Religious beliefs aside (please!), I keep hearing about our universe expanding, the Big Bang, etc. Now, are they talking about matter expanding into space, or are they saying that space is expanding, too? And if the latter, is there supposed to be nothing outside the universe? I can't get my head around this. I tried to read this explanation (http://www.astro.ucla.edu/~wright/cosmology_faq.html#XIN), but really don't get it.

The multiverse! :D

The 350Z!

Every object exists in four dimension

Height, Length, Depth, and a constant T (known as time). If you really want to get into this discussion, we have to discuss what Time really is... as it is only measureable in concept and relation to our current settings. If we discuss time as well, we have to discuss gravity since it appears that gravity has a huge impact on time in relation to the object (or entity) experiencing that gravity.

All very confusing. Trying to dissect it will only confuse you more... since this is an existence of stasis (that is for CERTAIN) we are in, everything stays in a symbiont (lifeforms and objects in the case of the universe) state. So, in order to understand, you have to know about the object (or lifeform) that is related to the existence of whatever you are studying (i.e. sun/planet)

Not to breech the religious boundaries, but you can always ask 'why' to anything. In the end, there are two answers...

Just because
God

Every object exists in four dimension


I thought we could percieve four dimensions, that doesn't mean that there aren't more.

im going on what my astronomy prof was talking about back in college. Apparently microwave telescopes have been looking at data from what should be the beginning of time (13 billion years ago, specifically a cloud that developed in the universe's 300millionth year). It would be fitting that this data come from only one point, however anywhere the telescopes look there is this fuzzy cloud data that is from 13 billion light years away, which leads to the hypothesis that there are an infinite number of universes....a multiverse of sorts, overlapping on each other, such that if you look in any direction you will see everything all the way back to t=0. Now im not an astronomer so i dont know much more than this, but it was a neat theory.

Hmm: That reminds me of this part, from my URL above:
Why is the sky dark at night?
If the Universe were infinitely old, and infinite in extent, and stars could shine forever, then every direction you looked would eventually end on the surface of a star, and the whole sky would be as bright as the surface of the Sun. This is known as Olbers' Paradox after Heinrich Wilhelm Olbers [1757-1840] who wrote about it in 1823-1826 but it was also discussed earlier. Absorption by interstellar dust does not circumvent this paradox, since dust reradiates whatever radiation it absorbs within a few minutes, which is much less than the age of the Universe. However, the Universe is not infinitely old, and the expansion of the Universe reduces the accumulated energy radiated by distant stars. Either one of these effects acting alone would solve Olbers' Paradox, but they both act at once.

Every object exists in four dimension

Oh, now I get it! NOT. Thanks, though. :D But that went right over my head like a bullet!

Interestingly if you are to believe Schrodinger and Einstein then we have a non-linear timeline... I know this only adds to the confusion. Here's the beauty of religious ideas and how they might work into a relationship with science. Often religion offers a mystical explanation for relationships and observations that current scientific methods can't explain completely. A good example of this would be early astrologers and their explanations of planetary orbits or alchemists and chemical reactions. Both groups worked hard to offer an explanation of their art in relation to prescribed religious beliefs. Both mystical fields led to sciences that are taught in univerities today.

As our sciences expand and we are able to quanitify further into the nature of our universe we are still reaching points where our explanations just don't quite make sense to most of us. I have read about quantum physics and I understand a little about the space-time continuum but I can't hardly fathom the depths of this theory and the explanations of it seem almost more mystical to me than scientific thought should allow. Still it's the best that we have come up with.

I like to think about the great questions of our universe and it's principles and relationships in the non-linear manner of Schrodinger's Cat Theory. There are infinite possibilities and we haven't come up with an exact mathmatical formula that ecompasses it all.

Here's a link that gives a quick and easy explanation of Schrodinger's Cat Theory: http://whatis.techtarget.com/definition/0,,sid9_gci341236,00.html

The way i see the religious aspects of the universe are like this, God made the universe, god made the laws of physics (<---really key), god put all the data we gathered right where it was gathered for a reason. Whats this all mean, we've been using God's system to explain what we can't understand. Of course we'll never be able to prove any of this in our liffetimes.

Oh, yeah. I remember reading about his cat in the Mind's I. That's a great book, by the way.

But I begin to think that I will never understand this mystery.

The Elegant Universe by Brian Greene is a really good book on the physics of the universe and advanced theories which try to explain it.

Lol... it is cut and dry, isnt it? As for more than four dimesions... sure. Anything is possible. We do not know 99% of what exists out there. Prior to the introduction of the EMS (electromagnetic spectrum), reality was defined as 'touch, smell, see, taste, and hear.' If something fell in that category, it was reality. We now know much... much different.

But what of blackholes... or wormholes for that matter? It is current theory that at the center of every major grouping of objects (say, a galaxy... or our solar system) that there is an object (every object exerts gravity BTW) that exerts gravitational force that not only binds it together, but holds other objects in place. So, what holds a galaxy together...? Given the gravitational force required to maintain the shape of a highly evolved galaxy, a black hole would suit this requirement nicely!!! So, in theory, a black hole exists in the center of every large galaxy (spiral galaxies, per say). But smaller galaxies may be held in check by a large star or even a pulsar!!! Our sun keeps our solar system in check while exerting a force even farther beyond our solar system.

Also remember that there are four 'documented' (just for you blueyes) forces that exist in EVERY atom. Strong, weak, nuclear, and gravity. And subsequently, for every +, there is a -. So there is an anti-electron for every electron... anti-strong, anti-weak, etc... sorry I dont remember the technical terms for all of these. We have seen MOST of these things. But one thing we have not been able to find as far as my knowledge goes, is anti-gravity. It is thought to not exist because of the requirements of 'time.' Remember, e=mc2. The amount of gravity experienced is in direct correlation to the amount of time experienced while in this gravitational state. This has been documented by people flying with two similar watches... one control, and one test in which the test watch was noticed to be lagging slightly behind the control watch. So therefore, in anti-gravity, there is... well... nothing.

Furthermore, there is a phenomenon known as the Cosmic Microwave Background Radiation. Remember, anything that occupies time (including empty space) emits radiation. Depending on the size of the object, it emits a radiation level that is similar to specific types of waves. A small object emits a high frequency due to its low gravitational pull as well as compacted energy. While a large object emits a smaller frequency. You know that huge satellite array in the midwest that is like, 150 miles... it is meant for picking up very low frequency energies. That is just an FYI. With this in mind, each wave has a direct temperature relation due to its frequency. A short frequency will be hotter because of the energy it disperses rapidly. While a small frequency will be cooler. Take in the following as well...

At 0 kelvin (absolute zero) ALL motion STOPS. At that point, an object or space just exists. We have measure the temperature of the universe to be dropping oh so slowly. That indicates the universe is indeed getting larger. But what happens at absolute zero? The universe, in theory, will stop expanding and just exist... or it may collapse upon itself with the loss of energy into the small spec of dust that the Big Bang originated from. From there, the Big Band will happen AGAIN due to all that matter and energy being condensed into such a small volume.

Although the above is very scattered in its ideas, it has one basic principle that governs it all... gravity!!! The only two things that defy gravity are black holes and wormholes. Both of which are impossible to see since they 'dont' exist. But, their properties can be exerted on outside forces.

Need any clarification? :)

Oh, and by frequency, I think I meant wavelength :). My bad.

The way i see the religious aspects of the universe are like this, God made the universe, god made the laws of physics (<---really key), god put all the data we gathered right where it was gathered for a reason. Whats this all mean, we've been using God's system to explain what we can't understand. Of course we'll never be able to prove any of this in our liffetimes.

Of course, that just leads to the question of where God came from, unless you duck it by saying He just Is, which is no more or less defensible than saying the universe just is, IMHO. (But now I tread on thin ice and risk having this thread closed, I fear.)

Reminds me of the old story about the wise man who said (as I recall) that the world rests on the back of a tortoise. His disciple then asked what the tortoise was standing on, to which he replied, "Oh, it's just tortoises all the way down." :D

Thanks, AvatarQAZ, but I still wanna know, "is there supposed to be nothing outside the universe". :D

Every object exists in four dimension

Height, Length, Depth, and a constant T (known as time).

Well the current theory (Superstring and M-theory) favors 11 dimensions. Unfortunately the mathmatics involved in proving or disproving the theory won't exist for a few decades.

I personally just define the Universe as being composed of everything everywhere. If matter can neither in fact be created or destroyed, then the universe is never ending and always has and always will exist with no beginnign or end. Hopefully I'm not crossing any lines by saying this but the Bible would describe God as never beginning and never ending and being everywhere. Wouldn't that mean that the Universe is actually just God? If God is the Universe, and God created the Heavens and the Earth (which are in the Universe), wouldn't this support both the bible and science?

Interesting theory. I like it. (Although it seems to say that God created Himself.)

I personally just define the Universe as being composed of everything everywhere. If matter can neither in fact be created or destroyed, then the universe is never ending and always has and always will exist with no beginnign or end. Hopefully I'm not crossing any lines by saying this but the Bible would describe God as never beginning and never ending and being everywhere. Wouldn't that mean that the Universe is actually just God? If God is the Universe, and God created the Heavens and the Earth (which are in the Universe), wouldn't this support both the bible and science?

yes

I personally just define the Universe as being composed of everything everywhere. If matter can neither in fact be created or destroyed, then the universe is never ending and always has and always will exist with no beginnign or end. Hopefully I'm not crossing any lines by saying this but the Bible would describe God as never beginning and never ending and being everywhere. Wouldn't that mean that the Universe is actually just God? If God is the Universe, and God created the Heavens and the Earth (which are in the Universe), wouldn't this support both the bible and science?Judiasm has a little different explanation on the nature of the divine... according to the mystical side of Judiasm their are 3 veils before you get to god. They are titled Ain (no thing), Ain Soph (no limit or limitless), and Ain Soph Aur (limitless light). I could go into some pretty deep Qabalistic interpretation but I think that it can stand on its' own with the physics of today. Of course the beauty of the Qabala is that it doesn't require religion but rather uses the archtypes in religion to explain relationships... :cool:

Oh and the Judaic explanation about god is that there is no way to know or comprehend (it?). Definitions take away from the true nature of the divine.

Well, people don't like to accept that there is a GOD but rotarygod I like your explanation. The thing is, with a HIGHLY LIMITED mind we can not even begin to understand the "universe".

Like the Bible states "Alpha & Omega" Begining and the END...how can humans that live in a world with birth & death, start and end understand that the universe ( or GOD) were always there and never end? We can not even get close to understanding that.

One thing I heard is that GOD, as in all things, has complete control over everything he has made, so he has control over time. If there is no time...there is no ageing, no end...we live under the rules of TIME so we are limited...GOD IS UNLIMITED...NO END

You can go on and on and on and on...we just wont be able to understand it, maybe in arrogance or just theoritically we can talk about it...but we will never know unless GOD reveals it to us. Sorry, I know he did not want to hear GOD in this thread...but rotarygod started it...LOL

Its called the reverse twinke effect. Stating that the Uiv is surounded buy a creaming filling of unknow make up.

That's the Homer Simpson theory...LOL

Interesting theory. I like it. (Although it seems to say that God created Himself.)

If he truly does exist then he had to come from somewhere right? I like Rotaty gods theroy, nice and neat and simple.

Well, according to Einstien, space is curved (simple explaination). According to Hawking, the slightly less simple explaination is: if you leave one "end" of the universe, you'll wind up on the opposite side where you exited from. So there is no end, hence "curved".

On the religion aspect..., a couple decades back (when Hawking had more motor control, this is in one of his books) the Pope wanted to speak to some scientists (mainly astrophysicists). He told them to go ahead and figure everything out they possibly could, he would support anything AFTER the moment of creation. But they were not to speculate on anything before, as that is the church's purview. Kind of funny.

There's actually a couple of schools of thought on the expansion theory. One is that it will expand forever. Two, the expansion will slow but reach an equilibrium. Three, it will expand until it reaches a peak, then will collapse back down to a singularity and start all over again.

***Also, there are no such things as dinosaurs. The designers of Earth just put them there to confuse us. The mice were terribly upset about the whole 'destruction of the earth thing'. :D

Also, there's a great book by Bill Bryson called "A Short History of Nearly Everything.*" Puts a lot of stuff into laymans terms. Plus he is an exceptional writer.

Well, according to Einstien, space is curved (simple explaination). According to Hawking, the slightly less simple explaination is: if you leave one "end" of the universe, you'll wind up on the opposite side where you exited from. So there is no end, hence "curved".

On the religion aspect..., a couple decades back (when Hawking had more motor control, this is in one of his books) the Pope wanted to speak to some scientists (mainly astrophysicists). He told them to go ahead and figure everything out they possibly could, he would support anything AFTER the moment of creation. But they were not to speculate on anything before, as that is the church's purview. Kind of funny.

There's actually a couple of schools of thought on the expansion theory. One is that it will expand forever. Two, the expansion will slow but reach an equilibrium. Three, it will expand until it reaches a peak, then will collapse back down to a singularity and start all over again.

***Also, there are no such things as dinosaurs. The designers of Earth just put them there to confuse us. The mice were terribly upset about the whole 'destruction of the earth thing'. :D

Also, there's a great book by Bill Bryson called "A Short History of Nearly Everything.*" Puts a lot of stuff into laymans terms. Plus he is an exceptional writer.


I always surscibed to theroy 3 st some point heat/energy/gravity will balance out expansion will stop things will cool and gravity will pull a cold dying univers back to a singularity therefore generating energy and "pressure" till there is another bang.

I thought that someone had recently proven (as much as it can be proven) one of these three theories? I can't recall which one, though.

I thought that someone had recently proven (as much as it can be proven) one of these three theories? I can't recall which one, though.

I was under the inpresion it was theroy three the out,in,out theroy so to speak.

Of course, that just leads to the question of where God came from, unless you duck it by saying He just Is, which is no more or less defensible than saying the universe just is, IMHO. (But now I tread on thin ice and risk having this thread closed, I fear.)

Reminds me of the old story about the wise man who said (as I recall) that the world rests on the back of a tortoise. His disciple then asked what the tortoise was standing on, to which he replied, "Oh, it's just tortoises all the way down." :D

some things arent to be explained, but i sometimes laugh when people quote the infallible laws of physics, laws are always written lol

outside the universe is....

Gravity, if anything... ill bet on whatever your imagination can muster :).

And rotarygod, wonderful explanation. Albeit, against the human nature of curiosity, but excellent. But it begs the 'anti'... what if it just IS.

I was under the inpresion it was theroy three the out,in,out theroy so to speak.

All depends on the shape of our universe.

Planal universe will expand forever.

Circular universe will implode.

Oblonged (oval), it will reach stasis. So to say that the universe would constantly be pulling on itself from all directions going absolutely nowhere try to balance itself.



Circular is the theory currently embraced. Although proving either 3 of the theories is an easy chore.

Religious beliefs aside (please!), I keep hearing about our universe expanding, the Big Bang, etc. Now, are they talking about matter expanding into space, or are they saying that space is expanding, too? And if the latter, is there supposed to be nothing outside the universe? I can't get my head around this. I tried to read this explanation (http://www.astro.ucla.edu/~wright/cosmology_faq.html#XIN), but really don't get it.
I read one of Steven Hawkings' books. About the time he started in about 6 different types of quarks, I realized the force was no longer with me. :D However, I remember reading not long ago that some astrophysicists had discovered that the expanding universe is actually accelerating apart, which is completely counter-intuitive to me. :confused:

So you have all the matter in the universe. To my understanding, the "universe" is all the stuff we can see, and (hypothetically) touch via magically fast spacecraft. As far as what's "outside" of all that stuff, while physics may define it as "undefined," I think of it as just a neverending void. Am I right? Dunno. Do I care? ( :D )

As far as the whole God thing, IMHO, God exists, has always existed, and will always exist. Other than that I can give a rip about the rest of the dogma. :)

here's my take on it, http://tinyurl.com/5ulf2
If anyone is a real life physiscist and would like to knock holes in my theory I would love to hear what you have to say :-)

All depends on the shape of our universe.

Planal universe will expand forever.

Circular universe will implode.

Oblonged (oval), it will reach stasis. So to say that the universe would constantly be pulling on itself from all directions going absolutely nowhere try to balance itself.



Circular is the theory currently embraced. Although proving either 3 of the theories is an easy chore.
If the universe has a shape, it is definitely shaped like a rotor! That's the only thing that makes any logical sense. It may not be the most efficient or universally accepted shape for a universe but it certainly makes sense. ;)

I was thinking that it was shaped like a donut. mmmmm, infinatly big donut.

What is outside the universe?

Watch this slideshow, and see for yourself (maybe). It's free, just wait a second for it to stream.

Hubble Pics (http://wires.news.com.au/special/mm/030811-hubble.htm)

This thread was better without the religion. :p

Anyway, little side note - I don't understand how time is a dimension. In each of the other 3 dimensions, we can move in a positive direction and a negative direction.

1d - left/right
2d - forward/backward
3d - up/down

With time, we can only move forward in it. I think it's more of a measurement of change than an actual dimension. But, even that is subject to argument.

What's the universe expanding into? Nothing. Probably the best way to think about it. Currently, we aren't able to understand the existence of anything outside of our universe. After all, that's what the universe means: everything. To say that it is expanding into something is to change the concept of the bounds of the universe. We would be saying that there is something outside the universe which we cannot perceive, yet the universe is only what we can. It's somewhat self-contradicting. If the universe wraps around on itself, then it is either expanding into itself, or it is expanding into a dimension that we don't currently understand. There would only be one way to find that out of course, you'd have to go to the edge of the universe and go faster than the universe is expanding. If it's expanding at the speed of light, good luck making it to the edge.

All in all, it's not that important in the scheme of everything on earth. I wouldn't bother about it until stars and galaxies start speeding toward me and everything gets hotter. :p

It's fun to theorize but that's all it will ever be, a theory. The universe is so HUGE beyond our understandings of time, space, distance, etc that pretty much any guess is plausible or could be kinda sorta correct.

I, believe GOD created it all and by looking at things he seems to like round things. The planets are round and go around the sun in a kinda sorta round bath. So, the universe being round would make some sense. The thing is...if it's ever expanding...what da heck is on the edge of the universe where the universe has not reached out to yet?

This is brain pain type of stuff and non of us, not even the HUGE brains of the world or of the past can even scratch the surface. We will know when we get there...but wait...we can never get to the edge of something that is constantly expanding at a unknown rate of speed without going faster than it.....BRAIN LOCK...BRAIN LOCK....I need to reboot...LOL

Yep, most of this kinda stuff is all theories. I can't argue mine any better than yours. So, let's all go have a drink. :D

I like what one said a few posts up, the universe is shaped like a rotor!! LOL That's a good one. Well it would be informational to know what is beyond our universe but man has yet to solve many unknown issues with the human cell and what's in our own universe. The only body we have flown to for a human to walk on is the moon. I find the moon rather boring but interesting since it sure took a large share of meteor hits while the earth only has a few. Why is that? Why does Saturn have rings? Why do some planets in our solar system have several moons that move in different paths and different directions?

Yep, most of this kinda stuff is all theories. I can't argue mine any better than yours. So, let's all go have a drink. :D


LOL, I am drinking tea right now! does that count?

I like what one said a few posts up, the universe is shaped like a rotor!! LOL That's a good one. Well it would be informational to know what is beyond our universe but man has yet to solve many unknown issues with the human cell and what's in our own universe. The only body we have flown to for a human to walk on is the moon. I find the moon rather boring but interesting since it sure took a large share of meteor hits while the earth only has a few. Why is that? Why does Saturn have rings? Why do some planets in our solar system have several moons that move in different paths and different directions?
Moon = no atmosphere. We are protected by air and stuff, a lotta crap burns up entering the atmosphere. The moon just takes it all.

Saturn has runs because of debris stuck in orbit of the planet. Some say it's old exploded moons or dust from a meteor impact on the planet. In any event, the runs are caused by gravity and the spin of Saturn.

They move in different paths because it's motion relative to where we are. It's easier to explain with a model solar system. Anyway, it's called retrograde motion. This is a decent explanation. (http://www.scienceu.com/observatory/articles/retro/retro.html)

LOL, I am drinking tea right now! does that count?
Sure does! :D

It's fun to theorize but that's all it will ever be, a theory. The universe is so HUGE beyond our understandings of time, space, distance, etc that pretty much any guess is plausible or could be kinda sorta correct. ...
Yep, most of this kinda stuff is all theories. I can't argue mine any better than yours. So, let's all go have a drink.

Well... I'll split a hair with you (this is one of my sore subjects). Remember that the word "theory" has a very different meaning in science than it does in common usage. Most times we use the word to denote any wild-assed idea that anybody dreams up. In science, the it means a properly formed hypothesis (one that is falsifiable) that is supported by a preponderance of evidence. Thus, when some con artist (er... I mean author) says he has a "theory" that aliens planted humans being on the Earth to harvest later, that carries far less weight (ie, -0-) than a physicist who discusses the Theory of Gravity.

And my theory (small "t") of the meaning of the universe is the search for the perfect chocolate chip cookie. :D

What is outside the Universe?

My ueterus.

The Universe as you know it is located in my non-existent sexual organs.

Didn't you see Futurama? It's a parallel universe where everyone is a cowboy. There's only two.

Well... I'll split a hair with you (this is one of my sore subjects). Remember that the word "theory" has a very different meaning in science than it does in common usage. Most times we use the word to denote any wild-assed idea that anybody dreams up. In science, the it means a properly formed hypothesis (one that is falsifiable) that is supported by a preponderance of evidence. Thus, when some con artist (er... I mean author) says he has a "theory" that aliens planted humans being on the Earth to harvest later, that carries far less weight (ie, -0-) than a physicist who discusses the Theory of Gravity.

And my theory (small "t") of the meaning of the universe is the search for the perfect chocolate chip cookie. :D
Often times, I find it best not to discern the two. I believe that some physicists are raving loonies as well. Let's not forget, after all, Quantum physics is largely similar to faith. :D

I will assist in this search for the perfect chocolate chip cookie.

What is outside the Universe?

My ueterus.

The Universe as you know it is located in my non-existent sexual organs.

Man, whatever you are taking it sure must be good. Non-existent sex organs? LOL

I heard there's pink ice cream on one of the far distant planets

This thread was better without the religion. :p

Anyway, little side note - I don't understand how time is a dimension. In each of the other 3 dimensions, we can move in a positive direction and a negative direction.

1d - left/right
2d - forward/backward
3d - up/down

With time, we can only move forward in it. I think it's more of a measurement of change than an actual dimension. But, even that is subject to argument.



Well, there's no motion (left/right, up/down... etc) without time to measure it. The way it was explained to me is that every dimension encompasses the ones below it, but not above it.

Take a dot on a x-y graph for instance. Put a dot just a little above-left of center. At this point we're talking about a two-dimensional graph, and that dot will be happy just sitting there. Now we add a z-axis, and rotate our original graph (with dot). We find that along with the dot, there is a line along the z-axis that we couldn't SEE in 2D. Just because we couldn't see it in 2D doesn't mean it wasn't there. Just like in the cat paradox above, if we can't determine, we have to allow for it to be both there and not.

While we can concoct our own measure of time we can't move left or right on a timeline. While we are encompassed in the passage of time, we are stuck in third dimension, unable to view the fourth. I don't know if this makes any sense, I have trouble verbalizing abstract thoughts sometimes.

Well, there's no motion (left/right, up/down... etc) without time to measure it. The way it was explained to me is that every dimension encompasses the ones below it, but not above it.

Take a dot on a x-y graph for instance. Put a dot just a little above-left of center. At this point we're talking about a two-dimensional graph, and that dot will be happy just sitting there. Now we add a z-axis, and rotate our original graph (with dot). We find that along with the dot, there is a line along the z-axis that we couldn't SEE in 2D. Just because we couldn't see it in 2D doesn't mean it wasn't there. Just like in the cat paradox above, if we can't determine, we have to allow for it to be both there and not.

While we can concoct our own measure of time we can't move left or right on a timeline. While we are encompassed in the passage of time, we are stuck in third dimension, unable to view the fourth. I don't know if this makes any sense, I have trouble verbalizing abstract thoughts sometimes.
Which is why I say that we cannot call the time the fourth dimension. We don't know what it is. We will probably never be able to grasp something on a higher level like that or move freely within it. Just like a 2d line has no grasp of 3d. We 3d beings will have no grasp of 4d. It deals slightly with nomenclature, but I don't think time is the 4th dimension.

I personally perfer the 11th dimension. I spend long weekends there at my condo on the beach.

I personally perfer the 11th dimension. I spend long weekends there at my condo on the beach.
Dude! They got time share on that? :D

yeah, it's listed with RCI

To correct Rotary God (assuming I remember correctly), matter can be created and destroyed, it's energy that can't be created or destroyed, but rather just change state.

But that's coming from a guy who thinks that Matter is just condensed energy :-)

Anti-matter is delicious!

Gosh, we are all a bunch of HUGE nerds...LOL

But it's fun.

About Saturn's rings, I thought the rings would eventually fall into the atmosphere of Saturn? Gravity keeps pulling things into the center so then the rings should fall apart and into the planet. Why do they stick around?

Our satellites, as far as I understand, are almost constantly adjusting their orbit to stay up there so what keeps the space dust/rucks around Saturn spinning around without breaking apart?

Is it that, Saturn spins fast enough to maintain things in orbit around it? Hummmm

I apologize in advance for contributing to topic drift, but recently I saw an interesting documentary on the relative lack of effective science education in the US. In one segment a camera crew stood outside a Harvard graduation and asked graduates, still resplendent in caps and gowns, what the heck causes the seasons? One student after another replied that when the earth moves further away from the sun, we get winter; when the planet moves closer, summer.

Harvard.

Gosh, we are all a bunch of HUGE nerds...LOL

But it's fun.

About Saturn's rings, I thought the rings would eventually fall into the atmosphere of Saturn? Gravity keeps pulling things into the center so then the rings should fall apart and into the planet. Why do they stick around?

Our satellites, as far as I understand, are almost constantly adjusting their orbit to stay up there so what keeps the space dust/rucks around Saturn spinning around without breaking apart?

Is it that, Saturn spins fast enough to maintain things in orbit around it? Hummmm

technically the rings are falling into saturn, just like the earth is technically falling into the sun. orbit is basically falling with large tangential velocity, enough so that as you're falling you essentially miss the ground.

The satellites are adjusting their orbits to fly over different things. for instance a satellite flying above new york needs to adjust its orbit to fly over los angeles.

Saturn's rings are as broken up as they probably will be, seeing as how they probably were celestial bodies millions of years ago, right now they are distant enough from each other that they don't interact as much. Sort of like entropy has been exhausted and they've reached a near equilibrium. Gravity has a tendency to slow things down, for instance the moon has been slowed to nearly no rotation, in fact it only rotates once for each revolution. The moon is having this same effect on the earth, gravity is manipulating the rotational force away from the earth, and in billions of years the earth will slow down its rotation. Im hypothesizing that gravity has slowed the vectors of velocity of saturn's rings such that they are uniform with the planet.

I apologize in advance for contributing to topic drift, but recently I saw an interesting documentary on the relative lack of effective science education in the US. In one segment a camera crew stood outside a Harvard graduation and asked graduates, still resplendent in caps and gowns, what the heck causes the seasons? One student after another replied that when the earth moves further away from the sun, we get winter; when the planet moves closer, summer.

Harvard.

ha awesome, well as a penn grad i learned that its all about tilt, who's a second tier ivy now! lol

technically the rings are falling into saturn, just like the earth is technically falling into the sun. orbit is basically falling with large tangential velocity, enough so that as you're falling you essentially miss the ground.

The satellites are adjusting their orbits to fly over different things. for instance a satellite flying above new york needs to adjust its orbit to fly over los angeles.

Saturn's rings are as broken up as they probably will be, seeing as how they probably were celestial bodies millions of years ago, right now they are distant enough from each other that they don't interact as much. Sort of like entropy has been exhausted and they've reached a near equilibrium. Gravity has a tendency to slow things down, for instance the moon has been slowed to nearly no rotation, in fact it only rotates once for each revolution. The moon is having this same effect on the earth, gravity is manipulating the rotational force away from the earth, and in billions of years the earth will slow down its rotation. Im hypothesizing that gravity has slowed the vectors of velocity of saturn's rings such that they are uniform with the planet.
The moon has 1 rotation per revolution because of a mass/density difference inside it. The heavier part is facing us, so earth pulls more on that as it orbits. After billions of years, the moon slowly got to its 1 rotation per revolution stage. What's interesting is that the moon acts as our gyroscope, keeping the earth spinning on its axis. Without the moon, life on this planet probably wouldn't exist as the axis would spin about wildly, north pole is in the area of the equator and so forth.

I like that description about orbiting. It's like DA said right? "The trick to flying is throwing yourself at the ground and missing."

Anyway, little side note - I don't understand how time is a dimension. In each of the other 3 dimensions, we can move in a positive direction and a negative direction.

Let's say Joe and Bob are chit-chatting. After a while they decide to meet up later.
Joe: " So, I'll meet you at on the roof of the building at the corner of 3rd street and 4th avenue."
Bob: "Ok see you there."
Joe walks off. Bob thinks to himself, "Hey what time are we supposed to meet?"

Let's say Joe and Bob are chit-chatting. After a while they decide to meet up later.
Joe: " So, I'll meet you at on the roof of the building at the corner of 3rd street and 4th avenue."
Bob: "Ok see you there."
Joe walks off. Bob thinks to himself, "Hey what time are we supposed to meet?"
And?

Regarding season/climates... Keep in mind that scientists haven't known that the oceans play a major part in weather/seasonal changes for very long. No one even studied meteorology until the 16th century, roughly 1900 yeaars after Aristotle coined the term (300 or so BC).

hell, we didn't have an accurate way to measure the temp until early 17th thanks in part to Ferenheit. Sure Gallileo had a thermometer in the late 1500s, but it wasn't (and the ones of that period) were not as accurate as the ones in the early 17th thanks to improved manufacturing.

I do find it funny that Celcius' scale originally had freezing at 100 and boiling at 0. Proving yet again, that inventors don't always get things right the first time.

I can't really see that as an excuse for no knowing simple stuff like that. You're talking hundreds of years, it should be rather trivial by now. Hell, I am learning stuff right now that didnt exist 30 years ago.

What is outside the Universe?

My ueterus.

The Universe as you know it is located in my non-existent sexual organs.What is Nuit, Alex? So your life partner then would be Hadit?

Let's say Joe and Bob are chit-chatting. After a while they decide to meet up later.
Joe: " So, I'll meet you at on the roof of the building at the corner of 3rd street and 4th avenue."
Bob: "Ok see you there."
Joe walks off. Bob thinks to himself, "Hey what time are we supposed to meet?"

Your point is moot because if Bob waited 20 years, he could jump on a FTL ship, zip around the sun and meet up with Joe. He'd know where to go cause after he didn't show up the first time, Joe sent Bob a nasty text message saying, "WTF were you? I was there at 6pm!"

Of course, this would create a time paradox, and probably destroy this region of the galaxy. Damn, I better call up USAA and get some temporal insurance on my car and house.

Gosh, we are all a bunch of HUGE nerds...LOL

But it's fun.

About Saturn's rings, I thought the rings would eventually fall into the atmosphere of Saturn? Gravity keeps pulling things into the center so then the rings should fall apart and into the planet. Why do they stick around?

Our satellites, as far as I understand, are almost constantly adjusting their orbit to stay up there so what keeps the space dust/rucks around Saturn spinning around without breaking apart?

Is it that, Saturn spins fast enough to maintain things in orbit around it? Hummmm

An orbit is basically "fleeing as fast as you're falling". Once in a stable orbit, an object would continue in that orbit without some outside influence. Other than the Moon, our satellites are VERY close to the earth so they are still close enough to experience some atmospheric drag. Also, do a google search on "Shepherd Moons".

Shepherd... Moon... Pie? Mmm... Pie...

Your point is moot because if Bob waited 20 years, he could jump on a FTL ship, zip around the sun and meet up with Joe. He'd know where to go cause after he didn't show up the first time, Joe sent Bob a nasty text message saying, "WTF were you? I was there at 6pm!"

Of course, this would create a time paradox, and probably destroy this region of the galaxy. Damn, I better call up USAA and get some temporal insurance on my car and house.


That would just prove that time is a dimension to those who say you have to be able to move forward and backward through it.

How about this: if you are traveling 185,999.999999999999999999... miles/sec, light is still travel 186,000 miles/sec faster than you (in your frame of reference), so how can you travel faster than light :confused: , makes me think that Special Relativity is a load of kaka at those speeds :p

That would just prove that time is a dimension to those who say you have to be able to move forward and backward through it.

How about this: if you are traveling 185,999.999999999999999999... miles/sec, light is still travel 186,000 miles/sec faster than you (in your frame of reference), so how can you travel faster than light :confused: , makes me think that Special Relativity is a load of kaka at those speeds :p

Easy, you can travel faster than light by harnessing the power of bad news. Because as we all know, bad news is the fastest thing in the universe.

On a serious note, I think we will find something that travels faster, or at least seems to travel faster. There has to be a shortcut.

That would just prove that time is a dimension to those who say you have to be able to move forward and backward through it.

How about this: if you are traveling 185,999.999999999999999999... miles/sec, light is still travel 186,000 miles/sec faster than you (in your frame of reference), so how can you travel faster than light :confused: , makes me think that Special Relativity is a load of kaka at those speeds :p
Light travels at the same speed no matter what. It's 3.0x10^6 m/s. That's finite, it can never move faster than that. Relativity works up until you start approaching light speeds. When you get that fast and can disprove it, then we can talk.

Easy, you can travel faster than light by harnessing the power of bad news. Because as we all know, bad news is the fastest thing in the universe.

On a serious note, I think we will find something that travels faster, or at least seems to travel faster. There has to be a shortcut.
Evanescent particles transmitting through a non-transmittable medium supposedly achieve super-lightspeeds. Quantum Tunneling, look it up. I did a project on that stuff. It's interesting. It's more of the "seems to travel faster than light" than finitely travels faster than light to me.

Light travels at the same speed no matter what. It's 3.0x10^6 m/s. That's finite, it can never move faster than that. Relativity works up until you start approaching light speeds. When you get that fast and can disprove it, then we can talk.

That's what I was saying, C is a constant, for everyone, no matter how fast you are moving it is always C faster than you. For example, 2 spaceships are 186000 miles apart both traveling .999999999C. One is chasing the other and fires a laser. Newtonian physics would tell the lead spaceship that it is safe, and the laser would take a very long time to reach it. However modern physics shows us that the laser would take exactly 1 second to reach the other spaceship, according to those in the spaceships.

That would just prove that time is a dimension to those who say you have to be able to move forward and backward through it.

How about this: if you are traveling 185,999.999999999999999999... miles/sec, light is still travel 186,000 miles/sec faster than you (in your frame of reference), so how can you travel faster than light :confused: , makes me think that Special Relativity is a load of kaka at those speeds :p

absolutely not, it actually kinda makes sense when you think about how time slows down as you speed up (this has been proven extensively). relative to the astronaut who flashes a light on to a wall a meter away inside the spaceship the light travelled the one meter from the flashlight to the wall in 1m/1c seconds. But in order for that light to have travelled that far inside a ship that was going 185,999.9999999999999999999999999999 miles per second the light must have taken long enough so that it was not going faster than light speed to a neutral outsider. Now if the observer watcched the ship for one second(if he even could) the ship actually travelled 185999 miles, so the light to the observer also traveled 185999 miles plus the meter from leaving the flashlight to the wall. so while the observer watched a photon travel over 185999 miles (+1 meter) inside the spaceship the astronaut saw a photon only go one meter, Light speed is absolute so clearly less time actually passed inside the spaceship during that one second that the observer observed because otherwise the photon would of taken a split second to reach that wall not the full second plus the split second :) anyone got a headache? because i think tthats how relativity works.

Evanescent particles transmitting through a non-transmittable medium supposedly achieve super-lightspeeds. Quantum Tunneling, look it up. I did a project on that stuff. It's interesting. It's more of the "seems to travel faster than light" than finitely travels faster than light to me.

the speed of light in water is slower than the speed of light in air or a vacuum. This has some unfortunate side effects. During a nuclear breach radioactive matter will escape from its sealed environment and travel through the water at faster than the speed of light in water (but slower than absolute light speed), just like breaking the speed of sound there is a boom, a light boom occurs in the water in the form of a pale blue flash (if you've ever seen pictures of the inside o a nuclear reactor, this explains the pale blue glow). During the cchernobyl clean up workers complained about seeing a blue flash, when there was no actual light emission detected. This was explained as a massive radiation dose...as it hit their eyes the particles traveled faster than the speed of light in the medium of their eyes and they perceived a blue flash. (obviously that dose of radiation eventually killed them). But faster than light speed travel is possible, but not in a vacuum and never faster than 3.0*10^8 m/s.

That's what I was saying, C is a constant, for everyone, no matter how fast you are moving it is always C faster than you. For example, 2 spaceships are 186000 miles apart both traveling .999999999C. One is chasing the other and fires a laser. Newtonian physics would tell the lead spaceship that it is safe, and the laser would take a very long time to reach it. However modern physics shows us that the laser would take exactly 1 second to reach the other spaceship, according to those in the spaceships.
How does modern physics show that?

How does modern physics show that?


I guess i should say that modern physicists show that. Because that delves into a world of equations and experiments that I don't have the education to understand :D

Quantum Tunneling, look it up.

I think I quantum tunneled once...one moment I was drinking my umpteenth crown and coke, the next I was waking up on a friends couch with a massive headache. Quantum tunneling is bad for your health :p

the speed of light in water is slower than the speed of light in air or a vacuum. This has some unfortunate side effects. During a nuclear breach radioactive matter will escape from its sealed environment and travel through the water at faster than the speed of light in water (but slower than absolute light speed), just like breaking the speed of sound there is a boom, a light boom occurs in the water in the form of a pale blue flash (if you've ever seen pictures of the inside o a nuclear reactor, this explains the pale blue glow). During the cchernobyl clean up workers complained about seeing a blue flash, when there was no actual light emission detected. This was explained as a massive radiation dose...as it hit their eyes the particles traveled faster than the speed of light in the medium of their eyes and they perceived a blue flash. (obviously that dose of radiation eventually killed them). But faster than light speed travel is possible, but not in a vacuum and never faster than 3.0*10^8 m/s.
A tunneling physicist would disagree on that last statement. Due to staggered effects between non-transmissable and transmissable media, the speed of tunneling microwaves can achieve speeds of up to 9x the speed of light. I am not kidding. Do a google for "superluminal tunneling" or "FTL tunneling." You'll see a lot of published material on this subject.

*Edit* Here's a little help. (http://arxiv.org/PS_cache/quant-ph/pdf/0002/0002022.pdf) I found this, it has many references to bigger experiments that have verified the superluminal speeds of evanescent particles between two non-transmissable barriers. Quantum is weird.

A tunneling physicist would disagree on that last statement. Due to staggered effects between non-transmissable and transmissable media, the speed of tunneling microwaves can achieve speeds of up to 9x the speed of light. I am not kidding. Do a google for "superluminal tunneling" or "FTL tunneling." You'll see a lot of published material on this subject.

*Edit* Here's a little help. (http://arxiv.org/PS_cache/quant-ph/pdf/0002/0002022.pdf) I found this, it has many references to bigger experiments that have verified the superluminal speeds of evanescent particles between two non-transmissable barriers. Quantum is weird.


very interesting stuff, very wierd....quantum is definitely wierd, i did some reading before on quantum teleportation (i guess that would be infinite speed) they managed to actually teleport a pohton over a distance of about a meter. i think one of the biggest caveats in believing in quantum is that you have to believe that photons have mass (i think they do, when they hit an object they exert force, force requires mass)

Teleportation is cool too. It's like making a clone over there with the original here, but the original dies in the process. Collapsing wave functions is crazy stuff. It's interesting. Quantum does require a large amount of faith, though.

Teleportation is cool too. It's like making a clone over there with the original here, but the original dies in the process. Collapsing wave functions is crazy stuff. It's interesting. Quantum does require a large amount of faith, though.
however increasingly that faith is being proven in the labs. i heard something on how in the next 50 years computers will be based on quantum switches, and thusly a revolution in terms of a ccomputers ability to do praccticcally anything. (my c appears to be stuck)

Ya...and will be able to cook a steak in a hot 4 seconds in our quantum microwave 3000.

Thats what I'm waiting for. :p

however increasingly that faith is being proven in the labs. i heard something on how in the next 50 years computers will be based on quantum switches, and thusly a revolution in terms of a ccomputers ability to do praccticcally anything. (my c appears to be stuck)
Qubits... mmm.... sounds like a cereal. You need to fix that keyboard. :D

Evanescent particles transmitting through a non-transmittable medium supposedly achieve super-lightspeeds. Quantum Tunneling, look it up. I did a project on that stuff. It's interesting. It's more of the "seems to travel faster than light" than finitely travels faster than light to me.

Already have... they are called Tachions. Luftwaffle mentioned ways of reproducing them or creating them. Surprisingly though, they exist naturally. They also hit the earth quite often.

Also, someone asked for an answer to 'what is outside the universe.' I did provide an answer, but I dont think it was well absorbed.

Remember the black hole thing? A massive ball of gravity holding HUGE clumps of objects in place? Imagine the amount of gravity the universe extroverts OUTSIDE of it... that also helps to explain why our universe expands. Since time and gravity are nearly brothers, where there is gravity, there is time. And where there is time, there is existence. Eventually though, due the the circular theory, the universe will expand so that its gravitational pull outside of it will... well, go bye bye-no more expansion. And that would mean the gravitational pull inside will... make us go bye bye.

Or there is nothing.

Already have... they are called Tachions. Luftwaffle mentioned ways of reproducing them or creating them. Surprisingly though, they exist naturally. They also hit the earth quite often.

tachyons are theoretical they have negative, or imaginary mass, so as they lose energy they accelerate to superluminal (<--i like that word) speeds...they can't go slower than the speed of light, however they have not been proven....i think you are thinking of neutrinos...or perhaps thinking of cosmic rays and possible tachyon emissions from cosmic rays...cosmic rays can be recorded but tachyons can only be theorized.

That's what I was saying.
That's what I was saying too, but I was just joking around..... ;)

I agree, that have not been proven. But, in theory, they exist. Since anti-matter is something that is believed to exist as well (we call it a black hole) it defies the laws of gravity, time, space, and just about everything else including stop signs. Tachions are sometimes though to be miniature black holes since they are believed to be so powerful (or unpowerful... if that is a word) that they are able to break the intense gravity of their originating blackhole or cosmic ray and zoom through the universe at a rate that isnt measure in speed. Instead, it is measured in -T (time)

I agree, that have not been proven. But, in theory, they exist. Since anti-matter is something that is believed to exist as well (we call it a black hole) it defies the laws of gravity, time, space, and just about everything else including stop signs. Tachions are sometimes though to be miniature black holes since they are believed to be so powerful (or unpowerful... if that is a word) that they are able to break the intense gravity of their originating blackhole or cosmic ray and zoom through the universe at a rate that isnt measure in speed. Instead, it is measured in -T (time)


hold on a second negative mass is one thing, antimatter is anotther...antimatter is massive however the difference is in the charge instead of protons neutrons and electrons, antimatter is made up of antiprotons and positrons (antineutrons are the theoretical one, havent been created), antihydrogen infact has been made (antiproton and a positron). However when anti matter interacts with standard matter, the two are annihilated and their entire mass converts to energy (of different types, quantum physicists help me on this one). So you say why dont we make an antimatter reactor? problem is its hard to a. make antimatter (a few antimatter particles are created in particle accelerators) and b. its hard to store since you can't let it touch matter.

hold on a second negative mass is one thing, antimatter is anotther...antimatter is massive however the difference is in the charge instead of protons neutrons and electrons, antimatter is made up of antiprotons and positrons (antineutrons are the theoretical one, havent been created), antihydrogen infact has been made (antiproton and a positron). However when anti matter interacts with standard matter, the two are annihilated and their entire mass converts to energy (of different types, quantum physicists help me on this one). So you say why dont we make an antimatter reactor? problem is its hard to a. make antimatter (a few antimatter particles are created in particle accelerators) and b. its hard to store since you can't let it touch matter.

All true. I agree. Anti-matter would be great if we had a stable way to harness it. I dont know if I am completely understanding what you are saying in contest to the tachion theory though. But maybe this will help clarify what I mean and give you more ammo :).

As we all know, everything in the universe is subject to its surroundings which inheritly, since they exist, have mass of some sort. But 0 gravity space is just that, space. A tachion would be able to fly through space, regardless of origin (cosmic ray or black hole) until it made contact with anything. Though, I am not regarding tachions as anti-matter. Clearly evidence has shown that there are many possible sources of tachions which does not support in all realms that they are anti-matter. But, by their existence alone, they possess many traits simliar to anti-matter. Intense gravity being one of them. You could even dispute that they are light particles that moved through a wormhole (2 black holes) and re-broke the event horizon on the other side. The type of energy a particle would require to do that, would have to be SO great that indeed it would posess so many qualities that you could equate it with anything.

What are tachions? I dont know. Do they exist? I dont know. Since we really can not get anything close to a black hole or cosmic ray to measure the potentially short life span of a tachion, we may never know. They could even be products of a large star going supernova!!! That may be a stretch, but the astounding force of a huge ball of energy and gravity going literally nuclear could produce anything. Hell, supernova's created over half the universe by binding many hydrogen and helium atoms together to create elements like Lithium. Correct me if I am wrong, but when a star goes supernova, it can create 13-42 different elements of ranging isotopes. What else do you think it could create from that much energy?

Oh, and sorry if this is racking people's heads.

I only read the first page and my head hurts..I'm not reading the rest..

All true. I agree. Anti-matter would be great if we had a stable way to harness it. I dont know if I am completely understanding what you are saying in contest to the tachion theory though. But maybe this will help clarify what I mean and give you more ammo :).

As we all know, everything in the universe is subject to its surroundings which inheritly, since they exist, have mass of some sort. But 0 gravity space is just that, space. A tachion would be able to fly through space, regardless of origin (cosmic ray or black hole) until it made contact with anything. Though, I am not regarding tachions as anti-matter. Clearly evidence has shown that there are many possible sources of tachions which does not support in all realms that they are anti-matter. But, by their existence alone, they possess many traits simliar to anti-matter. Intense gravity being one of them. You could even dispute that they are light particles that moved through a wormhole (2 black holes) and re-broke the event horizon on the other side. The type of energy a particle would require to do that, would have to be SO great that indeed it would posess so many qualities that you could equate it with anything.

What are tachions? I dont know. Do they exist? I dont know. Since we really can not get anything close to a black hole or cosmic ray to measure the potentially short life span of a tachion, we may never know. They could even be products of a large star going supernova!!! That may be a stretch, but the astounding force of a huge ball of energy and gravity going literally nuclear could produce anything. Hell, supernova's created over half the universe by binding many hydrogen and helium atoms together to create elements like Lithium. Correct me if I am wrong, but when a star goes supernova, it can create 13-42 different elements of ranging isotopes. What else do you think it could create from that much energy?

Oh, and sorry if this is racking people's heads.

no tachyons arent at all like antimatter :) tachyons are imaginary/negative matter (i.e. you divide by a negative to define their properties hence imaginary, imaginary here refers to imaginary numbers for instance solve this: 2/-6=x), because of this negative property the laws of physics say they must travel at faster than the speed of light, however they cannot be produced, and supposedly the only way that we 'may' be able to find them is when cosmic rays hit the earth...and the task here is similar to trying to prove a negative, you can't prove something on a machine that doesn't think these things can exist. antimatter on the other hand is very simple in comparison to explain, and creatable under specific circumstances. antimatter is matter just with the opposite polarity, of its counter parts. a positron has the same mass and energy as an electron just a positive instead of a negative charge, an an antiproton has the same mass and energy as a proton but a negative instead of a positive charge, and i did some reading there are antineutrons, that are made up of antiquarks.

actually supernovae are responsible for every single element that is higher than iron on the chart (iron being the last element that fusion can create with positive energy) quite a few more than 42 :), most normal supergiant fusion is responsible for all the elements below iron although these elements are created during a supernova as well. all the higher elements on this planet came from a supernova far away, supernovae also create extremely low mass no charge particles called neutrinos that travel at almost the speed of light and interact with most matter by going through it. they are only affected by the weak force and gravity, and are very hard to detect.

b. its hard to store since you can't let it touch matter.

i read an article recently about someone's success at making a "magnetic bottle" similar to what had been suggested by the original star trek series as a way to contain and transport anit-matter. it must have been in discover as i have a subscription.

i read an article recently about someone's success at making a "magnetic bottle" similar to what had been suggested by the original star trek series as a way to contain and transport anit-matter. it must have been in discover as i have a subscription.

yeah thats the only way they've done it.

Listen to Feras, he's smert. :D

Listen to Feras, he's smert. :D

but im no physicist i couldnt make these theories up, i just read em all coz they are interesting to me, for the longest time i wouldnt believe in special relativity, but i read a lot of the literature background and it made sense

no tachyons arent at all like antimatter :) tachyons are imaginary/negative matter (i.e. you divide by a negative to define their properties hence imaginary, imaginary here refers to imaginary numbers for instance solve this: 2/-6=x), because of this negative property the laws of physics say they must travel at faster than the speed of light, however they cannot be produced, and supposedly the only way that we 'may' be able to find them is when cosmic rays hit the earth...and the task here is similar to trying to prove a negative, you can't prove something on a machine that doesn't think these things can exist. antimatter on the other hand is very simple in comparison to explain, and creatable under specific circumstances. antimatter is matter just with the opposite polarity, of its counter parts. a positron has the same mass and energy as an electron just a positive instead of a negative charge, an an antiproton has the same mass and energy as a proton but a negative instead of a positive charge, and i did some reading there are antineutrons, that are made up of antiquarks.

actually supernovae are responsible for every single element that is higher than iron on the chart (iron being the last element that fusion can create with positive energy) quite a few more than 42 :), most normal supergiant fusion is responsible for all the elements below iron although these elements are created during a supernova as well. all the higher elements on this planet came from a supernova far away, supernovae also create extremely low mass no charge particles called neutrinos that travel at almost the speed of light and interact with most matter by going through it. they are only affected by the weak force and gravity, and are very hard to detect.

3i, there is an answer my friend. And I have to ask, since you are probably more well read on this matter, (havent picked up any physics books or articles in the past year) for the sake of a point :). If we can not detect them, how do we know they dont exist? Furthermore, their makeup? Would it be a stretch to say that their ability to go beyond C doesnt couple with certain traits such as the ability to break a strong gravitational pull? And out of curiousity, how much gravitational pull would it take to break the event horizon? Is that force going to be similar to an anti-matter particle sped up to C... which I doubt would be possible...

3i, there is an answer my friend. And I have to ask, since you are probably more well read on this matter, (havent picked up any physics books or articles in the past year) for the sake of a point :). If we can not detect them, how do we know they dont exist? Furthermore, their makeup? Would it be a stretch to say that their ability to go beyond C doesnt couple with certain traits such as the ability to break a strong gravitational pull? And out of curiousity, how much gravitational pull would it take to break the event horizon? Is that force going to be similar to an anti-matter particle sped up to C... which I doubt would be possible...

awesome you know your math :), the problem with proving an unprovable is an issue of faith lol...the makeup of a tachyon is as theoretical as the ability to detect them.

black holes are not a point that i know too much about (which means im going to read up on em, because i love learning), but to pull sometihng out of the event horizon, you'd need a pinpoint gravitational mass greater than that of the black hole, and thats probably another black hole :). btw one anti matter particle is no more interesting than an electron...positrons (antimatter) and electrons (twin in the matter world) for that matter both travel at near c velocities inherently.

really... always at C? I thought that photons achieved light speed inherently and anything beyond that small energy particle requires a little 'shove' to get her going fast. A good turbo, if you will.

awesome you know your math :), the problem with proving an unprovable is an issue of faith lol...the makeup of a tachyon is as theoretical as the ability to detect them.

black holes are not a point that i know too much about (which means im going to read up on em, because i love learning), but to pull sometihng out of the event horizon, you'd need a pinpoint gravitational mass greater than that of the black hole, and thats probably another black hole :). btw one anti matter particle is no more interesting than an electron...positrons (antimatter) and electrons (twin in the matter world) for that matter both travel at near c velocities inherently.

Exactly :). So if tachions do come from black holes... you get where I am going :).

And I am loving this conversation. Very rarely do I get the chance to dip my brain into the slop that is the makeup of our existence without someone wanting to talk about ponies.

things dont "break" the event horizon. they are thrown out. at the "poles" of the black hole. this has been talked about for some time but as recently as last week a black hole was shown to be shooting jets of energy from its poles deep into space forming a sort of "bubble" in a galaxy over by cygnus (i think it was cygnaus i dont have the article in front of me). gravity and magnetic fields are weaker at the poles so when a black hole is formedalot of stuff is ejected at the poles and it trravels incredibly far into space where it doesnt get dragged back into the gravity well like the stuff that is thrown off at the "equator". that stuff gets re-absorbed very quickly but the jets from the poles go on on for millions of years.

What's on the other side? Heck, I'd be happy just to see the friggin' door :)

It's simple. There is nothing outside the universe. If there were, it would be included in our universe. Linear time can be defined by the expansion of the universe. Therefore outside of that, even linear time does not exist. So, the universe is finite.

Depends on your definition of finite. In regards to expansion, probably so. In regards to time, probably infinite. Even if a small spec of dust exerting so little gravity existed, time would exist forever. Until everything in the universe is completely destroyed (which entropy states is not possible. But what happens to energy and matter in a black hole?) then existence is forever. You could say, which I believe, that the universe is GX-x (x being anything greater than 0). Meaning God's Experiment #1 or #2 and so on :).

Depends on your definition of finite. In regards to expansion, probably so. In regards to time, probably infinite. Even if a small spec of dust exerting so little gravity existed, time would exist forever. Until everything in the universe is completely destroyed (which entropy states is not possible. But what happens to energy and matter in a black hole?) then existence is forever. You could say, which I believe, that the universe is GX-x (x being anything greater than 0). Meaning God's Experiment #1 or #2 and so on :).

well if you create an equal mass of antimatter to the mass of the universe you can actually erase existence. but creating even 2 grams of antimatter is tough try 1*10^(almost infinity) grams.

We should develop an anti-matter bomb and hold the world ransom for 100 billion zillion dollars :eek:

We should develop an anti-matter bomb and hold the world ransom for 100 billion zillion dollars :eek:


awesome you wanna come over to my particle accelerator or should we meet up at yours :)

well if you create an equal mass of antimatter to the mass of the universe you can actually erase existence. but creating even 2 grams of antimatter is tough try 1*10^(almost infinity) grams.
I bet Napolean Dynamite could do it.
:)

awesome you wanna come over to my particle accelerator or should we meet up at yours :)

I suggest yours. They are watching me...............







;)