Page 2 of 2
#41
Quote by magnus_maximus
Not really that simple. The universe is expanding faster than light.

Interesting. So Einstein was wrong?
Quote by Gabel
You are EXTREMELY WRONG! I have played it. I own an 18W and it would be an awful stereo amp, it's way too bright, breaks up too easily and so on. Secondly, why would a guitar store sell an hifi amp.
#42
Quote by magnus_maximus
Nah, it's FAR more complex than that. See, as the universe is expanding, it's essentially creating space-time, so in that frame of reference it isn't going faster than light.

Put it this way, if there are no roads, there are no stop signs.

Interesting. As the universe expands, the laws of physics expand proportionately.
Quote by Gabel
You are EXTREMELY WRONG! I have played it. I own an 18W and it would be an awful stereo amp, it's way too bright, breaks up too easily and so on. Secondly, why would a guitar store sell an hifi amp.
#43
More that nothing is actually moving faster than light, because nothing is actually moving. There is just more space being created between things.
ningen ningen ningen ningen ningen
#44
Quote by magnus_maximus
Kind of.

Consider this - everything in the universe, ever, and everything that ever has, and everything that will be, has already happened. We are merely experiencing points in time - [x,y,z,t].

As the universe expands into nothing nothing "new" is really being created, but what was always there is displacing itself.

The bad news is the implications for the rest of us.

See, because of Conservation of Energy, all those things flying away to the edge of time are using up kinetic energy. We are also always losing heat energy and doing work.

Eventually this means all energy will be lost in the sense that everything in the universe will be balanced at one temperature, so no work can be done.

This is called the "heat death" theorem. It's how the universe will end.

Damned entropy.


Luckily for us this is still trillions of years away.
#45
It isn't just expanding... the rate at which is accelerating. Just think in billions of years you won't be able to see a star in the sky. Dark energy is supposedly the cause.

I'm getting deja vu.
“Science cannot solve the ultimate mystery of nature. And that is because, in the last analysis, we ourselves are part of nature and therefore part of the mystery that we are trying to solve.”


-Max Planck

☮∞☯♥
#46
^Which is why I said supposedly. Do you have a more entertained idea?
“Science cannot solve the ultimate mystery of nature. And that is because, in the last analysis, we ourselves are part of nature and therefore part of the mystery that we are trying to solve.”


-Max Planck

☮∞☯♥
#49
Quote by Dirge Humani
More that nothing is actually moving faster than light, because nothing is actually moving. There is just more space being created between things.


Yeah, nothing moves faster than light, and that's exactly what "nothing" is doing. Because all this "nothing" is taking over the universe, as if "nothing" is supposed to exist instead of something.

Well, I don't know really. But it's interesting to note that everything is already mostly empty space. The more you look at some point of reference, the more empty space you find around it. Your arm? Full of cells with empty space around them. Those cells? Full of atoms separated by empty space. Those atoms? Comprised of electrons flying around in empty space, orbiting some tiny nucleus. So on and so forth. And the same thing happens when we look "out" as when we look inward. Our solar system? Some small spheres flying around with a whole bunch of empty space around it. Our galaxy? A big collection of spheres, but a whole lot more empty space around it. So on and so forth.

Empty space.
#50
Sometimes I wonder if we are actually experiencing time backwards or something, like we didn't really come from the "big bang" but are really falling into some big black hole.

I mean, sure, time is a concept we invented to measure change, and perhaps "now" is the only thing that's real--things are just moving around like magic, and we just use points of reference to measure it with what we call "time"--but the fact that animals perceive time at different rates (i.e. a mosquito can observe smaller, quicker moments of time than a tortoise) shows that time is subjective. What if it's just wired in our brains to perceive time in this forward direction, but the reality is totally different?

Sorry if I'm rambling. What can I say? I'm an existence nerd.
Last edited by MrDo0m at Nov 18, 2012,
#51
Quote by Nelsean
Also, I'm sure your girl is going to leave you.

If he keeps smoking weed and doesn't grow up a bit, yeah.

TS, go study some astrophysics. Then it'll all make sense.
#52
Who cares. We'll never even be able to even get to the end of our own solar system.

Ever.

So why does it matter whats at the end of the universe?
#54
Quote by The Shroom420
Who cares. We'll never even be able to even get to the end of our own solar system.

Ever.

So why does it matter whats at the end of the universe?


Your imagination, it sucks

Also we already have a spacecraft outside of the heliopause, which is the furthest limit of our solar system, so wut?
But we little know until tried how much of the uncontrollable there is in us, urging across glaciers and torrents, and up dangerous heights, let the judgment forbid as it may.
#55
Quote by The Shroom420
Who cares. We'll never even be able to even get to the end of our own solar system.

Ever.

So why does it matter whats at the end of the universe?


Yeah, who cares about the moon? It's not like we'll ever go there. Oh wait..
#56
Quote by The Shroom420
Who cares. We'll never even be able to even get to the end of our own solar system.

Ever.

So why does it matter whats at the end of the universe?


I can't believe this is coming from someone with a username like The Shroom420.
I have a huge fear if rays.
#57
I think it means that the content within the universe is floating farther. I imagine the universe to just be an endless black vacuum. Say that everything in the universe is clustered right now in one area. Well it's drifting apart very slowly.

My other theory is this:

#58
Well, I know this one guy came on Colbert Report and basically said that nothing is something. So the universe is expanding into something, because nothing is indeed something.

Yeah I still don't know what the hell it means :\
#59
Quote by Dirge Humani
This is a poor analogy, but listen to this:

Imagine that the universe is an area on the surface of a balloon. Then blow up that balloon. The area that encompasses the universe has expanded to an observer within the universe, without actually taking over any area outside of the universe. (Ignoring the fact that there is no such thing as outside the universe)

That is one way I always try to explain it, and it seems to help people understand.

Think of it like this.

I heard the universe is expanding but the acceleration is negative ..
#60
Quote by magnus_maximus
"This is a big breakthrough for cosmology, because it strengthens the case for dark matter’s existence. It also shows that it may be possible to determine exactly where it is and how it’s arranged."

There is a difference between evidence and proof. This is a piece of evidence. One observation does not a discovery make.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Af0_vWDfJwQ
^^The above is a Cryptic Metaphor^^


"To know the truth of history is to realize its ultimate myth and its inevitable ambiguity." Everything is made up and the facts don't matter.


MUSIC THEORY LINK
#61
Quote by magnus_maximus
"This is a big breakthrough for cosmology, because it strengthens the case for dark matter’s existence. It also shows that it may be possible to determine exactly where it is and how it’s arranged."

There is a difference between evidence and proof. This is a piece of evidence. One observation does not a discovery make.

While we're being pedants, I have no proof that anyone else actually exists

[IN PHIL WE TRUST]


Quote by Trowzaa
I only play bots. Bots never abandon me. (´・ω・`)

#62
Quote by SteveHouse
While we're being pedants, I have no proof that anyone else actually exists


Although what evidence is sufficient to prove something is strongly area-dependent, and although there's usually no absolute threshold of sufficiency at which evidence becomes proof, I would consider the observational evidence of those around us to be sufficient 'proof' that others exist.
#63
Why would you assume that it has to expand into something?
...Stapling helium to penguins since 1949.
Page 2 of 2