/sci/ - Science & Math

in old school mario game, in that mini-game, space in infinite. You can walk out of the map, yet you will return. It will always be like this, nothing changes. You know, until the shiity SNES freezes

For starters... It never ends?

>>5873870

So the universe is just one big fucking loop?

Infinity = loop?

>>5873875
Yeah man, look at the symbol.

>>5873867
>>5873867
>explain the universe is infinite

Is it? Source?
How about you stop making up bullshit and trying to pass it off a science.

We don't know that the universe is infinite, or finite. All we know are limits set. We know the universe is a least ___ big. That is all we know at this point.

>>5873875
No. It is flat; meaning it does not wrap around on itself. It stretches out an infinite distance according to popular models like FLRW. It's hard to imagine this but our brains didn't evolve for that.

>>5873877

>what is big bang theory

as a race of humans it seems that most of us have accepted that the universe is in fact infinite

>>5873890
The big bang theory doesn't imply an infinite universe. You are confusing two completely unrelated things.

Also, most people believe in a magic sky wizard that grants you wishes, doesn't mean it is fucking true!

The big bang is a scientifc theory with an overwheling amount of evidence to support it, the same cannot be said for the idea of an "infinite universe".

>>5873916

How bout you stop acting like a tool and answer the OP

>>5873877
>"all we know are limits are set"
>"stop making up bullshit and trying to pass it off as science"

Even if it wasn't infinite, how would we define an edge?

>>5873963
In the example I used for the SNES mario, is there an edge? No, there's no edge. It's just is

>>5873916
wow your life must suck.

>>5873916
you're just the worst kind of person. aren't you?

>>5873916
>magic sky wizards that grant you wished
lol first time i've heard of sky wizards.

>>5873950
>Answer a question based on a false assumption

Why does your mom loves the taste of spidermans cum?

>>5873953
>implying we don't have a lower limit of the universes size

Is /sci/ just full of underage kids today? WTF is going on with this board?

>>5873972
>>5873972
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Religion

>>5873973
lol oh because acting like a douche and being an ass hat about your opinions, isnt being a kid.

fuck off

>>5873975
lol how is that related? i've heard no talks of wizards in religion. extra terrestrial / dimensional
maybe, but no wizards.

>>5873977
beings

>>5873976
>opinions

OP assuming the universe is infinite is an opinion, not science.

If OP wanted to talk about his precious feelings and opinions he should fuck off to /x/ or /lit/

>>5873966
Wraps around on itself?
That's a closed universe.

Scientists have looked at this possibility and while they haven't ruled it out altogether, they do know it doesn't loop within our observable universe.

It seems more natural to assume the universe just keeps on going in all directions forever and doesn't loop.

>>5873977

>>5873981
how is infinite not science?

>>5873985
oh so because you believe in nothing that makes it everything you say right i forgot.

>>5873984
It hasn't been shown that the universe in infinite.

What fucking part of that is hard to understand?

>>5873988
it hasnt been shown that its not.

>>5873987
>implying I believe in nothing

You have the critical thiking skills of a 12 year of girl with downs. You okay?

>>5873916
>The big bang theory

I like that show. Who's your favorite character? Mine is Sheldon.

>>5873988

>I don't have anything intelligent to offer to the discussion
>Better act petty and rude

>>5873990
>Science = believe everything is fucking true until it is disproven

Not sure if trolling or retarded?

sci is horrible these days..

>>5873995
>manners

Ohh I forgot /sci/ = manners

>>5873997
>what is falsifiability

Learn the scientific method, kid.

>>5874001
>>5874000
>>5873997
>>5873995
>>5873994
>>5873992
>>5873990
>>5873988

Stop shitposting

>>5873992
ahh because i disagree with you, you resort to trying to insult me. who has the critical thinking of a child now? so we choose to discuss infinity and you dislike it because you're an angsty ass who's an athiests, hence you believe in nothing. you know real scientists are agnostic.

>this thread

Was this a troll thread from the very beginning?
Or is /sci/ full of egotistical argumentative twats?
I haven't been here for a while, so let me know.

>>5873997
becasue automatically assuming it doesnt exsist has gotten humans really fucking far?

>>5874010
it's started off as a honest thread then some fucking ass hole started shitposted

>>5874010

OP here, 30+ posts later and we're still at Mario. Or that the universe is finite.

But no, feel free to contribute. I'd love some actual discussion.

>>5874010
>Or is /sci/ full of egotistical argumentative twats?

Is this a serious question, newfag?

Its uncertain whether the universe is infinite or finite

>>5874017
The Mario universe is finite and closed.
So it's not an example of an infinite universe.

>>5874022
some stages are infinite

>>5874019

iam high and wat is this

>>5873867
>How do we explain that the universe is infinite, for starters?
This is an assumption based on theory. There are other theories that support a finite static universe/finite expanding universe(probably the best supported)/etc
You can't explain what you don't know OP.
We only know the state of our local observable universe, not the whole picture

>>5874063
>finite expanding universe(probably the best supported)
Why is this? Can you explain please?

>>5874022

Looping != Infinity

This was said earlier in the thread. Apply yourself.

>>5874023


Looping != Infinity

>>5874085
But some Super Mario Brothers stages are legitimately infinite. They extend infinitely far in both directions without repeating. Or they would, if there was a way to mark the stage, and if it had infinite memory, etc.

>>5874076
In fact, I was the one who said it both times.
I decided to repeat myself patiently for maximum clarity. It was the most effective course of action to take.

I make it a point to provide quality contributions in every thread in which I participate. Thank you for your interest in my posts. I'm glad you learned something. :-)

ok, fucking hell you guys are arguing over the stupidest things. ok, first off, lets go under the idea that some magic energy source called "dark energy" causes the universe to expand towards infinity(not infinitely expanding, its different you dumbshits.). now, with this magic dust that forces the universe to expand with no end while staying relative to gravitational forces, we come up with the question of "when does this energy run out?" well it doesn't. nor does it make sense.

Want my theory? 1/0 approaches infinity, the universe approaches infinity. lets put 2 & 2 together, the universe is the only real example of 1/0. there is no multiverse, the universe in itself, it is expanding in itself because there is nothing to divide it by, no other universe. but also, in order for this to exist at all, the universe itself has to be existent and non existent at the same time, OR a figment of our minds.

>>5874124

>>5873877
>Is it? Source?

laws of physics work on the basis of the universe being infinite

Einstein tried to prove the universe is finite but ended up proving it was infinite

>>5874163
A compact universe is perfectly possible in general relativity.

>>5873867
>How do we explain that the universe is infinite

you dont

we only know that the universe is expanding thanks to the Doppler effect

we dont know how much it will expand could be for a finite limit or maybe could expand infinitely

Assume the universe is infinite.
If there is a finite amount of mass, there's not enough mass to fill the universe
If there's an infinite amount of mass.
there's nothing stopping the universe from being filled to the brim with mass.
>thinking that one infinity is equally largeas another infinity

>>5874249
>If there is a finite amount of mass, there's not enough mass to fill the universe

and the problem is?

>>5874264
Muh division by zero

>>5874270


i dont see much of a problem with finite mass and infinte universe expansion

The observable universe is not infinite.

>>5874272

but isnt the observable universe expanding though?

sure the observable universe has a 93 billion ight year radius now, but it will keep expanding

will it expand infinitely though

>>5874276
>sure the observable universe has a 93 billion light year diameter now*

>>5874276

It's not going to become infinite in your lifetime

In fact, if you calculate how long it will take, well.......

>>5874283
>It's not going to become infinite in your lifetime

are you saying it will be finite expansion?

i would have agreed if the rate of expansion had slowed but it is only accelerating

>>5873916
An infinite universe is one of two possible topologies for the universe which preserves the flatness condition. The other is a multiply connected universe. There is a bit more support in the literature for an infinite universe based upon analyses of the power spectrum of the CMB last I had seen, but I haven't looked in a while.

>>5874299
>which preserves the flatness condition.

how do we know the whole universe is flat?

for all we know the observable universe is flat

>>5874315
That universe is flat on the largest observable scales. Application of the cosmological principle then requires that the universe as a whole preserve flatness. What you are suggesting is tossing out the cosmological principle for no reason when it has been the foundation for several successful cosmological theories. As such, it is still valid to apply as there is no observational evidence to suggest the principle is incorrect, much like there is no reason to doubt the rather successful postulates of relativity.

>>5874322
if the universe is sphere or spherical then wouldnt it be possible that it seems the universe is flat to an extent, but will not be near the edges

>>5874322
>That universe is flat on the largest observable scales. Application of the cosmological principle then requires that the universe as a whole preserve flatness.

Not the anon you're talking to, but that doesn't follow. The universe could simply be large enough that the small part of it we see appears flat. Kind of like how the ground appears flat from normal perspectives even though the Earth is round.

>>5874327
What? How can you be "near the edges?" No cosmological model gives the universe "edges" as we always exist on the surface of some closed [or infinite] higher dimensional object.

>>5874338
i meant inside the sphere universe (if the universe is sphere shaped), lines are parallel and triangle angles amout to 180 degrees and shit

but on the surface they dont

like if you cut upon a spherical ball you could easily draw two straight parallel lines on anwhere inside the ball except the surface

>>5874338

maybe

>>5874332
The flatness of the universe is not determined in this way, but by measuring densities. Assuming the density inhomogeneity is on the scale of the observable universe leads, again, to the violation of the cosmological principle without much reason.

>>5874352
>The flatness of the universe is not determined in this way

in what way?

>>5874342
We would be on the surface of the sphere, not inside of it. As such, the angles should not add up to 180. Furthermore, this is not really how flatness is measured. See >>5874352

>>5874356
Adding up the angles of a triangle. It is determined by density measurements using several different methods which all return the same result: the universe is flat to within a descent degree of precision.

>>5874356
>in what way?

you said the universe appears flat hence is said to be flat

but in actuality universe is said to be flat because the average density of the universe as calculated by WMAP is close to critical density which means the universe has to be flat

>>5874363
>within a descent degree of precision.

Right, exactly. So explain how that indicates the universe is infinite, rather than simply increasing the lower bound on its size?

>>5874375
As I said >>5874299, it does not mean the universe is infinite, but it does mean that the possible shapes of the universe are restricted to be either multiply connected or infinite.

>>5874380

Don't be pedantic. Fine:

So explain how that indicates the universe is infinite or multiply connected, rather than simply increasing the lower bound on its size?

>>5874385
Those are the only shapes which can exhibit flatness by topology. If you want a proof of this, go look into the topology of it.