Airbrush

My next question is, can something finite in mass (or size) expand to an infinite size? And please explain for me without advanced math. Thank you. Can anyone explain how mathematicians know that the number TREE3 is finite?

We may never know. Why do scientists believe that the unfathomable number TREE3 is not infinite? If you are walking along a sandy beach, and you scoop up a handful of sand, how much about our universe does that little handful of sand tell you? It tells us about the minerals in sand and some other things, such as the atomic structure of this kind of matter. It does NOT tell us about EVERYWHERE in the universe. Our observable universe is just a handful of sand, in a universe that extends to infinity in every direction (assuming a flat or hyperbolic universe). Our observable universe is a tiny pinprick in the vastness of infinity. For this reason, I think that our universe, the large-scale, sponge-like structure we see is probably finite. It just becomes less dense in one direction, until there is no matter at all, and empty space until you reach the edge of an adjacent big bang.

Fair enough. My next question is how representative is our observable universe in telling us what an infinite (flat or hyperbolic) universe is like a googol lightyears away? Grahams number of lightyears away? It seems to me that INFINITY requires a lot (an infinite number) of alignments for our big bang to stretch to infinity, as we see it.

Yes, so assume the case the universe was either flat or hyperbolic, that allows for the possibility the universe was infinite, but how about the PROBABILITY of it? Infinity is a long way from home.

Thanks for your question! Nobody has ever wanted to discuss infinity here, regarding the universe, although I introduced it many times over the years. Because if the universe was NOT flat, then there is no infinity for our observable big bang. We cannot see any curvature yet, but maybe it is so large that it is still undetectable. Infinite size is possible only with a flat universe. Am I correct? The difference between infinity and a very, VERY large universe, is INFINITE. "Infinity" is a problematic word and probably should not even be considered. The number of Planck Volumes in our observable universe is only about 10^185 (or 10 to the power of 185). That means that if you fill the observable universe with a tiny dust that is only ONE Planck Length in size, and volume, you can pack only 10^185 into it. ".... I don’t see how the universe could be infinite and yet constantly expanding. I believe it is constantly expanding but something that is infinite in size cannot be measured and you cannot just say it is now Infinite+1 and Infinite+2. Infinity is infinity. If the universe was infinite it wouldn’t need to expand anymore. It’s as big as it ever could and will be in that case." Logically, how can the universe be infinite in size? - Astronomy Stack Exchange

Let me try to answer my own question. This assumes a FLAT universe. The way to expand to an infinite size is the big bang was infinite in size at the first Planck Time! How else?

Can you say anything about the probability of the "universe" being finite or infinite in size? Does it seem more likely to you that it would be FINITE in size? It seems to me, that what we can see does not reveal what it far beyond. Probably the universe does not look quite the same here as it does a googol light years away, it seems to me. It could be doing things other than only expanding. Or do you think it is a coin flip whether it is actually infinite or finite in size?

We always hear that the big bang started from a tiny point, smaller than a proton, that experienced cosmic inflation and expanded many times the speed of light for a tiny fraction of a second. Oh, I see, that was only the observable portion of the entire universe. Considering that anything finite can never expand to an infinite size, does that not indicate that the region of the universe we live in is probably not indicative of our universe out to a distance of, for example, a googol light years? Or Graham's number of light years? It would appear that our universe probably has a finite size. Or maybe it has reached infinity through some means we don't understand? Was the beginning of the entire universe not a tiny point, smaller than a proton, but for the universe to be infinite in size, the beginning had to be infinite in size, which doesn't make sense.

What about the 2024 election? I had a vision there was trouble, but I didn't guess who was the victim Warning, warning, it was a warning, we are living on borrowed time

All we know is the universe was denser and hotter near time zero. We don't know it's shape, or if it was a point, or a sphere, or jagged and irregular as a lightning bolt. If the universe is currently infinite in size, then it was also infinite in size at the start. Something finite in size cannot grow to an infinite size. That's why it seems more likely that the universe is not infinite in size. Only the observable universe was a tiny point near time zero.

I always loved math. I like to calculate while I jog around my neighborhood almost every morning. I know the distance is 2.4 miles or 4 km. I know where the quarter distance is, half distance, and 3/4 distance. At one quarter I check my time and calculate my pace by multiplying my time by 4. At the half distance I simply double my time to get my overall pace. At 3/4 I have a list that tells me what my final time will be at current pace. Each time I compare my actual pace with what I forecasted and see how accurate my forecast is. It's fun!

That sounds like a good idea for capturing carbon. I had thought there could be a way to make desalinization economical enough that we can convert desert into lush rain forests to accelerate carbon capture. But these natural methods seem too SLOW. So, is there a way, after energy becomes dirt cheap thru fusion reactors, to simply build a large number of machines that can pull the carbon out of the air faster than nature can? The only limit is energy and the materials to build carbon capture machines. When you say "carbon capture" does that mean separating the CO2 into carbon and O2? Or does it mean pulling CO2 out of the atmosphere and storing it under ground? Will the day come when earth vegetation gets so accustomed to high CO2 in the air that when we finally, thru technology, pull huge amounts of CO2 out of the air, that plants will suffer because they had evolved and adapted to high CO2 atmosphere?

Was the Titan sub descending too fast? Did anyone check out this Youtube transcript? Authentic or fake? Did they implode at about 9:47? Was the crew in panic mode for about 20 minutes? According to the transcript, at 9:28 was the first alarm: "We're noting an alarm from the rtm." Last message from Titan at 9:46am: "...reading red on the A power bus. I switched to B. at 3457m more sounds aft"

What is the most cost-effective way to cool a home? We live in very hot climate in this Socal valley. We had many days over 100 F and days over 110 F. We have 2 large evaporative coolers, many electric fans, and central A/C. We are able to stay cool on the hottest days using just our 2 evaporative coolers and maybe a couple of hours of A/C on the hottest days. It seems we are saving energy by not using A/C all day, but rather using most evaporative coolers? Should energy companies be encouraging customers to use evaporative coolers?

Good observations! On the brighter side, in Georgia it appears that 2 Trump conspirators want an early trial. It will be televised with witnesses and evidence against ALL conspirators, especially the ring-leader, Trump. Then the facts may finally be known. Then maybe enough independents and Nevertrumpers will face reality and go out to VOTE.

A hung jury is very likely in GA, given the dedication of the MAGA cult members. They will crawl on their hands and knees, over a mile of broken beer bottles, to hear his Zingers. At least one will crawl onto the jury.

Al Capone and Jeffrey Dahmer may have had "good intentions." Being "the devil incarnate" is not the point. Trump, as a master-manipulator, with 14 years of experience as a TV star, identified a voter base, but ran for president as a publicity stunt, just an item on his bucket list of self-service. He was not expecting to win in 2016. In 2020 he was only 44,000 votes away from tying Biden. In 2024 he is running (running from the law) as a last resort to avoid criminal accountability. If he wins he goes free. If he loses he may lose his freedom.

Let's see if the GOP debate or Tucker's interview of TFG has any influence on the polls. Recently I saw a poll that said basically 2/3 of Americans don't want a clown for president. But what about the electoral college? Still a coin flip. Nearly two-thirds of Americans say they won't support Trump in 2024 (usatoday.com) "President-elect Joe Biden topped President Trump by nearly 7 million votes, and 74 votes in the Electoral College, but his victory really was stitched together with narrow margins in a handful of states." "just 44,000 votes in Georgia, Arizona and Wisconsin separated Biden and Trump from a tie in the Electoral College." Biden Won By Narrow Margins In Arizona, Georgia, Wisconsin : NPR

The 2024 election is still a coin flip who wins. Biden and Trump have been polling almost even lately. All we can hope for is that the facts of his recent indictments for serious crimes will come out in public enough to impact enough independents in time for the election. Biden could win 2024 popular vote by 8 million and still lose due to the electoral college.

Stephen Hawking used to say humanity had another 1,000 years. However, shortly before he died, he changed his prediction to 100 years. But when he says we need to colonize another planet within 100 years that seems impossible. How could a colony on Mars be self-sufficient within only 100 years? Doesn't make sense. Stephen Hawking says we have 100 years to colonize a new planet—or die. Could we do it? (popsci.com) "Could we do it?" No we can't.

If the center of OUR galaxy had an active quasar, that would make it even worse for life in the central region. But you don't need an active galactic nucleus to suppress life. All you need are plenty of supernovae going off, and that is what happens in the dense regions of any galaxy.

The info is already out there, but AI makes it easier for ANY evil person to succeed. It takes an evil GENIUS to figure it out without AI. Evil and genius are not common qualities in a single person.

Evil people can ask AI how to assassinate someone, make a dirty bomb, or commit the most heinous crimes. Maybe that is where controls kick in restrict freedom to do evil.