Mathamatical question

Burning Sheep Productions · Postby **Burning Sheep Productions** » Tue Oct 19, 2004 7:58 am

Okay, imagine the universe is infinite and the only thing in it is air, completely filled with air, nothing else. Is it possible to have 70% nitrogen, 8% oxygen etc when the universe is infinite?

Ankaris · Postby **Ankaris** » Tue Oct 19, 2004 9:07 am

*boggled* I guess... you could try dividing the gases into ratios. But from a mathematical point of view, even infinity divided is still infinity.

Henohenomoheji · Postby **Henohenomoheji** » Tue Oct 19, 2004 11:42 am

It's not filled with air. It's a vaccum.

Septimius Severus · Postby **Septimius Severus** » Tue Oct 19, 2004 12:47 pm

Hopefully, your Oxygen level is closer to 22%. Anyway, is your question whether you can have a percentage of infinity? That is, if you had an infinite number of horses, could 15% have white feet, and 85% black ones? The answer is yes. For every 100 Horses, there are 15 with white feet in this imaginary universe. That does not mean there are a set number of horses; it means there is a set ratio of black feet to white feet. The logic that "80% of infinity is still infinity" doesn't really mean anything. Infinity is, obviously, not finite, so you can't perform division with it. You would simply use the largest sample possible. As your sample approaches infinity, your margin of error approaches zero, but you can never be absolutely certain.

Muninn · Postby **Muninn** » Tue Oct 19, 2004 4:05 pm

With the guidelines you gave, which weren't many, it could be anything. Are we assuming there are planets, stars, galaxies etc. ? Do we keep the natural laws of space and matter? Are you basing the percentages of gases roughly with that of the earth? If so, should we expect the same relationships they have now? I asked the first question because you said the only thing is air.

Tavis · Postby **Tavis** » Tue Oct 19, 2004 5:37 pm

Percentages in these cases would not quite be valid in the sense of a finite number, but like Septimius, I would have to say it's all a matter of determining a ratio in any given sample. If the air in this universe you suggest is homogeneous, then every sample you find would have the same ratios you would find anywhere else in that universe, and thus you could say that those ratios exist for the entire universe. Even in an inhomogeneous case, someone measuring samples from that universe could produce a statistically valid estimate of the percentages of compounds in the universe of air. In fact, such estimates are already being used in our own universe through spectroanalysis of distant stars. By studying the wavelengths of light and correcting for relative speeds (redshift, blueshift), it is possible to determine the types of elements that are being burned as well as the types of elements that are absorbing light on the way to the observer. Yet another reason why I think light is a fascinating thing... <img src='http://definecynical.mancubus.net/forum ... /smile.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='smile.gif' />

Kles · Postby **Kles** » Tue Oct 19, 2004 8:23 pm

I say sure you can. 70% Nitrogen, would be 70% of infinity. I know it sounds silly, but it's not too much to think of. If the universe is ever expanding, then nitrogen is also expanding, no? Wow.. wait, I can see your dilemma. Maybe it's "the known universe is (insert values here)" rather then the whole darn thing. The theory, by the way, I believe is the universe is sphere shaped, and it is ever expanding outwards. So, what's out there in the area that isn't part of the universe yet? I believe it's nothingness. Something the mind cannot comprehend, and it becomes something. Wow, I'm getting off topic, but this is what I think.

Dr. Dos · Postby **Dr. Dos** » Tue Oct 19, 2004 8:45 pm

One day I shall dine on delicious pork at Milliway's, The Restaurant at the End of the Universe.

Septimius Severus · Postby **Septimius Severus** » Tue Oct 19, 2004 8:52 pm

If the Universe is spherical, what's outside of it? Logically, there is no edge of the universe, at least not in the three-dimensional sense. The universe may well be expanding (in fact, many scientists think the expansion is accellerating,) but that does not mean that it is spherical.

Steve the Pocket · Postby **Steve the Pocket** » Tue Oct 19, 2004 10:55 pm

I don't get the whole "universe is expanding" thing. They say they know it's expanding because they see stars as having "red shift," but if they don't know how red the stars are to begin with, how do they know how much red shift there is??? Scientist: We know there's red shift because the stars appear redder than they ought to be. Me: How do we know how red they ought to be? Scientist: By taking how red they are and then adjusting for red shift. <img src='http://definecynical.mancubus.net/forum ... iggrin.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='biggrin.gif' />

Tavis · Postby **Tavis** » Tue Oct 19, 2004 10:57 pm

I by no means consider the universe spherical, although the observable universe would be pretty close. The observable universe is the subset of the universe that we are able to see. When the speed of information within this universe is limited to the speed of light, the observable universe is then the region of space in which light has had enough time to reach us. That would be roughly equal to a sphere with a radius equal to the speed of light times the lifetime of the universe.

VisibilityMissing · Postby **VisibilityMissing** » Wed Oct 20, 2004 12:17 am

<table border='0' align='center' width='95%' ><tr><td class='quotetop'>Quote: (Octan @ Oct 19 2004, 05:55 PM)</td></tr><tr><td class='quotebody'> I don't get the whole "universe is expanding" thing. They say they know it's expanding because they see stars as having "red shift," but if they don't know how red the stars are to begin with, how do they know how much red shift there is??? Scientist: We know there's red shift because the stars appear redder than they ought to be. Me: How do we know how red they ought to be? Scientist: By taking how red they are and then adjusting for red shift. <img src='http://definecynical.mancubus.net/forum ... iggrin.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='biggrin.gif' />  </td></tr></table>  The red shift is a large and technical subject that has been done a disservice by the hand-wavy descriptions in the popular media, and is also interconnected with a lot of important ideas in modern physics and chemistry. I'll try to summarize as clearly as possible. The red shift is actually a doppler shift in the frequencies emitted from a star. If something is moving away from you, wavelengths will be stretched (in terms of light, redder). If something is moving toward you, wavelengths will be compressed (for light, bluer). So, if we have an expansion we would expect to see more distant stars appear redder. But what do we mean by that? Researchers have determined the chemical composition of stars that are relatively close by, and can look for similar stars that are more distant (our closest star is the sun, and we have a good idea what elements are there since we live with them every day). For many chemical elements, we know both absorption and emission spectra (we know the frequencies of light that they emit and absorb). Each of these spectra can be used as a signiture for a particular element. What was found when researchers looked at more distant stars was that absorption spectra signitures were shifted toward the red end of the spectrum, thus a "red shift." Our seeing a red shift really means that the rest of the universe is running away from us . . . * Run away! Run away!* <img src='http://definecynical.mancubus.net/forum ... iggrin.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='biggrin.gif' /> That is better than a blue shift, which would mean that we are in a contracting universe . . . that would eventually be a bad thing.

Septimius Severus · Postby **Septimius Severus** » Wed Oct 20, 2004 2:05 am

Granted, it would be very nice to live long enough to see such a blue shift become a problem. Very good explanation of the way the doppler effect is used to find how fast the universe* is expanding, Visibility. The reason many scientist believe that the universe is accellerating is that more distant stars have a different red shift than closer ones. Since farther off stars' light reaching us has travelled a longer time, a change in the red shift between nearby and faraway stars means a change in the relative speed over time. *I originally misspelt that as "funiverse." That's beyond the couch.

VisibilityMissing · Postby **VisibilityMissing** » Wed Oct 20, 2004 2:16 am

<table border='0' align='center' width='95%' ><tr><td class='quotetop'>Quote: (Septimius Severus @ Oct 19 2004, 09:05 PM)</td></tr><tr><td class='quotebody'> Granted, it would be very nice to live long enough to see such a blue shift become a problem. Very good explanation of the way the doppler effect is used to find how fast the universe* is expanding, Visibility.  </td></tr></table>  That's why they pay me the big bucks . . . <img src='http://definecynical.mancubus.net/forum ... s/cool.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='cool.gif' /> *Excuse me, sir. You need to go back to your padded room now*

Burning Sheep Productions · Postby **Burning Sheep Productions** » Wed Oct 20, 2004 6:36 am

<table border='0' align='center' width='95%' ><tr><td class='quotetop'>Quote: (Linus @ Oct 20 2004, 02:05 AM)</td></tr><tr><td class='quotebody'> Are we assuming there are planets, stars, galaxies etc. ? Do we keep the natural laws of space and matter? Are you basing the percentages of gases roughly with that of the earth? If so, should we expect the same relationships they have now?  </td></tr></table>  1."The only thing is air" doesn't mean "The only thing is air and other stuff like planets, stars, galaxies etc." it means "The only thing is air." 2. Uhh... it won't matter if they're there or not, but keep it so you don't get confuzzled. 3. Yeah, but the last time I knew what they were was a year ago. 4. Huh?

Define Cynical Fan Forums

Mathamatical question

Who is online