Infinity

[Patzak]

So this means the more powerful telescopes on the drawing board today will actually not see much further out than hubble at all, but will see the things within the current visible universe better and with less glare so we can directly view planets outside our solar system?

Exactly. All we can go for with bigger and better telescopes is better resolution and higher sensitivity to light.

"" I saw a little about a dual lens telescope that looks like a pair of binoculars that will see planets orbiting other stars without the blinding glare you get with a single lens telescope while aiming it near a distant star """

This should be in construction by now because the special I saw on this is now five years old. I havent heard much on it lately though.

I remember reading about it in SA a couple months ago. Can't recall the name of the telescope though, so I can't google it.

That would strictly depend on whats beyond what we are currently seeing today though. To be visible it couldnt be connected to our set of galixies. It would have to be part of an independent group of galixies that were created by a big bang of there own, but this big bang would have had to occured ages before ours to alow the light to travel in this direction long enough to be visible from here.

If the big bang was simply a giant explosion, that could certainly work. However, this is a misconception. Big bang didn't happen in a pre-existing empty space - rather, space itself "unfolded" out of the big bang. I think the balloon analogy has already been mentioned sometime earlier in this thread, look it up. Anyway, since there was no universe for other hypothetical big bangs to happen in, the point is moot.

in a sense maybe space has a record of all ancient universes that formed long before ours, just waiting to be viewed. In the form of the light they produced when they exsisted still remaining and traviling outward from there point of origin.

As I said above, I don't think that our current conception of the big bang allows for more than one of them. However, what you say might hold for an oscillating universe that cycles between expansion and contraction, every contraction being followed by another big bang (ie. big bang -> the universe expands -> expansion stops -> the universe contracts -> big crunch (or gnab gib) -> another big bang -> etc.). Now since the early universe was not permeable to light, using telescopes wouldn't get us very far in this regard (as we wouldn't be able to see past the first 300,000 years or so). It is not inconceivable, however, that some sort of different traces of a previous universe might have survived the big crunch/big bang and are waiting for us to discover or recognize them.

 

[Merlin]

Unless of course that we assume that God is the all in all, infinite eternal source of all things. Wether there be one infinite universe, or infinite space containing multipile or even infinite universes would not make a difference to this conception.

Our universe is huge to say the least. that does not mean it is infinite nor does it mean that it is not. Likewise a finite or infinite space and/or universe does not prove nor disprove the existance of God.

Perhaps the wording I used did not convey my thoughts completely?

If we assume infinite.
But that's a big if.
And
Then we must assume no outside forces can effect any of the universes.
We must assume there is no God able to alter one universe without effecting other universes.

Then such possibilities begin to exist.

see, if there is a God, then He can alter any one universe without necessitating every possibility ever existing in the other possible universes.

 

[mikenet2006]

patzak, I think I have heard of the bubble theory before, and I have an idea of the concept that space itself expanded from the center as well, but that to me is questionable.

I saw an image in a magazine of multiple bubbles seperated by gaps to represent this theory. The space in between has to exsist in some form though to alow this seperation. Can this not be viewed through? It does exsist as space in order to seperate these bubbles I would think.

Mind bogeling for sure.

I kinda like to lean on the idea that space is everywhere
and big bangs fill this exsisting space with matter, but that is just me. Nobody will know the answer to this in our lifetime I do know that.

As for the big crunch theory didnt they rule that out after discovering that there isnt enough matter in our universe to pull all the galexies back in to the center?
I remember hearing this but it was a while back.

 

[Patzak]

patzak, I think I have heard of the bubble theory before, and I have an idea of the concept that space itself expanded from the center as well, but that to me is questionable.

I saw an image in a magazine of multiple bubbles seperated by gaps to represent this theory. The space in between has to exsist in some form though to alow this seperation. Can this not be viewed through? It does exsist as space in order to seperate these bubbles I would think.

Regarding the bubbles, you could be recalling either of these:
1. the bubbles are regions of the universe that are receding away from each other faster with a total velocity higher than the speed of light; since nothing can ever get from one of these regions to the other, they can for all practical purposes be considered separate universes;
or 2. the bubbles are three-dimensional "branes" in a higher-dimensional universe; in a two-dimenasional analogy, you can imagine our universe as a sheet of paper and other universes as different sheets of paper positioned above or below our own. They're technically separated by empty space but it's not a space that could be crossed.

As for the big crunch theory didnt they rule that out after discovering that there isnt enough matter in our universe to pull all the galexies back in to the center?
I remember hearing this but it was a while back.

Yes, that seems to be the current consensus. In fact, the galaxies are not only not slowing down, they actually seem to be accelerating due to a presently unknown factor. But as far as I know, these calculations are often revised so i wouldn't totally give up on the big crunch yet.

 

[relaxeus]

Then we must assume no outside forces can effect any of the universes.
We must assume there is no God able to alter one universe without effecting other universes.

Then such possibilities begin to exist.

see, if there is a God, then He can alter any one universe without necessitating every possibility ever existing in the other possible universes.

Why do you think there can't be an outside force affecting any of the universes? Personally, I don't see any reason that an outside force can't exist. This force might be able to affect many universes, depending on its power. I don't see it being able to affect the infinite span of universes though, because any being must be made of finite matter and so is restricted to only a limited space at any given time - although that being may be able to travel from place to place.

 

[Natro]

Why do you think there can't be an outside force affecting any of the universes? Personally, I don't see any reason that an outside force can't exist. This force might be able to affect many universes, depending on its power. I don't see it being able to affect the infinite span of universes though, because any being must be made of finite matter and so is restricted to only a limited space at any given time - although that being may be able to travel from place to place.

The definition of universe is everything that exist anywhere. Technacly nothing can be outside the universe. Anything that is anywhere is in the universe

 

[mikenet2006]

The definition of universe is everything that exist anywhere. Technacly nothing can be outside the universe. Anything that is anywhere is in the universe

I guess this is my reasoning for believing that there is no wall or barrier that contains everyting. The edge of the current visible universe itself may never be viewed or traveled through, but it is not a barrier in the sense that it seperates area where matter can exsist "being the inside" from an area where time and space cease to exsist all together.

I think the edge of the visible universe is no more a tangeble line than the equator is. It is simply an imaginary line that shows how far out our galexies have expanded. If I had the fastest space ship that you've seen in any movie and I made it near the edge of the visible universe, 13 billion light years from here, in just years """hehe yea right"". Would I simply cease to exsist if I traveled a few more years and made it 100 billion lightyears out?

Neat concept the bubble theory, but I dont think its too convincing. If alternate universes form from other big bangs, I believe that they are either beyond what we can see with telescopes in deep deep space. Or they exsist in another dimention all together.

""Patzac quote""
"""you can imagine our universe as a sheet of paper and other universes as different sheets of paper positioned above or below our own. They're technically separated by empty space but it's not a space that could be crossed."""

I do agree this is possible minus the part that these dimentions are seperated by space of some sort. For that to be true it would mean that they are not in another dimention at all but they infact exsist in our reality, being that they are seperated by space.

Space is a term used to describe area that can be traveled through, or altered. So if something exsist on another dimention I highly doubt you could travel to it.

So what I see being possible is the brain theory you described as sheets of paper seperated only because it doesnt exsist in or dimention, therefore you could never say how far or close it is becaue space and time wouldnt apply here.

I dont see how the buble theory can be true because its described as alternate dimentions that are interconnected 3 dimetionaly. That then implies that they are obviously seperated by space, witch would then place it right back in our dimention becuse it could then theoreticly be traveled to in a straight line making it part of the universe we exsist in, ""not another dimention"".

That doesnt mean there arent other big bangs that have occured elswhere in our dimention. It just means that they are filling empty space with matter just like us and are infact part of our dimention, rather than creating space itself as they expand.

This is what I believe but nobody really knows for sure, its about the most complicated type science that exsist, and the one with the most unknowns as well.

 

[ReluctantProphet]

I was thinking the other day about the possibility that space is infinite. Imagine looking into the sky, choosing a direction to go, and then setting off and going in that direction forever and ever. You would never reach the end. Even if you travelled extremely fast (say at the speed of light multiplied by 1 million billion trillon zillion, something ridiculously fast), you would still never reach any kind of ending of space. On your journey you would pass countless universes. In fact, the number of universes would also be infinite because space is infinite.

We exist only as waves in a lake of reluctance. We have no logic or reasoning that could signify that our lake extends into the infinite space. We have nothing to say that it doesn't either. But probability is of no value. It is NOT a probability that we would find another universe (forgiving the misuse of the word "universe"). Probability requires evidence of possibility before it can be calculated. We have no tools at all to indicate anything in any direction concerning such - total ignorance.

Across infinite space, and an infinite number of universes, if you travelled long enough, you would come across a universe exactly identical to ours. And universes exactly identical to ours would also be infinite.

You are leaving out the fact that you are dividing infinities. Infinity divided by infinity yields a finite.

If you have an infinite number of things distributed over an infinite distance with each having an infinite possibility of variety, then you only know that you know nothing about them. You can not conclude that any one would be identical to another regardless of how many there are simply because they would have an infinite capacity to be different than each other.


Thus the entire rest of you speculation becomes void.

moogoob had a point in the first reply.. What is the benefit of pondering over something that you can never know anything about?

On the other hand, the consequences of using up your time in such ponderings takes away from your minds already hindered ability to handle your life’s needs.

Occupying yourself in fruitless endeavor is a sin.... Your a BAAaaaaaaad boy... It's the hail mary closet for YOU.

(now, say an infinite number of hail mary's for an infinite amount of time until you catch one of you're other infinite possible selves saying the same infinite exercise, then apologize.)

 

[relaxeus]

We exist only as waves in a lake of reluctance. We have no logic or reasoning that could signify that our lake extends into the infinite space. We have nothing to say that it doesn't either. But probability is of no value. It is NOT a probability that we would find another universe (forgiving the misuse of the word "universe"). Probability requires evidence of possibility before it can be calculated. We have no tools at all to indicate anything in any direction concerning such - total ignorance.




You are leaving out the fact that you are dividing infinities. Infinity divided by infinity yields a finite.

If you have an infinite number of things distributed over an infinite distance with each having an infinite possibility of variety, then you only know that you know nothing about them. You can not conclude that any one would be identical to another regardless of how many there are simply because they would have an infinite capacity to be different than each other.


Thus the entire rest of you speculation becomes void.

moogoob had a point in the first reply.. What is the benefit of pondering over something that you can never know anything about?

On the other hand, the consequences of using up your time in such ponderings takes away from your minds already hindered ability to handle your life’s needs.

Occupying yourself in fruitless endeavor is a sin.... Your a BAAaaaaaaad boy... It's the hail mary closet for YOU.

(now, say an infinite number of hail mary's for an infinite amount of time until you catch one of you're other infinite possible selves saying the same infinite exercise, then apologize.)

That post made me laugh




Now...

We have no tools at all to indicate anything in any direction concerning such - total ignorance.

I don't need tools. To me, there are only 2 possibilities. First, there is absolutely nothing - which is not the case. Second, there is an infinity of something - which is the case. This is because if at any one point in space the conditions are such that matter exists, this must mean that there must also be other places where matter exists - an infinite number of other places.

You are leaving out the fact that you are dividing infinities. Infinity divided by infinity yields a finite.

Dividing infinities? Where did you come up with that? Infinity divided by infinity yields a finite? How? You mean you could say that 10 infinities divided by 5 gives you 2 infinities? Of what relevance is that when speaking about existence? There can only be one infinity of existence. Theres no such thing as a 1/3rd of infinite existence and no such thing as 5 infinite existences, other than in maybe some fantastic mathematical equation.

If you have an infinite number of things distributed over an infinite distance with each having an infinite possibility of variety, then you only know that you know nothing about them. You can not conclude that any one would be identical to another regardless of how many there are simply because they would have an infinite capacity to be different than each other.

I disagree. Matter is finite, therefore can only have a finite number of formations - which would in fact repeat infinitly. Every formation would occur infinitly at any given time.

moogoob had a point in the first reply.. What is the benefit of pondering over something that you can never know anything about?

I believe that this is the truth. To me, there can be no other alternative. The benefit of knowing about the nature of existence? Its priceless!

 

[ReluctantProphet]

I don't need tools.

Your mind is but a tool. YES you need that tool to continue this conversation (at least pretend, k?). Your mind happens to need what some people refer to as "reasoning" or "logic" which is a set of accepted consistant principles by which existence is speculated to behave.

To me, there are only 2 possibilities. First, there is absolutely nothing - which is not the case.

Speculation - what is your "nothing" and "something"?

Second, there is an infinity of something - which is the case.

Speculation again. Who says there is an infinite of something? And what something are you referring to?

This is because if at any one point in space the conditions are such that matter exists, this must mean that there must also be other places where matter exists - an infinite number of other places.

This is what you proposed, it is not a conclusion of your reasoning but merely a restatement of it. What is the reasoning that brought you to this conclusion? My statement is that you CANNOT have reasoning to support this assertion because no reasoning can actually get started and logically proceed. What would your premises be?

Dividing infinities? Where did you come up with that? Infinity divided by infinity yields a finite? How? You mean you could say that 10 infinities divided by 5 gives you 2 infinities?

Since when was "5" an infinite number? When you divide infinity by infinity you cannot know what you get. It could be 3, 139, 1,000,002, or anything else including 1 or even 0. = total unknowability = total ignorance on the matter.

I disagree. Matter is finite, therefore can only have a finite number of formations - which would in fact repeat infinitly.

NOOooo where did you come up with that idea?

I believe that this is the truth. To me, there can be no other alternative. The benefit of knowing about the nature of existence? Its priceless!

If it is “priceless”, then make sure you have it right, else you have spent your life away on nothing at all.

 

[mikenet2006]

I think the idea of continuing in a straght line forever eventualy leading you to a world identical to this one makes sense. Granted the following is true...

1. There is no end to the universe and time and space continue on forever and in all directions. I dont see how this cant be true so I consider this one a given.

2. Big bangs occur everywhere hence filling this infinate void with matter in the form of isolated groups of galixies just like this one. This seems likely to me but there is no data to back it. I truely do believe that events like the one that caused all our galixies to form are not one time occurences. Nothing else in space occurs one time and in one place only to never occur again. This includes formations of galexies, stars, planets, moons. Even here on earth everything is constantly reaccuring. For every death there is a birth is a good example. Everything we know of is based on constant change even down to the smallest of things.

So to assume that here we exsist in a reality that only happens once and only exsist here is very illogical.

Thats the same type of conservative outlook that once upon a time lead many assuming that our planet was the center of the solar system.

The earth being the center of the solar system, and our visible universe being the center of everything that even exsist, are two phrases that belong in the same boat.

 

[ReluctantProphet]

I think the idea of continuing in a straght line forever eventualy leading you to a world identical to this one makes sense.

I agree that it is intellectually appealing, but the fact remains that we can have absolutely no data from which to statistically speculate. We know absolutely nothing from which to deduce that there "must be another". The occurance of one thing in no way statistically leads to the conclusion that the thing must exist somewhere else also. We are tempted to think in these terms because we most commonly deal with finite things of which there seem to be very many duplicates. But when discussing the entire known universe, we have only one occurance from which to draw any speculation and ALL of our logic is only based on the inside propoerties of that one known universe.

We have NOTHING to go by as to how that one got there or if it is even possible for another to exist at all.

The idea that over an infinite distance "surely another must exist" is a false idea simply because it leaves out the infinite possibilities involving how this one got here to begin with.

I am not arguing that other universes can't exist. I am saying that clean logic cannot draw any speculation at all in either direction.

Proclaiming that no other universe can exist is just as logically valid as concluding that there must be one.

Any logic breaks down for either speculation.

We simply have nothing with which to logically speculate on the issue.

Granted the following is true...

1. There is no end to the universe and time and space continue on forever and in all directions. I dont see how this cant be true so I consider this one a given.

2. Big bangs occur everywhere hence filling this infinate void with matter in the form of isolated groups of galixies just like this one.

This is pure conjecture. We know absolutely nothing about how many big bangs might be occurring anywhere.

And if you want to get into the idea of an infinite line, realize that Einstein stated that no such thing exists, it is just a mental aberration. Just as it seemed obvious that the Earth MUST be flat simply because it appears that way most commonly and for most practical concerns such an assumption can be made. According to his model of the entire universe, there is no straight line leading in any infinite direction but rather that every travel leads right back to where you started and such can not be avoided.

Thats the same type of conservative outlook that once upon a time lead many assuming that our planet was the center of the solar system.

Noooo.. this has nothing to do with how important man must be. This has to do with sticking to the real logic and mathematics involved in deductions (with or without any God concerns).

Your concept of an infinite straight line is a conservative old concept that has been out dated for 50 years. You are leading yourself into being similar to those who speculated about what happens when you reach the edge of the Earth. The Earth HAS no edge. The Universe has no edge either. Catch up to the times. The problem is that you simply cannot know anything concerning the matter either for or against.

 

[mikenet2006]

I agree that it is intellectually appealing, but the fact remains that we can have absolutely no data from which to statistically speculate. We know absolutely nothing from which to deduce that there "must be another". The occurance of one thing in no way statistically leads to the conclusion that the thing must exist somewhere else also. We are tempted to think in these terms because we most commonly deal with finite things of which there seem to be very many duplicates. But when discussing the entire known universe, we have only one occurance from which to draw any speculation and ALL of our logic is only based on the inside propoerties of that one known universe.

Like I said before there is infact no hard evidence on wether or not big bangs occur elsewhere and it cant be proven. I agree with you there. To say we cant statistacly speculate on wether or not this is true though, would be like saying we cant specualte that there is life on other planets because we have no psyical evidence.

We have no specimines to study from other planets to prove life, but we have the collected knowladge of hundreds of years of studing space itself. This alows equations like the drake equation to form from limited knowladge. The drake equation is based on what we do understand and it suggest the likelyhood of there being other intellegent life forms elsewhere in the universe despite the fact that we cant even prove there is life of any kind out there at this point.

In a similar way I could make a quick equation of my own that states the likleyhood of big bangs occuring elsewhere in the universe granted the fact that there is even less known about this than there is about life exsisting in space.

Belive me when I say that we have do have some data to go on here. Heck we are here talking about it, that must mean we can speculate on the matter. Ok here is an rudementrey equation I have just conjered up.

likleyhood of a big bang occuring elsewhere is based on the following knowladge.

Do galexies die out - Yes
Do galixies form - Yes

Do solar systems die out - Yes
Do solar systems form - Yes

Do planets and moons form -Yes
Do planets and moons have there eventual end - Yes



lets talk abot less reletive facts a bit closer to home

Does everything that has a begining here on earth have an end - Yes

Does this therefore mean that things that do end are not replaced by things that are constantly beggining - No

Here is some stuff thats a bit more reletive that you should consider.

In the past Has our view of our surroundings in space constently grown larger due to new discoveries? Absolutly

So how long have new discoveries been making our understanding of the scale of space grow? I cant tell you exactly when but im guessing since the dawn of the age of reason.

Also consider that the bubble theory has been proven wrong on a smaller scale in the past. We once thought just our solar system was trapped in a bubble of sorts placing the earth in the center. They thought this way because they simpley couldnt comprehend that there could be anything outside what they could see, and reason with. So they just assumed, hey since there is no data on this great unknown, nothing can exsist beyond what we can see. They were wrong. Not to say that I cant see alternate dimetions beeing true though. You can believe in alternate dimentions and still believe there is infinate space and matter in this one.

I just stray away from theories that put a limit on the scale of things, as these theories are constantly proved wrong.

earlier you compared my way of thinking to the idea that the earth is flat, lol. When I stated that if you went in a straight line you could come across a world just like this one if you traveled far enough, this after passing countless worlds that bear little or no resemblence to this one of course. That didnt mean that I think the universe is a straight line by any means. All I really meant is pick any direction and go. Heck they could tavel outward in a wobbled line, for all I care they could spell there name out along the way and eat dinner at planet Vulcan It is just an idea that represents that even if finding an identical planet to this one would take more time than you and I could comprehend. If you could live forever it would eventually happen. Just like if I lived 5000 years and played the lottery every day I would eventually win.
So I think Relaxeus made a good point with that one.


In short

no I cant prove there is anything beyond 13 billion light years from here, or however much it is, but I can make educated guesses based on history, and the collected knowladge listed above. On all this data I am personaly 100 percent sure that space is infinate, 95 percent sure there is matter beyond 13 billion lightyears out, 50 percent sure there are other dimentions all together "obviously meaning im not to sure", and about 10 confident that the buble theory is factual. Again, this is what I personaly believe, after being interested in space and the unknown since the age of 5.

 

[Buzzbee]

Thanks to the Big Bang, the actual fabric of space and time is big, but limited all the same. It is a theory that the Universe is still expanding. All the same, limited universe in all its physical dimensions.

 

[ReluctantProphet]

To say we cant statistacly speculate on wether or not this is true though, would be like saying we cant specualte that there is life on other planets because we have no psyical evidence.

Rather than go through the very many fallacies in reasoning that you have just posted, let’s try to narrow the scope a bit.

Please show us the statistical math involved when speculating the probabilities involved from a sample of one.

All that you have speculated has been based on what you believe about this universe, this one universe. We know that everything in this universe is all made of the same substance. It is what Aristotle some 2300 years ago called ether and what today they call “the fabric of space”.

The OP suggested that if we travel in a straight line (presuming that such a thing actually existed) for an infinite distance, then we would see this and that eventually. But the point is that we only have a statistical basis for speculation of one. We only know things about a universe that is made of what we are made of, we know of nothing else at all.

We cannot know of what would happen if a very large area of space were filled with a different substance than ours. We cannot know what cause and effect relationships might make it up. We don’t even know how many other substances there could be which could form another universe.

We have one known universe from which to speculate. Our sample is one. Our optional choices are unknown. There could be only 2 substances that can ever create a universe. There could be 10,000. There could be no limit. We have only one from which to speculate.

So given that we have one and we have no knowledge of the make or number of any other substances from which to create a universe. Please show us the statistical math involved so as to speculate how many other similar universes there are to this one out of all of the possibilities so as to come up with your 100% certainty.

 

[relaxeus]

Your mind is but a tool. YES you need that tool to continue this conversation (at least pretend, k?). Your mind happens to need what some people refer to as "reasoning" or "logic" which is a set of accepted consistant principles by which existence is speculated to behave.

Ok there Mr. Smartypants, taking what I said totally out of context lol.

Speculation - what is your "nothing" and "something"?

nothing = a lack of anything? c'mon! nothing = nothing
something = anything

Speculation again. Who says there is an infinite of something? And what something are you referring to?

I say. Anything. Any kind of matter or space.

This is what you proposed, it is not a conclusion of your reasoning but merely a restatement of it. What is the reasoning that brought you to this conclusion?

That is my reasoning, or atleast part of it, as to why I think there is an infinite amount of space and matter.

Since when was "5" an infinite number? When you divide infinity by infinity you cannot know what you get. It could be 3, 139, 1,000,002, or anything else including 1 or even 0. = total unknowability = total ignorance on the matter.

You are the one that started talking about math. I have no idea of what relevance it is to a discussion of infinity. It's not a concept that requires math to understand.

NOOooo where did you come up with that idea?

In my home

C'mon, if matter is finite then it can only have a finite number of formations. Break it down into simple formations such as having 10 lego pieces to start with. There are only so many formations you can make. Regardless of how many lego pieces you have and how much time is involved, there are still only a finite number of possible formations.

If it is “priceless”, then make sure you have it right, else you have spent your life away on nothing at all.

Are you assuming that all I do is think about this idea and pursue only the activities that are related to it? Then you could argue that I spend my whole life on nothing lol. As it is, this idea does not take up much of my time and energy. I have a life outside of this idea

 

[mikenet2006]

Rather than go through the very many fallacies in reasoning that you have just posted, let’s try to narrow the scope a bit.

Please show us the statistical math involved when speculating the probabilities involved from a sample of one.

All that you have speculated has been based on what you believe about this universe, this one universe. We know that everything in this universe is all made of the same substance. It is what Aristotle some 2300 years ago called ether and what today they call “the fabric of space”.

The OP suggested that if we travel in a straight line (presuming that such a thing actually existed) for an infinite distance, then we would see this and that eventually. But the point is that we only have a statistical basis for speculation of one. We only know things about a universe that is made of what we are made of, we know of nothing else at all.

We cannot know of what would happen if a very large area of space were filled with a different substance than ours. We cannot know what cause and effect relationships might make it up. We don’t even know how many other substances there could be which could form another universe.

We have one known universe from which to speculate. Our sample is one. Our optional choices are unknown. There could be only 2 substances that can ever create a universe. There could be 10,000. There could be no limit. We have only one from which to speculate.

So given that we have one and we have no knowledge of the make or number of any other substances from which to create a universe. Please show us the statistical math involved so as to speculate how many other similar universes there are to this one out of all of the possibilities so as to come up with your 100% certainty.

Let me be frank, you can still be reluctantprophet, but im frank for now...

First off, In no way is mathmatics the most important tool needed to learn about unknowns. It is a tool that has helped us alot along the way, but it is one tool of many.

When prehistoric man first learned how to start fires, I didnt hear about them chiseling math equations on stone walls, or popping out calculators. This along with countles other discoveries were made using no math at all.

Secondly, In no way does one absolutly need side by side examples, or comparisons of something in order to speculate.

In one of my other post in this forum I had stated that this world is imperfect. One of the responses I got was something like this ""How do you know that this world is imperfect if you have no other world to compare it to""

My mouth liked to drop when I heard that one. I dont need side by side comparisons or mathmatics to speculate those arent the most important tools to discovery anyway. So what is?? Well id have to say simple observation and imagination.

To prove that studying your surroundings can lead to the discovery of something that we know little or nothing about ""nothing about DIRECTLY mind you""
look into history... all discoveries have been made in a progressive manner. Since the discovery of the ability to start fires, up to today we make discoveries about unknowns from the collected knowladge that has been gathered since the dawn of man.

One great example, ""and this should put this into perpective"" would be the fact that people had speculated that the earth was round decades before Columbus ever set sail to prove it. We had no specimines, and we had no way to compare our side of the globe with the side we knew nothing about, given nobody had seen it or been there""

Mathmatics was a tool that came into play by this time unlike the discovery of starting fires. However just like today it was not the most important tool. Again it was observation and using collected knowladge. One example is the fact that many thought the earth was round because while sailing if a ship would approach them head on, on a calm day they noticed that the top became visible first, then slowley from top to bottem the whole thing would become visible. This gave them the impresion that the curvature of the earth was blocking there line of site. So with no hard evedence and no mathmatics the people who understood this concept were able CORRECTLY speculate that the earth was round. Keep in mind that this also alowed them to believe in an unseen and unknown mass of water and/or land. Had they personaly been there? No, but they sure did get it right despite the fact.

Of course we are never right all the time but discovery is all about trial and error. The bubble theory could very well be revised or done away with like it was in the past do to a new discovery. On the other hand a new dicovery could come along that makes me think twice about the matter, But as it stands from all my collected knowladge including history, and space sciences. This is the conclusion I have come to and it didnt take mathmatics, or side by side comparisons to make it.

Keep in mind that the bubble theory is one popular theory of many.. Just like the infinate space and time theory is antother popular theory.

Some people require alot of data to believe in something Like the man who did this website. Here is a man who honestly believes there is no moon at all. It simpley doesnt exsist to him. All this beacuse he hasnt personally been there. He literaly has an entire website dedicated to proving there is no moon. Now im not making comparisons between him and anyone else here, because this man is obviously off his chain a little, but in the worst of cases this is what this type of 2 dimentional thinking, that requires someone to prove every detail of an idea, leads to.

http://www.revisionism.nl/Moon/The-Mad-Revisionist.htm

 

[ReluctantProphet]

Ok there Mr. Smartypants, taking what I said totally out of context lol.

Grin..

That is my reasoning, or atleast part of it, as to why I think there is an infinite amount of space and matter.

But it seems that you are saying that the universe is infinite because it is infinite and thus must be infinite.

C'mon, if matter is finite then it can only have a finite number of formations. Break it down into simple formations such as having 10 lego pieces to start with. There are only so many formations you can make. Regardless of how many lego pieces you have and how much time is involved, there are still only a finite number of possible formations.

Wait, matter is finite? Hmmm... matter is made of waves of energy chasing themselves into a frenzy.

How could you know where the beginning of any wave therein begins? How can you say that a moving thing has only a finite number of possible positions that it might be in at any one time?

Take for example a simple wave of water. Where does the wave actually begin? - An inifinitely small place where an inifinitely small amount of energy is being passed in the direction of the upcoming wave.

But now, during the next second for that wave, there are an inifinite number of infinitely small steps in time where that beginning point changes its location.

So just in that one wave, during a period of only one second, you already have an infinite number of positions being used.

Add to that all of the other waves in every ocean, puddle, or liquid and also add all of the radio waves, sound waves, light waves, and finally the waves that constitute actual bits of matter spinning in their furious plight to nowhere as they bump occasionally into each other at infinitely precise angles.

Then consider the entire universe of these things that have been already in motion for 20 billion years from what we can determine.

So how many multiples of infinity does that make? and we are only talking about the behavior of this one universe.

This one already has an infinite number of possible positions to be in. Then on top of that, you want to speculate that all other universes must have the same type of make such that eventually one would be exactly aligned over a period of 20 billion years of motion such as to bring its infinite selection of position into exact alignment with another universe doing the same.

Now even if you found an infinite number of other similar universes, you would then have to speculate how many of those infinite began at the exact infinitely small instant in time and every infinitely small bit of fabric took off in the exact infinitely precise magnitude and direction such that after 20 billion years later, all of the infinite possible things that might have ocurred would be exactly the same another.

You end up having to divide some unknown number of infinities by infinity = UNKNOWABLE result = TOTAL lack of ability to speculate at all.

Are you assuming that all I do is think about this idea and pursue only the activities that are related to it? Then you could argue that I spend my whole life on nothing lol. As it is, this idea does not take up much of my time and energy. I have a life outside of this idea

Not really, I can tell that you haven't really thought much on this subject ...

 

[ReluctantProphet]

When prehistoric man first learned how to start fires, I didnt hear about them chiseling math equations on stone walls, or popping out calculators. This along with countles other discoveries were made using no math at all.

Now wait Frank, remember that we are talking about the infinite possibilities. Just because you didn't hear about them using math doesn't mean that in all of the infinite things that you didn't hear about, that wasn't one of them. In fact, it would seem, that since the number of things that you haven't heard about must be an infinite number, then the probablility is simply that they really did use math and you just didn't hear about it.

 

[mikenet2006]

lol, now I think your trying to be funny. So im not frank anymore. I could picture this in my mind right now.....

Hey fellow harry cave man can you pass me the 3 3/4 inch wooden stick so I can get started here. Dont you know that im going to be blowing on this pile of wood for approximatly 7 minutes and 34.234 seconds so we can have a warm meal tonight. Make yourself usefull I see a good one 15.5 feet away.