Space cannot be infinite

Space cannot be infinite because then there would be an infinity of solar system, meaning an infinity of planets resulting in an infinity of peoples. There cannot be an infinite of peoples because there cannot be an infinity of spirits.

Infinity is not a number. It just never stop going but that is impossible. Only numbers go to infinity but most numbers will never be used since they go to infinity meaning that trillions of trillions of trillions of number will not be used. Actually, what I just said is wrong. infinity doesn't represent a large number. An infinity of numbers will never be used. That's the actual statement. And time might be infinite too.

Its sorta hard to explain though..

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by SleepyCookieDough

Space cannot be infinite because then there would be an infinity of solar system, meaning an infinity of planets resulting in an infinity of peoples. There cannot be an infinite of peoples because there cannot be an infinity of spirits.

---

Why can't there be an infinite number of people? How do we know spirits exist? That's not valid.

Quote:

---

Infinity is not a number. It just never stops going but that is impossible.

---

It's not a number. However, it can be used as a limit, or lack thereof. Why is it impossible that it doesn;t stop going? Just because it's impossible to picture, doesn't mean that it's impossible. Maybe we just can't percieve it. We can't percieve a 4D cube (tesseract) because we are 3D objects, but that doesn't mean that it's impossible. It's a bit ignorant to say that.

Quote:

---

Only numbers go to infinity but most numbers will never be used since they go to infinity meaning that trillions of trillions of trillions of number will not be used. Actually, what I just said is wrong. infinity doesn't represent a large number. An infinity of numbers will never be used. That's the actual statement. And time might be infinite too.

Its sorta hard to explain though..

---

Time isn't infinite: Time is part of space. We percieve time as a linear movement of events. However, that's not true, but it does make sense for what we use it for, like what "time" we have to be at a place. It works.

Space can be infinite, but there can only be finite amount of matter. Therefore there is a finite amount of solar systems and a finite amount of people.

Personally i think space is big. Really big. You just wouldn't believe how vastly, hugely, mindboggelingly big it is... And so on...

Why can't there be an infinite amount of matter?

You people need to have backup and explanations for your statements.

Quote:

---

Space cannot be infinite because then there would be an infinity of solar system, meaning an infinity of planets resulting in an infinity of peoples. There cannot be an infinite of peoples because there cannot be an infinity of spirits.

---

Although you phrased it like one, this is not a coherent logical deduction.

You need to explain why there cannot be an infinity of 'spirits'.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Sound

Personally i think space is big. Really big. You just wouldn't believe how vastly, hugely, mindboggelingly big it is... And so on...

---

lol

Also... "who are you" to say that there are spirits, or how many there can be? Besides, why couldn't there be an infinite amount of space, but a limited amount of matter.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Xei

Although you phrased it like one, this is not a coherent logical deduction.

You need to explain why there cannot be an infinity of 'spirits'.

---

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Bonsay

lol

Also... "who are you" to say that there are spirits, or how many there can be? Besides, why couldn't there be an infinite amount of space, but a limited amount of matter.

---

As I have said before.

Thanks.

Of course.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by SleepyCookieDough

Space cannot be infinite because then there would be an infinity of solar system

---

There is no evidence to suggest that endless space requires and endless amount of matter/energy. Your argument is void because of that alone.

Is it not possible for a fixed amount of matter to exist, and endless space to extend beyond it?

To be honest we just need somebody who knows something about General Relativity. I have a feeling that space itself is finite and expanding, but I'm not sure.

I know about General Relativity. I've been reading Stephen Hawking's book A Breifer History of Time.

I believe that space is finite, but is eternally expanding.

I've read it too, but there is a distinction between an expanding universe and expanding space... can you get a quote?

In a little, I put it down a few weeks ago, haven't had a chance to pick it up again. I'll try to get one later.

I think that the universe loops around, so if you go into one direction you'll come back to the same spot. Well, I actually just don't comprehend an edge of the universe and this would make sense. It's also one of the theories - that it's bent through another dimension. It would make the universe be a whole entity, but what do I know...

I thought astrophysics already had covered this

The universe is not infinite, it is expanding in all directions, including already existing space (The expanding balloon analogy).

The observable Universe is 93 billion light years in diameter.

Two pictures:

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedi...t-NEW_Nasa.jpg


http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedi...-WMAP_2008.png

These are the biggest structures of the Universe: Superclusters, each supercluster contains up to thousands of galaxies.

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedi...heuniverse.gif

You might also want to read on matter in the univers

http://map.gsfc.nasa.gov/media/08099...dayContent.jpg

Obviously there are no infinite amount of matter in the Universe, if the Universe was infinite in its space heath death would be the case, and we would not exist.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Xei

I've read it too, but there is a distinction between an expanding universe and expanding space... can you get a quote?

---

Exellenct artile on wiki: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Metric_expansion_of_space

This illustration illustrates it pretty well.

http://www4.ncsu.edu/unity/lockers/u...o/backward.gif

Strangematter.

Please correct the word I'm about to use if it's improper (and most likely is).
My husband thinks the universe is like a modius (????) loop- similar to the symbol for infinity which is used in conveyor belts. He thinks it just loops about itself but at the same time is constantly expanding.
I have no idea what he's talking about lol, but it seems to make "sense".

I don't believe in spirits (as in ghosts) but I do believe in God, Satan, Angels and Demons- and even though I have no logic to back it up and it's not supported by my religious beliefs, I personally feel that such spiritual creatures live in a separate plane of reality that at times overlaps with our own. Perhaps they even influence such overlaps.

All of this stuff is way over my head though and I get sick just trying to make sense of it all lol, so I tend to not dwell too deeply on it (space, time, direction is something my brain has a hard time processing. If I try to picture a map in my mind to try to figure out where I'm going or have been I literally become dizzy because the map refuses to stablize.)

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Zhaylin

modius

---

Mobius. And I think it's supposed to have the two dots over the O, but I can't be bothered to open up the character map to find them.

That argument does make any sense lol

the casiopaeans explain about the universe much better thank-you very much :D

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Sound

Space can be infinite, but there can only be finite amount of matter.

---

Everything is matter...

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Mark75

Mobius. And I think it's supposed to have the two dots over the O, but I can't be bothered to open up the character map to find them.

---

Like a Möbius band? The universe is like that ???

Thank you! That's what it is.

But I don't know why I said anything at all seeing how none of this makes much sense to me any how :D

Quote:

---

Space cannot be infinite because then there would be an infinity of solar system, meaning an infinity of planets resulting in an infinity of peoples. There cannot be an infinite of peoples because there cannot be an infinity of spirits.

Infinity is not a number. It just never stop going but that is impossible. Only numbers go to infinity but most numbers will never be used since they go to infinity meaning that trillions of trillions of trillions of number will not be used. Actually, what I just said is wrong. infinity doesn't represent a large number. An infinity of numbers will never be used. That's the actual statement. And time might be infinite too.

Its sorta hard to explain though..

---

One thing about these trains of thought is that you have to keep supporting your claims. Your argument, there cannot be infinite solar systems because there cannot be infinite planets because there cannot be infinite people because there cannot be infinite spirits because there cannot be infinite... Infinite what? You have to keep going. Granted, you have to stop somewhere. But you can't stop until you reach a scientific law. Eventually you may reach 'because of thermodynamics' or 'because of gravity.' Something like that.

That notwithstanding, you make alot of assumptions in your argument. The whole big bang goes off of alot of assumptions, as well. I'll allow that something like Evolution does, too, but it is supported by so much objective evidence that it becomes a logical belief. The evidence outweighs the assumptions. With the big bang theory, the assumptions outweigh the evidence. That's not to say it's wrong. That's just to say that we are incredibly ignorant about quantam physics and dark matter and black holes, etc. We've alot of hypothesis on this idea. Very few theories. So we can't use the big bang as an assumption.

So, yeah, people who try and qoute the 'expanding universe' thing as some scientific concensus, or the idea that 'light hasn't reached every corner of the galaxy yet' as fact are being presumptious. I've read some stuff about Stephen Hawking's/Einstien's ideas. Nothing major, so I'm no expert. But realize that sooo much of the concepts presented by either of those gentelman are thought expiriments. They are interesting to think about, and certainly presented by remarkably intelligent gentleman, but they have little objective value.

My point is that nobody knows the answer to the question invited in the OP. It is fun to discuss, but if everyone talks about this topic under the pretense that there aren't any sides as these are suppositional/conjectural opinions than the discussion will go much smoother. No-one should try and take an I'm right, you're wrong attitude. We are all just having a friendly discussion on the 'maybes' of science. Or we should, at any rate.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by SleepyCookieDough

Space cannot be infinite because then there would be an infinity of solar system

---

Not necessarily. Space could be infinite and have nothing more than our known universe.

Quote:

---

meaning an infinity of planets resulting in an infinity of peoples. There cannot be an infinite of peoples because there cannot be an infinity of spirits.

---

...

To avoid the flames, I'll keep it short: religion is not logic, and religion is not logical. Don't use spirits in logical reasoning, or the result will not be true.

Quote:

---

Infinity is not a number.

---

It depends on how you define it. If you define it as just an arbitrarily large number, it is not a number. If you define it as larger than any real number, and not having any number greater than it, then infinity is a number.

Quote:

---

It just never stop going but that is impossible.

---

Impossible in the real field. The definition of virtual is: that which would be real, if it existed.

Quote:

---

Only numbers go to infinity

---

Of course, because infinity is a number. You can't say "only flowers are flowers" and use it as argument. Mathematics is a model for understanding the universe.

Quote:

---

but most numbers will never be used since they go to infinity meaning that trillions of trillions of trillions of number will not be used. Actually, what I just said is wrong. infinity doesn't represent a large number. An infinity of numbers will never be used. That's the actual statement. And time might be infinite too.

---

Yup, you were right this time. Matter is: time is not only infinite in the direction of the future, but also in the direction of the past.

Quote:

---

Its sorta hard to explain though..

---

Indeed.

---------


I didn't use any cosmo- or quantum-physics because I don't think those sciences are advanced enough, and also because they don't (yet) deal with other hypothetical or virtual realities. But they do provide you with a great deal of explanations, in case you're interested.

Do any of you remember the video game Pacman? There were these exits where Pacman would go out and immediately come in through another one. Maybe space is finite like a Pacman board. If you travel far enough away from Earth, you reach Earth?

Probably not, but I like the idea.

My understanding is that general relativity essentialy says that space time is a solution of the Einstein field equations. There are lot's of solutions.

As far as I know, the standard ones are finite but unbounded. Think of the surface of a sphere as a finite but unbounded space: an ant could start walking on it and never run into a boundary. EDIT: and yes UM, eventually come back to its starting point.

I do believe I recall, but could not find quickly find reference too, infinite solutions. At anyrate, as I recall, the infinite solutions had space time expanding in such a manner that anything beyond the edge of the visible universe would be moving faster then the speed of light so that photons would never reach us to begin with.

As Spockman pointed out though, the beauty of science is that it is all theory. Any theory we cook up will be superceded by a better one. Unless we have empirical confirmation of something that a theory says, It is only a potential failing point for our current theory.

UM, I think that we can get from point A to B "faster" than light speed, not by traveling faster than light (Depends on the reference system I guess) but from bending space-time.

Very similar to the question proposed on http://hypography.com/forums/physics...tion-pass.html

The paper folding analogy describes how it can be conceptualized-

That's called a worm hole.

The way I prefer to think of space, is that it's neither fenite nor infinite.
Think of a sphere (or a circle). The sphere is the universe, all the stars, galaxies, dark-matter and energy is located within this sphere. So comes the dilemma: What's outside the sphere?
The answer is (as in can be) "nothing". There's no matter, no electromagnetic waves, no energy. And therefore, what's outside the sphere does not exist. But if you imagine you're in a spaceship, and travel out past the sphere's "edge", you're not actually moving outside of the "edge". You're simply expanding the sphere itself. In this interpretation there're no limit, you could travel forward without getting looped back for our entire concept of time. And if you turned around and went back, the sphere would shrink until you were no longer the only energy located at the boundary. I think that's the easiest approach.

That's one way to say it, but hasn't it been proven that Space is still expanding? The aftershock of the big bang? I saw a History channel thing about that... After it went BOOM-CLANK-KAPOW on us, it kept expanding.

To me, it makes sense that it's like a balloon: You breath out, ushing air into the balloon. You breath back in, the air comes out of the balloon. Then we havesuper-small space, again, and then bigbangagain to make it big, big crunch to make it small. See where I'm going?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by [SomeGuy]

That's one way to say it, but hasn't it been proven that Space is still expanding? The aftershock of the big bang? I saw a History channel thing about that... After it went BOOM-CLANK-KAPOW on us, it kept expanding.

To me, it makes sense that it's like a balloon: You breath out, ushing air into the balloon. You breath back in, the air comes out of the balloon. Then we havesuper-small space, again, and then bigbangagain to make it big, big crunch to make it small. See where I'm going?

---

The universe is still expanding, but that's not a problem with the explanation I gave. Just as you in a spaceship can expand space, so can all other forms of energy. However it's pretty much identical to the balloon analogy.
However it's unlikely that space will start contracting. I've read that it the expansion is accelerating.

Wouldn't it eventually get too stretched out and thin out? Wouldn't it destabilize? Imagine a giant ball of silly putty. With your mind, stretch that sucker out millions of miles. IT's thin as hell now, right? That's spacetime. Now imagine galaxies and planets on top of that. and in that. What do you think will happen? I think because of that, there are laws we don't know about that say that the universe will contract.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by [SomeGuy]

That's called a worm hole.

---

Yes, it can be called that.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by [SomeGuy]

Wouldn't it eventually get too stretched out and thin out? Wouldn't it destabilize? Imagine a giant ball of silly putty. With your mind, stretch that sucker out millions of miles. IT's thin as hell now, right? That's spacetime. Now imagine galaxies and planets on top of that. and in that. What do you think will happen? I think because of that, there are laws we don't know about that say that the universe will contract.

---

It's possible that the universe will stop expanding, but I don't think it will contract to a new "big bang". And there's no real reason that it should get too thin. No matter how far apart to "blubs" of energy are, it'll always be a finite distance.

But think, if the Universe is finite, there is a finite amount of spacetime. Eventually, that will thin out and the Universe will...break I guess.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by [SomeGuy]

But think, if the Universe is finite, there is a finite amount of spacetime. Eventually, that will thin out and the Universe will...break I guess.

---

In all models that I'm aware of with any experimental backing, spacetime is not thought of as a substance but as merely existing: Their is no it to stretch out. It is sort of a problem that none of our theories can construct 'spacetime'.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by [SomeGuy]

But think, if the Universe is finite, there is a finite amount of spacetime. Eventually, that will thin out and the Universe will...break I guess.

---

What exactly do you mean by 'spacetime'?
And what do you mean when you say the Universe is finite? That there's a set amount of energy in it, that cannot be changed? If so I agree with you, but I don't see why spreading this would bring about the End of World.

I guess that makes sense.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by khh

What exactly do you mean by 'spacetime'?
And what do you mean when you say the Universe is finite? That there's a set amount of energy in it, that cannot be changed? If so I agree with you, but I don't see why spreading this would bring about the End of World.

---

Spacetime...is spacetime. Look it up. The universe has a definite size, yet it expands. Therefore, there is a set amount of energy and matter in it.


I figured that eventually spacetime would stretch out and become thin enough to rip.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by [SomeGuy]

Spacetime...is spacetime. Look it up. The universe has a definite size, yet it expands. Therefore, there is a set amount of energy and matter in it.

I figured that eventually spacetime would stretch out and become thin enough to rip.

---

*Wikipedia* Ah, that. Why didn't I just do that to begin with >.<
I don't really imagine that as something finite. I mean, it's basically just matter itself. Barring black holes, all mass has space, and where there's mass and space, there's time. It's kind of a concept more than a, er, thing, isn't it?

You can't talk about a finite amount of space-time, but you CAN talk about a finite amount of matter.

With an expanding Universe and finite matter (The matter in the Universe is pretty much non-changing) the mass density will lower, the current average density of the univers is 0,25 atoms per cubic meter.

With the Universe expanding the density will get eventual get so low that no star, planet or any objects with temperatures above ~0 Kelvin will exist. The last of the bigger structures in the Universe will be black holes, after 2&#215;10^99 years all supermassive black holes would have evaporated.

Long before that, 10^14 years from now would all stars have ceased to exist.

The current science give an estimate to the half-life of protons to 10^37 years, this mean when the Universe is around 10^40 years protons would have halved about 1000 times.

We are then left with zero protons.

10^100 years from now the Dark Era (practically empty Universe) will rule until either the Big Crunch, Big Rip, Big Bounce or true heat death would be achieved.

If we still exist we might alter some parametre, changing our "destiny" or play with dimensions and such, we can only speculate..

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedi...12e6c3e33f.png

This bring us to the last question! :D:D

Ah, right. I forgot about that part :p
Wow that's big stuff...

Yes, it's big stuff.

To avoid cataclysmic mass brain meltdown we have to watch this. :lol:



:tongue:

I agrfee with that. My views have been altered.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Universal Mind

If you travel far enough away from Earth, you reach Earth?

Probably not, but I like the idea.

---

Well.. as a technicality, I'd say probably yes, but only after an infinite amount of time.

But you can pretty much interpret "infinite amount of time" as something impossible (for human beings), so..

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by SleepyCookieDough

Space cannot be infinite because then there would be an infinity of solar system, meaning an infinity of planets resulting in an infinity of peoples. There cannot be an infinite of peoples because there cannot be an infinity of spirits.

Infinity is not a number. It just never stop going but that is impossible. Only numbers go to infinity but most numbers will never be used since they go to infinity meaning that trillions of trillions of trillions of number will not be used. Actually, what I just said is wrong. infinity doesn't represent a large number. An infinity of numbers will never be used. That's the actual statement. And time might be infinite too.

Its sorta hard to explain though..

---

infinity isnt static its movement, the universe is expanding infinitely, thats what we mean.

I just wanted to add something before going to bed.

In quintessence (first time I use that word :) ) the concept of infinity has no root in reality, infinity is a concept created because of the limiting capacity of the human mind, we say infinity because we can't really grasp the "it" we are calling infinity.

Bear in my that I an talking about reality, and not a scientific or mathematical model of reality.

Goodnight.

I know this thread is a little bit old, but my high school math teacher ALWAYS talked about "the limit". Here's his example from what I can remember:

"If I stand x amount distance from the wall, and then decrease my distance by 50&#37;, will I ever hit the wall?"
"No."
"But will I appear to be touching the wall eventually? The answer is yes. I may be physically touching the wall, however if we go down on an atomical level, I will never, ever, touch the wall."

Space is infinite.

Who's to say it is limited to one universe, and not a multiverse, anyway?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by billygan

... however if we go down on an atomical level, I will never, ever, touch the wall."

---

Why?

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Exhalent

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Xei

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.

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Xei

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.

There's no evidence that quarks have any dimensions. Same goes for leptons (leptons and quarks make up the entirety of matter).

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Xei

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. Voil&#225;.

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.

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Kromoh

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Xei

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.:P

I'd love to respond but unfortunately nothing you say ever makes any logical sense.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Xei

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.

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Licity

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.

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.

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

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Xei

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?

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Xei

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. :goodjob:

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

For christ's sake, guys, drop it.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Xei

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.

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.

Quote:

---

For christ's sake, guys, drop it.

---

Did you even the posts? Lord...

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.

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.

I think the universe is at the same finite and infinite. Finite because there is a border and infinite because it keeps expanding. IMO there's something after the border. I think that if it was possible to exit from this universe we would enter in a new one...

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by SleepyCookieDough

Space cannot be infinite because then there would be an infinity of solar system, meaning an infinity of planets resulting in an infinity of peoples. There cannot be an infinite of peoples because there cannot be an infinity of spirits.

Infinity is not a number. It just never stop going but that is impossible. Only numbers go to infinity but most numbers will never be used since they go to infinity meaning that trillions of trillions of trillions of number will not be used. Actually, what I just said is wrong. infinity doesn't represent a large number. An infinity of numbers will never be used. That's the actual statement. And time might be infinite too.

Its sorta hard to explain though..

---

Well you are wrong and right. No one can explain the universe so have fun. But ig I had to come from a science view, I'd say this: Every possibility in every single life and every single decision must be played out. So with one life, theres a decision. Both are played out and you have two branches on that line. Then decisions are made for those lifves, four more branches. Then decisions on those lives and so on, and thats just for one person, but its not limited to people, thats just the example. That of course is only a Hypothesis. I don't think the universe can ever be explained by science or anything because we can't get out there to look at stuff and we weren't around at the beginning of it. These are just my views and I welcome yours.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by SleepyCookieDough

Space cannot be infinite because then there would be an infinity of solar system, meaning an infinity of planets resulting in an infinity of peoples. There cannot be an infinite of peoples because there cannot be an infinity of spirits.

Infinity is not a number. It just never stop going but that is impossible. Only numbers go to infinity but most numbers will never be used since they go to infinity meaning that trillions of trillions of trillions of number will not be used. Actually, what I just said is wrong. infinity doesn't represent a large number. An infinity of numbers will never be used. That's the actual statement. And time might be infinite too.

Its sorta hard to explain though..

---

It is infinite, though. When an arrow is shot, before it reaches its target, it has to go to a point from the middle of the point you shoot to the target you hit, and before that, a middle point from the actual middle point, and so on.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by TheBuddha

It is infinite, though. When an arrow is shot, before it reaches its target, it has to go to a point from the middle of the point you shoot to the target you hit, and before that, a middle point from the actual middle point, and so on.

---

Planck length - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Marvo

Planck length - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

---

The idea that you can meaningfully think of space as some kind of discrete grid isn't really accepted. It would make more sense to refer to

Calculus - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

or even just

Series (mathematics) - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by SleepyCookieDough

Space cannot be infinite because then there would be an infinity of solar system, meaning an infinity of planets resulting in an infinity of peoples. There cannot be an infinite of peoples because there cannot be an infinity of spirits.

Infinity is not a number. It just never stop going but that is impossible. Only numbers go to infinity but most numbers will never be used since they go to infinity meaning that trillions of trillions of trillions of number will not be used. Actually, what I just said is wrong. infinity doesn't represent a large number. An infinity of numbers will never be used. That's the actual statement. And time might be infinite too.

Its sorta hard to explain though..

---

Everything you've ever done or thought has already occurred and will repeat itself countless times in countless places.

Space can't be infinite because eventually you'd run out of places to put it.

Explain to me what space is.

Black stuff

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedi...edfe5a541d.png

This is how it's said to "bend" in the presence of matter and energy, but that just makes it's open mystery even more apparent. Especially with it's expansion, quantum fluctuations, and whatnot.

How do you define what something is other than by describing its properties?

Who said space was infinite? Space is very finite, it started from a finite singularity, and expanded at a set rate, it's not infinite. That said, space expanded many many times faster than light, so you can never reach the edge because matter can't go faster than light.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Xei

How do you define what something is other than by describing its properties?

---

By finding out what causes those properties?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Wayfaerer

By finding out what causes those properties?

---

That cause is still a property. What distinguishes a fundamental property from a superficial property?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ninja9578

Who said space was infinite? Space is very finite, it started from a finite singularity, and expanded at a set rate, it's not infinite. That said, space expanded many many times faster than light, so you can never reach the edge because matter can't go faster than light.

---

This is a classic misunderstanding and is completely incorrect.

The expansion of space is not like the expansion of the space inside a balloon where the boundary encompasses more and more volume; the expansion is of space itself, at all points in the universe. It is much more like the stretching of a rubber sheet. You don't know the overall shape of the sheet (it could even be infinite), but locally, all points near to you are drifting away.

The Big Bang did not happen at what is now a single point which we could visit like a tourist destination, and the universe did not expand outwards from it: the Big Bang essentially occurred at every point in the modern day universe.

The observable universe is bounded by the light that can have reached us in the universe's finite lifespan, but it is a major unsolved question in astrophysics as to whether or not the universe, seen and unseen, is infinite or not. Certainly there's no reason for thinking it just stops at the boundary of the observable universe.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Xei

That cause is still a property.

---

Maybe, but of what? Another cause? Are you suggesting an infinite regress? I couldn't argue with that.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Xei

What distinguishes a fundamental property from a superficial property?

---

It depends on how you isolate and define an entity with said properties, essentially how far you've connected it with the rest of experience. The superficial properties are what define this entity, but they are also the edge of mystery to the question 'why these properties?'. The fundamental cause is some connection this entity has to the whole that we don't understand yet, which could make the entity obsolete in the unification, depending on how you choose to look at it. The unification of space, time, and gravity for example, can we in our most honest view of nature even talk about space as an true entity in itself? You defined it as the equation for space-time, so what if space-time unifies further into the rest of nature- electromagnetism, strong nuclear force, matter/energy, quantum patterns- could we then honestly put descriptive boundaries around the entity space-time without violating it's relation to something else? If dark matter doesn't exist, that equation isn't even right.

Wayfaerer,

Xei is questioning how one could "define" an object without expressing its essential properties - properties of which an object could not be said to exist without them. Describing a particular object by its relation to other objects, outside its means of existence, would be describing its superficial properties - non-essentials in relation to that particular object. Thus, how could an object be defined by superficial properties not being apart of the object itself?

Black non-stuff*

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Omnis Dei

Black non-stuff*

---

No.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Somii

Wayfaerer,

Xei is questioning how one could "define" an object without expressing its essential properties - properties of which an object could not be said to exist without them.

---

Yes, properties of which are mysteries. Thus, an object of which we have no idea about essentially.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Somii

Describing a particular object by its relation to other objects, outside its means of existence, would be describing its superficial properties - non-essentials in relation to that particular object. Thus, how could an object be defined by superficial properties not being apart of the object itself?

---

This makes no sense, objects only have properties because they are in relation to others. Also, Nature is a unity, nothing is outside a superficially isolated objects means of existence. When human knowledge finds a way to express this object's relation to the rest of nature as a more essential object, it doesn't make sense as an object anymore.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Somii

No.

---

Yeah huh!

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Wayfaerer

Yes, properties of which are mysteries. Thus, an object of which we have no idea about essentially.



This makes no sense, objects only have properties because they are in relation to others. Also, Nature is a unity, nothing is outside a superficially isolated objects means of existence. When human knowledge finds a way to express this object's relation to the rest of nature as a more essential object, it doesn't make sense as an object anymore.

---

You have failed to understand.

Hold on, aren't you from that Inner Sanctum crowd? Whachu doin in here, boy?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Somii

You have failed to understand.

Hold on, aren't you from that Inner Sanctum crowd? Whachu doin in here, boy?

---

Good point, I completely understand now. I'm not from any crowd, if I am I've seldom met any of the members.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Somii

You have failed to understand.

Hold on, aren't you from that Inner Sanctum crowd? Whachu doin in here, boy?

---

This is a massive pussful of fail. You not only dismiss someone's argument rather than apply critical thinking to actually discover why you think they're wrong, but the way you dismiss them is by implying they're not good enough at critical thinking to take you on.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Omnis Dei

This is a massive pussful of fail. You not only dismiss someone's argument rather than apply critical thinking to actually discover why you think they're wrong, but the way you dismiss them is by implying they're not good enough at critical thinking to take you on.

---

Correct. Except the fail and me not criticizing his rebuttal parts. I did the latter in mah head.


Omnis, non-stuff cannot have an attribute, for an attribute must be contained in or in relation to stuff. Black is a property of color, which is an attribute of stuff. Therefore, non-stuff cannot be black. :. your idea of space cannot exist

I could just as easily stomp on his idea, albeit less inane than your light-heart one, but I've given the liberty for someone else to do so. Would you like to do it? :)


Join the Dark side Omnis, or should I say, Omnii. o.0

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Somii

Correct. Except the fail and me not criticizing his rebuttal parts. I did the latter in mah head.


Omnis, non-stuff cannot have an attribute, for an attribute must be contained in or in relation to stuff. Black is a property of color, which is an attribute of stuff. Therefore, non-stuff cannot be black. :. your idea of space cannot exist

I could just as easily stomp on his idea, albeit less inane than your light-heart one, but I've given the liberty for someone else to do so. Would you like to do it? :)


Join the Dark side Omnis, or should I say, Omnii. o.0

---

I disagree. Black is technically a color in one sense but it also the absence of color because the way we consider black when we think of something that is colored black is not perfect black at all. Perfect black is the complete absence of all light and non-stuff implies the complete absence of all vibrations/matter.

But if you want I can try harder, and I won't keep it in my head.

Space is the stage/dimension from which form attains spatial quality. Space itself is absent of any quality other than the measurable qualities of objects relative to the spatial dimension. ie black nonstuff.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Omnis Dei

I disagree. Black is technically a color in one sense but it also the absence of color because the way we consider black when we think of something that is colored black is not perfect black at all. Perfect black is the complete absence of all light and non-stuff implies the complete absence of all vibrations/matter.

But if you want I can try harder, and I won't keep it in my head.

Space is the stage/dimension from which form attains spatial quality. Space itself is absent of any quality other than the measurable qualities of objects relative to the spatial dimension. ie black nonstuff.

---

No. Try harder.

Quote:

---

Space itself is absent of any quality other than the measurable qualities of objects relative to the spatial dimension. ie black nonstuff.

---

I don't see how the bold text relates to the preceding statements. If non-stuff pertains strictly to the absence of matter/vibrations, as according to your definition, then stuff would be the presence of such. Which means, space, non-void of measurable qualities, of which matter/vibrations are of, should be properly notified as- ie. stuff - contradicting the latter statement.

The connection is simple. Defining space as a dimension essentially assigns it absolutely no real qualities, only qualities which can be expressed through whatever is being measured by these dimensional qualities, colored stuff. The same can be said of time, there is no way to understand time except through measurements that are kept with time. We have one dimensional measurement which exists in a straight line, two dimensional which works on a plane and three dimensional which works through space. Therefore I define space as the stage upon which objects can be measured with 3 dimensional values and a dimensional stage can be aptly described with the opposite of whatever terminology we use to describe manifestation upon this stage. Manifestation in space is stuff, the opposite of which, the stage, is void or nonstuff. Some of this stuff, neutrinos, allows us to see the other stuff. A complete absence of these neutrinos is perfect black. Black non-stuff.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Omnis Dei

The connection is simple. Defining space as a dimension essentially assigns it absolutely no real qualities, only qualities which can be expressed through whatever is being measured by these dimensional qualities, colored stuff.

---

Dimensional qualities, color stuff, measure those qualities which can be expressed in a dimension? Sigh.

Quote:

---

A complete absence of these neutrinos is perfect black. Black non-stuff.

---

Drop this already. It sounds ridiculous. It would be acceptable if you said, as implied in your former post, perfect black indicates the absence of neutrinos, of which we could not see without.However, to infer that the absence of matter and such, is black, or is the absence of neutrinos, would imply that the presence of neutrinos would necessarily mean the presence of matter. Therefore, accordingly, if neutrinos ceased to exist, then all matter would too. I need to find only one example that not all matter is neutrino to collapse your whole theory.


..Gotta run to class. eh..

You are failing to comprehend what I'm saying, anyways so I have no problem dropping it. I can't exactly respond to that post because it doesn't even come close to what I was actually saying.