Is the universe infinite?

Text-only Version: Click HERE to see this thread with all of the graphics, features, and links.



GRIMNIR
Do you enjoy deep philosophical discussions? If so read on

Socrates said "true wisdom is knowing that you know nothing"

If you wish to contribute please bear that in mind, it is a philosophical discussion topic after all

Please do not troll, but if you do, thank you for the bump in advance


Do we exist in a universe that is infinite?

(infinite?) Macrocosm - Galaxies - Us - Atoms - Microcosm (infinite?)

Is there an infinite level of substructure to both the macrocosmic universe and the microcosmic universe?

We view the universe from our perspective and see that galaxies are large and atoms are small

Suppose we were able to view the universe from the perspective of the galaxy, how would it look?
Would we be able to see atoms if we looked down a microscope?
What would we see if we looked through a telescope?

Suppose we were able to view the universe from the perspective of the atom, how would it look?
Would we be able to see galaxies through a telescope?
What would we see if we looked through a microscope?

If we were to go on a journey deep into the microcosm, passing level after level of substructure, until we arrived say, 1000 levels below the atomic, what would the universe look like?

This is what I believe

The universe is infinite
There is no empty space, there is only that which we cannot see
Nothing in the universe is ever created or destroyed, everything simply changes form.
If something appears to have been created it has not, it simply came about from energy too small for us to see, likewise if something appears to have been destroyed it has not, it simply changed to an energy form too small for us to see
If you were to look down a microscope with a theoretical unlimited zoom, you would uncover layer after layer of microcosm substructure, this would go on for infinity. The same is true for macrocosm.
Because there is no empty space in the universe, we do not "move" as we think we do, we change form and become the area we moved into

Think of this

If you stand in a forest and look at all the trees surrounding you, you see trees, maybe some animals, bugs, the sky etc. The air between the trees and yourself you cannot see, but we know that it exists.
If you then went down on a journey to the molecular level and viewed the same area of the universe, it would look very different. The trees would no longer exist, neither would the sky, animals or yourself. But the air WOULD exist.
What would this universe look like? Would it look similar to how we view the universe on our level of existence?
What if you went much further down the rabbit hole, many layers of substructure deeper, what would exist at this level?
What if went on a journey in the opposite direction, into the macrocosm?
How would earth and humans and animals look through this microscope?

I have a pac-man style analogy of my own

Think of a ball swamp. Each ball is representative of some form of energy within the universe.
Take a cross section of the universe, say our galaxy.
Imagine the milky way is represented by one ball.
Upon closer inspection we see that this one ball is actually an infinite number of balls, each ball being a different size.
One of the smaller balls represents our sun and another represents our planet earth, but we see upon closer inspection that these single balls are in fact, made up of an infinite amount of balls, each ball being a different size
One of these smaller balls is an atom, but upon closer inspection we see that actually this one atom, is made up of an infinite number of smaller balls and so on

What happens when we walk across a room? We move through empty space, disrupting various atoms as we go? Maybe
But what if that is not what happens.
Think of the infinite ball swamp, that has no empty space. How would something move through empty space if there is no empty space?

Imagine a human, represented by a large ball at point A.
At point B there is no large ball, only the infinite number of smaller balls of various sizes
When the human ball moves from point A to point B, is does not actually move, but instead the large ball is converted to an infinite number of smaller balls each of various sizes and the infinite number of balls at point B is converted into the large human ball.

Think of electrons around an atom and apply the same example. Think of everything in the entire universe and apply the same example.

What is absolute zero? Why do molecules vibrate and "move" around? Are they really moving?

I think it is an infinite ball swamp, that is in a constant state of change.

Mindship
The Mindship Preferential Equation: reality = infinitely unimaginable + unimaginably infinite.

Shakyamunison
How much space is inside a hypersphere?

How long is a mobius strip?

inimalist
Originally posted by GRIMNIR
it is a philosophical discussion topic after all

it isn't really though, is it?

a good number of your questions have empirical answers that don't really support your baseless conclusions...

though, PHILOSOPHY! so I suppose evidence is less important wink

Shakyamunison

inimalist
I don't mean this personally at all, but isn't there some profound hubris to thinking that, were our senses capable of "visualizing" the smallest things of the universe, it would be recognizable as something we have an understanding of?

Shakyamunison
Originally posted by inimalist
I don't mean this personally at all, but isn't there some profound hubris to thinking that, were our senses capable of "visualizing" the smallest things of the universe, it would be recognizable as something we have an understanding of?

How would you mean that personally? You are simply pointing out a fact. Measuring things smaller then a proton is like measuring a Volkswagen with a freight train. Very hard to do without moving the Volkswagen.

inimalist
I just meant I wasn't trying to personally call you arrogant, just that I think there is some arrogance in the way this macro/micro thing works. Its like the entire universe is the continuing path in both directions that seems intimately centered on our perception and current scientific understanding.

In almost all fields of science, we have learned things are the opposite. The more we learn, the more we find the universe could care less about us, and that such a "micro/macro" relationship that would be, literally, based on human perception is almost clearly nonsense.

Shakyamunison
Originally posted by inimalist
I just meant I wasn't trying to personally call you arrogant, just that I think there is some arrogance in the way this macro/micro thing works. Its like the entire universe is the continuing path in both directions that seems intimately centered on our perception and current scientific understanding.

In almost all fields of science, we have learned things are the opposite. The more we learn, the more we find the universe could care less about us, and that such a "micro/macro" relationship that would be, literally, based on human perception is almost clearly nonsense.

I'm not an advocate of this "micro/macro" point made buy the thread maker.

It appears that we are at the center of scale, just like it appears that the Earth is the center of the universe. We are not at the center of anything.

inimalist
then why would you see galaxies at the plank level?

maybe I misunderstood your point, because we totally agree on that

Shakyamunison
Originally posted by inimalist
then why would you see galaxies at the plank level?

maybe I misunderstood your point, because we totally agree on that

You often do misunderstand my point (nothing personal). I used the word "imagine", and I do imagine that. That doesn't mean it is real. I could imagine unicorns jumping cannons, and even paint a painting of it.

The person who wrote the thread is imagining a lot of things. Imagining is fun, but imagining can lead to flat Earth thinking.

Did you think I was talking to you, on my first post? I was talking to the thread starter.

Shakyamunison
I'm sorry, inimalist

My post above was too pointed. I didn't mean to jump on you. Please forgive me.

inimalist
Originally posted by Shakyamunison
You often do misunderstand my point (nothing personal). I used the word "imagine", and I do imagine that. That doesn't mean it is real. I could imagine unicorns jumping cannons, and even paint a painting of it.

The person who wrote the thread is imagining a lot of things. Imagining is fun, but imagining can lead to flat Earth thinking.

Did you think I was talking to you, on my first post? I was talking to the thread starter.

ok, I totally just misread that as a statement of fact rather than a conception

similarly, I tend to think of that scale as a 3- or 4-D grid where each "space" in the grid is filled with a 1 or 0 (or whatever).

I'm sure that isn't accurate, but ya, I understand, this type of thing makes it possible to even think about the concept of Plank length.

Originally posted by Shakyamunison
I'm sorry, inimalist

My post above was too pointed. I didn't mean to jump on you. Please forgive me.

haha, not at all

Shakyamunison
Originally posted by inimalist
ok, I totally just misread that as a statement of fact rather than a conception

similarly, I tend to think of that scale as a 3- or 4-D grid where each "space" in the grid is filled with a 1 or 0 (or whatever).

I'm sure that isn't accurate, but ya, I understand, this type of thing makes it possible to even think about the concept of Plank length...

The thing that gets me is the idea that an analog world would, at it's smallest extreme, be more digital like then analog like.

alltoomany
35% of people born now are not born with wisdom teeth

Mindset
100% of people born are born.

Shakyamunison
Originally posted by alltoomany
35% of people born now are not born with wisdom teeth

Really? Why?

Astner

Mindset
Astner, are you still doing some ridiculously hard major?

Shakyamunison

Mindship
Originally posted by alltoomany
35% of people born now are not born with wisdom teeth Now there'll be even less wisdom in the world.

Astner
Originally posted by Mindset
Astner, are you still doing some ridiculously hard major?
I'm still on my master's thesis for another year, which centers around macroscaled quantum entanglement.

inimalist
Originally posted by Astner
I'm still on my master's thesis for another year, which centers around macroscaled quantum entanglement.

damn, and I thought I was hardcore... sad

Mindset
Astner is the alpha.

Robtard
Originally posted by Shakyamunison
Well put.

It seems like an overly fancy way of saying "we don't really know."

Astner
Originally posted by Mindset
Astner is the alpha.
Come to think of it. Yeah, I am pretty darn alpha, aren't I?

Mindship
Originally posted by Astner
I'm still on my master's thesis for another year, which centers around macroscaled quantum entanglement. For eventual macroscale quantum teleporting?

What's the conventional wisdom these days regarding the wavefunction? Real, or just a mathematical metaphor?

Shakyamunison
Originally posted by Mindship
For eventual macroscale quantum teleporting?

What's the conventional wisdom these days regarding the wavefunction? Real, or just a mathematical metaphor?

eat

Mindship
Originally posted by Shakyamunison
eat laughing out loud

Note, though, I'm not asking about eigenstates.

Shakyamunison
Originally posted by Mindship
laughing out loud

Note, though, I'm not asking about eigenstates.

crybaby

Astner
Originally posted by Mindship
For eventual macroscale quantum teleporting?
No. It centers around using the concept of quantum entanglement for communication, and what effects might occur under different conditions created by similar systemized processes nearby.

So it could roughly be thought of as superluminal communication, but my professors would have me hanged for calling it that.

Originally posted by Mindship
What's the conventional wisdom these days regarding the wavefunction? Real, or just a mathematical metaphor?
The wave function works well to explain the behavior of particles under certain conditions, and that's why it's used. The same reasoning applies to the particle properties. We're not actually able to look at an elementary particle and determine what it really is, because the light it emits is caused by its vibrations.

Mindship
Originally posted by Astner
No. It centers around using the concept of quantum entanglement for communication, and what effects might occur under different conditions created by similar systemized processes nearby.What are you using that you're calling it macroscale?

Originally posted by Astner
So it could roughly be thought of as superluminal communication, but my professors would have me hanged for calling it that. Maybe just call it "spooky action at a distance," ala Albert.


Originally posted by Astner
The wave function works well to explain the behavior of particles under certain conditions, and that's why it's used. The same reasoning applies to the particle properties. We're not actually able to look at an elementary particle and determine what it really is, because the light it emits is caused by its vibrations. I was asking because, as I understand it, there's been some debate about the WF's "reality." Eg:

http://arstechnica.com/science/2011/11/the-insanely-weird-quantum-wave-function-might-be-real-after-all/

Mindset
Originally posted by Mindship
For eventual macroscale quantum teleporting?

What's the conventional wisdom these days regarding the wavefunction? Real, or just a mathematical metaphor? Originally posted by Mindship
laughing out loud

Note, though, I'm not asking about eigenstates. Originally posted by Astner
No. It centers around using the concept of quantum entanglement for communication, and what effects might occur under different conditions created by similar systemized processes nearby.

So it could roughly be thought of as superluminal communication, but my professors would have me hanged for calling it that.


The wave function works well to explain the behavior of particles under certain conditions, and that's why it's used. The same reasoning applies to the particle properties. We're not actually able to look at an elementary particle and determine what it really is, because the light it emits is caused by its vibrations. Originally posted by Mindship
What are you using that you're calling it macroscale?

Maybe just call it "spooky action at a distance," ala Albert.


I was asking because, as I understand it, there's been some debate about the WF's "reality." Eg:

http://arstechnica.com/science/2011/11/the-insanely-weird-quantum-wave-function-might-be-real-after-all/

I see...

http://qmt323e.wikispaces.com/file/view/KenPark-Suicide.gif/57156544/KenPark-Suicide.gif

Mindship
Originally posted by Mindset
I see...

http://qmt323e.wikispaces.com/file/view/KenPark-Suicide.gif/57156544/KenPark-Suicide.gif

Astner
Originally posted by Mindship
What are you using that you're calling it macroscale?
The communication occurs through the detection of spins, so we're working with clusters of particles -- some with different spin -- for combinatory purposes.

Originally posted by Mindship
Maybe just call it "spooky action at a distance," ala Albert.
Or a connection through time, not space. Superluminal sounds better though, even if it would get me beaten hand hanged in the closest tree.


Originally posted by Mindship
I was asking because, as I understand it, there's been some debate about the WF's "reality." Eg:

http://arstechnica.com/science/2011/11/the-insanely-weird-quantum-wave-function-might-be-real-after-all/
This is a popular science article, and I couldn't find the source they referenced. I really have nothing to go by to state a personal interpretation

Mindship
Originally posted by Astner
The communication occurs through the detection of spins, so we're working with clusters of particles -- some with different spin -- for combinatory purposes. That's. Pretty. Darn. Cool...if not downright paradigm-challenging. Good luck with this, and let us know what happens.

Astner
If you want me to I can send you a copy once it's published. If you know your beyond the standard model physics then it shouldn't be too difficult to follow.

Shakyamunison
Originally posted by Astner
The communication occurs through the detection of spins, so we're working with clusters of particles -- some with different spin -- for combinatory purposes.


Or a connection through time, not space. Superluminal sounds better though, even if it would get me beaten hand hanged in the closest tree.



This is a popular science article, and I couldn't find the source they referenced. I really have nothing to go by to state a personal interpretation

I was told that communication using entanglement would be impossible. Don't you destroy the information as soon as you detect the spin?

the ninjak
If the known galaxy is apparently a huge black hole spinning smaller galaxies in a rotation. Those smaller galaxies also spinning discs.

And outside is just void. Then arguably the universe is infinite. An infinite void.

But where did the initial bang come from? That's when shit gets esoteric. And that's another story which requires lots of scotch.

Mindship
Originally posted by Astner
If you want me to I can send you a copy once it's published. If you know your beyond the standard model physics then it shouldn't be too difficult to follow. I'm guessing much of the text will involve math, which will leave me in the quantum dust. But I wouldn't mind reading the abstract (copy-paste to private message?). Thanks.

Astner
Originally posted by Shakyamunison
I was told that communication using entanglement would be impossible. Don't you destroy the information as soon as you detect the spin?
A complete superluminal system wouldn't be possible, because you'd need to have receptor interpreting the signals as well. That said, information wouldn't be destroyed because it's used in a binary sense, and if we detect the spin of a particle, then we know that its antiparticle will have the opposite spin. It's a matter of using it appropriately in a system.

That said the work is theoretical and only includes the particle clusters mentioned above as well as methods of reading the information.

Astner
What I mean is, the way you're wording you're wrong. But I'm sure you're simply misinterpreting an article. If you reference it I could clarify it for you.

Shakyamunison
Originally posted by Astner
What I mean is, the way you're wording you're wrong. But I'm sure you're simply misinterpreting an article. If you reference it I could clarify it for you.

I'm sure I am not saying it correctly, but the information was from a discussion with a physics teacher, a few years back. When I first learned about entanglement I thought "that would make the ultimate communication device". One of the engineers I work with is also a physics teacher (he has moved to another job), he popped my bubble, telling me that could never happen. I am glad to see that other people disagree. big grin

Symmetric Chaos
Originally posted by Astner
A complete superluminal system wouldn't be possible, because you'd need to have receptor interpreting the signals as well. That said, information wouldn't be destroyed because it's used in a binary sense, and if we detect the spin of a particle, then we know that its antiparticle will have the opposite spin. It's a matter of using it appropriately in a system.

If I understand what you've written here you're not even describing something vaguely similar to a faster than light communication device.

Astner
Originally posted by Symmetric Chaos
If I understand what you've written here you're not even describing something vaguely similar to a faster than light communication device.
We're not creating a communication device, we're simply examining a certain phenomena and its applications.

Since entanglement occurs instantly, if the method stands for most of the distance in a system -- including the reception of the signals -- the mean "velocity" can well transcend light speed.

Shakyamunison
Originally posted by Astner
We're not creating a communication device, we're simply examining a certain phenomena and its applications.

Since entanglement occurs instantly, if the method stands for most of the distance in a system -- including the reception of the signals -- the mean "velocity" can well transcend light speed.

How can you be sure about the end result?

Astner
We're not. Those are just the basics.

Either way w're pretty far into the theory, and we have good communication with the doctors and docents at the Department of Fundamental Physics.

Besides most of what's left is number crunching, in the end there are a number of ways to solve partial differential equations. You don't necessarily have to solve them analytically if you're able to come up with a numeric solution, and if that doesn't work you can always take another approach and reinitialize the conditions.

Ascendancy
Back on topic, what would it mean if the universe weren't infinite? Would there be some "edge" that could theoretically be reached? Would there be something beyond it or is that looking at it too simplistically from the human viewpoint that everything with a definite area must be contained by something that defines that area?

Astner
No. There wouldn't be an edge, it would be closed. Think of it like the surface of a ball, the area of the surface is limited but you could endlessly walk in one direction along the surface, there would be no wall there to stop you from doing so.

Ascendancy
So there would be nothing beyond the surface of the ball that contains us if our universe is finite?

Astner
You miss the anecdote. The surface is two-dimensional. You have back/forth and left/right, but no up/down.

Contrary to the surface of the ball our universe is three-dimensional. In other words you couldn't get out of the universe by simply moving in the directions: back/forth, left/right, or up/down.

In our example of the ball "up/down" would translate to "back/forward in time". So beyond the surface you'd have the future, which technically is seen as part of the universe.

Ascendancy
So if you discovered a fuel that would allow a vehicle to travel forever on one vector, assuming that it doesn't impact something along the way, what would happen to it? In that case would it not eventually come to the end of the universe?

Symmetric Chaos
Originally posted by Ascendancy
So if you discovered a fuel that would allow a vehicle to travel forever on one vector, assuming that it doesn't impact something along the way, what would happen to it? In that case would it not eventually come to the end of the universe?

If you put a model train in a loop and have it go around and around does it ever reach the "end" of the loop?
If you get in a plane and fly all over the world do you ever reach the "end" of the world?

These are easy to visualize because we have brains evolved and developed to handle those kinds of things. Mathematically its been proven that the same thing is possible with things that have more (spatial) dimensions but unfortunately there's no way to visualize that. I don't know of any indication that the universe is really shaped like that, though.

There are other ways to have a bounded universe with no edge. One of my favorites is the plate world from Flatterland. At the center of the world a box is 10 feet tall and 10 feet wide. Half way to the edge its 5 feet tall and 5 feet wide. As a result you can never reach the edge (because your stride is always too short) and you have infinite space. The same thing can be made to work in three dimensions with the same result. There's no reason to believe it happens anywhere but it is kind of neat.

Astner
Originally posted by Ascendancy
So if you discovered a fuel that would allow a vehicle to travel forever on one vector, assuming that it doesn't impact something along the way, what would happen to it? In that case would it not eventually come to the end of the universe?
You'd eventually get back to your initial starting position in space, though not space-time.

Well technically that isn't possibly either because the universe is expanding at the speed of light. Meaning that you'd have to move faster than light to get back to your position, which isn't possible.

Originally posted by Symmetric Chaos
There are other ways to have a bounded universe with no edge. One of my favorites is the plate world from Flatterland. At the center of the world a box is 10 feet tall and 10 feet wide. Half way to the edge its 5 feet tall and 5 feet wide. As a result you can never reach the edge (because your stride is always too short) and you have infinite space. The same thing can be made to work in three dimensions with the same result. There's no reason to believe it happens anywhere but it is kind of neat.
What the **** are you on about?

Robtard
Originally posted by Astner


Well technically that isn't possibly either because the universe is expanding at the speed of light. Meaning that you'd have to move faster than light to get back to your position, which isn't possible.


What's outside, ie what is (if anything) the universe expanding into while it's growing?

Astner
Originally posted by Robtard
What's outside, ie what is (if anything) the universe expanding into while it's growing?
What it's expanding into is the future, from the perspective of general relativity the future is already there we've just not reached it yet. It's not expanding in a spatial direction -- back/forward, left/right, and up down.

Lord Lucien
Originally posted by Robtard
What's outside, ie what is (if anything) the universe expanding into while it's growing? Other universes. Our expansion is their reduction. Eventually another universe will start expanding and begin squeezing ours, pushing in to a single point that will one day be forced to start expanding again.

Astner
Originally posted by Lord Lucien
Other universes. Our expansion is their reduction. Eventually another universe will start expanding and begin squeezing ours, pushing in to a single point that will one day be forced to start expanding again.
You seem well versed in the field of pseudoscience.

Robtard
Originally posted by Astner
What it's expanding into is the future, from the perspective of general relativity the future is already there we've just not reached it yet. It's not expanding in a spatial direction -- back/forward, left/right, and up down.

So you really don't know either. No worries.

Astner
Originally posted by Robtard
So you really don't know either. No worries.
Are you illiterate? According to the model of general relativity, time is a direction and it is in that direction that the universe is expanding in.

Robtard
Originally posted by Astner
Are you illiterate? According to the model of general relativity, time is a direction and it is in that direction that the universe is expanding in.
I can understand thinking you have everything figured out and then someone comes along; asks a question that burst your bubble and your own universe is sent spiraling. But you need to calm down though, it's a friendly discussion.

Astner
Originally posted by Robtard
I can understand thinking you have everything figured out and then someone comes along; asks a question that burst your bubble and your own universe is sent spiraling. But you need to calm down though, it's a friendly discussion.
What are you talking about? Is it something in my explanation that you didn't understand? Did you find the answer inadequate? If so, specify why.

Robtard
Originally posted by Astner
What are you talking about? Is it something in my explanation that you didn't understand? Did you find the answer inadequate? If so, specify why.

We're talking about the universe. I understand your 'expanding into the future' scenario. I do find it somewhat inadequate. Because you're not certain if the universe is finite or infinite to begin with.

Astner
Originally posted by Robtard
We're talking about the universe. I understand your 'expanding into the future' scenario. I do find it somewhat inadequate. Because you're not certain if the universe is finite or infinite to begin with.
Whether it's infinite or not is irrelevant, according to general relativity -- which makes no postulations of an infinite universe, hence the density parameter relations mentioned earlier -- it's expanding in the direction of time.

The only problem with assigning Ω ≤ 1 is that the sphere anecdote would lose relevance, it wouldn't say anything regarding the direction of the expansion.

Furthermore Ascendancy asked the question in regards to the model of a finite space, hence the use of the sphere anecdote.

Ascendancy
Indeed. It's just strange to think that traveling on a linear path, let's assume this time at faster than light speeds, you would still wind up at the same point. It doesn't fit with any "standard" model of thinking about our relation to the things around us. I've only taken Physics I though, so I have yet to delve into anything highly theoretical other than what I have seen on Mechanical Universe, Big Thinkers, Nova, etc, etc, ad nauseum, quid pro quo semper fi.

Symmetric Chaos
Originally posted by Astner
What the **** are you on about?

A fun (though certainly impossible) way of producing an infinite space, it's basically Xeno's paradox enforced through silly physics. You seem to have taken it quite seriously.

Lord Lucien
Originally posted by Ascendancy
Indeed. It's just strange to think that traveling on a linear path, let's assume this time at faster than light speeds, you would still wind up at the same point. It doesn't fit with any "standard" model of thinking about our relation to the things around us. I've only taken Physics I though, so I have yet to delve into anything highly theoretical other than what I have seen on Mechanical Universe, Big Thinkers, Nova, etc, etc, ad nauseum, quid pro quo semper fi. Well now you're just acting transcendent.

Astner
Originally posted by Symmetric Chaos
A fun (though certainly impossible) way of producing an infinite space, it's basically Xeno's paradox enforced through silly physics.
I was more pointing to your extremely poor phrasing of something you thought sounded clever.

Anyway, no, you can't use Xeno's paradox does not generate infinite space. Xeno's paradox divides a finite distance into infinitely many sections that when added together still converges to the same finite distance. Unless you decide to attribute our universe with characteristics that it doesn't have such as: location based time, it's not going to come together.

Originally posted by Symmetric Chaos
You seem to have taken it quite seriously.
No offense, but I don't find stupidity funny.

Symmetric Chaos
Originally posted by Astner
Anyway, no, you can't use Xeno's paradox does not generate infinite space. Xeno's paradox divides a finite distance into infinitely many sections that when added together still converges to the same finite distance. Unless you decide to attribute our universe with characteristics that it doesn't have such as: location based time, it's not going to come together.

You mean something based on imaginary physics is going to require some imaginary physics in order to work? Shocking.

You were already proposing spatial dimensions that there is no evidence for.

Originally posted by Astner
No offense, but I don't find stupidity funny.

Wow, you really are taking this too serious.

Astner
Originally posted by Symmetric Chaos
You were already proposing spatial dimensions that there is no evidence for.
Do you even know what a spatial dimension is? Do you even know what a dimension is?

Originally posted by Symmetric Chaos
Wow, you really are taking this too serious.
roll eyes (sarcastic)

Oliver North
this is wonderful

Lord Lucien
Originally posted by Astner
No offense, but I don't find stupidity funny. Don't be so hard on yourself.

Symmetric Chaos
Astner is obviously really on edge and I don't particularly care about arguing for the sake of arguing so I'm out.

Ascendancy
Hah, I've come to see that our universe in fact must be infinite; it impossible to believe that any finite space could contain some of the egos I've witnessed on these forums in my short time here =p

Oliver North
Originally posted by Ascendancy
Hah, I've come to see that our universe in fact must be infinite; it impossible to believe that any finite space could contain some of the egos I've witnessed on these forums in my short time here =p

you realize that statement in itself is pure egoism?

Ascendancy
Ah, who knew you'd show up so quickly?

Oliver North
I made a new friend today big grin

Astner
Originally posted by Lord Lucien
Don't be so hard on yourself.
Are you still mad over that I pointed out your pseudoscience? Burry the hatchet already, you'll only make things harder on yourself.

Originally posted by Symmetric Chaos
Astner is obviously really on edge and I don't particularly care about arguing for the sake of arguing so I'm out.
No you attacked my position with a statement which clearly displayed your ignorance of the topic, and so I asked you if you knew what a dimensional was.

What I suspect happened was that you looked it up, realized that you were wrong, and then backed out to spare your ego. Rather than doing the sensible thing and concede that you were wrong.

Lord Lucien
Originally posted by Astner
Are you still mad over that I pointed out your pseudoscience? Burry the hatchet already, you'll only make things harder on yourself. I'm not sure if you're just incapable of understanding glibness, or if you're chronically dependent on always being right to the point of being obstinate--either way, don't read too far in to other people's haphazard musings lest you be seen as desperate. You've been doing that a lot in this thread.

Astner
I don't care whether I'm right or wrong. But if you make a serious statement with without reasoning to back it up, then I'm going to mess with it.

Text-only Version: Click HERE to see this thread with all of the graphics, features, and links.