Topic: Is any physical object in this universe functionally infinite?
+Anonymous A — 10.7 years ago #43,887
Yes. If any given three-dimensional object has an infinite number of points on its surface and an infinite number of points within its interior volume, then every physical object in the universe must be functionally infinite.
+DoctOn !Uvm54ORbmo — 10.7 years ago, 4 minutes later[T] [B] #480,646
> If
End of story.
End of story.
+RedCream — 10.7 years ago, 2 hours later, 2 hours after the original post[T] [B] #480,650
I will drop my RedCream persona for this discussion.
The OP's answer is "NO". The term "functional" places a practical boundary on any identifiable structure. For example there is no functional use for a set of infinite points.
The proof is obvious. How do you know there's an infinite set of points? You'd need to count them via some manner of enumerative process. That would take an infinite amount of time, which violates the practical boundary. Hence, nobody actually knows if anything is infinite since in order to decide that, the object would have to be enumerated or bounded, and in being infinite, such enumeration or bounding could not be completed in finite time. The evaluation process would never complete. And if the evaluation process does complete in finite time, then you know the object under evaluation isn't infinite.
The OP's answer is "NO". The term "functional" places a practical boundary on any identifiable structure. For example there is no functional use for a set of infinite points.
The proof is obvious. How do you know there's an infinite set of points? You'd need to count them via some manner of enumerative process. That would take an infinite amount of time, which violates the practical boundary. Hence, nobody actually knows if anything is infinite since in order to decide that, the object would have to be enumerated or bounded, and in being infinite, such enumeration or bounding could not be completed in finite time. The evaluation process would never complete. And if the evaluation process does complete in finite time, then you know the object under evaluation isn't infinite.
+The Doctor !7MHPahvoGY — 10.7 years ago, 16 minutes later, 3 hours after the original post[T] [B] #480,653
·DoctOn !Uvm54ORbmo — 10.7 years ago, 4 minutes later, 3 hours after the original post[T] [B] #480,655
@previous (The Doctor !7MHPahvoGY)
Dude, show him some respect for him actually dropping his worn shtick, even just for a reply.
Dude, show him some respect for him actually dropping his worn shtick, even just for a reply.
·The Doctor !7MHPahvoGY — 10.7 years ago, 1 hour later, 4 hours after the original post[T] [B] #480,662
@previous (DoctOn !Uvm54ORbmo)See https://www.tinychan.org/topic/41579#reply_453683
(Edited 14 seconds later.)
·DoctOn !Uvm54ORbmo — 10.7 years ago, 30 minutes later, 5 hours after the original post[T] [B] #480,663
+Anonymous E — 10.7 years ago, 52 minutes later, 6 hours after the original post[T] [B] #480,669
@480,650 (RedCream )
> I will drop my RedCream persona for this discussion.
You still are, no matter if you drop your redcream persona for this or not, a cock consuming faggot
> I will drop my RedCream persona for this discussion.
You still are, no matter if you drop your redcream persona for this or not, a cock consuming faggot
·RedCream — 10.7 years ago, 2 hours later, 8 hours after the original post[T] [B] #480,672
It's good to see that the rest of you found my reasoning to be final and that there was no more discussion on the topic to take place.Sadly, that meant this thread became like many others: A RedCream thread.
Still, the notoriety is pleasing. I'm sure the root cause is envy. Thank you all for that.
·Anonymous E — 10.7 years ago, 2 hours later, 11 hours after the original post[T] [B] #480,683
@previous (RedCream )
Actually, I only read the first paragraph, then it became boring and I stopped.
Actually, I only read the first paragraph, then it became boring and I stopped.
·The Doctor !7MHPahvoGY — 10.7 years ago, 20 minutes later, 12 hours after the original post[T] [B] #480,684
@480,672 (RedCream )> A RedCream thread.
No it isn't. You dropped your RedCream persona for this discussion.
+Anonymous F — 10.7 years ago, 3 hours later, 15 hours after the original post[T] [B] #480,696
@480,653 (The Doctor !7MHPahvoGY)
You seem like an intelligent man, Doctor, so tell me, why do you support degenerate tranny rights?
You seem like an intelligent man, Doctor, so tell me, why do you support degenerate tranny rights?
+Anonymous G — 10.7 years ago, 37 minutes later, 15 hours after the original post[T] [B] #480,701
your mum
·The Doctor !7MHPahvoGY — 10.7 years ago, 24 minutes later, 16 hours after the original post[T] [B] #480,703
·Anonymous F — 10.7 years ago, 48 minutes later, 17 hours after the original post[T] [B] #480,708
@previous (The Doctor !7MHPahvoGY)
Why do you dodge the question, Doctor, are you scared of something?
Why do you dodge the question, Doctor, are you scared of something?
·The Doctor !7MHPahvoGY — 10.7 years ago, 32 minutes later, 17 hours after the original post[T] [B] #480,712
·RedCream — 10.7 years ago, 1 hour later, 18 hours after the original post[T] [B] #480,728
@480,684 (The Doctor !7MHPahvoGY)
> No it isn't.
Yes it is.
> You dropped your RedCream persona for this discussion.
I'm still obviously RedCream.
Logic isn't your strong suit. Stick to things you know, like manual nostril exploration.
> No it isn't.
Yes it is.
> You dropped your RedCream persona for this discussion.
I'm still obviously RedCream.
Logic isn't your strong suit. Stick to things you know, like manual nostril exploration.
·Anonymous G — 10.7 years ago, 1 hour later, 20 hours after the original post[T] [B] #480,735
·Anonymous F — 10.7 years ago, 1 hour later, 21 hours after the original post[T] [B] #480,737
·Anonymous A (OP) — 10.7 years ago, 1 hour later, 23 hours after the original post[T] [B] #480,746
@480,650 (RedCream )
When physicists describe a singularity as being of infinite density, do they mean literally infinite, or simply "beyond calculation under the current understanding of physics"?
When physicists describe a singularity as being of infinite density, do they mean literally infinite, or simply "beyond calculation under the current understanding of physics"?
·The Doctor !7MHPahvoGY — 10.7 years ago, 3 hours later, 1 day after the original post[T] [B] #480,757
·RedCream — 10.7 years ago, 29 minutes later, 1 day after the original post[T] [B] #480,760
@480,746 (A)
> When physicists describe a singularity as being of infinite density, do they mean literally infinite, or simply "beyond calculation under the current understanding of physics"?
An infinity in your equation is a rather strong indicator that you've reached the wrong conclusion.
I'd lean to the latter result you specified. Once the escape velocity of the object reached lightspeed, it simply walled itself off from our detection and therefore understanding of what it became.
> When physicists describe a singularity as being of infinite density, do they mean literally infinite, or simply "beyond calculation under the current understanding of physics"?
An infinity in your equation is a rather strong indicator that you've reached the wrong conclusion.
I'd lean to the latter result you specified. Once the escape velocity of the object reached lightspeed, it simply walled itself off from our detection and therefore understanding of what it became.
·RedCream — 10.7 years ago, 2 minutes later, 1 day after the original post[T] [B] #480,761
@480,757 (The Doctor !7MHPahvoGY)
Which letter in the word "RedCream" so stunningly confused you? Was it the "R"? One or more of the "e" letters? Which one?
You try to make EVERY thread about myself. Although that is flattering and I must firmly count you among my dedicated fans (even worshipers), it does get in the way of serious discussion. Consider yourself suitably admonished and we can now wipe the slate clean and start fresh... if you so choose.
Which letter in the word "RedCream" so stunningly confused you? Was it the "R"? One or more of the "e" letters? Which one?
You try to make EVERY thread about myself. Although that is flattering and I must firmly count you among my dedicated fans (even worshipers), it does get in the way of serious discussion. Consider yourself suitably admonished and we can now wipe the slate clean and start fresh... if you so choose.
+Dr.G Louie Ph.D !uSk4BCgU1. — 10.7 years ago, 1 hour later, 1 day after the original post[T] [B] #480,765
Electricity.
·DoctOn !Uvm54ORbmo — 10.7 years ago, 5 minutes later, 1 day after the original post[T] [B] #480,767
@previous (Dr.G Louie Ph.D !uSk4BCgU1.)
My phone never has infinite electricity.
Your argument is invalid.
My phone never has infinite electricity.
Your argument is invalid.
·Dr.G Louie Ph.D !uSk4BCgU1. — 10.7 years ago, 3 minutes later, 1 day after the original post[T] [B] #480,768
@previous (DoctOn !Uvm54ORbmo)
Your phone contains a finite storage to hold electricity, which is expended to perform tasks. (Probably porn, in this case) You have to connect it to the endless supply we have tapped into, in order to refill it.
Your phone contains a finite storage to hold electricity, which is expended to perform tasks. (Probably porn, in this case) You have to connect it to the endless supply we have tapped into, in order to refill it.
·DoctOn !Uvm54ORbmo — 10.7 years ago, 22 minutes later, 1 day after the original post[T] [B] #480,769
@previous (Dr.G Louie Ph.D !uSk4BCgU1.)
The source of the refilling electricity comes from various finite source.
Your argument is still invalid.
The source of the refilling electricity comes from various finite source.
Your argument is still invalid.
·Dr.G Louie Ph.D !uSk4BCgU1. — 10.7 years ago, 1 hour later, 1 day after the original post[T] [B] #480,775
@previous (DoctOn !Uvm54ORbmo)
Only because of our inefficient ways of harvesting electricity. Electricity is everywhere, it's easily the most prevalent force in the universe. The earth it's self produces electricity, by having a magnetic field, and spinning within the sun's magnetic field.
Only because of our inefficient ways of harvesting electricity. Electricity is everywhere, it's easily the most prevalent force in the universe. The earth it's self produces electricity, by having a magnetic field, and spinning within the sun's magnetic field.
(Edited 13 seconds later.)
·The Doctor !7MHPahvoGY — 10.7 years ago, 23 minutes later, 1 day after the original post[T] [B] #480,780
·RedCream — 10.7 years ago, 33 minutes later, 1 day after the original post[T] [B] #480,786
@previous (The Doctor !7MHPahvoGY)
I have never seen anyone take a cross (with tooth marks upon it) and then strike it to proaduce a vibratoary toan. You are a very weird person and I shudder intrinsically when I imagine the life experience that has led you daon this road. A roal is implied in all that. Are you man enough to admit it? Woman enough? Neuter enough? Otherkin-genqueer enough? Oar whatever else you might be?
I have never seen anyone take a cross (with tooth marks upon it) and then strike it to proaduce a vibratoary toan. You are a very weird person and I shudder intrinsically when I imagine the life experience that has led you daon this road. A roal is implied in all that. Are you man enough to admit it? Woman enough? Neuter enough? Otherkin-genqueer enough? Oar whatever else you might be?
·The Doctor !7MHPahvoGY — 10.7 years ago, 1 hour later, 1 day after the original post[T] [B] #480,796
+Anonymous I — 10.7 years ago, 16 minutes later, 1 day after the original post[T] [B] #480,797
@480,786 (RedCream )
> imagine the life experience that has led you daon this road
> Neuter enough? Otherkin-genqueer enough? Oar whatever else you might be?
lol
> imagine the life experience that has led you daon this road
> Neuter enough? Otherkin-genqueer enough? Oar whatever else you might be?
lol
+Anonymous J — 10.7 years ago, 19 minutes later, 1 day after the original post[T] [B] #480,800
@480,650 (RedCream )
You should drop the persona more. GJ.
@OP
> Yes
No.
@480,708 (F)
Make your own thread to cry about the doctor ffs.
You should drop the persona more. GJ.
@OP
> Yes
No.
@480,708 (F)
Make your own thread to cry about the doctor ffs.
·Anonymous A (OP) — 10.7 years ago, 2 hours later, 1 day after the original post[T] [B] #480,824
@480,760 (RedCream )
Then why use the word "infinite" in lay texts and articles? The term is highly misleading for lay readers. Why not use "unknown", "extreme" or "incalculable"?
Then why use the word "infinite" in lay texts and articles? The term is highly misleading for lay readers. Why not use "unknown", "extreme" or "incalculable"?
·RedCream — 10.7 years ago, 15 hours later, 2 days after the original post[T] [B] #480,900
·Taco thefe !Uvm54ORbmo — 10.7 years ago, 8 minutes later, 2 days after the original post[T] [B] #480,903
@480,824 (A)
Unknown is incorrect, as you can receive information from the part you've counted and observed.
Extreme is vague.
Incalculable is also incorrect as you can also apply calculation on the amount of data you observed.
So infinite is still the most appropriate word, you can do all sort of calculation and statistics within a predefined bound, it is just that the absolute boundary is not found, or yet to be found.
Unknown is incorrect, as you can receive information from the part you've counted and observed.
Extreme is vague.
Incalculable is also incorrect as you can also apply calculation on the amount of data you observed.
So infinite is still the most appropriate word, you can do all sort of calculation and statistics within a predefined bound, it is just that the absolute boundary is not found, or yet to be found.
·Anonymous A (OP) — 10.7 years ago, 17 hours later, 2 days after the original post[T] [B] #480,978
@previous (Taco thefe !Uvm54ORbmo)
So, a singlarity is a functionally infinite object. I was right in my original assumption.
So, a singlarity is a functionally infinite object. I was right in my original assumption.
(Edited 1 minute later.)
·DoctOn !Uvm54ORbmo — 10.7 years ago, 56 minutes later, 2 days after the original post[T] [B] #480,979
@previous (A)
how is a singularity "a physical object"?
also I re-examine your original statement. No it still is not infinite just becoz you keep stuffing dots on a object's surface or volume. Say a 1x1x1 meter cube, you can keep divide its surface in centimeter, minimeter, nanometer or whatever-meter, but as a whole it still is measured 1x1x1 meter cube.
wait, to clarify, by "functionally infinite", do you mean you can get an infinite set of (x,y,z) from a physical object's surface/volume and stuff it into whatever equations the said object is applicable?
how is a singularity "a physical object"?
also I re-examine your original statement. No it still is not infinite just becoz you keep stuffing dots on a object's surface or volume. Say a 1x1x1 meter cube, you can keep divide its surface in centimeter, minimeter, nanometer or whatever-meter, but as a whole it still is measured 1x1x1 meter cube.
wait, to clarify, by "functionally infinite", do you mean you can get an infinite set of (x,y,z) from a physical object's surface/volume and stuff it into whatever equations the said object is applicable?
(Edited 10 minutes later.)
·Anonymous A (OP) — 10.7 years ago, 14 hours later, 3 days after the original post[T] [B] #481,034
@previous (DoctOn !Uvm54ORbmo)
> how is a singularity "a physical object"?
It exists within a physical universe.
> wait, to clarify, by "functionally infinite", do you mean you can get an infinite set of (x,y,z) from a physical object's surface/volume and stuff it into whatever equations the said object is applicable?
Yes.
> how is a singularity "a physical object"?
It exists within a physical universe.
> wait, to clarify, by "functionally infinite", do you mean you can get an infinite set of (x,y,z) from a physical object's surface/volume and stuff it into whatever equations the said object is applicable?
Yes.
(Edited 30 seconds later.)
·DoctOn !Uvm54ORbmo — 10.7 years ago, 2 hours later, 3 days after the original post[T] [B] #481,064
@previous (A)
That would still be a NO. Given any existing three dimensional object with known physical boundary ("infinite" object is practically impossible to make), you already have its width height and depth, then no matter how small you want to plot your dot inside the object, you can always find the finite number of dots with a nice equation
width x height x depth x dots' resolution
so it is impossible to have infinite functionality with a finite object. well unless you try to measure the number of dots in an infinitely small scale, but then it contract itself as infinite is unmeasurable.
That would still be a NO. Given any existing three dimensional object with known physical boundary ("infinite" object is practically impossible to make), you already have its width height and depth, then no matter how small you want to plot your dot inside the object, you can always find the finite number of dots with a nice equation
width x height x depth x dots' resolution
so it is impossible to have infinite functionality with a finite object. well unless you try to measure the number of dots in an infinitely small scale, but then it contract itself as infinite is unmeasurable.
·Anonymous A (OP) — 10.7 years ago, 4 hours later, 3 days after the original post[T] [B] #481,105
@previous (DoctOn !Uvm54ORbmo)
Then, why does Taco thefe claim that a singularity can be described as being of infinite density? Is he wrong?
Then, why does Taco thefe claim that a singularity can be described as being of infinite density? Is he wrong?
+Anonymous K — 10.7 years ago, 11 minutes later, 3 days after the original post[T] [B] #481,106
@previous (A)
Hawking says yes but a few disagree with him.
Comes down to singularity is infinitely small. If that point had mass its density would mass / volume
or a number divided by zero. Infinity.
And per Hawking this is infinite density.
Don't fret cause The laws of normal spacetime could cannot exist within this infinitely smallness.
Quantum stuff lol
Following Hawkings math gives me a headache.
Hawking says yes but a few disagree with him.
Comes down to singularity is infinitely small. If that point had mass its density would mass / volume
or a number divided by zero. Infinity.
And per Hawking this is infinite density.
Don't fret cause The laws of normal spacetime could cannot exist within this infinitely smallness.
Quantum stuff lol
Following Hawkings math gives me a headache.
·Tach thefe !Uvm54ORbmo — 10.7 years ago, 5 minutes later, 3 days after the original post[T] [B] #481,107
@481,105 (A)
Well, shit. I actually traced back the replies chain and found you referring to "When physicists describe a singularity as being of infinite density".
What I had in mind was what actually sth that really goes beyond bound, like the space.
I have no idea why "physicists" referring singularity as of infinite density, probably they smoked some fucked up shit.
Well, shit. I actually traced back the replies chain and found you referring to "When physicists describe a singularity as being of infinite density".
What I had in mind was what actually sth that really goes beyond bound, like the space.
I have no idea why "physicists" referring singularity as of infinite density, probably they smoked some fucked up shit.
(Edited 13 seconds later.)
·Anonymous K — 10.7 years ago, 10 minutes later, 3 days after the original post[T] [B] #481,109
@previous (Tach thefe !Uvm54ORbmo)
My English is infinitely bad.
Stephen Hawkings points out for singularity the laws of general relativity break down. One cannot use common sense to fathom any of this. The math isn't as bad as I said it is but when you are looking at issues like infinity / smallness one cannot expect to say oh sure this is easy to understand because Einstein failed so how can we expect to see it as easy.
My English is infinitely bad.
Stephen Hawkings points out for singularity the laws of general relativity break down. One cannot use common sense to fathom any of this. The math isn't as bad as I said it is but when you are looking at issues like infinity / smallness one cannot expect to say oh sure this is easy to understand because Einstein failed so how can we expect to see it as easy.
·Anonymous A (OP) — 10.7 years ago, 2 hours later, 3 days after the original post[T] [B] #481,121
@previous (K)
@481,107 (Tach thefe !Uvm54ORbmo)
Well, who's right; Tach thefe or DoctON?
@481,107 (Tach thefe !Uvm54ORbmo)
Well, who's right; Tach thefe or DoctON?
(Edited 17 seconds later.)
·On !Uvm54ORbmo — 10.7 years ago, 4 minutes later, 3 days after the original post[T] [B] #481,122
@previous (A)
Both are me. Yeah sorry for confusion due to missing your reference.
What I meant infinite should be applied to objects thats really physically infinite.
That singularity point inside a finite physical object IMO should not bare the term infinite, whatever those "physicists" said or were smoking.
"Undefined" would be a better term for the "singularity's density" or whatever fancy term they came up with. As the original function in a singular point (e.g. f(x) = 1/x, when x = 0) indeed has an undefined outcome. Or "unknown" as you suggested before, again sorry for dissing your point simply due to me missing what you were referring to.
Both are me. Yeah sorry for confusion due to missing your reference.
What I meant infinite should be applied to objects thats really physically infinite.
That singularity point inside a finite physical object IMO should not bare the term infinite, whatever those "physicists" said or were smoking.
"Undefined" would be a better term for the "singularity's density" or whatever fancy term they came up with. As the original function in a singular point (e.g. f(x) = 1/x, when x = 0) indeed has an undefined outcome. Or "unknown" as you suggested before, again sorry for dissing your point simply due to me missing what you were referring to.
(Edited 3 minutes later.)
Start a new topic to continue this conversation.
Or browse the latest topics.