It is impossible for any object to be infinitely far away from me (or you, or anything else).
Want me to prove it?
If there is an object that is infinitely far away from me that means that the object in question must be at a location that is an infinite number of feet (or meters or whatever). If it exists at all it can't be infinitely far away from me.
The universe is most likely finite. The multiverse is most likely infinite.
did someone tell you the universe was infinite?
the observable universe, everywhere that is causally connected to us by virtue of the limitation on the speed of the transmission of information, is finite but expanding exponentially. Beyond that horizon is an unknown.
And yeah, I guess all notions of "feet" or "meters" lose their meaning when you consider the chaos and infinitude of possibility that allowed for the laws that govern THIS particular universe to spontaneously arise.
Speculating about anything outside the observable universe is not science.
In an infinite universe, all points in space are a finite distance from each other. Your argument is like saying the difference between any two integers is finite, therefore the integers are bounded. This is clearly false, moron.
People are gonna do it anyway. You dont have to call it science if you dont want to, fine. Call it curiosity, and theres no law against it.
>If there is an object that is infinitely far away from me that means that the object in question must be at a location that is an infinite number of feet (or meters or whatever)
and?
Then don't post this bullshit on the Science and Math board. Post it on Veeky Forums or some other pseudointellectual shithole like Reddit.
As there is the prerequiste of causality the moment you try to measure the object it moves further away so trying to measure it you will never reach it thus its infinite far away.
Every scientist engages in this. It's because in addition to being scientists, they're also human, and they wonder about the unknown and the unknowable. If you remove that, a scientist, according to your definition, is just an automaton. An automaton can't make hypotheses.
if drawing conclusions about things you will never see was unscientific, the entire field of quantum mechanics would not exist.
Seeing is a small subset of the class of phenomena known to facilitate observation.
A lot of people would say this is getting out of hand now though, and so it should be labeled 'unscientific'. By 'this' I mean some of the conclusions it's led some to draw, such as string theory and multiverses.
(I'm really convinced by both, btw scientific or not. It's our only hope of gleaning any understanding of such things, and thus far it's been mostly proved right experimentally, wherever possible.)
Found the complete retard. Quantum mechanics can be seen easily both in its experimental predictions (think magnetic moment of the muon) and even somewhat directly (Rydberg atoms). This is the most autistic comment I've seen in the past few days.
He's trying to say that infinity=infinity
Also ignores that there is no infinite feet away, it is simply a large number of feet away, then add one and it is still an infinite distance away from the end of the universe
Not true; if you speculate on something outside the observable universe, it is science so long as it has testable, observable PREDICTIONS. Tha'ts science fuckfag. Most of the hot big bang isn't science because it's not in the "observable" universe (universe was opaque that early) but it's still definitely science. Too many fucking retards in here trying to regurgitate shit they've heard without thinking.
Infinite just means non-finite. If the Universe is made of parts you can't measure to, then it has infinitely distant parts, ie: suppose there are beings on a similar solar system which turns out to be in a similar sub-Universe. There isn't a physical distance between the two sub-Universe thus they are infinitely afar. Propositional Calculus' low hanging fruits are among others, actual definitions like the definition of infinity.
>This is the most autistic comment I've seen in the past few days.
you have a remarkably selective vision
Quantum mechanics has all manner of measurable predictions.
That you don't and "a lot of people" don't understand string theory doesn't mean nobody does. Leave it to actual theoretical physicists to evolve our understanding of the world. Or become one, if you're skeptical about string theory. You first have to understand it to bring up a valid criticism of it. Don't get swayed by the likes of Woit, who are too egoistic to change their conception of reality. Read more Polchinski when you are confident enough in QM and have the mathematical apparatus to understand the ideas.
What if an object is actually just 1 meter away from you, but every time you try to approach it you're moving in the wrong direction?
That's how infinite space works. It bends into itself.
Wow Veeky Forums is really dumb. The only one who refuted OP's retarded post is Everyone else is just as wrong as OP.