JDS Posted September 29, 2007 Report Posted September 29, 2007 how can you contridict the theory's of other people by using theory's of your own also how can you justify yourself by calling us kids when you constantly use '!@#$%^&*' 'fat !@#$%^&*' 'god !@#$%^&*' as i would suspect your casual lingo
Bak Posted September 29, 2007 Report Posted September 29, 2007 in a universe that is infinite, there is no such thing as empty, nor full, words that describe size, distance, and time are completly useless when explaining the universe. you're right, although I meant the observable universe... certainly you don't expect that just beyond what we can see in the universe is a wall of stars making going beyond them impossible. Also, if the volume is infinite (and the m!@#$%^&* is finite), the average density of the universe becomes zero, again, ruling out your theory that we can't avoid all the black holes that will get in our path. So with your theory that volume is infinite, the universe is very empty.
masscarnage Posted September 29, 2007 Report Posted September 29, 2007 (edited) in a universe that is infinite, there is no such thing as empty, nor full, words that describe size, distance, and time are completly useless when explaining the universe. !@#$%^&* sakes you god !@#$%^&* kids thats false i saw on the discovery channel i believe that scientists have found big spots in space that are in fact completely empty no galaxies no dark matter no black holes oh and smarties when people have these kinds of discussions its more about hypothesising then actually trying to get places your hostility is so unneeded Edited September 29, 2007 by masscarnage
ThunderJam Posted September 29, 2007 Author Report Posted September 29, 2007 in a universe that is infinite, there is no such thing as empty, nor full, words that describe size, distance, and time are completly useless when explaining the universe. !@#$%^&* sakes you god !@#$%^&* kidsWho the heck said it is infinite? I'm pretty sure it's scientifically accepted that the universe has been expanding since the time of the big bang. Expanding would imply that at some point, there a place where the universe hasn't expanded into yet. Hence, our discussion moron.
Smarties Posted September 29, 2007 Report Posted September 29, 2007 there is no proof that the universe is expanding, and if so theres no proof of what speed/distance its traveling at, and if it will turn into the big crunch or big rip theory
Bak Posted September 29, 2007 Report Posted September 29, 2007 you are speaking completely out of your !@#$%^&* smarties. please stop.
rootbear75 Posted September 29, 2007 Report Posted September 29, 2007 (edited) you are speaking completely out of your !@#$%^&* smarties. please stop.you arent the only one who is asking EDIT: only smarties can come into a topic and be instantly hated by everyone posting Edited September 29, 2007 by rootbear75
ThunderJam Posted September 29, 2007 Author Report Posted September 29, 2007 (edited) there is no proof that the universe is expanding, and if so theres no proof of what speed/distance its traveling at, and if it will turn into the big crunch or big rip theoryUhm, I believe its called.. light from distant stars is "red-shifted." Something to do with how the light bends throught the spectrum or something because of the expansion of the distance it's traveling to earth. Can't exactly remember, look it up. Oh and aren't the you the person there was a big anti-ds thread about... If i didn't think you were dumb after that, I do now. Edited September 29, 2007 by ThunderJam
JDS Posted September 30, 2007 Report Posted September 30, 2007 smarties: hated in world forum, spam forum, forum games forum esc q irl if i were u..
SeVeR Posted September 30, 2007 Report Posted September 30, 2007 Red-shift happens when an object is moving away from you at a significant fraction of the speed of light. When a light wave loses energy it gets "redder" meaning the length of it's waves gets longer (longer wavelength). If an emitting object is moving away from you then those light-waves will be emitted at times similar to the typical time for the wave to move through one wave-length of distance. Thus the movement of the emitting object away from the observer causes the wavelength to get longer. A typical example: Have you ever wondered why an approaching car sounds higher when it's coming towards you and lower when it's going away? (Neeeeee-urghhhhhhh)It's because the sound is blue-shifted when it's coming towards you and red-shifted when it's moving away. The red-shift is one way in which we can judge the expansion rate of the universe. Spectroscopy allows us to identify the elements present in distant stars, and the amount of red-shift in the spectrum tells us how quickly the star is moving away from us.
rootbear75 Posted September 30, 2007 Report Posted September 30, 2007 (edited) Thats actually called the Doppler Effect Edited September 30, 2007 by rootbear75
SeVeR Posted September 30, 2007 Report Posted September 30, 2007 Yes, it's the same thing. From the wiki page: "The Doppler effect for electromagnetic waves such as light, is of great use in astronomy, and results in either a so-called redshift or blueshift."
Bak Posted September 30, 2007 Report Posted September 30, 2007 although i don't think one would say that sound can get red-shifted... the point is the same though.
The Real Picard Posted October 1, 2007 Report Posted October 1, 2007 I get all the answers I need from The Bible. Doesn't make me perfect, never will, but it does answer all of my questions about life, the world, past, present and future. Nuff said.
rootbear75 Posted October 1, 2007 Report Posted October 1, 2007 not all of those answers are true though
SeVeR Posted October 1, 2007 Report Posted October 1, 2007 Some people just need answers for the sake of having answers.
rootbear75 Posted October 1, 2007 Report Posted October 1, 2007 Some people just need answers for the sake of having answers.which is what most religions go on.
all_shall_perish Posted October 1, 2007 Report Posted October 1, 2007 Anyway was reading sections of a book called Time Peace during the past few days. My mom knows the author, apparently they were good friends a long time ago, but anyway, had a copy of this book layign around (it came out in the last year) so I decided I'd flip through some of it considering it was short. As for the accuracy of some of the author's scientific statements... i donno, but heres what she said anyway.As per Einstein's relativity and E=mc2 the closer you get to the speed of light, m!@#$%^&* actually enlarges. Supposable when a subatomic particle was accelerated to 99.9999% the speed of light by scientists, it enlarged to 430 times its original mass Also, the closer you are to the speed of light, the slower times goes by for you. She says that (not sure about this) at the speed of light, time no longer affects you. Maybe this is why we can never seem to reach that speed. Maybe it is the nature of time, that we can not cease to experience it, it must exist, if only to the smallest degree. With it being established that at the speed of light time no longer functions, consider the following: God has often been portrayed as or in light. In the Bible when Saul had his confrontation with God (And became the apostle Paul) he said he simply saw blinding light and heard God's voice speak to him. Daniel wrote "He knows what lies in darkness, and light dwells with him." In the new testament Jesus took Peter, james, and john to a mountain, "There he was transfigured before them. His face shone like the sun, and his clothes became as white as the light." If God is indeed the being who reigns forever and who is outside of our constrictions of time, could God to some degree be light? I thought that was kind of interesting. I didn't know what to make of it, I obviously don't think that every beam of light coming to me from the sun is God, but the nature of the two things coincides very interestingly. Mostly just some clarifications i feel should be made. first off is that E=mc^2 isn't directly responsible for deducing m!@#$%^&* becomes infinite, although the equations are derived from E=mc^2, it has more to do with relativistic mass I'm not sure whether you mean 99.99999% or 99.99999% (repeating decimal). In the case of the latter, the repeating decimal is actually equivalent to 100%, which would mean the m!@#$%^&* became "inifinite" or in reality, 0. In the case of the former, the magnitude of increase in size would be much much much much larger than 430 considering the limit of relativistic m!@#$%^&* is divergent. That being said, I question the sources which were used to form your original proposition(s). There are also two major theories of what time really is. The most popular is that of Newtonian-time which says that time is a fundamental construct of the universe, and events must happen in a sequential order. This theory also states that time is a measurable quan!@#$%^&*y.The second major theory is that time is simply a construct made by man which attempts to quantify the duration of events, but in reality is entirely relativistic and immeasurable without context. I myself believe more readily in the latter. When approaching fractions of the speed of light, it cannot really be said that time slows down for you. Time "moves" at the exact same rate as before you were put into motion. If you were to travel at the speed of light for you entire life, you would experience no difference in lifetime. The idea of time "slowing down" is also entirely relativistic. Time only slows down in an observers eyes, or, they would only see the difference if they were not traveling at the same rate. If both you and the observer died on the same day and lived to be years old, you would have both lived years of what we know as "time". However, from your point of view, the observer was only alive for a small fraction of your life. From the observers point of view, you lived much longer.
Recommended Posts