The Theory of Infinite Distance. - General

[url]http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Series_%28mathematics%29[/url] This explains the OP, and how it works mathmatically so the OP will be happy based on their assumed mathmatic thinking. The thread was interesting, but now it is dead. Let in rest in peace.

The fuck is the point of this thread?

All this is talking about is ways of marking down data. There is an infinity of ways you can break down the distance to any given point, that doesn't mean the distance itself is infinite. This is called continuous data if you were to ever take a statistics course.

Aww yeah. We're all so much smarter and cooler than the OP. :smug:

See my site plz and click on one google ads [url]http://itssafe.tk[/url]

Stop spamming.

Mathematics is the theorized establishment of relations in space and time. Thus, there is an infinite ways to decipher distance from one location to another but, theoretic as it is, a conversion to this form of practicality is an impossibility. For example, using the Pythagorean theorem on a triangle, you would imagine and assign three squares, one on each side in order to calculate the missing one. The squares doesn't actually exist since it was a mere method of using relations in space. [editline]08:49PM[/editline] [QUOTE=JohnnyMo1;17381093]Space is not infinite.[/QUOTE] Correction, our universe is not infinite, space however is. Our universe is a bubble, expanding matter in the existence of an eternal void ever since the dawn of big bang. For space itself to actually expand, it would require an anti-space force for the space to be drawn to. But since anti-space is not possible, because it would be impossible to put anti-space in a location related to where it would be accessible to space since it would require a distance in space for them to react. There can only be a relation between matter and absence of matter, since their forces would be accessible to each other within a distance of space.

[QUOTE=Watchmaker90;17390354]Correction, our universe is not infinite, space however is. Our universe is a bubble, expanding matter in the existence of an eternal void ever since the dawn of big bang. For space itself to actually expand, it would require an anti-space force for the space to be drawn to. But since anti-space is not possible, because it would be impossible to put anti-space in a location related to where it would be accessible to space since it would require a distance in space for them to react. There can only be a relation between matter and absence of matter, since their forces would be accessible to each other within a distance of space.[/QUOTE] I'm not entirely certain of what JohnnyMo was trying to say, but I'm pretty sure he meant "space isn't infinite" in the mathematical sense. Which means the area between two points. There isn't infinite amount of matter, therefore there can't be infinite space betweent that matter. (I think)

i'm 15 and i'm still doin 2x=4 solve for x complicated stuff

[QUOTE=Oecleus;17392960]I'm not entirely certain of what JohnnyMo was trying to say, but I'm pretty sure he meant "space isn't infinite" in the mathematical sense. Which means the area between two points. There isn't infinite amount of matter, therefore there can't be infinite space betweent that matter. (I think)[/QUOTE] No, I meant space as the space-time universe where we live is not infinite.

[QUOTE=Oecleus;17392960]I'm not entirely certain of what JohnnyMo was trying to say, but I'm pretty sure he meant "space isn't infinite" in the mathematical sense. Which means the area between two points. There isn't infinite amount of matter, therefore there can't be infinite space betweent that matter. (I think)[/QUOTE] Well mathematically, as matter can be a point, infinity beyond matter's boundaries can be a point too. It's just another variable for a little more complex space-relation, but it still exists and is used in mathematics.

[QUOTE=evlbzltyr;17373747]Hang on... If space is infinite, then there must be infinite amounts of planets, but we know that only a finite amount of planets are inhabitable. A finite number divided by an infinite number always equals zero, so that means that... Life doesn't exist. If you're reading this, you're a statistical anomaly. Wait, what?[/QUOTE] You surely have no idea about anything you posted. Space is huge. But it isn't proven yet, if it's infinite huge. We just know, it expands (which is NOT the same as infinite huge). To your "planet hypothesis": Well, you can take an infinite amount of stuff from an infinite set of numbers while this set still keeps infinite. You learn this in Analysis I. Just take every third number of the set of real numbers. You'll get a new set of numbers which is infinitely big and the original set will still be infinitely big but has missing every third number. And "infinity/infinity" is undefined. The limes on such divisions can lead to any number. And the rest for "life doesn't exist": What are you on? [editline]10:59PM[/editline] [QUOTE=Watchmaker90;17390354]Correction, our universe is not infinite, space however is. Our universe is a bubble, expanding matter in the existence of an eternal void ever since the dawn of big bang. For space itself to actually expand, it would require an anti-space force for the space to be drawn to. But since anti-space is not possible, because it would be impossible to put anti-space in a location related to where it would be accessible to space since it would require a distance in space for them to react. There can only be a relation between matter and absence of matter, since their forces would be accessible to each other within a distance of space.[/QUOTE] Seriously, what? "Anti-Space"? Space is actually what you are living in. Without our universe, there is no space. Hell, even "eternal void" how you describe it is "space" but empty. Spacetime started to come into existence with big bang (if it was a beginning and not a transition of an collapsing universe to our expanding) and from that point, space expands. [editline]11:01PM[/editline] [QUOTE=Oecleus;17392960]I'm not entirely certain of what JohnnyMo was trying to say, but I'm pretty sure he meant "space isn't infinite" in the mathematical sense. Which means the area between two points. There isn't infinite amount of matter, therefore there can't be infinite space betweent that matter. (I think)[/QUOTE] You are mixing up infinite distances with infinitesimal distances. Actually JohnnyMo spoke about "Out universe started in big bang, from then started expanding so it has to be finite and not statically and infinite". Anyway, in math, infinity is no big problem. Same for infinitesimal distances.

The distance is still the same. You've just got a messed up disease that halves your speed with every step.

[QUOTE=aVoN;17396284] Seriously, what? "Anti-Space"? Space is actually what you are living in. Without our universe, there is no space. Hell, even "eternal void" how you describe it is "space" but empty. Spacetime started to come into existence with big bang (if it was a beginning and not a transition of an collapsing universe to our expanding) and from that point, space expands.[/QUOTE] I thought I made it clear, I used the term anti-space simply to state the impossibility with an opposing force to space since an opposition is always needed for a cause and effect. Therefore, an expansion of spacetime itself is impossible. There is no proof on the existence of other dimensions. It's ironic how you explain your theory which insists on putting anti-space in the equation to be logical despite your reaction towards the term itself, and despite my explanation on how illogical anti-space would be you still declared an apparent expression of found illogicality in my explanation. Yes, that's what I meant, eternal void being the empty space outside our expanding bubble of matter. Space itself does not expand since it would require a factor to contribute to it's expanding. Matter can expand since it does have an opposing force which is the spacevoid (lack of matter) outside the bubble our matter consists of. Space was there all along, matter is what started to expand. Since matter, according to Special relativity by Albert Einstein, is energy, space is mere positions where energy can move freely without being blocked, thus creating the expanding effect of big bang.

[QUOTE=Watchmaker90;17397863]I thought I made it clear, I used the term anti-space simply to state the impossibility with an opposing force to space since an opposition is always needed for a cause and effect. Therefore, an expansion of spacetime itself is impossible. There is no proof on the existence of other dimensions. It's ironic how you explain your theory which insists on putting anti-space in the equation to be logical despite your reaction towards the term itself, and despite my explanation on how illogical anti-space would be you still declared an apparent expression of found illogicality in my explanation. Yes, that's what I meant, eternal void being the empty space outside our expanding bubble of matter. Space itself does not expand since it would require a factor to contribute to it's expanding. Matter can expand since it does have an opposing force which is the spacevoid (lack of matter) outside the bubble our matter consists of. Space was there all along, matter is what started to expand. Since matter, according to Special relativity by Albert Einstein, is energy, space is mere positions where energy can move freely without being blocked, thus creating the expanding effect of big bang.[/QUOTE] No. Space AND matter both came into existence with the Big Bang.

[QUOTE=JohnnyMo1;17398563]No. Space AND matter both came into existence with the Big Bang.[/QUOTE] There can't be an existence without space. Basically you're saying void and matter entered something that doesn't exist, even though the dimensions of this non-existence denies the creation of anything. After that, space and matter started to expand without cause. You seem to be convinced that space actually is something just because we can measure it. Space IS nothingness, what you measure is not the product of space, it is space that is the product of nothingness. For there to even be an existent environment you need physical dimensions to give matter a location. Since a location itself can't move, because it's simply a position only relevant in relation to the nearest measurable point of matter, it can't expand or even move. There can't be a creation without a location for it to be created at, otherwise it would be like breaking down infinity to a finite part, but then there wouldn't be infinity to begin with, would it?

[QUOTE=Watchmaker90;17397863]I thought I made it clear, I used the term anti-space simply to state the impossibility with an opposing force to space since an opposition is always needed for a cause and effect. [/QUOTE] Where did you "learn" this (concerning space)? [QUOTE=Watchmaker90;17397863]Therefore, an expansion of spacetime itself is impossible. There is no proof on the existence of other dimensions.[/QUOTE] It doesn't matter that you think, it's impossible for spacetime expanding. It actually does (several proofs). BUT actually space expands faster and faster where dark energy is the cause ("dark" energy because nobody knows yet, where this energy comes from - Did you meant "this" as "anti-space"?) And why do you now go over to extra dimensions? You jump from one topic to a completely different one. [QUOTE=Watchmaker90;17397863]It's ironic how you explain your theory which insists on putting anti-space in the equation to be logical despite your reaction towards the term itself, and despite my explanation on how illogical anti-space would be you still declared an apparent expression of found illogicality in my explanation. [/QUOTE] WHAT? What is "my" theory? Who ever said the word Anti-Space (actually YOU were it, who used this akward word - google it. Nobody ever used this word in that sense like you did. It's bullshit) [QUOTE=Watchmaker90;17397863]Yes, that's what I meant, eternal void being the empty space outside our expanding bubble of matter. [/QUOTE] Spacetime came into existance with the big-bang. The universe does not need to "expand in space", the space itself expands. And the universe is not a "matter bubble". [QUOTE=Watchmaker90;17397863]Space itself does not expand since it would require a factor to contribute to it's expanding. [/QUOTE] Read this: [url]http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Metric_expansion_of_space[/url] [QUOTE=Watchmaker90;17397863]Matter can expand since it does have an opposing force which is the spacevoid (lack of matter) outside the bubble our matter consists of. [/QUOTE] You have no idea of physics. [QUOTE=Watchmaker90;17397863]Space was there all along, matter is what started to expand. Since matter, according to Special relativity by Albert Einstein, is energy, space is mere positions where energy can move freely without being blocked, thus creating the expanding effect of big bang.[/QUOTE] You have no idea of physics. [b]tl;dr-Version[/b] Your post is a huge accumulation of things you heard somewhere where you forgot about their meanings. Now you try to connect them by association (and without any forumlas or without even taking an investigation of what you talk about), so it is just going to be a huge "HEY GUYS, I EXPLAIN THE WORLD WITHOUT EVEN KNOWNING WHAT I'M TALKING ABOUT"-thread. Seriously, science does not work like that. And if you don't understand what scientists found out, then [b]go on and study physics[/b]. Otherwise you will NEVER understand it.

You fail. [img]http://img201.imageshack.us/img201/9337/aaaayoufail.png[/img]

That graph is a fail, it should read "Displacement" not "Distance", you can't have a negative distance as it is a scalar quantity, and therefore has no direction (if it was a vector quantity it could lead to negatives if you assume a certain direction is positive yet you travel in the opposite direction) Second of all, distance has nothing to do with velocity, displacement does. /physics circlejerk

krejelcric scisyhp\ [QUOTE=JohnnyMo1;17398563]No. Space AND matter both came into existence with the Big Bang.[/QUOTE] As well as time, right?

I think, as humans, we just can't fathom the idea of something never ending. But that doesn't mean it couldn't exist. Also; just posting this to bump the spam away

I thought the Greeks figured this out hundreds of years ago?

Well, not so much "The Greeks." It's more like the OP is finally considering stuff that Zenos wasted his entire life pondering 2600 years ago. Following which, nobody cared because other [i]real[/i] philosophers were busy asking [i]good[/i] questions. Hey don't rate me late mang I already posted it once.

[QUOTE=aVoN;17405411]Where did you "learned" this (concerning space)?[/QUOTE] I didn't "learn" this from anywhere, I have seen it. I have understood modern astrophysics since I was five years old. I managed to understand the basics of chemistry without even opening a schoolbook. Boy you neurotypicals are thick, why do I even bother...

Actually, you've made it clear that you STILL don't understand modern astrophysics. Or astrophysics from the 80's. Unless you're trying to tell us that you ARE five.

[QUOTE=Watchmaker90;17411702]I didn't "learn" this from anywhere, I have seen it. I have understood modern astrophysics since I was five years old. I managed to understand the basics of chemistry without even opening a schoolbook. Boy you neurotypicals are thick, why do I even bother...[/QUOTE] So you have seen "Anti-Space".. (Can't stop laughing). Modern astrophysics since you were five. Hell, I see you must be hyperintelligent /sarcasm. I doubt, you could have ever be able at the age of 5 to understand the complex mathematical structures modern astrophysics is based on. Especially for General Relativity. So if you "know this all", tell me: Which configuration describes a matter-free space with positive cosmological constant? And which metric, found in 1916 describes an uncharged blackhole without angular momentum (I think, this one you can atleast google). And to "basics of chemistry": Well, good teachers might be helpful. But if you are so intelligent, what is the exact reason for e.g. carbon being able to have 4 bounds. (Well, you can of course google this.. But if you do so, you failed). And I bother, because you wrote so much shit, which doesn't makes any sense. That's why.

Oh, oh, I know that last one. It's because it has 4 electrons in its valence shell, and so will form ionic bonds or covalent bonds until that outer shell is either full (8 electrons) or empty (only ionic bonds.) :downs: Why the do all atoms want to fill up their valence shells? Hell if I know.

[QUOTE=Sirdangolot5;17412497]Oh, oh, I know that last one. It's because it has 4 electrons in its valence shell, and so will form ionic bonds or covalent bonds until that outer shell is either full (8 electrons) or empty (only ionic bonds.) :downs: Why the do all atoms want to fill up their valence shells? Hell if I know.[/QUOTE] Sorry, but this is not really correct. At least this is not what I want to hear, because it's knowledge "from before 1900". Actually, basic chemistry does not teach this. Maybe in school, because it's easier to explain. But it's not really correct. Redefinition of the question: How does it come, that four electrons in e.g. carbons "valence shell" (ughh, this name) build four bonds, where actually only two could do it.

[QUOTE=Watchmaker90;17411702]I didn't "learn" this from anywhere, I have seen it. I have understood modern astrophysics since I was five years old. I managed to understand the basics of chemistry without even opening a schoolbook. Boy you neurotypicals are thick, why do I even bother...[/QUOTE] So basically you're making it up as you go and pretending you understand.

Well fuck I don't know. I'm not even sure what you're asking.