With infinite amounts of people and space, yes. With finite people and space, no. Since we don't have infinite space on earth or infinite people, there are limits...

By your definition there are big walls that stop space from moving. CREATIONIST!

Example:
88889965447778885544777888 can you simply add 1 or more to that?
Yes?

Worlds population, can you simply keep adding? No.

World's surface area. Can we keep adding people to that? No.

Post has been edited 1 time(s), last time on Apr 15 2009, 6:50 pm by Shocko.

You can still count the number of people in that line at any given moment, thus it is not infinite at that moment. You cannot count the amount of natural numbers because that set is infinite, meaning it is limitless at any moment. Just because you can add as many as you want does not make it infinite. Here is an example:

The limit of k/n as n -> (inf) of any number k is 0. By your argument, since I can add as much as I want to k, I will eventually add so much that the limit will equal 1, which is flase, since n will surpass k no matter what k you choose.

So stop confusing something that is truly infinite with something you can make as large as you want. Those are two completely different things.

OK, you edited your post and I felt liek responding.
According to your claims, the number 88889965447778885544777888 is infinite just because you can make it bigger, which is again, false.

Shocko, the void in which our universe exists may be infinite (there's no way of knowing for us), but not the universe itself.
I think you're having a problem with the term universe.
Which is the matter etc. we can observe, the space between stars and galaxies, but not whatever may lie behind the horizon of this "balloon of galaxies".

Also the way you compared the universe and numbers was incorrect: I think you'll agree with me that 10 is not infinite, even though, as you explained, you can add infinite amount of numbers thus making it infinite.
As explained earlier the universe is expanding (possibly forever, thus growing infinitely large in an infinite amount of time) but currently it has a measurable, finite size.

Are you guys seriously saying the numeric system is finite. And no, I didn't confuse it. I said the molecules could go anywhere.

No, you're just grossly misinterpreting "the universe" as "the potential universe", just as you're accusing people of confusing "a number" and "how much we can add to that number".
The former is finite; the latter is infinite.
The original point in bringing up the "infinite" nature of the universe is invalidated by its current state. Thus, as someone else pointed out, although 10 can be added to infinitely, 10 itself is still a finite quantity.

I fail to see how this is remotely related to creationism.

Null is starting to get good again.

VY Canis Majoris is a giant ball of burning gas. My brain can create sums out of binary sets. Therefore, Me > VY Canis Majoris and I do not feel small.

Nah. Just that any given quantity is finite, and the fact that you can always add 1 to that quantity does not make it infinite. Take the proof by induction of the volume of the balloon and apply it to quantities in your case, same thing.

Post has been edited 1 time(s), last time on Apr 15 2009, 10:13 pm by Vrael. Reason: wrong star

My point wasn't that a high number was near infinite, but that it's infinite because no matter how extreme the number is, you could square it, multiply it, add to it whatever and keep doing it an infinite amount of times and never reach an end.

Moose... who else puts magical walls in the void? You? Chuck?

Can someone please answer my damn question?!

Why does it say Canis Majoris is the largest known star, and then in the next slide it shows something called Wcephal and says that is the largest star known.

Is cephal another name for canis majoris?
Is cephal just a category of star?
Is cephal > canis majoris?

It's misspelled, it's actually VV Cephei A, with a companion VV Cephei B, a blue main sequence star.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/VV_Cephei
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_largest_stars

I'm guessing Cephei was found first, and that that's an outdated image.

I don't know what WOH is, but it's apparently 2nd largest in all, but it's in another galaxy, so Cephei is 2nd in the Milky Way.

JACK BAUER

On the other hand, if in 1v1 combat, it will kick your ass handily.

Post has been edited 1 time(s), last time on Apr 15 2009, 10:54 pm by Centreri.

The universe cannot be infinite if there is a finite of something that constructs the universe.
And if that is true, everything has a limit.

And you thought your problems mattered.
Anyway, something on topic of the argument, I think the distance which the universe can expand is infinite, while the universe is and always will be finite. I guess this has already been stated with the "Void in which the universe is expanding is infinite."

Well, if we apply some of the laws of physics to this...
a) Matter cannot be created or destroyed and
b) Energy cannot be created or destroyed.

If we take these two laws into effect, then isn't it impossible for our universe too expand infinitely? If it did, everything would be so (not dense) that there would be nothing tangible, right?

If the universe is infinite in size, then the mean density of the universe is zero, which we know isn't true, therefor, it is not infinite in size.

Polaris, you could have at least mentioned you fetched this off of Digg. (It was made popular right before he posted this).

Am I the first person to notice that the bottom left picture in the long picture chain is tagged with "www.jj.am"?

Something tells me theres something wrong with the picture now. Maybe multiple things.

I don't pay attention to Digg. I actually I fetched it off of AbovetopSecret.com. It was one of the only amazing threads they had there, so I thought I'd forward it over here.

LOL. I'M ON A FUCKING ROCK FLYING THROUGH SPACE.

New matter and energy aren't being created, just expanding in size.


We didn't say it was infinite in size, only infinitely expanding.