the universe

First, the energy in the ball is spent, yes, but it is converted into kinetic energy and used to move the ball. It doesn't decrease, it merely transforms. Also, as has been stated here, the universe is expanding with increasing speed, not decreasing speed. I haven't heard anything to the contrary yet.

And how do you know the differences in the speed of light aren't a result of more precise intrumentation and measurement?
 
You are dead wrong. Time does not extend into eternity. Eternity has no time. I'm not going to test your knowledge of string theory here, but let's pretend there are only four dimensions:

Length
Width
Height
Space-time

Eternity as used in the common vernacular would probably mean "lots of time" to the guy on the street.

But true Eternity has no time. There is no past or future eternity, only a timeless present.

And look at the name of the 4th dimension!!!!!!!!! SPACE TIME. Time is permanently linked to space. Measure space, measure time.

SHOW ME HOW YOU CAN MEASURE INFINITY. Just one example will do.


SeanEmer said:
Time can, and is, measured. But I'm willing to bet that time is infinite in extent. It may be altered or distorted by forces in the universe, but I believe that it extends into infinity (as you said, eternity).

Technically, eternity is time represented by x, where eternity = lim(x->infinity) Infinity is not being measured here. Distance (in which space exists) is measured between references in a sea of unending space. Matter may not extend into the farthest reaches of space. At that point, space and only space would exist, extending into infinity, but without reference. At that point, measurement is impossible, unless you exist within that space... then you're existence is a basis for measurement, but only to another detectable reference point.

I don't understand why you guys aren't seeing my point.

To clarify... I'm not saying that we can discover, for example, some object that is infinitely far from us. I am saying that even the object most far from us can still be measured as a certain distance, but beyond even that object, space extends forever as untapped capacity for physical existence. Objects can move freely into this space for an infinite distance, but they will always have a finite distance from your reference. The only thing is that this finite distance will increase infinitely, meaning that it will always increase. This is the same concept as an infinitely long decimal number, such as pi. It is a finite measurement that has the capacity to extend to infinity.
Click to expand...
 
Your response clearly demonstrates you don't know anything about Entropy. I'm going to leave it to Anhar to finish this discussion off.
 
Please don't take any of this discussion personally, I'm just having a debate here and I don't want it to be shut down.

I'm not measuring infinity here. I am stating the capability to measure distances that increase TOWARDS infinity. Infinity is not a number or a measureable thing. It is a simple concept. I use this word with the meaning of untapped capacity (empty space) extending without end. Any two points within infinite space can be measured finitely using our standards of measurement. However, the capacity for the distance between any two objects increases TOWARDS infinity, but can never achieve it.

Infinity is a hard concept to grasp I guess...

You have point A, and point B. Call the distance between them D.

As A and B move away from each other, D increases. In an infinite universe, A and B can always move farther away from each other, and D will always increase. That is, D will theoretically be expressed as lim(D->infinity), meaning the number that D represents will increase without bound as the distance between A and B increases. This number will NEVER stop getting bigger as long as A and B continue to move apart. However, the number will always be finite, because it will only APPROACH infinty; it can never achieve it.

Eternity is the name given to infinite time. Thats how it has always been explained wherever I've seen it. Time's measurement works the same as space's, which I just went over.

I know a bit about string theory, but I don't know enough to get into a battle about that. I'm speaking in theoretics here.
 
I admit I'm not well versed in Entropy, but I just did a little research on it to see if I could understand your argument better, but I haven't found anything indicating that Entropy has been applied to the universe, because it is still unsure whether or not it can be applied to the universe since it is unknown if it is finite or infinite. Entropy is still a concept undergoing revision in this discussion of cosmology, at least thats how it is as far as I can tell. Sorry if I've misunderstood the research I did.
 
I always thought that Entropy is why things tend to fall into disarray... like glossing up chaos theory for those who don't like the word "chaos"... personally I think that's people trying to cash in on the basic law of diffusion... trying to sound intelligent by predicting what path the dye will take as it moves through the water, but it doesn't matter WHAT, or WHY, because we already know that it's simply the law of diffusion... which is a simplistic way to look at Entropy. I think the law of diffusion creates what appears to be disorder... but it follows systems that can't be observed in relatively short amounts of time.

Anyway...

Tao... and Sean... that's basically what I was getting at... that if you want to define "infinite" that your definition becomes a fallacy at which time you introduce a point of reference... in which you intend to create a starting "benchmark" for infinity.

My point is that you can't do that and look at the "u" for comfort.

Believe it or not, there's no "u" in infinite universe. I'd rather argue that either the universe IS finite... or else there's something else you're dealing with that negates the simple math of selecting any variable "u" or otherwise as a basis to quantify infinity.

OK... damn it... now I'm doing it.

Whatever... you can't do logical math on a calculator that isn't even there.
 
Matt, I'm still not seeing your logic in the point that because untapped space extends forever, a point of locality is impossible to achieve. That just seems like an arbitrary statement to me. Could you please explain yourself more clearly? If you have two objects in space, they have locality simply because they are objects. They exist. The capacity for the distance between them increases towards infinity because there is an unending amount of untapped space for which those objects to exist in.

How does this potential negate the existence of the objects? That just doesn't make sense to me. If the introduction of infinity into a mathematical concept negated the finite variables, then what the hell was I doing in calculus class?
 
The problem is that you keep calling "u" or the earth or whatever... or even you personally, the central point... or the reference point... or A reference point... when you're talking about a relatively abstract concept as infinity and giving that abstract concept a finite reference... you've created a false logic that you're building on.

Was the argument that infinity can be finite?

You're defining a "map" of sorts by creating reference points and then arguing the map's existence (as proof of finite), complete with edges or distances from center, etc.

All I'm saying is that if that map = infinity then yes you can have distances between points, but forget about turning infinity finite because you call some object the reference.

Maybe I'm responding to an argument that's already been dropped? Am I a page behind and didn't realize this argument of infinity vs. finite universe has been abandoned? If so I need to edit my posts because I was trying to simplify something that I thought was a loose thread for you.

Your illustrations with the universe dividing and "u" at the center is what I was trying to address... those illustrations are rudimentary maps... and if you want to have a discussion of "infinity" then there can't be a map. I think the whole "dividing the universe" thing is a paradoxical statement that's basically a perfect way to get confused... kind of like, nothing can go faster then the speed of light, but if I'm on a train going the speed of light and I walk forward then am I not going faster then the speed of light?

If you use terms like infinity, then words like map go out the window (if you are looking for the edges or evaluating size)... even though you can have a reference between two objects.
 
Last edited:
In theory, numbers can be thought of as infinite, with either whole numbers or with decimals, and yet you can still say I am at number seven, and this is what is around me.

If the universe is infinite, there are still plenty of things to give you a reference point. An infinite universe does not negate a reference point as long as there is something in it.

For the sake of argument, let's say the Universe is not still expanding at an excellerated rate, and it's infinite. We are still here, Earth is still the third planet away from the sun. You could point a ship in any direction, travel to billion years at light speed, and as long as there were stars around you, you could make star charts and therefore have a reference. Or am I missing something? The only way to truly not have a reference point is to have nothing, or to have a universe populated with exact copies of everything in a completely three dimensionally proportionatly and evenly spaced manner. And that's not the case, though one day it will be, in the "age of the photon".

And speaking of photons, no one yet has answered my question about judging the age of one, damnit.

And don't even get me started on my idea for a perpetual energy machine that would actually work. And yes, I am serious.
 
Last edited:
Maybe I misunderstood the argument. I'm not debating the validity of reference points and mappable distances between reference points... if you read my post you'll see that I say mapping objects is still valid, but mapping the infinite's EDGES can't be done simply by saying "OK now THIS is the center, so we can define the edges by looking at this point."

I'm saying that no, you can define relationships of known objects, or even unknown objects, but if the universe is truly infinite*... then you can't make an argument for FINITE instead... simply by mapping a theoretical center.


*I do NOT believe the universe is infinite... I think there's probably an event horizon expanding into a void... just like "the end of the universe" on Futurama... more or less. The creeping edge of a shockwave.

Oh and photons are 42 minutes old.

Oh and one more thing... your perpetual energy machine won't work because magnetism isn't frictionless as it appears to be... there is a point of maximum attraction... no matter how many magnets you use or how you orient them. Trust me... it doesn't work. You think that the next field will be pulled in continuously, but the previous field is never let go w/o friction... so eventually the perpetual motion machine stops... all you're really looking at is a flywheel of magnetism... and depending on the mass and quantity of magnets you will get the illusion of potential... or you can go the other way and make it as light as possible... if the theory worked then it wouldn't matter.

I guess I'm assuming some of your construction ideas... how far off am I?
 
Last edited:
TIme does exist and is finite, an extremly simple proof:


Q. Can Two finite object share the same space?

A. If you do not inlcude a time dimension (4th Dimension) then no, it would be impossible, yet it can even be done very simply.

Try this experiment:

Take two objects of the same dimensions, (eg 2 footballs), get a stop watch.

Mark out a spot to place the football, then after X minutes replace this ball with the other one.

Now if we assume that time did not exist (i.e. lets collapse the time dimension) then what we just did would be impossible BECAUSE two seperate objects would be inhabiting the same space ! clearly impossible.

But since finite time exists, two seperate objects can inhabit the same space SO long as they are seperated by a time distance (which we measured with our stopwatch ) :)
 
Last edited:
Matt Grunau said:
If the universe is infinite, there are still plenty of things to give you a reference point. An infinite universe does not negate a reference point as long as there is something in it.
Click to expand...

Well this is not quite true, I understand what you are saying, but in essence if we had two points inside an infinite space, those two points would also be infinite distance apart as well! (due to the properties of infinity), infact any two points will always equal the same, you simply can not derive a fixed measurement between two points, simply because a finite distance ceases to exist in a in an infinite space.

Now heres whats really going to bake your noodles, in an infinite space ANY point is technically the equal to every other point! , take time to visualize this.
 
Anhar Miah said:
TIme does exist and is finite, an extremly simple proof:


Q. Can Two finite object share the same space?

A. If you do not inlcude a time dimension (4th Dimension) then no, it would be impossible, yet it can even be done very simply.

Try this experiment:

Take two objects of the same dimensions, (eg 2 footballs), get a stop watch.

Mark out a spot to place the football, then after X minutes replace this ball with the other one.

Now if we assume that time did not exist (i.e. lets collapse the time dimension) then what we just did would be impossible BECAUSE two seperate objects would be inhabiting the same space ! clearly impossible.

But since finite time exists, two seperate objects can inhabit the same space SO long as they are seperated by a time distance (which we measured with out stopwatch ) :)
Click to expand...

Those are such logical things that they never intrigued me. but know that you explain...
 
Matt: I said very early on that "U" is not the centralized reference of the universe. It was just a base for me to show the division of the universe. I am not claiming any point to be the center of the universe! An infinite universe can have no center because it has no edges.

And still, nobody has explained WHY it is impossible to have finite measurement in an infinite universe. All you guys keep saying is that its impossible because it doesn't work. That's never going to persuade me lol, so can somebody please write out the specific proof that makes it impossible for two objects of finite distance from each other to move apart at an ever increasing distance? I just don't see how this is impossible.
 
Dude I'm sorry... I didn't mean to sound the way you're taking it... I just meant "anything" as "u" on your map... what I'm saying is that "finite" means limited... "infinite" means unlimited... so the illustrations are logical, but not once you combine finite and infinite... in the illustrations it seemed to me that as you divided the universe that you are looking at it as "having an edge" next to the variable "u"... and I'm saying that unless you were creating new finite universes from an infinite one, then those illustrations are a good way to get confused about the definition of infinity.

Anhar... while I respect your simple explanations... "time is real because two objects can occupy the same space"... well I'm not debating whether or not time is real... my previous joking comment about us living in the exhaust of an expanding universe... and seeing that as time. Well... in a nutshell, I'm not debating the existence or reality of time, but in the sense you're explaining it, about the same object, same space etc. I don't think that dimensional proof works until you can go back and see or touch the first football, after the second one has been placed there.

I think the proof in that simple equation has to be same space, at the same time (from our perspective). If you want to use the stopwatch as a means of simplifying it, then just use the needle of the stopwatch and let it make one revolution...

So does that example prove that time happens or that time is a real, manipulatable thing? I have no problems with manipulated time, but I don't understand what the football thing proves for dimensions? When you move the first football to insert the second one and say there, they occupy the same space... I want to say hey there's the second football over there on the couch... they never occupied the same space... they both passed through the same space, but never truly occupied the same space... because of time. Is somebody here debating the existence of time? Maybe this explanation wasn't directed at me?
 
Last edited:
MattinSTL said:
I want to say hey there's the second football over there on the couch... they never occupied the same space... they both passed through the same space[/B], but never truly occupied the same space...
Click to expand...


"passed through the same space" yes, extactly BUT over time, it requires time in order to move, this is known as the Arrow Paradox (by Aristotle)

Source : Wiki said:
The arrow paradox
You cannot even move.

“ If everything when it occupies an equal space is at rest, and if that which is in locomotion is always occupying such a space at any moment, the flying arrow is therefore motionless. ”
—Aristotle, Physics VI:9, 239b5


In the arrow paradox, Zeno asks us to imagine an arrow in flight. He then asks us to divide up time into a series of indivisible nows or moments. At any given moment if we look at the arrow it has an exact location so it is not moving. Yet movement has to happen in the present; it can't be that there's no movement in the present yet movement in the past or future. So throughout all time, the arrow is at rest. Thus motion cannot happen.

This paradox is also known as the fletcher's paradox—a fletcher being a maker of arrows.

Whereas the first two paradoxes presented space divided into segments, this paradox divides time into points.
Click to expand...
 
MattinSTL said:
Oh and photons are 42 minutes old.

Oh and one more thing... your perpetual energy machine won't work because magnetism isn't frictionless as it appears to be... there is a point of maximum attraction... no matter how many magnets you use or how you orient them. Trust me... it doesn't work. You think that the next field will be pulled in continuously, but the previous field is never let go w/o friction... so eventually the perpetual motion machine stops... all you're really looking at is a flywheel of magnetism... and depending on the mass and quantity of magnets you will get the illusion of potential... or you can go the other way and make it as light as possible... if the theory worked then it wouldn't matter.

I guess I'm assuming some of your construction ideas... how far off am I?
Click to expand...


heh. I don't think the Universe is infinite either, I was just throwing that out there.

Are you serious about the Photons? Or are you kidding?

And you are way off about perpetual energy. No magantism. Just naturally occuring phenomena and gravity. There is no friction to overcome except in the very last part, and that is overcome by gravity.

And like I said, it does work, but would not be viable at large scale, unfortuenately. I have had decent (if a bit unconsitant) results with the items I had at hand. Had I all of thee stuff I actually want, I could make a much better system.
 
Anhar Miah said:
"passed through the same space" yes, extactly BUT over time, it requires time in order to move, this is known as the Arrow Paradox (by Aristotle)
Click to expand...

The arrow paradox, like the greek one about infinitely splitting distances seems to be more of a demonstration of the failure of our current math system in describing everyday things. Any time you have a paradox that says you can't cross a room because in order to do so you have to go through an infinite number of halfs, means your system of measurement needs updated. :evil:
 
And what about the dimension of fun? Dimension F? Try this simple experiment... do NOT smile... OK... see? Where there was a frown there is now a smile... therefore fun exists. Now taking into account the previous infinity splitting of the universe to prove finite results, using "u" as a reference... we are quickly approaching an F-U paradox.

C'mon... I had to break this up a bit... :cheesy:

Oh and photons... yep, 42 minutes... I turned on a flashlight and used an egg-timer to see how long it took to go out... very scientific... this time around photons were 42 minutes old when they died.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top