I couldnīt help but smiling reading this comment.Originally Posted by dalem
Sir,
A rope has a circumfrence of discrete value. Even if you view things as being constructed from atoms, there is still a finite amount of atoms that the thing is made of.
A circle is not infinite.
I don't know how this factors in to the greater dispute over the infinitude of the universe.
Then, you've just wrecked a hell of alot of sin, cosin, and tan functions. Of course a circle is infinite. That is how we can use those functions. And the point about the rope is that there's a point you can chop it in half and it stops being a rope.
Chimo
Sir,
I suppose the Sine Cosine and Tangent functions work because a test point on the circumfrence of circle can produce the same values repeatedly. For example, 90 degrees and 330 degrees will both have a cosine of 0, and so on with each revolution.
I am no mathematical theorist, so I will concede that circles and ellipses are unique shapes. They could be viewed as infinite in terms of their feedback for certain functions.
I'll explain what I meant by saying "a circle is not infinite." I was thinking about atoms, since you had mentioned them. It seemed to me that a circle, for example a hula-hoop, will occupy only a finite space. Furthermore, it is constructed of a finite amount of atoms, say 1,000,000,000,000.
Last edited by Bulgaroctonus; 12 Jan 06, at 16:46.
@ Bulgaroctonus : At some level any modell/image falls apart.
3 dimensional space is not simply something that is always there.
It can be altered (bend) or simply not exist at all. Or the concept of space itself could be meaningless under certain circumstances for example singularities.
This is wehere in my opinion Praxus makes his mistake. Because he believes that the universe needs a 3 dimensional space to expand into. The point is space itself as we perceive it, is part of our universe.
Last edited by Sombra; 12 Jan 06, at 16:43.
Sombra,
I have refrained from commenting on the main issue of the universe's expansion. I simply have no idea what is really going on. I do not have sufficient information to know the truth. I agree that most of our notions about space could be wrong.
We really need to find a cosmologist or physicist to get onto this board.
Look, we all know the answer to life, the universe, and everything.
It's 42.
Chimo
Your position is as unsupportable as any position i've ever seen advanced on an internet forum.
Scientists now believe there are endless numbers of paralell universes, each attactched to a brane. The branes by definition MUST exist outside our universe, as do ALL paralell universes.
Therefore, it is obvious that according to contemporary beliefs that the universe is not only not unbounded, but it is also far from being 'everything' in existance.
This is why i said, "If you can prove that they'll be handing you the nobel prize".
From what I understand, that is Praxus' definition of the Universe - an axiom from which he disproves the theorem tha the Universe expands. However, the validity of such a definition is open to debate; indeed it seems a matter of semantics.
When you speak of time, you have to have a starting point and an ending point (boundries), otherwise the concept of time is meaningless. An example: To ask how many events have occured in the entire history of the Universe, is to ask how many events have occured within the temporal boundries of the Universe (the same applies for size). But the Universe has no boundries (either in size or time) so the concept of time and size are not applicable.
The Universe is boundless and eternal. But it is not infinite in size and time.
To say that the size of the Universe is infinite, is to suggest it has size, but no particular size. It's self-contradicting. To be, is to be something in particular (reprhased: to have a size, is to have a particular size).
Last edited by Praxus; 12 Jan 06, at 22:59.
Such boundaries (starting and ending point) can be set artificially and still make the concept meaningful.
To continue with the earlier thought, without prejudice towards the finiteness of time, it is possible to ask and answer how many events have occurred between t= T1 and t = T2. The concept of time is still meaningful, irrespective of whether it dates back from eternity and into eternity or not.
Is this an assumption i.e. equivalent to a mathematical axiom or a physical primitive quantity or is it a logical conclusion from an existing framework? If it is the former, then there are as many variations on that as are people propounding these concepts and there is no room for disagreement. If it is the latter, please explain how it logically follows and from what.
Or it could mean that it is bigger than our currently available biggest measurement yardstick. In a sense, the mathematical concepts of singularity and infinity do point to such an "unknown" measure and hint at the break-down of some laws and the need to device new laws to describe said phenomena. I believe the conflict between quantum mechanics and gravitational forces were vividly illustrated by the appearance of such infinities in a unified theory, prompting the search for another one - the string theory showing some promise in this regard. I am a novice in these areas and I had better stop now!
On another note, there is a strong similarity between the arguments you advance and ancient Hindu philosophy regarding the nature of the world.
Last edited by Anoop C; 13 Jan 06, at 00:02.
Because it's a double entendre or because QM is weird?
-dale
Yes, the concept of time is still meaningful, but only between two or more existents within the Universe, not the Universe itself.
Existence implies identity: to be is to be something. In other words: to be is to be finite (i.e. have a specific nature). The Universe is, so it is finite. If something were infinite, it would not be anything in particular (i.e. it would not have a specific nature).Is this an assumption i.e. equivalent to a mathematical axiom or a physical primitive quantity or is it a logical conclusion from an existing framework? If it is the former, then there are as many variations on that as are people propounding these concepts and there is no room for disagreement. If it is the latter, please explain how it logically follows and from what.
Things such as time, distance, and space are relational concepts. They have no meaning when your dealing with an unbounded Universe.
But lets look at an arbitrary hypothetical here, just to further demonstrate my point: If evidence were to prove the Universe is bounded, then the concept of size would apply to the Universe, and the Universe obviously would be finite in size. Eitherway the Universe has no aspects which are infinite.
Look above.Or it could mean that it is bigger than our currently available biggest measurement yardstick.
Don't ever insult me like this againOn another note, there is a strong similarity between the arguments you advance and ancient Hindu philosophy regarding the nature of the world.
Praxus.
You are flailing.
In your opinion, what is causing the observed Red Hsift for all distant galaxies?
-dale
Well because when asked what is weird about light the same experiment comes to my mind.Because it's a double entendre or because QM is weird?
-dale
It s nearly as nature doesnīt like somebody looking into its cards
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions
LinkBack URL
About LinkBacks
Reply With Quote
Share this thread with friends: