Lets talk about my favorite subject....

[lamchopz]

lol, "creature" is just an expression. Don't take it literally. I like your jokes sometimes but not this time, sorry.

I don't discuss infinity because I don't know much about it (even my maths lecturer admitted no one knew exactly what it is).

I only express my views and back them up with what I've learnt only to the topics I am more or less familiar with.

So here are they, what I know for sure:

Answers to the question you posed:

- Why is the sky blue?

The answer is that droplets of water vapour in the air can separate light into its component colours with blue being the most refracted, therefore its angle of refraction is the highest which allows it to reach our eyes. Therefore, we perceive the sky as blue.

To understand this, you need to know that light gets refracted when it travels from one medium to another, and its component wavelengths (which, in the visible spectrum, are the colours you see) all are "bent" at different angles, thus they are separated.

- Why is Earth the only planet with life?

How do you know? To make the claim that only life exists here, you have to show that life can't exist elsewhere in the entire universe (and please don't use contrapositive to rebut this point. you have to stick to your first hypothesis). Consider the number of galaxies. In each galaxy, look at the number of solar systems. In each solar system, look at the number of planets. Is it so small a probability that life exists selectively and solely on this planet? That's an extreme assumption and has no backing whatsoever. If life can thrive here, there is no reason why it can't in other places.

EDIT: typos everywhere. =.=

[Luna]

Well I meant that you wouldn't get a very good answer from someone whos never really thought about it. A random person on the street 99% of the time, won't be able to say what you just said lam.

As for the joke, that wasn't me, my sister died laughing because she thought it was funny... so much for humor to run through the family.

[lamchopz]

lol

it's Lam, not Iam. btw. xD

[Vasu]

I don't think time and space will exist after the universe goes (if it goes). Because, the universe is time and space. Some scientists say that science can't explain what was there before the Big Bang because there was nothing to apply their laws and theorems on. There weren't even any laws, because there was ...nothing. No time, no space, no probability, nothing.

[wompastompa]

sorry i got carried away with the subject....I confused myself too!

I'll have to retreat and improve my argument

Also...... anything about infinity, whether its proving or disproving is by no means a fact! there are certain levels of truth behind it but all in all it can't be stated as a clean fact

[Manzcar]

I believe in infinity not as a concept but as an actuality. Infinity is that without begining nor end. It has no measure. The belief of the infinite was first thought of not in scientific terms but in religious terms. God was first described as one that had no begining and no end. God's love, power, knowledge, and understanding have all been described as having no measure.

The belief in infinity is even older than science itself. I for one believe in the infinite.

[Loveless]

Isn't the concept of time there because we 'measure' it? So you can't exactly say that it did not exist before just because no one was there to record it.(of course you can't prove the opposite either) but that's just another though?

Everything is a theory (big bang, colours, etc) so take it as a grain of salt. Discussing it and getting other people's opinions and views will help to improve your argument in the future.

[lamchopz]

lol

I think I'll chime in one last time and leave this thread because the following is all I have to say about this matter.

To derail this thread a bit:

Time is the fourth dimension in 4D geometry. When we mention 3D, the 3 dimensions only involve "spatial", not "temporal" (which effects "movement over time"). So by describing an object in, say, an xyz coordinate system, you are only specifying where it is, not how and where it's moving. By including the time component in the description, you explicitly show its course of movement around the xyz coordinates over time. Some clinics now advertise that mothers-to-be can see their kids in 4D (it's 3D + time).

As such, if you have zero time or time is not described, you don't have movement and hence, anything that occurs afterward (namely, interaction with the environment).

Therefore, it is reasonable to think of "nothingness" before the Big Bang because time was thought to be at zero, and so nothing happened. Again, that's just maths. You may question how time started to tick, how "nothingness" came about, etc. but bear in mind that's not something we fully understand yet and at best, these are still speculative.

As for the expansion of the universe, we can mathematically show that it is most likely the case by using Einstein's theory of general relativity. So observations (whose accuracy, interestingly, will be improved with the latest equipment which reduces a lot of errors and assumptions made) and the maths (using general relativity, if it is true) underpin our belief to this date that the universe is currently expanding.

Back on topic:

"Infinity" is an integral part of mathematics and everything that employs maths (honestly, that's almost everything).

It is, to me, also commonsense to have the concept of "infinite": if we think of larger and larger without any imposed constraint, how large will it get? Of course it can't be measured because it's allowed to enlarge forever so it will be come extremely large (just like when you add 1000 to infinity, you get back infinity but you can't treat infinity as a number because you'll get the paradox* below). Hence, to describe that "extremely large", infinity is needed. I don't use "immeasurably large" or "immeasurably small" because it is subjected to scientific advances. For instance, anything that is in the order of 10^(-40), say, is immeasurably small to us because we don't have the equipment to do so.

*The paradox: let D be the infinity. We say that adding 1000 to infinity still gives infinity so mathematically, if infinity is some D, we have:

D + 1000 = D
or 1000 = 0 (by eliminating D on both sides).

That is nonsese. So infinity (called D here) is not a finite mathematical identity and so by putting it as a numerical term in an equation just doesn't make sense (you have to use limits instead)

Perhaps we live in a low energy universe, some of the things we are curious about can't be observed. For example, the two distinct forces in our world (weak force and electromagnetism), when evaluated mathematically in a higher energy universe, become one single force. This led particle physicists to believe that if we get the right ingredients (new and better theories, new discoveries?), the four fundamental forces of nature (weak force, strong force, electromagnetism and gravity) may become one at high energies as well (this is why String Theory and the like came to life as our latest effort to create a Grand Unification Theory).

So you don't have to believe in infinity because commonsense tells you it has to be there (recall "larger and larger without limit") but in terms of observation, it's just something we can't do in our limited lifespan or at least not with the current advancement anyway.

The future is an interesting destination for hopes and dreams, and if it does survive the madness and extreme stupidity of our time, things will become clearer for humankind.

EDIT: I hate typos =.=

Although this image refers to a different set of 4D system (where all four dimensions are spatial), it looks cool so I just post it here

[wompastompa]

thats a lot of stuff to digest.......amazingly complex if you look into the mechanics

[Ralath]

That image is mind-blowing.