I can debunk "Infinity" in less than 8 minutes

page: 13
8
<< 10  11  12    14  15  16 >>

log in

join

posted on Dec, 17 2012 @ 12:07 PM
link   
reply to post by spy66
 


The evidence and science does not support your claim. In fact it says you are dead wrong. For the third time dark energy. Read all that and you might learn something.

science.nasa.gov...

hubblesite.org...

www.galex.caltech.edu...

www.dailymail.co.uk...
ITO=1490


You don't have anything to back up your claim do you?
edit on 17-12-2012 by JimTSpock because: (no reason given)




posted on Dec, 17 2012 @ 12:43 PM
link   

Originally posted by JimTSpock
reply to post by spy66
 


The evidence and science does not support your claim. In fact it says you are dead wrong. For the third time dark energy. Read all that and you might learn something.

science.nasa.gov...

hubblesite.org...

www.galex.caltech.edu...

www.dailymail.co.uk...
ITO=1490


You don't have anything to back up your claim do you?
edit on 17-12-2012 by JimTSpock because: (no reason given)


Dark energy is a part of our universe. So what?
It is a part of the expansion process. Don't you understand what you read?

There is no way our universe will ever retract do to its expansion or dark energy. If you have facts prove it. Your links prove nothing at all.



posted on Dec, 17 2012 @ 01:17 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.


You're being conceptual and not actual in this specific example. There's a very big difference between reality and human conceptualizations. Humans can conceptualize impossible potentials that reality can't allow to exist. This is true, and it's the one capacity that the human mind possesses that nothing else can offer. It's the genius of subjectivity, and it's witheringly complicated if you try to fully replicate it in the most primitive form with Artificial Intelligence. I'm reading a book on consciousness and the brain right now, and it's amazing how much researchers have discovered about the generation of thought, and yet how completely lost they are as to how the core of cognition occurs as the finite, yet amazingly dynamic event that it is.



posted on Dec, 17 2012 @ 01:19 PM
link   

Originally posted by Chamberf=6

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.


Not in physical reality there aren't. Again, you're conceptualizing. That's conscious rumination, and it does not reflect the nature of physical reality.



posted on Dec, 17 2012 @ 01:22 PM
link   
reply to post by NorEaster
 

So you're restricting this thread to physical reality.

Didn't realize.

But what about the mobius strip I mentioned on the last page?



posted on Dec, 17 2012 @ 01:39 PM
link   

Originally posted by NorEaster

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


You're being conceptual and not actual in this specific example. There's a very big difference between reality and human conceptualizations. Humans can conceptualize impossible potentials that reality can't allow to exist. This is true, and it's the one capacity that the human mind possesses that nothing else can offer. It's the genius of subjectivity, and it's witheringly complicated if you try to fully replicate it in the most primitive form with Artificial Intelligence. I'm reading a book on consciousness and the brain right now, and it's amazing how much researchers have discovered about the generation of thought, and yet how completely lost they are as to how the core of cognition occurs as the finite, yet amazingly dynamic event that it is.


I agree to that. To just take 10 and divide it by 3 and say here you go; doesn't stick.

In theory we can divide a matter, zoom in and divide, zoom in divide and keep on going for ever. But its not that easy in practice. There are at least four minor
problems with this idea.

1. Your scope. At a point you wont have enough energy capable of zooming in on your object.
2. At a point you will have problems clamping down the object.
3. At a point you will have problems forming a cutting tool.
4. This is biggest problem of all, when the matter gets very,very,very,very small. The surrounding space/atmosphere will create very big problems trying to contain the matter intact for further splitting. This means you have to keep manufacturing a chamber suitable to do this process for ever.



posted on Dec, 17 2012 @ 01:50 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.





The new evidence, put forth by a group of researchers at University College London, is based upon the model of “eternal inflation,” which is predicated on the idea that our universe is part of a larger and ever-expanding multiverse.


This actually seems like evidence of a finite universe that exists within a larger confine that contains other similar finite universes. Definitely doesn't imply that this universe is infinite.

Keep in mind that the existence of a quantized reality has been repeatedly proven again and again. It's not some fly-by-night theoretical notion. Most of our high tech world is based on the concept of there being this kind of dependable structure beneath everything. One vague indication doesn't negate the constant requirement of a stable quantized reality structure.
edit on 12/17/2012 by NorEaster because: (no reason given)



posted on Dec, 17 2012 @ 01:55 PM
link   
reply to post by NorEaster
 




or a particle "blinking in and out of existence" (quote from a Deepak Chopra book that I found pretty funny)

Deepak Chopra and however you think about him doesn't change the fact that this has been observed and studied by physicists.

But what about the mobius strip I mentioned on the last page? Where do you say it ends or begins?
edit on 12/17/2012 by Chamberf=6 because: (no reason given)



posted on Dec, 17 2012 @ 02:00 PM
link   

Originally posted by spy66

Originally posted by NorEaster

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


You're being conceptual and not actual in this specific example. There's a very big difference between reality and human conceptualizations. Humans can conceptualize impossible potentials that reality can't allow to exist. This is true, and it's the one capacity that the human mind possesses that nothing else can offer. It's the genius of subjectivity, and it's witheringly complicated if you try to fully replicate it in the most primitive form with Artificial Intelligence. I'm reading a book on consciousness and the brain right now, and it's amazing how much researchers have discovered about the generation of thought, and yet how completely lost they are as to how the core of cognition occurs as the finite, yet amazingly dynamic event that it is.


I agree to that. To just take 10 and divide it by 3 and say here you go; doesn't stick.

In theory we can divide a matter, zoom in and divide, zoom in divide and keep on going for ever. But its not that easy in practice. There are at least four minor
problems with this idea.

1. Your scope. At a point you wont have enough energy capable of zooming in on your object.
2. At a point you will have problems clamping down the object.
3. At a point you will have problems forming a cutting tool.
4. This is biggest problem of all, when the matter gets very,very,very,very small. The surrounding space/atmosphere will create very big problems trying to contain the matter intact for further splitting. This means you have to keep manufacturing a chamber suitable to do this process for ever.


And then there's the issue of the quantum itself. It's indivisible, and doesn't just refer to action. Einstein proved that it also refers to indivisible unit packets of light (photons). The direct implications of that fact are that the entirety of physical reality is also quantized. Otherwise, why would both action and light be quantized if nothing else is quantized? Action and light are primordial quantities within the physical realm, and that suggests that their quantization reveals that all physical quantities are quantized as well. If not, then the contextual disparities would result in all kinds of structural failures.

edit on 12/17/2012 by NorEaster because: (no reason given)



posted on Dec, 17 2012 @ 02:08 PM
link   

Originally posted by Chamberf=6
reply to post by NorEaster
 




or a particle "blinking in and out of existence" (quote from a Deepak Chopra book that I found pretty funny)

Deepak Chopra and however you think about him doesn't change the fact that this has been observed and studied by physicists.

But what about the mobius strip I mentioned on the last page? Where do you say it ends or begins?
edit on 12/17/2012 by Chamberf=6 because: (no reason given)


Your mobius strip began when you created it. It sits as a finite design that illustrates the concept of infinity, and that's the true beginning and the end of it.

As far as particles "blinking in and out of existence", what you yourself have added is "this has been observed and studied by physicists". To which I would add, observing behavior is not the same thing as accurately interpreting the true nature of that behavior. I have a very good idea as to what those physicists are actually observing, but it would take a hell of a lot of background information to ensure that a quick explanation would serve any purpose whatsoever. Let's just say that those particles aren't leaving and then coming back again. I think I can safely suggest that, at the very least.



posted on Dec, 17 2012 @ 02:18 PM
link   

Originally posted by Chamberf=6
reply to post by NorEaster
 

So you're restricting this thread to physical reality.

Didn't realize.



Yeah. Conceptually, there are no limits placed on the human mind and what it can create. It's an incredible achievement in that sense. That said, it takes a lot of extreme rigidity within the material realm to allow a brain that can launch the human mind into physical existence. There can't be any inherent slop or absence of definitive parameters within the overall effort to bring something like that on line. If infinity existed, no structure would be possible. Infinity would contradict the entire premise of structure, and eliminate the possibility of it by its own overarching presence and lack of boundaries or limits. There'd be no anything other than it, itself, since whatever it is that is infinite would BE everything already. The whole idea only works in poetry, literature and religion.
edit on 12/17/2012 by NorEaster because: (no reason given)



posted on Dec, 17 2012 @ 02:23 PM
link   

Originally posted by NorEaster

Originally posted by Chamberf=6

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.


Not in physical reality there aren't. Again, you're conceptualizing. That's conscious rumination, and it does not reflect the nature of physical reality.



".......nature of physical reality". That too, is a concept. You've even broken off a piece of the whole reality and labeled it "physical". The word physical is, itself, a concept..a definition. Whatever you believe to be the nature of Reality and whatever list of attributes and definitions you assign to that belief, IS a concept only. Concepts do not exist in reality. However, what the concept is attempting to describe, does exist.

Science is pure concept based, so is religion. Without the use of concepts (be it mathmatical, quantum, scripture based or even the perception of form itself), neither would exist. So when we discuss existence, we should not confuse the concepts of reality with reality itself!

So if the OP happens to debunk his understanding of the concept of infinity. This does not mean that he's debunked that which the concept is attempting to describe. He is only debunking his conceptual Understanding of the concept of infinity.

If science says that you, as a human being, are a complex composition of particular listed elements, and I debunk them, does that mean I've debunked you?

This entire thread is just mind play. Maya.
edit on 17-12-2012 by Visitor2012 because: (no reason given)



posted on Dec, 17 2012 @ 02:24 PM
link   
reply to post by NorEaster
 





The whole idea only works in poetry, literature and religion.

And mathematics (yeah I know, math is not physical)

But what we know about reality so far can be explained by some form of mathematics (perhaps a point where numbers could in essence be tied to the physical reality you are focusing on?)

I know you will poo poo the idea but, oh well.
edit on 12/17/2012 by Chamberf=6 because: (no reason given)



posted on Dec, 17 2012 @ 02:36 PM
link   

Originally posted by NorEaster

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

Seems an infinite Universe seems valid after all.





The new evidence, put forth by a group of researchers at University College London, is based upon the model of “eternal inflation,” which is predicated on the idea that our universe is part of a larger and ever-expanding multiverse.


This actually seems like evidence of a finite universe that exists within a larger confine that contains other similar finite universes. Definitely doesn't imply that this universe is infinite.

Keep in mind that the existence of a quantized reality has been repeatedly proven again and again. It's not some fly-by-night theoretical notion. Most of our high tech world is based on the concept of there being this kind of dependable structure beneath everything. One vague indication doesn't negate the constant requirement of a stable quantized reality structure.
edit on 12/17/2012 by NorEaster because: (no reason given)



Neither is distance or time is a factor in Bells Theorem an essential in relation to Quantum Teleportation.

Contemplatively the notion of a finite universe becomes irrelevant is relation to what in case may in fact exist beyond that.. Keep in mind that the Milky Way was once called a Universe. And so was it recently accepted that the 13.7 billion light year distance we can observe was all there was. Keep in mind that what we today refer to as the Universe falls into the same category, At some point in the future will be renamed. We will then be looking at what exist beyond for the definition of that term.

By "stable quantized reality structure." are you referencing fractals? Given the data perhaps the term "subverse," as mentioned in a relatable thread defines today what you are calling the Universe
in this thread.

weeklyworldnews.com...

Also are you familiar with the terms Quantum Foam and Infinite Density in relation to Max Plank and
Albert Einstein respectively?
edit on 17-12-2012 by Kashai because: added content



posted on Dec, 17 2012 @ 03:25 PM
link   
reply to post by Visitor2012
 


Everything we can observe and measure are physical in one way or another. There is no way we can observe or measure something that is not physical. To us those things are non existent or a theory.

Some like to state that: out of nothingness came our existent. Than that state of nothingness must be physical.
The sate of nothingness must exist to form our universe. But the people who argue seam to think nothingness cant exist, but at the same time they agree to the science which state that particles jump in and out of nowhere.



posted on Dec, 17 2012 @ 03:30 PM
link   
reply to post by spy66
 


It is not necessarily "nowhere," rather where they go is unknown.

Consider the example of the Strange Quark which is virtual and its relationship to the structure of the proton.
edit on 17-12-2012 by Kashai because: added content



posted on Dec, 17 2012 @ 03:32 PM
link   
A poorly written and poorly performed attempt at a song does not debunk infinity.

You offered up nothing at all that even begins to approach a debunking.

Sorry, but this is a fail.



posted on Dec, 17 2012 @ 03:39 PM
link   
reply to post by NorEaster
 


It is not everyday I hear someone claim that infinity does not exist especially when it seems they know nothing about mathematics. Here is an experiment i propose you do. Take two mirrors and make them face each other. Can you tell me when the reflections will cease on each mirror?

you should see basically something similar to this picture


Source



posted on Dec, 17 2012 @ 08:04 PM
link   

Originally posted by L8RT8RZ
A poorly written and poorly performed attempt at a song does not debunk infinity.

You offered up nothing at all that even begins to approach a debunking.

Sorry, but this is a fail.


Gee Dad, why do you embarrass me in front of the guys like this?


Seriously though, can you provide a link to your credentials as a music critic? Any reviews you've written for regional or national press would be enough. I worked in the music industry for 30 years. I'll recognize you pretty quickly, so don't worry about your references being a little obscure. I just would like to know who's schooling me here.




posted on Dec, 17 2012 @ 08:11 PM
link   
WMAP confims the "Universe" is Infinite....

map.gsfc.nasa.gov...






top topics



 
8
<< 10  11  12    14  15  16 >>

log in

join