cheater_1's math and physics lesson.

It's not arrogant at all.  We know how much mass is required to fit our observations, and we know how much we can see.  Pretty easy to turn it into a percentage.  The weighting of dark matter to dark energy is going to be less reliable, but we can still say quite happily what their total weighting is wrt regular matter. 

SCHOOL IS BACK IN SESSION

I understand all your puzzlement. And It's ok. But you all need to rethink your hypothesis. Expand your mind. THink outside of the box.

Think of the UNIVERSE as a container. It cannot contain anything larger than  what its capacity is--whether that be a certain number of planets or stars or combinations of atoms, etc. Assuming the total number of atoms in the entire universe is 10^80, then it cannot contain anything REAL beyond that number. I'm not sure why so many people find that difficult to grasp. Indeed, HYPOTHETICAL numbers can exist that would dwarf 10^81 such as googolplex^googolplex. But it is a hypothetical number. IM TALKING REAL NUMBERS. LISTEN TO THE SCHOLAR....PLEASE!!!

The number 10^120 may indeed be REAL, but it does not....CANNOT exceed a number that is used to denote the universe's total makeup. You wouldnt want the universe to explode, would you?

The process that was used to come up with 10^81 atoms in the universe was: total number of atoms per star 10^57 times total number of stars 10^24. Total number of planets 3 x 10^24 times total atoms per planet 9 x 10^49. Add them together and you get about 10^81. THe numbers are averages.

Now, space CONTAINS atoms. We all know there are atoms that float around in space and that's where the MONSTROUS numbers come into play. Numbers that have not even been thought about. THere is no value assigned. Trust me on this people that 10^120 is INSIGNIFICANT next to this number. The bottom line is that it HAS to be smaller or wither the container will BURST or the number is imaginary.

i have to agree with cheater_1. the universe is unpassable in numbers. everything that is concists of atoms. everything we know is done in atoms. there are more stars than you can count, more surface area than you could ever walk on, and more space than all of our years looking up at it could measure.

End Result: # of Atoms > chess positions, chess moves, chess

cheater_1, part of what you say is correct, but all that you can conclude from that is that the total number of positions is too hard to grasp. The total numbers of atoms is already huge, but to go beyond that number is nuts. However, that doesn't mean the theoretical complexity tree of chess has a size bigger than the number of atoms in the universe. No, you couldn't store every object in one atom, but you can estimate how many atoms you would need, which is more than the number of atoms there are.

Again, just like cheater_1, your conclusion is just incorrect.

It's quite obvious to me that cheater_1 is just trolling around trying to cause controversy, seeing as like a week or so ago he created a thread or posted on one, (I don't exactly recall...it doesn't matter though) that chess will definitely be solved and will be put onto a small chip that could be bought for 5 dollars. Now by his argument on this thread, the universe would explode by having more than 10^81 positions on a chip.

Maybe if you just didn't reiterate yourself and tried to answer some of the objections instead of just saying "trust me, I'm right" some people would actually believe you.

Bondiggity, thank you for pointing out that I may be coming across as arrogant. Sometimes I get so involved in a debate that I lose all form of tact. I'll proofread my next post, adjust my tone, and try to come across more professional.

cheater_1 no need to apologize.  Just want to say keep on truckin!  I am a huge fan.

SCHOOL IS NOW IN SESSION

I like to think out of the box. It's like being outside. Almost.

I never imaginated that chess.com would have it's own troll...

You better study chess. Does someone have the book of la Maza '400 points in 400 days'?

flawed logic

good luck trying to convince people you are right

how is it impossible for something 10 pounds to get broken by a sledge hammer but yess to 1000 pounds?

Actually cheater_1 is correct! There are only so many moves mathematically possible on the chess board, with the pieces possible moves. Though thats still alot of possible moves i can not remember the exact number of moves possible but its alot more then i can imagine. Whether or not a computer can solve all the possibilities i dont know, only time can tell. Nice post though cheater_1 this one was actually interesting, But you still need to work on your presentation.

b

o

l

l

o

c

k

s

Question, Cheater_1:

If you drop a 1000 lb marble figure and a chess move simoutaneously, would they hit the ground at the same time?

so we must assume that the total number of moves possible in chess is just a theoretical number and the finite number of atoms in the UNIVERSE (im writing it like cheater_1) is real. ok. if this is agreed upon than you are comparing two types of things.

cheater_1, you cannot compare two things in different systems of thought. theory and reality are different. i go to the arrow being shot at a wall.

by definition: an arrow must travel half of the distance to its ending position. once there, the arrow must travel half that distance...etc...

theoretically, the arrow will never hit the wall or stop moving for that matter because it must go half of the distance of its end. therefore, the arrow can't hit the wall, but it does.

there is a difference. And if anyone can refute this arguement i am open to new ideas. 

Yes, the arrow argument is easily refuted.  speed = distance / time.  Theoretically the arrow will hit the wall, just as it does in practice.  Otherwise, theory would be different to reflect the real behaviour of arrows. 

Really are you this stupid? Your logic is rediculously flawed. All I can say is that as a 12 grader, I can do physics better than you can.

Thanatos19:

No one can be this stupid. Here is a very simple argument to defeat his argument:Seriously people.

Let us say that there are 10^150 atoms in the universe. I dont know or care if that number is correct, but let us say that there is.

There would then be 10^150!, (the ! is called factorial; it means 10^150x10^149x10^148...10^1) possible combinations of atoms in the universe. The number of "parts," if this is how he wants to define that word, excedes the whole. Thus, his argument is a logical fallacy.

Good argument, thanatos. betcha cheater 1 did not think of combinations of atoms, just the individual atoms. Let cheater 1 explain himself out of this. Could not wait waht kind of explanation he would say.

/thread

Read "the scientific method" or any similar book because your reasoning is so flawed it's not even funny.

cheater_1 is absolutely right that a number that's higher than the number of atoms in the universe could be concidered not real. Sadly the same is equally true for any other number too. Numbers exist only by definition. 

Even if your reasoning was correct atoms aren't unsplittable opposed to what their name suggests. There are more quarks than atoms in the universe wich means that even if you were correct and "real" numbers (I'd like to see you try to explain what constitutes a real number) are limited by the number of "parts" of the universe the number of atoms wouldn't be the upper limit.

Last but not least the number of "parts" of the universe isn't necesarilly constant. Since you seem to like physics leassons you might have heard of the formula E=mc^2. This makes me want to know how you want to define a "part" of the universe? Energy doesn't consist of atoms but could be converted to them in theory. This would mean that the "real" number of "parts" would be much higher than the number of atoms in the universe wich would disprove your argument even if atoms were the smallest "part" of the universe.

In cheater_1's defense, he was not looking for loopholes of physics that can slight his argument.  I don't think he is ignorant or E=MC^2, nor do I think he is ignorant of quarks, whether they exists or not.  Instead, I think he was just using atoms because nobody could say that they do not exists AND because there is an accurate estimation of the total number of atoms in the universe, unlike all the other stuff like energy--->atoms and quarks ect.  However... I still completely disagree with his argument.  I think it is more of an issue to just think that the "infinite" universe has less atoms than a simple game's permutations.