Strange

If you look far enough in any direction you will see first generation galaxies. This confirms that the "location of the Big Bang" is everywhere. In other words, everywhere takes part in the expansion, pretty much equally (on large enough scales).

To be a bit more constructive... You can approach the problem using limits. What you can say about the first case (one card from an infinite pack) is that as the size of the pack increases, the probability approaches zero. The number of cards can never become infinite(because you can always add another card) and the probability never reaches zero. But you can infer that for an infinite dec the probability would be zero. In the second case (two infinite packs) we can say what would happen if you start with two standard packs: the probability of drawing a card from one of the packs is 50%. If you increase the size of the packs, the probability stays at 50%. From this, you could infer that even for two infinite packs, the probability is 50%. The ordering of the cards makes no difference (assuming you are making a random pick). This is equivalent to asking "what is the probability of a random integer being even"; it is 50% even though there are an infinite number of integers.

It wasn't intended to. Then show how to calculate the probability.

Yes. I only gave that as example of how "sense" doesn't make sense in probability. You need to use maths. To calculate the chance of picking a specific card from a. standard deck is 1 in 52 (1/52). For an infinite deck, this is like asking: what is 1/infinity. And the answer is undefined.

A "sense of probability" is frequently wrong. See the Monty Hall Problem, for example. The right answer can only be found by using mathematics (specifically: probability). No. Because "1 in infinity" is undefined.

It would become "explained" rather than "invalid".

That is an argument from incredulity.

You said: "What are the chances you would have found a card with a face on it?" That requires arithmetic. Statistics is a branch of mathematics. There are ways of handling infinities in mathematics but you haven't given enough information to do that. If you just want a baseless guess, then no arithmetic is necessary but the answers may not be useful.

I wouldn't do this, personally, as it sounds like a fake quote. The WHO seems to have done a lot of work on workplace stress. But this looks like a headline made up by one outlet and then copied by everyone else. (Fact-checking program "More or Less" on the BBC has often covered data that are claimed to come from organisations like WHO but are in fact completely made up.) Maybe you can search for "workplace stress" in the WHO reports and find something to support your argument. Or, give the source as one of the newspapers, rather than the WHO.

You cannot perform arithmetic on them. You must have studied calculus and limits? No? Ah yes. That is a common problem. (I am slightly worried by the fact I seem to be on the same "side" as him!)

Who? With regard to what?

Without a definition of the functions that "go to infinity", you are trying to divide infinity by infinity. But infinity is not a number so this is undefined/meaningless. You haven't provide enough information to apply limits and so there is nothing to calculate. I gathered from your other threads that you know a lot of mathematics. So feel free to show us how it is done.

There is no mathematical way of calculating it. Which is?

OK. So you made up the data. The same size seems pretty irrelevant in that case. Why not just go round town looking at people, guessing their IQ and guessing the birthdates and then you can have as many data points as you need. Note: if you had started with this with something like "I have spotted an apparent trend; could there be any evidence for this" then I (and others) might have been more sympathetic. But you have said "THIS EFFECT EXISTS" based on totally bogus data.

Well, it can obviously be approached through limits, but that would a require a definition of each of the functions. Otherwise I can't see how the answer is anything other than "undefined" (or meaningless).

And how did you measure their IQ? And what is the sample size?

That the Big Bang was an "event" at t=0 where the universe was created seems to be one of those pop-sci distractions.

Really? Where did it come from then? What was the experimental methodology?

I do not mean it was infinitely hot and dense. At the earliest time our current models go to, the temperature and density are finite. Why? Where does it say that? And I am simply pointing out where the limitations are and why they make your answers irrelevant. (I have reported him as a likely sock puppet, so the whole thread may become moot.)

Is this thread intended to complement the 0÷0 one? Surely the answer is undefined (without a definition of how it can be approacehed by limits)?

Only from a naive extrapolation using GR which is almost certainly wrong as it doesn't take quantum effects into account. As there is good reason to think it is not true, then the conclusion is moot. (Also, there are functions that atom from zero to infinity in finite time. But I don't really think that is relevant.)

Why not just make up the missing data as well?

If the mass is infinite then it has always been infinite. There is no "Big Bang phase" where either a finite or infinite mass comes from. There is just the Big Bang model that describes how the universe cooled from an early hot dense state. If the universe is infinite now then it was infinite in that hot dense state. However, as you keep ignoring this I give up.

No. Energy is force x distance. If there is no movement, then there is no energy. So applying a constant force to something (e.g. the chandelier hanging from my celling) requires no energy. From whatever it was you ate for breakfast.

Mass and energy can be converted into one another. That is a completely separate issue of how (some of) the mass of particles comes from the Higgs mechanism. As a not very good analogy, I can change my money into goods (or goods back into money). That is separate from where my money comes from. I don't think anything in science is proven to really exist. But it may be better to think of it the other way round: there are fields and the particles we detect are "disturbances" or perturbations in the field. (There was a thread called "everything is fields", or similar, that discussed this is in more detail a while ago.) As far as we can tell, our experiments behave in ways predicted by those fields. Whether they have a physical existence or are a convenient mathematical description of some other reality is unknown. (And perhaps unknowable.)