TT's theory of end of "space"

[Zylark]

Originally Posted by Rotawee

Space is nothing. Nothing cannot expand.
And I really hate this statement (3). It cannot be proven. I like to fight it by saying there are only about 6000 stars in our sky on a nice night and more grains of sand than that in my hand (topic usually comes up on a beach naturally) And when they say universe I remind them about sand dunes, deserts, mountains, the bottom of the ocean, etc etc. I'm a firm believer that there really isn't more stars in the universe than grains of sand on our planet.

How naive. And misinformed.

First, "empty" space is not nothing, and it is not empty. It got dimensions for one thing, and secondly hydrogen and various other atoms do float about all over the universe.

If you want to talk about nothing, then you'd better try to conceptualize what is outside the universe. That is truly nothing. Doesn't even have dimensions.

Secondly, your belief that there are more grains of sand on earth than stars in the universe, is just a logical fallacy. Argument from personal incredulety to be exact. That you cannot imagine more stars than grain of sand, do not make your argument true. It only makes you look uninformed.

As the Hubble deep-field picture so elegantly shows. And to top things off, even with Hubble, we can only observe around 5% of the universe.

As such it would be safe to say that there are more stars than grains of sand on all the planets in our galaxy, not just the earth.

The universe really is a big place

[ThePhantom]

Yeah, black holes are not strong enough to do that. Thank God they aren't... we probably would've been screwed by now.

[Rotawee]

wow I didn't think my words would be taken SO out of context. I hate talking abou the universe anyways....

edit- I felt like I needed to explain some things. First off you can't prove theres more stars than sand. end of story. And vice versa. It's a non argument.

Second, we can have different deffinitions of space. If all the matter in the universe were compressed down to the size of a tennis ball I call everything outside that tennis ball space. space is nothing. space only provides a ____ for matter to be. it's nothing yet infinite at the same time.

[AlphaQ]

Originally Posted by Rotawee

edit- I felt like I needed to explain some things. First off you can't prove theres more stars than sand. end of story. And vice versa. It's a non argument.

That is completely false. A child can count the number of blocks in front of him, how is counting sand any different? There is a certain quantity of sand on the earth, it is theoretically possible to count every single grain. I doubt there will be people clamoring to empty the ocean and devote the whole of humanity to counting sand. But the fact remains that it is certainly possible to find the exact number.

Simpler than counting every single grain, we can use the wonderful branch of mathematics called probability and statistics coupled with geophysical observations to obtain a reasonable upper and lower bound on how much sand there is on earth.

Similarly we can do this for stars in the universe. As our physical observations and theories become more refined we will eventually have a good bead on about how many stars there are and thus the answer of whether there is more sand than stars will be quite obvious.

[Rotawee]

can you prove me wrong? cuz i can't prove i'm right and neither can you! This argument is the equivelent of a bible thumper talking to an athiest. Probability and statistics are not finite. And in my crazy dreamland I believe there is a certain amount of matter in the universe meaning there is a certain number of stars. Should we devote all of humanity to counting stars? This argument just shows how unable humans are to grasp large areas...... on both sides of the argument. I wish I could go measure out and count a cubic foot of sand so I could throw out some crazy huge numbers to LOOK like I'm right (just like whoever estimated the number of stars..... STUPID) but I don't have the resources or the will.

- oh yeah and think OUTSIDE the box

[Zylark]

Prove and prove. not going to flaunt mathematical formulas at you, so here is a childrens site: More stars than grain of sand!

If that do not do it for you, ah crap, math...

sand on earth: 7.5 x 10^18, or 7.5 billion billion.

stars in our galaxy: between 2 x 10^11 and 6 x 10^11 (mean 400 billion +/- 50%)

number of galaxies: at least 8 x 10^10, or 80 billion. Low estimate based upon the observable universe.

Doing a bit of generous rounding up, we could say there is 10^20 grains of sand on the earth, and 10^22 stars in the observable universe, by a low estimate. that gives at least 100 stars per grain of sand on earth. At the very minimum.

Oh, and by the way Rotawee, your concept of space is warped. Space is the universe. Where there is no space, there is no universe. There is nothing.

You and I are spacetravellers. Right here right now. Rotating on our earth, rotating round our sun, rotating and bobbing up and down in an undulating manner to our galaxy. And the milkway isn't exactly stationary either. And Andromeda is coming...

Give or take some billion years

[Rotawee]

Zylark. You must have missed in the sand article that is an estimate for sand on the beaches not the planet. Whats at the bottom of oceans again? What makes dunes? What mixes in with soil and clay to make dirt which forms all kinds of land masses. What fills the dry deserts? And I suggest you look up the term space. You'll find neither of us is completely right. So stop arguing an argument that cannot be proved. You're keeping this going for no good reason at all. oh look i'm right your wrong and vice versa your so stupid bla bla bla. thats pretty much what I'm gathering from this thread. It's fucking pathetic.

edit- k this is too hypocritical to keep going like this but i just gotta. Tell me what matter occupies.

[Zylark]

You are welcome to thinking the universe is so small that you can grasp it. Belitteling it says more of you than I. Remember that part about the observable universe. That was also a premise, but you seemed to forget that.

Though I must admit I was a bit hasty myself. That is what I get for being less than vigilant with the headlines on my sources *cough*

Still do not change that sandgrains on earth is a very finite number, whilst the size of the universe is still an unknown. And from what we do know, the universe is much bigger than the slice of it we can observe. And in that space alone, with the near infinite number of galaxies and corresponding stars, there is little doubt that the number of sandparticles on earth is dwarfed by the immensity in numbers of glowing fusionballs out there.

[Rotawee]

Slice of universe for a slice of beach this argument will never end. But it will end here.

[AlphaQ]

Originally Posted by Rotawee

can you prove me wrong?

Yes.

There is a finite amount of sand on the earth, therefore therefore total grains of sand has a certain value. There is a finite amount of stars in the universe, therefore therefore total number of stars has a certain value. Hence it is possible by comparing two numbers to determine which has the higher value.

If that is not correct then the whole of science is completely and utterly wrong.



The truth is out there

[Rotawee]

Originally Posted by AlphaQ

Yes.

There is a finite amount of sand on the earth, therefore therefore total grains of sand has a certain value. There is a finite amount of stars in the universe, therefore therefore total number of stars has a certain value. Hence it is possible by comparing two numbers to determine which has the higher value.

If that is not correct then the whole of science is completely and utterly wrong.



The truth is out there

Thanks for answering the question but not producing any results. Nobody is proven right. Good for you. You really just made this thread that much better.

[AlphaQ]

Originally Posted by Rotawee

Thanks for answering the question but not producing any results. Nobody is proven right. Good for you. You really just made this thread that much better.

You have been asking "can you prove me wrong?" I am telling you "yes, you can be proven wrong". If you read anything I said, I never said that I planned to count all sand and stars, I just said that it is possible to do so. That is certainly a result.