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.