View Full Version : [OT] Weird Universe...
8|
http://antwrp.gsfc.nasa.gov/apod/ap060807.html
http://i73.photobucket.com/albums/i213/neosigs/sunprom_soho.jpg
Now yeah that's a bit humbling... but then again...
http://antwrp.gsfc.nasa.gov/apod/ap051004.html
EACH dot in this picture is just like the above. Feckin' hell I feel so tiny!
http://i73.photobucket.com/albums/i213/neosigs/allskymilkyway_brunier.jpg
Dribble Joy
10-08-06, 02:51
On the other hand, you have no idea how utterly massive you are, or how long you live given the size of the various minimal measurements.
hell yeah... and the latest pic u posted is only one heap of millions! 8|
Dribble Joy
10-08-06, 03:03
If I'm a proton, then the width of your thumb is around the same scale to me as is the distance from the earth to the sun is to you :D.
On the other hand, you have no idea how utterly massive you are, or how long you live given the size of the various minimal measurements.Yeah. That's so fucked up! Given the 'planck length' the untold trillions of atoms in our bodies, and the inability of science to find the 'smallest bit' we are just monstrous!
Some information about the dimension of the size of the galaxy: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Galaxy
differs from the german wiki entry but I think there are almost the same information about the size ... it's so incredible for me o.O
ps: look at the galaxy list ... so damn many galaxies ...
Dribble Joy
10-08-06, 03:13
Yeah. That's so fucked up! Given the 'planck length' the untold trillions of atoms in our bodies, and the inability of science to find the 'smallest bit' we are just monstrous!
Actually there's about 3 trillion trillion trillion molecules in the human body.
(rough number bash for someone weighing 80kg)
You know I can just ignore all I said in this thread and you guys too and just look at that first picture of the sun and the earth and just .. what the hell?? I keep staring at that one scale comparison and I can't even comprehend that, never mind all the rest of this shit.
this reminds me of the execution machine in the hitchhikers guide books. it shows you how insignificant you are in the universe which causes you to die somehow :lol:
try this link (http://www.rense.com/general72/size.htm)
try this link (http://www.rense.com/general72/size.htm)
O_o :eek: -cries-
That is infact, insane
-waits for there to be trillions of universes, spread about like galaxies- :p
this reminds me of the execution machine in the hitchhikers guide books. it shows you how insignificant you are in the universe which causes you to die somehow :lol:
The total perspective vortex. Was in the (original) radio series as well, although in slightly differnt circumstances. Basically, it shows you just how completley insginicant you are, everybody you know is, and how whatever you ever do even if it touches billions of people doesn't matter, effectivley obliterating your soul.
It was a gag device, but the concept is kinda interesting.
try this link (http://www.rense.com/general72/size.htm)
ja, see this in the german forum. Antares so incredible big .. 40.000 times more light-power than our sun O.O and a size of 6,24x10^8km. If you place Antares in place of our sun it would rise over the orbit of the Jupiter...
the whole universe (with all its laws, theories and size) is so weird...
Richard Blade
10-08-06, 15:42
try this link (http://www.rense.com/general72/size.htm)
That makes Antares nearly big enough to put our solar system into it.
I wonder if it went nova or is just that massive?
Dribble Joy
10-08-06, 16:08
The total perspective vortex. Was in the (original) radio series as well, although in slightly differnt circumstances. Basically, it shows you just how completley insginicant you are, everybody you know is, and how whatever you ever do even if it touches billions of people doesn't matter, effectivley obliterating your soul.
It was a gag device, but the concept is kinda interesting.
And the refference material was a small piece of fairy cake.
That makes Antares nearly big enough to put our solar system into it.
I wonder if it went nova or is just that massive?It's just that massive... it's a 'red giant' basically a star that is dying so it puffs up as it starts burning heavier elements like helium. It's density is likely very very low, it would be mostly just empty space in comparison to an ordinary star. Eventually it will go nova and blow off almost all of it's material leaving an itty bitty white dwarf in it's place. (if I remember my astronomy correctly... stars that go supernova never have a red giant phase they just go boom)
Mighty Max
10-08-06, 17:55
There are some good quotes from the hitchhiker which describe exactly the feelings if you think about it size of the univers and why and whatfor:
There is a theory that states that if ever anyone discovers exactly what the Universe is for and why it is here, it will instantly disappear and be replaced by something even more bizarre and inexpicable.
It is known that there are an infinite number of worlds, simply because there is an infinite amount of space for them to be in. However, not every one of them is inhabited. Therefore, there must be a finite number of inhabited worlds. Any finite number divided by infinity is as near to nothing as makes no odds, so the average population of all the planets in the Universe can be said to be zero. From this it follows that the population of the whole Universe is zero, and that any people you may meet from time to time are merely the products of a deranged imagination.
I feel so tiny! :lol:
Never mind! More important thing is: "We feel good!"
Dribble Joy
10-08-06, 18:06
There is a theory that states that if ever anyone discovers exactly what the Universe is for and why it is here, it will instantly disappear and be replaced by something even more bizarre and inexpicable.
And it is surmised that this has happened on at least one occation....
The total perspective vortex. Was in the (original) radio series as well, although in slightly differnt circumstances. Basically, it shows you just how completley insginicant you are, everybody you know is, and how whatever you ever do even if it touches billions of people doesn't matter, effectivley obliterating your soul.
so that's what it's like playing against me...
*pulls down e-trousers*
And it is surmised that this has happened on at least one occation....Somewhat similar to my (someone else's?) theory... 'If it can happen, it already has happened somewhere.'
Somewhat similar to my (someone else's?) theory... 'If it can happen, it already has happened somewhere.' in this infinite loop of expanding and collapsing universe everything has already happened an infinite amount of times
Now we're getting into the realms of why I dislike cosmology. It's not science. Science is about making predictions and then proving them with independently reproducible tests. Cosmology is just about predictions.
Take the famous Drake Equation (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Drake_equation) for example. This is utter rubbish. It's a guess, multiplied by another guess, multiplied by another guess, then another, and another, and another, and yet another. None of the factors are known, nor can many of them ever be known, yet this equation is still talked about in serious circles as being scientific. Anyone can use that equation to argue that there are trillions of populated planets in the universe, or I could use it to prove that we don't exist!
N
Mighty Max
10-08-06, 18:44
in this infinite loop of expanding and collapsing universe everything has already happened an infinite amount of times
Alltho this theory is still popular there are evidences that this is not the case.
One of them is the casimir effect, that shows that the "nothing" creates a force on particles on the limit to this nothing. This is caused by virtual particles (filling every place in universe) which create an all-surrounding pressure even in the vacuum of universe. On the universe's limits this pressure has to be enormous potential against the "nothing" whereas the contracting force (gravitation) is very small because its so far away from the main mass-center. => the universe will allways expanse in accelerating speed.
:edit: Virtual particles as in particles that are really there, but with a lifespan shorter then it could be observed (as result of Heisenberg's uncertain principle extended to energy)
Now we're getting into the realms of why I dislike cosmology. It's not science. Science is about making predictions and then proving them with independently reproducible tests. Cosmology is just about predictions.Agreed. The only thing about cosmology I like is that our quest to find answers that will never be found gives us access to all these pretty pictures. :p
edit: Personally I have my own theory... a steady-state infinite universe (in size and time) that is constantly evolving. This 'big bang quantum fluctuation' stuff does little more than piss me off.
Dribble Joy
10-08-06, 19:04
Now we're getting into the realms of why I dislike cosmology. It's not science. Science is about making predictions and then proving them with independently reproducible tests. Cosmology is just about predictions.
Take the famous Drake Equation (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Drake_equation) for example. This is utter rubbish. It's a guess, multiplied by another guess, multiplied by another guess, then another, and another, and another, and yet another. None of the factors are known, nor can many of them ever be known, yet this equation is still talked about in serious circles as being scientific. Anyone can use that equation to argue that there are trillions of populated planets in the universe, or I could use it to prove that we don't exist!
N
If you've read any Steven Hawkins books the same is true. There's chapter upon chapter about the nature of space-time, black holes and a miriad of other cosmological things.
Yet almost in their entirety, they are speculative. What's inside a black hole? Who knows!
There's also some wonderful fudging of unproven theories (though technically a theory is unproven, a proven theory is a theorem) to explain why the rate of expansion of the universe is actually increasing.
Basically it goes along the lines about the spontaneous creation and anhialation of pairs of sub atomic particles (one anti, one 'pro') where the anti one is destroyed without the pro along with it, leading to an overall increase in energy.
Alas this theory was initially brought about to explain away the inconsistancies of measurements regarding close range force levels between matter. Unfortunately the relationships used to calculate the masses of particles from their (measured) energy are not perfect, thus giving rise to the problem. Some people unable to consider that their equations were incorrect fudged together the above arbitary theory to get things back on track.
This theory also provided the completely unfounded claim that black holes (providing that they are not aquiring matter or releasing matter/energy, that they are essentially at a constant energy level) actually decrease in size over time. The anti particle would be absorbed by the black hole when the spontaneous creation occured near the event horizon, leaving the positive to escape. Thus the postitive energy of the black hole would decrease and increase the amount of energy outside (tying in with the above).
I have forgotten his name now, but there is a little known German scientist, who produced a far more accurate series of formulas for the calculation of a particle's mass/energy. Alas the mathematics involved are somewhat complex even for the most capable of theoretical physicists and the person in question would only let the papers be published in German.
The results of his work give rise to numbers that provide numerical error virtually equal to that of the measured.
Anyway, I'm more interested in chaos theory (the sensitive dependancy of non-linear systems upon initial conditions to give it a better title).
Scaramanga
11-08-06, 00:26
Science is about making predictions and then proving them with independently reproducible tests.
N
Or if you work in the construction industry the reasons given for any scientific explanation are either;
"Cause it's fucking obvious innit."
or
"My mate said it's true and he's dead clever."
Basically it goes along the lines about the spontaneous creation and anhialation of pairs of sub atomic particles (one anti, one 'pro') where the anti one is destroyed without the pro along with it, leading to an overall increase in energy.
This theory also provided the completely unfounded claim that black holes (providing that they are not aquiring matter or releasing matter/energy, that they are essentially at a constant energy level) actually decrease in size over time. The anti particle would be absorbed by the black hole when the spontaneous creation occured near the event horizon, leaving the positive to escape. Thus the postitive energy of the black hole would decrease and increase the amount of energy outside (tying in with the above).That always bugged me for a few reasons... one the concept of losing one 'side of the coin' leaving the other intact somehow and another wouldn't the chances of a black hole gobbling one side of a virtual pair be nearly if not perfectly symmetrical, i.e. for every anti particle gobbled there would also be a pro particle gobbled?
What my theory incorporates is something entirely different. Basically pro and anti particles have been found to share certain building blocks, i.e. the same quark flavor might be found in both pro and anti particles. This led me to presume that at some level there simply is no antimatter at all, that all particles have a 'positive physicality' which fits in perfectly with various string theories and the grouping of theories I have followed that describe particles as 'field solitons.'
What I figure happens is that virtual pairs appear in such density in intergalactic space (see MM's Casimir Effect above) that multiple pairs interact with each other in the infinitesmal amount of time they exist and those interactions always leave bits that don't fit into the compound interaction, resulting in 'free matter' leftover bits that don't have a part in the resulting virtual pair(s) that self-annihilate.
Err, I have a whole theory built on this, if anyone cares I'll link to it. The energy consumed in the sudden appearance of that free matter comes from somewhere, basically.
Eh screw it: here's the link:
http://www.physicsforums.com/showthread.php?t=4965
And! Support for my assertation in that theory that black holes are hollow :D:
http://www.newscientist.com/article.ns?hbxmail=nl&id=mg18925423.600
Dribble Joy
11-08-06, 01:02
The problem is that equal anti matter and matter particles will annhialate each other, releasing photons (afaik), if there are matter particles within the anti ones, then these will not 'cancel' their counterpart in the matter particle, leavingleft over matter.
Unless anti particles are found in matter or there is more anti matter in an equivalent anti matter particle than it's matter counterpart.
Anyway, I am a physics n00b. Talk to me in three years when I finish my degree in it (off to Loughborough in sept!).
Well what I propose is that at the most basic level there is no antimatter at all and that the photons produced in a matter-antimatter annihilation are the result of a recombination at a very basic level of the components of the former matter-antimatter pair.
edit: The result of this would be that not all matter-antimatter collisions would result just in light, that some of them would result in new particles, and that the end result would be an absorption of energy from the vacuum in the creation of 'free' matter.
Dribble Joy
11-08-06, 01:13
Though utterly speculative untill any form of results are collated :D.
We all have our pet theories (well, anyone with a brain who chooses to use it to think about something other than the person in which it resides). My own pet theory goes like this:
1) Occam's razor rules all. Physical laws are SIMPLE.
2) Most of what passes for cosmology is therefore bullshit. I'm especially including dark matter in this category because I'm sorry but if you find that your theory is falling on its arse, the best scientific thing to do would be to junk the theory, not invent some invisible, intangible thing that oh by the way makes up 90% of the known universe.
3) Space isn't infinite. There aren't weird singularities at the centre of black holes. Gravity doesn't exist, which is why no one has been able to unify it with the other forces.
4) Wait, did I just say gravity doesn't exist?! So what makes apples fall? Simple. Matter is energy and vice versa (E=mc2, baby) and at the Planck scale space-time is a foam. Energy just pops the bubbles- the more energy (mass) the more bubbles you pop. What happens to foam when the bubbles pop? It starts to shrink in on itself. So, a gravitational attraction isn't anything like gravitons being passed from one body to the other (and how much money has been wasted trying to detect gravitons?), it's just that it's "popping" the medium in which the bodies exist which draws them closer together. Black holes are so massive that they pop bubbles like bastards drawing everything around it in. But does everything that gets drawn in just be compressed into some super-weird impossible singularity? No, it doesn't. It just winks out of existance along with the bubbles. We already know that matter can spontaneously appear and disappear into quantum foam because that's how quantum tunnelling works and without that my computer wouldn't work and neither would yours; it's proven fact.
N
/edit - White holes, therefore, are obviously just big foam makers like in holiday nightclubs.
Dribble Joy
11-08-06, 01:47
1) Occam's razor rules all. Physical laws are SIMPLE.
Agreed, if you've ever studied chaos to any degree you will realise that phenominally simple relationships can give rise to disgustingly complex and unpredictable systems that clumsy complex formulas just fall apart with any effort to describe them.
X2 = r(X1-X0) can be chaotic for example (I think that's the right formula... lemme get my chaos books....).
If r>3, then iterations will never rest and the slightest change in the initial input of X0 will produce utterly different results.
PepsiPlayer
11-08-06, 01:47
erm Nid, its late, how the hell does your brain work that well this time of night/morning? Lay off the coffee and cookies and GO...TO....SLEEP.
2) Most of what passes for cosmology is therefore bullshit. I'm especially including dark matter in this category because I'm sorry but if you find that your theory is falling on its arse, the best scientific thing to do would be to junk the theory, not invent some invisible, intangible thing that oh by the way makes up 90% of the known universe.:D :lol:
Other than that damn dude, your #4 there very closely resembles the theory I posted on physicsforums.com. 8| We said the same thing different ways I think.
From there:
It is the defined center of the black hole, there is not actually anything there.
It is known that there are an infinite number of worlds, simply because there is an infinite amount of space for them to be in. However, not every one of them is inhabited. Therefore, there must be a finite number of inhabited worlds. Any finite number divided by infinity is as near to nothing as makes no odds, so the average population of all the planets in the Universe can be said to be zero. From this it follows that the population of the whole Universe is zero, and that any people you may meet from time to time are merely the products of a deranged imagination.
by the way: There's an error in the logic. I colored the important words.
Step-by-step: There are an infinite number of worlds. Lets say (only for example) 1/100000000 of them are inhabited. So how big is *that* "small" part? - Right, also ... infinite! :p
I discovered, that many people have difficulties with imagine infinity. For example some people deny the following being true:
_ _ _
0,3 + 0,3 + 0,3 = 1
because they think, there's something missing "at the end". - But ininity is infinity ... no end! :)
by the way: There's an error in the logic. I colored the important words.
Step-by-step: There are an infinite number of worlds. Lets say (only for example) 1/100000000 of them are inhabited. So how big is *that* "small" part? - Right, also ... infinite! :p
You realize it's a humorous book right?
I discovered, that many people have difficulties with imagine infinity. For example some people deny the following being true:
_ _ _
0,3 + 0,3 + 0,3 = 1
because they think, there's something missing "at the end". - But ininity is infinity ... no end! :)
One proof is this: 1/3 = .33(line above)
therefore: 1/3 + 1/3 + 1/3 = 0.33 + 0.33 + 0.33
1/3 + 1/3 + 1/3 = 3/3 = 1
therefore: 0.33 + 0.33 + 0.33 = 0.99 = 1
Tunneling isn't necissarily because of matter popping in and out of existence and seperate locations. It can also be thought of as a simple reality of wave-particle duality, and there only need be a defined location for the particle when you look for it as a particle. Erm, I'm mangling the quantum physics with my poor word choice here, but the existence of tunneling is not proof of matter "appearing and disappearing from the quantum foam). That said, the point about dark matter being clearly bullshit I can agree with. "The universie is mostly made up of something there is no way of detecting and handily plugs the holes in our maths". Yeah right, and the earth was built in 7 days by a bearded dude in the sky...
You forgot to denote recurring there, because 0.33 + 0.33 +0.33 sure as hell isn't one :P Also, confusing that bit of maths isnt the same as failing to grasp infinity per se.
Yeah right, and the earth was built in 7 days by a bearded dude in the sky...
Actually it wasn't a bearded dude in the sky, it was a flying spaghetti monster.
Noob.
http://venganza.org/
So your imaginary friend is more original? (although still OLD by internet standards) Do I care?
Erm, perhaps we should move away from this subject considering this forums restrictions on certain areas of free speech, as defined in the rules you can read at any time and we agreed to abide by when signing up.
@Pepsi - whether it applies to nid or not I can't say, but some of us have the problem that we can't stop thinking at night. Makes it kinda hard to sleep.
You realize it's a humorous book right?There is no room for humor! This is Serious Business™!
Nah. The only thing I can be sure of is I have some freakish meat-sack that carries some other freakish consciousness around. All the rest of this shit is immaterial when I consider the images on the news of thousands just like me biting the dust every day. I'm gonna join them eventually.
It might be nice to eventually figure out what the living fuck this universe actually is but in the overall perspective of a mortal being it makes not one tiny bit of difference. We are so puny in the overall perspective (even of the very small in sheer numbers, as DJ pointed out) that our actions have exactly zero effect. That's another consequence of infinity... any finite quantity equals zero. And any sane person will accept that they are finite. Puts that HGTTG quote into perspective eh? :lol:
Mighty Max
11-08-06, 02:43
4) Wait, did I just say gravity doesn't exist?! So what makes apples fall? Simple. Matter is energy and vice versa (E=mc2, baby) and at the Planck scale space-time is a foam. Energy just pops the bubbles- the more energy (mass) the more bubbles you pop. What happens to foam when the bubbles pop? It starts to shrink in on itself. So, a gravitational attraction isn't anything like gravitons being passed from one body to the other (and how much money has been wasted trying to detect gravitons?), it's just that it's "popping" the medium in which the bodies exist which draws them closer together. Black holes are so massive that they pop bubbles like bastards drawing everything around it in. But does everything that gets drawn in just be compressed into some super-weird impossible singularity? No, it doesn't. It just winks out of existance along with the bubbles. We already know that matter can spontaneously appear and disappear into quantum foam because that's how quantum tunnelling works and without that my computer wouldn't work and neither would yours; it's proven fact.
That we have again something like the Ether?
And if that exists, wouldn't you call that "foam" popping the equal to the boson for gravity? Making this opposed to your point 3) one of the forces?
The thing is gravity exists. Everyone can prove it. From the measured strength, related to distance^2, it is definately no "shielding" effect because this would create a force that is related to the size and form factor.
A half bulb of matter around a pointy mass would be more forced by gravity then the same matter as a little ball in the same distance.
But we ignore this now, it might be that we didn't measure it yet correct. Then we got another problem. If it was due to "foam" the foam between the half bulb and the pointy mass would pop and pop and pop. meaning that the two masses will go closer and close until no foam between them will be left.
This can be tried pretty easy in falling towers or in space. However. the pointy mass will not move near the wall of the bulb, it will stay in the bulb's mass center. That is clearly against what we expected from the foam theory => Proven to be false
I haven't heard a theory that has not one of these troubles to. The closest thing is the higgs-Boson. If it wouldn't be hiding itself, it were nearly perfect.
There is no room for humor! This is Serious Business™!
See attachment?
MM, I think Nidhogg is right on his gravity theory. The way I look at it energy/mass concentrations (the same thing.. E=MC^2 and all that shit) cause 'stresses' in the surrounding spacetime. What these stresses do is limit the 'spacetime foam' or virtual particles from reaching their maximum because the presence of nearby physical 'stuff' requires far more energy than the froth of virtual particles do. His analogy of 'popping bubbles' leading to simply 'less space' makes perfect sense to me.
edit:
See attachment?Awesome. :D
Mighty Max
11-08-06, 03:54
MM, I think Nidhogg is right on his gravity theory. The way I look at it energy/mass concentrations (the same thing.. E=MC^2 and all that shit) cause 'stresses' in the surrounding spacetime. What these stresses do is limit the 'spacetime foam' or virtual particles from reaching their maximum because the presence of nearby physical 'stuff' requires far more energy than the froth of virtual particles do. His analogy of 'popping bubbles' leading to simply 'less space' makes perfect sense to me.
It's a nice modell, but that was it.
It can't explain the given phenomenia. Actually it's saying what we observe can't be. There is no evidence that the observation is biased.
The stressing theory isn't much better either. Wherever i look, if i put up stress on something, it gets whirled, dragged, pushed, pulled etc. Each of these actions increase the chance to splits apart something, creating two halfes. I would have more parts then before, making the foam (of these virtual particle pairs) increase instead of decreasing.
As Planck described the "foam on a big sea" as the wave's and the harmonic's of particles (the duality of particles). The only method to reduce the density of this foam by reducing the possible frequencies. Given the (not yet disqualified) formulars E = h*f and E = mc^2 => hf = mc^2 => f = mc^2/h, the frequency of matter the normal matter is very high. Meaning lambda is very small. To have wave distinction like you want to have it to remove parts of the foam, you need to get very close to multiples of lambda of distance.
As while you'd decrease the distance you'll howver find a point where the waves are overlapping each other that they increase. The overall force is (integral from n*lambda to (n-1)*lambda) is 0 (do the maths!). UNLESS you are allready near enough that you can't even create a whole wavelength anymore (n=1). Now there is an force potential , as n=0 does not exist (would be singularity). But obviously gravity works for longer distances as a few nm.
You realize it's a humorous book right?Yes ... ;)
somewhere there's also mentioned a "biggest prime number" ... :lol:
The stressing theory isn't much better either. Wherever i look, if i put up stress on something, it gets whirled, dragged, pushed, pulled etc. Each of these actions increase the chance to splits apart something, creating two halfes. I would have more parts then before, making the foam (of these virtual particle pairs) increase instead of decreasing.The foam is a component of spacetime, and spacetime can't 'split.' The best analogy I can think of is a sponge. Now you can squeeze the sponge to expel water but you can also stretch it. Stretching it both expels water and starts to deform the sponge making the bubbles (irregularities) conform in the direction of the stretching. Stretching the sponge an infinite amount would both expel all water and deform every bubble into a straight line all parallel to each other.
This is what I mean by limiting the spacetime foam. As the nearby dense object gains more energy/mass the surrounding spacetime becomes more and more oriented towards the object, reaching a point where the spacetime foam can only have one property in the event of infinite stress. Now black holes were theorized to have infinite gravity, which would cause the surrounding spacetime to have no room for deviation, but new evidence suggests otherwise, as does my theory.
Nidhogg's analogy of 'popping bubbles' is basically the same as what I have outlined. The greater the mass/energy of the discrete object the less freedom of movement available in the surrounding space. Calling gravity an 'illusion' fits perfectly with that analogy.
Dribble Joy
11-08-06, 04:35
Ah the old point three recuring debate..... :D
Remember that decimals are means of expressing absolute fractions, however decimals are not all exclusively absolute. Deriving a decimal equivalent from an absolute fraction may not result in an absolute decimal expression of the fraction. It's therefore quite possible to convert a fraction to a decimal and back again without returning to the original number.
Thus (in my view) point three recuring times 3 cannot equal one, it doesn't matter how many decimals you use, point nine recuring is NOT one, it's point nine recuring, which clearly is very close to being one, but it's still not one.
You only arrive at point three recuring from divding one by three because of the nature of decimal expression. Point three recuring is not a third.
erm what you just said is that Q is not an element of R, which is rather new to me :wtf:
Dribble Joy
11-08-06, 05:47
Remind DJ teh maths niblet what Q is again.....
Essentially I was saying that you have to remember the process by which we arrive at point three reccuring when you divide one by three.
What you are saying DJ is that we can never calculate the true circumference of a circle given it's radius... 8|
Dribble Joy
11-08-06, 06:09
If we use pi in a decimalised expression...... no....
Anyway, I could be talking arse, it's early as fuck in the morning here....
Hey talking arse is my job!
Err. All the fractional equations for Pi I have seen are infinite series.
Just thought of something....
If there is indeed a 'planck length' then every circle of a given radius should have a discrete and finite value of Pi associated with it, and every radius expressed in terms of the planck length would have it's own unique value of Pi, wouldn't it?
i think the stuff in THGTTG is just as likely as some of these theories :p
Dribble Joy
11-08-06, 09:50
I forget...
Is the plank length the smallest length possible, or simply the length at which measurement becomes irrelevent due to the uncirtainty principle?
Mighty Max
11-08-06, 11:22
Planck's constant determinates the maximum measurement accuracy of position * impulse. The better you know the impulse the uncertain is the position and vice versa.
impulse range * position range = h / (4pi)
The mathematics below this size still applies. Pi is Pi because of mathematical axioms, not because of physical laws.
Dribble Joy
11-08-06, 11:28
Planck's constant determinates the maximum measurement accuracy of position * impulse. The better you know the impulse the uncertain is the position and vice versa.
impulse range * position range = h / (4pi)
Thought so.
We could get into uncirtainty but... ehhh....
This thread is potentially the most in depth and scientific (or abolutle bollocks in some cases in Nidhogg's way of thinking :p) i've read on this forum in years O_o and quite frankly it hurts my brain.
The mathematics below this size still applies.Oh really? Didn't know that. :p
Pi is Pi because of mathematical axioms, not because of physical laws.That I did know... nice to have fundamental constants that are inexpessible eh? :lol:
Obsidian X
11-08-06, 19:07
This thread is potentially the most in depth and scientific (or abolutle bollocks in some cases in Nidhogg's way of thinking :p) i've read on this forum in years O_o and quite frankly it hurts my brain.
I hear that, what happened to the "my monks better than your monk" and "nerf everything" threads? :p
I never knew we had so many boffins in the NC community. :wtf:
Dribble Joy
11-08-06, 19:19
That I did know... nice to have fundamental constants that are inexpessible eh? :lol:
Though there a number of theories/observations that lead us to believe that the universal constants aren't constant.
The speed of light for example; there's a theory called doubly special relativity where the speed of light is dependant on the energy of a wave/particle.
There is some evidence of this as the energies of high energy cosmic rays are too high for their speed, the only explanation being that at high energy, c is slightly larger.
this reminds me of the execution machine in the hitchhikers guide books. it shows you how insignificant you are in the universe which causes you to die somehow :lol:
Already knowing how insignificant i am makes me immune to the execution machine.
That 1st pic in the 1st post is great. I wonder how many football fields long that is.
Mighty Max
11-08-06, 20:30
Though there a number of theories/observations that lead us to believe that the universal constants aren't constant.
Name one observation
The speed of light for example; there's a theory called doubly special relativity where the speed of light is dependant on the energy of a wave/particle.
There is some evidence of this as the energies of high energy cosmic rays are too high for their speed, the only explanation being that at high energy, c is slightly larger.
That is complete bullshit tbh. Ray's energy are only determinated by their frequency. Therefor giving them more speed makes them change frequency.
"at high energy, c is slightly larger". No, at high energy the speed of light is the same into every direction, even if you are flying near lightspeed yourself. This is because c is constant for every viewer, not only constant against other speeds or a "standing still point". It is not possible to determinate if such a "standing still point" really exists.
:edit:
You start from earth with an spaceship flying at 90% speed of light. You shoot out a torpedo, which from your point of view accelerates to 90% of lightspeed. If you add both speeds, the torpedo "would" be flying at 180% of lightspeed. However the time diletation plays in. You'r time is moving slower. meaning that the speed you observe (way/time) increases for you view.
The "standing still" observer from earth would see the spaceship at 90% of lightspeed, and the torpedo at 98% (sorry didnt do the exact maths)
Dribble Joy
11-08-06, 20:48
OK. Let me rephrase now I have remember that contents of the report.
The measured energy of the rays is too high for their frequency.
Click. (http://www.physicspost.com/articles.php?articleId=129)
This works by the fact DSR allows the energy of the photons themselves to in fact alter the speed of the photon. Blue light, for example, would travel at a slightly faster speed than red light. This difference is of course minute. Maguijo reasons that in the early universe, where photons had much higher energies than today, their velocities may in fact be significantly higher. Though this is in direct contradiction of Einstein, it does solve a lot of problems in cosmology.
But here is the crux of the problem. DSR could give us the keys to the universe. But it may not. One of the problems is with its lack of experimental justification. The only evidence that exists today for it is the high-energy cosmic rays. But opponents of the theory argue that this is not enough, and can be accounted for within experimental error. Other things that DSR solves can also be explained with other methods. “Elegance” is no excuse.
Clickage. (http://www.google.co.uk/search?hl=en&q=doubly+special+relativity&btnG=Google+Search&meta=)
This is because c is constant for every viewer, not only constant against other speeds or a "standing still point".
--
You'r time is moving slower. meaning that the speed you observe (way/time) increases for you view.For the confused, these 2 quotes give away the easy way to visualize this shit. The trick is that the speed of light is a constant for all observers (I don't think 'standing still point' is even an issue overall) but it's only a constant because the rate at which time passes for observers in motion relative to each other is different. It's not some magical 'twisted space' thing at all. :)
edit:
Click. (http://www.physicspost.com/articles.php?articleId=129)
Clickage. (http://www.google.co.uk/search?hl=en&q=doubly+special+relativity&btnG=Google+Search&meta=)Very interesting!
Already knowing how insignificant i am makes me immune to the execution machine.
you lack self confidence
That was harder then school to understand fucking hell you lost me at the first page but it was a very good read didn’t have a clue about any of it but never the less very good well done lads I’ve just read this after I 13 hour shift lol
you guys realise that if a star within 400 light years of us goes super nova... we're screwed.
(but there isnt a star anywhere even close to supernova for something like 15,000 light years)
So I guess I did learn something in my first year of a physics degree.
It was only the other day they were on about itching Pluto, now there's talks of 12 planets O_o http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/sci/tech/4795755.stm
This whole business of plutons, although pointless in the scale of the universe sounds rather interesting.Im not reallt sure on Ceres though (Neocron does have far to many planetary names in it :P) as surely that just is an asteroid as it knocks about in the asteroid belt.
you guys realise that if a star within 400 light years of us goes super nova... we're screwed.
Yeap, but it won't be until 400 years that we know anything about it, and when that happens....erm there won't be much warning!
It was only the other day they were on about itching Pluto, now there's talks of 12 planets O_o http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/sci/tech/4795755.stm
This whole business of plutons, although pointless in the scale of the universe sounds rather interesting.Im not reallt sure on Ceres though (Neocron does have far to many planetary names in it :P) as surely that just is an asteroid as it knocks about in the asteroid belt.I've been following that too... apparently by those rules there could be 53 planets already, and 'thousands' yet to be discovered in the Kuiper Belt. O_o
Dribble Joy
17-08-06, 00:49
Depends on the new difinitions. We may end up with several, like 'planet', 'pluton' and stuff. So the actual number of planets will actually decrease.
And then there are planemos (http://www.space.com/scienceastronomy/060605_planemos.html)... feck lets just call them all 'globs of stuff'... :D
Ooooh interesting stuff here. But I feel so tiny now...
I made a wallpaper from a picture on that NASA site... 1280x1024x211KB
It's my background now but I'm gonna have to change it I think... if I stare at it too long I start to get scared and dizzy. :rolleyes:
Powered by vBulletin® Version 4.2.3 Copyright © 2024 vBulletin Solutions, Inc. All rights reserved.