Quote Originally Posted by K_Shootz_Den
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:
SmokingPlatypus Reviewed by SmokingPlatypus on . My theory on size 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: Rating: 5