RE: Universe may have billions more stars

RE: Universe may have billions more stars (Full Version)

All Forums >> [Community Discussions] >> Dungeon of Political and Religious Discussion

Message

Marc2b -> RE: Universe may have billions more stars (3/30/2010 12:49:30 PM)
quote: Just as I thought....we're all completely clueless and making up any old shit in order to sound interesting. I disagree. I think we're all completley clueless and make up any old shit in order to comfort ourselves that the universe makes sense. Sounding interesting is just a bonus.

Real0ne -> RE: Universe may have billions more stars (3/30/2010 12:52:40 PM)
everything that deals with matter and energy is a closed loop system big bang one way street theory is well funny as time travel. Think of a closed loop and you all will figger it out. maybe

popeye1250 -> RE: Universe may have billions more stars (3/30/2010 12:54:26 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: mnottertail quote: ORIGINAL: popeye1250 quote: ORIGINAL: mnottertail unfathomable, and irrelevant. back to einstein, it is unponderable. We can make 'tend, but will never know, it is outside of existance. Ron Not really. If the universe is expanding is it only in "one direction" or is it expanding in all directions? All directions, all the time, just like einstein says at the opening of relativity of light....because dont nothing happen for humans until there is ligh, so plug in that fuckin cord brother. Well then that would make the universe "round" or "oval" wouldn't it? And if someone asked you to draw a straight line on a brick wall surrounding the earth.....it would "appear" "straight" to you as you drew it. Just like if you drew a straight line and could project it out light years away it would always be curved. I don't think that "time" can be linear.

Marc2b -> RE: Universe may have billions more stars (3/30/2010 1:01:25 PM)
quote: "MA!!!! There's a galaxy in my soup!" (God as a little boy.) How God really created the universe: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ma9qekERW4c (sorry, the only one I could find was in German)

mnottertail -> RE: Universe may have billions more stars (3/30/2010 1:04:42 PM)
Time is sort of an artifact of our existance. It is a sense more than an actual dimension. Does a tree understand time? Or a dog? The only hitch in it being oval or round is that the universe is 'satistically' homogenous, but in fact, in certain regions is denser, in certain regions is sparse. Back to the big bang, if the point exploded, there is nothing to say that creation flung itself in a homogenous manner in all directions before it in fact 'existed'. current thinking is that it is saddled like a very fat polish sausage with the ends curled up. sorta an oval but not quite.

popeye1250 -> RE: Universe may have billions more stars (3/30/2010 1:22:42 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: mnottertail Time is sort of an artifact of our existance. It is a sense more than an actual dimension. Does a tree understand time? Or a dog? The only hitch in it being oval or round is that the universe is 'satistically' homogenous, but in fact, in certain regions is denser, in certain regions is sparse. Back to the big bang, if the point exploded, there is nothing to say that creation flung itself in a homogenous manner in all directions before it in fact 'existed'. current thinking is that it is saddled like a very fat polish sausage with the ends curled up. sorta an oval but not quite. That makes sense "if" the big bang only moved at the sol. That "sausage shape" would tell us that it didn't or not all parts did. And we know that "time" exists as we measure it all the time. I think Einstein said that it can be "warped." And if he recognised a warp in it then he was actually seeing a "change in direction" of time!!! If everything else in the universe is oval or spherical why would there be an "exception" for time?

Real0ne -> RE: Universe may have billions more stars (3/30/2010 1:33:30 PM)
time is nothing more than marks on a ruler. An abstract means of measurement. its consecutive intervals. Its sole and only purpose is to measure. Like marks on a ruler or scale. long story short time has no substance and you cannot travel without substance. time intervals alawys move forward never backward. There is no speed limit the energy in a tesla coil travels at 1.5 times the speed of light. as far as loosely saying the universe is oval, I would buy that, loosely speaking. think in terms of a double vortex

mnottertail -> RE: Universe may have billions more stars (3/30/2010 1:38:57 PM)
right off the bat, the milky way is not spherical. and there are irregular objects http://www.nmm.ac.uk/explore/astronomy-and-time/astronomy-facts/universe/galaxies We measure depth of emotion, and without sentient being there is none. we split up revolutions around the sun, and since we travel in an elliptical orbit (at the time -- LOL-- thought to be spherical, we made a clockface and using trig (the babylonians) who back in the day figured it at 360 divi ed up the clock like that. So the movement thru space and instantaneous position is time. There is a sidereal time and a solar time and --- well http://www.cv.nrao.edu/~rfisher/Ephemerides/times.html and time is not uniform. that is the whole gig about it being an artifact and the relativity theory (invariants theory as einstien would have it). So you are statistically measuring an experience or an explaination, not a real thing (near as we can tell) .

Real0ne -> RE: Universe may have billions more stars (3/30/2010 1:48:10 PM)
stiener used time as a fudge factor, yeh you can even make time logarithmic or exponential if you want and it would all fit the general definition of "curved" time. doesnt change the fact it is a purely abstract system of one way measurement. Thats not to say you cannot look backward and pick an interval and say at this interval this event happened.

thornhappy -> RE: Universe may have billions more stars (3/31/2010 8:38:41 PM)
Noooooo!! Not that!!!! Yup. [;)] quote: ORIGINAL: rulemylife quote: ORIGINAL: thornhappy I may regret it, but I got to hear on how there's no light speed limit. I didn't check your profile but you have to be a masochist.

thornhappy -> RE: Universe may have billions more stars (3/31/2010 8:42:55 PM)
One problem with string theory is that none of it's been proven experimentally. Right now it's a lot of interesting ideas and math. quote: ORIGINAL: Darkmike 10 dimensional superstring theory dictates that our universe is but one universe in an infinate sea of energy, with 10 to the power of 500 universes containing similar physical properties. And nothing that has positive mass can exceed the speed of light, however subatomic particles with zero mas have been shown to respond and behave at faster than light speed. In face the equation e=MC2 only applies to objects with mass and the larger an object is the more energy required to take it towards the speed of light and the further from the light threshold this onject can achieve. Eg the planet earth can theoretically approach 99.997% the speed of light and because of its mass time only travels 99.997% as fast on earth as in deep space. Therefore the larger something is, the slower it passes through time. Something that exists with enough energy and no mass can theoretically exist across space and time.

Real0ne -> RE: Universe may have billions more stars (4/1/2010 4:53:42 AM)
What does that have to do with the speed of light? temw run at the speed of light lemw run at 1.5 times the speed of light. there is no speed limit. Just like time travel, never happen ever never its all some shit house physicists wet dream. quote: ORIGINAL: thornhappy One problem with string theory is that none of it's been proven experimentally. Right now it's a lot of interesting ideas and math. quote: ORIGINAL: Darkmike 10 dimensional superstring theory dictates that our universe is but one universe in an infinate sea of energy, with 10 to the power of 500 universes containing similar physical properties. And nothing that has positive mass can exceed the speed of light, however subatomic particles with zero mas have been shown to respond and behave at faster than light speed. In face the equation e=MC2 only applies to objects with mass and the larger an object is the more energy required to take it towards the speed of light and the further from the light threshold this onject can achieve. Eg the planet earth can theoretically approach 99.997% the speed of light and because of its mass time only travels 99.997% as fast on earth as in deep space. Therefore the larger something is, the slower it passes through time. Something that exists with enough energy and no mass can theoretically exist across space and time.

Aneirin -> RE: Universe may have billions more stars (4/1/2010 6:07:51 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Brain Maybe God is out there after all? Universe may have billions more stars Astronomers have underestimated the number of galaxies in parts of the Universe by as much as 90 per cent, according to a study, suggesting billions of stars are yet to be recorded. By Alastair Jamieson Published: 10:18AM GMT 25 Mar 2010 Map-makers may have missed the galaxies because surveys of the cosmos are based on a reading of ultraviolet light. The study by scientists at the University of Geneva observatory, reported in the journal, Nature, says the survey method is a poor indicator of distant galaxies because the light can be blocked by clouds of dust and gas. Matthew Hayes, who led the study, said: “Astronomers always knew they were missing some fraction of the galaxies ... but for the first time we now have a measurement. The number of missed galaxies is substantial. "If there are 10 galaxies seen, there could be a hundred there.” His team compared used the world's most advanced optical instrument, Europe's Very Large Telescope (VLT) in Chile, which has four 8.2-metre (26.65-feet) behemoths – to study the universe using two different methods. They searched using the traditional Lyman-alpha test, named after its US discoverer, Theodore Lyman. Lyman-alpha is light released by hydrogen atoms. Then they searched for light on different wavelength and found many more sources of energy – indicating distant galaxies – that had not been spotted using the traditional technique. The study concluded that as much as 90 per cent of such distant galaxies may go unseen in traditional exercises. http://www.telegraph.co.uk/science/science-news/7519435/Universe-may-have-billions-more-stars.html The study concluded that as much as 90 per cent of distant galaxies may go unseen in traditional exercises Photo: NASA Hang on a moment, could this be yet another scientific excuse to fart about with things not really that much use to us, I mean, it is interesting I suppose, a little deviation in thought away from the mundanes of day to day life, but does this actually help day to day life of this planet's population ? I mean this report is strikingly similar to the reports we had a few months ago about global warming, a titbit thrown out to the world just in the hope they might think, 'That's so interesting, we just have to know what else is out there, how much more money do you need, infinite amounts, ok, sure, here's a blank cheque book, let us know if you need another one, as the world really is benefitting from all you intellects star gazing for a living.' I do think we have issues on this planet that are more demanding of intellectual thought and action than stuff that is not that of great use to us.

MstrPBK -> RE: Universe may have billions more stars (4/1/2010 6:29:10 AM)
(Although I take Astronomy seriously, ... Sorry could not resist) Should we ask Captain Kirk ... MstrPBK St. Paul, MN USA

Page: << < prev 1 2 3 [4]

Collarchat.com © 2025

Terms of Service

0.03125