Sun Getting Smaller

[Kraj]

IMHO an infinite percentage of the universe is irrelevant to us, but some still ponder it

Interesting choice of words since you must have pondered the universe in order to determine its relevancy

BTW, if you believe the universe is infinite then discussing it in terms of percentage does not make sense since 50% of infinity is infinity. If you believe the universe is finite, then you cannot possibly measure more than 100% of the universe, so an "infinite percentage" doesn't exist.

It's been awhile since I nitpicked one of your posts. That was fun!

Actually it's a question that has been asked for quite sometime. Quantum physics and Relativity are physics of the early 20th century. For the last 80 odd years we've been using them to understand the universe but we've not been able to unite them.

That's actually my point. Even though the human race has made tremendous advances in the last 80 years, it's really a drop in the bucket compared to the whole of human history. So it's just too soon to seriously suggest we might never find an answer.

 

[KenHigg]

Interesting choice of words since you must have pondered the universe in order to determine its relevancy

BTW, if you believe the universe is infinite then discussing it in terms of percentage does not make sense since 50% of infinity is infinity. If you believe the universe is finite, then you cannot possibly measure more than 100% of the universe, so an "infinite percentage" doesn't exist.

It's been awhile since I nitpicked one of your posts. That was fun!

Just wait till you get back in the 'Boxing Ring'

 

[KenHigg]

Interesting choice of words since you must have pondered the universe in order to determine its relevancy

BTW, if you believe the universe is infinite then discussing it in terms of percentage does not make sense since 50% of infinity is infinity. If you believe the universe is finite, then you cannot possibly measure more than 100% of the universe, so an "infinite percentage" doesn't exist.

But, can't there be an infinite number up to 100 (100%) i.e. .99999... (?)

 

[Kraj]

But, can't there be an infinite number up to 100 (100%) i.e. .99999... (?)

Your original words were "infinite percentage". A percentage is a fraction of the whole, which - by definition - can never be more than 100 unless relative to something else. You can divide the whole into infinitely small fractions, yes, but only if you believe the universe is finite. Otherwise, ∞/999,999,999,999,999,999,999,999,999 is still ∞.

 

[Rich]

Like a barrister, eh?

Or

 

[KenHigg]

Your original words were "infinite percentage". A percentage is a fraction of the whole, which - by definition - can never be more than 100 unless relative to something else. You can divide the whole into infinitely small fractions, yes, but only if you believe the universe is finite. Otherwise, ∞/999,999,999,999,999,999,999,999,999 is still ∞.

 

[Rich]

But, can't there be an infinite number up to 100 (100%) i.e. .99999... (?)

Surely that's just a recurring number, not an infinite one?

 

[Kraj]

LOL That was fantastic! I'm almost in tears... Oh, man....

 

[dt01pqt]

Interesting choice of words since you must have pondered the universe in order to determine its relevancy

BTW, if you believe the universe is infinite then discussing it in terms of percentage does not make sense since 50% of infinity is infinity. If you believe the universe is finite, then you cannot possibly measure more than 100% of the universe, so an "infinite percentage" doesn't exist.

An infinite present as in ∞% equals ∞ and therefore is not a percentage of anything. But 100% of ∞ being ∞ is still ∞ but so is abs% of ∞ except for n=0. Total philosophy though. So a fraction of ∞ is not a fraction and only equates when it is not a number. Total philosophy though because 0 and ∞ only exist as a conceptual tool.

 

[Kraj]

An infinite present as in ∞% equals ∞ and therefore is not a percentage of anything. But 100% of ∞ being ∞ is still ∞ but so is abs% of ∞ except for n=0. Total philosophy though. So a fraction of ∞ is not a fraction and only equates when it is not a number. Total philosophy though because 0 and ∞ only exist as a conceptual tool.

This is pretty much just a restatement of what I said (as far as I can tell) except for the last line, which I found fascinating. I hadn't really thought about the concept of 0, since it is a rather basic concept and easy to understand and visualize. Also, it is a component of numbers that do exists, like 10. But when you think about it, it's weird that 0 doesn't really exist and it only serves as a reminder of potential.

 

[Uncle Gizmo]

>>> Expanding Waste line <<<<

 

[dt01pqt]

This is pretty much just a restatement of what I said (as far as I can tell) except for the last line, which I found fascinating. I hadn't really thought about the concept of 0, since it is a rather basic concept and easy to understand and visualize. Also, it is a component of numbers that do exists, like 10. But when you think about it, it's weird that 0 doesn't really exist and it only serves as a reminder of potential.

Sorry it was meant to be a restatement. You should watch the story of 1 (BBC) hopefully they will put it on DVD to order. It is narrated by Terry Gilliam from Monty Python. Basically the idea of 0 sound easy to you or me but the Summerians, Egyptians, and various other early counting civilisations did not have 0. It was the Indians that cracked it (Arabic numerals are actually Indian not Arabic.) There also came up with the idea that you would have a symbol for numbers 1-9 instead of a series of 1's and symbols for tens, thousands, etc. But the real breakthrough came when they combined 0 with 1 and the other numbers and therefore didn't have to create more and more impossibly big numbers (and symbols). Number comes as a requirement for civilisation. Aboriginal tribes have a word for 1 but anything else is 'many'. They don't require numbers because they can navigate the outback through songs.

 

[KenHigg]

>>> Expanding Waste line <<<<

Ha... Waste Line. Now that's funny

 

[jsanders]

Basically the idea of 0 sound easy to you or me but the Summerians, Egyptians, and various other early counting civilisations did not have 0.

That’s amazing when you think about it. Our entire thought process is partly based on understanding numbers from an early age. Our brains actually develop structure to deal with it. It’s hard to imagine a culture without that concept.

 

[dt01pqt]

That’s amazing when you think about it. Our entire thought process is partly based on understanding numbers from an early age. Our brains actually develop structure to deal with it. It’s hard to imagine a culture without that concept.

That is becuase our number system contains 0 in it. If you look at the summerians they had little clay tokens representing 1. You can put clay tokens on the table you can take them away. If you take all the clay token off the table there as far as they are conserned there are no clay tokens on the table but they didn't have zero as a symbol. As far as a structure in the brain is conserned there is a part of the brain that deals with the abstract. However for most of us that number system needs to be learned.

 

[jsanders]

There's evidence that your brain develops structures as you learn. I can’t remember where I saw that, but I think it was The Discovery Channel. You could probably search the records at Nature Magazine to find out more.

 

[The Stoat]

That is becuase our number system contains 0 in it. If you look at the summerians they had little clay tokens representing 1. You can put clay tokens on the table you can take them away. If you take all the clay token off the table there as far as they are conserned there are no clay tokens on the table but they didn't have zero as a symbol. As far as a structure in the brain is conserned there is a part of the brain that deals with the abstract. However for most of us that number system needs to be learned.

Is that symbolization necessary? As you state they were aware of the concept of nothing. Is the lack of a token in itself symbolic and the ulimate in abstract.


The lack of tablet called 0 could be because their mathematical structure had a place for an empty space. The lack of a tablet was symbolic of 0.

Like; Lets work out how many sheep we have in the village.

Fred:---------------8
Bob:----------------5
John the sheepless:
Kevin:--------------3
Total:--------------16

 

[KenHigg]

There's evidence that your brain develops structures as you learn.

Does this mean it breaks down as we forget stuff?

I can’t remember where I saw that, but ...

Would it mean your's just broke down?

 

[drobinson]

One of the fundamental principles of physics is the "information" is never lost i.e. energy can be converted in to matter and matter into energy however nothing is ever lost...

True, true..but by observation only. The 'laws' of physics are by no mean immutable. They are essentially the best conclusions drawn based on what data is available now. How do we know things might not change? Something new might be discovered.

By example, when Newton first developed equations for Classical Dynamics, energy (kinetic, for example) could be modeled by E = 1/2 mv^2. This worked perfectly for all practical purposes for hundreds of years. Then, come the advent of heavy-massed objects (or high-velocity), and this did not hold. Enter Einstein's relativity and that equation was more precisely realized as E = Y m c ^ 2 - m c ^ 2, where Y = 1/(1 - (V^2)/(c^2))^0.5 to account for all cases, low velocity (like we normally would use) but also high-velocity and high-mass frames. (c is the speed of light, 8 x 10^8 m/s) Plug in numbers, and see that the more complex reduces down to simply E = 1/2 mv^2 extremely well, but it's not absolutely correct, only an approximation.

So then, physics is a model - a tool, if you will. To describe what we observe. It is not absolute truth. The reality of what is the truth may escape us, but for the meantime, physicists base their 'laws' on what is onhand with observational evidence.

In the nuclear furnace of a sun, matter undergoes fusion and transfers to a huge amount of energy, and energy 'particles' - neutrinos, photons, etc. So there is a definite output to the Sun on a mass basis - part of it's mass is converted to energy, which when leaves the Sun in the form of light, IR, EM, et al waves, particles, and is gone from the 'Sun' system. So unless there is a energy/mass input to the Sun, it will definitely shrink. Slowly, but it will according to what's known. But who's to say that the energy/matter will not be conserved? So far, it sure looks like this will not be changed since evidence supports it in our immediate realm of the Earth for obervation. What evidence is there from the Sun? The available data cannot provide sufficient evidence to prove energy will be conserved with sufficient precision, it's just assumed that it will be. Maybe you're not isolating the scope of your argument (what does the rule apply to?), but don't dogmatically state something will or will not happen if you have no proof behind it.

The Sun and fusion are really unproven for the fundamental laws, precision and ability to observe the entire system is simply not there, so we don't know what really happens. On one hand, scientific rigor and discpline should always be exercised, but putting down an honest question about the fundamental nature of anything like your response does, takes away the impulse to pursue intellectual curiosity - one of the human flaws that have bereaved dreams of realization of truth from those courageous enough to dream them. I'm certain this has occurred many times over the eons of human history.

 

[seth_belgium]

Here's my theory (btw I just love the subject ):

The expanding of the universe is the effect of the big bang that gave birth to it. Try imagining the amount of energy this created when you know the universe is still expanding...

Now, I personally don't believe in infinity. There might be a reason why we can't grasp the concept of infinity : it just doesn't exist...

Thus: the expansion of the universe will one day stop. Wether or not it will shrink back to it's original state (a singularity) seems doubtfull to me...

How do I see the universe? Kinda like I see our galaxy, the Milky Way: A collection of galaxies caught in each others gravitational pull, or maybe a super-singularity in the middle of it all (probably not since that super-singularity exploded with a big bang).

one thing I'm practically sure of is that this isn't the only universe. There must be others beyond it... It's portrayed beautifully by the movie 'Men In Black'. The universe, that looks immense to us, might be relatively small in perspective to other entities or other things. Thus the possibility exists that our universe is just one of many, just like our Milky Way is only one of many Galaxies.

I could go on and on with this... :-D

Oh, by the way: these are only my thoughts and points-of-view. I do not pretend to know how it all works, nobody does... It's just a possibility!