i mean that if you have an infinite space, the total useable energy does not converge to zero even though it does in every small region of that space. local convergence to zero does not imply global convergence to zero. if you took Analysis 1/2 in maths university, you know that.
We don’t. Unless you can go faster than the speed of light (spoiler: you can’t), then you’re limited to the observable universe. And that’s the theoretical maximum, assuming you can use some sci-fi super-tech to actually travel (very close to) the speed of light. If you can’t manage extremely high fractions of light speed, then your available, accessible universe is correspondingly smaller.
If you took astronomy or cosmology in university, you know that.
except if it clones itself indefinitely … like siberian forest trees.
Even they will go extinct eventually, on a long enough timeline.
not if we export it to other planets first ;-)
Those will die out as well.
Even the heat death of the universe is inevitable.
As unlikely as that is, it could extend their timeline … but not infinitely.
Entropy always wins.
ehh, “entropy always wins” is only valid in closed systems. the universe is not a closed system.
If you know of a way to move things into and out of the universe, I’m all ears.
i mean that if you have an infinite space, the total useable energy does not converge to zero even though it does in every small region of that space. local convergence to zero does not imply global convergence to zero. if you took Analysis 1/2 in maths university, you know that.
We don’t. Unless you can go faster than the speed of light (spoiler: you can’t), then you’re limited to the observable universe. And that’s the theoretical maximum, assuming you can use some sci-fi super-tech to actually travel (very close to) the speed of light. If you can’t manage extremely high fractions of light speed, then your available, accessible universe is correspondingly smaller.
If you took astronomy or cosmology in university, you know that.