KSUFans Archives
Fan Life => The Endzone Dive => Topic started by: steve dave on July 12, 2009, 01:41:21 AM
-
So, big bang/god/whatever came first: What came before them and how do you explain it? When I was a little kid I used to ask my pastor where god came from and was told, "He was always there" which I just blindly accepted like a retard. Seems like there should be an explanation on where the first thing came from or something. Blows my mind because no matter what you say you can still ask where that came from. I guess the problem I have is understanding infinity. Do physicists have a way to explain infinity so I can understand it? Seems hard, you know. :dunno:
-
I've thought about this many times. Regardless of your scientific/religious beliefs, I don't think it can really be explained. I think the major obstacle is that we are not wired to understand infinity backwards. I mean, it's pretty easy to think that there will always be "something" in space from now to infinity, but it's difficult to think that there was something in space from now to negative infinity. Everything in our life has some starting point, everything. I don't think we can justify something as to not having some sort of beginning. It defies logic, thus can't be explained.
-
Surely Neil deGrasse Tyson has addressed this subject at some point. I usually understand complicated things when he explains them.
-
We always said things like "infinity plus 1!!!"
-
We always said things like "infinity plus 1!!!"
infinity times infinity was my go to one-upper
-
I like to think that maybe God was a King in his time or something and he had some really great author tell his story but he fabricated it all kindof like those old Wild West nickel and dime stories where maybe he did something great but then it got blown up into a tall tale and then the author went nuts with it and the tale kept growing and then more and more people added onto the story and it turned into a morale story to try and make people feel bad about doing bad things to other ppl.
make sense?.
-
So, big bang/god/whatever came first: What came before them and how do you explain it? When I was a little kid I used to ask my pastor where god came from and was told, "He was always there" which I just blindly accepted like a retard. Seems like there should be an explanation on where the first thing came from or something. Blows my mind because no matter what you say you can still ask where that came from. I guess the problem I have is understanding infinity. Do physicists have a way to explain infinity so I can understand it? Seems hard, you know. :dunno:
Well...
Nothing we can talk about about in a any meaningful way happened before the Big Bang. Space-time, and all of the matter in the Universe was created in that instant. Nothing "physical" existed before the Big Bang because there was no -before- the Big Bang (at least as far as current physics can tell us anything about).
Now onto more speculative ideas. There has been some talk and papers published on the quantum loop theory of gravity (not really important to know what it is) that purports to be able to deal with the mathematical difficulties of looking at T=0 (when the BB occured) and before that. But is far from anything being tested. The general idea is that the Big Bang is the aftermath of a Big Crunch (in effect the Big Bang is a Big Bounce) of a previous Universe.
:nerd:
-
SD,
The problem you are asking about is what physics guys call "the singularity." The thing about the singularity, is not only do we know nothing about what caused it, most people believe we will never know.
This is what I remember from "a brief history of time"
-
So, big bang/god/whatever came first: What came before them and how do you explain it? When I was a little kid I used to ask my pastor where god came from and was told, "He was always there" which I just blindly accepted like a retard. Seems like there should be an explanation on where the first thing came from or something. Blows my mind because no matter what you say you can still ask where that came from. I guess the problem I have is understanding infinity. Do physicists have a way to explain infinity so I can understand it? Seems hard, you know. :dunno:
I always think about this. It's enlightening, but very frustrating. It's also weird to try to think about a time when nothing existed. There almost has to be something. Existence is inevitable.
-
All I got is Faith...that's all I need.
-
My question is who cares and why does it really matter to us? We are not going to go back there, and even if someone does understand and think they know what happened no body will know for sure so why worry about it?
-
My question is who cares
Me, for one. You go warm up your tractor while I try to find the answers to all existence.
-
You know what depresses me, thinking about getting old. Srsly alzheimers, catheters, parkinsons, strokes all that sh1t is scary.
-
So, big bang/god/whatever came first: What came before them and how do you explain it? When I was a little kid I used to ask my pastor where god came from and was told, "He was always there" which I just blindly accepted like a retard. Seems like there should be an explanation on where the first thing came from or something. Blows my mind because no matter what you say you can still ask where that came from. I guess the problem I have is understanding infinity. Do physicists have a way to explain infinity so I can understand it? Seems hard, you know. :dunno:
Well...
Nothing we can talk about about in a any meaningful way happened before the Big Bang. Space-time, and all of the matter in the Universe was created in that instant. Nothing "physical" existed before the Big Bang because there was no -before- the Big Bang (at least as far as current physics can tell us anything about).
Now onto more speculative ideas. There has been some talk and papers published on the quantum loop theory of gravity (not really important to know what it is) that purports to be able to deal with the mathematical difficulties of looking at T=0 (when the BB occured) and before that. But is far from anything being tested. The general idea is that the Big Bang is the aftermath of a Big Crunch (in effect the Big Bang is a Big Bounce) of a previous Universe.
:nerd:
fire up the perpetual motion machine. That's what I say.
-
You know what depresses me, thinking about getting old. Srsly alzheimers, catheters, parkinsons, strokes all that sh1t is scary.
Don't forget about being able to grab young women's asses, and being able to get away with it because you're old.
:drool:
-
Back to the main question, it's hard to say, and there isn't anyone (on this site) with an IQ high enough to get it done. It's possible that at T=0, this universe was created inside another universe, or even between two multi-verses. Never know, but kinda fun to ponder.
-
Back to the main question, it's hard to say, and there isn't anyone (on this site) with an IQ high enough to get it done. It's possible that at T=0, this universe was created inside another universe, or even between two multi-verses. Never know, but kinda fun to ponder.
I watched something on National Geographic or History channel or something that suggested this...crazy stuff
-
We always said things like "infinity plus 1!!!"
infinity times infinity was my go to one-upper
Well infinity to the infinity power to you! :P
-
I'm pretty sure there was always mangino and charlie weis. Then one day they bumped into each other and 'BANG!"
-
In college, I remember arguing that before anything existed, nothing existed, and if nothing existed, then it must have been possible for nothing to be.
Then I said "See, Dad. It is possible to do nothing with your life."
-
I just don't think it's possible for nothing to exist. How do you get a catalyst to have something if you have nothing? Also, curious as to if the Big Crunch/Bang gets smaller each time like a ball bouncing. And, to that point, where did the crunch/bang come from? Just always been some universe crunching and banging? Had to start somewhere, right?
:dunno:
-
∞ + (-∞) = NAN
-
I just don't think it's possible for nothing to exist. How do you get a catalyst to have something if you have nothing? Also, curious as to if the Big Crunch/Bang gets smaller each time like a ball bouncing. And, to that point, where did the crunch/bang come from? Just always been some universe crunching and banging? Had to start somewhere, right?
:dunno:
If nothing exists, there is also no "where" or "when" :runaway:
That's why real science is limited to the observable world and that which can be directly inferred from it. Going beyond this is metaphysics (or wild speculation if you prefer) even when done by a physicist.
-
I just don't think it's possible for nothing to exist. How do you get a catalyst to have something if you have nothing? Also, curious as to if the Big Crunch/Bang gets smaller each time like a ball bouncing. And, to that point, where did the crunch/bang come from? Just always been some universe crunching and banging? Had to start somewhere, right?
:dunno:
Helps me sleep at night:
(http://www.kk.org/cooltools/cosmic-jackpot-sm.jpg)
-
I just don't think it's possible for nothing to exist. How do you get a catalyst to have something if you have nothing? Also, curious as to if the Big Crunch/Bang gets smaller each time like a ball bouncing. And, to that point, where did the crunch/bang come from? Just always been some universe crunching and banging? Had to start somewhere, right?
:dunno:
Helps me sleep at night:
(http://www.kk.org/cooltools/cosmic-jackpot-sm.jpg)
Yeah, it's turtles all the way down.
-
You know what else really, really creeps me out in the same way? Infinite space.
-
You know what else really, really creeps me out in the same way? Infinite space.
I would be very interested to see what the outer boundary of the expanding/contracting universe is like.
-
:runaway:
-
You know what else really, really creeps me out in the same way? Infinite space.
I would be very interested to see what the outer boundary of the expanding/contracting universe is like.
In my head, I picture a flat edge and a "here be dragons" warning.
And doesn't there have to be something on the other side of the edge of the universe? It can't just be like the outer wall in the Truman show.
-
And doesn't there have to be something on the other side of the edge of the universe? It can't just be like the outer wall in the Truman show.
I mean, if there's something past it then it's a pretty sh1tty "edge" :dunno:
-
(http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/f/f1/Monkey-typing.jpg/250px-Monkey-typing.jpg)
Given enough time, a hypothetical chimpanzee typing at random would, as part of its output, almost surely produce one of Shakespeare's plays (or any other text). (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Infinite_monkey_theorem_in_popular_culture)
-
Did anyone else catch the show on the science channel about parallel universes? That was mind boggling.
-
Pretty sure it is all like the last episode of Lost. 2 dudes are just playing a game with all of us and every time we just jack it up fighting over religion, territory, etc. Pretty soon we will blow this joint up and the 2 dudes will be all, "those stupid frackers did it again". Then it will start all over.
-
And doesn't there have to be something on the other side of the edge of the universe? It can't just be like the outer wall in the Truman show.
I mean, if there's something past it then it's a pretty sh1tty "edge" :dunno:
What about this?
Could the universe in fact be finite and unbounded...similar to the surface of the globe? You can keep going and going and not hit an unpassable barrier, but the area of the globe is finite just the same.
-
Could the universe in fact be finite and unbounded...similar to the surface of the globe? You can keep going and going and not hit an unpassable barrier, but the area of the globe is finite just the same.
Yeah, I think that has potential. I would wave at kat kid as I kept blasting by him in my rocket ship that was so fast I made the loop every 5 minutes.
-
Could the universe in fact be finite and unbounded...similar to the surface of the globe? You can keep going and going and not hit an unpassable barrier, but the area of the globe is finite just the same.
Yeah, I think that has potential. I would wave at kat kid as I kept blasting by him in my rocket ship that was so fast I made the loop every 5 minutes.
(http://www.lepretron.com/tronguy.jpg)
-
In college, I remember arguing that before anything existed, nothing existed, and if nothing existed, then it must have been possible for nothing to be.
Then I said "See, Dad. It is possible to do nothing with your life."
Douglas Adams said you could have no tea.
-
Without a doubt, the first two years of my college career were almost, but not quite, entirely unlike nothing.
-
There are a few possible explanations-
Parallel universes- In the 5 or so theories on how parallel universes are in existence, all of them involve creation and destruction of universes. So before our big bang- there was a void surrounded by other universes.
Isaac Asimov's explanation- In "The Last Question", he details a fictional, yet philosophical, origin of our universe. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Last_Question
Spiritual explanation- "In the beginning, God created the heavens and Earth." To me, this is an origination of mankind's story on Earth. Not the origin of God and all matter in the unobservable universe and beyond.
Alternatives- Scientist Frank J. Tipler has used physics to create the Omega Point theory. It basically describes our universe as self sustaining in the sense that it was created by a singular point during the big bang, and it will terminate at a singular point (the omega point) during the big crunch. In his theory, that point will culminate in every piece of knowledge sustaining forever- ie resurrection- ie heaven. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Omega_Point_%28Tipler%29 I only link to wikipedia because it's the easiest description to read.
-
Yeah, but none of that stuff explains where the first thing originated from. That's the confusing part for me. I get everything else.
-
the concept of eternity is far more mind-boggling than how the universe started to me for some reason. It makes me physically ill thinking about the possibility of my soul floating around for "eternity".
-
the concept of eternity is far more mind-boggling than how the universe started to me for some reason. It makes me physically ill thinking about the possibility of my soul floating around for "eternity".
I've always thought this too. I've always tried to comprehend eternity and never quite got there.
-
the concept of eternity is far more mind-boggling than how the universe started to me for some reason. It makes me physically ill thinking about the possibility of my soul floating around for "eternity".
Yeah, but the eternity part is the part about the universe starting that I can't grasp. "it's always been there" isn't a valid answer for me. And, if it hasn't always been there then I need to know where it came from and "it came from nothing and a huge explosion made it something" is not a valid answer for me either. :dunno:
-
the concept of eternity is far more mind-boggling than how the universe started to me for some reason. It makes me physically ill thinking about the possibility of my soul floating around for "eternity".
Yeah, but the eternity part is the part about the universe starting that I can't grasp. "it's always been there" isn't a valid answer for me. And, if it hasn't always been there then I need to know where it came from and "it came from nothing and a huge explosion made it something" is not a valid answer for me either. :dunno:
We have basically the same questions, I'm just more self-absorbed than you. I can deal with a giant explosion at t=0, but how does it affect me?
-
the concept of eternity is far more mind-boggling than how the universe started to me for some reason. It makes me physically ill thinking about the possibility of my soul floating around for "eternity".
Yeah, but the eternity part is the part about the universe starting that I can't grasp. "it's always been there" isn't a valid answer for me. And, if it hasn't always been there then I need to know where it came from and "it came from nothing and a huge explosion made it something" is not a valid answer for me either. :dunno:
We have basically the same questions, I'm just more self-absorbed than you. I can deal with a giant explosion at t=0, but how does it affect me?
Dunno. I'm just really worried about not understanding stuff. Like, my biggest fear of not living forever is not being around to know about huge discoverys and stuff. Like, what if I died and the next day the trapped a Loch Ness Monster or something. That would be a huge kick in the junk. You know?
-
the concept of eternity is far more mind-boggling than how the universe started to me for some reason. It makes me physically ill thinking about the possibility of my soul floating around for "eternity".
Yeah, but the eternity part is the part about the universe starting that I can't grasp. "it's always been there" isn't a valid answer for me. And, if it hasn't always been there then I need to know where it came from and "it came from nothing and a huge explosion made it something" is not a valid answer for me either. :dunno:
Either something always was or something came from nothing.
Don't both of those violate laws and stuff?
I'm also unconvinced by the "infinite regression" explanations. It just strikes me as the scientific equivalent of "turtles all the way down", like replacing "god" with "time" to explain whatever we don't understand.
-
the concept of eternity is far more mind-boggling than how the universe started to me for some reason. It makes me physically ill thinking about the possibility of my soul floating around for "eternity".
Yeah, but the eternity part is the part about the universe starting that I can't grasp. "it's always been there" isn't a valid answer for me. And, if it hasn't always been there then I need to know where it came from and "it came from nothing and a huge explosion made it something" is not a valid answer for me either. :dunno:
http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/B000UP881S
Also, are you talking about "the universe" as in the universe we are in or are you including all parallel universes and all matter outside of our universe in there as well?
-
the concept of eternity is far more mind-boggling than how the universe started to me for some reason. It makes me physically ill thinking about the possibility of my soul floating around for "eternity".
Yeah, but the eternity part is the part about the universe starting that I can't grasp. "it's always been there" isn't a valid answer for me. And, if it hasn't always been there then I need to know where it came from and "it came from nothing and a huge explosion made it something" is not a valid answer for me either. :dunno:
Either something always was or something came from nothing.
Don't both of those violate laws and stuff?
I'm also unconvinced by the "infinite regression" explanations. It just strikes me as the scientific equivalent of "turtles all the way down", like replacing "god" with "time" to explain whatever we don't understand.
Yep. I mean, it almost has to be that our laws of physics are not valid anywhere else. Like we are just some podunk county that has our own laws of physics that don't apply at any of the infinate (< though this really won't apply anywhere else) other places out there that have completely different laws. So, time is like just another dimension and doesn't exist while some other dimension does that we can't comprehend because it doesn't exist in our existance. Plus, we could never know of it's existance because their physics and laws or whatever don't mesh with ours. I think I'm sounding like a crazy bum on a street corner rambling here but whatevs.
-
Somewhere in our ever expanding universe 'Clams is bleeding from his eyelids becauses he wants to respond to this thread so badly. :lurk:
-
Somewhere in our ever expanding universe 'Clams is bleeding from his eyelids becauses he wants to respond to this thread so badly. :lurk:
:in-n-out: <------should have named this emoticon 'clams. :banghead:
-
Pinto explains everything at the end of this vid
http://vids.myspace.com/index.cfm?fuseaction=vids.individual&videoid=38133499
-
Pinto explains everything at the end of this vid
http://vids.myspace.com/index.cfm?fuseaction=vids.individual&videoid=38133499
QFMFT !
:BigToke:
-
the concept of eternity is far more mind-boggling than how the universe started to me for some reason. It makes me physically ill thinking about the possibility of my soul floating around for "eternity".
Yeah, but the eternity part is the part about the universe starting that I can't grasp. "it's always been there" isn't a valid answer for me. And, if it hasn't always been there then I need to know where it came from and "it came from nothing and a huge explosion made it something" is not a valid answer for me either. :dunno:
Either something always was or something came from nothing.
Don't both of those violate laws and stuff?
I'm also unconvinced by the "infinite regression" explanations. It just strikes me as the scientific equivalent of "turtles all the way down", like replacing "god" with "time" to explain whatever we don't understand.
Yep. I mean, it almost has to be that our laws of physics are not valid anywhere else. Like we are just some podunk county that has our own laws of physics that don't apply at any of the infinate (< though this really won't apply anywhere else) other places out there that have completely different laws. So, time is like just another dimension and doesn't exist while some other dimension does that we can't comprehend because it doesn't exist in our existance. Plus, we could never know of it's existance because their physics and laws or whatever don't mesh with ours. I think I'm sounding like a crazy bum on a street corner rambling here but whatevs.
A step in the right direction is to realize that time IS just another dimension. When dealing in relativistic dynamics, you use a 4-vector (ct,-x,-y,-z) instead of the regular 3-vector (x,y,z). The whole idea is that space and time are not separate things, but one unified concept: space-time.
Both space and time manifested themselves at the moment of the Big Bang. The Big Bang wasn't an explosion into anything, but a rapid expansion of everything. In fact the Universe is still expanding. For the most part every galaxy in the Universe is rapidly accelerating from every other galaxy in the Universe.
As for the edge of the Universe, well when cosmologists talk about the size of the Universe they mean the size of the observable Universe (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Observable_universe), how far away can light reach us. The Universe at this point in time (IMHO) is expanding so rapidly that for all intents and purposes there is no edge, the "edge" is always moving away faster than the speed of light.
-
A step in the right direction is to realize that time IS just another dimension. When dealing in relativistic dynamics, you use a 4-vector (ct,-x,-y,-z) instead of the regular 3-vector (x,y,z).
Hmmm...We must look like a bunch of bumbling retards to advanced alien races then, what with our not being able to move around in time.
-
Im kinda curious about this....do scientists, physicists, and others of the sort go to church? or is that not something that goes well with their profession?
-
A step in the right direction is to realize that time IS just another dimension. When dealing in relativistic dynamics, you use a 4-vector (ct,-x,-y,-z) instead of the regular 3-vector (x,y,z).
Hmmm...We must look like a bunch of bumbling retards to advanced alien races then, what with our not being able to move around in time.
We do move in time! In fact one of the neat things about relativity is that that 4-vector I used about "position" well, it turns about to be invariant which is means that if you take something akin to its magnitude( ct^2 -x^2-y^2-z^2) it always stays the same value. As a consequence we are always moving through space-time at the speed of light, it just depends on in what direction (ct,x,y,z). When you are sitting still you are moving at the speed of in the direction of time. When you move through a space-coordinate you are moving through time slower since the magnitude of the 4 vector must stay the same. Imagine a right triangle, once side is your speed through time, the other is your speed through space, and the hypotenuse is your speed through space-time which must always equal c^2 (c=the speed of light). You make one side bigger, the other must get smaller to compensate. So the faster you go, the more time slows down for you. This has been experimentally shown with atomic clocks.
As for going backwards in time, well you would need to be able to go faster than the speed of light, which is unfortunately impossible.
-
Im kinda curious about this....do scientists, physicists, and others of the sort go to church? or is that not something that goes well with their profession?
Some do, some don't just like any other profession. One of the best physicists I personally know goes to church every Sunday. And you know what, no one in the physics community really cares one way or the other if you go or not. As long as your work is scientifically sound, you can worship the sun-god Ra and no one will say peep. (Over-generalization I am sure, you can find exceptions out there both ways I, but they are in the massive minority.)
-
A step in the right direction is to realize that time IS just another dimension. When dealing in relativistic dynamics, you use a 4-vector (ct,-x,-y,-z) instead of the regular 3-vector (x,y,z).
Hmmm...We must look like a bunch of bumbling retards to advanced alien races then, what with our not being able to move around in time.
We do move in time! In fact one of the neat things about relativity is that that 4-vector I used about "position" well, it turns about to be invariant which is means that if you take something akin to its magnitude( ct^2 -x^2-y^2-z^2) it always stays the same value. As a consequence we are always moving through space-time at the speed of light, it just depends on in what direction (ct,x,y,z). When you are sitting still you are moving at the speed of in the direction of time. When you move through a space-coordinate you are moving through time slower since the magnitude of the 4 vector must stay the same. Imagine a right triangle, once side is your speed through time, the other is your speed through space, and the hypotenuse is your speed through space-time which must always equal c^2 (c=the speed of light). You make one side bigger, the other must get smaller to compensate. So the faster you go, the more time slows down for you. This has been experimentally shown with atomic clocks.
As for going backwards in time, well you would need to be able to go faster than the speed of light, which is unfortunately impossible.
Yeah, Flight of the Navigator. I should have phrased it, "Not being able to move around in it very good or choose my direction".
-
Flight of the Navigator was a damn good movie. :popcorn:
All of our space research money should be devoted to making the next space shuttle look like this:
(http://dave.zfx.com/Scanner/nav4.gif)
-
Flight of the Navigator was a damn good movie. :popcorn:
YES. His nurse went to a Twisted Sister concert and he said, "Who's she?"
-
Take that New Coke!
-
A step in the right direction is to realize that time IS just another dimension. When dealing in relativistic dynamics, you use a 4-vector (ct,-x,-y,-z) instead of the regular 3-vector (x,y,z).
Hmmm...We must look like a bunch of bumbling retards to advanced alien races then, what with our not being able to move around in time.
We do move in time! In fact one of the neat things about relativity is that that 4-vector I used about "position" well, it turns about to be invariant which is means that if you take something akin to its magnitude( ct^2 -x^2-y^2-z^2) it always stays the same value. As a consequence we are always moving through space-time at the speed of light, it just depends on in what direction (ct,x,y,z). When you are sitting still you are moving at the speed of in the direction of time. When you move through a space-coordinate you are moving through time slower since the magnitude of the 4 vector must stay the same. Imagine a right triangle, once side is your speed through time, the other is your speed through space, and the hypotenuse is your speed through space-time which must always equal c^2 (c=the speed of light). You make one side bigger, the other must get smaller to compensate. So the faster you go, the more time slows down for you. This has been experimentally shown with atomic clocks.
As for going backwards in time, well you would need to be able to go faster than the speed of light, which is unfortunately impossible.
:eek: good stuff Chingy!
i like the idea of the universe as an expanding balloon.
-
do you think the whole going faster than the speed of light is always going to be impossible? what if humans are still around in 500 years or so... don't you think we'll have figured it out by then?
-
do you think the whole going faster than the speed of light is always going to be impossible? what if humans are still around in 500 years or so... don't you think we'll have figured it out by then?
Pretty much impossible to move locally through space-time faster than the speed of light.
BUT
It might be theoretically possible to move an effective distance greater than the speed of light allows by using wormholes or something that bends space-time. Very far fetched though and probably technologically impossible as well. :(
-
Very far fetched though and probably technologically impossible as well. :(
God you are a sh1tty scientist. Remind me not hire you to help with my wild experiments.
-
Very far fetched though and probably technologically impossible as well. :(
God you are a sh1tty scientist. Remind me not hire you to help with my wild experiments.
You'll be sorry when my race of atomic supermen are finished.
:angryMJ:
-
Im kinda curious about this....do scientists, physicists, and others of the sort go to church? or is that not something that goes well with their profession?
I always wondered why it's always science vs Christianity.
I mean, what is more divine that a thunderous explosion out of nothing and suddenly everything is created?
-
Pretty sure it is all like the last episode of Lost. 2 dudes are just playing a game with all of us and every time we just jack it up fighting over religion, territory, etc. Pretty soon we will blow this joint up and the 2 dudes will be all, "those stupid frackers did it again". Then it will start all over.
Hey, thanks for the spoiler &@#%face. I was going to rent the last season to get caught up.
:curse: :angry:
-
do you think the whole going faster than the speed of light is always going to be impossible? what if humans are still around in 500 years or so... don't you think we'll have figured it out by then?
Excellent point. What if some 1920's scientists had decided that you can't go faster than the speed of sound or microwave popcorn? And just given up like that telling all the other scientists, trust me dudes it can't be done.
-
do you think the whole going faster than the speed of light is always going to be impossible? what if humans are still around in 500 years or so... don't you think we'll have figured it out by then?
According to my bible, in the far future the humans will move to a new set of planets. After generations pass, the humans flee from the twelve colonies away from extinction in order to find earth. They have the ability to go faster than light with their FTL drives.
-
do you think the whole going faster than the speed of light is always going to be impossible? what if humans are still around in 500 years or so... don't you think we'll have figured it out by then?
According to my bible, in the far future the humans will move to a new set of planets. After generations pass, the humans flee from the twelve colonies away from extinction in order to find earth. They have the ability to go faster than light with their FTL drives.
What's really gotten into your head, mushrooms or scientologists
-
do you think the whole going faster than the speed of light is always going to be impossible? what if humans are still around in 500 years or so... don't you think we'll have figured it out by then?
Pretty much impossible to move locally through space-time faster than the speed of light.
BUT
It might be theoretically possible to move an effective distance greater than the speed of light allows by using wormholes or something that bends space-time. Very far fetched though and probably technologically impossible as well. :(
can nothing move FTL? what about Tachyons? (thanks Wiki) :)
-
Very far fetched though and probably technologically impossible as well. :(
God you are a sh1tty scientist. Remind me not hire you to help with my wild experiments.
You'll be sorry when my race of atomic supermen are finished.
:angryMJ:
LOL. If you really want to rub it in, just remind him that he'll be dead when your supermen go back in time and find a hidden land of dinosaurs.
The Universe at this point in time (IMHO) is expanding so rapidly that for all intents and purposes there is no edge, the "edge" is always moving away faster than the speed of light.
Maybe my memories are just all contextualized by that apt Navigator reference, but this makes me think of The Nothing from The Neverending Story. Which is even scarier than my previous creepy infinity nightmare.
-
do you think the whole going faster than the speed of light is always going to be impossible? what if humans are still around in 500 years or so... don't you think we'll have figured it out by then?
Pretty much impossible to move locally through space-time faster than the speed of light.
BUT
It might be theoretically possible to move an effective distance greater than the speed of light allows by using wormholes or something that bends space-time. Very far fetched though and probably technologically impossible as well. :(
can nothing move FTL? what about Tachyons? (thanks Wiki) :)
Interestingly enough tachyons can never go slower than the speed of light.
If they exist, they have imaginary mass. The existence of a tachyon would cause many many problems with the standard model. People have and are still looking for them I believe, but not very many of them.
-
Chingon, technically c can't be surpassed. Technically. I've always like the Star Trek theory of warp drive, where a "warp" bubble is created, around the ship, in which it is a different universe where the speed of light is far greater that 186,282 mps, allowing the ship to travel (still in the bubble) at speeds greater the the speed of light.
There is also a train of thought that implies that space, time and thought are all intertwined into the same reality. It would then be possible to travel faster than c, just be thinking it into existence. Very fun to consider, also.
-
Chingon, technically c can't be surpassed. Technically. I've always like the Star Trek theory of warp drive, where a "warp" bubble is created, around the ship, in which it is a different universe where the speed of light is far greater that 186,282 mps, allowing the ship to travel (still in the bubble) at speeds greater the the speed of light.
I like when they almost got thrown into the sand pit with tentacles coming out of it.
-
Chingon, technically c can't be surpassed. Technically. I've always like the Star Trek theory of warp drive, where a "warp" bubble is created, around the ship, in which it is a different universe where the speed of light is far greater that 186,282 mps, allowing the ship to travel (still in the bubble) at speeds greater the the speed of light.
I like when they almost got thrown into the sand pit with tentacles coming out of it.
i liked the ewoks in that star trek show. some people didn't. but i did.
-
Chingon, technically c can't be surpassed. Technically. I've always like the Star Trek theory of warp drive, where a "warp" bubble is created, around the ship, in which it is a different universe where the speed of light is far greater that 186,282 mps, allowing the ship to travel (still in the bubble) at speeds greater the the speed of light.
I like when they almost got thrown into the sand pit with tentacles coming out of it.
i liked the ewoks in that star trek show. some people didn't. but i did.
Are you talking about thundercats? Pretty sure you are fwiw.
-
Chingon, technically c can't be surpassed. Technically. I've always like the Star Trek theory of warp drive, where a "warp" bubble is created, around the ship, in which it is a different universe where the speed of light is far greater that 186,282 mps, allowing the ship to travel (still in the bubble) at speeds greater the the speed of light.
I like when they almost got thrown into the sand pit with tentacles coming out of it.
i liked the ewoks in that star trek show. some people didn't. but i did.
Are you talking about thundercats? Pretty sure you are fwiw.
lmao. i don't even know what thundercats are. i'm talking about star trek w/ ewoks and darth vader and that guy from the priceline commercials and the other guy w/ the big ears. s-t-a-r t-r-e-k.
-
Chingon, technically c can't be surpassed. Technically. I've always like the Star Trek theory of warp drive, where a "warp" bubble is created, around the ship, in which it is a different universe where the speed of light is far greater that 186,282 mps, allowing the ship to travel (still in the bubble) at speeds greater the the speed of light.
I like when they almost got thrown into the sand pit with tentacles coming out of it.
i liked the ewoks in that star trek show. some people didn't. but i did.
Are you talking about thundercats? Pretty sure you are fwiw.
lmao. i don't even know what thundercats are. i'm talking about star trek w/ ewoks and darth vader and that guy from the priceline commercials and the other guy w/ the big ears. s-t-a-r t-r-e-k.
Oh, thought you were talking about thundercats where the robot cats are driven by people and form up to make a giant robot guy.
EDIT: Nevermind, that's Snarf, not Ewok. Sorry.
-
Chingon, technically c can't be surpassed. Technically. I've always like the Star Trek theory of warp drive, where a "warp" bubble is created, around the ship, in which it is a different universe where the speed of light is far greater that 186,282 mps, allowing the ship to travel (still in the bubble) at speeds greater the the speed of light.
I like when they almost got thrown into the sand pit with tentacles coming out of it.
i liked the ewoks in that star trek show. some people didn't. but i did.
Tribbles:
(http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/a/af/STTroubleTrib.jpg)
[asking about the tribbles]
Capt. Kirk: Scott, you didn't transport them into space did you?
Scotty: Captain Kirk, that'd be inhuman.
Capt. Kirk: Well, where are they?
Scotty: I gave them a very good home, sir.
Capt. Kirk: WHERE?
Scotty: I gave 'em to the Klingons, sir.
Capt. Kirk: You gave them to the Klingons?
Scotty: Aye, sir. Before they went into warp, I transported the whole kit'n kaboodle into their engine room, where they'll be nay tribble at all.
-
Remember when the ewoks had their own movie with Wilford Brimley where they battled that huge green monster? Had that on a VHS tape from the ABC saturday night movie or whatever for years. Loved it. So terrible, but I loved it. Battle for Endor? (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=p_azNCfBB68&feature=related/)
-
Chingon, technically c can't be surpassed. Technically. I've always like the Star Trek theory of warp drive, where a "warp" bubble is created, around the ship, in which it is a different universe where the speed of light is far greater that 186,282 mps, allowing the ship to travel (still in the bubble) at speeds greater the the speed of light.
I like when they almost got thrown into the sand pit with tentacles coming out of it.
i liked the ewoks in that star trek show. some people didn't. but i did.
Are you talking about thundercats? Pretty sure you are fwiw.
lmao. i don't even know what thundercats are. i'm talking about star trek w/ ewoks and darth vader and that guy from the priceline commercials and the other guy w/ the big ears. s-t-a-r t-r-e-k.
You. Don't. Know. Thundercats...........?!?
The "Original Powercat"?
(http://i155.photobucket.com/albums/s313/jbleinweber/thundercats_logo.png)
-
(http://i155.photobucket.com/albums/s313/jbleinweber/thundercats.jpg)
-
more evidence that cops are on the bottom of the food chain.
-
more evidence that cops are on the bottom of the food chain.
:jblein:
-
(http://vanillabomb.files.wordpress.com/2008/04/voltron.jpg)
THUNDERCATS!
-
http://news.cnet.com/8301-13860_3-10286732-56.html?tag=rtcol;inTheNewsNow
-
Economist Review of "Much Ado About Nothing (http://www.economist.com/books/displaystory.cfm?story_id=13983232/) (kind of related)
DOES anything remain when everything is taken away?...Not only was matter created at that point, so too were the forces that govern it and the fields that they generate. Further, time itself burst forth. Where did all this stuff come from?...Stripped of all matter, forces and fields, would space and time exist?...
See? It starts interesting. Then you get this :'byecruelworld::
Mr Close surveys 3,000 years of thinking to arrive at the modern solution to the question of where everything came from. The answer is nothing. Why the universe is as it is remains an enigma to science.
-
LINK (http://www.popsci.com/science/article/2009-10/universe-end-sooner-previously-thought)
So, I understand the heat death concept. Pretty clear there. Really wish we could figure out where the heat came from in the first place.
-
http://www.nytimes.com/2009/10/13/science/space/13lhc.html?_r=1
Chings, thoughts? I'm not gonna lie, I'm really hoping this is true.
-
seems pretty dubious to me sd. The fact that it hasn't been published or submitted to be published is pretty damning.
-
seems pretty dubious to me sd. The fact that it hasn't been published or submitted to be published is pretty damning.
I'm completely ignorant of how these things work, but: Can you legitimately publish something about how people from the future are sabotaging the LHC?
-
seems pretty dubious to me sd. The fact that it hasn't been published or submitted to be published is pretty damning.
I'm completely ignorant of how these things work, but: Can you legitimately publish something about how people from the future are sabotaging the LHC?
You can sure as hell try...
But its pretty much fantasy, unless he has some way to test his "hypothesis". (Which I believe he might have mentioned).
The thing is he has no basis in the physics of the situation to even come up with his idea.
-
seems pretty dubious to me sd. The fact that it hasn't been published or submitted to be published is pretty damning.
I'm completely ignorant of how these things work, but: Can you legitimately publish something about how people from the future are sabotaging the LHC?
You can sure as hell try...
But its pretty much fantasy, unless he has some way to test his "hypothesis". (Which I believe he might have mentioned).
The thing is he has no basis in the physics of the situation to even come up with his idea.
Pretty awesome if it keeps happening though!
-
seems pretty dubious to me sd. The fact that it hasn't been published or submitted to be published is pretty damning.
I'm completely ignorant of how these things work, but: Can you legitimately publish something about how people from the future are sabotaging the LHC?
You can sure as hell try...
But its pretty much fantasy, unless he has some way to test his "hypothesis". (Which I believe he might have mentioned).
The thing is he has no basis in the physics of the situation to even come up with his idea.
Pretty awesome if it keeps happening though!
OMG! THANK YOU FOR SAVING US ONCE AGAIN FUTURE ME!
LINK (http://www.theregister.co.uk/2009/11/05/lhc_bread_bomb_dump_incident/)
-
The time travel stuff is just plain stupid. These LHC things have built with some regularity around the universe. It's how black holes are formed. Civilzations around the universe occasionally stumble on to this kind and thing and "POW," a black hole engulf them and their galaxy.
It's going to be interesting having a front row seat for the formation of ours!
-
The time travel stuff is just plain stupid. These LHC things have built with some regularity around the universe. It's how black holes are formed. Civilzations around the universe occasionally stumble on to this kind and thing and "POW," a black hole engulf them and their galaxy.
It's going to be interesting having a front row seat for the formation of ours!
It's in Europe. We'll prolly be asleep and miss it :frown:
-
The time travel stuff is just plain stupid. These LHC things have built with some regularity around the universe. It's how black holes are formed. Civilzations around the universe occasionally stumble on to this kind and thing and "POW," a black hole engulf them and their galaxy.
It's going to be interesting having a front row seat for the formation of ours!
It's in Europe. We'll prolly be asleep and miss it :frown:
That's the way to go dude. Die peacefully in your sleep from a black hole, like my grandfather did. RIP Papa Pete!
-
The time travel stuff is just plain stupid. These LHC things have built with some regularity around the universe. It's how black holes are formed. Civilzations around the universe occasionally stumble on to this kind and thing and "POW," a black hole engulf them and their galaxy.
It's going to be interesting having a front row seat for the formation of ours!
It's in Europe. We'll prolly be asleep and miss it :frown:
That's the way to go dude. Die peacefully in your sleep from a black hole, like my grandfather did. RIP Papa Pete!
Your gramps died in bed with an African-american prostitute?
-
The time travel stuff is just plain stupid. These LHC things have built with some regularity around the universe. It's how black holes are formed. Civilzations around the universe occasionally stumble on to this kind and thing and "POW," a black hole engulf them and their galaxy.
It's going to be interesting having a front row seat for the formation of ours!
It's in Europe. We'll prolly be asleep and miss it :frown:
They fired that &@#%er up. http://arstechnica.com/science/news/2009/11/large-hadron-collider-starts-up-produces-first-collisions.ars
Apparently at a "low" level. BORING!
WE WANT OUR BLACK HOLE!
-
You can all kiss your sweet scrotes goodbye if they throw that thing into ludicrous speed :ohno:
-
omg, how did i just discover this thread?
i look at this web site like every morning for a new picture. the pic today is crazy.
http://antwrp.gsfc.nasa.gov/apod/archivepix.html
which is your guys' favorite?
-
painting, or real?
(http://antwrp.gsfc.nasa.gov/apod/image/0911/saturnafterequinox_cassini_big.jpg)
it's real, bros! :excited:
-
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/eu_big_bang_machine
One step closer to our very own black hole! :dancin:
-
In order to create a black hole you need a lot mass...as in more than we have in the Earth.
-
If you continue to think of a black hole as an african-american prostitute, this thread is really getting interesting. :popcorn:
-
In order to create a black hole you need a lot mass...as in more than we have in the Earth.
not true
-
(http://img412.imageshack.us/img412/7360/saferedirectw.jpg)
-
(http://img73.imageshack.us/img73/4828/sashacopyfs9.jpg)
(http://img110.imageshack.us/img110/4875/darrellcopyhc9.gif)
-
Clams and Chum won't be making their jokes when the black hole happens. Better visit Europe this winter, 'cause that mother &@#%er is the epicenter for a black &@#%ing hole early next year. FACT.