Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

[Dwarf]

So, let's assume that it is completely and totally devoid of matter and energy and is, frankly, an infinite huge nothingness. What's the problem with that?

[Dabi]

So, let's assume that it is completely and totally devoid of matter and energy and is, frankly, an infinite huge nothingness. What's the problem with that?

I don't see what your trying to say. The space is not infinite, and there is a finite amount inside of it. It will not create new as you go, but rather spread out. And like I've said before, there is a point where it will just stop and I forget what happens next.
Also if this theory is correct that if there is say "Water" like stuff stopping you from moving at the speed of light, and only massless objects can do that then you are "spreading" out this weight making things become faster...that isn't a good thing as there is a finite amount of it.

[Ampersand]

Space can be infinitely large. It can also be finitely large. It can also be the three dimensional equivalent of a Mobius strip. That is, have flat curvature, positive curvature, or negative curvature. Thing is, it is impossible to know with absolute certainty.

There are many solutions to possible time travel. For example you could take a black hole, stretch it into a cylinder of infinite length, and make it rotate at the speed of light around it's vertical axis. Boom, time machine. Unfortunately, these sorts of ideas are what some people like to call Not Even Wrong. In other words, useless to all but the physicists and mathematicians eager to keep their number crunching skill sharp.

As for fractals, they do in fact have infinite surface area around finite volume. This is demonstrable by the fact that you can draw a circle around a fractal, which will have obviously more volume than the fractal that is contained within it.

People who think Fractals have infinite volume have made two errors. The first, is Zeno's Paradox of Achilles and the Tortoise, as has been mentioned before. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zeno%27s_paradoxes#Achilles_and_the_tortoise

The second involves set theory. Draw a circle. How many points define the edge of the circle? You can always divide the points  (mathematically, not physically) down to a smaller number, and thus there are an infinite number of points around the edge of a circle.

Then draw a circle around that circle. It is obvious that one circle is larger, and thus must have more points around it's perimeter, as it encompasses the smaller one, and yet, it also has an infinite number of points on it's perimeter.  This is what made the Mathematician Georg Cantor go insane. Inifinity A is demonstrably smaller than Infinity B. The mathematics of Set Theory that he invented goes on to demonstrate that some infinite sets cannot include every item within that set.

Lets say we make an infinitely long list of infinitely long strings of 1's and 0's, and include every possible variation, thus yielding a list like the following

1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 . . . >
0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 . . . >
0 1 0 1 0 1 0 1 0 1 0 1 0 1 . . . >
1 0 1 0 1 0 1 0 1 0 1 0 1 0 . . . >
1 1 0 0 1 1 0 0 1 1 0 0 1 1 . . . >
0 0 1 1 0 0 1 1 0 0 1 1 0 0 . . . >
1 1 1 0 0 0 1 1 1 0 0 0 1 1 . . . >
0 0 0 1 1 1 0 0 0 1 1 1 0 0 . . . >
1 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 1 0 . . . >
0 1 1 1 0 1 1 1 0 1 1 1 0 1 . . . >
1 0 0 1 0 0 1 0 0 1 0 0 1 0 . . . >
0 1 1 0 1 1 0 1 1 0 1 1 0 1 . . . >
0 0 0 0 1 1 1 1 0 0 0 0 1 1 . . . >
1 1 1 1 0 0 0 0 1 1 1 1 0 0 . . . >

And so on, down the list, and across to the right, forever.

Despite that this list holds every possible combination of 1 and 0, there is one combination of 1 and 0 that it cannot contain. Start at the top left corner, and move diagonally to the bottom right, and highlight ever number like so;

1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 . . . >
0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 . . . >
0 1 0 1 0 1 0 1 0 1 0 1 0 1 . . . >
1 0 1 0 1 0 1 0 1 0 1 0 1 0 . . . >
1 1 0 0 1 1 0 0 1 1 0 0 1 1 . . . >
0 0 1 1 0 0 1 1 0 0 1 1 0 0 . . . >
1 1 1 0 0 0 1 1 1 0 0 0 1 1 . . . >
0 0 0 1 1 1 0 0 0 1 1 1 0 0 . . . >
1 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 1 0 . . . >
0 1 1 1 0 1 1 1 0 1 1 1 0 1 . . . >
1 0 0 1 0 0 1 0 0 1 0 0 1 0 . . . >
0 1 1 0 1 1 0 1 1 0 1 1 0 1 . . . >
0 0 0 0 1 1 1 1 0 0 0 0 1 1 . . . >
1 1 1 1 0 0 0 0 1 1 1 1 0 0 . . . >

Take this number, and for every every 1, change it to a 0, and for every 0, change it to a 1, yielding:

0 1 1 1 0 1 0 1 0 0 1 0 0 1 . . . >, and so on as we continue across the infinite list. We'll call this the D-number. D for Diagonal.

This number cannot appear anywhere within the infinite list of variations of 1 and 0. Why? Say it were the second number on the list. Since the D-number is the inverse of every number on the diagonal line, the second number would be changed, resulting in a new d-number.

Thus we are literally given infinity + 1.

Tl;dr: Infinity doesn't work that way.

[Dwarf]

Do you study mathematics or something similar?
I am fascinated by your post.

[Dabi]

Ampersand.
I read it all even though I should be asleep. I now want to hang myself in insanity.
Though this sounds to me just like a "loop" of +1 -1 +1 etc.
In my view Infinite is merely used as a way to describe something which never ends - ever, as you cannot "reach" infinite as its not a number, you can merely just keep going. You give me a number, I'll add one to it. It just works that way.

The only thing in my view infinite is something which is a constantly growing number at which is already at the stage of size which we cannot calculate. Thus if we cannot pinpoint a number to it we cannot calculate its current status, at which point its also growing. Thus its infinite.

[Draco18s]

Ampersand.

And even so, there is cardinality to infinity.

The set of all integers is an infinite set ("give me a number and I'll add one").

The set of all real numbers is also an infinite set ("give me any number and I'll divide it by 2, 2 again, again, and again").

Yet there are infinitely more real numbers than there are integers, for between any two integers (say, 0 and 1) there are an infinite number of real numbers.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aleph_number

[Dabi]

Ampersand.

And even so, there is cardinality to infinity.

The set of all integers is an infinite set ("give me a number and I'll add one").

The set of all real numbers is also an infinite set ("give me any number and I'll divide it by 2, 2 again, again, and again").

Yet there are infinitely more real numbers than there are integers, for between any two integers (say, 0 and 1) there are an infinite number of real numbers.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aleph_number

10 minutes left on the laptop. I'll talk again in the morning for me. It's just I don't see where were going with this...I think we established it's impossible for this object to be infinite or did we establish it isnt? We were arguing the capacity of space to hold such an object. I had the idea that space had an end, and thus this object cannot be infinite since it will have a point where it cannot grow any larger. But then he came with this infinite bit (ampersand), physically this object cannot be infinite in my view.

[Draco18s]

I think we established that it has near-infinite surface area, but finite volume and mass.

[silverskull39]

correct me if I'm wrong but a vacuum is the absence of matter. Space is made  up of mostly Vacuum, with stars and dust and planets etc. thrown in here and there.... so, how can there be an end to the absence of matter? I could be wrong, I'm no physicist, but I don't really get it....my head hertz @_@

[Fictionpuss]

I think we established that it has near-infinite surface area, but finite volume and mass.

Near-infinite?  1 is the same "distance" from infinity as 1000.

A finite volume and mass can only give a finite (albeit incredibly large) surface area.

[Cariyaga]

Near-infinite is most peoples' way of saying 'immeasurably large'.

[Sean Mirrsen]

correct me if I'm wrong but a vacuum is the absence of matter. Space is made  up of mostly Vacuum, with stars and dust and planets etc. thrown in here and there.... so, how can there be an end to the absence of matter? I could be wrong, I'm no physicist, but I don't really get it....my head hertz @_@

I might want to stay out of discussions on space, but I think space is just that, space. It's not the Universe, it's something the Universe exists in. In the Universe, there's no true vacuum, because of background radiation and all other energies and stray particles throughout. Therefore, if there's a vacuum beyond the Universe, the Universe will seek to expand into it. That's my view of it, but it's unpopular with the local physicist mob, so I'll keep it to myself.

[Draco18s]

Near-infinite is most peoples' way of saying 'immeasurably large'.

Hey now, in some cases its actually true.

(Eg. its as large as someone wants it to be, such as an infinite loop that stops only when the controller says so, all the while building up steam in its Engine Of Death.  It only needs to get to 20, or 30, or sometimes 100, but the controller lets it run to 1000, or a million "because he can").

But you're right, in this case, it is immeasurable and large.  Not necessarily immeasurably large (too large to be measured in any reasonable way) but large in a means by which it cannot be measured (very complex surface).

[Ampersand]

Do you study mathematics or something similar?
I am fascinated by your post.

No.

I think we established that it has near-infinite surface area, but finite volume and mass.

A perfect fractal, as a mathematical concept, has infinite surface area. Obviously, in reality, such a thing is impossible due to the limitations of the minimum size of atoms., but yes, Fractals have a finite volume, and a finite mass.

correct me if I'm wrong but a vacuum is the absence of matter. Space is made  up of mostly Vacuum, with stars and dust and planets etc. thrown in here and there.... so, how can there be an end to the absence of matter? I could be wrong, I'm no physicist, but I don't really get it....my head hertz @_@

First of all, it does not make sense to talk about space as an object made out of nothing. I think it should be obvious why.

No one talks about an end, a boundary to space. What is much more likely is that it is infinite in the same way the points of the surface of a sphere are infinite. After all, you can start in one point on the globe, and start walking, and never once will you reach a point where you cannot continue forward. Assuming of course, you are a really good swimmer.

And yet, it's obvious that the globe has an absolute limit to total space, despite it's apparent infiniteness. Cannot the same be true of the universe?

[Draco18s]

No one talks about an end, a boundary to space. What is much more likely is that it is infinite in the same way the points of the surface of a sphere are infinite. After all, you can start in one point on the globe, and start walking, and never once will you reach a point where you cannot continue forward. Assuming of course, you are a really good swimmer.

Ah, but that's a positively curved space.  You will return to your starting point.

In Negatively curved space Things are even weirder.  Such as ultraparallel lines, triangles with less than 180 degrees,* and circles with diameter to circumference ratios not equal to pie.

In flat space, you can't return if traveling in a strait line, regardless of direction.

*In positively curved space, you can get triangles with more than 180 degrees.