Just...wow... page 1
devogue
11th January 2012, 10:25 AM
After the big bang the universe expanded by a factor of 1,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000 in 0.00000000000000000000000000000000001 second.
That's the equivalent of a coin one centimetre in diameter suddenly blowing up to ten million times the width of the Milky Way.
:owned:
That's the equivalent of a coin one centimetre in diameter suddenly blowing up to ten million times the width of the Milky Way.
:owned:
Magicziggy
11th January 2012, 11:03 AM
After the big bang the universe expanded by a factor of 1,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000 in 0.00000000000000000000000000000000001 second.
That's the equivalent of a coin one centimetre in diameter suddenly blowing up to ten million times the width of the Milky Way.
:owned:
isn't god amazing ... and all that time left over to take a well earned break on Sunday
That's the equivalent of a coin one centimetre in diameter suddenly blowing up to ten million times the width of the Milky Way.
:owned:
isn't god amazing ... and all that time left over to take a well earned break on Sunday
Adenosine
11th January 2012, 11:19 AM
lol.
I'm watching How The Universe Works at the moment. Interesting stuff. It's hard to get my head around just how big the Universe is.
I'm watching How The Universe Works at the moment. Interesting stuff. It's hard to get my head around just how big the Universe is.
nostrum
12th January 2012, 03:33 AM
OK what I've never understood is whether the expansion happened at the speed of light or not. Anyone?
devogue
12th January 2012, 04:11 AM
The speed of light didn't apply because the expansion prior to the normal fyzzxs of the universe existing. Or something.
Cunt
12th January 2012, 06:07 AM
After the big bang the universe expanded by a factor of 1,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000 in 0.00000000000000000000000000000000001 second.
That's the equivalent of a coin one centimetre in diameter suddenly blowing up to ten million times the width of the Milky Way.
:owned:
But isn't Planck time 10-43 seconds?
or 0.0000000000000000000000000000000000000000001?
Time to count a hundred million or more Plancks (though not by eye, of course)
Relatively slow, I'd say. Though it's an understandable mistake for someone from the southern hemisphere, what with the angular acceleration.
That's the equivalent of a coin one centimetre in diameter suddenly blowing up to ten million times the width of the Milky Way.
:owned:
But isn't Planck time 10-43 seconds?
or 0.0000000000000000000000000000000000000000001?
Time to count a hundred million or more Plancks (though not by eye, of course)
Relatively slow, I'd say. Though it's an understandable mistake for someone from the southern hemisphere, what with the angular acceleration.
nostrum
12th January 2012, 06:09 AM
:hehe:
ashley
14th January 2012, 11:40 PM
OK what I've never understood is whether the expansion happened at the speed of light or not. Anyone?
You can't measure an expansion rate as a speed. You can give it as a period (e.g. how long it takes for distances between things to double) or a frequency (how many times do they double per second). Think of it like the rate at which a video camera zooms in. You cannot say it zooms in at 3 m/s; that just doesn't make sense.
Also, the expansion hasn't stopped happening.
You can't measure an expansion rate as a speed. You can give it as a period (e.g. how long it takes for distances between things to double) or a frequency (how many times do they double per second). Think of it like the rate at which a video camera zooms in. You cannot say it zooms in at 3 m/s; that just doesn't make sense.
Also, the expansion hasn't stopped happening.
Cunt
15th January 2012, 12:03 AM
Is gravity travelling (propagating?) at the speed of light? If so, can we send nudie pics via gravitic communication?
devogue
15th January 2012, 12:17 AM
OK what I've never understood is whether the expansion happened at the speed of light or not. Anyone?
You can't measure an expansion rate as a speed. You can give it as a period (e.g. how long it takes for distances between things to double) or a frequency (how many times do they double per second). Think of it like the rate at which a video camera zooms in. You cannot say it zooms in at 3 m/s; that just doesn't make sense.
Also, the expansion hasn't stopped happening.
Good job it's not the Irish doing the expansion. With all the fucking tea breaks the universe would get nowhere.
You can't measure an expansion rate as a speed. You can give it as a period (e.g. how long it takes for distances between things to double) or a frequency (how many times do they double per second). Think of it like the rate at which a video camera zooms in. You cannot say it zooms in at 3 m/s; that just doesn't make sense.
Also, the expansion hasn't stopped happening.
Good job it's not the Irish doing the expansion. With all the fucking tea breaks the universe would get nowhere.
Exi5tentialist
15th January 2012, 12:33 AM
Time and distance are human constructs. The indifference of the universe to our conceptions of its first second is all around us. In the universe, everything happens simultaneously and in the same place, showing complete disrespect to the co-ordinates we have plotted to describe it. Our inability to comprehend this is a barrier to our understanding it.
Jerome
15th January 2012, 01:44 AM
After the big bang the universe expanded by a factor of 1,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000 in 0.00000000000000000000000000000000001 second.
That's the equivalent of a coin one centimetre in diameter suddenly blowing up to ten million times the width of the Milky Way.
lol that didn't happen.
That's the equivalent of a coin one centimetre in diameter suddenly blowing up to ten million times the width of the Milky Way.
lol that didn't happen.
ConvolutedLogic
15th January 2012, 02:26 AM
Space-time expands as the universe expands, therefore the speed of light is constant. Like the the dots painted on a balloon when it expands. Well, that's the model until someone comes up with something better.
Adenosine
15th January 2012, 02:29 AM
You know what ties my brain in knots? What is the Universe expanding into?
ConvolutedLogic
15th January 2012, 02:40 AM
Jello probably :dunno:
nostrum
15th January 2012, 02:53 AM
Space-time expands as the universe expands, therefore the speed of light is constant. Like the the dots painted on a balloon when it expands. Well, that's the model until someone comes up with something better.
Ow... that hurts my head.
Even moreso than looking at your avatar
Ow... that hurts my head.
Even moreso than looking at your avatar
nostrum
15th January 2012, 02:54 AM
You know what ties my brain in knots? What is the Universe expanding into?
Yeah, that one is bad... and then there's the string theorists with their 'branes :twitch:
Yeah, that one is bad... and then there's the string theorists with their 'branes :twitch:
ConvolutedLogic
15th January 2012, 02:56 AM
Space-time expands as the universe expands, therefore the speed of light is constant. Like the the dots painted on a balloon when it expands. Well, that's the model until someone comes up with something better.
Ow... that hurts my head.
Even moreso than looking at your avatar
IRL I am not that physically flexible! :no:
Unfortunately nature does not seem to respond to our wishes about "ease of understanding".
Ow... that hurts my head.
Even moreso than looking at your avatar
IRL I am not that physically flexible! :no:
Unfortunately nature does not seem to respond to our wishes about "ease of understanding".
Magicziggy
15th January 2012, 03:07 AM
Since I don't understand string theory, I think a theory which I can understand is in order.
I shall call it vacuum cleaner theory.
Imagine if you will... A vacuum cleaner... Turned on itself....
Mmmm... Needs work
I shall call it vacuum cleaner theory.
Imagine if you will... A vacuum cleaner... Turned on itself....
Mmmm... Needs work
ConvolutedLogic
15th January 2012, 03:13 AM
Since I don't understand string theory, I think a theory which I can understand is in order.
I shall call it vacuum cleaner theory.
Imagine if you will... A vacuum cleaner... Turned on itself....
Mmmm... Needs work
A bit like the snake eating itself? Sound like something I read in one of physicist John Barrow's popular books. A rather misleading description of the "observer principle" really. "Interactor" would be a better term because "observer implies a sentience, and hence the "strong anthropic principle" which tends towards bullshit, IMHO. :]
I shall call it vacuum cleaner theory.
Imagine if you will... A vacuum cleaner... Turned on itself....
Mmmm... Needs work
A bit like the snake eating itself? Sound like something I read in one of physicist John Barrow's popular books. A rather misleading description of the "observer principle" really. "Interactor" would be a better term because "observer implies a sentience, and hence the "strong anthropic principle" which tends towards bullshit, IMHO. :]
Zigmen
15th January 2012, 05:14 AM
Is gravity travelling (propagating?) at the speed of light? If so, can we send nudie pics via gravitic communication?
Yup. Gravity moves at the speed of light.
And while "things" seem to be limited by that speed-limit, actions are not always subject to the laws.
For example, if you had really big scissors, you could snap them shut and the point of "closing" would move down the blades faster than the blades actually moved so, theoretically, the closing action of the scissors could move faster than light.
Yup. Gravity moves at the speed of light.
And while "things" seem to be limited by that speed-limit, actions are not always subject to the laws.
For example, if you had really big scissors, you could snap them shut and the point of "closing" would move down the blades faster than the blades actually moved so, theoretically, the closing action of the scissors could move faster than light.
Magicziggy
15th January 2012, 05:22 AM
Scissor theory....
Big Scissor Theory ....
I can see how this might tie in with String Theory.
At the moment... Zigmen's BST has proved faster than light speed is possible, which is already a step up from my VCT... Which ... let's be honest... proved nothing.
Big Scissor Theory ....
I can see how this might tie in with String Theory.
At the moment... Zigmen's BST has proved faster than light speed is possible, which is already a step up from my VCT... Which ... let's be honest... proved nothing.
Zigmen
15th January 2012, 05:28 AM
Thanks MZ.
And, we're both nicknamed "Zig," have kitty avatars, and can explain faster-than-light anomolies.
I smell a sock.
And, we're both nicknamed "Zig," have kitty avatars, and can explain faster-than-light anomolies.
I smell a sock.
ConvolutedLogic
15th January 2012, 05:30 AM
Is gravity travelling (propagating?) at the speed of light? If so, can we send nudie pics via gravitic communication?
Yup. Gravity moves at the speed of light.
And while "things" seem to be limited by that speed-limit, actions are not always subject to the laws.
For example, if you had really big scissors, you could snap them shut and the point of "closing" would move down the blades faster than the blades actually moved so, theoretically, the closing action of the scissors could move faster than light.
Not quite right. The scissors would have to be massless, and then they would not be able to cut. :] As you tried to close the scissors faster and faster, the energy required would multiply. [E=MC2]
If you are massless, of course, the you are free to travel at any speed you like. [In theory at least]. You would be unlikley to violate causality because as a masslesss object, you would have little, perhaps zero ability to interact with the rest of the [known] universe.
Yup. Gravity moves at the speed of light.
And while "things" seem to be limited by that speed-limit, actions are not always subject to the laws.
For example, if you had really big scissors, you could snap them shut and the point of "closing" would move down the blades faster than the blades actually moved so, theoretically, the closing action of the scissors could move faster than light.
Not quite right. The scissors would have to be massless, and then they would not be able to cut. :] As you tried to close the scissors faster and faster, the energy required would multiply. [E=MC2]
If you are massless, of course, the you are free to travel at any speed you like. [In theory at least]. You would be unlikley to violate causality because as a masslesss object, you would have little, perhaps zero ability to interact with the rest of the [known] universe.
Magicziggy
15th January 2012, 05:32 AM
Thanks MZ.
And, we're both nicknamed "Zig," have kitty avatars, and can explain faster-than-light anomolies.
I smell a sock.
I'll be yours. Sorted.
And, we're both nicknamed "Zig," have kitty avatars, and can explain faster-than-light anomolies.
I smell a sock.
I'll be yours. Sorted.
Zigmen
15th January 2012, 05:39 AM
Is gravity travelling (propagating?) at the speed of light? If so, can we send nudie pics via gravitic communication?
Yup. Gravity moves at the speed of light.
And while "things" seem to be limited by that speed-limit, actions are not always subject to the laws.
For example, if you had really big scissors, you could snap them shut and the point of "closing" would move down the blades faster than the blades actually moved so, theoretically, the closing action of the scissors could move faster than light.
Not quite right. The scissors would have to be massless, and then they would not be able to cut. :] As you tried to close the scissors faster and faster, the energy required would multiply. [E=MC2]
If you are massless, of course, the you are free to travel at any speed you like. [In theory at least]. You would be unlikley to violate causality because as a masslesss object, you would have little, perhaps zero ability to interact with the rest of the [known] universe.
At no time would either blade be moving the speed of light. They wouldn't need to even come close to it.
As the angle between the blades approaches 0 degress, the velocity of the "point of closing" of the blades would be the combined speed of the blades multiplied by a factor approaching infinity.
If the angle were 0 degrees, the "point of closing" would be instantaneous across the entire length of the blades.
At .00000000001 degrees, I could move the "point of closing" down the blades at faster than the speed of light with my bare hands as the only energy required to initiate the movement.
Yup. Gravity moves at the speed of light.
And while "things" seem to be limited by that speed-limit, actions are not always subject to the laws.
For example, if you had really big scissors, you could snap them shut and the point of "closing" would move down the blades faster than the blades actually moved so, theoretically, the closing action of the scissors could move faster than light.
Not quite right. The scissors would have to be massless, and then they would not be able to cut. :] As you tried to close the scissors faster and faster, the energy required would multiply. [E=MC2]
If you are massless, of course, the you are free to travel at any speed you like. [In theory at least]. You would be unlikley to violate causality because as a masslesss object, you would have little, perhaps zero ability to interact with the rest of the [known] universe.
At no time would either blade be moving the speed of light. They wouldn't need to even come close to it.
As the angle between the blades approaches 0 degress, the velocity of the "point of closing" of the blades would be the combined speed of the blades multiplied by a factor approaching infinity.
If the angle were 0 degrees, the "point of closing" would be instantaneous across the entire length of the blades.
At .00000000001 degrees, I could move the "point of closing" down the blades at faster than the speed of light with my bare hands as the only energy required to initiate the movement.
nostrum
15th January 2012, 05:42 AM
:munch:
Hermit
17th January 2012, 12:11 PM
As the angle between the blades approaches 0 degress, the velocity of the "point of closing" of the blades would be the combined speed of the blades multiplied by a factor approaching infinity.
If the angle were 0 degrees, the "point of closing" would be instantaneous across the entire length of the blades.
At .00000000001 degrees, I could move the "point of closing" down the blades at faster than the speed of light with my bare hands as the only energy required to initiate the movement.The "point of closing" might just move faster than light, but the velocity of that point does not constitute a mass travelling faster than light.
Anyway, it's all bullshit. The very concept of physical movement has been comprehensively debunked by Zeno of Elea almost two and a half millennia ago, so there. http://i186.photobucket.com/albums/x59/Hermit_graphics/Smileys/1838c78d.gif
If the angle were 0 degrees, the "point of closing" would be instantaneous across the entire length of the blades.
At .00000000001 degrees, I could move the "point of closing" down the blades at faster than the speed of light with my bare hands as the only energy required to initiate the movement.The "point of closing" might just move faster than light, but the velocity of that point does not constitute a mass travelling faster than light.
Anyway, it's all bullshit. The very concept of physical movement has been comprehensively debunked by Zeno of Elea almost two and a half millennia ago, so there. http://i186.photobucket.com/albums/x59/Hermit_graphics/Smileys/1838c78d.gif
Jerome
17th January 2012, 12:29 PM
Yup. Gravity moves at the speed of light.
Gravity doesn't move at all, it is a force.
Gravity doesn't move at all, it is a force.
Cunt
17th January 2012, 02:20 PM
Yup. Gravity moves at the speed of light.
Gravity doesn't move at all, it is a force.
okay, but if a mass is started at point a, is it felt at point b (3.0x10 to-the-8th meters away), a second later? Orinstantly?
Gravity doesn't move at all, it is a force.
okay, but if a mass is started at point a, is it felt at point b (3.0x10 to-the-8th meters away), a second later? Orinstantly?
Adenosine
18th January 2012, 11:21 AM
I was watching a doco on multiple dimensions and the dude that came up with M-Theory said that the reason gravity is so weak is because it's leaking in from the 11th dimension.
And that everything is connected by a membrane that is 5 nanometres across and infinitely long. Blows my mind.
And that everything is connected by a membrane that is 5 nanometres across and infinitely long. Blows my mind.
devogue
18th January 2012, 11:28 AM
I was watching a doco on multiple dimensions and the dude that came up with M-Theory said that the reason gravity is so weak is because it's leaking in from the 11th dimension.
I've heard that, but I've never understood how gravity "leaked". I thought gravity was more of a consequence of the effect of mass on space-time rather than a phenomenon in its own right, which is what "leakage" suggests.
:rainbowhurl:
I've heard that, but I've never understood how gravity "leaked". I thought gravity was more of a consequence of the effect of mass on space-time rather than a phenomenon in its own right, which is what "leakage" suggests.
:rainbowhurl:
Adenosine
18th January 2012, 11:45 AM
If I had to guess, and I don't but I will, I'd say it's a property of the other dimensions and their intertwinedness with our standard four dimensions. There's YouTube videos on the multiple dimensions. I recommend watching them. Maybe drunk.
devogue
18th January 2012, 11:49 AM
If I had to guess, and I don't but I will, I'd say it's a property of the other dimensions and their intertwinedness with our standard four dimensions. There's YouTube videos on the multiple dimensions. I recommend watching them. Maybe drunk.
Can't be any more incomprehensible than multiple orgasms.
Can't be any more incomprehensible than multiple orgasms.
Adenosine
18th January 2012, 11:52 AM
Anyway, got off topic. So there's a force that is strong in one dimension, a dimension that is entwined with what we feel and see, so strong that it "pushes" into ours. Makes me wonder what is pushing from our dimensions into the other ones.
Adenosine
18th January 2012, 11:53 AM
If I had to guess, and I don't but I will, I'd say it's a property of the other dimensions and their intertwinedness with our standard four dimensions. There's YouTube videos on the multiple dimensions. I recommend watching them. Maybe drunk.
Can't be any more incomprehensible than multiple orgasms.
:hmmm:
Can't be any more incomprehensible than multiple orgasms.
:hmmm:
MartinM
26th January 2012, 06:44 AM
At .00000000001 degrees, I could move the "point of closing" down the blades at faster than the speed of light with my bare hands as the only energy required to initiate the movement.
It's not immediately obvious that you could, actually. Bear in mind that, while the speed the 'point of closing' travels at is not bounded by c, the speed at which the force you apply propagates down the blades is. So if the blades are one light-second long, the tips won't even start moving until at least a second after you start applying a force to the handles. Possibly if the time taken to close the blades is much greater than the propagation time, internal forces due to the deformation of the blades will even things out, though. I haven't thought it through in any great detail yet.
It's not immediately obvious that you could, actually. Bear in mind that, while the speed the 'point of closing' travels at is not bounded by c, the speed at which the force you apply propagates down the blades is. So if the blades are one light-second long, the tips won't even start moving until at least a second after you start applying a force to the handles. Possibly if the time taken to close the blades is much greater than the propagation time, internal forces due to the deformation of the blades will even things out, though. I haven't thought it through in any great detail yet.
Hermit
29th January 2012, 07:12 AM
Anyway, got off topic. So there's a force that is strong in one dimension, a dimension that is entwined with what we feel and see, so strong that it "pushes" into ours. Makes me wonder what is pushing from our dimensions into the other ones.That would have to be the FTP (force of the tabloid press). Tabloid journalism is omnipresent and omnipotent, and that is a scientific fact! It is also demonstrable via modal logic. Alvin Plantinga was almost spot on when he used it to prove that if a god may exist, he does exist. For some inexplicable reason he just missed out on going one step further: "If anything may exist, it does exist."
MSG
29th January 2012, 07:49 AM
Scissor theory....
Big Scissor Theory ....
I can see how this might tie in with String Theory.
At the moment... Zigmen's BST has proved faster than light speed is possible, which is already a step up from my VCT... Which ... let's be honest... proved nothing.
Hmm. I think BST is a pretty appropriate acronym for some of the ideas in this thread...
Big Scissor Theory ....
I can see how this might tie in with String Theory.
At the moment... Zigmen's BST has proved faster than light speed is possible, which is already a step up from my VCT... Which ... let's be honest... proved nothing.
Hmm. I think BST is a pretty appropriate acronym for some of the ideas in this thread...
PermanentlyEphemeral
29th January 2012, 05:39 PM
Is gravity travelling (propagating?) at the speed of light? If so, can we send nudie pics via gravitic communication?
Yup. Gravity moves at the speed of light.
And while "things" seem to be limited by that speed-limit, actions are not always subject to the laws.
For example, if you had really big scissors, you could snap them shut and the point of "closing" would move down the blades faster than the blades actually moved so, theoretically, the closing action of the scissors could move faster than light.
Not quite right. The scissors would have to be massless, and then they would not be able to cut. :] As you tried to close the scissors faster and faster, the energy required would multiply. [E=MC2]
If you are massless, of course, the you are free to travel at any speed you like. [In theory at least]. You would be unlikley to violate causality because as a masslesss object, you would have little, perhaps zero ability to interact with the rest of the [known] universe.
At no time would either blade be moving the speed of light. They wouldn't need to even come close to it.
As the angle between the blades approaches 0 degress, the velocity of the "point of closing" of the blades would be the combined speed of the blades multiplied by a factor approaching infinity.
If the angle were 0 degrees, the "point of closing" would be instantaneous across the entire length of the blades.
At .00000000001 degrees, I could move the "point of closing" down the blades at faster than the speed of light with my bare hands as the only energy required to initiate the movement.
Nope
The "closing" wouldn't be able to propagate down the blades fast enough.
Think not of scissors but of two bars. You are thinking that if you put the two bars together they close simultaneously along the entire length.
Nope the movement of the bars can only propagate at the speed of light.
You can't affect the blades at a given distance from you faster than the speed of light.
Yup. Gravity moves at the speed of light.
And while "things" seem to be limited by that speed-limit, actions are not always subject to the laws.
For example, if you had really big scissors, you could snap them shut and the point of "closing" would move down the blades faster than the blades actually moved so, theoretically, the closing action of the scissors could move faster than light.
Not quite right. The scissors would have to be massless, and then they would not be able to cut. :] As you tried to close the scissors faster and faster, the energy required would multiply. [E=MC2]
If you are massless, of course, the you are free to travel at any speed you like. [In theory at least]. You would be unlikley to violate causality because as a masslesss object, you would have little, perhaps zero ability to interact with the rest of the [known] universe.
At no time would either blade be moving the speed of light. They wouldn't need to even come close to it.
As the angle between the blades approaches 0 degress, the velocity of the "point of closing" of the blades would be the combined speed of the blades multiplied by a factor approaching infinity.
If the angle were 0 degrees, the "point of closing" would be instantaneous across the entire length of the blades.
At .00000000001 degrees, I could move the "point of closing" down the blades at faster than the speed of light with my bare hands as the only energy required to initiate the movement.
Nope
The "closing" wouldn't be able to propagate down the blades fast enough.
Think not of scissors but of two bars. You are thinking that if you put the two bars together they close simultaneously along the entire length.
Nope the movement of the bars can only propagate at the speed of light.
You can't affect the blades at a given distance from you faster than the speed of light.
Mysturji
2nd February 2012, 04:01 PM
lol.
I'm watching How The Universe Works at the moment. Interesting stuff. It's hard to get my head around just how big the Universe is.
Oh! So that's how your head got to be that funny shape.
I'm watching How The Universe Works at the moment. Interesting stuff. It's hard to get my head around just how big the Universe is.
Oh! So that's how your head got to be that funny shape.
Adenosine
25th February 2012, 12:13 PM
Relevant.
Ten dimensions explained.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=8Q_GQqUg6Ts
Now, someone explain it to me.
Ten dimensions explained.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=8Q_GQqUg6Ts
Now, someone explain it to me.
Gallstones
26th February 2012, 07:17 AM
The minuteness of space and the vastness of space and time are utterly fascinating. Like wow man.
Nhận xét
Đăng nhận xét