Riddle me this...

Actually, there seems to be some debate within the FE community on the true size of the FE.  Some FE models say infinite plane, others say finite disc.  Since no FE'er has been to the wall to see if the FE continues beyond it, this question remains unresolved.

I have trouble with the idea of infinite just for the fact that most FE models require acceleration for the equivalence of gravity.  Infinite things have trouble being accelerated due to the energy requirements.

So in some misterious way the DE doesnt affect the meteor?

It's my opinion that such bodies that come in contact with the earth originate outside the observable part of the universe and therefore outside the influence of the DE.

Quote from: markjo on September 12, 2008, 09:18:43 AM

Actually, there seems to be some debate within the FE community on the true size of the FE.  Some FE models say infinite plane, others say finite disc.  Since no FE'er has been to the wall to see if the FE continues beyond it, this question remains unresolved.

I have trouble with the idea of infinite just for the fact that most FE models require acceleration for the equivalence of gravity.  Infinite things have trouble being accelerated due to the energy requirements.

Personally, I have trouble with the idea of a physical object having an infinite dimension.  I believe that it leads to too many paradoxes (infinity divided by any other number is pretty near zero and such).

My question is: If all matter from the Big Bang is moving at the same speed and direction, how can anything hit the surface at all?

My question is: If all matter from the Big Bang is moving at the same speed and direction, how can anything hit the surface at all?

It's not.  Only objects caught in the earth's DEF (ie, the observable universe) are moving in the same direction as the earth.  The rest of the universe may be far more chaotic for all we know.

Personally, I have trouble with the idea of a physical object having an infinite dimension.  I believe that it leads to too many paradoxes (infinity divided by any other number is pretty near zero and such).

It's a good thing that the fundamental structure of the universe doesn't operate on Casio calculators, then.

Quote from: markjo on September 12, 2008, 06:11:27 PM

Personally, I have trouble with the idea of a physical object having an infinite dimension.  I believe that it leads to too many paradoxes (infinity divided by any other number is pretty near zero and such).

It's a good thing that the fundamental structure of the universe doesn't operate on Casio calculators, then.

Personally I prefer TI calculators, but HP still has the hearts of the true geeks.

So, what do calculators have to do with the fundamental structures of the universe?  And since when is the universe immune to paradoxes?

Quote from: Tom Bishop on September 14, 2008, 08:20:42 PM

Quote from: markjo on September 12, 2008, 06:11:27 PM

Personally, I have trouble with the idea of a physical object having an infinite dimension.  I believe that it leads to too many paradoxes (infinity divided by any other number is pretty near zero and such).

It's a good thing that the fundamental structure of the universe doesn't operate on Casio calculators, then.

Personally I prefer TI calculators, but HP still has the hearts of the true geeks.

So, what do calculators have to do with the fundamental structures of the universe?  And since when is the universe immune to paradoxes?

Tom has a special FET edition calculator that divides by zero and multiplies by infinity. 

What happened to Username's theory of an infinite earth that was 9,000 km (i think) in height?

Quote from: markjo on September 14, 2008, 08:32:03 PM

Quote from: Tom Bishop on September 14, 2008, 08:20:42 PM

Quote from: markjo on September 12, 2008, 06:11:27 PM

Personally, I have trouble with the idea of a physical object having an infinite dimension.  I believe that it leads to too many paradoxes (infinity divided by any other number is pretty near zero and such).

It's a good thing that the fundamental structure of the universe doesn't operate on Casio calculators, then.

Personally I prefer TI calculators, but HP still has the hearts of the true geeks.

So, what do calculators have to do with the fundamental structures of the universe?  And since when is the universe immune to paradoxes?

Tom has a special FET edition calculator that divides by zero and multiplies by infinity. 

Dividing by infinity isn't so hard. You just have to use a little bit of limit theory to see where the answer should be.

If the Earth is flat and of finite thickness, then we have to take on board the points raised earlier about asteroid/comet collisions and the Earth staying flat.  There are a few possible resolutions to this problem:

1) The Earth is extremely thick, making impacts of any magnitude negligible
2) The Earth is extremely massive, making its moment of inertia extremely large (same effect as 1)
3) Some combination of the above
4) The DE/UA/whatever forces the FE to be level for some reason (equilibrium point)

or, otherwise

5) The Earth is infinite and as such as infinite moment of inertia (in the limit that an impact doesn't cause a hole/fracture)

If the Earth is flat and of finite thickness, then we have to take on board the points raised earlier about asteroid/comet collisions and the Earth staying flat.  There are a few possible resolutions to this problem:

1) The Earth is extremely thick, making impacts of any magnitude negligible
2) The Earth is extremely massive, making its moment of inertia extremely large (same effect as 1)
3) Some combination of the above
4) The DE/UA/whatever forces the FE to be level for some reason (equilibrium point)

or, otherwise

5) The Earth is infinite and as such as infinite moment of inertia (in the limit that an impact doesn't cause a hole/fracture)

If Earth were vertically infitinite ("underneath" us) it could be "expanding" upward at 9,8m/s² instead of accelerating. In that case, the universe could have started with a "big bang", starting from an infinitely dense area of matter that is constantly expanding. The upper "crust" of the infinite matter quickly cooled down and formed the normal matter we know today. The sun, moon and planets are part of this upper crust that was blasted into the sky by some major eruption (perhaps forming the Chicxulub crater) and are now staying up by riding on a compression wave that is moving ahead of the Earth...

And so, "Expanding Earth Theory" is born.

That's about as good as the "sun is a firey volcano cannonball" theory from yesterday.

Eg, if I type 5/0 im my Casio calculator, we won't all implode. Try it. (Don't worry I've already checked)

You're toying with powerful forces here, goldy, how can you be sure you won't create a singularity and destroy us all? Or turn the Earth into a giant gorilla-anti-gorilla pair and obliterate the Solar System? You don't know do you? YOU JUST DON'T KNOW!!

Quote from: goldstein on September 16, 2008, 07:23:40 AM

Eg, if I type 5/0 im my Casio calculator, we won't all implode. Try it. (Don't worry I've already checked)

You're toying with powerful forces here, goldy, how can you be sure you won't create a singularity and destroy us all? Or turn the Earth into a giant gorilla-anti-gorilla pair and obliterate the Solar System? You don't know do you? YOU JUST DON'T KNOW!!

Most modern calculators contain several security measures to prevent that from happening.

Most modern calculators contain several security measures to prevent that from happening.

If they can't even make ssh secure then how can we rely on the tech-heads to protect us from antimatter annihilation?

Quote from: Paizuri on September 11, 2008, 03:13:58 PM

We've been hit by some pretty large objects in the past, and if we're accelerating upward at around 1-g wouldn't it cause a big wobble (for lack of a better word)?  Possibly causing the water to spill over the "ice wall"

In fact, by conservation of momentum it would start the Earth turning, or tipping over. Unless there is some kind of self-righting mechanism, the Earth should be doing (admitedly very slow) flips.

The bigger the Earth, the slower the flips, but they should be happening.

That made me LOL.

Quote from: Raist on September 15, 2008, 10:34:36 AM

Dividing by infinity isn't so hard. You just have to use a little bit of limit theory to see where the answer should be.

Divide by infinity is easy. Zero.

Divide by zero, then you're in trouble, cos that's infinity.

Oh and Tom, you do realise that saying the word "infinity" and the existence of infinity are two different things. Eg, if I type 5/0 im my Casio calculator, we won't all implode. Try it. (Don't worry I've already checked)

I meant dividing by zero. It doesn't actually represent infinity. It represents an unknown value.

Grief. No it represents infinity.

Take a non zero positive number.

Take 0.1. Divide your number by this 0.1. It got bigger diddnt it? Now divide your number by 0.01. Bigger still? Good. Now 0.001. What's happening?

As we approach zero, we can say our result approaches infinity. Infinity is a concept which helps mathmaticians get out of a lot of scrapes. If you want to call it an unknown value, call it an unknown unfeasably large value.

Take a non zero positive number.

Divide your number by -0.1. It got bigger and negative, didn't it? Now divide your number by -0.01. Bigger still, but also negative? Good. Now -0.001. What's happening?

Negative infinity. It's still infinitely large. You still need a shorthand way to express it.

I agree. Preferably an unambiguous one, like ±∞. lim_x→0 (1/x) is not defined.

Any doubt, go out and borrow as much money as you can then blow it all on hookers and coke. The borrow more and more and more.

Then at the end of the day, try to write down how much money you have. Is it a positive or negative number? Is it incredibly large?

Who cares, you have hookers and coke!

Quote from: Raist on September 15, 2008, 10:34:36 AM

Dividing by infinity isn't so hard. You just have to use a little bit of limit theory to see where the answer should be.

Divide by infinity is easy. Zero.

Not necessarily. Infinity divided by infinity is in indeterminant form.

0^0, ∞^0, 0/0, 1^∞, ∞/∞, and 0×∞ are all indeterminate.

EDIT: I forgot ∞ - ∞. Silly me.

Quote from: goldstein on September 17, 2008, 02:02:23 AM

Any doubt, go out and borrow as much money as you can then blow it all on hookers and coke. The borrow more and more and more.

Then at the end of the day, try to write down how much money you have. Is it a positive or negative number? Is it incredibly large?

Who cares, you have hookers and coke!

HAD hookers and coke. You never have coke. You had coke and snorted it. Or you possessed coke and cops arrested you. Or you were stealing coke and shot 3 police officers, but you never have coke.

HAD hookers and coke. You never have coke. You had coke and snorted it. Or you possessed coke and cops arrested you. Or you were stealing coke and shot 3 police officers, but you never have coke.

Fair point... I prefer to get cops to give chase before putting an RPG through the windscreen - makes for a more dramatic escape.

If Earth were vertically infitinite ("underneath" us) it could be "expanding" upward at 9,8m/s² instead of accelerating. In that case, the universe could have started with a "big bang", starting from an infinitely dense area of matter that is constantly expanding. The upper "crust" of the infinite matter quickly cooled down and formed the normal matter we know today. The sun, moon and planets are part of this upper crust that was blasted into the sky by some major eruption (perhaps forming the Chicxulub crater) and are now staying up by riding on a compression wave that is moving ahead of the Earth...

If the Earth were vertically infinite, surface gravity would be infinite also (see here).

I'm pretty sure geologists would be able to tell the difference between an impact crater and a volcanic crater.

Fair point... I prefer to get cops to give chase before putting an RPG through the windscreen - makes for a more dramatic escape.

Woot! Go Niko Matrix!

Quote from: MadDogX on September 16, 2008, 02:15:07 AM

If Earth were vertically infitinite ("underneath" us) it could be "expanding" upward at 9,8m/s² instead of accelerating. In that case, the universe could have started with a "big bang", starting from an infinitely dense area of matter that is constantly expanding. The upper "crust" of the infinite matter quickly cooled down and formed the normal matter we know today. The sun, moon and planets are part of this upper crust that was blasted into the sky by some major eruption (perhaps forming the Chicxulub crater) and are now staying up by riding on a compression wave that is moving ahead of the Earth...

If the Earth were vertically infinite, surface gravity would be infinite also (see here).

I'm pretty sure geologists would be able to tell the difference between an impact crater and a volcanic crater.

Quote from: Matrix on September 17, 2008, 07:40:53 AM

Fair point... I prefer to get cops to give chase before putting an RPG through the windscreen - makes for a more dramatic escape.

Woot! Go Niko Matrix!

Yeah, they spotted that yellowstone was a humongous volcano so fast now.... oh wait....