Before The Big Bang!

[SteveThaiBinh]

Interesting. There's an excellent short story called The Aleph by Jorge Luis Borges, and I never got the reference until now.

[metadigital]

That short story I mentioned earlier, by Isaac Asimov, about the guy going to "heaven" and God setting him to work with everyone/thing else there to come up with the way to end God's existence was called "The Final Calculation", btw.

[Diogo Ribeiro]

Before The Big Bang!

 

There was the Minor Whimper.

[213374U]

∞

[metadigital]

∞

[EnderAndrew]

2. No, AFAIK Infinity to the infitinite power is Aleph 1, with all known numbers in the set Aleph zero. (I think if you raise Aleph One to the infinite power you get Aleph 2, and so on.) Anyway, I was just continuing the group theory example cited by Flatus. 

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

That doesn't make sense. Take infinity to the infinity power and you get Aleph 1, but take that to the infinity power again and you get Aleph 2? Infinity to the infinity power is the same as inifinity to the (infinity + 1) power.

 

Aleph 2 includes numbers not in the set of Aleph 1 I would assume. Imaginary numbers and the like perhaps?

[213374U]

Damn. I wish I had attended to my group theory classes... "

[metadigital]

2. No, AFAIK Infinity to the infitinite power is Aleph 1, with all known numbers in the set Aleph zero. (I think if you raise Aleph One to the infinite power you get Aleph 2, and so on.) Anyway, I was just continuing the group theory example cited by Flatus. 

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

That doesn't make sense. Take infinity to the infinity power and you get Aleph 1, but take that to the infinity power again and you get Aleph 2? Infinity to the infinity power is the same as inifinity to the (infinity + 1) power.

 

Aleph 2 includes numbers not in the set of Aleph 1 I would assume. Imaginary numbers and the like perhaps?

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

No. Follow the link to learn about the cardinality of sets represented by Aleph.

 

You are trying to apply normal arithmeitc operations to sets. That's like trying to assert matrix multiplication is communitive!

 

Regardless, there is an obvious arithmetic error in your working, too. Infinity raised to the infinite power, raised to the infinite power is not infinity raised to the (infinite +1) power, it is infinity to the (infinity

[213374U]

Err... I did a year of physics followed by a year of maths before I decided I'd rather join the military.

 

But as you can see I didn't attend to *all* of my classes. "

[metadigital]

Yeah, I figured you were a science/maths major because you have the science and math AND the other arts knowledge, too. People who major in arts tend to be completely ignorant of maths and science, in my experience, and look down their collective noses at anyone who doesn't think that the every single tiny part of the combined arts

[EnderAndrew]

No. Follow the link to learn about the cardinality of sets represented by Aleph.

I did read the article. I haven't gone beyond calc, but I have worked with matrices enough to understand the difference between an integral calcuation, and a matrical calculation.

 

The article said that Aleph 0, or Aleph Nul was the smallest complete set. Aleph 0 repesents the countability of natural numbers. Infinity is beyond simple natural numbers. Cantor also showed that not all real numbers are countably infinite. So is Aleph 0 the cardinality of natural numbers, and Aleph 1 in this case real numbers, and Aleph 2 also includes imaginary numbers?

 

Infinity to the power of infinity would be Aleph infinity. You're taking an infinite set of all numbers, to an exponentional power of infinity. The set has to be larger than any other set, and uncountably infinite. It would be Aleph infinity.

[metadigital]

1. I didn't read the link, I skimmed it to make sure it covered Aleph cardinality.

2. I am recalling (accurately IMO) the infinite - aleph relationship from a mathematics book I read maybe ten years ago, so I don't have the working at my fingertips. If I don't feel to lazy, I'll read the link, digest it and do some more research (as it doesn't really give the calculations there that I have been referring to) and then get back to you with a more analytical explanation.

3. Or, we could get back on topic, rather than shoot off tangentially, at a near-superluminal velocity.

[EnderAndrew]

Sadly, I think the Big Bang, Dark Matter, and a variety of widely-accepted physics theories are very weak indeed. They are stop-gaps for the questions science really can't begin to answer.

[metadigital]

I'm keen to see the Theory of Everything solved; I think that is definitely possible within our lifetime. I mean it makes sense, the relationships are all proportional to the inverse square law, all we need to do is find a new Planck constant or Avogadro number to be the Gravitaional Proportion.

 

Unfortunately I have less than five years to obtain my Fields Medal for mathematics -- although I suppose I might make the Nobel Prize for Physics ... (Aside: why isn't there a Nobel Prize for Mathematics? :angry:)

[EnderAndrew]

Because real friends don't let friends drink and derive.

[metadigital]

No, but we can award a Peace Prize to every "Freedom Fighter" that sticks his hand up, but any decent mathematician gets to live in poverty and be remembered by ... nobody. Hmm, that works.

 

No wonder mathematics is a dying language.

[EnderAndrew]

Did you know that George Bush was nominated for a Nobel Peace Prize for his actions in Liberia?

 

I kid you not.

 

Also, soccer was nominated for a Nobel Peace prize. Apparently those people have never seen soccer fans riot and kill people in the stand, or kill teams because they lost.

 

I want to nominate claymore mines for a Nobel Peace prize.

 

Hear me out.

 

By maiming people, and not killing them, they are saving those soldiers lives that would be lost on the battlefield. Futhermore it stops those soldiers from killing others, and it removes even more soliders from the battlefield who must carry away the injured troops.

 

Claymore mines have saved more lives than Superman!

[213374U]

Infinity to the power of infinity would be Aleph infinity.  You're taking an infinite set of all numbers, to an exponentional power of infinity.  The set has to be larger than any other set, and uncountably infinite.  It would be Aleph infinity.

That is assuming you can establish such direct relations between the aleph numbers and the analytical concept of ∞, which, following the article, isn't allowed.

 

 

(Aside: why isn't there a Nobel Prize for Mathematics? :angry:)

I read that a certain mathematician was known to be a tad too friendly with mr. Nobel's wife. I used to know his name, but I no longer remember.

 

Others just say that he just didn't like maths at all.

[Ki Rin]

if there was a big bang then what caused it? also all the debri of the bang would have to come from a stupidly large mass of rock and maybe ice :ph34r: and where did the huge rock come from... ?

 

i always thought the universe was dimentional.. er as in if you went off in a direct line into space (and didnt crash into something) that you would end up arriving back at earth, but behind where you set off : P

 

i always loved thinking about this no one can answer these questions and there is no answer maybe we are in a being (like germs) and he/she/it is wondering how his universe was made O_- O_O O_- maybe we just are not real? and this is a bubble anomaly in the emptyness of none existence!

 

*end of insane ranting*

[EnderAndrew]

In the beginning the universe was created. Since then this has been widely regarded as a bad move.

[metadigital]

[1]if there was a big bang then what caused it? also all the debri of the bang would have to come from a stupidly large mass of rock and maybe ice  :ph34r: and where did the huge rock come from... ?

 

[2]i always thought the universe was dimentional.. er as in if you went off in a direct line into space (and didnt crash into something) that you would end up arriving back at earth, but behind where you set off : P

 

[3]i always loved thinking about this no one can answer these questions and there is no answer    maybe we are in a being (like germs) and he/she/it is wondering how his universe was made O_- O_O O_- maybe we just are not real? and this is a bubble anomaly in the emptyness of none existence!

 

*end of insane ranting*

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

1. Read back a few pages.

2. I suppose this theory conveniently doesn't include light, or at least the circumference of the sphere you are referring to is larger than 15 billion light years.

3. No, we might not know the correct answer, but we can eliminate completely incorrect and unfeasible ones. "

[EnderAndrew]

Reason number 2 is why I believe in infinite space. I know the popular theory is that space is finite, and that we exist in a bubble that both expands and contracts as density of the universe fluctuates.

 

However, we also theorize that objects of higher density ALWAYS move towards areas of lower density. What elastic shell exists at the end of the universe that allows for contraction and expansion, but keeps everything else inside said shell? How does said shell stay intact for billions of years without decay?

 

Wouldn't objects moving towards the shell collect at the shell eventually?

[Ki Rin]

[1]if there was a big bang then what caused it? also all the debri of the bang would have to come from a stupidly large mass of rock and maybe ice  :ph34r: and where did the huge rock come from... ?

 

[2]i always thought the universe was dimentional.. er as in if you went off in a direct line into space (and didnt crash into something) that you would end up arriving back at earth, but behind where you set off : P

 

[3]i always loved thinking about this no one can answer these questions and there is no answer    maybe we are in a being (like germs) and he/she/it is wondering how his universe was made O_- O_O O_- maybe we just are not real? and this is a bubble anomaly in the emptyness of none existence!

 

*end of insane ranting*

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

1. Read back a few pages.

2. I suppose this theory conveniently doesn't include light, or at least the circumference of the sphere you are referring to is larger than 15 billion light years.

3. No, we might not know the correct answer, but we can eliminate completely incorrect and unfeasible ones. "

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

 

1. no

2. er the light would be the stars i guess also it would explain why some scientists thing the universe is expanding and some think its contracting :D

3. but what if im right? lets hope not! :ph34r:

[metadigital]

1. no

2. er the light would be the stars i guess also it would explain why some scientists thing the universe is expanding and some think its contracting  :D

3. but what if im right? lets hope not! :ph34r:

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

1. The answers you seek are behind you. If you don't seek them , then you ought to stop looking for them. Certainly I know the answers are not what you have posed for your questions. If in doubt, read back a few pages. In fact, read them all.

2.What scientists believe the universe is contracting? Images developed over the last decade from the Hubble Telescope have shown clear visual confirmation of the expanding "shells" of matter that correspond to the shockwaves of the Big Bang -- it is on these shockwaves that some eddies of matter have cooled and contracted into various predictable patterns of matter (like the colourful sheens on a soap bubbles surface, if you like); it is these "shells of matter" -- like ripples in a pond after a stone drops into it -- that contain the galaxies like our own Milky Way (100 light yers across, a couple of hundred billion stars) and the closest galaxy to ours, Andromeda (on a tangential coliision course with the Milky Way, probable major catastrophes in a few billion years when outlying soloar systems of each galaxy start to collide); so this should help explain the scale of the Big Bang explosion, which is now a sphere about 15 billion light-years in diameter ...

3.You can't be. Ibidem.

[Reveilled]

3.You can't be. Ibidem.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

Couldn't he? What if you're just imagining it all? Maybe you're just incapable of accepting your lot as a bacterium, and have manufactured a huge fantasy universe in which you are the macrobiology in order to escape from the common cold hard truth.

 

Hmmmmmmm?

 

In fact, according to Discordian Scripture and the saying of the prophet Mal-2, it is clearly stated that everything, even false things, are true. Sorry.