[QUOTE]Infinity is never a number, not even in an infinite timeline.[/QUOTE] So there is no point A yet somehow we got to point B?

Quote

Infinity is never a number, not even in an infinite timeline.

So there is no point A yet somehow we got to point B?

[quote=isolatedpurity][QUOTE]Infinity is never a number, not even in an infinite timeline.[/QUOTE] So there is no point A yet somehow we got to point B?[/quote] Yes

Quote from isolatedpurity

Quote

Infinity is never a number, not even in an infinite timeline.

So there is no point A yet somehow we got to point B?

Yes

That is illogical.

That is illogical.

[quote=isolatedpurity]That is illogical.[/quote] You get to point B from a point preceeding it. There is a point A, but it is not [I]infinity[/I].

Quote from isolatedpurity

That is illogical.

You get to point B from a point preceeding it. There is a point A, but it is not infinity.

Then define it. Without relativity to point B.

Then define it. Without relativity to point B.

[quote=isolatedpurity]Then define it. Without relativity to point B.[/quote] Define point B first. You're just proving that in an infinite timeline things are only relative, which is what I said before.

Quote from isolatedpurity

Then define it. Without relativity to point B.

Define point B first.

You're just proving that in an infinite timeline things are only relative, which is what I said before.

[quote=isolatedpurity]Then define it. Without relativity to point B.[/quote] If there's no point B to be relative to, then point A is the present, making it, relatively, 0. So you don't need to define it relative to anything but itself. ;o Imagine a Cartesian plane, x,y. On this plane there is a line of the form y = 0. The point (0,0) is the present, and any time, future or past can be defined relative to this point. This point ALWAYS exists. And although you can define ANY point of the "time"line relative to (0,0), you cannot define them all, or the beginning of time (x = -∞), because time extends infinitely in both directions, and ∞ does not have an absolute value. I really hope I won't have to draw a picture.

Quote from isolatedpurity

Then define it. Without relativity to point B.

If there's no point B to be relative to, then point A is the present, making it, relatively, 0. So you don't need to define it relative to anything but itself. ;o

Imagine a Cartesian plane, x,y. On this plane there is a line of the form y = 0. The point (0,0) is the present, and any time, future or past can be defined relative to this point.

This point ALWAYS exists. And although you can define ANY point of the "time"line relative to (0,0), you cannot define them all, or the beginning of time (x = -∞), because time extends infinitely in both directions, and ∞ does not have an absolute value.

I really hope I won't have to draw a picture.

[quote=isolatedpurity]Blah. You are all missing the point entirely. Or dividing the point in pieces to divide and conquer the idea.[/quote] Or maybe, just maybe, you're just wrong, and shouldn't blame your failure to create logical arguments and analogies on everyone who happens to disagree with you?

Quote from isolatedpurity

Blah. You are all missing the point entirely. Or dividing the point in pieces to divide and conquer the idea.

Or maybe, just maybe, you're just wrong, and shouldn't blame your failure to create logical arguments and analogies on everyone who happens to disagree with you?

Point B is now, or your 0,0. I want a point A. [QUOTE]Or maybe you're just wrong and shouldn't blame your failure to create logical arguments and analogies on everyone who happens to disagree with you?[/QUOTE] No, that can't be it :) :lol: :)

Point B is now, or your 0,0. I want a point A.

Quote

Or maybe you're just wrong and shouldn't blame your failure to create logical arguments and analogies on everyone who happens to disagree with you?

No, that can't be it

Point A is a specific number before Point B, with a still infinite amount of points behind it. Your logic is full of fail IP.

Point A is a specific number before Point B, with a still infinite amount of points behind it.

Your logic is full of fail IP.

Fine :unsure: Prove it.

Fine

Prove it.

[QUOTE]Fine Prove it. [/QUOTE] Heres the best way to define infinity, Place two points exactly one foot away from each other. Then divide the points distance by two. Keep repeating this untill they touch, oh yeah, they wont. :D Even if you see that they are touching, they really aren't. If you can understand this simple concept, you have got it.

Quote

Fine

Prove it.

Heres the best way to define infinity,

Place two points exactly one foot away from each other. Then divide the points distance by two. Keep repeating this untill they touch, oh yeah, they wont. Even if you see that they are touching, they really aren't. If you can understand this simple concept, you have got it.

[quote=Brontobyte][QUOTE]Fine Prove it. [/QUOTE] Heres the best way to define infinity, Place two points exactly one foot away from each other. Then divide the points distance by two. Keep repeating this untill they touch, oh yeah, they wont. :D Even if you see that they are touching, they really aren't. If you can understand this simple concept, you have got it.[/quote] [QUOTE]cheeze477 (3:34:19 PM): http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Orders_of_magnitude_%28length%29 cheeze477 (3:34:28 PM): Planck length; size of a string; lengths smaller than this do not make any physical sense, according to current theories of physics cheeze477 (3:34:36 PM): in case you guys didn't know [/QUOTE] Of course only in terms of real life.

Quote from Brontobyte

Quote

Fine

Prove it.

Heres the best way to define infinity,

Place two points exactly one foot away from each other. Then divide the points distance by two. Keep repeating this untill they touch, oh yeah, they wont. Even if you see that they are touching, they really aren't. If you can understand this simple concept, you have got it.

Quote

cheeze477 (3:34:19 PM): http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Orders_of_magnitude_%28length%29
cheeze477 (3:34:28 PM): Planck length; size of a string; lengths smaller than this do not make any physical sense, according to current theories of physics
cheeze477 (3:34:36 PM): in case you guys didn't know

Of course only in terms of real life.

nvm

nvm

No, physically show me point A. (this is me basically giving up -- I know you can't -- which is why an infinite time line is just a theory, just as a finite one is)

No, physically show me point A.
(this is me basically giving up -- I know you can't -- which is why an infinite time line is just a theory, just as a finite one is)

[quote=devilesk][quote=Brontobyte][QUOTE]Fine Prove it. [/QUOTE] Heres the best way to define infinity, Place two points exactly one foot away from each other. Then divide the points distance by two. Keep repeating this untill they touch, oh yeah, they wont. :D Even if you see that they are touching, they really aren't. If you can understand this simple concept, you have got it.[/quote] [QUOTE]cheeze477 (3:34:19 PM): http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Orders_of_magnitude_%28length%29 cheeze477 (3:34:28 PM): Planck length; size of a string; lengths smaller than this do not make any physical sense, according to current theories of physics cheeze477 (3:34:36 PM): in case you guys didn't know [/QUOTE] Of course only in terms of real life.[/quote] Its the same concept of what infinity is.

Quote from devilesk

Quote from Brontobyte

Quote

Fine

Prove it.

Heres the best way to define infinity,

Place two points exactly one foot away from each other. Then divide the points distance by two. Keep repeating this untill they touch, oh yeah, they wont. Even if you see that they are touching, they really aren't. If you can understand this simple concept, you have got it.

Quote

cheeze477 (3:34:19 PM): http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Orders_of_magnitude_%28length%29
cheeze477 (3:34:28 PM): Planck length; size of a string; lengths smaller than this do not make any physical sense, according to current theories of physics
cheeze477 (3:34:36 PM): in case you guys didn't know

Of course only in terms of real life.

Its the same concept of what infinity is.

[quote=isolatedpurity]No, physically show me point A. (this is me basically giving up -- I know you can't -- which is why an infinite time line is just a theory, just as a finite one is)[/quote] A----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------B Ok take a ruler and divide the distance of this ray by 2. They will never thouch. The number will just become really long, after the decimal point. Another example: Open your computers calculator function. Input the number 1. Then divide this number by 2. Repeat this for about ~100 times. The number will be something with a (number/decimal) x 10^-23948502 Your calculator will just give up on you after awhile. Yet another example: Google how long Pi is. It goes about ~1 billion something numbers after the decimal point. Their is no end because the number is irrational.

Quote from isolatedpurity

No, physically show me point A.
(this is me basically giving up -- I know you can't -- which is why an infinite time line is just a theory, just as a finite one is)

A----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------B

Ok take a ruler and divide the distance of this ray by 2. They will never thouch. The number will just become really long, after the decimal point.

Another example:

Open your computers calculator function. Input the number 1. Then divide this number by 2. Repeat this for about ~100 times. The number will be something with a (number/decimal) x 10^-23948502 Your calculator will just give up on you after awhile.

Yet another example:

Google how long Pi is. It goes about ~1 billion something numbers after the decimal point. Their is no end because the number is irrational.

Do you know how a computer works? They have limited memory. The computer can only use 32 bits (unless you have 64 bit machine) to represent a number.

Do you know how a computer works? They have limited memory. The computer can only use 32 bits (unless you have 64 bit machine) to represent a number.

[quote=isolatedpurity]No, physically show me point A. (this is me basically giving up -- I know you can't -- which is why an infinite time line is just a theory, just as a finite one is)[/quote] [IMG]http://i6.photobucket.com/albums/y237/chewybaba/epicphail.png[/IMG] THERE IT IS!1 Don't edit my posts, Merrell.

Quote from isolatedpurity

No, physically show me point A.
(this is me basically giving up -- I know you can't -- which is why an infinite time line is just a theory, just as a finite one is)

THERE IT IS!1

Don't edit my posts, Merrell.

That's a float. That has even less representation than an integer, unless you're using a super computer, which is how pi is usually calculated to that far. ..What's the point of this?

That's a float. That has even less representation than an integer, unless you're using a super computer, which is how pi is usually calculated to that far.

..What's the point of this?