Help ATS with a contribution via PayPal:
learn more

I can debunk "Infinity" in less than 8 minutes

page: 11
8
<< 8  9  10    12  13  14 >>

log in

join

posted on Dec, 16 2012 @ 03:53 PM
link   

Originally posted by NorEaster

Originally posted by xxshadowfaxx
I didn't realize there was even a conspiracy surrounding infinity..... really? So what do we call things that appear endless? Oh and, whats the highest number we can count to?


Endless is not the same as infinite. Infinite extends in both directions. Endless only extends in one direction. Big difference between the two.


There are negative numbers too, you know.




posted on Dec, 16 2012 @ 03:56 PM
link   

Originally posted by adjensen

Originally posted by spy66
The universe won't expand for ever. What ever gave you that idea?


I don't know what gave him that idea, but that's what current cosmological observations show -- the universe is expanding, and that expansion is accelerating. For it to NOT expand forever it would either have to be contracting, or for the expansion to be decelerating, because the means by which either of those can happen is through the universe itself (gravitational attraction) so we know that it won't happen, and the universe will expand forever.


Wont stars use up all their fuel? and without stars what are galaxies? and without galaxies what is expanding in the universe?

also relevant; I personally dont know the answer to this question but do all atoms decay? or can an asteroid exist unbotherd in space for....ever? If atoms can remain a perfect state of stability forever.. then I guess we can assume that in 99999999999999999x999999999999 billion light years there will be asteroids floating around..... but if by then stars radiation is completely exhausted into the space of the universe, and galaxies are non existent.. what the landscape of the universe will be like and how those eternal asteroids will be reacting to the physical conditions of the universe at that time...will perhaps be different then we are used to, in terms of what an asteroid is...
edit on 16-12-2012 by ImaFungi because: (no reason given)



posted on Dec, 16 2012 @ 04:36 PM
link   

Originally posted by adjensen

Originally posted by spy66
The universe won't expand for ever. What ever gave you that idea?


I don't know what gave him that idea, but that's what current cosmological observations show -- the universe is expanding, and that expansion is accelerating. For it to NOT expand forever it would either have to be contracting, or for the expansion to be decelerating, because the means by which either of those can happen is through the universe itself (gravitational attraction) so we know that it won't happen, and the universe will expand forever.


Why cant the expanding universe become infinite "Stationary" ?

The infinite is a void of some sort, just not like the void of our universe. Why cant our universe be expanding into that infinite void?

What physical law would prevent it from doing so?



posted on Dec, 16 2012 @ 04:39 PM
link   

Originally posted by ImaFungi

Originally posted by adjensen

Originally posted by spy66
The universe won't expand for ever. What ever gave you that idea?


I don't know what gave him that idea, but that's what current cosmological observations show -- the universe is expanding, and that expansion is accelerating. For it to NOT expand forever it would either have to be contracting, or for the expansion to be decelerating, because the means by which either of those can happen is through the universe itself (gravitational attraction) so we know that it won't happen, and the universe will expand forever.


Wont stars use up all their fuel? and without stars what are galaxies? and without galaxies what is expanding in the universe?

also relevant; I personally dont know the answer to this question but do all atoms decay? or can an asteroid exist unbotherd in space for....ever? If atoms can remain a perfect state of stability forever.. then I guess we can assume that in 99999999999999999x999999999999 billion light years there will be asteroids floating around..... but if by then stars radiation is completely exhausted into the space of the universe, and galaxies are non existent.. what the landscape of the universe will be like and how those eternal asteroids will be reacting to the physical conditions of the universe at that time...will perhaps be different then we are used to, in terms of what an asteroid is...
edit on 16-12-2012 by ImaFungi because: (no reason given)


Asteroids wont last for ever in the vacuum of space. Because the compressed mass of the asteroid is surrounded by a vacuum. There is a pressure differential between the matter making up the asteroid and the vacuum space surrounding it.



posted on Dec, 16 2012 @ 04:59 PM
link   

Originally posted by spy66

Originally posted by adjensen

Originally posted by spy66
The universe won't expand for ever. What ever gave you that idea?


I don't know what gave him that idea, but that's what current cosmological observations show -- the universe is expanding, and that expansion is accelerating. For it to NOT expand forever it would either have to be contracting, or for the expansion to be decelerating, because the means by which either of those can happen is through the universe itself (gravitational attraction) so we know that it won't happen, and the universe will expand forever.


Why cant the expanding universe become infinite "Stationary" ?


Because the reason that expansion is accelerating is that gravity is what would slow the acceleration, and as the universe becomes more and more separated, gravity has less of an impact. There is nothing to slow the expansion, nothing even to slow the continued rate of acceleration.



posted on Dec, 16 2012 @ 05:06 PM
link   

Originally posted by ImaFungi
Wont stars use up all their fuel? and without stars what are galaxies? and without galaxies what is expanding in the universe?


That doesn't have anything to do with it -- we're talking about the expansion of space, and it doesn't matter what, if anything is in that space. Theoretically, at the very end, even atoms are torn apart as the minute space that they are in expands.

See my thread from last July: A Prediction you can bank on: It's the End of the Universe As We Know It…



posted on Dec, 16 2012 @ 06:32 PM
link   

Originally posted by spy66

Originally posted by adjensen

Originally posted by spy66
The universe won't expand for ever. What ever gave you that idea?


I don't know what gave him that idea, but that's what current cosmological observations show -- the universe is expanding, and that expansion is accelerating. For it to NOT expand forever it would either have to be contracting, or for the expansion to be decelerating, because the means by which either of those can happen is through the universe itself (gravitational attraction) so we know that it won't happen, and the universe will expand forever.


Why cant the expanding universe become infinite "Stationary" ?

The infinite is a void of some sort, just not like the void of our universe. Why cant our universe be expanding into that infinite void?

What physical law would prevent it from doing so?



Then you would have to imagine how a whole lotta something could have come from an infinite void ( assuming void equals nothing... or non something)
edit on 16-12-2012 by ImaFungi because: (no reason given)



posted on Dec, 16 2012 @ 06:38 PM
link   

Originally posted by spy66

Originally posted by ImaFungi

Originally posted by adjensen

Originally posted by spy66
The universe won't expand for ever. What ever gave you that idea?


I don't know what gave him that idea, but that's what current cosmological observations show -- the universe is expanding, and that expansion is accelerating. For it to NOT expand forever it would either have to be contracting, or for the expansion to be decelerating, because the means by which either of those can happen is through the universe itself (gravitational attraction) so we know that it won't happen, and the universe will expand forever.


Wont stars use up all their fuel? and without stars what are galaxies? and without galaxies what is expanding in the universe?

also relevant; I personally dont know the answer to this question but do all atoms decay? or can an asteroid exist unbotherd in space for....ever? If atoms can remain a perfect state of stability forever.. then I guess we can assume that in 99999999999999999x999999999999 billion light years there will be asteroids floating around..... but if by then stars radiation is completely exhausted into the space of the universe, and galaxies are non existent.. what the landscape of the universe will be like and how those eternal asteroids will be reacting to the physical conditions of the universe at that time...will perhaps be different then we are used to, in terms of what an asteroid is...
edit on 16-12-2012 by ImaFungi because: (no reason given)


Asteroids wont last for ever in the vacuum of space. Because the compressed mass of the asteroid is surrounded by a vacuum. There is a pressure differential between the matter making up the asteroid and the vacuum space surrounding it.


So in my post I asked the question whether or not atoms themselves ( all atoms... and atoms that would make a space rock) decay or if theoretically they can exist as an atom "forever" ..

now you are also mentioning that besides what happens on the interior of the atom.... whatever "space" is that the asteroid exists within... has a decaying effect on the atoms that make it up?



posted on Dec, 16 2012 @ 06:43 PM
link   

Originally posted by adjensen

Originally posted by ImaFungi
Wont stars use up all their fuel? and without stars what are galaxies? and without galaxies what is expanding in the universe?


That doesn't have anything to do with it -- we're talking about the expansion of space, and it doesn't matter what, if anything is in that space. Theoretically, at the very end, even atoms are torn apart as the minute space that they are in expands.

See my thread from last July: A Prediction you can bank on: It's the End of the Universe As We Know It…


No I think the ideas about universal expansion, what space is, what energy/matter is.. is really confused by a lot of people, even the people that make the stuff up and think and believe they know,, I dont think they truly comprehend how reality works... so are we arguing over accuracy of our understanding of models? or our understanding of reality?

my comments do have something to do with it... I said them because they have everything to do with it...

How do you envision space relating to matter?



posted on Dec, 16 2012 @ 06:52 PM
link   
reply to post by ImaFungi
 


Stars using up their fuel doesn't make a solar system cease to exist, so your premise that without stars, there are no galaxies and without galaxies there isn't anything to expand is flawed.



posted on Dec, 16 2012 @ 07:02 PM
link   

Originally posted by adjensen
reply to post by ImaFungi
 


Stars using up their fuel doesn't make a solar system cease to exist, so your premise that without stars, there are no galaxies and without galaxies there isn't anything to expand is flawed.


ok so solar systems exist without stars?

or ill put it like this... a lot of stars right now exist in regards to the age of this galaxy... at some point in time we can assume that a star will run out of fuel to continue being a star.... you are saying this will have no effect on the solar system that star was potentially a part of?
or are you saying all stars that die... create new stars?

if that is not true... and it is more true to say,, the quantity of stars that now exist die at a faster rate then are born... then we can posit at some point in time in the future there will be no stars...


so there will never be a time in the universe where no stars exist? because there is a perfect recycling of atoms to continuously burn as stars?

edit on 16-12-2012 by ImaFungi because: (no reason given)



posted on Dec, 16 2012 @ 07:12 PM
link   
Researchers Find Evidence of Other Universes Lurking in the Cosmic Background

Seems an infinite Universe seems valid after all.



posted on Dec, 16 2012 @ 07:35 PM
link   

Originally posted by Kashai
Researchers Find Evidence of Other Universes Lurking in the Cosmic Background

Seems an infinite Universe seems valid after all.




I hate the CMB ..... yes.... its cool and all.......


But how can you say that there is evidence for other universes in the CMB.... when the CMB is not even vision from the "edges" of the universe..... I dont want to hear... the edges of the universe are everywhere mannnnnn....
We have only ever been able to detect a smidgen of the totality of "Universe"... this is referred to as the observable universe... so the CMB is observed within this range of observability...

All I am saying is for there to be hints of other universes within our universe.... the greatness of reality is very sloppy, and it would have to be a clusterbuck of oceans of universe colliding and waving..... also I would assume we would have to see the true "boundries/beyonds" of our universe ( not only observable,, but entire) to really detect other universes.... also i would assume that this universe would have many other qualities "borrowed" from its interaction with these other universes... in other words I wouldnt expect there to be fundamental particles that are semi related,, atoms that are related in make up,, and they all interact with one another as a semi coherent system.... what im saying is if there were other universes would they not be made of entirely different style "things" ... if the example of other universes are that they are not made differences then this one.... then the other universes can be seen as related to this universe,,, and might as well be considered a part of this universe....

If there are other universes that had something to do with the creation of this one.... in an intelligent god like way... then our universe itself,, and the exact quality of energy and the laws of physics is the proof and example of those other universes or "realities"....

if there are other universes that had something to do with the creation of this one,, in a non intelligent mess of infinite "somethingness" colliding with more infinite stuff... to create this universe of stuff.... then thats cool as well.....

either of those make a lot more sense to me then .... all the stuff ness of this universe being pulled out of a hat thats not there....

so in my mind,, the thought should be directed towards... if the energy of this universe had to come from somewhere... lets pretend it did... lets pretend there is a lot more then this universe.. and that greater reality is the bank from which this universes energy/matter was borrowed...... what types of things or processes would have had to occur for this universe to come into existence.? what technique could possibly organize the quantity of energy/matter this universe consists of,, focused in a single area for its begging? where did the energy come from that the universe is made of ( the easy answer is to say from nowhere.. which is like answering... because... but im asking you to actually think about it... because i think there is an answer ,, though i dont and cant know it.... and i dont think the answer is nowhere, nothing, or because)...



posted on Dec, 16 2012 @ 07:36 PM
link   

Originally posted by ImaFungi

Originally posted by adjensen
reply to post by ImaFungi
 


Stars using up their fuel doesn't make a solar system cease to exist, so your premise that without stars, there are no galaxies and without galaxies there isn't anything to expand is flawed.


ok so solar systems exist without stars?


If a star "burns out", do you think that the planets around it just vanish?


so there will never be a time in the universe where no stars exist?


As I told you, and referenced an article to you on the subject, at some point in the future, possibly 16 billion years, the universal expansion will be at a point that the whole of reality is ripped apart. At that time, no stars will exist, because nothing will exist.



posted on Dec, 16 2012 @ 07:46 PM
link   

Originally posted by adjensen

Originally posted by ImaFungi

Originally posted by adjensen
reply to post by ImaFungi
 


Stars using up their fuel doesn't make a solar system cease to exist, so your premise that without stars, there are no galaxies and without galaxies there isn't anything to expand is flawed.


ok so solar systems exist without stars?


If a star "burns out", do you think that the planets around it just vanish?


so there will never be a time in the universe where no stars exist?


As I told you, and referenced an article to you on the subject, at some point in the future, possibly 16 billion years, the universal expansion will be at a point that the whole of reality is ripped apart. At that time, no stars will exist, because nothing will exist.


When stars burn out depending how... yes the planets around them either are vanished via massive quantites of supernova radiation... or are strewn away because the gravitational source they have been orbiting has now drastically changed....

this is why i asked about the life span of asteroids and atoms that make them up... because a planet without its star would be like an asteroid..... and i brought up the "what is a galaxy without stars..."... because I think a galaxy is mainly consisting of stars... its macro structure and gravitational forces... without the stars,, there will not be enough energy/matter in a galaxy to hold it together and enough energy and matter to feed the black hole..... this is sort of ignorant/intuitive speculation on my part... but i do think that without stars a galaxy is not much of a macro cosmic structure....

so i will continue my logic.... no more stars,,, galaxies begin to dwindle... galaxies begin to dwindle..
Now I dont trust the scientests who talk about space expansion and all that stuff... i slightly try to understand and comprehend it,, and have looked into what they believe dark matter and energy is for and does.... but i havent really heard why they think it is constantly expanding,, and at an increasing rate.. except red shift.. and mathematical cosmological constants.. if galaxies begin to break up when their stars burn out... I do not think the structures of galaxies would be able to travel through the space of the universe at the same speeds,, if the galaxy breaks up do we then assume its parts will eventually coalesce into new cosmic structures? or does expansion dictate that even if the stars burn out, and galaxies begin to crumble, expansion will still be expanding space so that these crumbling galaxies are further and further from one another,, so then there is no hope for order to be restored... or yepp what?

about your second quote... ok.. at that point nothing will exist... you dont really mean nothing though... and you will have to define. reality... and define space... and describe where all the energy will go that cannot be destroyed?
edit on 16-12-2012 by ImaFungi because: (no reason given)



posted on Dec, 16 2012 @ 07:53 PM
link   
reply to post by ImaFungi
 


The article explains....



Last month, it was Oxford’s Roger Penrose claiming that he’d found evidence of a cyclical universe in patterns of concentric circles in the CMB, suggesting our universe is just one of many that have come before it (and will come after it). Now, another group of researchers are claiming the CMB contains evidence of other universes that exist concurrently (and outside of) our own.




The University College team went looking for “cosmic bruises” in the CMB that indicate places where other universes collided with our own at some point, and it claims to have found them in data from the Wilkinson Microwave Anisotropy Probe[(WMAP), which has been measuring temperature differences in the CMB over the past decade. If indeed the spots are found to be “cosmic bruises,” it would lend a lot of credence to the idea that there are other universes out there that at some point collided with our own.


What alternative explanation would you be prepared to present to "Nature"?

Any thoughts?



posted on Dec, 16 2012 @ 07:54 PM
link   
After watching, I think you might need another eight minutes.



posted on Dec, 16 2012 @ 07:55 PM
link   

Originally posted by ImaFungi
about your second quote... ok.. at that point nothing will exist... you dont really mean nothing though... and you will have to define. reality... and define space... and describe where all the energy will go that cannot be destroyed?


I would suggest that you read the thread that I linked earlier, and read the source article that is cited in the OP of that thread.



posted on Dec, 16 2012 @ 08:03 PM
link   

Originally posted by Kashai
reply to post by ImaFungi
 


The article explains....



Last month, it was Oxford’s Roger Penrose claiming that he’d found evidence of a cyclical universe in patterns of concentric circles in the CMB, suggesting our universe is just one of many that have come before it (and will come after it). Now, another group of researchers are claiming the CMB contains evidence of other universes that exist concurrently (and outside of) our own.




The University College team went looking for “cosmic bruises” in the CMB that indicate places where other universes collided with our own at some point, and it claims to have found them in data from the Wilkinson Microwave Anisotropy Probe[(WMAP), which has been measuring temperature differences in the CMB over the past decade. If indeed the spots are found to be “cosmic bruises,” it would lend a lot of credence to the idea that there are other universes out there that at some point collided with our own.


What alternative explanation would you be prepared to present to "Nature"?

Any thoughts?







I just wrote two posts in this thread in response to the initial bit you mentioned in the article...

Ohhhh the gods of nature.. magazine..... I heard its written in stone....

the scientists who proposed that theory are not perfect thinkers... they have the same information as all other scientists,, they are just interpreting it differently...I dont trust anyone to do my thinking for me ... Im skeptical of what the CMB is and means... If it is what those scientists in that article think it is,, and it does have indications of reacting with other universes...some of the questions i would come up with are in my original post to you...



posted on Dec, 16 2012 @ 08:04 PM
link   

Originally posted by adjensen

Originally posted by ImaFungi
about your second quote... ok.. at that point nothing will exist... you dont really mean nothing though... and you will have to define. reality... and define space... and describe where all the energy will go that cannot be destroyed?


I would suggest that you read the thread that I linked earlier, and read the source article that is cited in the OP of that thread.


Im not going to read any of it .... I come hear to chat with other people... I thought we were chatting... if not... we wont...





new topics

top topics



 
8
<< 8  9  10    12  13  14 >>

log in

join