monara wrote: » Yes there are lots of things we cannot see which might be true. And then again, they might'nt.
I will neither assume there ever was nothing, nor will I assume there always was something.
saabsaab wrote: » They said that if you had a group of monkeys typing away for infinity you would eventually get the complete works of Shakespeare! Who said this? No one on this thread I hope.:pac:
They said that if you had a group of monkeys typing away for infinity you would eventually get the complete works of Shakespeare!
saabsaab wrote: » Infinate monkey theorem! see belowhttps://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Infinite_monkey_theorem Implies that anything is possible with an infinity to do it.
monara wrote: » Thanks. Very interesting. Does this mean that with an infinity of time we could make gods of ourselves?:pac:
NIMAN wrote: » So are you saying if I had infinity to do the lotto twice a week, I would eventually get 3 numbers?
saabsaab wrote: » Hail Monara! Apologies to any supreme being.
nozzferrahhtoo wrote: » But we do not know it "happened from nothing", thats the problem. The Big bang was the sudden expansion of a singularity of infinite density and mass. That is not "nothing". It is as much the opposite of nothing as I am able to imagine.
Peregrinus wrote: » Prayers are answered all the time. It's just that often the answer is "no".
monara wrote: » And I understand from physicists that the elements from which our bodies are composed began formation at the Big Bang, 16 billion years ago or so; so we were a long time coming. And physicists assure me that if we were reduced to these elements only, we would be microscopic particles invisible to the naked eye; and that the particles of all the people on earth would fit into a cube the size of a cube of sugar. I am not a physicist but take it for what its worth.
NIMAN wrote: » True. Often everything the experts say is taken as gospel and fact, when in fact it is only a theory.
Hotblack Desiato wrote: » If the average weight of a human (including children) is 50kg, and there are 8 billion of them, then total human mass is about 400 billion tonnes.
robindch wrote: » 8,000,000,000 * 50 = 400 billion kilos, or /1000 = 400m tons. The density of neutron stars is in the region 3.7×10^17 to 5.9×10^17 kg/m3, so the average comes out at 4.8×10^17 kg/m3. 400 billion kilos at 4.8×10^17 kg/m3 indicates a volume of 8.3 ×10^-7 m^3, or 0.83 cubic centimeters, 830 cubic mm (cube of 9.4 mm edge). The internet suggests that the average sugar cube has an edge of 0.465 inches, around 11.8mm giving a volume of 1643 cubic mm. So, humanity occupies 830 cu.mm, while the sugar occupies 1643 cu.mm, so the estimate that the collected mass of humanity would occupy the same space as a cube of sugar is off by almost exactly 50%. Conclusion - one sugar cube of your average neutron star would almost balance two complete doses of humanity. Pop science indeed!
Bannasidhe wrote: » Calculus
robindch wrote: » Arithmetic!
saabsaab wrote: » All God's language, Maths.
Bannasidhe wrote: » There is no God.
saabsaab wrote: » Translate to mathematics is zero, a number!
smacl wrote: » A number invented by the Mesopotamians and employed by the Persians to create the jebra (algebra) used in the maths above. God had sweet FA to do with it, Allah for the win :pac:
saabsaab wrote: » Surely mathematics is a way to describe the workings of the universe and its processes and predates any invention and is more of a discovery of the laws of the cosmos.
smacl wrote: » It's obviously open for debate, but I personally go with the notion that mathematics is a very succinct and precise language for describing ideas. As such, it is a human construct which is evolving with us as we explore and refine abstract notions. Much like other human languages, there are multiple ways to describe or express the same thing. e.g. we can define relationships between points in space geometrically, trigonometrically, using vectors, using matrices and using quaternions or various mixtures of the same. We can describe the same objects in space using Cartesian coordinates, polar coordinates, barycentric coordinates etc... and most likely someone will come up with other ways of describing the same thing more eloquently. I personally don't hold that mathematics need have any relationship to the physical universe and is better thought of in the abstract.
Hotblack Desiato wrote: » What have I done? :eek:
