SewlekThe programmer previously known as SchimmelJoin Date: 2003-05-13Member: 16247Members, NS2 Developer, NS2 Playtester, Squad Five Gold, Subnautica Developer
<!--quoteo(post=1688372:date=Sep 18 2008, 11:17 AM:name=aNytiMe)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(aNytiMe @ Sep 18 2008, 11:17 AM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=1688372"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->We only don't know stuff about isolated subatomic particles. We can explain them though. How do you explain "HOVARING WITHOUT FLAPING"?
I remember that Ive just read once or twice that thread about "HOVARING", and its too long ago. But I think the guy who suggested this idea had VERY GOOD explanations!
Lets rename fade to "scorpian", should be explanation enough.
na i dont know, reading physics related stuff is just hobby of mine, my knowledge is not really great nor I made serious attempts to understand completely.
I would stick on the idea that the fade can manipulate his magnetic field, or mass or whatever, in order to steer and "HOVAR" around. <img src="style_emoticons/<#EMO_DIR#>/biggrin-fix.gif" style="vertical-align:middle" emoid=":D" border="0" alt="biggrin-fix.gif" />
SewlekThe programmer previously known as SchimmelJoin Date: 2003-05-13Member: 16247Members, NS2 Developer, NS2 Playtester, Squad Five Gold, Subnautica Developer
@Soul_Rider:
I had similar thoughts about "whats the smallest object", "whats the greatest object" and I believe at a specific point everything is repeating itself over and over again.
I would not say now in neutrons or electrons (or in other direction the edge of universe), I guess even alot smaller than quarks ( or alot further than edge of universe) and we maybe never would discover it. But I have to admit that my thoughts go more in a philosophical direction <img src="style_emoticons/<#EMO_DIR#>/smile-fix.gif" style="vertical-align:middle" emoid=":)" border="0" alt="smile-fix.gif" />
<!--quoteo(post=1688395:date=Sep 18 2008, 07:58 PM:name=Soul_Rider)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Soul_Rider @ Sep 18 2008, 07:58 PM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=1688395"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->That is not so True, but I get the humour <img src="style_emoticons/<#EMO_DIR#>/smile-fix.gif" style="vertical-align:middle" emoid=":)" border="0" alt="smile-fix.gif" /><!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd--> <img src="style_emoticons/<#EMO_DIR#>/smile-fix.gif" style="vertical-align:middle" emoid=":)" border="0" alt="smile-fix.gif" />
It is true because old ideas don't just disappear. Sure you will come up with nearly frictionless magnetic ball bearings, does this mean that regular ball bearings become obsolete? No. There are always positives to every technology. Is smokeless powder better than black powder? Sure! But would you have the means of producing smokeless powder in an isolated environment? Hah.
<!--quoteo--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE</div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->Time is made up. It is a concept related purely to the Earth. It is an undisputed fact, that if you were to propel yourself away from the Earth in a straight line, fast enough, you could arrive back on Earth 40 years later, having only been travelling for 10 years. You would have only aged 10 years, while everyone on Earth, would have aged 40.
People often go down the route of saying that the faster you went, the shorter the time would be. They say eventually, if you were to go fast enough, you would go back in time. This is a fascinating theory, but that is just one small aspect of the greater Theories that could arrive from that very Theory of Relativity. I wish people would look at the other exciting alternatives that this could also bring.
This is my <b>'Theory of the Universe'</b>.
Time becomes slower the further from Earth you get. This is because time is actually a measure of movement through space relative to Earth.(Our Religions were lambasted for putting us at the centre of God's Universe, but it's alright for Science to put the Earth at the centre of the Universe? but i'm not going to go through that here.) There must come a point, far enough away from Earth where time no longer exists, where it has slowed down to the point of totally stopping. This is the end of the Universe, the edge of our Universe.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd--> Its not how far away from earth you are, its actually your speed relative to the speed of light. If you're 99999999999999999999999 gazzilion light years away from earth, but still moving at the speed earth is moving relative to the speed of light, time moves the same for you. There is no way you can move faster than the speed of light (a little well-known fact) therefore you will never travel backwards in time.
<!--quoteo--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE</div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->So the question is often asked, what lies at the end of our Universe?
Do you want to know?
Alright, I'll tell you...
If you were suddenly to zoom out of our Universe, by scrolling the mouse wheel down, so that you could see our Universe in it's entirety, about an inch round in the centre of your screen, you would realise that our entire Universe, is just a Neutron in a much larger Universe. If you zoom in many times inside our Universe, and get down to the Neutrons, then zoom into them, you will find everyone of them, is it's own Universe.
Science Fact or Fiction?
It's definitely not fantasy, because it is in the scientific realm, and fits entirely within the spectrum of the theory of relativity.
Yes it goes beyond the theory of relativity, much further beyond, but it stays within it's laws.
As our Universe is just a Neutron in another larger Universe, does the Theory of Relativity still hold there? Or if you shrink into the tiny Universes that we call Neutrons, does the Theory still hold there?
Even if we find the Theory of Relativity works in every Neutron, Does this mean the Universes known as Electrons are the same? As they have a different charge, they could be very different Universes with very Different 'Laws'.
Even if we accept the Theory of Relativity is present in the Electron Universes, and every other universe, whether up or down or sideways, there are many other factors to take into consideration. What happens when our universe, in it's charged state, is joined with another? What sort of things may occur then?<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd--> I have always suspected the same, but we have no proof. Get proof and then we have a solid theory.
<!--quoteo--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE</div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->Blackholes? Simply this would be a point of connection between Universes, the Neutrons, Electrons and Protons, the differing polarised charges attracting to the point of connection, from both sides so all lines lead to the centre of the Black Hole. That's a basic piece of relativiy, called magnetism, and it is working with our Universe, as well as in the Universe.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd--> Black holes are singularities formed by the collapse of individual particles on the subatomic level. What would happen to you if a plane was to land on top of your face? The exact same thing happens on the subatomic level. There is no evidence that it goes any farther than just that. A goo of particles smashed together into some kind of degenerate matter.
<!--quoteo--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE</div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->Folds in the fabric of Space-Time? Highly likely when you consider we are constaltnly being bundled and banged together with other simarly or oppositely charged Universes. If these exist, then time travel is possible.
You call it Science Fiction, I call it Science Fact. It cannot be disproven, because it is within the bounds of relativity, and requires no additional laws or oversights, that some theories require you to believe.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd--> This suffers from the god syndrome. Show me proof and then I will believe it, not the other way around. Theories are guilty until proven innocent.
<!--quoteo--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE</div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->Science Fiction, Fact and Fantasy are NOT seperate entities, you just perceive them to be. If you realise that the greatest scientific discoveries ever made, were made by tests not working as expected, the scientists going back with an open mind, and recording what actually happened, made startling changes to our pictures of the universe. Some of the most basic truths we now hold in science, were ridiculed when first discovered. The scientists knew what they discovered. Just because you can't see a way something fits into the universe, doesn't mean someone else out there can't.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd--> Wait, what? When was the last time a scientific theory based on... the scientific method which was proven by said method disputed?
- Never. Church disapproval doesn't count because priests =!= scientists -
<!--quoteo--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE</div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->You are all of course absolutely right, because that is what you want from the game. Unfortunately, the other people who await this game, are not you, and therefore, too have certain things they hope for.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd--> I do realize this. You must also acknowledge the fact that game developers won't care about you or your little posts. Posting on various internet forums and craigs list is just something I do when I come back drunk and empty handed.
<!--quoteo--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE</div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->I truly believe that within the laws of the Universe, ANYTHING IS POSSIBLE. People need to stop trying to put Humans at the top of the knowledge tree, and realise we are just a small part of an unbelievably big Universe, which is just a tiny Neutron in another Universe, and so on.
Remember the path goes up as well as down. It never ends.
Peace to you all
Andy
----EDIT------
Of course, when you realise the sheer insignificance of Humans, you realise their greatness at the same time. It also becomes blindingly obvious that 'Aliens' exist, and from this point forward shall be science fact.
What they look like is entirely up to you.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd--> Heh. Statement 1 is about being insignificant. (which is completely true) Statement 2 is about alien life.
Wait what? Where is the connection? We know nothing about the probability of life, why assume anything about it?
<!--quoteo--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE</div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->My theory is further strengthened by the fact that we know that Neutrons etc, are nearly completely empty space, with a tiny percentage of matter, that is energy operating at a 'lower' frequency than the 'space' between.
Compare that to our own Universe, nearly all empty space, with a tiny percentage of matter (planets, suns etc) floating about in it.
Notice any similarities?
Peace Again
Andy<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd--> How do we know that neutrons are mostly empty space? From what I've heard, a certain number of quarks make up a neutron. Haven't heard about any tests which detect quarks though or the composition of subatomic particles. We DO know that atoms are mostly empty space and we have tested this. The atomic radius is quite large, but the nucleus which consists of neutrons and protons is VERY dense. Once again, I will only believe something if scientific proof is present. You on the other hand... not so much.
SewlekThe programmer previously known as SchimmelJoin Date: 2003-05-13Member: 16247Members, NS2 Developer, NS2 Playtester, Squad Five Gold, Subnautica Developer
as far as i know neutrons for example cannot contain empty space because of gluons holding the quarks together. Im not sure if neutrons have kinda "hull", at least I havent read anything about it.
<!--quoteo--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE</div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->Its not how far away from earth you are, its actually your speed relative to the speed of light. If you're 99999999999999999999999 gazzilion light years away from earth, but still moving at the speed earth is moving relative to the speed of light, time moves the same for you. There is no way you can move faster than the speed of light (a little well-known fact) therefore you will never travel backwards in time.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Actually, if time speeds up as you're moving faster, perhaps it is not that you're having to approach a barrier moving so fast but more that you cannot keep up with the acceleration of this barrier which time itself naturally continues in perpetuation. It's a subtle difference. It's like the difference in saying that you could not beat your friend in a race because he outran you as opposed to saying that time flew faster for him, and therefore was able to go farther distance in that time than you could have made moving at the same velocity. Of course that wouldn't be true here on earth because time for all intents and purposes is constant.
However, where is it written that time is constant everywhere in the universe? If you were a captain of a spaceship facing in the same direction as another spaceship with the same exact model 1 light year away and both started accelerating at the same velocity for 15 minutes (according to your watch onboard the ship), it might be the case that you hail your rival's ship only to find out they've long since abandoned waiting for you as 60 years have passed for them waiting for you to arrive.
You might say it's the same disadvantage one would have in a race to see who could run farther in 5 minutes with you running up a steep hill and your rival running down one. Only difference really is that time is not a dimension easily perceptualized by humans. It's easy to forget this aspect of our universe, but according to the Theory of Relativity, not only is it possible, it's very likely indeed that it is this way.
<!--quoteo--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE</div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->This is my 'Theory of the Universe'.
Time becomes slower the further from Earth you get. This is because time is actually a measure of movement through space relative to Earth.(Our Religions were lambasted for putting us at the centre of God's Universe, but it's alright for Science to put the Earth at the centre of the Universe? but i'm not going to go through that here.) There must come a point, far enough away from Earth where time no longer exists, where it has slowed down to the point of totally stopping. This is the end of the Universe, the edge of our Universe.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Here's my take on your theory. First, I don't think the Earth is a position particularly fascinating in the scheme of the universe. Perhaps you could argue that we were lucky in that we got positioned next to a star for energy, but I would argue that if it weren't so, we wouldn't be here discussing our fortune in the grand scheme of our positioning in the universe. <img src="style_emoticons/<#EMO_DIR#>/smile-fix.gif" style="vertical-align:middle" emoid=":)" border="0" alt="smile-fix.gif" />
Second, there's no reason to assume you're wrong about the edge of the universe. In fact, I agree that perhaps the whole reason you could never reach the edge of the universe is because you'd be making time move <i>faster</i> at higher speeds and would therefore make the barrier that much 'faster' (or seemingly so, except rather than more distance over time, it's distance over less time).
However, I have reason to believe the model of the universe is like an onion. Again, bear with me and my incredibly oversimplified model of the universe, because it's probably <b>not</b> an onion, but for the purposes of explanation... Think about it. When the big bang occured, we simply assumed it was all happening in 3d space. We assume all mass in this universe was infinitessimally small by which an explosion so enormous proceeded, that it created everything as we know it in the universe. Scientists already suspect something funny was going on here from the moment that the Big Bang theory was presented. What they can't seem to explain (and partly the reason for the world's largest particle collider finished recently) is what properties did this mass have at the time of the explosion, because it isn't consistent with what we know the behavior of mass to be like. What if all the mass weren't ever really all there to begin with?
I'll explain. My theory is that the center of the known universe at the time of the big bang was not in three dimensions but multiple dimensions. This would explain the mass problem, as it means the mass has more than three dimensions by which to squeeze together. What does that imply? It means that our universe model should account for more than 3 dimensions, right?
So what is an onion but a bunch of layers centered around the middle? The middle, ladies and gentlemen, IS the big bang. That's where it all started. The shockwave or whatever you want to call it, is the expanding sphere which makes up our universe. If we were 2-dimensional beings, we would exist on the edge of this expanding sphere. It'd be like we were a tiny blip on an expanding balloon. What happens when the balloon inflates? All points on the balloon move away from each other. This explains the red light frequency from stars that implies that everything in our galaxy is spreading apart. It also implies that if you went in a straight line away from the earth, you'd simply arrive back at the earth eventually.
Time is the dimension which leads you towards or away from the center of this 'onion', with each layer representing various times. Gravity is the effect that this expanding sphere has on heavier objects like how a tightly pulled fisherman's net bends when it collects fish in the water (if you notice, the fish will all collect in the middle where all the other fish have been caught).
So in theory, everytime a man goes out into space out of reach of the earth's gravity, he actually goes into the future a little. The problem of course being that for all intents and purposes, nobody can tell, because one can only tell one is in the future when he has a point of reference. When the astronaut returns to earth, he again decends in time and it's all exactly as if he had never time traveled to begin with.
The black hole would be something so heavy that you actually would go back in time so far that you'd reach the beginning of the universe where, of course, time as we know is stopped.
One thing I'm not sure of is why does it feel like we're in a very specific frame of time? My only explanation is because we are on the edge of the universe as we speak, surfing the shockwave which created the entire universe. There'd be no way to prove my theory for one small exception. If it is true my theory, you will never be able to find the center of the universe. The current theory suggests that there is a gigantic black hole where the big bang occurred. I don't believe it exists in our time frame because like an onion, you can't find the center of the onion on its surface.
As for the universe making up a neutron within another universe, I suppose there's no reason not to think so. The galaxies and solar systems do tend to show similarities to particles on a microscale. They say that compound bonds are the strongest between atoms, so maybe all the mass in the universe makes up a strong 'gravity' bond with other universes ? Who knows? I do enjoy thinking up such scenarios. <img src="style_emoticons/<#EMO_DIR#>/smile-fix.gif" style="vertical-align:middle" emoid=":)" border="0" alt="smile-fix.gif" />
I had a crazy proof that the universe is not infinite.
What is a number when you divide by infinity? Zero, right? Doesn't matter how big the number is, by comparison to infinity it is zero.
So, that would imply that the amount of space that the earth and our solar system fill is 0, zero, nil, nada, zilch, goose egg if the universe is infinite.
Therefore, if the universe were infinite, we would not exist. Therefore the universe is not infinite.
Soul_RiderMod BeanJoin Date: 2004-06-19Member: 29388Members, Constellation, Squad Five Blue
I really like that idea.
I've also heard the onion theory before, but will have to read up more on that again.
I do enjoy these discussions.
I have all the proof I need for my theories, because they are my theories. This is what my current experience and MY viewpoint on life tells me is correct. This does not mean it is the whole truth, mearly a portion of the truth, MY truth. I am also aware that as I learn more, then apply critical thinking and logic to it, I can then com-pare and discover what my new truth is. Yes you are always right, but so is everyone else. These sort of discussions are good, because if you already decide everyone else is right, and you are right too, you have to conmbine all the theories until you get to the only one that can be true, no matter how obsurd it may appear. As you learn more and more, you constantly evolve your theory, improving it. If someone offers a counter argument, do not deflate it, but accept it as true, and try to incorporate it into your current beliefs. If it doesn't fit, never discard it or rubbish it, because you will likely come across other evidence which when combined, will make that fit into your universe.
That is a truly open mind, it never deny's anything.
Stopped reading after the first page. I think anytime's taking this too seriously, and the rest of you are worse.
Anytime likes to focus on the <b>science</b> aspect of <i>science fiction</i>, fair enough. Keep in mind the part where it says <b>fiction</b>, so you're allowed to take some liberties (so long as it's in the realm of plausible- or if not, acceptable; 'realism within the context' or 'internally consistent'). FTL travel is not 'plausible', but it's 'acceptable' because the standard in science fiction says 'yes', so it's consistent, it's what we expect. Forget teleporting soldiers, how are we meant to explain away how humanity has managed to spread out among the galaxy (and maintain communication among them) without FTL travel/communication. Unless you can think of a way to rationalise those, then I say hell, why not have FTL travel?
<!--quoteo(post=1688432:date=Sep 19 2008, 12:15 PM:name=Hawkeye)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Hawkeye @ Sep 19 2008, 12:15 PM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=1688432"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->I had a crazy proof that the universe is not infinite.
What is a number when you divide by infinity? Zero, right? Doesn't matter how big the number is, by comparison to infinity it is zero.
So, that would imply that the amount of space that the earth and our solar system fill is 0, zero, nil, nada, zilch, goose egg if the universe is infinite.
Therefore, if the universe were infinite, we would not exist. Therefore the universe is not infinite.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd--> Except what you just said makes 0 sense. Infinity and 0 are not real numbers, but concepts made by humans, therefore doing any maths with them is pedantic, childish and irrelevant to anything.
<!--quoteo(post=1688442:date=Sep 19 2008, 01:49 PM:name=Harimau)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Harimau @ Sep 19 2008, 01:49 PM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=1688442"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->Stopped reading after the first page. I think anytime's taking this too seriously, and the rest of you are worse.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd--> I'm not taking anything seriously, just posting for the hell of it basically.
<!--quoteo--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE</div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->Anytime likes to focus on the <b>science</b> aspect of <i>science fiction</i>, fair enough. Keep in mind the part where it says <b>fiction</b>, so you're allowed to take some liberties (so long as it's in the realm of plausible- or if not, acceptable; 'realism within the context' or 'internally consistent'). FTL travel is not 'plausible', but it's 'acceptable' because the standard in science fiction says 'yes', so it's consistent, it's what we expect. Forget teleporting soldiers, how are we meant to explain away how humanity has managed to spread out among the galaxy (and maintain communication among them) without FTL travel/communication. Unless you can think of a way to rationalise those, then I say hell, why not have FTL travel?<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd--> 1) What you're proposing has no science in it. Its not about focusing on science, its about HAVING science and scientifically literate aspects in your work. Science is something you either adhere to completely, or you disregard it and write a fantasy novel. Trekism/Starwarsism is a disease plaguing science fiction.
2) Spreading ourselves among the galaxy would take a long while, but is still achievable within a 100 year period providing we can travel at .99c I always imagined the star systems being clustered close together where the story takes place and most of the populated worlds are inside a single system to facilitate communication.
Soul_RiderMod BeanJoin Date: 2004-06-19Member: 29388Members, Constellation, Squad Five Blue
<!--quoteo(post=1688442:date=Sep 19 2008, 02:49 PM:name=Harimau)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Harimau @ Sep 19 2008, 02:49 PM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=1688442"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->Stopped reading after the first page. I think anytime's taking this too seriously, and the rest of you are worse.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Really?
Well you shouldn't make assumptions about what we have been discussing for several pages if you haven't read it. We are actually discussing theories about teh way the universe is and works, not neccesarily directly related to NS.
Maybe you could have a read sometime and contribute to the discussion..
<!--quoteo(post=1688432:date=Sep 19 2008, 05:15 AM:name=Hawkeye)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Hawkeye @ Sep 19 2008, 05:15 AM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=1688432"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->I had a crazy proof that the universe is not infinite.
What is a number when you divide by infinity? Zero, right? Doesn't matter how big the number is, by comparison to infinity it is zero.
So, that would imply that the amount of space that the earth and our solar system fill is 0, zero, nil, nada, zilch, goose egg if the universe is infinite.
Therefore, if the universe were infinite, we would not exist. Therefore the universe is not infinite.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Where did you come up with the idea that we are not 'allowed' to be infinitely small?
Also, the proof is totally illogical anyways <img src="style_emoticons/<#EMO_DIR#>/smile-fix.gif" style="vertical-align:middle" emoid=":)" border="0" alt="smile-fix.gif" />
<!--quoteo(post=1688432:date=Sep 19 2008, 12:15 PM:name=Hawkeye)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Hawkeye @ Sep 19 2008, 12:15 PM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=1688432"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->I had a crazy proof that the universe is not infinite.
What is a number when you divide by infinity? Zero, right? Doesn't matter how big the number is, by comparison to infinity it is zero.
So, that would imply that the amount of space that the earth and our solar system fill is 0, zero, nil, nada, zilch, goose egg if the universe is infinite.
Therefore, if the universe were infinite, we would not exist. Therefore the universe is not infinite.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
SewlekThe programmer previously known as SchimmelJoin Date: 2003-05-13Member: 16247Members, NS2 Developer, NS2 Playtester, Squad Five Gold, Subnautica Developer
as far as i can remember analysis its legal. but im not pro (and never had been) and its already 4 years ago I had to solve such things <img src="style_emoticons/<#EMO_DIR#>/tounge.gif" style="vertical-align:middle" emoid=":p" border="0" alt="tounge.gif" />
What it is is that you cannot determine the limit of something by doing specific operations with infinity and zero.
That is to say, the limit of infinity/0, 0/infinity, 0/0, infinity/infinity, infinity^0, 0^infinity are all indeterminate forms.
What they say is to take the derivative and determine the limit that way.
For example, the limit of x^2 / x as x approaches infinity is indeterminate because you wind up with infinity^2 / infinity. So you take the derivative, which is 1 and reapply the problem, so the limit of 1 as x approaches infinity is 1.
However, X / infinity or infinity / X, 0 / X, X / 0 are have definitive answers if X is a member of the real number set.
Our world can be measured by a finite distance. If the universe is infinite, then by comparison we are nothing.
You might think it is a silly argument, but if you think about it, everything is logical from a mathematical standpoint until you make the assumption that the universe is infinite, which implies that the universe cannot be infinite if this argument is not true. Dealing with infinity in general is rather silly in my opinion as you arrive at absurd conclusions. Anyone ever see the disproving prove?
a = b a^2 = ab a^2 - b^2 = ab - b^2 (a + b)(a - b) = b(a - b) (a + b)(a - b)/(a - b) = b(a - b)/(a - b) a + b = b b + b = b 2b = b 2 = 1
How did that happen? Simple. I divided by a - b, which is 0. What happens when you divide by zero? You get infinity. Infinity derives silly conclusions, which is reason enough in my opinion to exclude the possibilty that our universe is infinite or else we wouldn't exist.
And Soul_Rider, I totally agree with you. I'm not one to believe that nothing can be proven. If you define a triangle as a three-sided figure, then a four-sided triangle will never exist. Logic, unlike the rest of empirical evidence, cannot be thrown out because it cannot be proven (assuming valid logic is used).
So, to disagree with conclusions, you must inevitably disagree with the premises. In this case, A) The universe is infinite. B) X / infinity = 0 where X is a finite real number. C) Our known galaxy can be measured by a finite real number. Conclusion: We cannot exist.
Therefore, you must either agree with the conclusion or object to one of the premises (I'd go with A, but that's just me).
<!--quoteo(post=1688568:date=Sep 22 2008, 03:51 AM:name=Hawkeye)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Hawkeye @ Sep 22 2008, 03:51 AM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=1688568"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->For example, the limit of x^2 / x as x approaches infinity is indeterminate because you wind up with infinity^2 / infinity. So you take the derivative, which is 1 and reapply the problem, so the limit of 1 as x approaches infinity is 1.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
I think you're invoking l'Hopital's rule incorrectly. The calculation would surmount to:
lim(x->infinity) (xx)/(x) = (infinity * infinity)/(infinity), thus apply l'hopital's rule--> lim(x->infinity) (2x)/(1) = infinity still, doing it again, 2/0, etc. Don't know how you're getting the answer as being 1.
<!--quoteo(post=1688568:date=Sep 22 2008, 03:51 AM:name=Hawkeye)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Hawkeye @ Sep 22 2008, 03:51 AM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=1688568"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->Our world can be measured by a finite distance. If the universe is infinite, then by comparison we are nothing.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
It seems that this is your real conclusion, as opposed to claiming "we don't exist." While certainly we typically will say for any constant c that c/infinity is about equal to 0, we won't say that c doesn't exist, simply that it's extremely small by comparison to infinity. To quote yourself a few posts ago: <!--quoteo--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE</div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->Doesn't matter how big the number is, by comparison to infinity it is zero.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
<!--quoteo--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE</div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->I think you're invoking l'Hopital's rule incorrectly. The calculation would surmount to:
lim(x->infinity) (xx)/(x) = (infinity * infinity)/(infinity), thus apply l'hopital's rule--> lim(x->infinity) (2x)/(1) = infinity still, doing it again, 2/0, etc. Don't know how you're getting the answer as being 1.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Derivative of x^2/x is not 2x. That'd be the derivative of x^2. x^2 / x is (at least until x approaches 0) x. Derivative of x is 1.
<!--quoteo--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE</div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->It seems that this is your real conclusion, as opposed to claiming "we don't exist." While certainly we typically will say for any constant c that c/infinity is about equal to 0, we won't say that c doesn't exist, simply that it's extremely small by comparison to infinity. To quote yourself a few posts ago:<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
For any constant c/infinity = 0, then 0 * infinity = c, right? What does that mean? Everything from nothing, nothing from everything. Mathematically, it doesn't even make sense. It's essentially saying you can create any number constant c by multiplying infinity by zero.
So, if I wanted to create constant c where c = 0, I should be able to, right? To say c <i>has</i> to be equal to the measure of our galaxy is false logic. c represents *any* finite number, and so infinity * 0 gets you any finite number. So I could perform the operation infinity * 0 and get the number 17, and then perform it again and arrive at 26. 17 != 26, so it's not feasible. It's like saying true = false and existence = non-existence. You arrive at conclusions which cannot be fathomed, much less reasoned with.
It's like when you come to the conclusion in a prove that true = false and then decide that it isn't your proof which is wrong but that true really is false. I suppose you could do so, but you'd only tear down the entire foundation by which our modern understanding of science is based upon to do it. If I wanted to prove that a four-sided triangle existed, I suppose that's how I'd go about it. I'd divide the number of sides on a triangle by infinity and then multiply by infinity to arrive at four, thus proving that 3 = 4. Clearly this is not an acceptable operation, but what's less evident is that assuming that a world exists which has no bounds cannot be rationally made sense of, because of the implications it would have in mathematics.
I apologize if I sound like I'm flaming your post. I'm really not, but I just wanted to be thorough in my explanation.
<!--quoteo--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE</div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->Where did you get the idea that 1/infinity = 0?
The very sentence "1/infinity = 0" has no meaning. Why? Because "infinity" is a concept, NOT a number. It is a concept that means "limitlessness." As such, it cannot be used with any mathematical operators. The symbols of +, -, x, and / are arithmetic operators, and we can only use them for numbers.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
There you have it. If 1/infinity = 0 makes as much sense as 1/justice = 5, then you already know what I'm trying to prove: it's not possible for the universe to be limitless.
<!--quoteo(post=1688652:date=Sep 23 2008, 05:01 AM:name=Hawkeye)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Hawkeye @ Sep 23 2008, 05:01 AM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=1688652"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->Derivative of x^2/x is not 2x. That'd be the derivative of x^2. x^2 / x is (at least until x approaches 0) x. Derivative of x is 1.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
As I stated, I believe you're misinterpreting L'Hopital's rule. Basically, it says that if for any function h(x) = f(x)/(g(x), and that either for lim(x->c) f(x) = lim(x->c) g(x) = 0 or infinity, then, lim(x->c) h(x) = lim(x->c) f'(x)/g'(x). In simple terms, if both the top and the bottom are approaching either 0 or infinity, then the limit is the derivative of the top divided by the derivative of the bottom -- there's a stark difference between the derivative of h(x) vs. f'(x)/g'(x).
If you're still not sure about this, draw the graph of y=x^2/x. You'll see that as x gets larger, y gets larger, and certainly that as x gets larger, y doesn't approach 1.
Further reading on L'Hopital's rule: <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/L%27H%C3%B4pital%27s_rule" target="_blank">http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/L%27H%C3%B4pital%27s_rule</a>
Not necessarily, and if you don't like anytime's reasoning, as stated above, please consider the following:
For any constant, c > 0, c is not equal to 0. Thus, for any number k, c + k is not equal to 0 + k, c - k is not equal to 0 - k, and furthermore, c/k is not equal to 0/k. If we're considering infinity to be a number, then c / infinity is not equal to 0 / infinity is not equal to 0.
Let f(x) = x^2/x, as mentioned above. Clearly, f(0) is undefined. lim(x->0) f(x) = 0 / 0. Invoking L'Hopital's rule gives us: lim(x->0) 2x / 1 = 0. And thus, undefined is not equal to 0.
Let f(x) = x(x-1)/(x-1). As above, f(0) is undefined. lim(x->0) x(x-1)/(x-1) is 0/0, which is undefined. Factoring f(x) first, though, we get lim(x->0) x = 0. As with above, 0 is not equal to undefined.
Let f(x) = if x != 1, x, otherwise 3. I don't feel like proving it, but lim(x->1) f(x) = 1, but f(x) = 3. Again, 3 != 1.
I hope this helps. Further reading: <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Limit_(mathematics)" target="_blank">http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Limit_(mathematics)</a>
SewlekThe programmer previously known as SchimmelJoin Date: 2003-05-13Member: 16247Members, NS2 Developer, NS2 Playtester, Squad Five Gold, Subnautica Developer
maths is something WE created. Its an "ideal" system.
Someone mentioned before (I think it was related to LHC experiments) that our reality "maybe" has extra dimensions. If so, how we could ever say that maths is the ultimate way to describe everything? Its difficult to express what Im meaning, since english is not my native language. Hope you still got the point. (its like how you can describe a cube when you have only 2 dimensions? you can try around but you would end up with the result that you need a third dimension, and we only know it because we are living in at least 3 dimension, otherwise a thing like a "cube" would be just pure theory)
K, we got our math expert, F4tManMGS2 to sort things out for us. <img src="style_emoticons/<#EMO_DIR#>/smile-fix.gif" style="vertical-align:middle" emoid=":)" border="0" alt="smile-fix.gif" />
You're probably right on that. x^2 / x doesn't approach 1, so there's something I'm not doing correctly. I just figured if you plugged in infinity for x^2 / x, you wind up with infinity * infinity / infinity, which is not something which can be computed. So as such, you'd take the derivative.
And mathematics, yes, is something we created, but to an extent. Did triangles exist before we defined a triangle? Did a sphere exist before we defined a sphere? I'd be inclined to say yes, because these are definitions, not inventions. By definition, we describe the rules which make up a particular component, existing or not.
So when we say 1 + 1 = 2, in the sense that we created the syntax for expressing this expression, yes we invented. In the sense that we are expressing a theory based on empirical data (if you take one apple and another apple and place them together, how many do you have?), yes we did invent that theory (though granted it is a theory so well-established, nobody even considers that it could be wrong). However, the property that you get 2 apples when you place one apple with another has been a real one proven time and time again, and to say that is wrong is to basically say you can get three apples by putting two of them together.
So yes, to a large extent mathematics is invented, but they're based on axioms which are so solid that you might as well be claiming that we're not really here and we don't really exist at all. Technically we can't even prove we exist, but seeing how that would put a little damper on everything as we know it, we just assume we do and continue about our ways.
As far as mathematics and logic are concerned, you can't really get any surer than that. These are the theories by which all others are founded upon, and while you're not guaranteed to always get two apples when you put one apple with another apple, I don't think you have to worry about having too many apples to eat for lunch anytime soon.
So, with that said, for the intents and purposes of this thread, we will make the following assumptions:
<i>We, the creatures of this planet, the planet itself, and the universe as we can see it <b>do</b> exist and can be perceived. One apple put with another apple gives you two apples. True is not false. Britney Spears is not a virgin.</i>
If someone disagrees with you, punch them square in the nose an ask them why they cared if they didn't exist. If they didn't exist, their nose most certainly wouldn't exist, neither would their CNS.
This is how you argue with religious zealots too. If you attack them and ask them why it happened to them, they will tell you that they deserved it. Sadomaso!
It is true that a triangle" and "sphere" are just definitions we created. On the other hand, your inclination that triangles and spheres exist is "most likely" wrong. There are objects where can be modeled very accurately to a sphere, but in practice, humans have never seen one. This is equally true of infinity and cannot simply be tossed around.
Never the less, your argument relies on the premise that something cannot be infinitely smaller than something else. This premise is false. This relies on the assumption of some kind of "relative volume principle", that doesn't exist. Furthermore, your false principle that you made up relies on the assumption that things cannot have 0 volume, this is also false.
Assuming there is a 1m^3 ball inside of a 100m^3 room.
Increase the volume of the room to be 1000m^3. The volume of the ball does not change, it remains 1m^3.
Now increase the volume of the room to 100000000000m^3. The volume of the ball does not change, it remains 1m^3.
Now increase the volume of the room infinitely large. The volume of the ball does not change, it remains 1m^3.
It is obvious that the size of the object does not get smaller as the size of the room increases. If your proof was true, it would also follow that:
A 1m^3 ball sits in a 100m^3 room. That same ball is removed from that room and placed inside a room that is 1000m^3. The ball is now 0.1m^3. This is obviously false, the size of balls don't change when they change room. (assuming the temperature of the room is constant)
SewlekThe programmer previously known as SchimmelJoin Date: 2003-05-13Member: 16247Members, NS2 Developer, NS2 Playtester, Squad Five Gold, Subnautica Developer
as we know our mathematics is consistant, the point of my post was "as we know". Didnt want to say anything about if its true or not. We can apply our rules on almost everything, thats enough for our horizont (aswell as for mine).
The discussion about infinity is somehow senseless, since we dont know whats the smallest object and the biggest in our "reality" and if they even exist. We dont know if infinity is something we have to calculate with, or if its only applyable in our ideal mathematic system.
but, I would appreciate to go back on initial topic (well it wass not offtopic in the name of this thread). We should answer: how is phase tech working? How is fade blinking / "fading"? Why can skulks explode, lerks produce spores / umbra etc.?
I think in NS2 both races will be able to use new abilities, weapons. Why they improved everything? Did marines underestimated the khaara and vise versa in "NS1"? Or is it a roll back in timeline and NS2 happens before than NS1? Ok thats something that relies on the developement team, it would be nice if they would release some story about it <img src="style_emoticons/<#EMO_DIR#>/smile-fix.gif" style="vertical-align:middle" emoid=":)" border="0" alt="smile-fix.gif" />
<!--quoteo--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE</div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->I simpler way to put it....
Assuming there is a 1m^3 ball inside of a 100m^3 room.
Increase the volume of the room to be 1000m^3. The volume of the ball does not change, it remains 1m^3.
Now increase the volume of the room to 100000000000m^3. The volume of the ball does not change, it remains 1m^3.
Now increase the volume of the room infinitely large. The volume of the ball does not change, it remains 1m^3.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
True, but you're always dealing with finite measurements. The rules change when you use infinity.
To give you a stupid example, take a standard right-angle triangle whose length and width are 100 meters.
If you travel the exact length and width of those 100 meters, you go a total distance of 200 meters, correct?
What would be the distance if you simply went from point A to point B? It'd be the square root of 100^2 + 100^2, or approximately 141 meters, right?
200 > 141, right? 200 != 141.
Alright, so now imagine that instead of walking the full length followed by walking the full width, you walk 50 meters length, followed by 50 meters width, followed by 50 meters length, followed by 50 meters width. Still 200 meters you walked, right? Rather than taking one turn, you took 3.
Apply this again. Suppose you walk 25 meters length, then 25 meters width, then 25 meters length, then 25 meters width, etc. until you arrived at your destination? Still 200 meters you walked, right? Took you 7 turns.
Now take the limit as the number of turns approaches infinity. What you'd get is not jagged edges but a single straight line leading directly to your destination. We said that a straight line from point A to point B was 141 meters, didn't we? So how come it still takes me 200 meters?
200 != 141 I thought? It might surprise you, but I can apply the same thought process to any two numbers you could give me and prove that the two numbers are equal by throwing infinity into the mix. Apparently when infinity comes into the equation, they are the same number, which is why you cannot use finite numbers to prove that infinite smallness can exist. The rules of the game change completely. A 1m^3 ball is still a 1m^3 ball as long as it exists in a finite space. In an infinite space, that ball may be 1m^3 ball or it may be 1x10^100 m^3 ball.
Take the example from the link on infinity for an example. If you have a chocolate bar and divide it into infinite pieces, where did all the pieces go? It's not that they're really really small pieces.. they no longer exist! When the world is infinite, you divide the world into infinite subsections, thereby dividing it into nonexistence. The only reason we're here is because somewhere there's a border to our universe which determines our scale and position. Without a border, there can be no position or scale, not really. You may use the standard X/Y coordinate plane as an example of an infinite space with position and scale, but that too is a concept. In reality, it is on a piece of paper with a limited width and height. If you tried to simulate it on a computer, eventually you'd run out of memory to be able to store the coordinates of any arbitrary object (because for every number you *could* save on a computer, I could give you one that it couldn't, I promise you).
Infinity isn't just a really big number. It's an unfathomablely large number, in fact, by its very definition it's unfathomable. If it were simply a finite number, it would be manageable, but it is in fact infinite, not finite. Ever wonder why according to modern space-time theory that you can never surpass the speed of light? It is because it is yet another boundary. I'd be willing to bet without that boundary, it'd be the same as if the world were infinite.
<!--quoteo--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE</div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->Never the less, your argument relies on the premise that something cannot be infinitely smaller than something else. This premise is false. This relies on the assumption of some kind of "relative volume principle", that doesn't exist. Furthermore, your false principle that you made up relies on the assumption that things cannot have 0 volume, this is also false.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Something 'infinitely smaller' than something else is non existent. You don't have to believe me, but by the very definition of infinite you make it so. It's like saying a four-sided triangle exists. You can insist on it all you want, but you've logically defined an impossible object. Maybe we'll never know if the world is infinite or not, just like we'll never know whether a four-sided triangle really exists, but I think you can rest assure that the world is finite and that four-sided triangles do not exist.
Tell me one thing that has 0 volume which everyone here will agree exists. One thing.
<!--quoteo(post=1688831:date=Sep 25 2008, 09:54 AM:name=Hawkeye)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Hawkeye @ Sep 25 2008, 09:54 AM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=1688831"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->Tell me one thing that has 0 volume which everyone here will agree exists. One thing.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd--> Great post Hawkeye!
I know that someone is going to use a black hole as an example of 0 volume, but that isn't actually true. Black holes have volume much like subatomic particles have volume. A tiny volume, but still a volume. You can't in actuality have 0 of something, because that would mean you wouldn't have it. 0 volume would mean that the object in question doesn't exist. 0 is simply not a number.
But yea, I'd like us to scale back our nerdy discussions and go back to debating the mechanisms of space travel in NS, phase tech, fade blink and other stuff.
Comments
Exactly. <img src="style_emoticons/<#EMO_DIR#>/biggrin-fix.gif" style="vertical-align:middle" emoid=":D" border="0" alt="biggrin-fix.gif" /><!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
I remember that Ive just read once or twice that thread about "HOVARING", and its too long ago. But I think the guy who suggested this idea had VERY GOOD explanations!
Lets rename fade to "scorpian", should be explanation enough.
na i dont know, reading physics related stuff is just hobby of mine, my knowledge is not really great nor I made serious attempts to understand completely.
I would stick on the idea that the fade can manipulate his magnetic field, or mass or whatever, in order to steer and "HOVAR" around. <img src="style_emoticons/<#EMO_DIR#>/biggrin-fix.gif" style="vertical-align:middle" emoid=":D" border="0" alt="biggrin-fix.gif" />
I had similar thoughts about "whats the smallest object", "whats the greatest object" and I believe at a specific point everything is repeating itself over and over again.
I would not say now in neutrons or electrons (or in other direction the edge of universe), I guess even alot smaller than quarks ( or alot further than edge of universe) and we maybe never would discover it. But I have to admit that my thoughts go more in a philosophical direction <img src="style_emoticons/<#EMO_DIR#>/smile-fix.gif" style="vertical-align:middle" emoid=":)" border="0" alt="smile-fix.gif" />
<img src="style_emoticons/<#EMO_DIR#>/smile-fix.gif" style="vertical-align:middle" emoid=":)" border="0" alt="smile-fix.gif" />
It is true because old ideas don't just disappear. Sure you will come up with nearly frictionless magnetic ball bearings, does this mean that regular ball bearings become obsolete? No. There are always positives to every technology. Is smokeless powder better than black powder? Sure! But would you have the means of producing smokeless powder in an isolated environment? Hah.
<!--quoteo--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE</div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->Time is made up. It is a concept related purely to the Earth. It is an undisputed fact, that if you were to propel yourself away from the Earth in a straight line, fast enough, you could arrive back on Earth 40 years later, having only been travelling for 10 years. You would have only aged 10 years, while everyone on Earth, would have aged 40.
People often go down the route of saying that the faster you went, the shorter the time would be. They say eventually, if you were to go fast enough, you would go back in time. This is a fascinating theory, but that is just one small aspect of the greater Theories that could arrive from that very Theory of Relativity. I wish people would look at the other exciting alternatives that this could also bring.
This is my <b>'Theory of the Universe'</b>.
Time becomes slower the further from Earth you get. This is because time is actually a measure of movement through space relative to Earth.(Our Religions were lambasted for putting us at the centre of God's Universe, but it's alright for Science to put the Earth at the centre of the Universe? but i'm not going to go through that here.) There must come a point, far enough away from Earth where time no longer exists, where it has slowed down to the point of totally stopping. This is the end of the Universe, the edge of our Universe.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Its not how far away from earth you are, its actually your speed relative to the speed of light. If you're 99999999999999999999999 gazzilion light years away from earth, but still moving at the speed earth is moving relative to the speed of light, time moves the same for you. There is no way you can move faster than the speed of light (a little well-known fact) therefore you will never travel backwards in time.
<!--quoteo--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE</div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->So the question is often asked, what lies at the end of our Universe?
Do you want to know?
Alright, I'll tell you...
If you were suddenly to zoom out of our Universe, by scrolling the mouse wheel down, so that you could see our Universe in it's entirety, about an inch round in the centre of your screen, you would realise that our entire Universe, is just a Neutron in a much larger Universe. If you zoom in many times inside our Universe, and get down to the Neutrons, then zoom into them, you will find everyone of them, is it's own Universe.
Science Fact or Fiction?
It's definitely not fantasy, because it is in the scientific realm, and fits entirely within the spectrum of the theory of relativity.
Yes it goes beyond the theory of relativity, much further beyond, but it stays within it's laws.
As our Universe is just a Neutron in another larger Universe, does the Theory of Relativity still hold there? Or if you shrink into the tiny Universes that we call Neutrons, does the Theory still hold there?
Even if we find the Theory of Relativity works in every Neutron, Does this mean the Universes known as Electrons are the same? As they have a different charge, they could be very different Universes with very Different 'Laws'.
Even if we accept the Theory of Relativity is present in the Electron Universes, and every other universe, whether up or down or sideways, there are many other factors to take into consideration. What happens when our universe, in it's charged state, is joined with another? What sort of things may occur then?<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
I have always suspected the same, but we have no proof. Get proof and then we have a solid theory.
<!--quoteo--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE</div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->Blackholes? Simply this would be a point of connection between Universes, the Neutrons, Electrons and Protons, the differing polarised charges attracting to the point of connection, from both sides so all lines lead to the centre of the Black Hole. That's a basic piece of relativiy, called magnetism, and it is working with our Universe, as well as in the Universe.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Black holes are singularities formed by the collapse of individual particles on the subatomic level. What would happen to you if a plane was to land on top of your face? The exact same thing happens on the subatomic level. There is no evidence that it goes any farther than just that. A goo of particles smashed together into some kind of degenerate matter.
<!--quoteo--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE</div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->Folds in the fabric of Space-Time? Highly likely when you consider we are constaltnly being bundled and banged together with other simarly or oppositely charged Universes. If these exist, then time travel is possible.
You call it Science Fiction, I call it Science Fact. It cannot be disproven, because it is within the bounds of relativity, and requires no additional laws or oversights, that some theories require you to believe.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
This suffers from the god syndrome. Show me proof and then I will believe it, not the other way around. Theories are guilty until proven innocent.
<!--quoteo--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE</div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->Science Fiction, Fact and Fantasy are NOT seperate entities, you just perceive them to be. If you realise that the greatest scientific discoveries ever made, were made by tests not working as expected, the scientists going back with an open mind, and recording what actually happened, made startling changes to our pictures of the universe. Some of the most basic truths we now hold in science, were ridiculed when first discovered. The scientists knew what they discovered. Just because you can't see a way something fits into the universe, doesn't mean someone else out there can't.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Wait, what? When was the last time a scientific theory based on... the scientific method which was proven by said method disputed?
- Never. Church disapproval doesn't count because priests =!= scientists -
<!--quoteo--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE</div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->You are all of course absolutely right, because that is what you want from the game. Unfortunately, the other people who await this game, are not you, and therefore, too have certain things they hope for.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
I do realize this. You must also acknowledge the fact that game developers won't care about you or your little posts. Posting on various internet forums and craigs list is just something I do when I come back drunk and empty handed.
<!--quoteo--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE</div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->I truly believe that within the laws of the Universe, ANYTHING IS POSSIBLE. People need to stop trying to put Humans at the top of the knowledge tree, and realise we are just a small part of an unbelievably big Universe, which is just a tiny Neutron in another Universe, and so on.
Remember the path goes up as well as down. It never ends.
Peace to you all
Andy
----EDIT------
Of course, when you realise the sheer insignificance of Humans, you realise their greatness at the same time. It also becomes blindingly obvious that 'Aliens' exist, and from this point forward shall be science fact.
What they look like is entirely up to you.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Heh. Statement 1 is about being insignificant. (which is completely true) Statement 2 is about alien life.
Wait what? Where is the connection? We know nothing about the probability of life, why assume anything about it?
<!--quoteo--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE</div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->My theory is further strengthened by the fact that we know that Neutrons etc, are nearly completely empty space, with a tiny percentage of matter, that is energy operating at a 'lower' frequency than the 'space' between.
Compare that to our own Universe, nearly all empty space, with a tiny percentage of matter (planets, suns etc) floating about in it.
Notice any similarities?
Peace Again
Andy<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
How do we know that neutrons are mostly empty space? From what I've heard, a certain number of quarks make up a neutron. Haven't heard about any tests which detect quarks though or the composition of subatomic particles. We DO know that atoms are mostly empty space and we have tested this. The atomic radius is quite large, but the nucleus which consists of neutrons and protons is VERY dense. Once again, I will only believe something if scientific proof is present. You on the other hand... not so much.
Actually, if time speeds up as you're moving faster, perhaps it is not that you're having to approach a barrier moving so fast but more that you cannot keep up with the acceleration of this barrier which time itself naturally continues in perpetuation. It's a subtle difference. It's like the difference in saying that you could not beat your friend in a race because he outran you as opposed to saying that time flew faster for him, and therefore was able to go farther distance in that time than you could have made moving at the same velocity. Of course that wouldn't be true here on earth because time for all intents and purposes is constant.
However, where is it written that time is constant everywhere in the universe? If you were a captain of a spaceship facing in the same direction as another spaceship with the same exact model 1 light year away and both started accelerating at the same velocity for 15 minutes (according to your watch onboard the ship), it might be the case that you hail your rival's ship only to find out they've long since abandoned waiting for you as 60 years have passed for them waiting for you to arrive.
You might say it's the same disadvantage one would have in a race to see who could run farther in 5 minutes with you running up a steep hill and your rival running down one. Only difference really is that time is not a dimension easily perceptualized by humans. It's easy to forget this aspect of our universe, but according to the Theory of Relativity, not only is it possible, it's very likely indeed that it is this way.
<!--quoteo--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE</div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->This is my 'Theory of the Universe'.
Time becomes slower the further from Earth you get. This is because time is actually a measure of movement through space relative to Earth.(Our Religions were lambasted for putting us at the centre of God's Universe, but it's alright for Science to put the Earth at the centre of the Universe? but i'm not going to go through that here.) There must come a point, far enough away from Earth where time no longer exists, where it has slowed down to the point of totally stopping. This is the end of the Universe, the edge of our Universe.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Here's my take on your theory. First, I don't think the Earth is a position particularly fascinating in the scheme of the universe. Perhaps you could argue that we were lucky in that we got positioned next to a star for energy, but I would argue that if it weren't so, we wouldn't be here discussing our fortune in the grand scheme of our positioning in the universe. <img src="style_emoticons/<#EMO_DIR#>/smile-fix.gif" style="vertical-align:middle" emoid=":)" border="0" alt="smile-fix.gif" />
Second, there's no reason to assume you're wrong about the edge of the universe. In fact, I agree that perhaps the whole reason you could never reach the edge of the universe is because you'd be making time move <i>faster</i> at higher speeds and would therefore make the barrier that much 'faster' (or seemingly so, except rather than more distance over time, it's distance over less time).
However, I have reason to believe the model of the universe is like an onion. Again, bear with me and my incredibly oversimplified model of the universe, because it's probably <b>not</b> an onion, but for the purposes of explanation... Think about it. When the big bang occured, we simply assumed it was all happening in 3d space. We assume all mass in this universe was infinitessimally small by which an explosion so enormous proceeded, that it created everything as we know it in the universe. Scientists already suspect something funny was going on here from the moment that the Big Bang theory was presented. What they can't seem to explain (and partly the reason for the world's largest particle collider finished recently) is what properties did this mass have at the time of the explosion, because it isn't consistent with what we know the behavior of mass to be like. What if all the mass weren't ever really all there to begin with?
I'll explain. My theory is that the center of the known universe at the time of the big bang was not in three dimensions but multiple dimensions. This would explain the mass problem, as it means the mass has more than three dimensions by which to squeeze together. What does that imply? It means that our universe model should account for more than 3 dimensions, right?
So what is an onion but a bunch of layers centered around the middle? The middle, ladies and gentlemen, IS the big bang. That's where it all started. The shockwave or whatever you want to call it, is the expanding sphere which makes up our universe. If we were 2-dimensional beings, we would exist on the edge of this expanding sphere. It'd be like we were a tiny blip on an expanding balloon. What happens when the balloon inflates? All points on the balloon move away from each other. This explains the red light frequency from stars that implies that everything in our galaxy is spreading apart. It also implies that if you went in a straight line away from the earth, you'd simply arrive back at the earth eventually.
Time is the dimension which leads you towards or away from the center of this 'onion', with each layer representing various times. Gravity is the effect that this expanding sphere has on heavier objects like how a tightly pulled fisherman's net bends when it collects fish in the water (if you notice, the fish will all collect in the middle where all the other fish have been caught).
So in theory, everytime a man goes out into space out of reach of the earth's gravity, he actually goes into the future a little. The problem of course being that for all intents and purposes, nobody can tell, because one can only tell one is in the future when he has a point of reference. When the astronaut returns to earth, he again decends in time and it's all exactly as if he had never time traveled to begin with.
The black hole would be something so heavy that you actually would go back in time so far that you'd reach the beginning of the universe where, of course, time as we know is stopped.
One thing I'm not sure of is why does it feel like we're in a very specific frame of time? My only explanation is because we are on the edge of the universe as we speak, surfing the shockwave which created the entire universe. There'd be no way to prove my theory for one small exception. If it is true my theory, you will never be able to find the center of the universe. The current theory suggests that there is a gigantic black hole where the big bang occurred. I don't believe it exists in our time frame because like an onion, you can't find the center of the onion on its surface.
As for the universe making up a neutron within another universe, I suppose there's no reason not to think so. The galaxies and solar systems do tend to show similarities to particles on a microscale. They say that compound bonds are the strongest between atoms, so maybe all the mass in the universe makes up a strong 'gravity' bond with other universes ? Who knows? I do enjoy thinking up such scenarios. <img src="style_emoticons/<#EMO_DIR#>/smile-fix.gif" style="vertical-align:middle" emoid=":)" border="0" alt="smile-fix.gif" />
What is a number when you divide by infinity? Zero, right? Doesn't matter how big the number is, by comparison to infinity it is zero.
So, that would imply that the amount of space that the earth and our solar system fill is 0, zero, nil, nada, zilch, goose egg if the universe is infinite.
Therefore, if the universe were infinite, we would not exist. Therefore the universe is not infinite.
I've also heard the onion theory before, but will have to read up more on that again.
I do enjoy these discussions.
I have all the proof I need for my theories, because they are my theories. This is what my current experience and MY viewpoint on life tells me is correct. This does not mean it is the whole truth, mearly a portion of the truth, MY truth. I am also aware that as I learn more, then apply critical thinking and logic to it, I can then com-pare and discover what my new truth is. Yes you are always right, but so is everyone else. These sort of discussions are good, because if you already decide everyone else is right, and you are right too, you have to conmbine all the theories until you get to the only one that can be true, no matter how obsurd it may appear. As you learn more and more, you constantly evolve your theory, improving it. If someone offers a counter argument, do not deflate it, but accept it as true, and try to incorporate it into your current beliefs. If it doesn't fit, never discard it or rubbish it, because you will likely come across other evidence which when combined, will make that fit into your universe.
That is a truly open mind, it never deny's anything.
I think anytime's taking this too seriously, and the rest of you are worse.
Anytime likes to focus on the <b>science</b> aspect of <i>science fiction</i>, fair enough. Keep in mind the part where it says <b>fiction</b>, so you're allowed to take some liberties (so long as it's in the realm of plausible- or if not, acceptable; 'realism within the context' or 'internally consistent').
FTL travel is not 'plausible', but it's 'acceptable' because the standard in science fiction says 'yes', so it's consistent, it's what we expect. Forget teleporting soldiers, how are we meant to explain away how humanity has managed to spread out among the galaxy (and maintain communication among them) without FTL travel/communication. Unless you can think of a way to rationalise those, then I say hell, why not have FTL travel?
What is a number when you divide by infinity? Zero, right? Doesn't matter how big the number is, by comparison to infinity it is zero.
So, that would imply that the amount of space that the earth and our solar system fill is 0, zero, nil, nada, zilch, goose egg if the universe is infinite.
Therefore, if the universe were infinite, we would not exist. Therefore the universe is not infinite.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Except what you just said makes 0 sense. Infinity and 0 are not real numbers, but concepts made by humans, therefore doing any maths with them is pedantic, childish and irrelevant to anything.
<!--quoteo(post=1688442:date=Sep 19 2008, 01:49 PM:name=Harimau)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Harimau @ Sep 19 2008, 01:49 PM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=1688442"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->Stopped reading after the first page.
I think anytime's taking this too seriously, and the rest of you are worse.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
I'm not taking anything seriously, just posting for the hell of it basically.
<!--quoteo--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE</div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->Anytime likes to focus on the <b>science</b> aspect of <i>science fiction</i>, fair enough. Keep in mind the part where it says <b>fiction</b>, so you're allowed to take some liberties (so long as it's in the realm of plausible- or if not, acceptable; 'realism within the context' or 'internally consistent').
FTL travel is not 'plausible', but it's 'acceptable' because the standard in science fiction says 'yes', so it's consistent, it's what we expect. Forget teleporting soldiers, how are we meant to explain away how humanity has managed to spread out among the galaxy (and maintain communication among them) without FTL travel/communication. Unless you can think of a way to rationalise those, then I say hell, why not have FTL travel?<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
1) What you're proposing has no science in it. Its not about focusing on science, its about HAVING science and scientifically literate aspects in your work. Science is something you either adhere to completely, or you disregard it and write a fantasy novel. Trekism/Starwarsism is a disease plaguing science fiction.
2) Spreading ourselves among the galaxy would take a long while, but is still achievable within a 100 year period providing we can travel at .99c I always imagined the star systems being clustered close together where the story takes place and most of the populated worlds are inside a single system to facilitate communication.
I think anytime's taking this too seriously, and the rest of you are worse.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Really?
Well you shouldn't make assumptions about what we have been discussing for several pages if you haven't read it. We are actually discussing theories about teh way the universe is and works, not neccesarily directly related to NS.
Maybe you could have a read sometime and contribute to the discussion..
What is a number when you divide by infinity? Zero, right? Doesn't matter how big the number is, by comparison to infinity it is zero.
So, that would imply that the amount of space that the earth and our solar system fill is 0, zero, nil, nada, zilch, goose egg if the universe is infinite.
Therefore, if the universe were infinite, we would not exist. Therefore the universe is not infinite.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Where did you come up with the idea that we are not 'allowed' to be infinitely small?
Also, the proof is totally illogical anyways <img src="style_emoticons/<#EMO_DIR#>/smile-fix.gif" style="vertical-align:middle" emoid=":)" border="0" alt="smile-fix.gif" />
What is a number when you divide by infinity? Zero, right? Doesn't matter how big the number is, by comparison to infinity it is zero.
So, that would imply that the amount of space that the earth and our solar system fill is 0, zero, nil, nada, zilch, goose egg if the universe is infinite.
Therefore, if the universe were infinite, we would not exist. Therefore the universe is not infinite.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
infinity divided by infinity is 1.
lim ( x-> +inf ) (x / x) = 1
QED
That is to say, the limit of infinity/0, 0/infinity, 0/0, infinity/infinity, infinity^0, 0^infinity are all indeterminate forms.
What they say is to take the derivative and determine the limit that way.
For example, the limit of x^2 / x as x approaches infinity is indeterminate because you wind up with infinity^2 / infinity.
So you take the derivative, which is 1 and reapply the problem, so the limit of 1 as x approaches infinity is 1.
However, X / infinity or infinity / X, 0 / X, X / 0 are have definitive answers if X is a member of the real number set.
Our world can be measured by a finite distance. If the universe is infinite, then by comparison we are nothing.
You might think it is a silly argument, but if you think about it, everything is logical from a mathematical standpoint until you make the assumption that the universe is infinite, which implies that the universe cannot be infinite if this argument is not true. Dealing with infinity in general is rather silly in my opinion as you arrive at absurd conclusions. Anyone ever see the disproving prove?
a = b
a^2 = ab
a^2 - b^2 = ab - b^2
(a + b)(a - b) = b(a - b)
(a + b)(a - b)/(a - b) = b(a - b)/(a - b)
a + b = b
b + b = b
2b = b
2 = 1
How did that happen? Simple. I divided by a - b, which is 0. What happens when you divide by zero? You get infinity. Infinity derives silly conclusions, which is reason enough in my opinion to exclude the possibilty that our universe is infinite or else we wouldn't exist.
And Soul_Rider, I totally agree with you. I'm not one to believe that nothing can be proven. If you define a triangle as a three-sided figure, then a four-sided triangle will never exist. Logic, unlike the rest of empirical evidence, cannot be thrown out because it cannot be proven (assuming valid logic is used).
So, to disagree with conclusions, you must inevitably disagree with the premises. In this case, A) The universe is infinite. B) X / infinity = 0 where X is a finite real number. C) Our known galaxy can be measured by a finite real number. Conclusion: We cannot exist.
Therefore, you must either agree with the conclusion or object to one of the premises (I'd go with A, but that's just me).
So you take the derivative, which is 1 and reapply the problem, so the limit of 1 as x approaches infinity is 1.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
I think you're invoking l'Hopital's rule incorrectly. The calculation would surmount to:
lim(x->infinity) (xx)/(x) = (infinity * infinity)/(infinity), thus apply l'hopital's rule--> lim(x->infinity) (2x)/(1) = infinity still, doing it again, 2/0, etc. Don't know how you're getting the answer as being 1.
<!--quoteo(post=1688568:date=Sep 22 2008, 03:51 AM:name=Hawkeye)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Hawkeye @ Sep 22 2008, 03:51 AM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=1688568"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->Our world can be measured by a finite distance. If the universe is infinite, then by comparison we are nothing.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
It seems that this is your real conclusion, as opposed to claiming "we don't exist." While certainly we typically will say for any constant c that c/infinity is about equal to 0, we won't say that c doesn't exist, simply that it's extremely small by comparison to infinity. To quote yourself a few posts ago: <!--quoteo--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE</div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->Doesn't matter how big the number is, by comparison to infinity it is zero.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
lim(x->infinity) (xx)/(x) = (infinity * infinity)/(infinity), thus apply l'hopital's rule--> lim(x->infinity) (2x)/(1) = infinity still, doing it again, 2/0, etc. Don't know how you're getting the answer as being 1.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Derivative of x^2/x is not 2x. That'd be the derivative of x^2. x^2 / x is (at least until x approaches 0) x. Derivative of x is 1.
<!--quoteo--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE</div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->It seems that this is your real conclusion, as opposed to claiming "we don't exist." While certainly we typically will say for any constant c that c/infinity is about equal to 0, we won't say that c doesn't exist, simply that it's extremely small by comparison to infinity. To quote yourself a few posts ago:<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
For any constant c/infinity = 0, then 0 * infinity = c, right? What does that mean? Everything from nothing, nothing from everything. Mathematically, it doesn't even make sense. It's essentially saying you can create any number constant c by multiplying infinity by zero.
So, if I wanted to create constant c where c = 0, I should be able to, right? To say c <i>has</i> to be equal to the measure of our galaxy is false logic. c represents *any* finite number, and so infinity * 0 gets you any finite number. So I could perform the operation infinity * 0 and get the number 17, and then perform it again and arrive at 26. 17 != 26, so it's not feasible. It's like saying true = false and existence = non-existence. You arrive at conclusions which cannot be fathomed, much less reasoned with.
It's like when you come to the conclusion in a prove that true = false and then decide that it isn't your proof which is wrong but that true really is false. I suppose you could do so, but you'd only tear down the entire foundation by which our modern understanding of science is based upon to do it. If I wanted to prove that a four-sided triangle existed, I suppose that's how I'd go about it. I'd divide the number of sides on a triangle by infinity and then multiply by infinity to arrive at four, thus proving that 3 = 4. Clearly this is not an acceptable operation, but what's less evident is that assuming that a world exists which has no bounds cannot be rationally made sense of, because of the implications it would have in mathematics.
I apologize if I sound like I'm flaming your post. I'm really not, but I just wanted to be thorough in my explanation.
<!--quoteo--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE</div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->Where did you get the idea that 1/infinity = 0?
The very sentence "1/infinity = 0" has no meaning. Why? Because
"infinity" is a concept, NOT a number. It is a concept that means
"limitlessness." As such, it cannot be used with any mathematical
operators. The symbols of +, -, x, and / are arithmetic operators, and
we can only use them for numbers.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
As I stated, I believe you're misinterpreting L'Hopital's rule. Basically, it says that if for any function h(x) = f(x)/(g(x), and that either for lim(x->c) f(x) = lim(x->c) g(x) = 0 or infinity, then, lim(x->c) h(x) = lim(x->c) f'(x)/g'(x). In simple terms, if both the top and the bottom are approaching either 0 or infinity, then the limit is the derivative of the top divided by the derivative of the bottom -- there's a stark difference between the derivative of h(x) vs. f'(x)/g'(x).
If you're still not sure about this, draw the graph of y=x^2/x. You'll see that as x gets larger, y gets larger, and certainly that as x gets larger, y doesn't approach 1.
Further reading on L'Hopital's rule: <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/L%27H%C3%B4pital%27s_rule" target="_blank">http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/L%27H%C3%B4pital%27s_rule</a>
<!--quoteo(post=1688652:date=Sep 23 2008, 05:01 AM:name=Hawkeye)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Hawkeye @ Sep 23 2008, 05:01 AM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=1688652"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->For any constant c/infinity = 0, then 0 * infinity = c, right?<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Not necessarily, and if you don't like anytime's reasoning, as stated above, please consider the following:
For any constant, c > 0, c is not equal to 0. Thus, for any number k, c + k is not equal to 0 + k, c - k is not equal to 0 - k, and furthermore, c/k is not equal to 0/k. If we're considering infinity to be a number, then c / infinity is not equal to 0 / infinity is not equal to 0.
Where you're probably getting this is from the fact that lim(k->infinity) (c / k) = 0. As Wikipedia puts it, for any function, f(x) such that lim(x->c) f(x) = L, <!--quoteo--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE</div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->means that Æ’(x) can be made to be as close to L as desired by making x sufficiently close to c. In that case, we say that "the limit of Æ’ of x, as x approaches c, is L". <b>Note that this statement can be true even if \scriptstyle f© \neq L. Indeed, the function Æ’(x) need not even be defined at c.</b><!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd--> (emphasis mine) In other words, just because the limit approaches a value, doesn't mean that the actual equation is <i>equal</i> to that value.
Two quick examples of the following:
Let f(x) = x^2/x, as mentioned above. Clearly, f(0) is undefined. lim(x->0) f(x) = 0 / 0. Invoking L'Hopital's rule gives us: lim(x->0) 2x / 1 = 0. And thus, undefined is not equal to 0.
Let f(x) = x(x-1)/(x-1). As above, f(0) is undefined. lim(x->0) x(x-1)/(x-1) is 0/0, which is undefined. Factoring f(x) first, though, we get lim(x->0) x = 0. As with above, 0 is not equal to undefined.
Let f(x) = if x != 1, x, otherwise 3. I don't feel like proving it, but lim(x->1) f(x) = 1, but f(x) = 3. Again, 3 != 1.
I hope this helps. Further reading: <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Limit_(mathematics)" target="_blank">http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Limit_(mathematics)</a>
Someone mentioned before (I think it was related to LHC experiments) that
our reality "maybe" has extra dimensions. If so, how we could ever say that maths is the ultimate way to
describe everything? Its difficult to express what Im meaning, since english is not my native language. Hope you still got the point. (its like how you can describe a cube when you have only 2 dimensions? you can try around but you would end up with the result that you need a third dimension, and we only know it because we are living in at least 3 dimension, otherwise a thing like a "cube" would be just pure theory)
You're probably right on that. x^2 / x doesn't approach 1, so there's something I'm not doing correctly. I just figured if you plugged in infinity for x^2 / x, you wind up with infinity * infinity / infinity, which is not something which can be computed. So as such, you'd take the derivative.
And mathematics, yes, is something we created, but to an extent. Did triangles exist before we defined a triangle? Did a sphere exist before we defined a sphere? I'd be inclined to say yes, because these are definitions, not inventions. By definition, we describe the rules which make up a particular component, existing or not.
So when we say 1 + 1 = 2, in the sense that we created the syntax for expressing this expression, yes we invented. In the sense that we are expressing a theory based on empirical data (if you take one apple and another apple and place them together, how many do you have?), yes we did invent that theory (though granted it is a theory so well-established, nobody even considers that it could be wrong). However, the property that you get 2 apples when you place one apple with another has been a real one proven time and time again, and to say that is wrong is to basically say you can get three apples by putting two of them together.
So yes, to a large extent mathematics is invented, but they're based on axioms which are so solid that you might as well be claiming that we're not really here and we don't really exist at all. Technically we can't even prove we exist, but seeing how that would put a little damper on everything as we know it, we just assume we do and continue about our ways.
As far as mathematics and logic are concerned, you can't really get any surer than that. These are the theories by which all others are founded upon, and while you're not guaranteed to always get two apples when you put one apple with another apple, I don't think you have to worry about having too many apples to eat for lunch anytime soon.
So, with that said, for the intents and purposes of this thread, we will make the following assumptions:
<i>We, the creatures of this planet, the planet itself, and the universe as we can see it <b>do</b> exist and can be perceived.
One apple put with another apple gives you two apples.
True is not false.
Britney Spears is not a virgin.</i>
That is all.
If someone disagrees with you, punch them square in the nose an ask them why they cared if they didn't exist. If they didn't exist, their nose most certainly wouldn't exist, neither would their CNS.
This is how you argue with religious zealots too. If you attack them and ask them why it happened to them, they will tell you that they deserved it. Sadomaso!
It is true that a triangle" and "sphere" are just definitions we created. On the other hand, your inclination that triangles and spheres exist is "most likely" wrong. There are objects where can be modeled very accurately to a sphere, but in practice, humans have never seen one. This is equally true of infinity and cannot simply be tossed around.
Never the less, your argument relies on the premise that something cannot be infinitely smaller than something else. This premise is false. This relies on the assumption of some kind of "relative volume principle", that doesn't exist. Furthermore, your false principle that you made up relies on the assumption that things cannot have 0 volume, this is also false.
p.s. lim x->inf of (x^2/x) = inf
Assuming there is a 1m^3 ball inside of a 100m^3 room.
Increase the volume of the room to be 1000m^3.
The volume of the ball does not change, it remains 1m^3.
Now increase the volume of the room to 100000000000m^3.
The volume of the ball does not change, it remains 1m^3.
Now increase the volume of the room infinitely large.
The volume of the ball does not change, it remains 1m^3.
It is obvious that the size of the object does not get smaller as the size of the room increases.
If your proof was true, it would also follow that:
A 1m^3 ball sits in a 100m^3 room.
That same ball is removed from that room and placed inside a room that is 1000m^3.
The ball is now 0.1m^3.
This is obviously false, the size of balls don't change when they change room. (assuming the temperature of the room is constant)
The discussion about infinity is somehow senseless, since we dont know whats the smallest object and the biggest in our "reality" and if they even exist. We dont know if infinity is something we have to calculate with, or if its only applyable in our ideal mathematic system.
but, I would appreciate to go back on initial topic (well it wass not offtopic in the name of this thread).
We should answer: how is phase tech working?
How is fade blinking / "fading"?
Why can skulks explode, lerks produce spores / umbra etc.?
I think in NS2 both races will be able to use new abilities, weapons. Why they improved everything?
Did marines underestimated the khaara and vise versa in "NS1"?
Or is it a roll back in timeline and NS2 happens before than NS1?
Ok thats something that relies on the developement team, it would be nice if they would release some story about it <img src="style_emoticons/<#EMO_DIR#>/smile-fix.gif" style="vertical-align:middle" emoid=":)" border="0" alt="smile-fix.gif" />
Assuming there is a 1m^3 ball inside of a 100m^3 room.
Increase the volume of the room to be 1000m^3.
The volume of the ball does not change, it remains 1m^3.
Now increase the volume of the room to 100000000000m^3.
The volume of the ball does not change, it remains 1m^3.
Now increase the volume of the room infinitely large.
The volume of the ball does not change, it remains 1m^3.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
True, but you're always dealing with finite measurements. The rules change when you use infinity.
To give you a stupid example, take a standard right-angle triangle whose length and width are 100 meters.
If you travel the exact length and width of those 100 meters, you go a total distance of 200 meters, correct?
What would be the distance if you simply went from point A to point B? It'd be the square root of 100^2 + 100^2, or approximately 141 meters, right?
200 > 141, right? 200 != 141.
Alright, so now imagine that instead of walking the full length followed by walking the full width, you walk 50 meters length, followed by 50 meters width, followed by 50 meters length, followed by 50 meters width. Still 200 meters you walked, right? Rather than taking one turn, you took 3.
Apply this again. Suppose you walk 25 meters length, then 25 meters width, then 25 meters length, then 25 meters width, etc. until you arrived at your destination? Still 200 meters you walked, right? Took you 7 turns.
Now take the limit as the number of turns approaches infinity. What you'd get is not jagged edges but a single straight line leading directly to your destination. We said that a straight line from point A to point B was 141 meters, didn't we? So how come it still takes me 200 meters?
200 != 141 I thought? It might surprise you, but I can apply the same thought process to any two numbers you could give me and prove that the two numbers are equal by throwing infinity into the mix. Apparently when infinity comes into the equation, they are the same number, which is why you cannot use finite numbers to prove that infinite smallness can exist. The rules of the game change completely. A 1m^3 ball is still a 1m^3 ball as long as it exists in a finite space. In an infinite space, that ball may be 1m^3 ball or it may be 1x10^100 m^3 ball.
Take the example from the link on infinity for an example. If you have a chocolate bar and divide it into infinite pieces, where did all the pieces go? It's not that they're really really small pieces.. they no longer exist! When the world is infinite, you divide the world into infinite subsections, thereby dividing it into nonexistence. The only reason we're here is because somewhere there's a border to our universe which determines our scale and position. Without a border, there can be no position or scale, not really. You may use the standard X/Y coordinate plane as an example of an infinite space with position and scale, but that too is a concept. In reality, it is on a piece of paper with a limited width and height. If you tried to simulate it on a computer, eventually you'd run out of memory to be able to store the coordinates of any arbitrary object (because for every number you *could* save on a computer, I could give you one that it couldn't, I promise you).
Infinity isn't just a really big number. It's an unfathomablely large number, in fact, by its very definition it's unfathomable. If it were simply a finite number, it would be manageable, but it is in fact infinite, not finite. Ever wonder why according to modern space-time theory that you can never surpass the speed of light? It is because it is yet another boundary. I'd be willing to bet without that boundary, it'd be the same as if the world were infinite.
<!--quoteo--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE</div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->Never the less, your argument relies on the premise that something cannot be infinitely smaller than something else. This premise is false. This relies on the assumption of some kind of "relative volume principle", that doesn't exist. Furthermore, your false principle that you made up relies on the assumption that things cannot have 0 volume, this is also false.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Something 'infinitely smaller' than something else is non existent. You don't have to believe me, but by the very definition of infinite you make it so. It's like saying a four-sided triangle exists. You can insist on it all you want, but you've logically defined an impossible object. Maybe we'll never know if the world is infinite or not, just like we'll never know whether a four-sided triangle really exists, but I think you can rest assure that the world is finite and that four-sided triangles do not exist.
Tell me one thing that has 0 volume which everyone here will agree exists. One thing.
Great post Hawkeye!
I know that someone is going to use a black hole as an example of 0 volume, but that isn't actually true. Black holes have volume much like subatomic particles have volume. A tiny volume, but still a volume. You can't in actuality have 0 of something, because that would mean you wouldn't have it. 0 volume would mean that the object in question doesn't exist. 0 is simply not a number.
But yea, I'd like us to scale back our nerdy discussions and go back to debating the mechanisms of space travel in NS, phase tech, fade blink and other stuff.