Tyrion Posted November 23, 2003 Share Posted November 23, 2003 If you stretch out the logic a bit, and include some detailed evidence on the existance of pink rabbits in space, then it'll become a theory. Heck, find me a pick rabbit that lives on earth and I'll be amazed. Skinwalker got it write, pink rabbits in space would be a wild scenario. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TK-8252 Posted November 23, 2003 Share Posted November 23, 2003 I just think that people should stop making up theories of events that cannot be explained. Like what happens when you die, or how the universe was created. No one can *exactly* determine what accually happens, and no one can back up those theories. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RpTheHotrod Posted November 23, 2003 Author Share Posted November 23, 2003 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TK-8252 Posted November 23, 2003 Share Posted November 23, 2003 Originally posted by RpTheHotrod Err... Yeah, stuff like that. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
NileQueen Posted November 23, 2003 Share Posted November 23, 2003 I'd like to know how scientists can say that the universe is infinite. How powerful are their telescopes, anyway? How can scientists say that they have accounted for all the matter in the universe? And since some is supposedly missing, we will call it "dark matter"... NileQueen Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SkinWalker Posted November 23, 2003 Share Posted November 23, 2003 Well, some say it is and some say it isn't. Some think that it is infinite but flat (which would give it some finite-ness if you ask me), some think it's finite and curved, etc.... It all gives me a headache :-) But the Dark Energy/Matter factors are included because the observable evidence thus far suggests such things. I gather that the mathematical models only work if you include these attributes... I suppose it's like looking at a star's wobble and making the assumption that there is another body orbiting the star (i.e. a planet): this could be wrong, but it's the best current explanation. Oh... and welcome to the Senate, NileQueen! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gabez Posted November 23, 2003 Share Posted November 23, 2003 Originally posted by SkinWalker So saying, "too bad it's only a theory," is a bit misleading. The fact that it is a theory says a lot. Exactly, and whilst we're at it we've also got to be careful with the way we use the word proof - in reality, just about the only thing you can prove is maths, and definitely not Science. If you're disgarding one theory because it's just a theory then you might as well go back to the dark ages and belive that the earth is in the middle of the universe. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
NileQueen Posted November 23, 2003 Share Posted November 23, 2003 SkinWalker: I suppose it's like looking at a star's wobble and making the assumption that there is another body orbiting the star (i.e. a planet): this could be wrong, but it's the best current explanation. Oh sure, but this is a finite example. You mean to say someone is sitting in his observatory and looking at every point out in space and evaluating it? Of course, along every line of site is an infinite possibility of things if you follow each line to infinity. And as you radiate those lines out from earth there will be widening spaces in between the lines the further away from earth that you get. Astrophysicists have a lot of work to do, I would say. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
NileQueen Posted November 23, 2003 Share Posted November 23, 2003 What? I am Bantha Fodder? I don't think that is a good thing... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
NileQueen Posted November 23, 2003 Share Posted November 23, 2003 This Bantha Fodder notices that the Senate Chamber clock is wrong....it's not an atomic clock? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SkinWalker Posted November 23, 2003 Share Posted November 23, 2003 Originally posted by NileQueen Astrophysicists have a lot of work to do, I would say. Oh, I think they would agree I do know that the visible universe is smaller than the actual universe, whether it's infinite or not. I lean more toward the infinite hypothesis based on what little I've read on the subject, but I gather that there are a lot of astrophysists that are proponents of the finite model. In the end, I don't discount either, mostly since I don't have a full grasp on the math involved. Still, I concede that the concept of infinity is a difficult one to imagine. If the universe is finite, what is the universe in? time for another cup of coffee... Oh... the clock is LucasForum time. This is a different universe alltogether! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
NileQueen Posted November 23, 2003 Share Posted November 23, 2003 Still, I concede that the concept of infinity is a difficult one to imagine. If the universe is finite, what is the universe in? I've heard that the universe is contained in a grain of sand time for another cup of coffee... I am wide awake at the moment, but a cup of coffee wouldn't hurt....we might even find the universe there Have any of you see Russell Crowe's Command and Conquer? Sorry if I digress but I can't help it..I usually can cover it up though by coming back to the topic at the end.... So visible universe does not equate to actual universe? Are we all just hallucinating?? Yes I guess I am just imagining that cup of coffee... edit: it's not "Command & Conquer"--that's a video game. It's "Master & Commander" and if you like a good sea battle it's a good movie. Paul Bettany also stars as the ship's surgeon/naturalist... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
El Sitherino Posted November 23, 2003 Share Posted November 23, 2003 I just thought I'd pop in to share my thoughts about this. how would the universes expansion slow down if nothing is there to stop it or apply force upon it? When the universe was just a speck before the big bang it was creating potential energy(stored energy) suddenly it got so big it exploded and created our universe. There was still so much energy it kept expanding and after a while the energy started depleting and there's not as much drive as there used to be therefore it's like a car running out of fuel, it's not going as fast as it did when we had a full tank or even half a tank of gas. I have been thinking lately about that multiverse thing and I started thinking about microbiology, our bodies are basically like a megaverse ( the big thing a universe is in) well our organs are kind of like the universe, and that would make the molecules solar systems and the individual atoms like galaxies. Well going on that it could be as though we might be part of a large organism I'll use tyrions big pink elephant as an example of our large organism. ok we're the quarks in our nucleus (the sun) and around that are the electrons (the planets) they're orbiting around the nucleus that we're sustaining. Outside of this atom we have more and more that end up making the... oh lets say heart (one of the universes) now there is a connection between the heart and other parts of the body, these could be compared to worm holes and such leading to other universes, eventually if you keep building up you have the entire elephant (the "mega"verse). If that doesn't make sense oh well, I guess that just makes me a rambling nonsensical person but then again I'm not an expert on the subject, I just felt like stating my ideas maybe get some feedback. (don't be too harsh ) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RpTheHotrod Posted November 24, 2003 Author Share Posted November 24, 2003 One problem about that though. It's space. If you could drive your car into space and then run out of gas, you're car would still keep going Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tyrion Posted November 24, 2003 Share Posted November 24, 2003 Originally posted by RpTheHotrod One problem about that though. It's space. If you could drive your car into space and then run out of gas, you're car would still keep going Attraction to other objects. Let's say that there's a center of gravity, at where the big bang happend. Now, the car would have an string attached to the end of it. The car would keep on going, and when the car runs out of energy, it keeps on going according to inertia. However, the string slowly pulls the car back, thus slowing the car down, until the string pulls back the car to where the string's end is. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
C'jais Posted November 24, 2003 Share Posted November 24, 2003 Originally posted by RpTheHotrod 1: Stephen Hawking is a smart fella. Although he supports the big bang theory, his work goes against it completely. Rp, take a minute and think. I'm not a scientist, and I know nothing about the big bang theory. But these scientists you're discrediting do. They know a hell of a lot about it, and they've done their footwork. To think that they would theorize something which would go against their previous work is not thinking very clearly. They know what they are doing, and if you think the scientific community has got some conspiracy going which prevents outsiders from ever criticizing them is likewise not, well, wise. It's the same thing with evolution - suddenly, Joe Average knows as much as Stephen Gould and proclaims loud and proud that "there was no chance in hell that mutations alone could create mankind". I do think they're out of their league when they say something like that and have no scientific background at all. In fact, it's how their theories are very useful (your words) when they create new antibiotics and such. But once people like you find out they actually used the theory of evolution to do so, they're eeeeeevil. Guilty by association indeed. This is not an effort to stop you from questioning scientists or even the universe around you, but do show a little respect towards their obvious experience and knowledge. Now - the Big Bang Theory Hmm. You have to imagine that the only space there was back then *was* the singularity. Space spread outwards at the big bang event. Also, there was no matter at the point of the big bang - and atoms weren't created until several thousands of years later. There was just this hot soup of energy. And just as the universe in the literal sense is infinite (there is nothing but it), so is time infinite in both directions. Asking scientists "What was before the big bang?" is no more fair than asking a theologist "Who created God, then?". Everything we know about both begins and ends with the terms themselves. According to it, nothing can go faster than the speed of light. Experiments have been performed where certain rays did indeed go faster than the conventional speed of light, through a special shortcut. Therefore in only 4.5 billion years the earth must cool down, form an atmosphere, and then molecules must just bump together randomly forming a working DNA strand out of only 4 elements (G, C, A, and T) First things first. You only need a self-replicating organic molecule for life to begin. It starts out in a soup of chemical compounds which it attracts, part by part, to it's surface until it's formed a copy. Copy and original part their ways and start new copies. Occassionally, some of the copies would have flaws, and sometimes, these flaws would actually lead to an improvement, such as being able to copy faster or living longer, which would give it an edge and will ensure its copies are the prevalent ones. Then, once the building blocks are exhausted, the molecules capable of breaking down other molecules and using them to copy on (deleting one copy to create a new one of your own, yay!) started prospering, and perhaps some molecules would be able to form a protective layer that defended against being broken down. All this is pure speculation, but actually it's been possible to get RNA-strands to copy themselves, and some have even evolved in the lab-conditions. Then, organisms capable of photosynthesis would slowly, very slowly, start pumping out oxygen in the atmosphere by synthesizing water and carbondioxide with the aid of sunlight. When you say that is not possible, I think you mistake 3 billion years for a *short time*. We're not talking millenia here, or even millions of years - we're talking billions of years. 5: Look at the law of entropy. Chaos increases, never decreases. What "law of entropy"? Perhaps you're thinking of the second law of thermodynamics (gotta love that one), but it says nothing of the sort. Read this. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
El Sitherino Posted November 24, 2003 Share Posted November 24, 2003 Originally posted by RpTheHotrod One problem about that though. It's space. If you could drive your car into space and then run out of gas, you're car would still keep going I never said anything about it stopping I only said that it would slow down because it's energy is depleted. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.