories may be pictured as being like the surface of the earth, with the distance from the North Pole representing imaginary time and the size of a circle of constant distance from the North Pole representing the spatial size of the universe. The universe starts at the North Pole as a single point. As one moves south, the circles of latitude at constant distance from the North Pole get bigger, corresponding to the universe expanding with imaginary time Figure 8:1. The universe would reach a maximum size at the equator and would contract with increasing imaginary time to a single point at the South Pole. Ever though the universe would have zero size at the North and South Poles, these points would not be singularities, any more than the North aid South Poles on the earth are singular. The laws of science will hold at them, just as they do at the North and South Poles on the earth.he history of the universe in real time, however, would look very different. At about ten or twenty thousand million years ago, it would have a minimum size, which was equal to the maximum radius of the history in imaginary time. At later real times, the universe would expand like the chaotic inflationary model proposed by Linde (but one would not now have to assume that the universe was created somehow in the right sort of state). The universe would expand to a very large size Figure 8:1 and eventually it would collapse again into what looks like a singularity in real time. Thus, in a sense, we are still all doomed, even if we keep away from black holes. Only if we could picture the universe in terms of imaginary time would there be no singularities.

If the universe really is in such a quantum state, there would be no singularities in the history of the universe in imaginary time. It might seem therefore that my more recent work had completely undone the results of my earlier work on singularities. But, as indicated above, the real importance of the singularity theorems was that they showed that the gravitational field must become so strong that quantum gravitational effects could not be ignored. This in turn led to the idea that the universe could be finite in imaginary time but without boundaries or singularities. When one goes back to the real time in which we live, however, there will still appear to be singularities. The poor astronaut who falls into a black hole will still come to a sticky end; only if he lived in imaginary time would he encounter no singularities.

This might suggest that the so-called imaginary time is really the real time, and that what we call real time is just a figment of our imaginations. In real time, the universe has a beginning and an end at singularities that form a boundary to space-time and at which the laws of science break down. But in imaginary time, there are no singularities or boundaries. So maybe what we call imaginary time is really more basic, and what we call real is just an idea that we invent to help us describe what we think the universe is like. But according to the approach I described in Chapter 1, a scientific theory is just a mathematical model we make to describe our observations: it exists only in our minds. So it is meaningless to ask: which is real, “real” or “imaginary” time? It is simply a matter of which is the more useful description.

Xev,

You ASKED which means that you do not KNOW!
*sigh...

I want YOUR definition...:eek: :bugeye:

What are these cycles? Are you referring to Hindu cosmology?
What relevence do they have?
What physical significance do they have?

The universe works by balance. Balance creates cycles between two opposites. For example, if you are happy, it also means you are not sad. The Truth is that there are no opposites. Opposites are created by perspective. It's like saying, "I am big," while you are looking to an ant and say, "I am small," while looking to a mountain. What is the right one. NONE OF THEM. The Truth is that everything is neutral and relative. It depends on your perspective. Cycles are created through the opposites, and they are the basis of the universe. They work through Balance and Harmony between the opposites.

Zero is the LACK of quantity. No, it's not infinite. You're confusing "infinite" with "undefined" and that has only to do with divsion.

Above...

Inexistant isn't a word....

So... how do you say "something that do not exist"...?

The universe works by balance. Balance creates cycles between two opposites. there are no opposites. there is ballance. ballance of gravity and mass (they may be refered as one and the same) . but I see nowhere your mentioned "cycles".

Nelson:
I want YOUR definition...

No. You asked a question.

You are NOT better than any of us, Nelson. You are NOT here to teach your philosophy, you are NOT here to show us the path.

You wish to teach? Learn first. And to learn, you will have to tame your ego.

The universe works by balance. Balance creates cycles between two opposites. For example, if you are happy, it also means you are not sad. The Truth is that there are no opposites. Opposites are created by perspective. It's like saying, "I am big," while you are looking to an ant and say, "I am small," while looking to a mountain. What is the right one. NONE OF THEM. The Truth is that everything is neutral and relative. It depends on your perspective. Cycles are created through the opposites, and they are the basis of the universe. They work through Balance and Harmony between the opposites.

A: Do you have any evidence for any of this? No. So why is it in science?

B: This has no relevence to what Tyler was saying.

C: There are no opposites.

So... how do you say "something that do not exist"...?

Nonexistant. :)

Sorry, but when you talk about "inexistant", well, it confuses people.

Edit for Avatar:

In our case we can not devide the space and time. They are all one-> spacetime. According to "A Brief History Of Time" Spacetime is not infinite. And it is... To better understand this, here's a little graph* and an extract from the same book

Yeah, guess you're right about spacetime, but I think that reality has to be infinite.

Which brings us to the question:

What is reality?

Is absence infinite? Is zero infinite?
absence is not infinite . zero is not infinite. basic math, Nelson
Isn't infinite inexistant? actually it's the other way around If you have infinite, infinite is everywhere. So where is zero if infinite i infinite is not everywhere. First you have to set the boundries of infinite. Our universe may be infinite in imaginary time, but it doesn't mean it is infinite in real time

edit for Xev->
What is reality? there may be and are many realities. One reality is for our universe and I strongly suppose there is a particular reality for every singularity. And may be/I think tht there are for other universes if you note multiverse theory.
to answer your question-> reality are the events which have made some effect, effect somehow or will effect a particular "zone" i.e. universe or singularity. (this is my definition)

Avatar and Xev,

there are no opposites.

C: There are no opposites.

I see that you got my point... :)


Xev,

A: Do you have any evidence for any of this? No. So why is it in science?

Is THAT in science...?:bugeye:

B: This has no relevence to what Tyler was saying.
What is he saying? I though I was answering YOU...

, guess you're right about spacetime, but I think that reality has to be infinite.

If reality is infinite, what is nonexistant? :)


Avatar,

absence is not infinite . zero is not infinite. basic math, Nelson

And there are no opposites...?

actually it's the other way around

Nonexistance is infinite? So what DOES exist?

infinite is not everywhere. First you have to set the boundries of infinite. Our universe may be infinite in imaginary time, but it doesn't mean it is infinite in real time

Infinite with boundaries?
I though infinite had no boundaries...


Please note:
0=nonexistant (thanks Xev :) )
infinite=all that exist

Love :)
Nelson

Nelson:
Is THAT in science...?

The need for evidence? It sure is!
The bit about opposites being part of a greater whole? That's logic.

What is he saying? I though I was answering YOU...

He's saying that there is a difference between an infinite number of bananas and zero bananas.

If reality is infinite, what is nonexistant?

Outside of reality. But how can anything be outside of reality? Thus we see that nonexistance is an illusion.

Zero, however, is not the same as "nonexistant".

Please note:
0=nonexistant (thanks Xev )
infinite=all that exist

Did I say that? Damn, will have to lay off on the port.

No, I said that zero is nothingness. Nothingness is not nonexistance.

Subtle distinction here.

Suffice to say that zero ≠ nonexistance. :)

And there are no opposites...? yes there are. if you're reffering to -1 and 1 they are not. If you are reffering to anti-particles then they're not. They are just another kind of thm.So what DOES exist? everything tht is existantInfinite with boundaries? yes, it's much like earth's surface. you cant fall off it and you can walk an infinite time and lenght on it, but earth is not infinite
I though infinite had no boundaries... you were wrong. it much depends from what place or concept you are watching

It's just the perspective...:bugeye:

Singularities <B>are not</B> impossibilities, because due to Lorentz-Fitzgerald contraction, infinitesimal objects would exist at the center of a black hole regardless of what quantum mechanics says, even if the singularity is eventually crushed to a finite size, and cannot be crushed anymore, L-FC says that it will still be infinitesimal to any outside observer.

As for the edge of time, read my signature. Indeed I would say most leading physicist/theorists would agree that the universe must be infinite if for nothing else, based on statistics: time is assumed to be infinite (no proof that it is not), so no matter how unlikely an event like the big bang is, it can, and will happen again in an infinite space and infinite time. Does time have a begining or end? I really don't know about the begining, but I don't think this is relavent to anything but our curiosities. As to an end, I'm quite confident that it doesn't. And as for space, infinite. Wherever there is nothing, there is space, so if there is something, there is still space that that object fills up. Anyone who thinks 0=infinite is a fool. Infinity is the inverse of 0. It's oxymoronic, how can the largest number (you know what I mean) equal nothing? I would much rather have infinite money than 0.

<I>In a black hole, for example; the sigularity is zero space-time or infinite space-time??</I>

?????? A singularity is a mathematical point, so if they exist as most theories describe them, they take up no space. The singularity is matter, a <B>hole</B> in spacetime, not spacetime itself, which is not an actual thing, just an analogy of gravity.

<I>Tell me... how do you dimensionally define quantity?</I>

First tell me what you mean by this.

Mathematically, singularities are <B>all but</B> impossible, physically, well, maybe not. On the other hand, if someone told me (before quantum mechanics) that something can exist in 2 places at once, spacetime can bend, and even way back that the earth orbits the sun, Me, being a 14<SUP>th</SUP> century theist would say "Hogwash". I mean come on. Well, don't rule out singularities just because they <I>seem</I> impossible, because (no offense) I think Einstein was a lot brighter than either of us.

By the way, beleive it or not, we are still assuming black holes exist, it has never been prooven. Our best proof is theoretical, so if you want to assume black holes exist, you must also assume that they have singularities as all current modles predict.

<I>All physics are based in space-time... </I>

No, I believe they had physics before 1915, and quantum mechanics was originally formulated before then. Spacetime is just Einstein's metaphor.

<I>No, there isn't. It is infinite. </I>

Although I agree, please, proof. Don't just assume that it must be. Opinions are worthless.

<I>So... Where is the limit!?!?!?!?</I>

Of infinity? and Dr. Dumb sayed: <I>Where's the limit to infinity?</I>

<I>So... where are they...?
I mean... if zero doesn't exist (everything exists...)
... and infinite is everything...
...are they really real...? </I>

We are dealing with a top-of-the-line retard.

<I>How do you put a quantity in something that is infinite and inexistent at the same time.</I>

I'm not a linguist, but he appears to be speaking some dialect of gibberish.

Ok, let me put it this way. "How can something infinitely small be infinitely dense"? QUITE EASILY, example, your brain. A feather crushed infinitely small would have an infinite density. GENERALLY SPEAKING, IN THE UNIVERSE I COME FROM, THE SMALLER YOU COMPRESS A CERTAIN MASS, THE DENSER IT BECOMES!!!

<I>The difference between you and him is that he has more brain cells or he can use his brain better than you. </I>

The difference is his are wired and he probably doesn't drink as much booze as you.

<I>no affect on our observable universe.</I>

Except for it's unimaginably strong gravitational force. But I think I have an idea. This guy seems to be so dense that light cannot escape his grasp. By the way, if he did read <I>A brief history of time</I>, I would just like you to know how much of a moron I think steven hawking is.

<I>You don't understand cycles...</I>

So now you're turning the number line into a number circle? What a moron, yeah, once we run out of numbers, then we start back at zero... Well name the highest number and I will name one higher than that.

Dude, quit talking shit that doesn't even make sense, or even support ITSELF!!!

0 is your IQ, understand (no). Infinity is how I would rank your mom. Big difference.

<I>Zero is the lack of quantity. The set of things we call "infinite" can contain "zero".</I>

THANK YOU!!!

<I>Spacetime
is not infinite. </I>

According to steven hawking. According to einstein, plank, bose, rosen, dirac, pauli, higgs, guth and whoever else, it is

<I>The universe works by balance. Balance creates cycles between two opposites.</I>

Oh really, thanks for the eastern philosophy lesson, it was quite enlightening. Now if you'll excuse me, I must vanquish some negative energy and replace it with positive influences.

<I> if you are happy, it also means you are
not sad.</I>

Emotions are not that simple.

<I>The Truth is that there are no opposites. Opposites are created by perspective. It's like saying, "I am big," while you are
looking to an ant and say, "I am small," while looking to a mountain. What is the right one. NONE OF THEM. The Truth is that
everything is neutral and relative. The Truth is that there are no opposites. Opposites are created by perspective. It's like saying, "I am big," while you are
looking to an ant and say, "I am small," while looking to a mountain. What is the right one. NONE OF THEM. The Truth is that
everything is neutral and relative. It depends on your perspective. Cycles are created through the opposites, and they are the basis
of the universe. They work through Balance and Harmony between the opposites.</I>

Really, I fail to see the cycle, does the mountain then look at the ant and say "I am small"? I'm sorry, but you will never be Einstein so quit trying to sound like you know what you are talking about.

<I>It depends on your perspective.</I>

Ya did learn something, at sometime, long, long ago.

I see balance in physics, concervation laws, but where are the cycles?

<I>there may be and are many realities. One reality is for our universe and I strongly suppose there is a particular reality for every
singularity.</I>

You lost me here. First, what do you mean by reality? Existance? So, how many existances can there be, are you trying to quantify a verb?

<I>you note multiverse theory. </I>

...Which makes no sense.

<I>there are no opposites. </I>

Except for 1,-1;2,-2;3,-3;4,-4...

<I>Is THAT in science...?</I>

Is THIS in science.

<I>Nonexistance is infinite? So what DOES exist? </I>

Spell this out nelson: R*E*T*A*R*D*

<I>0=nonexistant</I>

The square root of -1 is nonexistant, it cannot be represented in any object in the known universe except as an abstract concept (i), I don't have SQRT (-1) bananas, however I do have 0 bananas, as a matter of fact, 0 exists all over my house!

<I>If reality is infinite, what is nonexistant? </I>

Everything is part of reality. If you can think it, than it exists in reality as your thought -hey, fight bullshit with bullshit.

<I>if you're reffering to -1 and 1 they are not.</I>

How so?

As far as singularities yes, in retrospect "impossible" was a bad choice of words. Perhaps "intractable" is the more accurate epithet. ;)

Still, I stand by the notion that we need a theory that wouldn't produce those nasty little singularities to begin with. I mean, for all intents and purposes it could still look, smell, taste and feel like a black hole, but at the center there just can't be infinite curvature confined to 0 volume. Don't ask me why not, but it just doesn't feel right... maybe not quantum enough?

?????? A singularity is a mathematical point, so if they exist as most theories describe them, they take up no space. The singularity is matter, a hole in spacetime, not spacetime itself, which is not an actual thing, just an analogy of gravity

What I was saying...
They don't take up space...
...neither time:bugeye:

Except for 1,-1;2,-2;3,-3;4,-4...

Xev and Avatar said that those numbers are not opposites..
Now you say they are...
I mean... can you "scientists" agree with yourselves...??:confused: :bugeye:

Everything is part of reality. If you can think it, than it exists in reality as your thought

Your imagination is limited by your knowledge. It doesn't work quite that way...

0 is your IQ, understand (no).
Spell this out nelson: R*E*T*A*R*D*
"Great spirits have always encountered violent opposition from mediocre minds."

Albert Einstein

...
Like... Albert have never been called dumb...:o

You don't get my point like any other... :o

overdoze,

Still, I stand by the notion that we need a theory that wouldn't produce those nasty little singularities to begin with. I mean, for all intents and purposes it could still look, smell, taste and feel like a black hole, but at the center there just can't be infinite curvature confined to 0 volume. Don't ask me why not, but it just doesn't feel right... maybe not quantum enough?

It's because it's beyond the marvelous measure, categoralization and odernance of the obscessive rational human mind...:o:bugeye: :eek: :rolleyes: :p :D

It depends on your perspective.
Ya did learn something, at sometime, long, long ago. no, I'm just learning. high school, you know:p and I'm proud tht I'm learning. Of course I could also pray the allmyghty god for some guidience in astrophysics. Maybe I'd discover tht I'm the centre of universe:bugeye:
You lost me here. First, what do you mean by reality? Existance? So, how many existances can there be, are you trying to quantify a verb? no not existance. By reality I mean - in every singularity is a different reality for tht particular singularity. nothing is affecting it from our universe and the things which may happen IN the singularity do not affect our universe. Therefore both our universe and this particular singularity has different realities.there are no opposites.there are no opposites.
Except for 1,-1;2,-2;3,-3;4,-4..
sorry, you may be right here. I was just thinking tht they are only a distance from the zero point only in different dirrections, and it doesn't matter which one you take + or -. At the barebone it's just a distance. They are not opposites in the way tht TS meant them. He ment it like black and white, light and dark, when really 1 has not different charecteristics or "structure":D thn -1 But maybe Xev thought of smth different.By the way, beleive it or not, we are still assuming black holes exist, in answer I'll quote your beloved book by Stephen HawkingBlack holes are one of only a fairly small number of cases in the history of science in which a theory was developed in great detail as a mathematical model before there was any evidence from observations that it was correct. Indeed, this used to be the main argument of opponents of black holes: how could one believe in objects for which the only evidence was calculations based on the dubious theory of general relativity? In 1963, however, Maarten Schmidt, an astronomer at the Palomar Observatory in California, measured the red shift of a faint starlike object in the direction of the source of radio waves called 3C273 (that is, source number 273 in the third Cambridge catalogue of radio sources). He found it was too large to be caused by a gravitational field: if it had been a gravitational red shift, the object would have to be so massive and so near to us that it would disturb the orbits of planets in the Solar System. This suggested that the red shift was instead caused by the expansion of the universe, which, in turn, meant that the object was a very long distance away. And to be visible at such a great distance, the object must be very bright, must, in other words, be emitting a huge amount of energy. The only mechanism that people could think of that would produce such large quantities of energy seemed to be the gravitational collapse not just of a star but of a whole central region of a galaxy. A number of other similar “quasi-stellar objects,” or quasars, have been discovered, all with large red shifts. But they are all too far away and therefore too difficult to observe to provide conclusive evidence of black holes.

Further encouragement for the existence of black holes came in 1967 with the discovery by a research student at Cambridge, Jocelyn Bell-Burnell, of objects in the sky that were emitting regular pulses of radio waves. At first Bell and her supervisor, Antony Hewish, thought they might have made contact with an alien civilization in the galaxy! Indeed, at the seminar at which they announced their discovery, I remember that they called the first four sources to be found LGM 1 – 4, LGM standing for “Little Green Men.” In the end, however, they and everyone else came to the less romantic conclusion that these objects, which were given the name pulsars, were in fact rotating neutron stars that were emitting pulses of radio waves because of a complicated interaction between their magnetic fields and surrounding matter. This was bad news for writers of space westerns, but very hopeful for the small number of us who believed in black holes at that time: it was the first positive evidence that neutron stars existed. A neutron star has a radius of about ten miles, only a few times the critical radius at which a star becomes a black hole. If a star could collapse to such a small size, it is not unreasonable to expect that other stars could collapse to even smaller size and become black holes.

How could we hope to detect a black hole, as by its very definition it does not emit any light? It might seem a bit like looking for a black cat in a coal cellar. Fortunately, there is a way. As John Michell pointed out in his pioneering paper in 1783, a black hole still exerts a gravitational fierce on nearby objects. Astronomers have observed many systems in which two stars orbit around each other, attracted toward each other by gravity. They also observe systems in which there is only one visible star that is orbiting around some unseen companion. One cannot, of course, immediately conclude that the companion is a black hole: it might merely be a star that is too faint to be seen. However, some of these systems, like the one called Cygnus X-1 are also strong sources of X-rays.

The best explanation for this phenomenon is that matter has been blown off the surface of the visible star. As it falls toward the unseen companion, it develops a spiral motion (rather like water running out of a bath), and it gets very hot, emitting X-rays Figure

For this mechanism to work, the unseen object has to be very small, like a white dwarf, neutron star, or black hole. From the observed orbit of the visible star, one can determine the lowest possible mass of the unseen object. In the case of Cygnus X-l, this is about six times the mass of the sun, which, according to Chandrasekhar’r result, is too great for the unseen object to be a white dwarf. It is also too large a mass to be a neutron star. It seems, therefore, that it must be a black hole.

There are other models to explain Cygnus X-1 that do not include a black hole, but they are all rather far-fetched. A black hole seems to be the only really natural explanation of the observations. Despite this, I had a bet with Kip Thorne of the California Institute of Technology that in fact Cygnus X-1 does not contain a black hole! This was a form f insurance policy for me. I have done a lot of work on black holes, and it would all be wasted if it turned out that black holes do not exist. But in that case, I would have the consolation of winning my bet, which would bring me four years of the magazine Private Eye. In fact, although the situation with Cygnus X-1 has not changed much since we made the bet in 1975, there is now so much other observational evidence in favor of black holes that I have conceded the bet. I paid the specified penalty, which was a one-year subscription to Penthouse, to the outrage of Kip’s liberated wife.

We also now have evidence for several other black holes in systems like Cygnus X-1 in our galaxy and in two neighboring galaxies called the Magellanic Clouds. The number of black holes, however, is almost certainly very much higher; in the long history of the universe, many stars must have burned all their nuclear fuel and have had to collapse. The number of black holes may well be greater even than the number of visible stars, which totals about a hundred thousand million in our galaxy alone. The extra gravitational attraction of such a large number of black holes could explain why our galaxy rotates at the rate it does: the mass of the visible stars is insufficient to account for this. We also have some evidence that there is a much larger black hole, with a mass of about a hundred thousand times that of the sun, at the center of our galaxy. Stars in the galaxy that come too near this black hole will be torn apart by the difference in the gravitational forces on their near and far sides. Their remains and gas that is thrown off other stars, will fall toward the black hole. As in the case of Cygnus X-l, the gas will spiral inward and will heat up, though not as much as in that case. It will not get hot enough to emit X rays, but it could account for the very compact source of radio waves and infrared rays that is observed at the galactic center.

and I don't agree tht multiverse is "all but impossible" . Nothing is impossible till proved tht it doesn't exist and multiverses is a part of the big bang theory. And a theory can not be proved wrong if no crucial evidence destroying it is found. But I won't argue with you about multiverses because neither do you or do I know if the multiverse concept is wrong or not.We can only assume at this point of our knowledge (of course if you're not a timetraveler from the 32th century). Here's a food fot thought (http://www.pbs.org/hawking/mysteries/html/guth_1.html)

Truth Seeker-> In your place I wouldn't refer to myself as Einstein. (an neither do I or even huh???)

huh???
?????? A singularity is a mathematical point, so if they exist as most theories describe them, they take up no space. The singularity is matter, a hole in spacetime, not spacetime itself, which is not an actual thing, just an analogy of gravity.

Thank you! As I have been saying, the portion of a black hole beyond the event horizen can be visualized as "beyond" our universe, as a "tear" in spacetime.

Except for 1,-1;2,-2;3,-3;4,-4...

I am sorry, you seem a bit more adept at mathematics than I - but my understanding is that 1 and -1 are not opposites, merely different points on the number line?

You have a good point, as 1 and -1 cancel when added. However, Nelson claimed that they were true opposites, such as black and white are opposites, or as, in Taoism, good and evil are opposites.

Nelson meant opposite in a Daoist sense, not mathematical.

Ok, let me put it this way. "How can something infinitely small be infinitely dense"? QUITE EASILY, example, your brain. A feather crushed infinitely small would have an infinite density. GENERALLY SPEAKING, IN THE UNIVERSE I COME FROM, THE SMALLER YOU COMPRESS A CERTAIN MASS, THE DENSER IT BECOMES!!!

No, don't put it that way. Trying to interpret Nelson's posts has driven me to drink. It serves no purpose, unless you are an intellectual masochist.

That is not what he meant. Please, please assume anything about his posts. I am begging you.

Except for it's unimaginably strong gravitational force. But I think I have an idea. This guy seems to be so dense that light cannot escape his grasp. By the way, if he did read A brief history of time, I would just like you to know how much of a moron I think steven hawking is.

Interesting interesting. What aspect of Hawking do you find moronic? His work with Penrose on black holes or his pop. sci speculation?

I see balance in physics, concervation laws, but where are the cycles?

Nelson is referring to his interpretation of Daoism, not to physics. Please, for the love of all that is good and holy, do NOT start talking about Daoism.

BTW, Nelson is not stupid. He is simply extremely closed-minded and egotistical. But he has a good heart.

Nelson's problem is that he thinks he is superior to most of our posters. Pity that, it gets in the way of his ability to learn.

Speaking of whom:

Nelson:
You ain't Einstien, Huh??? ain't mediocre, and nobody has displayed the slightest hint of violence.

Originally posted by Xev
Nelson is referring to his interpretation of Daoism, not to physics. Please, for the love of all that is good and holy, do NOT start talking about Daoism.

BTW, Nelson is not stupid. He is simply extremely closed-minded and egotistical. But he has a good heart.

Nelson's problem is that he thinks he is superior to most of our posters. Pity that, it gets in the way of his ability to learn.

Speaking of whom:

Nelson:
You ain't Einstien, Huh??? ain't mediocre, and nobody has displayed the slightest hint of violence.

Nelson = Truthseeker, correct? And you all know him really well?

Chosen:

Yes. Yes, I take this from declarations he has explicitly made.

Now did you have somthing of substance to add?

Nelson dear, why do I get the feeling that this is going to turn into a philosophical discussion?

quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Where is the limit of time?
Where is the limit of space?

Is there really a limit???
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

No, there isn't. It is infinite.


We don't know that for certain. For someone who relies so heavily on proof, Xev, you do make some rather unsubstantiated calls. I (and nearly everyone else incidentally) happen to agree with you theoretically but... umm.

Mind you, I'm having a ball reading this entire thing..... I'm learning Sooooo much about... cycles? yeah, something about cycles... and Eastern Philosophy... and..er... stuff.

oh please, I beg thee, don't learn about the dao cycles in concern with physics. they are not present in our universe , only in Nelsons imagination.

<I>...neither time</I>

Of course it takes up time.

<I>Xev and Avatar said that those numbers are not opposites..
Now you say they are...</I>

Ok, proove to me they aren't.

<I>Your imagination is limited by your knowledge. It doesn't work quite that way</I>

Your knowlege is limited by your ego.

<I>Like... Albert have never been called dumb...</I>

So, just because I call you dumb, you must be brilliant like Einstein? <I> It doesn't work quite that way</I>

<I> By reality I mean - in every singularity is a different reality for tht particular singularity.</I>

Don't use a word to define itself. Please, one more time, what is reality?

<I>By the way, beleive it or not, we are still assuming black holes exist</I>

There is no need to proove to me that they exist, I believe they do. There is VERY strong evidence for them, but they are all theoretical. Redshift is the strongest argument (not gravitational redshift, but red and blue shift in the accelleration disc and surrounding stars), followed by mass. All I am saying is that there is no concrete PROOF. In fact, general relativity forbids them from being created (isn't that ironic). The stronger the gravitational force surrounding an object is, the slower time passes for that object. So as it becomes closer and closer to a black hole, the gravitational force becomes stronger and it appears to slow, until it is basically crawling, but it will keep becoming closer and closer to a black hole for eternity. (And hawking speculated that we could someday extract information from this 'cosmic trafic jam'.)

<I>Nothing is impossible till proved tht it doesn't exist </I>

Yes, but it shouldn't be considered REAL until it is prooven, and I don't see any proof for the multiverse theory, just wishful thinking.

<I>And a theory can not be proved wrong if no crucial evidence destroying it is found.</I>

You're right. And I created the universe. Proove that wrong.

<I>I am sorry, you seem a bit more adept at mathematics than I - but my understanding is that 1 and -1 are not opposites, merely
different points on the number line? </I>

I'm sorry, but it is vice versa. A number line is just a visuallization of numbers. You can even turn it into a number plane with unreal and complex numbers, or a number cube with unreal sqaure roots of unreal numbers. You are trying to be too philosophical. Antimatter is not the opposite of matter, negative matter is (A hole in a false vacuum). But -1 is the opposite of 1. If you want me to proove this, first proove to me that white is the opposite of black. Opposites cancel each other out, right, so how come black + white=grey, if they were true opposites it would=nothing.

<I>Nelson meant opposite in a Daoist sense, not mathematical. </I>

Sorry, but I am an American Athiest, not a daoist, so I know very little of eastern religeons. Besides, this is the PHYSICS AND MATH area, not philosophical.

I find steven hawking to be a moron because of all his speculation. I agree, he has contributed to physics by discovering hawking radiation and stuff, but he get's to "out of it" in his books. I don't know, just my opinion. I also hate space.com, one of the many sources of faulty information on the web. Helium 3? Strangelets?

<I>"Society is the Institutional Prevention of Natural Selection"</I>
ABSOLUTELY!

huh???:

I'm sorry, but it is vice versa. A number line is just a visuallization of numbers. You can even turn it into a number plane with unreal and complex numbers, or a number cube with unreal sqaure roots of unreal numbers. You are trying to be too philosophical. Antimatter is not the opposite of matter, negative matter is (A hole in a false vacuum). But -1 is the opposite of 1. If you want me to proove this, first proove to me that white is the opposite of black. Opposites cancel each other out, right, so how come black + white=grey, if they were true opposites it would=nothing.

Okay, I agree that a number line is simply a visualization of numbers, and that one could use different visualizations.

Yet if we use the definition that "opposites cancel each other out", would not matter and antimatter be opposites? After all, if they meet, they "cancel each other out".

Or does the fact that energy is released make this a poor anology?

Sorry, but I am an American Athiest, not a daoist, so I know very little of eastern religeons. Besides, this is the PHYSICS AND MATH area, not philosophical.

Uh oh, another "violent athiest" disagreeing with Nelson. ;)

Seriously, I'm also an athiest. But I've studied Daoism a bit.

And yes, this does not belong here, it belongs in pseudoscience. However, physics and math is unmoderated.

I find steven hawking to be a moron because of all his speculation. I agree, he has contributed to physics by discovering hawking radiation and stuff, but he get's to "out of it" in his books. I don't know, just my opinion. I also hate space.com, one of the many sources of faulty information on the web. Helium 3? Strangelets?

Hmm, I sympathize with your assessment. It seems that many popular science writers use their books as a way of sidestepping normal academic bounds.

And his speculation on Spinoza's God is fodder for the masses.

Squid:
How can it be anything but infinite? I am not sure how to substantiate.....

What would you accept as evidence?

You're right. And I created the universe. Proove that wrong I can't do that as well as you can't disprove tht I can shrink to subatomic size.yes, but it shouldn't be considered REAL until it is prooven, and I don't see any proof for the multiverse theory, just wishful thinking. of course, but it is a possibility.I find steven hawking to be a moron because of all his speculation. I agree, he has contributed to physics by discovering hawking radiation and stuff, but he get's to "out of it" in his books. that doesn't worry me. Besides he has a lot contributed to physics also getting interested and aware of it many people not just from the physics universities.

Just to clear up the 1, -1 thing........

What Nelson was suggesting in that debate is that humans are incapable of understanding something without it having an opposite. He says we can't understand black without white, evil without good. Then he went on some mumbo jumbo eastern bull about how we must release the opposites to find our inner child. All Xev and I did was show him that humans understood the concept of 1 long before they understood the concept of -1. Thus, proving him wrong.

Completly wrong...

Holy shit.
Wow.

Okay, a round of applause goes up for our good friend Nelson! It is evident by his brilliant statement ("Completely wrong" - for those of you who missed it) that he is right and I am entirely wrong!! It's like god himself came down and showed me the proof!!! How could I be so dumb? I mean, how could I even think this when Nelson has such amazing proof? Nelson, I bow to thee!

Okay, a round of applause goes up for our good friend Nelson! It is evident by his brilliant statement ("Completely wrong" - for those of you who missed it) that he is right and I am entirely wrong!! It's like god himself came down and showed me the proof!!! How could I be so dumb? I mean, how could I even think this when Nelson has such amazing proof? Nelson, I bow to thee!

Wow, holy moley Ty, you're right!

Nelson, there's a bottle of champagne and a pair of call-girls in your room.

*Audience throws flowers*

The evidence is in your words... I don't even need to say something about it...:bugeye:

Nelson:
The evidence is in your words... I don't even need to say something about it...

Then don't say anything!

That's a strong argument you have there, Nelson.


<I>Yet if we use the definition that "opposites cancel each other out", would not matter and antimatter be opposites? After all, if they
meet, they "cancel each other out". </I>

Why is "opposites cancel each other out" in quotation marks? I said opposites added together = nothing. So lets see, what happens when you add antimatter and matter? KABOOM!!!!!, you get ENGERGY! Not to mention slight asymetries noted in the decay of a B meson and that mass is identical. Nice opposites.

<I>Or does the fact that energy is released make this a poor anology? </I>

Quite so, unless a -2 and 3 are opposites, despite a 1 being left over.

Seriously, I don't mean any offence to daoism. In fact, if I were a member of any religion, it would be buddhism, is this related to daoism? I find buddhism less offensive (they don't send missionaries to ensnare indiginous people, scare people by threatening them with hell, or forbid any other religeous practice, just lead a virtuous life. They also can do some amazing things, and submit to scientific inquiry. [and I haven't heard any reports of THEM molesting children]).

For example, Hawking (and many others, like his buddy kip thorne) likes to skip steps when building a time machine. Don't they realize that according to the same theory that predicted black holes, it also forbids them? Don't they know that even if you could hold a wormhole open, and avoid being ripped to shreds, and escape a black hole, YOU STILL COULDN'T TRAVLE BACK IN TIME, at least not with a wormhole. But they don't want to accept it. Look it up. You will find out that to an insider looking out from beyond the event horizon, time outside passes infinitely fast, undoing any time travle that has occured. And by the same token, it is IMPOSSIBLE to desyncronise an infinitely dense object.

<I>of course, but it is a possibility.</I>

Unfortunately, with just as much proof as me creating the universe, it is just as unlikely.

I count two contributions, maybe three, but I can't think of the third:

Hawking radiation
Black Holes can (supposedly) evaporate.

Can YOU name more, Avatar

<I>Great are not those who hold the answers, but those who pose the questions.</I>

I tend to dissagree. Evidence: Nelson. He has too many questions to count.

Also, nelson, I am capable of understanding a potatoe chip without fully understanding it's opposite. Explain to me what the opposite of a potatoe chip is.

I count two contributions, maybe three, but I can't think of the third: not in the instance. I'll have to revise:DAlso, nelson, I am capable of understanding a potatoe chip without fully understanding it's opposite. Explain to me what the opposite of a potatoe chip is. Seeker, I'd really like to hear tht out also. By my undertandig there is no opposite of a potatoe chip, even if your opposite is made frim anti-particles, it's not opposite.

huh???,
maybe kids in some 50 years will learn in schools about THE NELSON OPPOSITE PRINCIPLE in time with THE UNIWIDE CYCLE THEORY. who knows:D

huh???,

Also, nelson, I am capable of understanding a potatoe chip without fully understanding it's opposite. Explain to me what the opposite of a potatoe chip is.

I'm talking about qualities, adjectives, not nouns...
A potatoe chip is neutral, like everything. But once you judge the potatoe chip you discover the opposites. For example, you may judge a potatoe chip that is the size of a truck (:bugeye::p) as a big potatoe chip. But it's only "big" because you are comparing it to a truck. If you don't judge it, you will get that it's neutral. That's why I say there are no opposites, that everything depends on perspective. That's exactly my point. Rationalism create illusions by the judgement. They are not an ultimate Truth. Since our mind works by comparison and judgement, through reason, the Truth mustn't be there, because everything that goes in the mind is judged and categorized. That's why the mind make things lose their natural aspects. Therefore, the Truth cannot be achieved by reason, by the mind.

Well... that's not the point of the thread though. The point is to find a limit on the possibilities of the universe (if there IS one...)...

Actually Nelson, the reason we think like that has nothing to do with rationalism or logic. The reason we say a mouse is big in comparison to other mice not in relation to, say, an elephant is because of language. Our language limits us to these kinds of relations.

It's also damn logical though to think like that. If we didn't think like that and I said I saw a big mouse, what would you think I saw? One as big as an elephant?

It doesn't matter with what you compare. Once there is a comparison, there is a perspective and a limited view of reality. Logic and reason works a lot with those kinds of thing. They are limited because they order and categorize. It's obvious that ordenance and categoralization are handful in a world with so many realities, subjects and objects; however, the abuse of its use limits our perception and focus us too much in only one aspect.

You're making no sense what so ever.
How does it limit us? If anything, it enables us to describe things in more detail.

Like I said, a big mouse without a relative point to say 'big' to leaves you wondering just how big it is
When I say a big mouse compared to most mice, you have a much better idea how big the mouse is.

Rationalism create illusions by the judgement.

One cannot comment on a subject one knows nothing about. If you had even the slightest notion of what is meant by rationalism, you would embrace it and use it to your advantage.

Therefore, the Truth cannot be achieved by reason, by the mind.

Certainly not your personal definition of the truth. However, your truth is not the truth of anyone else. Achievements are accomplished with reason, and nothing else. Fantasy, or your version of the truth, achieves nothing.

Once there is a comparison, there is a perspective and a limited view of reality.

Your perspective of reality is not reality, it is fantasy. A rational perspective encompasses an entire view of reality.

Logic and reason works a lot with those kinds of thing.

Again, you probably should not comment on subjects you're not familiar.

Again, you probably should not comment on subjects you're not familiar.

Oh come on, Q, he might just explain how to bring a woman to orgasm. ;)

Tyler,

You're making no sense what so ever.
How does it limit us? If anything, it enables us to describe things in more detail.

It limits our perspective. We get a small and distorted vision. It's like amplifying a graphic in the computer. You may find some huge squares (or hexagrams, or whatever) instead of a picture that make sense...

Like I said, a big mouse without a relative point to say 'big' to leaves you wondering just how big it is
When I say a big mouse compared to most mice, you have a much better idea how big the mouse is.

Yes. But unfortunatly this is not an unchangeable Truth about it. Explain something related to other is limiting. You need the other thing to understand the first one.


(Q),

One cannot comment on a subject one knows nothing about. If you had even the slightest notion of what is meant by rationalism, you would embrace it and use it to your advantage.

I know exactly what is it and that's why I'm asking you to stop using it:bugeye: :eek:

Certainly not your personal definition of the truth. However, your truth is not the truth of anyone else. Achievements are accomplished with reason, and nothing else. Fantasy, or your version of the truth, achieves nothing.

If you follow your own perspective, that's a great illusion (if not the greatest...). A Truth is something that never changes. Something that is basic. The thing that orders the universe.

Your perspective of reality is not reality, it is fantasy. A rational perspective encompasses an entire view of reality.

No. It's still limited by your knowledge.

"It limits our perspective. We get a small and distorted vision. It's like amplifying a graphic in the computer. You may find some huge squares (or hexagrams, or whatever) instead of a picture that make sense..."

How is explaining something in relation to other things limited? How?

Give me an example not using your stupid neo-eastern half-arsed bullshit 'Truth'.



"No. It's still limited by your knowledge."

That's right. Our views on reality are limited by our knowledge. The problem is, you have such a big ego that you think you don't need any knowledge to understand things. And worse than that, you think you can understand everything with very minimal knowledge.

I know exactly what is it and that's why I'm asking you to stop using it

Impossible. The mind is meant to be used to think rationally. It will continue to think that way no matter what. You simply have not learned how to use your mind for what it's purpose was meant. You choose to waste your mind on fantasy. That is your loss and someday, hopefully, when you grow up, you'll realize that and regret the time you wasted on fantasy.

No. It's still limited by your knowledge.

There is no limit to knowledge. A thirst of knowledge is to want to understand reality to it's fullest. Your 'Truth' is the rejection of knowledge and the rejection to understand and accept reality. You wish to live in a fantasy world because you can't handle reality.

Tyler,

How is explaining something in relation to other things limited? How?

Give me an example not using your stupid neo-eastern half-arsed bullshit 'Truth'.

Limited by YOUR judgment. The judgement will vary from person to person thus causing many problems in the world. Different points of view...

I can't give you an example, because that will be MY point of view. Unless I do not use reason. Then, I won't be able to talk about it, since language uses the limitations of reason.

That's right. Our views on reality are limited by our knowledge. The problem is, you have such a big ego that you think you don't need any knowledge to understand things. And worse than that, you think you can understand everything with very minimal knowledge.

I don't have much knowledge. In the rational sense at least. But I have enough to talk about that with you. And in YOUR language:bugeye:.


(Q),

Impossible. The mind is meant to be used to think rationally. It will continue to think that way no matter what. You simply have not learned how to use your mind for what it's purpose was meant. You choose to waste your mind on fantasy. That is your loss and someday, hopefully, when you grow up, you'll realize that and regret the time you wasted on fantasy.
Which "fantasy"?
Yes... it's meant to use rationally. That's why I'm telling you that the Truth cannot be discovered neither discussed with reason, using your mind.

However, if you can stop judging, you may be able to see things in the way they are, even with your mind.

There is no limit to knowledge. A thirst of knowledge is to want to understand reality to it's fullest. Your 'Truth' is the rejection of knowledge and the rejection to understand and accept reality. You wish to live in a fantasy world because you can't handle reality.

What?
You see... you already judging me. And of course, judging me wrong. This "Truth" is not the rejection of knowledge, it's The Knowledge. The basics of the universe. That'sthe Truth.

Your knowledge will be always limited, no matter what. You can study a lot, but you will never reach any point. Not even Albert Einstein could find a limit. How can you?

If you don't stop using your mind, you'll never get to any point. You can divide things in the infinitesimal, going to atoms, subatomic particles, quarks...
You can "multiply" things in millions and millions of times, going to solar system, galaxy, universe...

But... whatever...
Get a calculator and press the number 1.
Then divide it by 10. Again. Again. Again. Again. Again...
Well... when you get to a number like that:
0,000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000 001
You might get tired and stop doing it... :p
Press the number 1 again.
Now, multiply it by 10. Again. Again. Again. Again. Again...
You will probably get tired when you get to somthing like:
10000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000 00

Well... see... you can divide something infinite times and you will never really get to a point. You can also multiply and you won't get to any point either...

So...
Where is the limit??

"Limited by YOUR judgment. The judgement will vary from person to person thus causing many problems in the world. Different points of view..."

Different points of view are what make life interesting, people worthwhile and conversation enlightening.


"I can't give you an example, because that will be MY point of view. Unless I do not use reason. Then, I won't be able to talk about it, since language uses the limitations of reason."

Bullshit. If you don't understand the concept of infinite it is perfectly clear that you need something to compare to.


"I don't have much knowledge. In the rational sense at least. But I have enough to talk about that with you. And in YOUR language"

You're right. You don't have much knowledge. Yet you believe you can discover everything about everything. Have I shown you yet how big your ego is?


"However, if you can stop judging, you may be able to see things in the way they are, even with your mind."

The other day I said 'this chicken is tasty'. I didn't mean that it was tasty compared to other chicken, or tasty compared to other meats. I just meant it was tasty.


"Where is the limit??"

Think of infinite like your ego. It just keeps going....and going.....and going.....

Nelson,

Speaking of numbers: name the largest possible number. Here's your answer: <font size=1>there <font size=2>is <font size=3>no <font size=4>spoon</font></font></font></font>. (Ok, sorry, couldn't resist.)

Tyler,

Different points of view are what make life interesting, people worthwhile and conversation enlightening.

However, if you are searching the Truth, it is a problem...

Bullshit. If you don't understand the concept of infinite it is perfectly clear that you need something to compare to.

Unless you do understand it...
Anyways... comparison limits.

You're right. You don't have much knowledge. Yet you believe you can discover everything about everything. Have I shown you yet how big your ego is?

The "knowledge" I have is without reason... it's closer to a general Truth... It's not ego, it simple is like it is...
Btw... everyone can discover lots about everything anyways...

The other day I said 'this chicken is tasty'. I didn't mean that it was tasty compared to other chicken, or tasty compared to other meats. I just meant it was tasty.

You classified it, thus limiting it...

Think of infinite like your ego. It just keeps going....and going.....and going.....

Your subconcious is very self-centered...:bugeye:

"However, if you are searching the Truth, it is a problem..."

Which I'm not. You're a moron and the only person I've met with your view on 'Truth'. So I harldy find your 'Truth' attractive.


"Unless you do understand it...
Anyways... comparison limits."

I do understand infinite. And you don't.


"The "knowledge" I have is without reason... it's closer to a general Truth... It's not ego, it simple is like it is...
Btw... everyone can discover lots about everything anyways..."

Can I quote you?
Your ego extends to humanity in general I see. Most half-intelligent people realize the fact that we are not smart enough to know everything nelson.


"You classified it, thus limiting it..."

How did I limit it?



"Your subconcious is very self-centered..."

You think you know almost everything. I think I know almost nothing. Interesting to see you think I have the ego.

Which "fantasy"?

The fantasy that is your personal reality.

Yes... it's meant to use rationally. That's why I'm telling you that the Truth cannot be discovered neither discussed with reason, using your mind.

Am I supposed to use my feet ? The mind is all there is to use. There is nothing else one can use to think. You discover by using your mind.

However, if you can stop judging, you may be able to see things in the way they are, even with your mind.

What?
You see... you already judging me. And of course, judging me wrong.

What is your obsession with judging ?

This "Truth" is not the rejection of knowledge, it's The Knowledge. The basics of the universe. That'sthe Truth.

That is of course your own personal definition and opinion, nothing of which is shared by anyone else. Your 'Truth' is your fantasy.

Rational people share the same rationality, it's called reality.

Your knowledge will be always limited, no matter what. You can study a lot, but you will never reach any point. Not even Albert Einstein could find a limit. How can you?

All things remaining equal, my knowledge will greatly outweigh yours and it will reach a point when I die. You know nothing of Albert Einstein, another topic you should refrain from commenting.

If you don't stop using your mind, you'll never get to any point.

If I stop using my mind, I'll become an idiot selling pencils on the streetcorner, a career move that you someday will be sure to attain.

The rest of your post makes no sense whatsoever.

Originally posted by Tyler


Which I'm not. You're a moron and the only person I've met with your view on 'Truth'. So I harldy find your 'Truth' attractive.


What have you gained by posting this? What have I gained by reading it?


I do understand infinite. And you don't.


What have you gained by posting this? What have I gained by reading it?


Your ego extends to humanity in general I see. Most half-intelligent people realize the fact that we are not smart enough to know everything nelson.


What have you gained by posting this? What have I gained by reading it?


You think you know almost everything. I think I know almost nothing. Interesting to see you think I have the ego.


What have you gained by posting this? What have I gained by reading it?

A suggestion: if you find yourself in a meaningless spat, save yourself and everyone else the waste of time and energy and just be the smart one to stop first. If you don't then perhaps you aren't as smart as you thought.

I should say this doesn't apply to just Tyler, so no I'm not singling you out. This whole thread is one big steaming pile (and this is my last post here.)

I gain nothing talking to Nelson. It's my pathetic attempt to make him see reality.

Acutlaly, I would be content just showing him how egotistical he is.

I gain nothing talking to Nelson. It's my pathetic attempt to make him see reality.

Don't worry Tyler, Nelson gains nothing by listening to you. He actually does see a reality, his own version of reality, which to everyone else is an obscure, mystical, magical, fantasmagorical, supercalifragalisticexpealidotiousical, dreamworld. :)

He seems to enjoy living his fantasy and it appears to be firmly locked in his mindset.

He would make an interesting study case for any psychologist.

Tyler,

Which I'm not. You're a moron and the only person I've met with your view on 'Truth'. So I harldy find your 'Truth' attractive.

Because you can't admit you can't go beyond knowledge...

I do understand infinite. And you don't.

You already proved to me the opposite...

How did I limit it?

Classifying it...!
Classification is to limit, using an specific characteristic...!:bugeye:

You think you know almost everything.

Really...?:bugeye:

I think I know almost nothing.

Yeah... that's how you have the sufficient knowledge to judge me...:bugeye:


(Q),

The fantasy that is your personal reality.

Everyone has a personal reality...:bugeye:

Am I supposed to use my feet ? The mind is all there is to use. There is nothing else one can use to think. You discover by using your mind.

Better open your view and get out of this shell you created around you to protect yourself... :o
Your mind is limited... and it limits everything...

What is your obsession with judging ?

By judgement we created THIS world...:bugeye:

That is of course your own personal definition and opinion, nothing of which is shared by anyone else. Your 'Truth' is your fantasy.

All philosophies have the same definition. And what is YOUR definition?

If I stop using my mind, I'll become an idiot selling pencils on the streetcorner, a career move that you someday will be sure to attain.

You are just another person that will die thinking: "What have I done with my life...?" Most people lose all their lifes for nothing. You are just one more...:eek: :(

All things remaining equal, my knowledge will greatly outweigh yours and it will reach a point when I die. You know nothing of Albert Einstein, another topic you should refrain from commenting.

Your own words prove you wrong:
The rest of your post makes no sense whatsoever.


overdoze,

They can't do any better than that, unfortunatly...


(Q),

Don't worry Tyler, Nelson gains nothing by listening to you. He actually does see a reality, his own version of reality, which to everyone else is an obscure, mystical, magical, fantasmagorical, supercalifragalisticexpealidotiousical, dreamworld.

It's seems that you have no idea that it's you that is in a dreamworld. Fortunatly, you will discover it after you die, and I'm sure you'll regret this. I'm sure you will realize that I was right all the time... :o
Whatever...

He seems to enjoy living his fantasy and it appears to be firmly locked in his mindset.

YOU seem to enjoy YOUR fantasy pretty much. I'm here looking at you and really... I don't even say anything...

He would make an interesting study case for any psychologist.

You are the worst case of Obsessive Compulsive Rationalism I've ever seen...:bugeye:

PS: I follow overdoze. It's waste of time talking with close-minded people like you...:bugeye: :o :eek:

Because you can't admit you can't go beyond knowledge.. that is good. beyond knowledge is stupidity and as in my sig. I prefer clever enemyes not stupid friends.You already proved to me the opposite... Seeker, your understanding of physics is at a dark age level.Classifying it...!
Classification is to limit, using an specific characteristic... tht's right , I don't like to be classified:D
Yeah... that's how you have the sufficient knowledge to judge me.. I think it was Socrat who said "I know that I know nothing". I don't know a lot and it appears that you do even less. you just can't admit it:pYour mind is limited... and it limits everything... mind is not limited, you just need to learn how to use it proprly. Your belief tht it is limited limits your own thoughts and actions, Nelson.By judgement we created THIS world... great, I love this place:)
All philosophies have the same definition. And what is YOUR definition all philosophies have smth different in them. none is exactly lie other or else it ould be the same philosophy. You are just another person that will die thinking: "What have I done with my life...?" Most people lose all their lifes for nothing. it is you who think they lost their lives for nothing. you do not honour other people values.Fortunatly, you will discover it after you die, and I'm sure you'll regret this. I'm sure you will realize that I was right all the time.. no evidence present, only childish behaviour I see in this post. YOU seem to enjoy YOUR fantasy pretty much. I'm here looking at you and really... I don't even say anything...y you are saying nowYou are the worst case of Obsessive Compulsive Rationalism I've ever seen nice one, Q
----------------------------
edit to add- I suggest this thread to be moved smwhere else. Maybe to the pseudoscience forum. At first this seemed a good thread , but later Nelson turned sides when saw tht he can't compete with physics and math, turned to mythical universe models, filosophies, daoism and pure fantasies and what not else. Very sad, but I don't see this thread no longer as a part of the Physics & Math forum.

Nelson:

By judgement we created THIS world...

I judge a bottle of brandy into my hand, an Alfa Romeo into my garage and 5 million dollars into my bank account.

Not there.

PS: I follow overdoze. It's waste of time talking with close-minded people like you...

Then don't waste your time.

You are the worst case of Obsessive Compulsive Rationalism I've ever seen...

Waaaaa? Q is? That's awefully mean of you, Nelson, I had thought that I was. :(

You are the worst case of Obsessive Compulsive Rationalism I've ever seen

Thanks for the compliment. I'm impressed you're able to recognize that through your haze. There's hope for you yet. ;)

If you judge the number 1, it only has one property, it's value. It is greater than nothing by one, but less than 2 by one. How does this make a cycle? Also, 0, which can be added to anything without you knowing about it, could then be considered nothing. -1 is exactly the same distance from 0 as one, but it has the opposite value. It is greater than -2 but less than 0. Now, I feel like I'm teaching preschool. I'm not going to respond to any more of your retarded "1 is not the opposite of -1" postings.

<I>Limited by YOUR judgment.</I>
"Your" meaning Xev, Q, Tyler and I???

<I>I don't have much knowledge.</I>
<I>That's</I> an understatement!

As far as the limit to particals, I believe, that like elements, one can theoretically create an <I>infinite</I> ammount, although the larger they get, the faster they decay. This is why I think it is kind of a waste to spend billions on partical acceleraters, although this is just a theory and I do recognise the benafits that come out of PAs. Plus I think they are cool. As to the lower limit, if QM is right (which it probably is), energy can only come in quanta. I'm not real familiar, but it has something to do with h, plank's constant. One of these would presumably be the smallest mass any partical could have.

BTW, nelson, can you mail me some of your wonderful drug? I want to see how you see the world.

<I>Because you can't admit you can't go beyond knowledge...</I>
Knowlege is the limit, you can't go beyond knowledge. Fantasy is not beyond knowledge, it is on the other path of life, the path of foolishness.

<I>Classification is to limit, using an specific characteristic...!</I>
I will classify infinity. Infinity is the number of times 0 goes into 1. There, now how did I <I>limit</I> infinity?

<I>I think I know almost nothing.</I>
There is nothing wrong with thinking you are smart, as long as YOU ARE, and you don't think you know EVERYTHING. I believe we all have adaquat knowledge to judge nelson.

<I>Better open your view and get out of this shell you created around you to protect yourself...
Your mind is limited... and it limits everything... </I>
The shell called common sense? I believe his mind is open, just not so open his brain falls out. Do you expect any of us to abandon reason and all of a sudden belive the world is one big circle, just because you say it is? All of our minds our limited, it's a universal property. They have a word for it in physics called entropy (no not the second law of thermodynamics).

<I>You are just another person that will die thinking: "What have I done with my life...?" Most people lose all their lifes for nothing. You
are just one more...</I>
Now you can tell us what we're thinking????? I know I will die knowing I lived my life in the persute of truth, pleasure, and I will have made the world a better place. Now you, what have you done?

<I>Fortunatly, you will discover it after you die</I>
Another thing that there is no proof for, nor does it make any evolutionary sense for an afterlife.

<I>YOU seem to enjoy YOUR fantasy pretty much.</I>
Would that be the fantasy that 1 and -1 are opposites?

<I>You already proved to me the opposite...</I>
I thought there were none?