Astronomy

[Philip]

I mean in a non-specific sence.

Well, In 4. a finite amount of mass and space; I figure that the probabilty of matter being at any one point in space is equal to the amount of matter:amount of space. So as you say that this amount of matter should exist in this amount of space should become less and less probabile. Yes? Your corner arguement is flawed. Where ever the big bang happened would be the center of the universe. There is no set boundy before this.  The inital explosion created 1. A linear disk of matter or 2. A sphere of matter. Less matter is going to be on the edges because the combined gravity would pull it in. I have theorized that in fact, that universe is actually multiple "rings" not one continous space.

It would look like this  (leading edge)    | ||  |||  ||||  |||  ||  |  (Inside toward origin)
All the matter would be pulled toward the center. The leading edge would be pulled to the back and the back to the front. Leapfrogging, so to speak. The shape of the universe would be uniform and the "rings" would be connected. You would just have spaces of emptyness between the layers.

So...The probability of people existing or a planet is indeed very small. Prolly near a non-zero number.

The law of conservation of mass is dumb because how did all this stuff form if there was nothing to begin with? Nothing blows-up into universe...O_o

Lastly, Yes. Infinity is dumb. Infinity/Infinity is not one...Bluh? Same as 0/0 does not equal 1. Infinity makes the world a'splode.

Oh I get it. Thanks for explaining that. Describe your surroundings. How about that.
Where is that? When is finite amount of mass and space; he or she figure that the probabilty of matter being at any one point in space not
equal to the amount of matteramount of space
?
Um, I said that? Can you speak any foreign languages?
Tell me more. I think corner arguement is flawed is a lot of things.
You always have to meet yourself at the airport. "There you go again. "--ReaganIs the holding of hands a symbolic gesture for humans?
Are you telling the truth?
I did not know that.
Are they exactly the same?
Where did you get your theorized that in fact that universe is actually multiple rings not one continous space?
I have
a birthday on 2005.
Tell me more about it. Tell me more about your theorized that in fact that universe is actually multiple rings not one continous space.
"Try asking the Milk Mystic"? Leapfrogging so to speak?
How old are you?
Ask me another question.
So what?Are they exactly the same?
Do you still blink?
Are they exactly the same?
Really nothing?Are you really a "Undefined"?
And dumb is Infinity.
What is InfinityInfinity?
The ALICE chat robot can follow many things, like our discussion about InfinityInfinity. But I did not get that.
Yes, it is much the same. What color are your eyes?

[windhound]

"The law of conservation of mass is dumb because how did all this stuff form if there was nothing to begin with? Nothing blows-up into universe...O_o"

nah. not dumb. it was created for our world in which (in general) it holds true.. splitting an atom has interesting consequences I think, but other than that

so what you're saying is that matter breeds? would that be sexual or asexual? budding maybe? or does it just pop into being? your theory is more flawed than the one I stated

the explosing in a sphere/ring hold roughly true with our current theorys, but you have to take into account /how/ it exploded. this thing, this ball of all matter in the universe suddenly explodes, more than likely it was not the classical boom from the center that throws off its outer shell in a radial patter. more likely several explosions amassing to one big bang throwing matter willy nilly. some peices would get throw farther, some not very far at all. each piece of matter now has its own gravitational field, effecting all the other pieces that are flying by it. some pieces may get caught in one another's graviational pulls and spiral for a little while, propelling themselves further. in other words its impossible to say the distribution pattern of dibris from the explosion

~ In the beginning there was nothing, which exploded ~

take into account I'm just kinda being devil's advocate, contesting what you say, and there are much better arguments than mine out there

antisocial

[Freenhult]

Some one tell me to and I'll make a diagram of what I just said. I dare you...

Antisocial

[Philip]

Some one tell me to and I'll make a diagram of what I just said. I dare you...

Antisocial

Some may one tell him or her to and he or she will make a diagram of what he or she just said, but not all. I double dare you. That is a very unusual color. :*laughs*:

[The Beatles]

It needs a lowercase, as in "you're an antisocial twat". I mean, not you, but as an example.

[The Beatles]

Eh, Freenhult, you're introducing assumptions though. You're assuming a big bang, you're assuming a specific amount of time elapsed (or a minimum time), whereas in my argument I was completely arbitrary.

But I think we agree that in the concrete case the probability of life appearing is uniform (on a large scale, and that is important!) -- and my second two sentences still apply.

[Philip]

Eh, Freenhult, you're introducing assumptions though. You're assuming a big bang, you're assuming a specific amount of time elapsed (or a minimum time), whereas in my argument I was completely arbitrary.

But I think we agree that in the concrete case the probability of life appearing is uniform (on a large scale, and that is important!) -- and my second two sentences still apply.

Oh. I spent some time in Canada as a child. You think I am assuming a big bang you are assuming a specific amount of time elapsed or a minimum time whereas in his or her argument he or she was completely arbitrary. Umm.
I think WE agree that in the concrete case the probability of life appearing is a lot of things.
Do you like talking to me?

[Devari]

Technically, if the universe is infinite, then there is a 100% of life existing, no? Life identical to that of humankind needs certain conditions to survive. If the universe is infinite, then such conditions exist an infinite number of times. Therefore, even if the conditions are perfect but human life doesn't spawn, then there still are an infinite amount of worlds with human life on them. Remember, I/+f=I.

So humankind certainly can't be a fluke in an infinite universe - only in a finite universe can there actually be any uncertainty about people existing.

The real issue is whether or not the universe is infinite.

[Philip]

Technically, if the universe is infinite, then there is a 100% of life existing, no? Life identical to that of humankind needs certain conditions to survive. If the universe is infinite, then such conditions exist an infinite number of times. Therefore, even if the conditions are perfect but human life doesn't spawn, then there still are an infinite amount of worlds with human life on them. Remember, I/+f=I.

So humankind certainly can't be a fluke in an infinite universe - only in a finite universe can there actually be any uncertainty about people existing.

The real issue is whether or not the universe is infinite.

Are they exactly the same?
Thanks for sharing your philosophy. I hadn't thought of that. Um, Yes, even that. Don't worry I will remember.
I think real issue is whether or not the universe is infinite is a lot of things.
I'm happy you're amused.

[The Beatles]

Nope, Devari. Why can't one imagine an infinite, but uniform universe? Like a balloon, only infinite. Or a slab of metal, only infinite. Etc. Only infinite variety necessitates the existence of life, and that's much harder to ascertain.

[Philip]

Nope, Devari. Why can't one imagine an infinite, but uniform universe? Like a balloon, only infinite. Or a slab of metal, only infinite. Etc. Only infinite variety necessitates the existence of life, and that's much harder to ascertain.

Why not? Do you have any conditions I should know about?
Let us change the subject.
Interesting comparison. I did not know that.
Can we get back to business?
What about the other ones?

[Devari]

An infinite repeating pattern or somesuch, then? Not implausible.

[Philip]

An infinite repeating pattern or somesuch, then? Not implausible.

I have never heard of an infinite repeating pattern or somesuch. Really you don't think so?

[The Beatles]

Precisely.

In fact, most models of the Universe suggest it is uniform on a large-scale; which is actually a source of some puzzlement, from what I understand.

[Philip]

Precisely.

In fact, most models of the Universe suggest it is uniform on a large-scale; which is actually a source of some puzzlement, from what I understand.

You and I are on the same wavelength, Undefined. Is that a fact. But not all of them?