grannyinthesky 0 #51 December 28, 2007 QuoteHow many licks DOES it take to get to the center of a Tootsie-Roll Tootsie-Pop? Quote (pi*e)^2 ?"safety first... and What the hell..... safety second, Too!!! " ~~jmy POPS #10490 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites JackC 0 #52 December 28, 2007 Quote How big IS the universe? Dunno but probably no bigger than about 1.3x10^26m if c is 3x10^8 m/s and the age of the universe is 13.7 billion years and big bang cosmology is about right. Although I haven't completely discounted periodic boundaries (but I've heard some people have). Quote What is outside the universe? The universe is the complete set of everything, everywhere. There are no things that exist outside of the complete set of everyhing everywhere. The many worlds interpretation of QM notwithstanding. Quote If there is something-or nothing-how far does it go? If there is something is probably extends somewhere. If there is nothing, it probably extends nowhere. Quote Does .999... equal 1? I thought we solved that one. Quote How many licks DOES it take to get to the center of a Tootsie-Roll Tootsie-Pop? 42? Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites akarunway 1 #53 December 28, 2007 Quote How big IS the universe? What is outside the universe? If there is something-or nothing-how far does it go? Does .999... equal 1? How many licks DOES it take to get to the center of a Tootsie-Roll Tootsie-Pop? None. You chew em.I hold it true, whate'er befall; I feel it, when I sorrow most; 'Tis better to have loved and lost Than never to have loved at all. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites KelliJ 0 #54 December 28, 2007 Quote If there is something is probably extends somewhere. If there is nothing, it probably extends nowhere. Good one! Best reply yet! Now, for a scientific/philosophical question. Assuming several things here... That the duration between mass extinctions on earth and similar planets is roughly 65 million years... That it is impossible to travel faster than or at the speed of light.... There are other planets similar to ours with life similar to ours. If the only such planet (other than ours), and it's last mass extinction coincided with ours, and intelligent life has also developed there, and it is 100 million light years away....are we, for all intents and purposes, "alone"? After all there would be no chance we would ever know they existed, nor they us, let alone communicate and exchange information. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites ChasingBlueSky 0 #55 December 28, 2007 This post reminds of the one that went on for YEARS on the bnet forums http://www.blizzard.com/press/040401.shtml Blizzard Entertainment® Announces .999~ (Repeating) = 1 IRVINE, Calif. - APRIL 1, 2004 - At a press conference earlier today, Blizzard Entertainment® announced that .999~ does in fact equal 1. For seven and a half years, enthusiastic forum-goers have fervently debated the issue on the Battle.net® forums. Does .999~ equal 1? Does .999~ not equal 1? The popular forum topic reached its epic conclusion today, as Blizzard revealed the proof that finally brought an end to the discussion and thus resolved the conundrum that has plagued visitors to the forums for so long. "We are very excited to close the book on this subject once and for all," stated Mike Morhaime, Blizzard Entertainment president and co-founder. "We've witnessed the heartache and concern over whether .999~ does or does not equal 1, and we're proud that the following proof finally and conclusively addresses the issue for our customers." Consider: Proof: lim(m --> infinity) sum(n = 1)^m (9)/(10^n) = 1 0.9999... = 1 Thus x = 0.9999... 10x = 9.9999... 10x - x = 9.9999... - 0.9999... 9x = 9 x = 1. (infinity symbol code doesn't seem to work on these forums and thus entered the word up there) Elaborate and yet crafted with deceptive simplicity and elegance, Blizzard's proof that .999~ = 1 is a true wonder of modern mathematics. More information on how the proof was derived will be revealed in the months ahead._________________________________________ you can burn the land and boil the sea, but you can't take the sky from me.... I WILL fly again..... Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites kallend 2,184 #56 December 28, 2007 Quote Quote How big IS the universe? What is outside the universe? If there is something-or nothing-how far does it go? Does .999... equal 1? How many licks DOES it take to get to the center of a Tootsie-Roll Tootsie-Pop? None. You chew em. So it's e^(2*i*pi) - 1... The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites kallend 2,184 #57 December 28, 2007 Quote The universe is the complete set of everything, everywhere. There are no things that exist outside of the complete set of everyhing everywhere. [ How about the set of all sets that are not members of themselves? That does.... The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites JackC 0 #58 December 28, 2007 QuoteHow about the set of all sets that are not members of themselves? That does. It is my understanding that Russell's paradox is an artifact of naive set theory and that it vanishes under ZFC set theory. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites JackC 0 #59 December 28, 2007 QuoteNow, for a scientific/philosophical question. Assuming several things here... That the duration between mass extinctions on earth and similar planets is roughly 65 million years... That it is impossible to travel faster than or at the speed of light.... There are other planets similar to ours with life similar to ours. If the only such planet (other than ours), and it's last mass extinction coincided with ours, and intelligent life has also developed there, and it is 100 million light years away....are we, for all intents and purposes, "alone"? After all there would be no chance we would ever know they existed, nor they us, let alone communicate and exchange information. Under those circumstances, I think so. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites KelliJ 0 #60 December 28, 2007 Quote Quote How about the set of all sets that are not members of themselves? That does. It is my understanding that Russell's paradox is an artifact of naive set theory and that it vanishes under ZFC set theory. Kelli's Paradox Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites jakee 1,611 #61 December 28, 2007 QuoteQuoteNow, for a scientific/philosophical question. Assuming several things here... That the duration between mass extinctions on earth and similar planets is roughly 65 million years... That it is impossible to travel faster than or at the speed of light.... There are other planets similar to ours with life similar to ours. If the only such planet (other than ours), and it's last mass extinction coincided with ours, and intelligent life has also developed there, and it is 100 million light years away....are we, for all intents and purposes, "alone"? After all there would be no chance we would ever know they existed, nor they us, let alone communicate and exchange information. Under those circumstances, I think so. Which invites the question, would we be less 'alone' in the universe if we were in a position to recieve the signals of a now long extinct alien civilisation, than if we shared this timeframe with an extant civilisation who's signals will not arrive until we are extinct?Do you want to have an ideagasm? Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites KelliJ 0 #62 December 28, 2007 That is an interesting scenario, one that I have contemplated before. One thing I'm not sure of, though, is whether those signals would be strong enough to interpret after traveling millions of light years. I guess it would depend mostly on the strength they were transmitted with and what interference they encountered along the way. It would be cool though. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites champu 1 #63 December 28, 2007 Quote That is an interesting scenario, one that I have contemplated before. One thing I'm not sure of, though, is whether those signals would be strong enough to interpret after traveling millions of light years. I guess it would depend mostly on the strength they were transmitted with and what interference they encountered along the way. It would be cool though. It also depends on whether you're talking about just picking up signals or actually trying to extract information from them. You might detect faint bursts of RF (or whatever frequency) energy but part of convincing yourself that they were generated by an intelligent source has to include determining to at least some level of certainty what the purpose of the signals were. Another tricky part that's fun to think about is that by the time this RF energy gets to us, it's path won't have been a straight line. In order to figure out where it actually came from, you'd need to consider all the massive bodies it passed by on the way (which, btw, are now in different locations from where they were when they exerted their pull on the transmission, and will be in still different locations if and when a return transmission is attempted) Hah... and I thought duplex communication within our solar system was a pain in the ass. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites kallend 2,184 #64 December 28, 2007 QuoteQuoteHow about the set of all sets that are not members of themselves? That does. It is my understanding that Russell's paradox is an artifact of naive set theory and that it vanishes under ZFC set theory. Only because universal sets are excluded from ZFC because of Russell's (and others') paradox.... The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites Prev 1 2 3 Next Page 3 of 3 Join the conversation You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account. Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible. Reply to this topic... × Pasted as rich text. Paste as plain text instead Only 75 emoji are allowed. × Your link has been automatically embedded. Display as a link instead × Your previous content has been restored. Clear editor × You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL. Insert image from URL × Desktop Tablet Phone Submit Reply 0
JackC 0 #52 December 28, 2007 Quote How big IS the universe? Dunno but probably no bigger than about 1.3x10^26m if c is 3x10^8 m/s and the age of the universe is 13.7 billion years and big bang cosmology is about right. Although I haven't completely discounted periodic boundaries (but I've heard some people have). Quote What is outside the universe? The universe is the complete set of everything, everywhere. There are no things that exist outside of the complete set of everyhing everywhere. The many worlds interpretation of QM notwithstanding. Quote If there is something-or nothing-how far does it go? If there is something is probably extends somewhere. If there is nothing, it probably extends nowhere. Quote Does .999... equal 1? I thought we solved that one. Quote How many licks DOES it take to get to the center of a Tootsie-Roll Tootsie-Pop? 42? Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
akarunway 1 #53 December 28, 2007 Quote How big IS the universe? What is outside the universe? If there is something-or nothing-how far does it go? Does .999... equal 1? How many licks DOES it take to get to the center of a Tootsie-Roll Tootsie-Pop? None. You chew em.I hold it true, whate'er befall; I feel it, when I sorrow most; 'Tis better to have loved and lost Than never to have loved at all. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
KelliJ 0 #54 December 28, 2007 Quote If there is something is probably extends somewhere. If there is nothing, it probably extends nowhere. Good one! Best reply yet! Now, for a scientific/philosophical question. Assuming several things here... That the duration between mass extinctions on earth and similar planets is roughly 65 million years... That it is impossible to travel faster than or at the speed of light.... There are other planets similar to ours with life similar to ours. If the only such planet (other than ours), and it's last mass extinction coincided with ours, and intelligent life has also developed there, and it is 100 million light years away....are we, for all intents and purposes, "alone"? After all there would be no chance we would ever know they existed, nor they us, let alone communicate and exchange information. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
ChasingBlueSky 0 #55 December 28, 2007 This post reminds of the one that went on for YEARS on the bnet forums http://www.blizzard.com/press/040401.shtml Blizzard Entertainment® Announces .999~ (Repeating) = 1 IRVINE, Calif. - APRIL 1, 2004 - At a press conference earlier today, Blizzard Entertainment® announced that .999~ does in fact equal 1. For seven and a half years, enthusiastic forum-goers have fervently debated the issue on the Battle.net® forums. Does .999~ equal 1? Does .999~ not equal 1? The popular forum topic reached its epic conclusion today, as Blizzard revealed the proof that finally brought an end to the discussion and thus resolved the conundrum that has plagued visitors to the forums for so long. "We are very excited to close the book on this subject once and for all," stated Mike Morhaime, Blizzard Entertainment president and co-founder. "We've witnessed the heartache and concern over whether .999~ does or does not equal 1, and we're proud that the following proof finally and conclusively addresses the issue for our customers." Consider: Proof: lim(m --> infinity) sum(n = 1)^m (9)/(10^n) = 1 0.9999... = 1 Thus x = 0.9999... 10x = 9.9999... 10x - x = 9.9999... - 0.9999... 9x = 9 x = 1. (infinity symbol code doesn't seem to work on these forums and thus entered the word up there) Elaborate and yet crafted with deceptive simplicity and elegance, Blizzard's proof that .999~ = 1 is a true wonder of modern mathematics. More information on how the proof was derived will be revealed in the months ahead._________________________________________ you can burn the land and boil the sea, but you can't take the sky from me.... I WILL fly again..... Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
kallend 2,184 #56 December 28, 2007 Quote Quote How big IS the universe? What is outside the universe? If there is something-or nothing-how far does it go? Does .999... equal 1? How many licks DOES it take to get to the center of a Tootsie-Roll Tootsie-Pop? None. You chew em. So it's e^(2*i*pi) - 1... The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
kallend 2,184 #57 December 28, 2007 Quote The universe is the complete set of everything, everywhere. There are no things that exist outside of the complete set of everyhing everywhere. [ How about the set of all sets that are not members of themselves? That does.... The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
JackC 0 #58 December 28, 2007 QuoteHow about the set of all sets that are not members of themselves? That does. It is my understanding that Russell's paradox is an artifact of naive set theory and that it vanishes under ZFC set theory. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
JackC 0 #59 December 28, 2007 QuoteNow, for a scientific/philosophical question. Assuming several things here... That the duration between mass extinctions on earth and similar planets is roughly 65 million years... That it is impossible to travel faster than or at the speed of light.... There are other planets similar to ours with life similar to ours. If the only such planet (other than ours), and it's last mass extinction coincided with ours, and intelligent life has also developed there, and it is 100 million light years away....are we, for all intents and purposes, "alone"? After all there would be no chance we would ever know they existed, nor they us, let alone communicate and exchange information. Under those circumstances, I think so. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
KelliJ 0 #60 December 28, 2007 Quote Quote How about the set of all sets that are not members of themselves? That does. It is my understanding that Russell's paradox is an artifact of naive set theory and that it vanishes under ZFC set theory. Kelli's Paradox Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
jakee 1,611 #61 December 28, 2007 QuoteQuoteNow, for a scientific/philosophical question. Assuming several things here... That the duration between mass extinctions on earth and similar planets is roughly 65 million years... That it is impossible to travel faster than or at the speed of light.... There are other planets similar to ours with life similar to ours. If the only such planet (other than ours), and it's last mass extinction coincided with ours, and intelligent life has also developed there, and it is 100 million light years away....are we, for all intents and purposes, "alone"? After all there would be no chance we would ever know they existed, nor they us, let alone communicate and exchange information. Under those circumstances, I think so. Which invites the question, would we be less 'alone' in the universe if we were in a position to recieve the signals of a now long extinct alien civilisation, than if we shared this timeframe with an extant civilisation who's signals will not arrive until we are extinct?Do you want to have an ideagasm? Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
KelliJ 0 #62 December 28, 2007 That is an interesting scenario, one that I have contemplated before. One thing I'm not sure of, though, is whether those signals would be strong enough to interpret after traveling millions of light years. I guess it would depend mostly on the strength they were transmitted with and what interference they encountered along the way. It would be cool though. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
champu 1 #63 December 28, 2007 Quote That is an interesting scenario, one that I have contemplated before. One thing I'm not sure of, though, is whether those signals would be strong enough to interpret after traveling millions of light years. I guess it would depend mostly on the strength they were transmitted with and what interference they encountered along the way. It would be cool though. It also depends on whether you're talking about just picking up signals or actually trying to extract information from them. You might detect faint bursts of RF (or whatever frequency) energy but part of convincing yourself that they were generated by an intelligent source has to include determining to at least some level of certainty what the purpose of the signals were. Another tricky part that's fun to think about is that by the time this RF energy gets to us, it's path won't have been a straight line. In order to figure out where it actually came from, you'd need to consider all the massive bodies it passed by on the way (which, btw, are now in different locations from where they were when they exerted their pull on the transmission, and will be in still different locations if and when a return transmission is attempted) Hah... and I thought duplex communication within our solar system was a pain in the ass. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
kallend 2,184 #64 December 28, 2007 QuoteQuoteHow about the set of all sets that are not members of themselves? That does. It is my understanding that Russell's paradox is an artifact of naive set theory and that it vanishes under ZFC set theory. Only because universal sets are excluded from ZFC because of Russell's (and others') paradox.... The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
