| Topic: |
Science > Physics |
| User: |
"Selwyn-Lloyd McPherson" |
| Date: |
02 Jun 2007 05:20:02 PM |
| Object: |
Infinite Mass |
If the Universe has infinite mass (I keep hearing this. . .), why is it
not acceptable to remove any, considering Infinity - x = Infinity
technically "conserves" mass?
That is taking the system of all systems as the reference, of course.
Is it not okay because you can always take a subsystem with finite mass
and prove the violation there?
.
|
|
| User: "Androcles" |
|
| Title: Re: Infinite Mass |
02 Jun 2007 05:24:30 PM |
|
|
"Selwyn-Lloyd McPherson" <slcool@neo.rr.com> wrote in message
news:4661ee16$0$3071$c3e8da3@news.astraweb.com...
: If the Universe has infinite mass (I keep hearing this. . .), why is it
: not acceptable to remove any, considering Infinity - x = Infinity
: technically "conserves" mass?
:
: That is taking the system of all systems as the reference, of course.
: Is it not okay because you can always take a subsystem with finite mass
: and prove the violation there?
Conservation of mass died with E = mc^2, leaving conservation of
energy only. In order to discuss mass, first say what it is.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Selwyn-Lloyd McPherson" |
|
| Title: Re: Infinite Mass |
02 Jun 2007 05:41:22 PM |
|
|
On 2007-06-02 15:24:30 -0700, "Androcles" <Engineer@hogwarts.physics> said:
"Selwyn-Lloyd McPherson" <slcool@neo.rr.com> wrote in message
news:4661ee16$0$3071$c3e8da3@news.astraweb.com...
: If the Universe has infinite mass (I keep hearing this. . .), why is it
: not acceptable to remove any, considering Infinity - x = Infinity
: technically "conserves" mass?
:
: That is taking the system of all systems as the reference, of course.
: Is it not okay because you can always take a subsystem with finite mass
: and prove the violation there?
Conservation of mass died with E = mc^2, leaving conservation of
energy only. In order to discuss mass, first say what it is.
So, to make it easier, if all of the infinite mass in the universe were
turned into infinite energy, could some be lost (though I never lose my
keys, only misplace them) completely harmlessly?
.
|
|
|
| User: "Androcles" |
|
| Title: Re: Infinite Mass |
03 Jun 2007 03:59:29 AM |
|
|
"Selwyn-Lloyd McPherson" <slcool@neo.rr.com> wrote in message
news:4661f188$0$8792$c3e8da3@news.astraweb.com...
: On 2007-06-02 15:24:30 -0700, "Androcles" <Engineer@hogwarts.physics>
said:
:
: >
: > "Selwyn-Lloyd McPherson" <slcool@neo.rr.com> wrote in message
: > news:4661ee16$0$3071$c3e8da3@news.astraweb.com...
: > : If the Universe has infinite mass (I keep hearing this. . .), why is
it
: > : not acceptable to remove any, considering Infinity - x = Infinity
: > : technically "conserves" mass?
: > :
: > : That is taking the system of all systems as the reference, of course.
: > : Is it not okay because you can always take a subsystem with finite
mass
: > : and prove the violation there?
: >
: >
: > Conservation of mass died with E = mc^2, leaving conservation of
: > energy only. In order to discuss mass, first say what it is.
:
: So, to make it easier, if all of the infinite mass in the universe were
: turned into infinite energy, could some be lost (though I never lose my
: keys, only misplace them) completely harmlessly?
Maybe the penny didn't drop.
So, to make it easier, in order to discuss mass, first say what it is.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Selwyn-Lloyd McPherson" |
|
| Title: Re: Infinite Mass |
03 Jun 2007 06:23:57 AM |
|
|
On 2007-06-03 01:59:29 -0700, "Androcles" <Engineer@hogwarts.physics> said:
"Selwyn-Lloyd McPherson" <slcool@neo.rr.com> wrote in message
news:4661f188$0$8792$c3e8da3@news.astraweb.com...
: On 2007-06-02 15:24:30 -0700, "Androcles" <Engineer@hogwarts.physics> said:
:
: >
: > "Selwyn-Lloyd McPherson" <slcool@neo.rr.com> wrote in message
: > news:4661ee16$0$3071$c3e8da3@news.astraweb.com...
: > : If the Universe has infinite mass (I keep hearing this. . .), why is it
: > : not acceptable to remove any, considering Infinity - x = Infinity
: > : technically "conserves" mass?
: > :
: > : That is taking the system of all systems as the reference, of course.
: > : Is it not okay because you can always take a subsystem with finite mass
: > : and prove the violation there?
: >
: >
: > Conservation of mass died with E = mc^2, leaving conservation of
: > energy only. In order to discuss mass, first say what it is.
:
: So, to make it easier, if all of the infinite mass in the universe were
: turned into infinite energy, could some be lost (though I never lose my
: keys, only misplace them) completely harmlessly?
Maybe the penny didn't drop.
So, to make it easier, in order to discuss mass, first say what it is.
Sorry :/
Mass is a metric for the amount of matter in an object?
.
|
|
|
| User: "Androcles" |
|
| Title: Re: Infinite Mass |
03 Jun 2007 02:02:24 PM |
|
|
"Selwyn-Lloyd McPherson" <slcool@neo.rr.com> wrote in message
news:46629f7e$0$30562$c3e8da3@news.astraweb.com...
: On 2007-06-03 01:59:29 -0700, "Androcles" <Engineer@hogwarts.physics>
said:
:
: >
: > "Selwyn-Lloyd McPherson" <slcool@neo.rr.com> wrote in message
: > news:4661f188$0$8792$c3e8da3@news.astraweb.com...
: > : On 2007-06-02 15:24:30 -0700, "Androcles" <Engineer@hogwarts.physics>
said:
: > :
: > : >
: > : > "Selwyn-Lloyd McPherson" <slcool@neo.rr.com> wrote in message
: > : > news:4661ee16$0$3071$c3e8da3@news.astraweb.com...
: > : > : If the Universe has infinite mass (I keep hearing this. . .), why
is it
: > : > : not acceptable to remove any, considering Infinity - x = Infinity
: > : > : technically "conserves" mass?
: > : > :
: > : > : That is taking the system of all systems as the reference, of
course.
: > : > : Is it not okay because you can always take a subsystem with finite
mass
: > : > : and prove the violation there?
: > : >
: > : >
: > : > Conservation of mass died with E = mc^2, leaving conservation of
: > : > energy only. In order to discuss mass, first say what it is.
: > :
: > : So, to make it easier, if all of the infinite mass in the universe
were
: > : turned into infinite energy, could some be lost (though I never lose
my
: > : keys, only misplace them) completely harmlessly?
: >
: > Maybe the penny didn't drop.
: > So, to make it easier, in order to discuss mass, first say what it is.
:
: Sorry :/
:
: Mass is a metric for the amount of matter in an object?
Ok, but that merely shifts the question to "What is matter?"
If our understanding of the sun and atom bombs is to upheld
then matter is parcelled energy. The Sun loses matter to yield
energy in return.
If you have a finite universe then you have finite energy.
In other words the Big Bang theorists have implied, by their very
model, that the Universe (and all matter in it) is finite.
If you have an infinite universe (spatially) then you may have
finite energy, but probably infinite energy.
Considering the Big Bang model, a boundary is implied
beyond which is nothing and there could then be at some
point even more remote another "universe" just like ours
with the same probability of coming into existence. If there
are two such universes there can be more and thus an infinity
of universes, each with its own tin god as a creator.
But... the term universe includes all and thus the universe is
infinite but unknowable.
What's more important is energy per unit volume in our own
neck of the woods.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Selwyn-Lloyd McPherson" |
|
| Title: Re: Infinite Mass |
03 Jun 2007 03:32:07 PM |
|
|
On 2007-06-03 12:02:24 -0700, "Androcles" <Engineer@hogwarts.physics> said:
If you have an infinite universe (spatially) then you may have
finite energy, but probably infinite energy.
But then the original question remains, no matter what happens to
energy anywhere, all is allowable since there will always be infinite
energy (or manifestations of energy, i.e. mass)? I guess the question
is, does the existance or non-existence of the rest of the Universe's
mass have some (if only mathematical) bearing on what we can and cannot
do here on Earth.
Considering the Big Bang model, a boundary is implied
beyond which is nothing and there could then be at some
point even more remote another "universe" just like ours
with the same probability of coming into existence. If there
are two such universes there can be more and thus an infinity
of universes, each with its own tin god as a creator.
But... the term universe includes all and thus the universe is
infinite but unknowable.
I guess that begs the question of what the space between the Universes
in the Multiverse made of. If it is nothing, must the nothingness have
have come from somewhere or is nothingness by definition a given? I'm
sure this is no new question though.
Selwyn-Lloyd
.
|
|
|
| User: "Androcles" |
|
| Title: Re: Infinite Mass |
03 Jun 2007 03:57:31 PM |
|
|
"Selwyn-Lloyd McPherson" <slcool@neo.rr.com> wrote in message
news:466324c2$0$7154$c3e8da3@news.astraweb.com...
: On 2007-06-03 12:02:24 -0700, "Androcles" <Engineer@hogwarts.physics>
said:
:
: > If you have an infinite universe (spatially) then you may have
: > finite energy, but probably infinite energy.
:
: But then the original question remains, no matter what happens to
: energy anywhere, all is allowable since there will always be infinite
: energy (or manifestations of energy, i.e. mass)? I guess the question
: is, does the existance or non-existence of the rest of the Universe's
: mass have some (if only mathematical) bearing on what we can and cannot
: do here on Earth.
:
Guess, then.
: > Considering the Big Bang model, a boundary is implied
: > beyond which is nothing and there could then be at some
: > point even more remote another "universe" just like ours
: > with the same probability of coming into existence. If there
: > are two such universes there can be more and thus an infinity
: > of universes, each with its own tin god as a creator.
: > But... the term universe includes all and thus the universe is
: > infinite but unknowable.
:
: I guess that begs the question of what the space between the Universes
: in the Multiverse made of. If it is nothing, must the nothingness have
: have come from somewhere or is nothingness by definition a given? I'm
: sure this is no new question though.
:
: Selwyn-Lloyd
Have fun guessing. :-)
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Sam Wormley" |
|
| Title: Re: Infinite Mass |
02 Jun 2007 09:45:37 PM |
|
|
Selwyn-Lloyd McPherson wrote:
If the Universe has infinite mass (I keep hearing this. . .), why is it
not acceptable to remove any, considering Infinity - x = Infinity
technically "conserves" mass?
That is taking the system of all systems as the reference, of course. Is
it not okay because you can always take a subsystem with finite mass and
prove the violation there?
Conservation of Energy/Mass applies to any closed system. The observable
universe constitutes a closed system.
.
|
|
|
| User: "malibu" |
|
| Title: Re: Infinite Mass |
03 Jun 2007 07:59:45 AM |
|
|
On Jun 2, 8:45 pm, Sam Wormley <sworml...@mchsi.com> wrote:
Selwyn-Lloyd McPherson wrote:
If the Universe has infinite mass (I keep hearing this. . .), why is it
not acceptable to remove any, considering Infinity - x = Infinity
technically "conserves" mass?
That is taking the system of all systems as the reference, of course. Is
it not okay because you can always take a subsystem with finite mass and
prove the violation there?
Conservation of Energy/Mass applies to any closed system. The observable
universe constitutes a closed system.
Even though the Hubble allowed
us to observe more?
What if a new mirror doubles the distance we can see?
John
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Related Articles |
|
|
