the universe

taormina said:
Sean;

Who said just "because"?

As I told you before, thinking the universe goes on forever has the close cousin that you can divide and object in half again and again "infinity" times and keep getting smaller and smaller objects.

Plank Length destroys that whole line of thinking on a micro level; whay can you not see that it is like that at the macro level as well?

Who cares about two points - it's irrelevant. Show me ONE THING in nature that is infinite. Nothing is. Everything can be measured. Why would the volume of the universe be any different?

This whole discussion is now turning into one of my favorite books:

"Your ass and a hole in the ground; a comparative study"
Click to expand...

Plank length means only that nothing can be measured on a micro level relative to electromagnetic radiation, i.e. a proton. I understand that... things get too small for us to measure and they begin to function on a quantum level. However, none of the theory or mathetmatics behind Plank Length has anything to do with the macro universe that I can find. It is concerned soley with quantum interaction and nature of space-time on a mico level.

I'm done discussing this however. You clearly are frustrated with me and the last thing I want is a shouting match. I'm going to keep believing in an infinite universe, because I still haven't seen any reason not to yet. In the end, it doesn't really matter anyway.
 
SeanEmer said:
I'm still waiting for proof that doesnt equate to "just because" lol. Everyone is saying I'm wrong because infinity means measurement is impossible. I don't get that, at all. If you have, for example, an empty sphere. Two objects within the sphere have a finite distance, and the sphere itself as a universe is finite. But if you get rid of the edges, which weren't involved in measuring the distance anyway, then you still have that finite measurement, but there is an infinite amount of space around those objects. They can move billions of miles parallel to each other and obviously be the same distance apart, but they can also move away from each other forever, and the distance would increase towards (but never achieving) infinity.

This is simple calculus stuff here... why is everyone saying I'm wrong?
Click to expand...

This is the crux of the matter, you simply can not have a finite amount existing inside of an infinite space, I've have explained why,

Lets get back to basics of measurements:

You have two finite lengths, one is 1 meter long, and another one is 1.5 meters long.

You can compare these two finite lengths, no problem.

BUT if lets say you PLACE that finite length into an infinite length, what happens?

IT dissappers, WHY: because what is infinity + X ? its the same, its infinity, you can not increase infinity, so what has happened to your X length now? its losts it dimension, i.e. X relative to infinity is zero !!

Put another way, lets say you want to "cut out" X length from infinity, what would be the length of that X?

Infinity !! yep, thats right, thats because we can not go into a infinite length and say we shall start here, and we shall end here, because ANY two points will always be infinite in length!

Now can you see the mathematical contradiction of placing a finite measurement/ finite distance INSIDE of an infinite dimension?

Once you place a finite measurement inside of an infinite space, that finite measurement CEASES to exist, due to the properties of infinity.

That earth, Sun etc, if you placed these finite objects inside of an infinite space; would the infinite space increase? NO ! so what happened to their dimensions? they simply lose their dimensions I.E they are dimensionless (i.e. infinite) the Earth and Sun now became equal in size !

I'm not sure I can break it down any further, its difficult to imagine, but sit on it and think it through, go back to the other examples I have given, and you will come to realise that you simply can not contain finite amount inside of an infinite amount, its just mathematically/logically not possible.

I'm not going to deter you away from thinking your ideas are not possible, but until you prove the maths/logic wrong, then thats where its stands at current day knowledge.

And also your not the first to think that its possible, alot of mathematician have tried and failed to produce a solution, one such attempt is known as "Supertask"
 
Last edited:
IMHO Sean has two strikes against his theory;

1. A poor understanding of the true definition of inifinty
2. Inability to point out anything in nature that is atually infinite.

Get in the starship enterprise. Set it to warp 9. Travel at warp nine for a billion years. Guess what? You are no closer to the end of the universe.....it goes on forever! That is true infinity!

Sean - bigger people than you and I have tried to prove an infinite universe and failed.
 
taormina said:
IMHO Sean has two strikes against his theory;

1. A poor understanding of the true definition of inifinty
2. Inability to point out anything in nature that is atually infinite.

Get in the starship enterprise. Set it to warp 9. Travel at warp nine for a billion years. Guess what? You are no closer to the end of the universe.....it goes on forever! That is true infinity!

Sean - bigger people than you and I have tried to prove an infinite universe and failed.
Click to expand...


If you're just going to insult me, I can easily spend my time elsewhere.

Anhar, thanks for the explanations... I'll go over them and look at it closely to see if I can understand your side of things better.

Toarmina... chill out man, it was just debate. All you've done is imply my ineptitude everytime I've explained my theory of things. I understand infinity. I've worked with it. I've been doing calculus for years... please don't call me stupid.

Either way, if I try to argue my point any longer its just going to become a flame war. I'll stick to film from now on... thats what these forums are for anyway.
 
I think debating is a wonderful thing, of course we should all remain chilled and respectful.

This is an excellent thread; let us all try hard to stay focused and express ourselves to each other in an good manner (myself included)

I hope I have not come across as arrogant, so my apologies if I have acted with bad conduct.

Filmmaking is also about ideas, and I think anything that stirs passions and ideas has got to be a good thing for filmmaking! :)
 
Sean

I don't think anyone is insulting or flaming you. Someone not buying into your theorys is simply that. It isn't personal.

I think the key to this kind of debate is to accept that our beliefs might not neccasarily be concrete or absolute; especially in terms of quantam mechanics and plank levels ?

(my head)
 
Sean - Apologies. I didn't imply you were stupid. I'm sorry I came across that way - I wasn't getting heated at all - I also apologize for the way I may have written some of my posts. I can see how you thought they may have looked offensive; I can tell you that they weren't meant to be that way.

Sorry man.
 
Yeah, I was probably too sensitive too... its one of my flaws I guess. Apologies to all heh. I'll go look at the stars... you know... the infinite ones :p
 
Yeah and one of my flaws is that I'm a knowitall pompous ass - or so says my wife ;-)

Anyhoo - where were we?
 
well if time is indeed infinite... it would be the same thing anyway... or... what?
 
More like "when are we?"

If you look at the time function of relativity... and the math of leaving the earth for a couple hours at light speed and coming back. I don't see why it's a stretch to say that "we're living in the exhaust of the universe"... because if the big bang is true and the universe shot out in all directions at the speed of light (or faster, dimensionally speaking)... then the whole thing could have been an explosion that shot out and collapsed in a second or two... and we're caught up in the trillion year internal perspective.

Kinda' like watching your fellow astronaut "freeze" at the event horizon of a black hole... meanwhile he's been gone since he stopped.

Whatever... Sunday blather.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top