Page 3 of 4 [ 52 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1, 2, 3, 4  Next

wcoltd
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 15 Jul 2011
Age: 32
Gender: Male
Posts: 756
Location: The internet

03 May 2014, 12:11 am

I don't understand how 2x infinity is infinity not some bigger infinity. If you have a rectangle with one infite dimension, and one finite dimension. Even though the two rectangles one is one half the width of the other, and it would seem as though that would suffice looking at the two rectangles would be a demonstration that the area of the wider rectangle would have twice the area of the smaller. I asked about this and my reasoning turned out not to be correct and I did not understand why. If my understanding is correct they explained that infinity doesn't have the cumulative property or associative property so you can not put in infinity like any other number so its non-algebraic.



techstepgenr8tion
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 6 Feb 2005
Age: 41
Gender: Male
Posts: 21,776
Location: The 27th Path of Peh.

03 May 2014, 1:48 am

It sounds like it's a language game when people say that - ie. infinity is infinite, there's no adding, subrtracting, multiplying, or dividing. That's part of our ongological hangup with it.

The only way I can think of is that if some paramater is infinite, all you can do is multiply by parameters to say, take one infinite paramater, add two, and have three infinite parameters or multiply by three to get six infinite parameters. Infinity seems to mock any attempt at divying it up and to say 'what's two times infinity?' just seems like any such attempted mathematical operation to add/subtract/multiply/divide infinity is done to show that any such operation is really a non-sequitur to begin with.



Mr_Stranger
Emu Egg
Emu Egg

User avatar

Joined: 2 May 2014
Age: 23
Gender: Male
Posts: 8

03 May 2014, 5:05 am

Infinity doesn't have a number, it's like the imaginary number which is only used as a figure since it is only undefined.



Don_Pedro_Zamacona
Blue Jay
Blue Jay

User avatar

Joined: 19 Apr 2014
Age: 38
Gender: Male
Posts: 78

03 May 2014, 11:27 am

01001011 wrote:
Don_Pedro_Zamacona wrote:
01001011 wrote:
Time is part of the universe.


Evidence, please? Time as we know it is quantitative but not qualitive. There is no literal, precise definition of it.


Quote:
The universe exists all time, even though the past can be finite. 'Before the existence of the universe' is just meaningless/contradictory.





You're trying to be dismissive but in the process you're making claims that are non-falsifiable. Nice try, though.


The general relativity says we have space-time as a single 4-D manifold, not separate 'time' and 'universe'. Moreover length and time is relative, and our intuition fails. Are you saying general relativity is not falsifiable or not supported by evidence?



I'm saying no such thing. The big bang theory rests on the hypothesis that the Universe was formed by the expansion of a singularity(a 0-dimensional manifold), into a manifold with at least 4 dimensions. But you are arguing that time does not exist outside of the Universe(and that includes the relativistic description of time as a physical dimension)and you have no evidence for this.



Don_Pedro_Zamacona
Blue Jay
Blue Jay

User avatar

Joined: 19 Apr 2014
Age: 38
Gender: Male
Posts: 78

03 May 2014, 11:31 am

TallyMan wrote:
I'd say infinity is merely an abstract mathematical concept. There are also several different types of infinity in mathematics. As to whether infinity is relevant in the real world, I doubt it.



Well according to the General Relativity, physical infinities do indeed exist in the form of Black Holes(which have no been confirmed by observations to be real): The spacetime curvature of a black hole singularity is infinite.



slave
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 28 Feb 2012
Age: 108
Gender: Male
Posts: 4,410
Location: Dystopia Planetia

03 May 2014, 7:24 pm

Don_Pedro_Zamacona wrote:
01001011 wrote:
That 'how the universe come into being' had been done to death. Our idea of time just fails some 13.8 billion years ago.



Then what is the origin of the singularity that the Universe came from?


http://blogs.sundaymercury.net/weirdsci ... -holes.jpg

everything enters the black hole and everything exits the white hole

the BB is a white hole

that's the idea....Idk if it is true or false



01001011
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 3 Mar 2010
Age: 40
Gender: Male
Posts: 991

05 May 2014, 2:24 am

Don_Pedro_Zamacona wrote:
01001011 wrote:
The general relativity says we have space-time as a single 4-D manifold, not separate 'time' and 'universe'. Moreover length and time is relative, and our intuition fails. Are you saying general relativity is not falsifiable or not supported by evidence?



I'm saying no such thing. The big bang theory rests on the hypothesis that the Universe was formed by the expansion of a singularity(a 0-dimensional manifold), into a manifold with at least 4 dimensions. But you are arguing that time does not exist outside of the Universe(and that includes the relativistic description of time as a physical dimension)and you have no evidence for this.


Can you clarify your objection? I am making a logical deduction from a well established theory. My claim is not inconsistent with the Big Bang Theory, which does not require time before the universe. The singularity is also singularity in time so the concept of time (at least in the sense of Relativity) also breaks down. Your idea of 'expansion' is incorrect. The 'expansion' is not some 'precess' happening in outside time.

If you think it is possible to talk about time without the Universe (which is impossible within the GR framework), it is you who have to provide a falsifiable theory and evidence.



Don_Pedro_Zamacona
Blue Jay
Blue Jay

User avatar

Joined: 19 Apr 2014
Age: 38
Gender: Male
Posts: 78

07 May 2014, 11:28 am

01001011 wrote:
Don_Pedro_Zamacona wrote:
01001011 wrote:
The general relativity says we have space-time as a single 4-D manifold, not separate 'time' and 'universe'. Moreover length and time is relative, and our intuition fails. Are you saying general relativity is not falsifiable or not supported by evidence?



I'm saying no such thing. The big bang theory rests on the hypothesis that the Universe was formed by the expansion of a singularity(a 0-dimensional manifold), into a manifold with at least 4 dimensions. But you are arguing that time does not exist outside of the Universe(and that includes the relativistic description of time as a physical dimension)and you have no evidence for this.


Can you clarify your objection? I am making a logical deduction from a well established theory. My claim is not inconsistent with the Big Bang Theory, which does not require time before the universe. The singularity is also singularity in time so the concept of time (at least in the sense of Relativity) also breaks down. Your idea of 'expansion' is incorrect. The 'expansion' is not some 'precess' happening in outside time.

If you think it is possible to talk about time without the Universe (which is impossible within the GR framework), it is you who have to provide a falsifiable theory and evidence.





Thank you, Stephen Hawking. And yes, Dr Hawkings comments are exactly where you got this argument that talking about the cause of the Big Bang and "before the Universe" is meaningless. But that goes to show that General Relativity alone cannot explain the Big Bang. The current scientific explanation for the Big Bang involves quantum fluctuations of the Higgs Field. It is the concept of imaginary time that provides a better framework for discussing the cause of the Big Bang and what may very well have existed before it(in imaginary time of course!).








slave wrote:
Don_Pedro_Zamacona wrote:
01001011 wrote:
That 'how the universe come into being' had been done to death. Our idea of time just fails some 13.8 billion years ago.



Then what is the origin of the singularity that the Universe came from?


http://blogs.sundaymercury.net/weirdsci ... -holes.jpg

everything enters the black hole and everything exits the white hole

the BB is a white hole

that's the idea....Idk if it is true or false



There is no evidence for white holes in terms of observational astronomy and furthermore, white holes violate the 2nd law of thermodynamics as well as T-symmetry. So the assumption that they don't exist is consistent with physical theory too.



01001011
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 3 Mar 2010
Age: 40
Gender: Male
Posts: 991

08 May 2014, 3:37 am

Don_Pedro_Zamacona wrote:
Thank you, Stephen Hawking. And yes, Dr Hawkings comments are exactly where you got this argument that talking about the cause of the Big Bang and "before the Universe" is meaningless. But that goes to show that General Relativity alone cannot explain the Big Bang. The current scientific explanation for the Big Bang involves quantum fluctuations of the Higgs Field. It is the concept of imaginary time that provides a better framework for discussing the cause of the Big Bang and what may very well have existed before it(in imaginary time of course!).


Looks like there is some confusion in your reply. Imaginary time is proposed by Hawking. More importantly, imaginary time is NOT 'before' real time. i is not smaller, or greater then 0 (or any real number). And in any case the idea of time as we know breaks down in 'imaginary time'.



Tim_Tex
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 2 Jul 2004
Age: 41
Gender: Male
Posts: 42,545
Location: Houston, Texas

08 May 2014, 8:31 am

Infinity: a number that goes in forever.

Infinite: pertains to something that never ends.

Infiniti: Nissan's line of luxury vehicles.


_________________
Who’s better at math than a robot? They’re made of math!


Don_Pedro_Zamacona
Blue Jay
Blue Jay

User avatar

Joined: 19 Apr 2014
Age: 38
Gender: Male
Posts: 78

08 May 2014, 10:58 am

01001011 wrote:
Don_Pedro_Zamacona wrote:
Thank you, Stephen Hawking. And yes, Dr Hawkings comments are exactly where you got this argument that talking about the cause of the Big Bang and "before the Universe" is meaningless. But that goes to show that General Relativity alone cannot explain the Big Bang. The current scientific explanation for the Big Bang involves quantum fluctuations of the Higgs Field. It is the concept of imaginary time that provides a better framework for discussing the cause of the Big Bang and what may very well have existed before it(in imaginary time of course!).


Looks like there is some confusion in your reply. Imaginary time is proposed by Hawking. More importantly, imaginary time is NOT 'before' real time. i is not smaller, or greater then 0 (or any real number). And in any case the idea of time as we know breaks down in 'imaginary time'.



The idea of time as we know it is the passage of events(that is, it is a thermodynamic process) and not a physical dimension. But in terms of the cause of the Big Bang and what existed "before the Universe", lemme be clear: I am not actually talking about time, I am talking about causality. Hawking's argument is based entirely on GR which is time-reversal symmetric. And yet, there are microscopic and macroscopic counter examples, like Black Holes, which violate time-reversal symmetry. And now,
evidence has been uncovered, though it's not yet conclusive, of something that existed before the Big Bang. So if this is what is seems to be, then Hawking is WRONG.



techstepgenr8tion
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 6 Feb 2005
Age: 41
Gender: Male
Posts: 21,776
Location: The 27th Path of Peh.

08 May 2014, 12:33 pm

Tim_Tex wrote:
Infiniti: Nissan's line of luxury vehicles.

Had my eye on the G35/G37-S a few years back. Shame it never came to be. :cry:



slave
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 28 Feb 2012
Age: 108
Gender: Male
Posts: 4,410
Location: Dystopia Planetia

08 May 2014, 7:13 pm

Tim_Tex wrote:
Infinity: a number that goes in forever.

Infinite: pertains to something that never ends.

Infiniti: Nissan's line of luxury vehicles.


had a Q45 beautiful car 340bhp smooth as silk



Robdemanc
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 30 May 2010
Age: 44
Gender: Male
Posts: 2,872
Location: England

10 May 2014, 12:19 pm

I believe the universe and time is infinite. I love the idea of infinity. It answers all questions.



puddingmouse
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 24 Apr 2010
Age: 34
Gender: Female
Posts: 8,777
Location: Cottonopolis

10 May 2014, 7:38 pm

Robdemanc wrote:
I believe the universe and time is infinite. I love the idea of infinity. It answers all questions.


You want all questions to be answered?


_________________
Zombies, zombies will tear us apart...again.


ripped
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 5 Jan 2013
Gender: Male
Posts: 651

11 May 2014, 10:00 am

binaryodes wrote:
Is it process or quantity. Is it an additive phenomenon or is it defined by a process or system which can expand in every dimension infinitely. Is a deity infinite or timeless is there a difference


Infinite is a description, not a phenomena.

Processes, quantities and systems can all have examples describable as having an infinite quality.