Mr. Astrophysicist

Yeah we did, but I did make a little tweak, elucidating that the value is not affected by numbers

Infinity is really unknown and generally unclear. It appears in several papers of mathematics and physics, and expands to such a quite large range, from size and respective fields of physics. We do know in theory that infinity is not affected by numbers, and only affects numbers.

Infinity is generally ambiguous, but I've come up with a theory that possibly define it's numbers. So, the value of Infinity is: Infinity = 9999999999999999999999999... So on, so forth. Since 9 is the largest of all the numbers 1 - 10 (except for 10, which has 2 digits), or so to say 9 is the biggest of all 1 digit numbers. Since Infinity is not affected by numbers, this somewhat similar mathematical constant is not affected by numbers. Ergo: 9999999999... + 1 = 99999999... It may seem rather unusual, so imagine that infinity is not a constant value. What do you guys think?

Infinity is generally ambiguous, ergo unless Infinity has a value, then we cannot calculate infinity further. The best explanation we probably have right now is that infinity is a "number" that does not have a value but we do know it doesn't have an end. It is uncountable, to say. But in mathematical theory, I theorise that Infinity cannot be affected by numbers, at all. But at the other side of the coin, Numbers can be affect by infinity. Much like: 1/Infinity = 0 or 0/infinity = 0, as I can name more. Infinity + 1 = Infinity. Thus, the answer will always be infinity unless you're using infinity to affect numbers.

Metallic objects are magnetic, but not all of them are. The reason is because the electrons are lined up in such a manner that it has a magnetic field, as described in Maxwell's equations.

Hey! Welcome to the science forums, I hope you have a great time here. Going to the topic, the Big. Bang Theory is not an explosion. It is a common misconception, but its name implies it was an explosion, so don't worry. Besides that random idiot who named it the Big Bang theory, it should be called: the everywhere stretch theory. This theory explains that our universe at the beginning of time , at which it's space expanded from a singularity, as atoms, particles, and molecules settle, stars, comets, asteroids, galaxies, superclusters of galaxies, so on so forth form, they cooled down over a long period of time, and the dark energy process began (where space is expanding due to dark energy and galaxies start to away from each other at extraordinary rates). Once clearing that concept, let's get to your hypothesis. If you move from one position from another and continued walking, you would end up where you were, because earth is a shape close to that of a sphere, given any three dimensional shape, you can walk for several miles and end up in the sane spot because a circumference has to end. So here is one problem with your theory: -The universe is hypothetically a sphere, maybe even flat. But given any of this shapes, this would not even work. If there was indeed a shape of the universe, we would not be at the edge of the universe, but rather somewhere within it's radius or generally its diameter. -Dark energy sends the objects in space farther away from each other, but given the statement above, it would not be possible they would reappear in the opposite direction. If anything, they just spread continuously. -Big crunch cannot be confirmed, and we would be long gone before then, neither can we significantly prove with just logic, because in the cosmos, phenomenal and such are bound to happen. That's why it's called a theory. -That theory has been published or maybe not, but check out the holographic universe theory...

is used to calculate the energy of moving objects; true or false? E^2=(MC^2)^2+(PC)^2 is used to calculate the energy of objects that are not moving; true or false? E=MC^2 So, or both formulas correct? I've been pondering over this...

A paradox is a unsolvable problem that confuses people to some extent; it confuses me to think, that asking every question would be a paradox until discoveries or the advancement of technology. Why: we may interpret the existence of forces such as friction, when it may be something else or something phenomenal. Though conducted by experimental physicists or scientists to prove their existence, their work are only dedicated to designing protocols to find the accuracy of such theories. And as me know, some substance or hypothetical planets beyond the cosmos or in a distant galaxy may have a substance in a planet that cancels friction. Or possibly, asking a question such as; how many states of matter would be vague as to the 4 types of matter, plasma, solid, liquid and gas, there may be another type of matter out there. So one limitation of science would be theories. Correct?

Authorise me to elucidate: In simple terms, Quantum Physics or Quantum Mechanics are, and from a general outlook, a scientific subject or a branch of physics to explain phenomena that the world - No, the universe that can offer: such as super luminous supernovas (Hypernovas, in layman's terms), supernovas, gravitons and String Theory, or in academic language, M-Theory, so on, so forth. But from Quantum Computers, and the Quantum Realm (Where evidently everything is pixelated beyond macroscopic level) etcetera, but going to my question, is everything quantum physics? I know science can be an estimation or a approximation; such as Newton's Laws and such, but then again, Quantum Physics is an attempt to explain phenomena. So, asking a question such as "Is friction real?" or "Is energy real" will be a paradox. Because a phenomena beyond the distant galaxies could mean that friction would be zero, because of some special atom or gas that cancels the effect. Everything confuses me.

It may baffle to some extent for those of you who know me may recognise me as a possible philosopher. But seriously, I just need to ask these questions: -What do you call a theory that cannot be proven, sounds illogical, neither can it be disproven? -Is everything phenomenal due to the limitation of science? -Due to the limitation of science, and the infinite possibilities to the universe, are our experiments, theories, conjectures, assumptions, so on, so forth, wrong; because of the undiscovered portions of the possible infinite universe?

There is indeed a difference.

What is the difference between an inacceleratable object and a immovable object? By the way, the answer is not: Inaccelratable object cannot be accelerated but can be moved, vice-versa. This is somewhat similar or perhaps is the Theory of Relativity.

I'm not differing it from the theory of relativity, just explaining the theory of relativity.

I have a religion, so I think this was quite offensive. This is though in the wrong section, should probably go to Brainteasers or Religion. Unless a theory, it should go to its respective categories. Anyways, it varies from one person's view, opinion and thinking. I believe that god was always there, and that he was infinite and eternal. Called the Eternal Effect, he was always there. If the big bang was real, I would prefer to believe that he caused it, and not heated particles appeared from nothingness, and the big bang exploded and the universe expanded from a singularity.

Noted.

No, I'm not saying that. Travelling at any speed slows down time, but travelling extremely quickly or quicker, it slows down time. Thank you for the message ajb. I shall try to fully understand quantum theory of gravity to try prove the conjecture. I misunderstood the concept and your message helped a lot. While on this topic, the reason of CPC (Chronological Protection Conjecture), is actually and possibly to protect space and time of universes or this universes from paradoxes, right? Or that's just my opinion.

Have you watched the flash? I'm sure you have, it has all played a part about being one of the most enjoyable moments in our life, (perhaps watching shows, movies or comic books) instead of reminiscing about our great pasts, let me name the example with him. You know how he runs extremely quickly that we could see something like a second him from the back and front of the real flash, one that seems quite translucent. Let's try making use of that. We'll call those frames, and that in Theory, he's running as so quick, may be faster than light, that we can see his second frame, and that the frame that is the past can also be seen. Now applying to real life, we can see our frame as for instance, I walk from point A to B. And with an insight of perhaps powerful cameras of such, or I humane eyes, we can several thousand frames of you walk from A to B. However, the mass of frames are equivalent to their own, but not to you, because in my theory, particles scatter throughout as we walk. Somewhat similar to light as it's particles scatter as it travels over time. But if you were to walk on a weighing scale, it may take effect but it's actually extremely quick that you might not see it. Mass equivalency Equation: Fàm 1 = Fám 2 - ∞, ("Fam(s)", being the Frame Mass) Fam ≠ öms ([öms] being Object's Current Mass)

No language could possibly explain this. I'll try though. It is a classic paradox, where you can "screw up" space and time. Imagine a timeline. He time travels back past 3 seconds, and as time moves on, the man (past) doesn't move. Why? Because another man from another time line would go into this timeline, and the process will keep on happening until there is no more space on earth. Classic time travel paradox.

It depends on one's view, intellectuality and preference. If you would love to learn more about the cosmos and astronomy, stick to this topic. If you have other interests, just get out without bothering others. Astrology is not deemed pseudoscience, as there is not enough evidence to prove it. Though based on the mechanics of cosmos, that's how it works.

No, not this thread, it'd be pretty stupid to disprove my theory. The theory of "travelling at c, slows down time, but you wouldn't", is actually not disproven in my opinion. We haven't come to the extent of having superior technology to find that out. We'll leave that theory be for a couple years.

As we learn more about time travel we have to familiarise with paradoxes, such as the grandfather, or parental paradoxes. But here's some paradox and theories made by me to mess with your mind. Are challenged enough to solve these paradoxes with great ease? Limour/Limited Colour Paradox: Can you think of a new colour not yet discovered? Laziness Paradox: If someone states, "I am too lazy to sleep", is it actually true? Matter Split Paradox: If I were to get a piece of matter, such as cake or a rod, and repeatedly cut it into half, is it infinite, and would it run to as stop? Assuming we cut it even though it is an atom thick. Fundigm Boredom Paradox: How can we have fun while being bored? Universe Destruction Error Paradox (UDEP): Proving parallel universes wrong, look up the thread I made, what if there was a universe that was so fast, and it is to actually destroy our universe? Would it be stop by another universe? But what if it's slow? So on and so forth. Solving the almighty being paradox: One states that if a almighty being were to create rock that it cannot destroy, it will not be almighty, thus god cannot be. But I have solved it. What if that Almighty Being, god, were to actually made an elixir or potion that made itself possible to destroy that rock? Or what if he made himself strong enough to destroy it. While some argue that it makes one again, god, the almighty being can destroy by doing the previous action, so on and so forth. More to be made/To be continued...

A theory regarding to this, states that: If you were to travel at c, the speed of light, everything around you would age; but you wouldn't, as you won't experience time if you travel that quick. And since we're applying into that, that would be physically impossible as only massless particles could do so, and though some may say that currently we are unable to travel at c, with further technologies in the future, it may be possible. Even as we do so, our particles would get scattered (as we notice how light travels, and gets scattered, as it gets weaker). So we cannot test this theory yet. One example for instance, that if we were to do so, and not experience time due to the great speed, and we to travel at the speed of light in a space craft or train for one year, we would emerge several thousands or hundreds years from where we began. (As I briefly explained in another thread of several other theories).

Good question there. The hole to get large is a little vague. Some possible theories of it being radioactive, or chemical reaction of some sort in the comet causing it to explode to leave a big hole, or it being too high of its temperature that it will melt the ground. What is the ground? What other chemicals are there in the comet? I need more data to calculate the infinite possibilities of this theorem. Just solve it within all the information given or do you prefer to give me more? (This question also gives more questions than it answers, surprisingly).

Ah, sorry for the misinterpretation. I thought you were using the text slang in the facial expression... xD

Just to quote it short, I'm not old. I'm 13. The picture is Stephen hawking.