|
Post by TidusandYuna1983 on Aug 31, 2018 0:48:19 GMT
A common misconception is that Einstein said ''nothing can travel faster than light'' , when Einstein actually said ''nothing with mass can accelerate faster than light''. We know the universe is expanding faster than light, because space has no mass, which means parts of the universe are moving away from other parts of the universe at faster than light without accelerating faster than light. Same goes for how quantum particles can randomly appear anywhere, which means they can instanty transport to the other side of the universe without actually accelerating through space faster than light. Tachyons are particles which are theorized to exist, and it's believed they always travel faster than light, because they are fields with imaginary mass , hence they don't provide localized excitations , which means they have to always travel faster than light, because the less energy they have, the faster they go. If they were travelling faster than light, in theory they would go backwards in time, since according to relativity, the faster you travel, time slows down, until it stops when you reach the speed of light. Normal mass accelerating through space requires energy, the faster it travels, the more energy is required, until at the speed of light the amount of energy required to accelerate any faster requires more energy than what the universe can produce. "We know the universe is expanding faster than light, because space has no mass, which means parts of the universe are moving away from other parts of the universe at faster than light without accelerating faster than light." Pssh, it cannot be shown that it is moving faster than light.. it is moving before light. Shit even if light catches up, or is even caught up, we cannot see the nothing that space is expanding into. Theoretical stuff like this makes my head hurt. It depends on how we look at things. Since space can be compared to a fabric, if we are standing on the fabric as it's being stretched, objects further away from us will move away from us quicker than objects near us. Special relativity is a local law of physics, so it means a rocket ship can't accelerate near us at faster than the speed of light. But distant galaxies are moving away from us faster than light from our frame of reference. If we travelled at the speed of light and tried to reach those galaxies, we cannot, because from our frame of reference, they will be moving away from us FTL.
|
|
|
Post by TidusandYuna1983 on Sept 3, 2018 14:02:17 GMT
|
|
|
Post by TidusandYuna1983 on Sept 6, 2018 21:15:47 GMT
Black holes have the most amount of entropy in the universe, despite also being vital for organising galaxy formation (galaxies orbit a black hole). This is also despite black holes seeming to be consistant entites with only mass, spin and electric charge,
Information around a blackhole behaves chaotically and randomly.
|
|
|
Post by Uesugi-dono on Sept 10, 2018 9:47:55 GMT
I am not opposed to people finding a way to restore Pluto to planetary status, it was a planet when I was growing up, and I certainly see the fallacy in the "it clears its own orbit" mantra, but this proposal would cause all round objects in space smaller than stars to be called planets; even moons of other planets. That's just madness.
|
|
|
Post by TidusandYuna1983 on Sept 10, 2018 12:48:18 GMT
I am not opposed to people finding a way to restore Pluto to planetary status, it was a planet when I was growing up, and I certainly see the fallacy in the "it clears its own orbit" mantra, but this proposal would cause all round objects in space smaller than stars to be called planets; even moons of other planets. That's just madness. Yeah,. If we count Pluto as a planet, then we then need to count many other bits of rock out there as planets. The thing about it not clearing it's orbit of debris depends on location. If Mercury was at the distance of Jupiter, it would never clear its orbit and wouldn't obtain planetary status. A world much smaller than Mercury could be a planet around a red dwarf star, while even Earth would fail to be a planet if it were out in the Oort cloud somewhere. That's why we have sub groups of planets such as dwarf planets and rogue planets.
|
|
|
Post by endorbr on Sept 14, 2018 14:38:40 GMT
|
|
|
Post by Uesugi-dono on Sept 18, 2018 12:43:37 GMT
That is Point Nemo; a spot in the middle of the Pacific Ocean where, if you are there, the closest man-made structure or land is the ISS in orbit. Perhaps incidentally it is also the location of R'lyeh.
|
|
|
Post by endorbr on Oct 2, 2018 12:11:19 GMT
|
|
|
Post by TidusandYuna1983 on Oct 6, 2018 11:43:27 GMT
|
|
|
Post by endorbr on Oct 16, 2018 19:57:28 GMT
'There is no God,' says Stephen Hawking in final book Honestly who the Hell is Stephen Hawking to be making such claims? What's scientific about this? He can no more prove this than he can prove his assertion that alien life exists in the universe and that they're going to conquer us if they know we're here. That's just bad science to state something so unequivocally with no evidence one way or the other. He was a physicist. If he was telling me about his proof on some mathematical theorem then I might care. But fluff junk about how he doesn't believe in God, how he feels about European politics, and how much he hates Donald Trump are not really things I give a rats ass to know about nor should anyone care. Why would anyone want to know what he thought about such stuff? Yes, he was an intelligent man but outside his area of expertise it's not like his opinions on this stuff are any more valid than anyone else's. It's not proof of anything or validation to find out that he believed these things. What a waste of print.
|
|
|
Post by TidusandYuna1983 on Oct 18, 2018 4:04:18 GMT
'There is no God,' says Stephen Hawking in final book Honestly who the Hell is Stephen Hawking to be making such claims? What's scientific about this? He can no more prove this than he can prove his assertion that alien life exists in the universe and that they're going to conquer us if they know we're here. That's just bad science to state something so unequivocally with no evidence one way or the other. He was a physicist. If he was telling me about his proof on some mathematical theorem then I might care. But fluff junk about how he doesn't believe in God, how he feels about European politics, and how much he hates Donald Trump are not really things I give a rats ass to know about nor should anyone care. Why would anyone want to know what he thought about such stuff? Yes, he was an intelligent man but outside his area of expertise it's not like his opinions on this stuff are any more valid than anyone else's. It's not proof of anything or validation to find out that he believed these things. What a waste of print. Science is about running tests and getting the same results consistently . I haven't read his book. If he said Quantum theory points to the likelihood there is no God, because Quantum Wave function shows signs that all possibilities happen, it's just what we observe creates our reality, and causality indicates the future is preset , because someone else's future is someone else's past, hence there is no free will, and free will is an important part of Christianity. Still doesn't prove there isn't a God. What exactly is God anyways? Q on Star Trek made an interesting point, that he could be God, since he can create life, planets and even entire universes. Why isn't he God? Because he can die? But Gods can die according to various mythologies. Many scientists believe there is an intelligent designer, but it's not the one that's mentioned in major religions, the intelligent designer could be the universe having it's own sentience, and dishing out karma.
|
|
|
Post by endorbr on Oct 26, 2018 12:31:30 GMT
|
|
|
Post by Uesugi-dono on Oct 28, 2018 10:20:37 GMT
Bliss? Gag. This whole process is vain, dangerous for the embryo, and unnecessary.
|
|
|
Post by TidusandYuna1983 on Nov 9, 2018 15:05:53 GMT
I don't think the Fermi paradox is the reasons aliens haven't officially contacted us, I believe it's because we're too primitive , self-righteous and annoying. Just like in Star Trek , there is the prime directive of non-interference with the development of primitive species, I think advanced races would have the same policy, they want races to develop on their own.
If they told us they have limitless free energy and a cure for cancer, we would demand they give it to us, if they don't, it could make us become angry or depressed and a feeling of despair could lead to civil unrest. If they gave us limitless free energy , we might destroy ourselves or take our violent, greedy , primitive ways to other places around the galaxy and end up starting wars or conflicts.
|
|
|
Post by endorbr on Nov 9, 2018 15:24:02 GMT
I don't think the Fermi paradox is the reasons aliens haven't officially contacted us, I believe it's because we're too primitive , self-righteous and annoying. Just like in Star Trek , there is the prime directive of non-interference with the development of primitive species, I think advanced races would have the same policy, they want races to develop on their own. If they told us they have limitless free energy and a cure for cancer, we would demand they give it to us, if they don't, it could make us become angry or depressed and a feeling of despair could lead to civil unrest. If they gave us limitless free energy , we might destroy ourselves or take our violent, greedy , primitive ways to other places around the galaxy and end up starting wars or conflicts. Could just be that the universe is so big that they don't know we're here too. Just like we haven't actually found evidence of other intelligent life despite the real possibility that it is likely other intelligent life does exist.
|
|