I can debunk "Infinity" in less than 8 minutes

page: 12
8
<< 9  10  11    13  14  15 >>

log in

join

posted on Dec, 16 2012 @ 08:09 PM
link   
reply to post by ImaFungi
 


Can you be more specific as to why you are skeptical of the CMB???



Cosmic background radiation is well explained as radiation left over from an early stage in the development of the universe, and its discovery is considered a landmark test of the Big Bang model of the universe. When the universe was young, before the formation of stars and planets, it was denser, much hotter, and filled with a uniform glow from its white-hot fog of hydrogen plasma. As the universe expanded, both the plasma and the radiation filling it grew cooler. When the universe cooled enough, protons and electrons could form neutral atoms. These atoms could no longer absorb the thermal radiation, and the universe became transparent instead of being an opaque fog. Cosmologists refer to the time period when neutral atoms first formed as the recombination epoch, and the event shortly after of photons starting to travel freely through space rather than constantly scattering with electrons and protons in plasma is referred to as photon decoupling. The photons that existed at the time of photon decoupling have been propagating ever since, though growing fainter and less energetic, since the expansion of space causes their wavelength to increase over time (and wavelength is inversely proportional to energy according to Planck's relation). This is the source for the alternate term relic radiation. The surface of last scattering refers to the set of points in space at the right distance from us so that we would just now be receiving photons originally emitted from those points at the time of photon decoupling.


en.wikipedia.org...

edit on 16-12-2012 by Kashai because: Added content




posted on Dec, 16 2012 @ 08:25 PM
link   
reply to post by Kashai
 


I just dont know why or how it is known that it is not radiation from all the radiating bodies traveling through the observable universe.



posted on Dec, 16 2012 @ 08:30 PM
link   
reply to post by ImaFungi
 


If bodies are radiating what are they radiating into? And why is the effect of said radiation not uniform?

As described the effect is not uniform....

Any thoughts?



posted on Dec, 16 2012 @ 08:33 PM
link   
I take the number 10. I divide it by 3. I get the number 3.3333333333333... cont. for all infinity.



posted on Dec, 16 2012 @ 09:05 PM
link   
Well, OP, you certainly can't falsify the two assertions that I posted in my thread,
www.abovetopsecret.com/forum/thread908599/pg1 .

Both assertions are infinitely long.

Therefore your debunking thread has been debunked.
edit on 12/16/2012 by SimultaneousFinal because: (no reason given)



posted on Dec, 16 2012 @ 09:06 PM
link   

Originally posted by Kashai
reply to post by ImaFungi
 


If bodies are radiating what are they radiating into? And why is the effect of said radiation not uniform?

As described the effect is not uniform....

Any thoughts?


Galaxies and stars are radiating... we suppose those galaxies have traveled a bit through space,, we suppose those galaxies radiate their energy into surround space...

Why would you expect the effect to be uniform?



posted on Dec, 16 2012 @ 09:10 PM
link   

Originally posted by badconduct
I take the number 10. I divide it by 3. I get the number 3.3333333333333... cont. for all infinity.


this is interesting,... the OP has denied the significance of numbers in his debunking of infinity...

and i want to think about this....

what is the significance of the repeating .333333? what does it suggest about whatever the number is? does the number relate to anything in physical reality? is the variable of "time", what makes the concept of infinity possible?
also the variable of space? do we imagine when using math,, the numbers relate to a vector space? what type of "anything" can the repeating .333333 be related to show that, the concept of this infinity exists in some way, is something.. real?



posted on Dec, 16 2012 @ 09:16 PM
link   
reply to post by ImaFungi
 





Please provide an alternative explanation as to what this is????

Any thoughts?



posted on Dec, 16 2012 @ 09:28 PM
link   

Originally posted by Kashai
reply to post by ImaFungi
 





Please provide an alternative explanation as to what this is????

Any thoughts?





Please provide any explanation as to what that is

bottom right looks like a photographic doppler effect from an open shutter collecting light from far away galaxies.. like motion blur maybe..

bottem left looks like it could be some galaxies....

top left, psychedelic egg

top right looks like it could be bruises from other universes

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



posted on Dec, 16 2012 @ 09:35 PM
link   
Posted on 16-12-2012 @ 08:12 PM this thread on page 11 to which you responded. Again, what specifically is your issue with the CMB???



posted on Dec, 16 2012 @ 10:21 PM
link   

Originally posted by Kashai
Posted on 16-12-2012 @ 08:12 PM this thread on page 11 to which you responded. Again, what specifically is your issue with the CMB???


That it may not be remnants of the big bang... well it may be... but I dont like that its used as proof for the big bang,,,, when most cant even explain what the big bang is..... also if you believe the big bang happened..... then stars and galaxies are also remnants of the big bang....

I dont see how there being radiation scattered around the observable universe means that the big bang happened..



posted on Dec, 17 2012 @ 02:07 AM
link   

Originally posted by adjensen

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.


Ok great. But our universe don't consist of unlimited mass. So our universe can not expand indefinite.
at some point it will stop and become stationary. And there is no force present to pull the expansion back to a singularity. Because as you state your self the gravity pull is weakened by the expansion.



posted on Dec, 17 2012 @ 05:06 AM
link   
After reading every post in this thread, I first have to give thanks to the OP for making me THINK if nothing else.

To all the people trying to use numbers and such to debunk the OP, I have to point out that he said PHYSICAL infinity.

To the people talking about space-the universe and such, that would mean the universe didn't have a beginning, it has always been. Big Bang much? Even if you don't accept the BB theory, is space really physical? You can't touch it.... I dunno. Just throwing my thoughts out there.

Fascinating subject any way you slice it though.


Edit to say: In my opinion, it's ultimately unknowable. It seems to me at this point the OP is right. Physical infinity does not exist, but that is only based on what is currently accepted by science. Once upon a time science was sure the Earth is flat. Only time will tell.

Unless of course the OP is wrong and we all die on the 21st.
edit on 17-12-2012 by OpenMindCuriousMind because: (no reason given)



posted on Dec, 17 2012 @ 06:40 AM
link   
reply to post by spy66
 


To the one who said the universe is not expanding. Two words for you, dark energy.

We know the universe is expanding at an increasing rate because of the influence of dark energy. Currently in cosmology the universe will continue to expand at an increasing rate forever. According to this the universe will suffer heat death where it will go dark and reach absolute zero but it will continue to expand and age. I had a link there which you obviously didn't look at.
There is also a link to an interview with Dr Michio Kaku which is very interesting about theoretical physics and the way forward for physics. Infinity is there it's no big deal.

forums.philosophyforums.com...
edit on 17-12-2012 by JimTSpock because: spelling



posted on Dec, 17 2012 @ 07:15 AM
link   
reply to post by OpenMindCuriousMind
 


To all the people trying to use numbers and such to debunk the OP, I have to point out that he said PHYSICAL infinity....

That is Exactly what i'm talking about on page 10: PHYSICAL infinity. When i say forms, 3D forms, waveforms, etc. are included.



posted on Dec, 17 2012 @ 07:46 AM
link   
Physical infinity. What about time. With our present knowledge time appears to be infinite, it has no end and no limit and will continue to elapse forever.
We have no evidence that time will ever stop.
You can't see infinity in it's entirety, it is constantly increasing forever, that is what infinity is.
Forward time is infinite and backwards time could be also, we don't know what was before the big bang, possibly another universe. Some theoretical physicists speculate that time existed before the big bang. We don't know. To say time started with the big bang we don't know that either.
edit on 17-12-2012 by JimTSpock because: kirk



posted on Dec, 17 2012 @ 08:53 AM
link   

Originally posted by spy66
Ok great. But our universe don't consist of unlimited mass. So our universe can not expand indefinite.
at some point it will stop and become stationary. And there is no force present to pull the expansion back to a singularity. Because as you state your self the gravity pull is weakened by the expansion.


No, cosmic expansion has nothing to do with the universe gaining mass, it has to do with what is here "spreading out," getting further and further apart. That is why gravity, the only force which could slow expansion, can never result in the process stopping and the universe becoming stationary, because the further apart things become (and they're getting further apart as we speak,) the less effect gravity has on them.



posted on Dec, 17 2012 @ 10:58 AM
link   

Originally posted by JimTSpock
reply to post by spy66
 


To the one who said the universe is not expanding. Two words for you, dark energy.

We know the universe is expanding at an increasing rate because of the influence of dark energy. Currently in cosmology the universe will continue to expand at an increasing rate forever. According to this the universe will suffer heat death where it will go dark and reach absolute zero but it will continue to expand and age. I had a link there which you obviously didn't look at.
There is also a link to an interview with Dr Michio Kaku which is very interesting about theoretical physics and the way forward for physics. Infinity is there it's no big deal.

forums.philosophyforums.com...
edit on 17-12-2012 by JimTSpock because: spelling


I have not said that the universe is not expanding. I said that the universe will stop expanding at some point in time.

- Because our universe is not unlimited in mass. Something that has limited mass will not expand for ever.



posted on Dec, 17 2012 @ 10:59 AM
link   

Originally posted by D1ss1dent
reply to post by abeverage
 


Would have been an astounding feat if you could Debunk debunking...

That is exactly what i did. I debunked his debunking. An infinite can be infinite without being "absolute". Take the infinite Fibonacci word: it can be transposed into the real world just by writing it on papers. Now take two different segments, infinitely, and make new words, infinitely. Do the same process by converting the segments into forms. You end up with an infinite amount of infinites within an ever growing infinite.

edit on 16-12-2012 by D1ss1dent because: typo


And my head spins...



posted on Dec, 17 2012 @ 11:17 AM
link   
reply to post by NorEaster
 




I can debunk "Infinity"

Where then is the beginning or end of a Mobius strip?
Möbius strip
edit on 12/17/2012 by Chamberf=6 because: (no reason given)





new topics

top topics



 
8
<< 9  10  11    13  14  15 >>

log in

join