Introducing the concept of infinity means you have no meaningful

>>8937377
ok.

>>8937377
Do you have a point, or did you just want everyone to know?

>>8937377
Are you going somewhere with this?

What would happen if an object with a magnetic field of Graham's Number Tesla were put in the center of the universe?

>>8937402
Your creditcard wouldn't work anymore, that's for sure.

>>8937393
>>8937401
It is clearly problematic.

>>8937377
>What is -infinity
0 is in the middle, so it balances out.

>>8937405
It's not though. The universe is finite, so in that sense any scale is comparative and therefore meaningful. In mathematics it is trivial, because something either converges or doesn't when we put its limit towards infinity.

>>8937377
Nothing is absolutely big, everything needs a context, something to be compared to, e.g., your mother's vagina isn't absolutely huge, it's just bigger than most.

>>8937377
>compairing real numbers with extended real numbers
Nice! fuck off retard

>>8937377
This would be true if the universe were infinite.

Which it is not. It loses energy. It is its nature to lose energy. It is an open system. I am running on pure intuition and predecessors here when saying...

Every last man no matter how prideful or smart has died eventually.

At least we have fun together :'D

>>8937402
There would be problems expanding outward from the object into the universe at the speed of light.

>>8937377
You want to think of infinity as meaning arbitrarily large. It's the mathematical translation of vague statements like 'a long time' or 'very far away'

>>8937377
There is plenty of sense of scale. You just compare your number to something other than infinity.

10^200? Sure that's nothing compared to infinity but if I tried to write every number in 10^200 on a different atom in the universe I'd run out of atoms before getting even half way done.

10^200 of any unit is a lot more than we can deal with, therefore it is big.

However it is still a number. And beyond anything physics related, using 10^200 in an equation is perfectly reasonable and meaningful. Example: it can be calculated to reasonable precision about how long a line of 10^200 people is. Or about how long it would take for the DMV to process that line of people (that's how Graham's number was calculated)

>>8937422
this

>>8937457
>finite

Doesn't runaway expansion disprove this? In fact, come to think of it, isn't a constantly expanding/accelerating universe a direct violation of physics? It's a constant net gain in energy (of some sort that causes space to expand anyway)

>>8937405
>It is clearly problematic.
No it is not.

Just because your """""""feeling""""""" is violated doesn't mean shit.

>>8937377
>Introducing the concept of infinity means you have no meaningful scales anymore
>What are ordinals and cardinals

>>8940063
Mere mathematical parlor tricks. There is nothing meaningful behind them.

>>8940063
Even better. Let's introduce new infinities such that one infinity is zero compared to the other, that will fix things.

>>8938862
>You just compare your number to something other than infinity
Which gives you a new number, that you again don't know what to do with.

>>8938983
http://www.preposterousuniverse.com/blog/2010/02/22/energy-is-not-conserved/

>>8940084
>Which gives you a new number, that you again don't know what to do with.

I don't think you understand how basic comparisons work. Nothing is inherently `big' or `small'. A number is only big or small depending on what you compare it to.

If you compare 10^{200} to something like 7, then 10^{200} is big. If you compare 10^{200} to infinity, then 10^{200} is small.

>>8937377
>Introducing the concept of infinity means you have no meaningful scales anymore.

There are plenty of meaningful scales, but most of them don't have you compare everything to infinity. Why? Because comparing everything to infinity is retarded.

The universe is finite, as you all pointed out. But what about the multiverse? And if it's infinite, does that matter for us in here?

>>8941103
I still think it's a bit disturbing that energy isn't conserved. Where is this energy coming from, if not from the universe itself?

>>8937377
Scales are not defined by the max value, but by the base unit.

>>8937450
This

>>8937377
scale is relative, why is this important?
>take the smallest astronomical body
>take the largest astronomical body
now you have a scale relative to astronomical bodies

>>8941218
seconded