The Naked Scientists

The Naked Scientists Forum

Author Topic: universe  (Read 5456 times)

Offline M

  • First timers
  • *
  • Posts: 5
    • View Profile
universe
« on: 12/10/2006 06:38:39 »
The universe is infinitely large and infinitely small.


 

Offline jysk

  • Jr. Member
  • **
  • Posts: 41
    • View Profile
Re: universe
« Reply #1 on: 12/10/2006 14:27:41 »
I've recently begun to think that in nature, nothing is infinite. Sure, Time on its own can be argued to be infinite. By Time's simplest definition, there is nothing to stop it. The same with space. But in our example (The universe), the two don't exist independently. Real constaints are put upon a system that have Time, Space and Matter, and Gravity and Magnaitsm and mechanics to move stuff around.

In nature, all of these infinite behaviours rub against each other, and spoil the infinity.

How about smallness.

As I attempt to clap my hands, my two palms close their distance by half. And again, by half. And 1 half again. Again and again. I can argue that that distance can always be halved no matter how small. To Infinity.

And yet,

Clap!

Mike
 

Offline M

  • First timers
  • *
  • Posts: 5
    • View Profile
Re: universe
« Reply #2 on: 13/10/2006 03:16:17 »
... none of which argues against the theory.  Time, by the way, exists only in language.
 

Offline ukmicky

  • Moderator
  • Neilep Level Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3011
    • View Profile
    • http://www.space-talk.com/
Re: universe
« Reply #3 on: 13/10/2006 03:21:01 »
if you say so

Michael
 

Offline M

  • First timers
  • *
  • Posts: 5
    • View Profile
Re: universe
« Reply #4 on: 13/10/2006 04:35:57 »
I'll take that as a cue to leave the forum.
 

Offline Karen W.

  • Moderator
  • Naked Science Forum GOD!
  • *****
  • Posts: 31653
  • Thanked: 5 times
  • "come fly with me"
    • View Profile
Re: universe
« Reply #5 on: 13/10/2006 07:17:28 »
How does time only exist in language M ? Please explain?

Karen
 

Offline jysk

  • Jr. Member
  • **
  • Posts: 41
    • View Profile
Re: universe
« Reply #6 on: 13/10/2006 08:04:00 »
Did M really leave? Sounded like M had a new idea.

In my reply, I only tried to shed doubt on both large and small infinity being valid assumptions in nature. I didn't mean to seem arrogant about it. I began a good argument against M's theory too I might add. I only left "The universe is,..." unchallenged.

In the spirit of cooperation, I will agree with M that the universe is.

Please return and explain the rest of your idea.

Mike
 

Offline Soul Surfer

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 3345
  • keep banging the rocks together
    • View Profile
    • ian kimber's web workspace
Re: universe
« Reply #7 on: 18/10/2006 18:12:30 »
I think that M was probably just a troll type hoping to stir up an argument but funnily enough my pet new theory is simply what he is suggesting.  

I am reasonably sure that black holes in our universe are effectively new universes spawned by our universe, and that we are effectively inside a black hole (one of very many)inside another universe ourselves. But there remains one thing the scale invariant mechanism for space and time.  The inside of a black hole is a bit like a Tardis because once you are inside you can't see out, you can only see somewhere else inside the black hole which could look indefinietly (I prefer to use the word indefinate rather than the mathematical concept of infinite) large.

The critical thing is effectively the length of your perceived time it take information to come to you from a distant object now inside a non rotating black hole this is quite short however if the hole is rotating (the only realistic scenario for black holes) and you are on the surface of the toroidal memberane singularity that I believe that this sort of hole would eventually become this time could be very long and so inside the hole could look like a large volume of conventional linear cartesian space.



Learn, create, test and tell
evolution rules in all things
God says so!
 

Offline bostjan

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 107
    • View Profile
Re: universe
« Reply #8 on: 18/10/2006 19:22:14 »
Sounds good to me, Soul Surfer.
 

Offline science_guy

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 701
  • I'm right there... inside neilep's head!
    • View Profile
Re: universe
« Reply #9 on: 19/10/2006 16:10:04 »
oops, we seem to of scared off a new member.

although his theory may of been a little off, he may of had somthing...

I hope that someday we dont regret it if we ever need to draw on his theory in order to save the universe. [^]

_________________________________________________________________________________________

I would engage you in a battle of wits, but it is against my moral code to attack the unarmed.
 

Offline Soul Surfer

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 3345
  • keep banging the rocks together
    • View Profile
    • ian kimber's web workspace
Re: universe
« Reply #10 on: 24/10/2006 09:49:54 »
I don't think  we scared him off  it was just when we tried to discuss the topic rationally rather than start a flame war he lost interest.

Learn, create, test and tell
evolution rules in all things
God says so!
 

The Naked Scientists Forum

Re: universe
« Reply #10 on: 24/10/2006 09:49:54 »

 

SMF 2.0.10 | SMF © 2015, Simple Machines
SMFAds for Free Forums
 
Login
Login with username, password and session length