# metaphisics: infinity

all my conclusions it seems are based on the assumption that infinity is physically unachievable.

with that said, is this really the case?

for example time exists because the speed of light is finite, (if the speed of light were infinite, then all affect would take place and infinite speed, which woukd mean no affect would ever take place, something thus would never be able to affect anything else.)

or perhaps more clear, if something could travel at infinite speed then the time it takes to get from one place to another would be zero, everything it does would take zero time so time would not exist.

with that said are physical infinitives really impossible?
what is the logical contadiction of infinite energy?

You have raised two different infinity issues;

A) can anything be infinite
B) can anything be infinite even if it is divided by infinity

Infinite merely means “unbounded” or “endless”. So no definite entity can have an unbounded property or it wouldn’t be a definite entity.

And as far as space and energy of the universe, if you are given an infinite amount of space, then you can have an infinite amount of substance within it. That would mean that any defined portion would have a finite amount within it.

What about the time spent between legs? For example, a photon gets absorded by a particle and then emitted. Does it spend any time with that particle?

I don’t know if there are any contradictions, but maybe there is meaninglessness. I mean, it is notoriously difficult to imagine an infinite anything. The simplest thing would seem to be something like an infinitely long stick. But it’s even difficult there to visualize this. How does one do it? I don’t think the proposition is meaningless (it’s pretty clear what the term “infinitely long stick” means), but when it comes to the question of what an “infinitely long” anything consists in, it’s not as simple.

the question would be can there be an infinite amount of energy in space? although thats is not a good question ofcourse there isnt an infinite amount of energy because it cannot be created, infinite energy is ever increasing energy.

however, can space be infinite even though energy is not?

A) the universe has infinite volume.
B) the amount of energy within that infinite volume is infinite.
C) it was never created. It has always existed.

Oh?

What do you say about the Big Bang? The report by physicists that the universe is expanding?

Time is a dimension. Like all dimensions, time is relative to a particular object.

You say if light moves at an infinite speed, then there is no time. I would say to this, time would then have no relevance to light, but would still be relevant to other objects that do not reach infinite speeds.

So I’ve got a stick that’s 20 units long and a cardboard box that’s 10x10x10 units. If I push the stick through the box so both ends potrude from the box, whilst inside the box, there will always be a stick. No matter what you’ve got inside the box to compare it to, the stick is always equal to or longer. If you never leave the box, you could say it’s infinite, or at least that it shows all the signs of being infinite.

What relevance is it’s length? Whilst inside the box, not much, but as soon as you step out of the box, it’s relevance is clear.

@gib

I know this question isn’t addressed to me, but I’ll chip in and say physicists report that the relevant bits of the universe to physicists are expanding away from each other.

That’s not the same as saying the universe as a whole, is expanding.

An often touted source of confusion is the idea that if a photon propogates at light speed, which it always does, then it either exists in all possible states from source of emission to absorption, or that it does not experience time. Einstein himself said it’s best not to get into the peculiarities of maths, the time frame of light in the equation reduces to a 0, but the variable for time hence is undefined, and undefinable, since the photon could be argued if this were the case to not exist at all or to exist everywhere at once. just like dividing 0 by 0 has many non discreet answers according to the set of nothing, light exists, but it’s singular specialness is that it is supposedly of 0 mass and hence the normal laws of propagation at < c do not apply. This is why it’s called special relativity.

Let me give you a further example, in the Newtonian equation for the force of gravity if the distance between 2 objects is 0 is the power of gravity infinite?

Where r=0.

This is why you cannot divide by zero and also why the power rules find that 0^ itself is 1.

Also expanding is the wrong word, it would denote the universe has anything to expand into, which may or may not be the case, suffice to say that it is stretching like a rubber sheet.

In physics saying the universe is eternal is as provable as saying that God exists, there simply isn’t the data available to prove or disprove it.

huh? infinite volume and energy? this is not possible, space itself has been proven to be energy, so thats just saying their is infinite energy, if energy where infinite so would density if density is infinite then density would be zero. enrgy would be peerfectly distribuited, energy density would be zero, thus, no difference would exist between anything, if everything is exactly the same then nothing exists.

the first two dont make sense

the speed at which something affects something else , the speed at which enrgy is transferred is the speed of light, if there is no limit to that then time cannot exist. thats all im saying.

also if their is no limit it doesnt really matter if anything is lower because there is no reference of speed on which to measure time.

Where did you get that notion?

Given an infinite spatial volume, infinite energy merely ends up as finite energy within any one portion.
Infinite volume / infinite substance = Finite density. (assuming equal cardinality of the infinities)

All bits are relevant bits to physicists; no?

Why/how does infinite translate to zero?

I don’t think the last [underlined] part follows. Read: Zero energy universe hypothesis.

I say that they noticed that the known universe of objects seem to be leaving a central point and that would probably indicate that an explosion took place a long time ago and we are living in the midst of it (probably two or more very large black holes colliding).

It has no indication that “the universe” is expanding, merely the objects that we see are leaving.
The much further objects that we cannot see are very probably not leaving from that same point. And objects (“white stars”) have been found that are not leaving. In addition, the notion that the universe began at any time is just total stupidity.

density is zero is just a way to put what it actually means is that if it is infinite then everything would have the same density in the universe unable to compare things then it would be saying that nothing has density.

the zero energy thing is alright but it doesnt follow the definition of energy, energy is the ability to do work, gravity does work so i dont see why it is negative, its just in an opposite direction but it is still work.

for me a true energy negative value would be one that makes time go back instead of forward. i know we can slow time but thats not the same as negative time.

You are right about that part.

There has to be difference in order for anything to exist.
And “negative energy” is an oxymoron.

the notion was made from the thought that space is energy, volume would be energy with a direction.

also lets say their is infinite substance, the overall density of the universe should always be the same even if the volume where expanding thus, energy must be created. (density seems to be decreasing).

although you could say the ratio of increase of one is bigger than the other but it would have to be a finite ratio. but of course this would mean energy must be created otherwise it would be saying that energy is finite but volume isnt.

i do not uderstand the intrinsic nature of volume so i have no idea if this is possible. although this would mean volume is not a physical reality but an experiencial one. upon my premise . thats what i am inclined to beleive.

also wouldnt it be energy/ volume?

You have that backwards.

Space, by definition, is volume. It happens to be filled with energy that causes ALL measurements to depend upon the energy density in that region. But infinity doesn’t care about your measurements and doesn’t end merely because you can’t measure anything past a certain point with whatever limited perception you might have.

The energy is distributed “randomly” which means that it has high and low regions and totals to a fixed sum within any one region. Take ALL regions and average them and you get the average energy throughout the entire universe. You could never truly verify that, but serious logic can resolve exactly what it would be.

And the density within THIS region might be decreasing. That says nothing about the other infinite expanse beyond our limited sight of particles.

Space is a conceptual definition. It has nothing to do with measurements other than to make sense of them.

And you are right, it should be “energy / volume”.

Also, gravity is not energy, but can create potential energy. Gravity can be exploited to create potential energy in a body or system—sort of like water building up behind a dam—thus ‘negative energy’.

gravity the act to pull somethng into a singularity is energy its pulling it. potential energy is an oxymoron, it just means unreleased energy but this is misleading, when it comes to gravity,

everything that is in space is under the effect of every gravitational field in space just some are stronger than others, now when you have something on earth for example you are standing on earth it doesnt mean gravity is potential because you are not moving it just means their is an opposite force not letting you fall.

gravity is always acting even if you are not moving. seeing it in this way their is no potential.