[clueless (OP)]

Hello.

1. If You pour an infinite amount of water in an instant (by using a holodeck or advanced technology) in a bottomless well infinitely deep, by applying advanced replication, quantum teleportation and distribution of water particles,  would there be water aligned with its upper brink, at least for a short while, until it soon starts to descend, because of the antigravity plates placed equally everywhere in the well? AG here corresponds to Earth's gravity, that is to say, if you fall into the well, you will fall forever. Or the well would seem completely empty right from the start when you look into the abyss (right after putting off the magic bucket of endless water)? Forwhy, just because there is an infinite amount of stars in cosmos, that doesn't mean they are all placed next to each other filling almost the entire space (hence the blackness of space). And this perhaps applies to water molecules, if you somehow compare them to stars.

2. Everything is a matter of perspective. If you are infinitely small, a toothpick seems infinitely big to you. If you are infinitely big, the Sun seems infinitely small to you. And is it at all possible that cosmos is made out of infinitely small particles? "If from a stick a foot long you every day take the half of it, in a myriad ages it will not be exhausted." just as Zhuangzi suggested. (Is this a fine thought of mine, right before mentioning Zhuangzi, or You deem it a bit silly? I might use it for my prose project.)

3. Imagine two neighboring infinite, glowing, straight lines, that is to say, iron bars, parallel to each other, placed in a holodeck simulation, inside an endless empty space, filled with starless darkness, where the laws of physics more or less apply. And now, let's imagine that the iron bars are slowly starting to tilt towards each other, at the moment, 1 degree. Now, since the two bars are infinitely long, if they were to meet with their tips, endpoints, would that mean that their infinity is compromised? You see, if the two iron bars are truly infinite, their endpoints could NEVER touch, or else it would imply that they are not infinite after all, rather finite. So they must stay parallel to each other and never tilt, because of some unknown force, perhaps compatible with formula of creation. Ergo the two (infinitely long) iron bars MUST stop tilting (similar to the phenomenon when a starship slows down and becomes heavier when nearing the speed of light) or they cannot tilt in the first place, in order to preserve the integrity of infinity. Because, it would otherwise mean that they were finite, instead of infinite. This means, aside for yet another infinity paradox, that infinity has "certain" shapes, and it is capable of stopping or slowing down movement of certain shapes, then when two infinities would otherwise cancel each other out (similar to a computer safety measure, if we are indeed living inside a simulation generated by a quantum computer). Perhaps infinity means that there are no endpoints, tips of both iron bars, otherwise the bars would be finite? (I'm struggling with infinity.)

In other words, if you were to imagine a simple iron ring with 1 m in diameter, and then you enlarge it so that it becomes infinite, because of its "shape", which corresponds to edge, endpoint or tip, it MUST vanish and not be there anymore. And this vanishing part, I believe, has to do with the core of infinity, which applies to certain shapes or at least endopints. In essence, the one who is chasing infinity, he is actually chasing nothingness. And lack of dimensions could be a dimension by itself.

In short, there is an iron bar, infinitely long. Since I don't understand infinity, not in the slightest, and yet I'm attracted to it like a magnet, although you may or may not agree, isn't it true that endpoints are either not possible to imagine with our limited brains, hardly quantum processors? Or the endpoints simply put do not really exist, otherwise they'd compromise the integrity of "infinity"? Forwhy if endpoints do exist, doesn't that mean that the iron bar is finite after all? If you CAN imagine endpoints of an infinitely long iron bar, then you are either John Nash, who can see Big Brother as well, or infinity is but an illusion. So, infinity equals non-existing endpoints, and "finity" equals existing endpoints. Ergo infinity has parts that do not really exist, sort of like an illusion or holographic particles.

Does the darn iron bar have two endpoints, or since I can't imagine them, or because the bar is infinitely long, perhaps the endpoints don't exist, which is precisely why the bar is infinite? If the answer is "yes", as in there ARE two endpoints,  why can't I imagine these endpoints?

Does anything at all I mentioned above, hopefully, corresponds to trace of intelligence? If so, please highlight it, forwhy I might use it for my short SF story.

I just can't Imagine (infinity). Hopefully Mr. Lennon doesn't mind.

So, when do I get the Nobel prize? -_- Hopefully, You will not remove this topic, unless you really have to. After all, members here are accredit to this fine forum, who, in retrospect, are a lot less clueless than myself (and thank God for that).

In my defense, and to paraphrase Mr. Einstein, I'm just a guy asking questions. And yet, in retrospect, his questions were a lot smarter than mine. At least he is not turning in his grave, being cremated instead. (Alas, I believe that scientists took his brain before cremation of his body, in order to study it. It appears, serving humanity has its disadvantages.)

[Petrochemicals]

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Asymptote

[alancalverd]

If a body is infinite, it doesn't have an end, by definition. Never mind two ends.

[paul cotter]

I disagree, it could have a local end and extend infinitely from said point. Infinities are a waste of brain energies as they have no tangible existence other than mathematical abstractions.

[alancalverd]

That would be a semi-infinite bar, in my book.

Interestingly, it is the same length as an infinite bar, which is twice as long.

[Bored chemist]

If a body is infinite, it doesn't have an end, by definition. Never mind two ends.

Unless it's a walk round the coast.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Koch_snowflake

[alancalverd]

The length of a coastline is "calculable", at least as far as a mathematician in concerned, because it consists of a finite number of grains of sand, and "estimable" for civil engineering purposes.  Except  of course it will have changed by the time you get back to the starting point. So it's better to consider a spherical cow in a vacuum, as any sensible physicist will tell you.

[paul cotter]

Alan, twice infinity equals infinity, normal arithmetic breaks down when dealing with infinity.

[Eternal Student]

Hi.

   There's a lot going on here, I'm just going to pick one bit:

And now, let's imagine that the iron bars are slowly starting to tilt towards each other, at the moment, 1 degree. Now, since the two bars are infinitely long, if they were to meet with their tips, endpoints, would that mean that their infinity is compromised?

     @Halc has already mentioned that considering anything as a rigid body is problematic in relativity.  Consider a rod of say 1 metre and hold one end in your hand.   You can then twist your hand and start to make this rod rotate about the fixed position that is your hand.   The piece of rod close to your hand is barely moving but the piece of rod far from your hand is moving quite fast.  In your situation the iron bars are very long (possibly infinite), so that the speed at which a piece of bar is moving far away from this centre of twisting will be astronomical.   Once you're far enough away the speed of movement exceeds the speed of light and that just cannot be happening.
     We can consider the situation without using relativity and instead just consider that the iron bar is a real object made out of atoms and the movement of any piece can only be caused by a force being passed along from atom to atom.   You said your holodeck is able to match the laws the physics in what it creates.    When you start to twist one of the bars, the initiation of movement of the atoms in the iron bar can only be passed through the length of the iron bar at about the speed of sound.   So the bits of bar close to where you started the twsiting will start to move but the bits of bar far away would remain stationary.    Overall, the bar would begin to deform, it cannot stay straight under the laws of physics.
    So, sadly even your Star Trek holodeck will not let you perform the experiment you wish to carry out, unless you switch off the laws of physics and allow all atoms in the bar to start moving simulatenously when you begin to twist one of the bars.   Obviously without any physics, you get whatever result follows from whatever alternative for physics has been programmed. 
- - - - - - - - - - - - -
    If you're interested there is a similar problem that is frequently discussed.    It's difficult to build or imagine a long iron rod but it's not so difficult or absurd to consider a ray of light.   In principle that can be very long.   So there has been a bit of a tradition of discussing the situation where you have a laser pointer which projects a beam of light.   You then begin to twist your laser pointer in your hand.   Laser pointers don't have the mass that a long iron bar would have, so we can all easily imagine twisting a laser pointer in our hand.
    Now imagine the ray of light was allowed to hit a screen far away,  our moon is often used.   The speed of movement of the dot of light across the moons surface can get very fast.   Indeed it's an example of something that would actually travel across the surface of the moon at a speed that exceeds the speed of light.   (As mentioned, this was certainly not allowed for the iron rod).

Best Wishes.

[alancalverd]

Before lasers came on the scene, this was known as the scissor paradox: how fast does the shadow move as you cut a light beam  with a pair of scissors?

But as with all paradoxes, it isn't paradoxical, just badly stated. The shadow (or laser spot) doesn't transmit information in a direction perpendicular to the light beam, and any information transmitted along the beam travels at c.

[Eternal Student]

Hi.

just badly stated.

.....  it needs careful phrasing.    The dot of light on the surface (or shadow in your example) does move at speed > c,  that is true and is (I think) accurately phrased.     
     The resolution of the problem can be much as you stated.

Best Wishes.

[Zer0]

@Clueless

1) If all you could count was from 1 to 9, then does Anything 10+ become truly Infinite?

2) If a Trainspotter is short sighted...
Does the Train become Infinitely long?

3) If it has End/s or not is kind of Irrelevant.
But if it Exists in Reality, then perhaps it should have a Starting point.

ps - Eternities have No beginnings, & Infinities have No ends.

[alancalverd]

The relics of several eternal cities, and the mortal remains of a few eternal dynasties, are evidence of eternities that had a recorded beginning and an asymptote if not an end.  The Thousand Year Reich just about managed ten years.

[Bored chemist]

With fast CRT oscilloscopes it is perfectly possible for the "writing speed" i.e the speed at which the illuminated dot travels across the screen, to exceed the speed of light.

[alancalverd]

And yet the electrons that do the writing, don't!

[Zer0]

Eternal cities & Eternal dynasties are mere Oxymorons on a planet which is 4.543 blyn yrs old.

ps - when the Known universe will Not, how then can
' Diamonds last Forever! '
(Entropy)