Theories of the universe

[stevenazari1]

If the volume of the universe is infinite and the matter contained within it is finite then it could be argued that the density of the universe is zero.

You need to get a clearer understanding of which aspects of the universe you consider to be infinite and the nature of that infinity,

ok now your just reading between the lines.

and no it cant be argued that the density is zero because there is a mass available which can be referenced as a center point. for it to have zero density would be to have literally nothing there.

 

[DavidMarq]

but that is exactly my point -_- I was being general so they might understand better. In general a solid is more dense than a liquid, a liquid is generally more dense than gas.

maybe I should have said a big steel ball is more dense than a big plastic ball. would that have satisfied you?

The "they" that don't understand appears to be you.

The material that the ball is made of is not the relevant issue, it is possible that a plastic could be produced that is more dense than steel.

 

[stevenazari1]

The "they" that don't understand appears to be you.

The material that the ball is made of is not the relevant issue, it is possible that a plastic could be produced that is more dense than steel.

maybe you should re-read what "they" said and if you agree with them maybe you should change it to "we".

now your just making up stories. just to deny the fact that I'm right and they/you are wrong. I have already used third party sources, if you cant agree with that then there's no hope.

 

[yantorsen]

No mass is not a measurement of density, by that logic a mile is a measurement of speed.

obviously I meant mass divided by volume as the object's volume was a given.

 

[DavidMarq]

maybe you should re-read what "they" said and if you agree with them maybe you should change it to "we".

now your just making up stories. just to deny the fact that I'm right and they/you are wrong. I have already used third party sources, if you cant agree with that then there's no hope.

Please quote anything that I have posted in this thread that you consider to be wrong.

How can you claim to be right when you understanding of the most basic concepts of physical properties such as density is so fundamentally flawed.

 

[DavidMarq]

ok now your just reading between the lines.

and no it cant be argued that the density is zero because there is a mass available which can be referenced as a center point. for it to have zero density would be to have literally nothing there.

So would you argue that 1 divided by infinity is not zero because there is a number available?

 

[stevenazari1]

obviously I meant mass divided by volume as the object's volume was a given.

actually density requires mass to be measurable (hope this helps davidmarq).

The formal definition of density is mass per unit volume. Usually the density is expressed in grams per mL or cc. Mathematically a "per" statement is translated as a division. cc is a cubic centimeter and is equal to a mL Therefore,

Density = mass = g/mL
--------volume

Please quote anything that I have posted in this thread that you consider to be wrong.

How can you claim to be right when you understanding of the most basic concepts of physical properties such as density is so fundamentally flawed.

for starters you are using petty if statements for your arguments - I know perfectly well that the material of the object doesnt matter but I seem to have to point out the basics for you to understand and even then you try bending it round.

here - I've just googled a list of compounds with their densities in the real world - please use for future reference.

Densities of Common Elements and Compounds

Substance --- Density grams per mL
Pine wood----- 0.35 -0.50

Water -------- 1.00

Salt, NaCl -------- 2.16

Aluminum, Al -------- 2.70

Iron, Fe -------- 7.80

Gold, Au -------- 19.30

Mercury, Hg -------- 13.5

If the volume of the universe is infinite and the matter contained within it is finite then it could be argued that the density of the universe is zero.

and then there was that.

 

[stevenazari1]

So would you argue that 1 divided by infinity is not zero because there is a number available?

I wouldnt divide by infinity for a start as you cant divide it. unless you want to go into infinite decimals.

 

[yantorsen]

actually density is the measurement of mass.

The formal definition of density is mass per unit volume. Usually the density is expressed in grams per mL or cc. Mathematically a "per" statement is translated as a division. cc is a cubic centimeter and is equal to a mL Therefore,

which equates to density = mass divided by volume

how is density alone a measurement of mass?

 

[yantorsen]

I wouldnt divide by infinity for a start as you cant divide it. unless you want to go into infinite decimals.

but you said earlier that infinity divided by two would be less than infinity.

 

[stevenazari1]

but you said earlier that infinity divided by two would be less than infinity.

please quote my exact words so I dont have to say "that's not what I said"... darn it

 

[stevenazari1]

which equates to density = mass divided by volume

how is density alone a measurement of mass?

you dont need density to measure mass.

 

[yantorsen]

you dont need density to measure mass.

so is density a measure of mass or not in your opinion?

There are several definitions of mass within the framework of relativistic kinematics. In the theory of relativity, the quantity invariant mass, which in concept is close to the classical idea of mass, does not vary between single observers in different reference frames.

 

[yantorsen]

please quote my exact words so I dont have to say "that's not what I said"... darn it

my bad, it was another poster. (post 22)

 

[DavidMarq]

actually density is the measurement of mass.

Density is not a measurement of mass, it is a measurement of mass per unit volume. You cannot quantify the amount of matter in a body by knowing its density.

The formal definition of density is mass per unit volume. Usually the density is expressed in grams per mL or cc. Mathematically a "per" statement is translated as a division. cc is a cubic centimeter and is equal to a mL Therefore,

Density = mass = g/mL
--------volume

You can cut and paste it, does that mean you understand it?

for starters you are using petty if statements for your arguments - I know perfectly well that the material of the object doesnt matter but I seem to have to point out the basics for you to understand and even then you try bending it round.

here - I've just googled a list of compounds with their densities in the real world - please use for future reference.

What is wrong with if statements? Why do you consider them petty?

What basics have you had to point out to me?

and then there was that.

and the postulation is incorrect because?

 

[stevenazari1]

so is density a measure of mass or not in your opinion?

I said you dont need density to measure mass so how can it be. you measure mass by weight.

 

[Dave]

actually density is the measurement of mass.

I'd define density as the measure of the amount of mass of a substance in a defined control volume of 3D space.

you dont need density to measure mass.

Yes I'd agree with that, mass is measured relative to something, for example 1 mol of mass is the amount of mass of that substance that contains 6.023 x 10^23 (Avagadro's number) atoms/molecules of that species. It doesn't matter what the density is, the mass will always be relative to something pre-determined, be it the number of atoms in 12g carbon, the weight of the 1kg Platinum-Iridium weight etc.

 

[stevenazari1]

Density is not a measurement of mass, it is a measurement of mass per unit volume. You cannot quantify the amount of matter in a body by knowing its density.

I wasnt typing to you I was typing to yantorsen, I dont need to be so strict with my wording with him.

You can cut and paste it, does that mean you understand it?

I dont need to.

What is wrong with if statements? Why do you consider them petty?

if is not the real world.

What basics have you had to point out to me?

read above Im not repeating myself again.

and the postulation is incorrect because?

same as above. catch up.

 

[stevenazari1]

snip

I concur

 

[DavidMarq]

so is density a measure of mass or not in your opinion?

I said you dont need density to measure mass so how can it be. you measure mass by weight.

actually density is the measurement of mass.

I would give it up if I were you.

Also you do not measure mass by weight, weight is the force exerted by a given mass and not a measure of that mass. If this was not the case then a weightless astronaut would have no mass.