[POLL] Anthropogenic Epoch?

Post Reply New Topic

Infinite energy?

Another maths error. Subtract 3000 from 11,945 to get 8945.

That should've been 8945 years, not 16,045 years, between writing and The Bomb.

Hard to do maths in a rush without a calculator these days.

That explains it. I couldn't figure out where those extra years came from.

you have concentrated on the only part of what i wrote that i did not feel very comfortable writing.

if any energy is compressed into a singularity, then it must be infinitely dense, although i know that infinity is undefined and unobtainable.

if there is any energy in the universe, then how can it be finite? how can it have a boundary beyond where it does not exist? anything less than infinity is nothing really because it can be "almost" infinitely dwarfed by something "almost" infinitely larger, and something that is "almost" infinitely larger can in turned be almost infinitely dwarfed....... ad infinitum.

if anything exists, it must be infinitely present. i have only an old processor in my bubble, but that is the way i reason it. it is only the conceiving of infinity that is impossible. infinity itself is inevitable.

You are claiming that the universe is infinitely large? Keep in mind that unbounded does not imply infinite. Consider that a two dimensional being in a two dimensional space in the form of the surface of a sphere would see a space that is unbounded, yet finite.

In any event, infinitely dense energy in a singularity is not the same as infinite energy.

that is what i believe. it is unquantifiable and eternal.



"unbounded" does imply "infinite".


space can not exist in only 2 dimensions. also, nothing can "be" in only 2 dimensions.
the 2nd dimension is planar and has no z axis and has no volume and as such, does not exist in reality (but it does exist only as a component of space).


it is unbound only in 2 dimensions. it is also the failure to realize origin and end point that makes the 2 dimensions seem infinite on the surface of a sphere. a plane has infinite length and width but no height and is an infinitely thin "slat" in the 3rd dimension which is infinite space.

whatever. it is futile to track this idea down as i have considered infinity many times and always realized that it is impossible to fit in to my concepts.


and how do you know that? what is your definition of infinite energy? is it that the whole universe is choked to eternity with the same level of energy contained within the singularity?
in a simple sense, any energy compressed into zero volume (a singularity) will become infinitely dense and capable of infinite manifestation if unleashed.
infinity is not one value. infinity exists within every point of infinity.

Ever hear of Cosmology? Ever hear of the Big Bang?



You are missing the point entirely. To a 2 dimensional being in a 2 dimensional space that is in the shape of a sphere, the 2 dimensional being could travel everywhere in the entire space and would never meet a boundary of any kind. Yet, the space would be finite.

The universe is similar, except that it is a four dimensional space time. Ignoring the time component and only considering the three spatial dimensions, there are no boundaries. As for whether or not the universe is infinite. that entirely depends on the shape of the space, not that there are no boundaries.

There is a concept called Gaussian curvature. (There is also mean curvature, but that is not particularly interesting in this discussion.) Gaussian curvature is merely the product of the maximum and minimum curvatures of the space at a point.

If you think of a sphere, pass a plane through the center of the sphere and you get a circle. At every point in the circle, the curvature is the inverse of the radius of the arc going through that point which is in the case of a circle merely the radius of the circle. And, of course, in the case of a sphere, the radius of the circle created by the intersection of the sphere with a plane is the same at ever point and so the curvature, being the inverse of the radius, will also be the same at every point.

This really needs a chalkboard to explain the concept.

Consider the surface of a doughnut. On the outside, it will be something kind of like a sphere with maximum and minimum curvatures going the same way and so their product is positive. If you look at the inside of the doughnut along the hole in the doughnut, you will see one curvature going one direction and perpendicular to that the curvature going another. One curvature will be positive and the other negative and their product will be negative. Such a space where the curvature is negative is often referred to as "saddle shaped".

Note that the flatter the surface, the greater the radius of the arc at any point. As that radius goes to infinity, the arc becomes a line and the curvature goes to zero. It is flat. A space that is flat at every point is called flat.

Whenever you have a space with a positive curvature, the space is finite even though there are no boundaries. If the curvature is zero, we end up with the theoretical space that we all think of that has no boundaries and is infinite. And if the curvature is negative, again there are no boundaries and the space is infinite.

I haven't kept up with cosmology the last few years, but from everything I ever studied, it is thought that our space has a positive curvature and is thus finite even though it has no boundaries. One reason for thinking this is that the original singularity was certainly finite. If the curvature of the space today is zero or negative, then it is no infinite. That means that there would have to be some point in time in which the universe went from being finite to infinite. On the other hand, if the universe has a positive curvature, then it has always been finite, is finite today, and will always be finite.

The curvature of space is due to the gravitation of the matter in it. The mass curves space.

Sometimes you will hear the terms closed universe and open universe. The universe is closed if it has positive curvature at every point in the universe. If it has a zero or negative curvature at every point, then it is called open. The problem is that the observed amount of matter in the universe is not enough to close the space. Since we think that the universe is closed, then there has to be more matter somewhere to close the space and that matter is termed "dark matter".

Whenever we speak of dark matter, we are referring to \the additional matter that we cannot see but has to exist if the universe is closed. If there is not enough additional matter then the universe has to have either zero or negative curvature and is infinite in extent and that presents a serious problem because it had to have gone from being finite to being infinite.

Or maybe it wasn't a singularity but then that presents enormous problems to the theory.

Keep in mind is that we have to make a number of assumptions because we cannot see and measure the entire universe, only one small part of it. Thus, we assume that on a suitable scale, the universe is the same everywhere. That is, that we don't have something like a doughnut with holes in it and in which the curvature is sometimes positive, sometimes negative, and momentarily zero at the boundaries between areas of positive curvature and areas of negative curvature.

What is "infinite manifestation"? I have never heard that term before. Also, what does it mean to say "infinite is not one value" and "infinity exists within every point of infinity". Nothing in all the mathematics and physics I have had prepares me for such a statement.

Hey, guys? Back to Earth, please.

The CE and BCE which is also nonsense is just is an unnecessary attempt to placate the religiotards. The supposed life/birth/death of some desert dogma prophet is irrelevant to human history and ought not play a part in demarcating history.

If it's any consolation, the actual birth date and the calendar are thought to differ by several years. Remember that the decision of which year to use wasn't made until several hundred years later.

Other.

The Holocene has not changed due to humans.

Forest fires and volcanos had more effect, left geologic records, but did not change the longer pattern.

Anthropogenic means hairless ground ape centered.

It will be a short era, and as Chernobyl shows, life will recover as soon as they are gone.

There have been many plagues of species before, populations spike, fill every space, reach huge numbers, then die.

The next doubling of the human population will be the last, and it is coming soon.

Okay Holocene Anthropogenic it is.

I'm still attached to the idea that only the most recent 12,015 years of human history are most likely to have had any real impact on climate change, and I'm still hooked on the idea that a "Human Era" calendar revision is in order.

If you want to have a "start date" as for when the human race collectively decided to cause its own extinction, I'd say to start it whenever the concept of "money" arose.

Extinction?

Very funny.

July 16, 1945 A.D.: Trinity was the code name of the first detonation of a nuclear weapon, conducted by the United States Army as part of the Manhattan Project at the White Sands Proving Ground, New Mexico.

Within a few decades, there were enough nuclear warheads scattered around the globe to destroy all of humanity several times over.

That could happen if everyone got together.

There are an estimated 16,300 warheads in the world and about 57,505,693 square miles of land. Thus, approximately one warhead per 3,527 square miles of land area. I don't know whether that number includes tactical nuclear weapons -- if it does, then many of those would have far smaller areas of destruction.

In the unlikely event that all 16,300 warheads were used and were spread out to evenly coved all the landmasses of the Earth in the most efficient manner possible without overlapping each other, that would put a nuclear warhead on a grid about every 60 miles. While that would certainly cause enormous problems, I don't believe that would kill everyone on Earth.

And in a real attack, the warheads would not be targeted in such a manner. There would be many areas in the world that would be relatively unscathed. Also, not all nuclear bombs would be likely to be used and of those that were used, some would be destroyed before reaching their targets.

Furthermore, (from memory from my Air Science classes) the Rand Corporation was commissioned in the 1960s to study US vs Soviet targeting. At the time, the Soviets concentrated on military targets while the US concentrated on population centers. It was determined that in spite of our overwhelming superiority in nuclear weapons at that tie, we would lose because the Soviets would destroy our military capabilities while retaining theirs. Since then, we have supposedly changed our targeting to go for military targets rather than population centers.

So while it may be possible for a nuclear war to wipe out all human life on Earth, I seriously doubt that it is likely.