Discussion in 'Astronomy, Exobiology, & Cosmology' started by pluto2, Dec 17, 2011.
I'm not making claims yet but "space between points" or divisible space seem finite by definition.
Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.
If you an infinite length you can measure a mile along that length. Or a millimetre.
As soon as a mile is measured along an infinite length does it not immediately lead to continuum fallacy, are the mountain and the grain both of infinite size?
No and no.
because energy and matter need a certain amount of space inwhich to exist
and that space extends beyond the minimum of the necessary space needed for either to exist
for example the hydrogen atom needs more space , or space extends further out from the atom , than the mere space it needs to exist , why though ?
because otherwise there is no space between objects , other atoms , inwhich to allow contact with other atoms
they can't mix it up , so to speak
there's no room to move around
at the sametime though the Universe is infinite
Well that's a nice helping of word salad...
its not though , think about it
all energy and matter would condence into a lump without the extra space to move around and mix
This is actually true. There is a minimum space in which a virtual particle pops into existence. The particle force from minimal scale creates a flow that is time. If you try to overlap time you are facing an incredible force, but by beating the force you actually scale negatively. Which sort of under-laps the particles above you. So even though you are smaller, you are in a way bigger. It is also true that the universe is infinite. It is a zero state universe, and zero is infinite.
pincho it is the flow that creates time
but then you imply that time is an " incredible force "
its not time that is the force but the flow
It's through a hole like a hose pipe, it is hard to travel into a hose pipe, but you can put your finger over it, and block it a bit. Those atomic clocks have a blockage from moving into an opposite flow.
I will never take your or anyone's word for it, give me a valid argument.
I believe the universe is future-infinite that is if it continues to expand for future eternity then it is infinite in the future eternity, but I disagree that it's infinite between any two points in time and space.
You haven't bothered to support your "point of view" with valid argument.
* * * * NOTE FROM ANOTHER MODERATOR * * * *
Even though I don't have a camel in this caravan I would like to see it reach a destination rather than collapse in the middle of the desert and be eaten by buzzards. The reason people have begun shouting at you is that you frustrate them with your nearly-incoherent statements and questions. You don't have a very good grasp of science and you don't seem to understand the meaning of a lot of scientific terminology. I understand that you are not doing this deliberately and I think they do too, but you need to do a better job here or you won't make any progress.
Please try to understand the answers you are given before you become defensive and re-state your questions. This involves, for example, doing a lot of research into the issues you're studying. Just typing some of your keywords into Wikipedia and reading the five-page articles it presents to you will help immensely. At least then you can ask these people to explain details that you don't understand in the articles, instead of phrasing your questions in such cosmic proportions that Stephen Hawking would have a hard time giving you an answer in less than five days.
You're stepping out onto the very edge of science and you expect the discussion to be phrased in sound bites. That simply cannot happen. You're asking these people to do a lot of work on your behalf. You're going to have to be courteous and do a lot of your own work too. You're not paying tuition here, so nobody is obliged to spend two days of their time giving you a lecture that will take you from the cosmology of 1971 to the cosmology of 2011.
I don't even understand that question. I'm impressed that at least one person attempted to answer it.
No one's asking you to take their word for anything. They would like you to respond to their statements in a way that indicates that you understand them, so the argument can move forward. So far you're not really doing that. You keep coming back to your own hypothesis without really absorbing theirs.
Please tell us your educational level. I think that would help immensely. You ask questions appropriate to graduate-level classes, but then you fall back into a rhetorical style that sounds like you're just starting college. I think that confuses people. It certainly confuses me. Are you 16 or 22? How many university-level science courses have you completed?
Actually I was the one who asked questions and you answered it with assertions now YOU have to validate your claim.
I'm not engaging in technical discussion why should I reveal my credentials?
Then please explain why you asked the questions you did.
For example WTF makes you think that "a mile is measured along an infinite length [could] immediately lead to continuum fallacy"?
Unless, of course, you're just being vague.
I should think that, since they are both measurable, the reason for my answer would be obvious. Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!
Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!
. . . answers and assertions are exactly THAT . . . which BC graciously provided to the queries . . . there is NO rule, or regulation, or law that requires validation . . . just believe the response or not . . . it is up to you who asked the question to 'take-it' or 'leave-it'.
BC: That is a common (unstated) requirement on Sciforums (especially from the Talking Heads) . . . that you must 'prove-your-worth' (or mettle) before they will consider the information provided as worthy of their consideration!!
I very much doubt that anybody has suggested that space is infinite between any two points. Can you quote a post in which anyone did?
Exactly why I'm not engaging in discussion through technical discourse.
Do you think there's any validity to the assumption that the universe is only future-infinite and not actually infinite?
I dont know. What's the use of such an assumption?
I certainly wouldn't be a realist about that claim.
Separate names with a comma.