Infinity - General - Facepunch Forum

[QUOTE=JohnnyMo1;28991700]Time is a dimension itself. It's one dimension of the four that makes up spacetime. [editline]5th April 2011[/editline] Recently? The guy that proved the cardinality of the set of real numbers is a larger infinity than the cardinality of the set of natural numbers died in 1918.[/QUOTE] Well recently on the news(as in last year) they were saying how they discovered different levels of infinity, but the explanation they provided surpassed my knowledge so I cannot explain it to you unfortunately.

We've known there are different infinities for over 100 years, like I just said. There are infinity natural numbers, but there are also infinity real numbers. But the infinity of real numbers is bigger than the infinity of natural numbers. [editline]5th April 2011[/editline] [QUOTE=Pepin;28975393]You really have to consider a frame of reference. Without any frame of reference, nothing is ever at all measurable. As far as the thought about time, I believe that time is simply the process of the universe becoming symmetrical and uniform. When that occurs, that will cease to exist because there will be complete balance, and nothing will be in motion. If you do not understand why time would not exist, it is be because our whole sense of time is based upon motion. If you were to stop all motion in the universe, you'd be stopping time. At least on a perceptional level, we could easily assume time had stopped if there was no movement at all. To make a bit of an analogy, imagine dropping in a blot of food dye into a glass jar full of water and then putting the cover over it. The food coloring would diffuse throughout the water, expanding and expanding in quite a chaotic way, and eventually result in a uniform distribution of the food coloring throughout the water. If we were to assume there were no external forces and only the internal forces of the water and the food coloring, once uniformity is reached: there is no other observable state, it is, and forever will remain the same and no particles will ever moved because there is completely balance. If we were to assume that the water was in complete balance at the beginning, then the entire life of the jar could be described as the moment before the drop had an affect on the water, and the moment the the water and dye reached complete equilibrium. Time does not exist before the drop and after the drop simply because they are continuous states. Time cannot exist without motion.[/QUOTE] But since there is energy and it cannot be destroyed, there will always be motion.

[QUOTE=JohnnyMo1;28991762] [editline]5th April 2011[/editline] But since there is energy and it cannot be destroyed, there will always be motion.[/QUOTE] true, i remember a special about the Hawking Paradox, how Stephen Hawking had once claimed that black holes were information paradoxes, destroying information. If that were true then that would break the Law of Conservation, which states that energy is never lost, only converted into other forms. In the end he admitted his mistakes and flaws in his theory. Nonetheless it was very interesting.

[QUOTE=JohnnyMo1;28991762]But since there is energy and it cannot be destroyed, there will always be motion.[/QUOTE] I didn't imply a destruction of energy, more that there will come a point where all forces will counter act each other which would create equilibrium. It wouldn't be a process that comes fast at all, but as the universe comes to an end, it will become more and more symmetrical and ordered, and all forces on one side would balance out all forces on the other. Energy would still be conserved in this scenario.

sorry if I'm a complete noob but why does energy have to be kinetic?

[QUOTE=Kanshi;28992512]sorry if I'm a complete noob but why does energy have to be kinetic?[/QUOTE] No, you are a total n00b.

fuck i knew it [img]http://www.newprophecy.net/man_hanged_1.jpg[/img]

[QUOTE=Pepin;28992436]I didn't imply a destruction of energy, more that there will come a point where all forces will counter act each other which would create equilibrium. It wouldn't be a process that comes fast at all, but as the universe comes to an end, it will become more and more symmetrical and ordered, and all forces on one side would balance out all forces on the other. Energy would still be conserved in this scenario.[/QUOTE] Entropy says otherwise. :colbert:

[QUOTE=RubberFruit;28992721]Entropy says otherwise. :colbert:[/QUOTE] [quote]The term Heat Death comes from the idea that, in an isolated system (the Universe being a very big example), the entropy will continuously increase until it reaches a maximum value. The moment that happens, heat in the system will be evenly distributed, allowing no room for usable [URL="http://www.universetoday.com/43740/wind-energy/"]energy[/URL] (or heat) to exist – hence the term ‘heat death’. That means, mechanical motion within the system will no longer be possible.[/quote][URL]http://www.universetoday.com/36917/big-freeze/[/URL] Maybe I'm explaining it in a different/incorrect way or not covering enough details. I thought what I was saying implied an even distribution of heat, but maybe not. But anyway, it is always nice when you come up with an idea and you find other popular theories that support your idea. The idea I came up with pretty much is heat death.

To infinity... and BEYOND!

No beginning or end of ANY shape btw.

[QUOTE=RubberFruit;29012619]No beginning or end of ANY shape btw.[/QUOTE] Line.

[QUOTE=JohnnyMo1;29017655]Line.[/QUOTE] An actual line is continuous, and it goes on for [b]infinity[/b]. A line segment on the other hand has limits, but it is only a piece of a shape that is infinite. [editline]6th April 2011[/editline] [QUOTE=RubberFruit;29012619]No beginning or end of ANY shape btw.[/QUOTE] And for all the people saying this, i knew that, i just saw the circle to be the best example to use. [editline]6th April 2011[/editline] Also i was really fucking baked when i posted.

[QUOTE=Lipsonfire;29023170]An actual line is continuous, and it goes on for [b]infinity[/b]. A line segment on the other hand has limits, but it is only a piece of a shape that is infinite.[/QUOTE] So? A line segment is a 1-D manifold, and it's got a boundary. It is a geometric object with a definite beginning and end.

When I'm baked I recite the Godfather pretty fucking well. I should make a thread.

o_O An entire discussion thread about ME?!

Why is infinity a circle? A circle is finite in circumference and radius. A circle has a defined breadth which it encompasses. Why must time go in a loop? Who says infinity means that such infinite thing must repeat itself? Infinity has no end, and yes, it has no beginning, but does that mean that the end and the beginning are one in the same? Does infinity have to be a cycle for it to be real? What if infinity is simply not real? Something with no beginning, never started. Something with no end will never end. Therefore if something has never started, how can it exist? If something will never end, what is the point in it being real? But now, how do we define real? What is real? And what is the point of understanding infinity in a finite life? Or is everything infinite? Nobody has the answers, because answers only lead to more questions.

I often think about infinity my self. It's not an easy subject if I may say so. You can divide theories of the "existence" of the universe in two. 1. It's infinite and has no beginning or ending. 2. At some point it just came into existence. Both of these sound impossible. How can something be infinite? It's so hard to comprehend. But... How can something be created out of nothing? It's even harder to comprehend. And even less possible. Also... Infinity does not have to be a circle. It is easier to comprehend if you say it is, but that doesn't mean it's correct. The best way to explain something doesn't always have to be the correct way. I personally think the universe is infinite in time, because I don't really see how anything can just come into existence when there is nothing. There must be SOMETHING there for something else to be created. And I don't think it circles either.

So the equal distribution of energy throughout the universe = end of our world... UNTIL THE NEXT BIG BANG! [editline]9th April 2011[/editline] we are a terrible "accident"

I am under the impression that there are fundamental flaws in our ability to rationalize on such high scales. I believe that the fundamental truth of the universe is most real, yet can not be understood by humans despite it being completely logical and evident. The creation of our universe has a very real answer, but it is one that we would never comprehend.

Imo circle is a bad metaphor for infinity, seeing as the edge itself[del] can be marked[/del] must be marked by an infinite amount of points to be a true circle.