My theory on size

[Oneironaut]

jupiter?...its planet...planets are didfferent from stars...which is why stars are called stars and planets are called planets...theyre not the same...no matter what size...size doesnt make something a star...

Actually, that's not true. There isn't exactly a clear-cut line between planets and stars. As a body becomes more massive, it becomes capable of fusion in its core, which then makes it a star. There is a large spectrum between planet-sized bodies and star-sized bodies, and astronomers aren't in total agreement on when a planet is big enough to be considered a star.

[couch-potato]

I got a great paradox for you... youre walking from point A to B and lets say theres ten meters between the two points, well you could just keep on halving that distance endlessly (10, 5, 2.5, 1.25, etc) so that means theres an infinite number of points between the two right, so how do you walk past an infinite number of points?

(I heard it better than I said it)

Next time I smoke out with my buddies I'm going to ask them that and watch their heads explode.

[Cas]

I heard somewhere, that if Jupiter was much bigger, it could have ignited into a star.

yeah i heard that too on the science channel. think how different our solar system would be if jupiter was a star.

[Oneironaut]

I got a great paradox for you... youre walking from point A to B and lets say theres ten meters between the two points, well you could just keep on halving that distance endlessly (10, 5, 2.5, 1.25, etc) so that means theres an infinite number of points between the two right, so how do you walk past an infinite number of points?

(I heard it better than I said it)

It's quite trivial, as everyday experience shows. Since the points are infinitely small, you pass by them in an infinitely tiny amount of time.

[FeastonThisSHITT]

It's quite trivial, as everyday experience shows. Since the points are infinitely small, you pass by them in an infinitely tiny amount of time.

Basicaly it boils down to the fact that our brains can not handle the concept of infinity. It's just like the, "If the universe is expanding, what is it expanding into? Or what is outside of the universe" question.

[NextLineIsMine]

It's quite trivial, as everyday experience shows. Since the points are infinitely small, you pass by them in an infinitely tiny amount of time.

we're talking infinite here as in neverending. Its a well known paradox and im not sure your answer made any sense, describe what youre thinking a bit more

[SmokingPlatypus]

ok think about it, to us, the smallest thing is an atom, but why is it the smallest thing? because its the smallest we can see, before we had microscopes the smallest things were like grains of sand, but our technology allows us to see smaller things, so what i think is that theres no end to size, there isnt, theres no smallest thing, only the smallest thing we can see, theres no biggest thing, its all an endless cycle :rasta:

An atom is not the smallest thing. Atoms are composed of electrons, neutrons, and protons. But we can't stop there, can we? Electrons, Neutrons, and Protons are further composed of gluons, quarks, and nuons. But what is beyond there? Nobody knows, because we currently don't have instruments that can squint that far yet.

Furthermore, a universe isn't the biggest thing ever, either. Even if you have a universe, there has to be something beyond the universe, right? Or would it be that reality stops where the universe stops? Could the universe have an end? We don't know. Once again, we currently don't have instruments that can squint that far yet.

And with this whole line scenario.. lines are simply imaginary spaces of indeterminate size that signify a point in space. They have no mass, because if they were to have mass, then they would have to go into the second and third dimension.

It's a fun thing to think about. :rasta:

[FeastonThisSHITT]

An atom is not the smallest thing. Atoms are composed of electrons, neutrons, and protons. But we can't stop there, can we? Electrons, Neutrons, and Protons are further composed of gluons, quarks, and nuons. But what is beyond there? Nobody knows, because we currently don't have instruments that can squint that far yet.

Furthermore, a universe isn't the biggest thing ever, either. Even if you have a universe, there has to be something beyond the universe, right? Or would it be that reality stops where the universe stops? Could the universe have an end? We don't know. Once again, we currently don't have instruments that can squint that far yet.

It's a fun thing to think about.

That is what I am saying. We can't grasp the concept. Even when we do make instruments that can detect smaller pieces of matter and energy, there will be even smaller ones and smaller ones to find infinately.

LOL I liked the concept of reality stopping at the end of the universe.

It's such a mindfuck. I have a feeling that when you die you learn it all. Don't ask me why. I think when you die you are in your natural "real" state. Again, don't ask why.

[senoirsalsa]

smallest thing is not an atom, but what makes up nuetrons electrons and protons dumbass

[Cas]

yes but string theory says that atoms are made up of strings, tiny bits of energy. i know it's jsut a theory but still consider it.