• Lucid Dreaming - Dream Views




    Page 3 of 5 FirstFirst 1 2 3 4 5 LastLast
    Results 51 to 75 of 105
    Like Tree5Likes

    Thread: Space cannot be infinite

    1. #51
      Member Bonsay's Avatar
      Join Date
      Sep 2006
      Gender
      Location
      In a pot.
      Posts
      2,706
      Likes
      60
      Quote Originally Posted by billygan View Post
      ... however if we go down on an atomical level, I will never, ever, touch the wall."
      Why?
      C:\Documents and Settings\Akul\My Documents\My Pictures\Sig.gif

    2. #52
      Xei
      UnitedKingdom Xei is offline
      Banned
      Join Date
      Aug 2005
      Posts
      9,984
      Likes
      3082
      Yes, atoms do 'touch' when two objects touch.

      The nuclei of atoms don't touch, but nobody ever said they did.

      The electron clouds surrounding the nuclei - which are what give atoms volume - do touch, and they repel, because of the like negative charges. That's what touching is.

    3. #53
      Master of Logic Achievements:
      1 year registered 5000 Hall Points Made Friends on DV Referrer Bronze Veteran First Class
      Kromoh's Avatar
      Join Date
      Feb 2007
      Gender
      Location
      Some rocky planet with water
      Posts
      3,993
      Likes
      86
      Quote Originally Posted by Exhalent View Post
      Who's to say it is limited to one universe, and not a multiverse, anyway?
      No one. But science can only affirm what has been observed. If other thinsg exist, but there can never be contact between those and us, it'll be as if they didn't exist. Aka Schrodinger's cat.
      ~Kromoh

      Saying quantum physics explains cognitive processes is just like saying geology explains jurisprudence.

    4. #54
      Master of Logic Achievements:
      1 year registered 5000 Hall Points Made Friends on DV Referrer Bronze Veteran First Class
      Kromoh's Avatar
      Join Date
      Feb 2007
      Gender
      Location
      Some rocky planet with water
      Posts
      3,993
      Likes
      86
      Quote Originally Posted by Xei View Post
      Yes, atoms do 'touch' when two objects touch.

      The nuclei of atoms don't touch, but nobody ever said they did.

      The electron clouds surrounding the nuclei - which are what give atoms volume - do touch, and they repel, because of the like negative charges. That's what touching is.
      Electron clouds are not physical. An electron cloud is nothing but a region where it is more likely to find an electron in a given situation. That said, electron clouds don't usually touch either (at least in normal circumstances) - the repulsive force becomes too strong before they do collide. But you're not to say nuclei don't touch - they did in Rutherford's experiment, like a century ago.
      ~Kromoh

      Saying quantum physics explains cognitive processes is just like saying geology explains jurisprudence.

    5. #55
      Xei
      UnitedKingdom Xei is offline
      Banned
      Join Date
      Aug 2005
      Posts
      9,984
      Likes
      3082
      The point is, people often spread around this idea that objects never actually touch, when it isn't really true. Touching is only electrostatic repulsion anyway.

      Electron clouds are arbitrary; they are volumes in which an electron has a certain probability of being found. Any electron clouds can touch if you allow the probability to be high enough (electrons can potentially be found infinitely far away from a nucleus).

      About nuclei touching; actually it's kind of arbitrary on the subatomic level too. Nucleons aren't spheres at all, they are just sets of three coordinates (quarks). They are arbitrarily assigned a radius at which the strong and electrostatic forces cancel, but it doesn't really represent a physical boundary.

    6. #56
      Master of Logic Achievements:
      1 year registered 5000 Hall Points Made Friends on DV Referrer Bronze Veteran First Class
      Kromoh's Avatar
      Join Date
      Feb 2007
      Gender
      Location
      Some rocky planet with water
      Posts
      3,993
      Likes
      86
      Quote Originally Posted by Xei View Post
      The point is, people often spread around this idea that objects never actually touch, when it isn't really true. Touching is only electrostatic repulsion anyway.

      Electron clouds are arbitrary; they are volumes in which an electron has a certain probability of being found. Any electron clouds can touch if you allow the probability to be high enough (electrons can potentially be found infinitely far away from a nucleus).

      About nuclei touching; actually it's kind of arbitrary on the subatomic level too. Nucleons aren't spheres at all, they are just sets of three coordinates (quarks). They are arbitrarily assigned a radius at which the strong and electrostatic forces cancel, but it doesn't really represent a physical boundary.
      Quarks aren't points. They are the smallest thing we know, and probably the smallest thing that we can observe, but not points.
      ~Kromoh

      Saying quantum physics explains cognitive processes is just like saying geology explains jurisprudence.

    7. #57
      Xei
      UnitedKingdom Xei is offline
      Banned
      Join Date
      Aug 2005
      Posts
      9,984
      Likes
      3082
      There's no evidence that quarks have any dimensions. Same goes for leptons (leptons and quarks make up the entirety of matter).

    8. #58
      Master of Logic Achievements:
      1 year registered 5000 Hall Points Made Friends on DV Referrer Bronze Veteran First Class
      Kromoh's Avatar
      Join Date
      Feb 2007
      Gender
      Location
      Some rocky planet with water
      Posts
      3,993
      Likes
      86
      Quote Originally Posted by Xei View Post
      There's no evidence that quarks have any dimensions. Same goes for leptons (leptons and quarks make up the entirety of matter).
      Doesn't mean they don't have. There once was no evidence the earth was round. Voilá.

      Quarks can be considered points, and as points they provide us with accurate mathematical conclusions even in macrocosmic proportions, but as I say, don't claim something you don't know.
      ~Kromoh

      Saying quantum physics explains cognitive processes is just like saying geology explains jurisprudence.

    9. #59
      Xei
      UnitedKingdom Xei is offline
      Banned
      Join Date
      Aug 2005
      Posts
      9,984
      Likes
      3082
      Actually there is evidence, I think (there certainly isn't evidence against which is what you suggested). According to current models, the only reason that any non-fundamental particle has a volume in the first place, is due to the separation of the particles that constitute it; for example, atoms only have diameters of about 10^-10 m because the electrons are a large distance from the nucleus.

      When you get down to truly fundamental particles, they don't have dimensions, because they aren't made of anything. The whole concept of volume directly implies being made up of something else.
      Last edited by Xei; 06-29-2009 at 08:24 PM.

    10. #60
      This is my title. Licity's Avatar
      Join Date
      Jul 2008
      Gender
      Posts
      632
      Likes
      2
      Quote Originally Posted by Kromoh View Post
      Doesn't mean they don't have. There once was no evidence the earth was round. Voilá.

      Quarks can be considered points, and as points they provide us with accurate mathematical conclusions even in macrocosmic proportions, but as I say, don't claim something you don't know.
      There was evidence the Earth was round, everyone didn't see it or chose to ignore it. As Xei said, giving dimensions to the smallest possible things is a logical contradiction under the current physics. You would need something like string theory to start predicting dimensional particles.
      198.726% of people will not realize that this percentage is impossible given what we are measuring. If you enjoy eating Monterey Jack cheese, put this in your sig and add 3^4i to the percentage listed.

    11. #61
      Banned
      Join Date
      Jul 2006
      Gender
      Location
      ʇsǝɹɔpooʍ
      Posts
      3,207
      Likes
      176
      Quote Originally Posted by Xei View Post
      Actually there is evidence, I think (there certainly isn't evidence against which is what you suggested).
      lol thats a false positive. You sound exactly like Wendylove. Or maybe it's just me, you all start sounding the same after a while.

    12. #62
      Xei
      UnitedKingdom Xei is offline
      Banned
      Join Date
      Aug 2005
      Posts
      9,984
      Likes
      3082
      I'd love to respond but unfortunately nothing you say ever makes any logical sense.

    13. #63
      Banned
      Join Date
      Jul 2006
      Gender
      Location
      ʇsǝɹɔpooʍ
      Posts
      3,207
      Likes
      176
      Quote Originally Posted by Xei View Post
      I'd love to respond but unfortunately nothing you say ever makes any logical sense.
      This statement is logical to you?

      Quote Originally Posted by Xei
      And vitiligo doesn't cause your skin to turn bleached white.

      Most of your comments are usually incorrect like this. Nothing you say is ever accurate.

    14. #64
      Xei
      UnitedKingdom Xei is offline
      Banned
      Join Date
      Aug 2005
      Posts
      9,984
      Likes
      3082
      2 + 2 = 4.

      Hence, you are wrong.

      If you actually want to talk about this thread, do so. If not, be a good chap and bugger off.

    15. #65
      Master of Logic Achievements:
      1 year registered 5000 Hall Points Made Friends on DV Referrer Bronze Veteran First Class
      Kromoh's Avatar
      Join Date
      Feb 2007
      Gender
      Location
      Some rocky planet with water
      Posts
      3,993
      Likes
      86
      Quote Originally Posted by Licity View Post
      There was evidence the Earth was round, everyone didn't see it or chose to ignore it. As Xei said, giving dimensions to the smallest possible things is a logical contradiction under the current physics. You would need something like string theory to start predicting dimensional particles.
      Semantics. You got my point.

      Also, it is not a logical contradiction. In fact, treating something as a point is a speedy conclusion, and speedy conclusions are logical mistakes. Atoms were once considered points. Now, quarks and leptons are. Who knows what will come next. Don't be so arrogant as to think you already know everything.
      ~Kromoh

      Saying quantum physics explains cognitive processes is just like saying geology explains jurisprudence.

    16. #66
      Xei
      UnitedKingdom Xei is offline
      Banned
      Join Date
      Aug 2005
      Posts
      9,984
      Likes
      3082
      You are of course correct in essentials, but I do remember reading in A Brief History of Time somewhere that there is some evidence that quarks are truly fundamental particles.

    17. #67
      Member Bonsay's Avatar
      Join Date
      Sep 2006
      Gender
      Location
      In a pot.
      Posts
      2,706
      Likes
      60
      I googled "quark size". I don't know if it means anything to you or how reliable it is but here is the first link it got: link
      C:\Documents and Settings\Akul\My Documents\My Pictures\Sig.gif

    18. #68
      Banned
      Join Date
      Jul 2006
      Gender
      Location
      ʇsǝɹɔpooʍ
      Posts
      3,207
      Likes
      176
      Quote Originally Posted by Xei View Post
      2 + 2 = 4.

      Hence, you are wrong.

      If you actually want to talk about this thread, do so. If not, be a good chap and bugger off.
      Predictable, Yeah I expected you to completely avoid it. Whats so hard about admitting that you just didn't know and that you made a mistake?

    19. #69
      Xei
      UnitedKingdom Xei is offline
      Banned
      Join Date
      Aug 2005
      Posts
      9,984
      Likes
      3082
      What, the Michael Jackson thing? Yes indeed I was wrong in that vitiligo can cause patches of your skin to cause to turn very pale white, but of course you'd still have to be extremely gullible not to question that a chronic liar like MJ has such a disease (he claims to have only had 2 facial surgeries for goodness sakes).

      What this has to do with this discussion though I have no idea. Please stop acting in such an adolescent manner and go away.

    20. #70
      Banned
      Join Date
      Jul 2006
      Gender
      Location
      ʇsǝɹɔpooʍ
      Posts
      3,207
      Likes
      176
      Quote Originally Posted by Xei View Post
      What, the Michael Jackson thing? Yes indeed I was wrong in that vitiligo can cause patches of your skin to cause to turn very pale white, .
      All I wanted to hear. I may paste that one to the sig.

      And stop all the crying, you act like your world is falling down around you. No big deal. geessh!

    21. #71
      DuB
      DuB is offline
      Distinct among snowflakes DuB's Avatar
      Join Date
      Sep 2005
      Gender
      Posts
      2,399
      Likes
      358
      For christ's sake, guys, drop it.

    22. #72
      Master of Logic Achievements:
      1 year registered 5000 Hall Points Made Friends on DV Referrer Bronze Veteran First Class
      Kromoh's Avatar
      Join Date
      Feb 2007
      Gender
      Location
      Some rocky planet with water
      Posts
      3,993
      Likes
      86
      Quote Originally Posted by Xei View Post
      You are of course correct in essentials, but I do remember reading in A Brief History of Time somewhere that there is some evidence that quarks are truly fundamental particles.
      All-right, but who said quarks aren't made of something else, much smaller than them? There is a huge difference in not having size and not having observable size. In fact, if they do move in a particular manner, then they *are* probably made of something else. I'm not criticising, I'm just throwing the idea out there. I hate it when science becomes pseudoscience, that's it. Doctors once believed that the liver circulated blood, and that the heart circulated "vital spirit". You never know when or where we could be wrong.
      ~Kromoh

      Saying quantum physics explains cognitive processes is just like saying geology explains jurisprudence.

    23. #73
      Xei
      UnitedKingdom Xei is offline
      Banned
      Join Date
      Aug 2005
      Posts
      9,984
      Likes
      3082
      Well, distinguishing between the two is the point of the scientific method.

      Hawking's book happened to be in the room with me but I can't find the passage at the moment. To be honest my scope of knowledge around particle physics really isn't enough to speak with much authority on the matter of the evidence for the fundementality of quarks.
      For christ's sake, guys, drop it.
      Did you even the posts? Lord...

    24. #74
      DreamSlinger The Cusp's Avatar
      Join Date
      Oct 2006
      Location
      Ottawa, Ontario
      Posts
      4,878
      Likes
      643
      DJ Entries
      192
      Space might as well be infinite. Sure, it's not currently infinite. But the universe's boundaries are determined by the farthest distances light has traveled in any direction, forever pushing outward.

      What determines the boundaries of the universe is if there is something in in it. In order to determine size or infinity or something, you need to measure it. The act of trying to measure beyond the light curtain which separates the universe from the void would put something into that void, thereby expanding the barrier. So in effect you could keep measuring to infinity in any direction.
      Last edited by The Cusp; 07-05-2009 at 02:50 PM.

    25. #75
      Member Nefarious's Avatar
      Join Date
      May 2007
      Gender
      Posts
      297
      Likes
      8
      For me space is infinite and I can't comprehend it otherwise. That might be because I know too little but have a very large point of view. Space for me is not something that I would want to define because definitions create limits and I always try to look beyond the limits.

      The expansion of space that modern science explains is already quite defined with limits. But I try to observe beyond the expansion like from another existence or something I can't even explain it. People would say there is "nothing" beyond the expansion or it is "unknown beyond human comprehension". Some would start talking about other dimensions or something like if you get to the edge of the universe you would come out in another point of the universe.

      But I see beyond anything that people might try to explain, I see beyond darkness and light I see infinite unknown nothingness that I still consider as "space". That is my heaven and one day after countless deaths I shall merge into that nothingness and achieve perfection.

      Forgive me for such vague thoughts but my perception of space is beyond anything explainable. Limits in space don't make any sense to me I can't even imagine limits in space and I'm sure lots of people would consider me retarded for that.

    Page 3 of 5 FirstFirst 1 2 3 4 5 LastLast

    Bookmarks

    Posting Permissions

    • You may not post new threads
    • You may not post replies
    • You may not post attachments
    • You may not edit your posts
    •