carolina guy
Regular Member
Science has it's limitations, but it's still fun as hell to find out what they are... right?
Absolutely. It is also fun to find out that things that were previously thought impossible are in fact, possible.
Science has it's limitations, but it's still fun as hell to find out what they are... right?
If the universe is infinite (by definition, it is), then it just means that the leading edge of what we are perceiving is getting closer to infinite, but (also by definition) we will also never perceive the boundaries of the universe, because (by definition) they do not exist.
Also, if the currently perceivable edge of reality is over 15 billion light years away, we have no method of realistically knowing if that boundary (created by an alleged "big bang") has changed its movements/momentum dramatically (+ or -) since. Simply put, we are dealing with mathematics and theories that do not work in an infinite system.
We cannot even test light speed outside our own gravity well to know if the current theories even hold water...much less even fully define gravity in or out of our gravity well.
Something can be finite in size, but I infinite in scope. Think about that balloon again. Creatures on it can travel infinitely, but that surface is quite finite. Such is likely the case with our universe if the theory that it is a surface on a higher dimensional object is correct.
BTW, there are mathematically magnitudes of infinity. Not that such applies in the case at hand.
The best example of this would be some sets of numbers. Consider the set of Integers. It can be broken down into two sets of numbers: Even Integers and Odd Integers. Each set contains half the elements of the superset, yet all three sets are infinite in size!
Even larger is the set of Real Numbers, of which all three are subsets. Furthermore, the three subsets are countably infinite. The set of Real Numbers is uncountable, introducing another order of magnitude.
Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk.
<o>
Actually, there is one flaw in your post. The number of Integers is not equal to the number of Real Numbers. All the sets of Integers you mention can be put into one-to-one correspondences with each other that would cover every number in both sets in any correspondence. Such could not be said for any set of Integers and the set of Reals.
Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk.
<o>
No, I did not. A may equal B, but neither equals C. All the sets of Integers that you mention are equal in size. None of them is equal in size to the set of Reals.
Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk.
<o>
If the universe is infinite (by definition, it is), then it just means that the leading edge of what we are perceiving is getting closer to infinite, but (also by definition) we will also never perceive the boundaries of the universe, because (by definition) they do not exist.
Also, if the currently perceivable edge of reality is over 15 billion light years away, we have no method of realistically knowing if that boundary (created by an alleged "big bang") has changed its movements/momentum dramatically (+ or -) since. Simply put, we are dealing with mathematics and theories that do not work in an infinite system.
We cannot even test light speed outside our own gravity well to know if the current theories even hold water...much less even fully define gravity in or out of our gravity well.
No, I did not. A may equal B, but neither equals C. All the sets of Integers that you mention are equal in size. None of them is equal in size to the set of Reals.
Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk.
<o>
To support eye95's point:
[video=youtube;elvOZm0d4H0]Infinity is bigger than you think[/video]