Shows how small we are right...

Simalacrum

Resident Juggler
Apr 17, 2008
5,204
0
0
Ah yes, I remember seeing that video...

Now here's one that shows that we're even smaller:

 

Woodsey

New member
Aug 9, 2009
14,553
0
0
rokkolpo said:
Woodsey said:
Mathematically speaking (and in a similar vain to 0.9 recurring being equal to 1) I'd put forward the argument that we don't exist.
how do you support that statement?
Well, with 0.9 recurring you have 2 numbers separate numbers which are taken to be equivalent. Likewise, if the Universe is infinite (I assume that's still a popular theory) then surely we can't be measured against it in any real way. In theory there'd be several 0.0's recurring before you hit a 1 down the line, but you never really would. Similar, not the same.

Anyway, even if the universe is finite, then I'd still argue the same thing. Look at how small we are compared to Canis Majoris. You can't see us for several comparisons before we even get to Canis Majoris. So, even measured to that star alone, we'd be rounded down to a 0% share of that space.

Then look at the universe, with 100 billion galaxies. We go so far to a 0% share hold of the universe's space that that's what we, mathematically, must be equal to.

I'm not saying we don't exist, I'm saying that mathematically we don't.
 

Life_Is_A_Mess

New member
Sep 10, 2009
536
0
0
Woodsey said:
rokkolpo said:
Woodsey said:
Mathematically speaking (and in a similar vain to 0.9 recurring being equal to 1) I'd put forward the argument that we don't exist.
how do you support that statement?
Well, with 0.9 recurring you have 2 numbers separate numbers which are taken to be equivalent. Likewise, if the Universe is infinite (I assume that's still a popular theory) then surely we can't be measured against it in any real way. In theory there'd be several 0.0's recurring before you hit a 1 down the line, but you never really would. Similar, not the same.

Anyway, even if the universe is finite, then I'd still argue the same thing. Look at how small we are compared to Canis Majoris. You can't see us for several comparisons before we even get to Canis Majoris. So, even measured to that star alone, we'd be rounded down to a 0% share of that space.

Then look at the universe, with 100 billion galaxies. We go so far to a 0% share hold of the universe's space that that's what we, mathematically, must be equal to.

I'm not saying we don't exist, I'm saying that mathematically we don't.
... wow, nice theory, I totally agree with you. XD
 

SnipErlite

New member
Aug 16, 2009
3,147
0
0
Personally I cannot comprehend VY Canis Majoris. I Just can't imagine anything that big.

Kinda cool ain't it =]
 
Dec 14, 2008
1,038
0
0
Woodsey said:
Mathematically speaking (and in a similar vain to 0.9 recurring being equal to 1) I'd put forward the argument that we don't exist.
And operating under faux quantum physics (I really have no idea if I even get the gist of it) I could argue that we create everything in existence.
 

rokkolpo

New member
Aug 29, 2009
5,375
0
0
Woodsey said:
rokkolpo said:
Woodsey said:
Mathematically speaking (and in a similar vain to 0.9 recurring being equal to 1) I'd put forward the argument that we don't exist.
how do you support that statement?
Well, with 0.9 recurring you have 2 numbers separate numbers which are taken to be equivalent. Likewise, if the Universe is infinite (I assume that's still a popular theory) then surely we can't be measured against it in any real way. In theory there'd be several 0.0's recurring before you hit a 1 down the line, but you never really would. Similar, not the same.

Anyway, even if the universe is finite, then I'd still argue the same thing. Look at how small we are compared to Canis Majoris. You can't see us for several comparisons before we even get to Canis Majoris. So, even measured to that star alone, we'd be rounded down to a 0% share of that space.

Then look at the universe, with 100 billion galaxies. We go so far to a 0% share hold of the universe's space that that's what we, mathematically, must be equal to.

I'm not saying we don't exist, I'm saying that mathematically we don't.
damn i thought this was going to be a philosophical argument. i can't beat math. *murble* going all teacher on me *grunt*.
 

Woodsey

New member
Aug 9, 2009
14,553
0
0
philosophicalbastard said:
Woodsey said:
Mathematically speaking (and in a similar vain to 0.9 recurring being equal to 1) I'd put forward the argument that we don't exist.
And operating under faux quantum physics (I really have no idea if I even get the gist of it) I could argue that we create everything in existence.
Good for you.

I have no idea what you mean.
 

rokkolpo

New member
Aug 29, 2009
5,375
0
0
Simalacrum said:
Ah yes, I remember seeing that video...

Now here's one that shows that we're even smaller:

just when you think they can't go bigger....you realise you're only on 50% of the vid.

mind is blown!
 

Dexiro

New member
Dec 23, 2009
2,977
0
0
It annoys me that we'll probably never leave the solar system, there's too much universe to explore!

The only feasible way to visit anything outside of our solar system is to invent portals of some sort to instantly zap to a location. Or some sort of hyperdrive thing where you travel faster than the speed of light.
 

Dmatix

New member
Feb 3, 2009
248
0
0
It's utterly terrifying, and amazingly beautiful at the same time.
What a strange and wondrous universe we live in.
 
Dec 14, 2008
1,038
0
0
Woodsey said:
philosophicalbastard said:
Woodsey said:
Mathematically speaking (and in a similar vain to 0.9 recurring being equal to 1) I'd put forward the argument that we don't exist.
And operating under faux quantum physics (I really have no idea if I even get the gist of it) I could argue that we create everything in existence.
Good for you.

I have no idea what you mean.
When you get down to the sub-sub-sub...-atomic level in this universe distinctions between things get fuzzy and undefined. Particles have the ability to be in two places at once in that state. But if its observed the fuzzieniss goes away and everything is clearly defined. In other words, if a tree falls in the woods and no one sees it, the tree didn't fall. Yet if someone goes to the spot where the tree fell and observes a fallen tree, then it did fall.
 

Woodsey

New member
Aug 9, 2009
14,553
0
0
philosophicalbastard said:
Woodsey said:
philosophicalbastard said:
Woodsey said:
Mathematically speaking (and in a similar vain to 0.9 recurring being equal to 1) I'd put forward the argument that we don't exist.
And operating under faux quantum physics (I really have no idea if I even get the gist of it) I could argue that we create everything in existence.
Good for you.

I have no idea what you mean.
When you get down to the sub-sub-sub...-atomic level in this universe distinctions between things get fuzzy and undefined. Particles have the ability to be in two places at once in that state. But if its observed the fuzzieniss goes away and everything is clearly defined. In other words, if a tree falls in the woods and no one sees it, the tree didn't fall. Yet if someone goes to the spot where the tree fell and observes a fallen tree, then it did fall.
Going by your name anyway, doesn't that have far more to do with philosophy?
 
Dec 14, 2008
1,038
0
0
Woodsey said:
philosophicalbastard said:
When you get down to the sub-sub-sub...-atomic level in this universe distinctions between things get fuzzy and undefined. Particles have the ability to be in two places at once in that state. But if its observed the fuzzieniss goes away and everything is clearly defined. In other words, if a tree falls in the woods and no one sees it, the tree didn't fall. Yet if someone goes to the spot where the tree fell and observes a fallen tree, then it did fall.
Going by your name anyway, doesn't that have far more to do with philosophy?
It has philosophical applications, but its real science. The one partical in two places thing also gives some support to the idea of alternative universes.