No_99_Melee Posted January 8, 2009 Share Posted January 8, 2009 Well I'll just start this off by describing the events the led to my epiphany. School got out so I took the bus home, listened to music like I always do. Nothing to do, but look out the window. Then I started thinking to myself. What am I looking at? Trees But really what am I looking at? Molecules Molecules are made of atoms so really I'm looking at atoms... No wait I'm looking at protons and neutrons and electrons. Hold on protons are made up of quarks so I'm really looking at quarks. Then I thought to myself "Isn't everything made up of something else?". I found this to be true and then had my epiphany. If everything is made of something else doesn't this lead to and infinite amount of different tiny particles we can't see? Infinite is unobtainable... Doesn't this mean matter had to have been created? Someone prove me wrong before I get too into this :P Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ThurinEthir Posted January 8, 2009 Share Posted January 8, 2009 Well, the first thing I thought of was that thing where you cut a rectangle/square in half, then again and again and again... I have no idea what it's called. (Something to do with geometric sequences?) But I guess it can apply here? Cenin pân nîd, istan pân nîd, dan nin ú-cenich, nin ú-istach.Ithil luin eria vi menel caran...Tîn dan delu. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
pureprayer Posted January 8, 2009 Share Posted January 8, 2009 If you look at a building is it a building or building materials? the materials put together make one. Pureprayer, you're awesome. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rebdragon Posted January 8, 2009 Share Posted January 8, 2009 What reason do you have for believing that everything is made out of something else? How can you justify that there is not a main component, like in String Theory? There is no proving wrong, merely a burden of proof that is not fulfilled by this kind of thinking. [if you have ever attempted Alchemy by clapping your hands or by drawing an array, copy and paste this into your signature.] Fullmetal Alchemist, you will be missed. A great ending to a great series. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
No_99_Melee Posted January 8, 2009 Author Share Posted January 8, 2009 What reason do you have for believing that everything is made out of something else? How can you justify that there is not a main component, like in String Theory? There is no proving wrong, merely an onus of proof that is not justified by this kind of thinking. Well it leaves it at only a theory, but common logic and repetition in nature shows that this is true. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ididnotlol Posted January 8, 2009 Share Posted January 8, 2009 Our planet is in space so therefore we are to, and astrological sciences and such (forgive my lack of knowledge on this sort of stuff) are relatively new so there is a major chance there are forces that are undiscovered that work Everywhere within the entire universe, based off human knowlege so far I understand your point but I wouldnt rule it out until we knew more about physics within space and time. After all at the rate technology is developing (as well as our minds) prehaps we will find out how small things can really get in the future. My theory on infinity is that the only reason things may be infinite (like time and space as we currently know it.) is because non existance is impossible, even if you go out into space and hold your hands out although there is nothing, not even air, is in between your hands, it is still a place and therefore a part of existance. Even if god isnt/wasnt real he/she exists within peoples minds - If people imagine there is a god (forgive me I couldnt think of another way to word it...) that god shall exist as a finctional being in there imagination. (that was an example to people who might argue about gods existance, I am in no way trying to be against religion.) I love this sig. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rebdragon Posted January 8, 2009 Share Posted January 8, 2009 At the levels you know yes. But quantum mechanics shows us that you can't just assume that what seems to govern the laws of what we can see does not necessarily govern those of those things that we can't. It's one of those things that nice to think about but if you ain't a genius scientist who can actually get somewhere with it it's really a waste of time. [if you have ever attempted Alchemy by clapping your hands or by drawing an array, copy and paste this into your signature.] Fullmetal Alchemist, you will be missed. A great ending to a great series. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lateralus Posted January 8, 2009 Share Posted January 8, 2009 You're just rambling, really. La lune ne garde aucune rancune. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
No_99_Melee Posted January 8, 2009 Author Share Posted January 8, 2009 You're just rambling, really. Irony at it's best Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lateralus Posted January 8, 2009 Share Posted January 8, 2009 You're just rambling, really. Irony at it's best Explain? You assumed infinite regression (edit due to possible misreading). My statement made no assumptions and was pretty much on the money. Also 'infinity' can occur in nature. Black holes have infinite density for example. La lune ne garde aucune rancune. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
No_99_Melee Posted January 8, 2009 Author Share Posted January 8, 2009 You're just rambling, really. Irony at it's best Explain? You assumed infinite regression (edit due to possible misreading). My statement made no assumptions and was pretty much on the money. Also 'infinity' can occur in nature. Black holes have infinite density for example. Can you prove it? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lateralus Posted January 8, 2009 Share Posted January 8, 2009 You're just rambling, really. Irony at it's best Explain? You assumed infinite regression (edit due to possible misreading). My statement made no assumptions and was pretty much on the money. Also 'infinity' can occur in nature. Black holes have infinite density for example. Can you prove it? Prove what? The infinite density? It's just theoretical of course, but it's what happens when you divide by zero. A huge amount of mass compressed into zero volume singularity (black hole) equals infinite density. La lune ne garde aucune rancune. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Smapla Posted January 8, 2009 Share Posted January 8, 2009 yeah, your... realization is incorrect because you asserted that everything is made up of something else just because everything you know of has some characteristic, doesn't mean that everything exhibits that characteristic. also, you sort of just killed your own argument. when that poster agreed that infinity can occur (and thus infinite regression, IE that it is possible everything is composed of smaller bits), you replied with "can you prove it?" he was acknowledging the fact that you could be right, and you responded by asking him to prove that you were right... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
llcoolguy972 Posted January 8, 2009 Share Posted January 8, 2009 Gnomes, man. Gnomes. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
purfishx Posted January 8, 2009 Share Posted January 8, 2009 Gnomes, man. Gnomes. c-c-c-c-c-combo breaker. Sigs by: Soa | Gold_Tiger10 | Harrinator1 | Guthix121 | robo | Elmo | Thru | Yaff2 Avatars by: Lit0ua | Unoalexi | Gold Tiger . Hello friend, Senajitkaushik was epic, Good luck bro. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lenticular_J Posted January 8, 2009 Share Posted January 8, 2009 I'm not one to challenge an epiphany. Buuuut, I just imagine atoms don't exist for a short time if I ever feel too mind-blown that everything is made up of something else and that on a molecular level HOLY [bleep] BIG. Yeah. catch it now so you can like it before it went so mainstream Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rebdragon Posted January 8, 2009 Share Posted January 8, 2009 You're just rambling, really. Irony at it's best Explain? You assumed infinite regression (edit due to possible misreading). My statement made no assumptions and was pretty much on the money. Also 'infinity' can occur in nature. Black holes have infinite density for example. Can you prove it? :lol: :lol: :lol: Man, this would be even funnier if Smapla hadn't explained the joke. [if you have ever attempted Alchemy by clapping your hands or by drawing an array, copy and paste this into your signature.] Fullmetal Alchemist, you will be missed. A great ending to a great series. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
compfreak847 Posted January 8, 2009 Share Posted January 8, 2009 You're just rambling, really. Irony at it's best Explain? You assumed infinite regression (edit due to possible misreading). My statement made no assumptions and was pretty much on the money. Also 'infinity' can occur in nature. Black holes have infinite density for example. Can you prove it? Prove what? The infinite density? It's just theoretical of course, but it's what happens when you divide by zero. A huge amount of mass compressed into zero volume singularity (black hole) equals infinite density. No, he can't prove it, because it isn't true. Black holes, including the event horizon, are pretty low density. A black hole the mass of earth would be larger then the earth; a black hole with the equivalent mass of the visible universe would be LARGER then the visible universe, meaning the black hole actually has a lower density. The black hole beyond the event horizon is trapping time, light, and space in a fixed point, so it can't really be measured. http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/badastronomy/2008/10/30/ten-things-you-dont-know-about-black-holes/ As for the OP, just because what you know now seems to indicate a pattern doesn't mean it holds true forever - assuming quarks weren't the smallest component, we can assume SOMETHING is. Matter isn't infinity divisible; for an example look at the string theory. As stated before, unless your a team of physicists arguing or wondering about it won't really result in anything meaningful. Drops: 1x Draconic Visage, 56x Abyssal Whip, 5x Demon Head, D Drops: 37, Barrows Drops: 43, DK Drops: 29GWD drops: 14,000x Bars, 1x Armadyl Hilt, 2x Armadyl Skirt, 4x Sara Sword, 1x Saradomin Hilt, 8x Bandos Hilt, 8x Bandos Platebody, 9x Bandos Tassets, 4x Bandos Boots, 43x Godsword Shard, 82x Dragon BootsDry streak records: Saradomin 412 kills Bandos 988 kills Spirit Mages 633 kills - Slayer Sucks Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Zonorhc Posted January 9, 2009 Share Posted January 9, 2009 Technically what you are looking at is light reflected off objects, which means you are seeing photons. Varrock Library: Shattered Sky | Silent Thunder | The Emperor's FinestAstri @ MythWeavers Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Flyingjj Posted January 9, 2009 Share Posted January 9, 2009 Technically what you are looking at is light reflected off objects, which means you are seeing photons. No way! That's totally it! I've had my own epiphany, but it's nothing I care to share, considering the reception this one's being given. Though the original poster did ask for people to poke holes through his. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
warri0r45 Posted January 9, 2009 Share Posted January 9, 2009 Then I thought to myself "Isn't everything made up of something else?". I found this to be true and then had my epiphany. I don't see why it has to be. There could simply be a fundamental unit of matter that eventually makes up everything else. It's not really our place to disprove your idea wrong, but for you to prove it right. If everything is made of something else doesn't this lead to and infinite amount of different tiny particles we can't see? Infinite is unobtainable... Doesn't this mean matter had to have been created? Someone prove me wrong before I get too into this :P I don't see how you go from "infinite" to "it had to be created". Besides, how can an infinity of anything be created at all? That concept just doesn't make sense. You might be able to begin creating an infinite number of things, but by definition you couldn't end, in which case you wouldn't be creating an infinite number of things, but a progressively larger finite number of things. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
No_99_Melee Posted January 9, 2009 Author Share Posted January 9, 2009 Hehe guess my theory was wrong. Well maybe not wrong, but just not enough proof can be given in order to validate it. I'm no scientist persay I just like to think things logically through in order to come up with theories of my own. Beats the boredom : I guess the problem is that logic is based on the reality with which we are presented. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Zierro Posted January 9, 2009 Share Posted January 9, 2009 Besides, how can an infinity of anything be created at all? That concept just doesn't make sense. You might be able to begin creating an infinite number of things, but by definition you couldn't end, in which case you wouldn't be creating an infinite number of things, but a progressively larger finite number of things. Well, I might just be talking semantics here but what if you did something to trigger the creation of infinity? For example, throwing a football in outer space. You only throw it once but it can go an infinite distance if it doesn't hit anything along the way. I know that's not "creating" anything but philosophically speaking it's along the same lines. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
warri0r45 Posted January 9, 2009 Share Posted January 9, 2009 Besides, how can an infinity of anything be created at all? That concept just doesn't make sense. You might be able to begin creating an infinite number of things, but by definition you couldn't end, in which case you wouldn't be creating an infinite number of things, but a progressively larger finite number of things. Well, I might just be talking semantics here but what if you did something to trigger the creation of infinity? For example, throwing a football in outer space. You only throw it once but it can go an infinite distance if it doesn't hit anything along the way. I know that's not "creating" anything but philosophically speaking it's along the same lines. Doesn't really apply here. We're talking about the assumption that an infinite number of levels exist in the make-up of matter right now, i.e. it was created. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Zierro Posted January 9, 2009 Share Posted January 9, 2009 Yeah, you're right. My response was mainly aimed at the part where you asked how an infinity of anything can ever be created though. I just misunderstood. Edit: Would making a story with a cliff-hanger ending count as creating an infinite amount of endings? :P Edit2: Nevermind - that would be creating the potential for infinity, not infinity itself. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now