The universe at the end of this sentence.

[AV1611VET]

Am I to believe that if you converted all the mass in the universe to energy, that energy could be stored within the period at the end of a sentence?

 

[Freodin]

Am I to believe that if you converted all the mass in the universe to energy, that energy could be stored within the period at the end of a sentence?

No.

If you did that... where would the sentence be?

 

[Gracchus]

Am I to believe that if you converted all the mass in the universe to energy, that energy could be stored within the period at the end of a sentence?

No.

If you did that... where would the sentence be?

As a matter of fact, there would be nothing left to compare the size. The universe is always as big as the universe. It has size of one, and everything else is always a fraction of that.

It is Euler's Formula all over. (e^(ix)= cos (x) + i sin (x)). If everything in the universe were converted to mass, and the mass were equal to cos x equal to 1 UMU (universal mass units) then sin (x) would be equal to zero and there would be no free energy. And if the mass were all converted to energy then the mass would be zero, but since energy has no spatial metric (because a wave has no location until it interacts with mass) a universe with only energy doesn't really have any size.

 

[AV1611VET]

And if the mass were all converted to energy then the mass would be zero, but since energy has no spatial metric (because a wave has no location until it interacts with mass) a universe with only energy doesn't really have any size.

So I take it you are agreeing with me that that no-size energy could be stored within a period at the end of a sentence?

And what does 'doesn't really have any size' mean? I see doubt embedded in that sentence.

 

[hasone]

So I take it you are agreeing with me that that no-size energy could be stored within a period at the end of a sentence?

And what does 'doesn't really have any size' mean? I see doubt embedded in that sentence.

No, he is not, because in such a situation a "period at the end of a sentence" is nonsensical. Without mass, there are no sentences, and no periods.

"No size" doesn't mean "small size", it means that the concept of "size" doesn't apply

 

[AV1611VET]

No, he is not, because in such a situation a "period at the end of a sentence" is nonsensical.

I disagree.

Without mass, there are no sentences, and no periods.

That's so cute -- mental block causing you to miss the point?

"No size" doesn't mean "small size",

No kidding.

... it means that the concept of "size" doesn't apply

From Wikipedia:

In 1931 Lemaitre went further and suggested that the evident expansion of the universe, if projected back in time, meant that the further in the past the smaller the universe was, until at some finite time in the past all the mass of the Universe was concentrated into a single point, a "primeval atom" where and when the fabric of time and space came into existence.

I'm asking if this "primeval atom" could be stored within a period at the end of a sentence.

 

[Amber the Duskbringer]

Dude that period would like blow up your computer! =O Be one bad period. Like the Blade of periods or Kate Beckinsale in underworld of periods.

 

[AV1611VET]

Dude that period would like blow up your computer! =O Be one bad period. Like the Blade of periods or Kate Beckinsale in underworld of periods.

I'll tell you what, let's call it the head of a pin then, since period seems to be so confusing these educatees, eh?

(Although I do like "primeval atom".)

 

[Amber the Duskbringer]

But a bad period sounds funnier. Innuendo and all that rot.

 

[AV1611VET]

I need a Ph.D. or something, so I can have mental blocks too.

 

[Amber the Duskbringer]

It comes naturally to me. Wait, whats a mental block? You're makin fun of me aren't you!

 

[AV1611VET]

It comes naturally to me. Wait, whats a mental block? You're makin fun of me aren't you!

No, mam.

 

[Amber the Duskbringer]

Oh ok! Well let's talk more about this magical period!

 

[hasone]

I disagree.

That's so cute -- mental block causing you to miss the point?

No kidding.

From Wikipedia:
I'm asking if this "primeval atom" could be stored within a period at the end of a sentence.

Again. Having no size means the concept of size does not apply. The concepts of "fitting" "storing", "being inside", and "dancing on the head of", which all rely on the concept of "size", do not apply.



By the way, try not to ask vaguely insulting questions, because they can usually be turned around back at you and add little to the discussion. I will do this now to demonstrate.

You didn't understand "having no size". That's so cute -- mental block causing you to miss the point?

 

[AV1611VET]

Again. Having no size means the concept of size does not apply.

So something with no size expanded? Hmmm.

 

[Freodin]

So something with no size expanded? Hmmm.

Cannot imagine that? Perhaps you should have your mental blocks checked!

The problem with your OP question is that the you place the "period at the end of a sentence" in relation to the universe as you think you know it. The universe is big, the dot is small.

But that dot where all the energy of the universe would be the size of the universe! (Or the not-size of the universe )

 

[hasone]

So something with no size expanded? Hmmm.

I knew you were going to go there. You want to quote me any sort of serious mathematical or scientific paper that said "something with no size expanded?".

Every description I've heard has said that the singularity, whatever we're talking about, at "time=0", is undefined and undefinable. I have read no credible source that claims to definitively define it, or says it expanded, or what not. All the sources I know of talk about what came "after" it. Perhaps an analogy will help.

Do you remember high school math? Consider the graph of the function "f= x*x/x". At all points except when x = 0, the graph of the function is identical to the graph of the function "y = f(x) = x", but at x=0 the function is undefined. We've got little to say about it except that it's undefined and not part of the graph. We can describe the graph arbitrarily close to that point (one way of doing so is called a mathematical limit), but we cannot describe the function at x=0 itself, because at x=0 the function is not defined.

It's the same thing with the universe. We can describe it arbitrarily close to a particular point in time, but once we get there all bets are off. (currently). At that point, we don't know.

 

[AV1611VET]

The universe is big, the dot is small.

Hmmm -- now something with no size is big.

Interesting.

 

[Freodin]

Hmmm -- now something with no size is big.

Interesting.

Did I say that the universe has no size? Did Hasone say so? Read carefully! And reread Gracchus post.

 

[Jazer]

So something with no size expanded? Hmmm.

It's called the balloon theory, you know, lots of hot air