On Infinity

Big Rip, and Big Crunch, and Heat DeathCyclic Universe

You're welcome, numnuts.lol I've thought that before but, IIRC, our resident cosmologist didn't think it was possible. His name is cavediver, he is very knowledgable and a nice guy. Son Goku, Sidelined, and Percy seem to know alot about cosmology too.Look at Message 6. That's where I was asking about something similiar to what yur saying above. There's some good stuff in that thread.Just use the boards Search function or browse the cosmology forum for threads on the questions you have.If you don't find what your looking for, you could start a new topic and hope No, it wouldn't be nonexistence. There is always something. I'm not really sure. The "fabric" of space would still exist. I think the analogy goes like the ocean. Think of the two dimensional plane of the surface of the ocean as representing four demensional space-time. The waves and ripples in the surface are what are causing energy/matter to exist, or matter is ripples in the 4 dimensional fabric of space-time.When all the ripples are gone, you still have the fabric. I don't know.{smartass}Its not like there's a Billboard Chart for scientific theories!{/smartass}

No, the ripples are matter existing.Gravity warping spacetime is on a large scale. That is something a whole planet does.The ocean fabric analogy is describing the basic fundamental properties of spacetime, itself, on a very small scale. Atoms of matter are actually ripples in the fabric of spacetime. No, see above. The ripples are not allowing for 'places' for matter to exist. The ripples, themselves, are matter existing. And don't forget that the 2d anology represents all four deminsions of spacetime.

That's not really it tho. Its more like the ripples create matter. Well, the ripples are matter. But the ripples are not there because the existence of matter causes them, the ripples cause the existence of matter.The matter-created ripples that I think that you're thinking of, like the bowling ball on a bedsheet analogy, are from the affects of mass on spacetime and happen on a totally different length scale than we are talking typing about with these ripples. Yes, the 4th dem is time. Well if its flat it doesn't have depth One of the problems with analogies is that people like to add in extra stuff or bring their own presumptions to the analogy.Its easier to understand if yu drop all those presumptions and take the analogy at face value.I'm not going to re-type the analogies here so read up on some of the threads and pages you now know of and pay attention to the analogies at face value.After you learn some more, then ask more questions or start a new thread.As far as 4d being represented by 2d, its easier to imagine if you reduce the number of demensions. But basically it comes down to the maths and how things are calculated and represented.For example, lets say we have a cube of LxWxH.We could represent all three of those deminsions as one deminsion: XNow, we can appply mathematical funtions to X and calculate with it as one deminsion, like say, 2X or X^2 etc. But that one deminsion, X, represents all three deminsions of the cube and that will affect the results of our calculations.So now to a visual analogy, and say I draw the line X: ______________________________We can double or square the line, etc, and it will change it, but we must remember that what we are doing this too is actually a cube and the line is only representing that.The same goes with the 2d's actually reprsenting four of them (or at least that is how I understand it ((I'm sure someone will correct me if I'm wrong)))Hope that helps a little with the analogies.Ask away...

Different ripples. That's for showing how gravity warps space-time.We're talking about how matter exists in space-time. The ripples in the wet paper towel would be matter existing. For the ball to be made of matter, it would have to be a ripple of the wet paper towel, not some other thing altogether.Make sense? The ball is made of the paper towel. The ball if composed of towel-stuff.

Hi cavediver,How have you been?Thanks for the compliment.I guess I'm just trying to pay it forward with all the time and effort you've spent explaining things to me.I figure I can handle the easy beginner questions and then when they start to catch up and pass me, shout for help Thanks man.

What does begates mean? I couldn't find it in the dictionary.From Message 52: That is false. 'No Change' is not the criteria for infinity (you can see RAZD's post for the definition).Now, back to what you said, keeping in mind your misconception about infinity being changeless: Oohhhh... Did you mean to type negates?Change does not negate infinity. Where did you get this idea? Are you just making stuff up or is this a real concept that you are typing about? Got a link you can give me? I'm having trouble making sense out of this sentance as well. Are you sure you meant can? And I guess the first 'the' should be a then?Can you take a little more care in typing your replies to me so I don't have to waste time deciphering them, please?I think you're trying to say that if a finite item created all of matter then there cannot be an infinite amount of matter.I don't have a problem with a finite universe, so... I guess I don't know why you're telling me this.But thanks anyways It seems that you dislike science and are trying to prove it wrong, or something. Why it that?From my point of view, you're just exemplifying your misconceptions.