Page 2 of 7 [ 107 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1, 2, 3, 4, 5 ... 7  Next

AtticusKane
Toucan
Toucan

User avatar

Joined: 22 Aug 2011
Age: 35
Gender: Male
Posts: 271
Location: The American Empire

01 Sep 2011, 12:05 pm

ruveyn wrote:
Tom_Kakes wrote:

In the theory of relitivity, the speed of light is represented as infinate for reasons of ease/elegance. Because it is an absolute of speed (kind of). But the speed of light has a finite speed. The same goes for the universe. Quantum theory can't exist outside so the universe is represented as infinate.



That makes no sense.

ruveyn


Sounds like such laziness would jack up the equations, anyway. Creating a false variable in the name of "ease and elegance" seems like it would automatically void any equation it was used in.....



Tom_Kakes
Deinonychus
Deinonychus

User avatar

Joined: 15 Jul 2011
Gender: Male
Posts: 342

01 Sep 2011, 12:06 pm

ruveyn wrote:
Tom_Kakes wrote:

In the theory of relitivity, the speed of light is represented as infinate for reasons of ease/elegance. Because it is an absolute of speed (kind of). But the speed of light has a finite speed. The same goes for the universe. Quantum theory can't exist outside so the universe is represented as infinate.



That makes no sense.

ruveyn


Sorry, what I was getting at was that it takes an infinate amount of energy to reach the speed of light. This is like saying the speed of light is un-obtainable. It's just expressed in theory as infinity.

Was at work, on my Droid. So couldn't explain in more than a paragraph.



Tom_Kakes
Deinonychus
Deinonychus

User avatar

Joined: 15 Jul 2011
Gender: Male
Posts: 342

01 Sep 2011, 12:34 pm

AtticusKane wrote:
ruveyn wrote:
Tom_Kakes wrote:

In the theory of relitivity, the speed of light is represented as infinate for reasons of ease/elegance. Because it is an absolute of speed (kind of). But the speed of light has a finite speed. The same goes for the universe. Quantum theory can't exist outside so the universe is represented as infinate.



That makes no sense.

ruveyn


Sounds like such laziness would jack up the equations, anyway. Creating a false variable in the name of "ease and elegance" seems like it would automatically void any equation it was used in.....


If space were infinate then so would time be infinate. Time had a beginning 13 or so billion years ago. So did space, as they are part of the same thing.

So does infinity have a beginning? It can't because infinity is not an exact figure. Infinity should be all encompassing with no beginning or end.

So infinity *is* a problem. That's the way I see it.



naturalplastic
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 26 Aug 2010
Age: 70
Gender: Male
Posts: 35,189
Location: temperate zone

01 Sep 2011, 2:16 pm

I had it all figured out one day.

The universe consists of matter, energy, and empty space.
We tend to assume that stuff made of matter is the only stuff that matters.

But Einstein showed us that energy is a "thing" and that it has mass, and space is also a "thing" that has behavior and interacts with matter and energy. Space gets warped by matter to create the illusion of gravity- for example.

So at the edge of the universe- all matter peters out, all energy peters out. But what you have to realize is that what also comes to an end is empty space. We tend to think of matter and energy petering out and just black empty space beyond. But actually space itsself comes to an abrupt end.

Beyond the edge is no matter, no energy, and no empty space.

SInce we are composed of matter, energy, and empty space ourseleves, we cannot imagine the absence of all three.

But its there!

The universe is kind of flexibale bubble in a foam mattress.



Nil_Nil
Pileated woodpecker
Pileated woodpecker

User avatar

Joined: 21 Feb 2011
Age: 57
Gender: Male
Posts: 196

01 Sep 2011, 2:28 pm

There's an infinite amount of numbers between the finite range 0 and 1. If there's some jobs over the border of the universe then lets start digging now. :lol:



Simonono
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 25 Oct 2010
Age: 32
Gender: Male
Posts: 3,299

01 Sep 2011, 3:01 pm

There's a brick wall and beyond it is just a blank space. If you have binoculars you can see a parallel version of yourself.

Image
Image



SammichEater
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 6 Mar 2011
Age: 31
Gender: Male
Posts: 3,903

01 Sep 2011, 3:05 pm

There is minimal evidence suggesting an end to the universe. It seems to go on forever, even with the most powerful of telescopes.


_________________
Remember, all atrocities begin in a sensible place.


VIDEODROME
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 20 Nov 2008
Age: 49
Gender: Male
Posts: 2,691

01 Sep 2011, 3:52 pm

[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dx_lIv5SkHM[/youtube]



Tom_Kakes
Deinonychus
Deinonychus

User avatar

Joined: 15 Jul 2011
Gender: Male
Posts: 342

01 Sep 2011, 4:12 pm

SammichEater wrote:
There is minimal evidence suggesting an end to the universe. It seems to go on forever, even with the most powerful of telescopes.


That's doesn't disprove a finite universe.

We will never see enough of the universe by telescope (or any other em wave) to determine if it actually has an "edge" or not. This is because of the way it is expanding. Some galaxy's are moving away from each other at faster than light speeds.



Knifey
Deinonychus
Deinonychus

User avatar

Joined: 19 Aug 2011
Age: 41
Gender: Male
Posts: 324
Location: South Australia

01 Sep 2011, 10:49 pm

sErgEantaEgis wrote:
I know there is nothing outside the universe because the universe is all that exist. But then since the universe is finite, what would it's borders look like? I mean there's a point where the universe stop, and what would be the conditions there, and what would it feel like if I would touch the ''wall'' of the universe?
Umm yeah there is a cowboy universe on the other side and you can see yourself looking like a cowboy. I saw it on a documentary.

Simonono wrote:
There's a brick wall and beyond it is just a blank space. If you have binoculars you can see a parallel version of yourself.
ah you saw the same documentary.


_________________
Four thousand six hundred and ninety one irradiated haggis? Check.


VIDEODROME
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 20 Nov 2008
Age: 49
Gender: Male
Posts: 2,691

02 Sep 2011, 2:01 am

Rather then looking outward to the Cosmos, is it possible we are really seeing the border of the Universe as we peer into the sub-atomic world through electron microscopes? Is there an end to how small you can look into reality?



Knifey
Deinonychus
Deinonychus

User avatar

Joined: 19 Aug 2011
Age: 41
Gender: Male
Posts: 324
Location: South Australia

02 Sep 2011, 2:46 am

VIDEODROME wrote:
Rather then looking outward to the Cosmos, is it possible we are really seeing the border of the Universe as we peer into the sub-atomic world through electron microscopes? Is there an end to how small you can look into reality?
not according to Jennifer Lien, its all clouds and sunsets "beyond" the subatomic.


_________________
Four thousand six hundred and ninety one irradiated haggis? Check.


ruveyn
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 21 Sep 2008
Age: 88
Gender: Male
Posts: 31,502
Location: New Jersey

02 Sep 2011, 4:01 am

Knifey wrote:
VIDEODROME wrote:
Rather then looking outward to the Cosmos, is it possible we are really seeing the border of the Universe as we peer into the sub-atomic world through electron microscopes? Is there an end to how small you can look into reality?
not according to Jennifer Lien, its all clouds and sunsets "beyond" the subatomic.


There is no physical evidence at hand to support that.

ruveyn



Knifey
Deinonychus
Deinonychus

User avatar

Joined: 19 Aug 2011
Age: 41
Gender: Male
Posts: 324
Location: South Australia

02 Sep 2011, 4:48 am

ruveyn wrote:
Knifey wrote:
VIDEODROME wrote:
Rather then looking outward to the Cosmos, is it possible we are really seeing the border of the Universe as we peer into the sub-atomic world through electron microscopes? Is there an end to how small you can look into reality?
not according to Jennifer Lien, its all clouds and sunsets "beyond" the subatomic.


There is no physical evidence at hand to support that.

ruveyn


really? i think the box set of startrek voyager is physical?


_________________
Four thousand six hundred and ninety one irradiated haggis? Check.


Tom_Kakes
Deinonychus
Deinonychus

User avatar

Joined: 15 Jul 2011
Gender: Male
Posts: 342

02 Sep 2011, 5:28 am

AtticusKane wrote:

Sounds like such laziness would jack up the equations, anyway. Creating a false variable in the name of "ease and elegance" seems like it would automatically void any equation it was used in.....


I suggest you look up the term "renormalization"...

Much of quantum theory is actually kind of (educated) guess work. Look at the quark for instance, a totally unprovable concept but the predictions work so quarks are assumed to exist.



AtticusKane
Toucan
Toucan

User avatar

Joined: 22 Aug 2011
Age: 35
Gender: Male
Posts: 271
Location: The American Empire

02 Sep 2011, 5:35 am

Tom_Kakes wrote:
AtticusKane wrote:

Sounds like such laziness would jack up the equations, anyway. Creating a false variable in the name of "ease and elegance" seems like it would automatically void any equation it was used in.....


I suggest you look up the term "renormalization"...

Much of quantum theory is actually kind of (educated) guess work. Look at the quark for instance, a totally unprovable concept but the predictions work so quarks are assumed to exist.


Hmmm I may just do that