It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Thank you.

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

What is heavier?

page: 1
4
share:

posted on Feb, 21 2015 @ 06:11 PM
I seem to have a hard time with the abstract term "infinity". So here is my question. What is heavier: an infinite amount of feathers, or an infinite amount of hammers?

Mods: please move if in the wrong forum. I wasn't sure where to post.

posted on Feb, 21 2015 @ 06:20 PM
a reply to: AllIsOne

I remember years ago a friend of mine tried to explain that numbers are finite. He is a nuclear physicist which is why I gave it any credibility. Wish I could remember the rationale behind it. I believe it was that we can only observe so much of the universe or something along those lines.

posted on Feb, 21 2015 @ 06:25 PM

posted on Feb, 21 2015 @ 06:27 PM
a reply to: AllIsOne

Neither. Nothing that is infinite can be weighed as it's constantly growing/decaying.

BUT...

The hammers.

If you started with one of each and continued to add one at a time forever, the hammers will weigh more every time, at every measurement. If you could infinitely measure the two, the hammers will always be heavier.

That's my stab at it, lol.

posted on Feb, 21 2015 @ 06:34 PM
All depends if the hammers were made for thor!lol!

posted on Feb, 21 2015 @ 06:35 PM
a reply to: AllIsOne

They both weigh an infinite amount of weight.

posted on Feb, 21 2015 @ 06:38 PM

originally posted by: eisegesis
a reply to: AllIsOne

Neither. Nothing that is infinite can be weighed as it's constantly growing/decaying.

BUT...

The hammers.

If you started with one of each and continued to add one at a time forever, the hammers will weigh more every time, at every measurement. If you could infinitely measure the two, the hammers will always be heavier.

That's my stab at it, lol.

Very good!

I think the term "infinity" is so strange that in my example any object will weigh the same. Not sure though … ;-)

posted on Feb, 21 2015 @ 06:38 PM
Depends on the gravity in the area they are located in

edit on 21-2-2015 by Mianeye because: (no reason given)

posted on Feb, 21 2015 @ 06:39 PM

originally posted by: JudgeThread
a reply to: AllIsOne

They both weigh an infinite amount of weight.

That would mean the same weight … ? Isn't that strange?

posted on Feb, 21 2015 @ 06:40 PM

originally posted by: Mianeye
Depends on the gravity in the area they are located in

You are a clever one. What about mass?

posted on Feb, 21 2015 @ 06:48 PM
a reply to: AllIsOne

“The Hitch Hiker's Guide to the Galaxy offers this definition of
the word "Infinite".
Infinite: Bigger than the biggest thing ever and then some.
Much bigger than that in fact, really amazingly immense, a
totally stunning size, "wow, that's big", time. Infinity is just so
big that by comparison, bigness itself looks really titchy.
Gigantic multiplied by colossal multiplied by staggeringly
huge is the sort of concept we're trying to get across here.”
― Douglas Adams, The Restaurant at the End of the Universe

tags: dictionary, douglas-adams, humor

Given the above definition of infinity it has to be hammers right ????
Hammers x infinity = lots of heavy hammers
Feathers x infinity = lots of light feathers
If initially hammers weigh more than feathers , feathers will never weigh the same as hammers until there are more feathers than hammers . There is no such thing as infinity plus one only infinity , feathers will never ctch up and pass infinity so , hammers .

My brain hurts

posted on Feb, 21 2015 @ 06:51 PM
a reply to: AllIsOne

It depends on wether you look at it as two infinite numbers, or look at every cumulation.

posted on Feb, 21 2015 @ 06:59 PM
a reply to: AllIsOne

If the two things are infinite they would each fill up everything, as two different objects cannot occupy the same space at the same time, it would be impossible for them to exist, thereby no mass.

edit on 21-2-2015 by Mianeye because: (no reason given)

posted on Feb, 21 2015 @ 07:01 PM
Ah... there's that pesky relativity thing again.

posted on Feb, 21 2015 @ 07:12 PM
a reply to: AllIsOne

I would have to say that an infinite amount of feathers and an infinite amount of hammers would way the same weight, infinite.

posted on Feb, 21 2015 @ 07:18 PM
a reply to: AllIsOne

If they were accumulating instead of decaying, and you weighed them at different times, either one could always weigh more than the other depending on the rate of accumulation.

There might be one point in time where they're going to weigh exactly the same when measured together. If the hammers accumulated slower than the feathers they would eventually synchronize once. I think...

And because infinity cannot be quantified, it is only a state and not a measurement. If something grows forever, it is in a state of infinity.

posted on Feb, 21 2015 @ 07:39 PM
a reply to: AllIsOne

I seem to have a hard time with the abstract term "infinity".

Just directing at that…

If you could stretch out your hand past the moon, the stars, the Galaxies, it will never encounter a barrier and if it does, then there is something beyond that.

Infinite space means just that: it goes on forever. If it goes on forever, then it has no end. It has always been there. Eternal and infinite are synonymous.

They are never ending.

posted on Feb, 21 2015 @ 07:39 PM
a reply to: AllIsOne

It makes for less trouble in the mind if you replace the word with "unlimited". The limit generally comes from somewhere else.

edit: If are a math guy who wants a way to look at this that fits your intuition that that the hammers should weigh more as I do, think of a 20 sided dice, with 10 red sides labelled 0-9 and 10 green sides labelled 0-9. To use it, you role it and write down the digit, and role again if it was green, or stop if you got a red digit.

How many outcomes can this dice produce using it that way? An infinite amount. The odds of a 100 digit number (get green sides 100 times in a row) are low, but possible. Even lower for 1000 or a billion digits, but still possible. Even though there are an infinite number of outcomes, there is still an *expected value*, which is the amount you would expect to get on average each round if you played this game and got the amount (in dollars) written down on the paper each time. Infinite sets in this way can have finite expected values. Multiplying that number times the "weight"/"payout" gives you a way to think of infinite sets in finite terms. Thinking this way is about seeing probability as fundamental.
edit on 21-2-2015 by tridentblue because: edit: new ideas

posted on Feb, 21 2015 @ 08:18 PM
a reply to: AllIsOne

They would be the same as they are both taking up the same amount of space and therefore would have the same amount of density and relation to other objects.

If both are infinite, neither are unique...therefore they are the same.

That's my answer and I'm sticking to it.

posted on Feb, 21 2015 @ 09:06 PM

originally posted by: Mianeye
a reply to: AllIsOne

If the two things are infinite they would each fill up everything, as two different objects cannot occupy the same space at the same time, it would be impossible for them to exist, thereby no mass.

Aren't you assuming that space is finite … ? If space is infinite there is a place for everything.

new topics

top topics

4