Humans "Can't Understand/Aren't Supposed to Understand"

THENUMBER1022

Well-Known Member
Its likely every large object in space is equally likely to get bombarded with space debris. Possibly the last impact that hit the crust, which wiped out the dinosaurs and started the ice age, carried vital advanced dna in the meteor....for the human race. just an idea! dont take me too seriously, just baked.
 

cannabineer

Ursus marijanus
interesting, ive never heard of that version of the big rip theory. ive read of ones where as the strength of the cosmological constant/dark energy continues to increases with time eventually everything right down to atoms will be torn apart by it. do you know where i could find more info on that version? another interesting scenario that could theoretically happen ive read of is vacuum fluctuations in our "bubble" in the multiverse were to make it collapse, destroying everything in an instant most likely. not saying i support it, but its a a very interesting idea.
Here's a --> fairly cool site.
I think that what you&I said is pretty much the same. it's just chilling to consider a universe geting stretched thinner faster ... like the fluorescent paint-swirl "cosmology" in the Trip Scene in 2001.
I just did a bit of reading, and currently the Big Rip is disfavored.
cheers 'neer
 

cannabineer

Ursus marijanus
Its likely every large object in space is equally likely to get bombarded with space debris. Possibly the last impact that hit the crust, which wiped out the dinosaurs and started the ice age, carried vital advanced dna in the meteor....for the human race. just an idea! dont take me too seriously, just baked.
You've mentioned before that DNA and other advanced biomolecules have been found in comets. This is new to me. Do you have a link?
cheers 'neer
 

tyler.durden

Well-Known Member
A truly scary scenario about which I read some time ago is called the Big Rip. Some believe that the cosmological constant is increasing, driving an expansion of the universe . If that increase continues, eventually the observability horizon (where the redshift clangs up against lightspeed) will narrow until galaxies, solar systems ... planets ... atoms themselves are larger than the diameter of observable space.
cheers 'neer

No, THIS is the truly scary scenario...



[video=youtube;dx_lIv5SkHM]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dx_lIv5SkHM[/video]
 

grizlbr

Active Member

No, THIS is the truly scary scenario...
So this is the part two of the everything is accelerating at the speed of light theory? So when 'atoms get spread thin enough to overcome atomic particle forces to separate protons and neutrons in the great by and bye! Gonna be a mess when it all slams back together?
 

THENUMBER1022

Well-Known Member
If a super nova is 22.5 ly away, and the matter and/or energy release is traveling at or near the speed of light, wouldn't it take 22.5 years to reach our solar system? because thats exactly what happened in 1989
 

mccumcumber

Well-Known Member
Yes. Fastest anything can move is c without going back in time. If it's 22.5 ly away then going at c it will hit in 22.5 years.

I wouldn't worry too much about the big rip... I think space is expanding at a decelerating rate right? I know that black holes suck shit in faster than c and they create a shit ton of tachyons or whatever b/c of it... I really wish I would have stuck with my astrophysics double major instead of just doing the minor :( I barely remember any of it.
 

blazinkill504

Well-Known Member
im pretty sure they figured out that the univers is bein streched out at a rate faster than the speed of light. the big rip is the most realistic, but ive always thought how much it would suck if the universe was comin back towards us...shit would be gayyyyy and black holes dont eat up enough matter to cause the universe to make it shrink.
 

darkdestruction420

Well-Known Member
Yes. Fastest anything can move is c without going back in time. If it's 22.5 ly away then going at c it will hit in 22.5 years.

I wouldn't worry too much about the big rip... I think space is expanding at a decelerating rate right? I know that black holes suck shit in faster than c and they create a shit ton of tachyons or whatever b/c of it... I really wish I would have stuck with my astrophysics double major instead of just doing the minor :( I barely remember any of it.
no, the universe expansion is increasing, it was assumed for a long time but sometrhing, dark energy(which alot of people will attack same as dark matter, but heres the most important thing- dark energy and dark matter are observable effects we see that we are not certain of the cause of yet, the universe is expanding at an increasing rate-dark energy.galaxy rotations indicate additional mass and some of the gravitational lensing effects seen are also considered evidence of-dark mateer.) is causing the acceleration rate to expand we discovered around1998. No, black holes do not suck things in faster than the speed of light, accretion models have been improved greatly lately. Tachyons(particles that cant go slower than the speed of light) are purely theoretical. no evidence has been found that proves 100% they dont exist and none that can prove they do exist 100%. right now the evidence is a fair bit stronger on the dont side. Black holes would have to somehow eat up spacetime itself for them to cause the universe to start shrinking in on itself. the distances between objects in space is almost unimaginable and gravity is by far the weakest force, so black holes could suck up all the matter in their vicinity they could never really cause a big crunch.
 

mccumcumber

Well-Known Member
Ah... well shit, guess everything I thought I knew was wrong... oh physics.
What's the news on combining relativity with quantum... is M theory still leading the way? I never really liked strings all too much.
 

Heisenberg

Well-Known Member
Here is an article that looks at the recent experiments of the LHC. This also demonstrates how science rejects a theory that doesn't pan out. This theory, super symmetry, had considerable explanatory power, but it's predictive power was not there. When a theory makes predictions that don't hold true, then there is a mistake in the theory and science must abandon it for the sake of finding truth, no matter how seductive the theory is.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-14680570

Notice how science does not try to explain away the inconsistencies or offer special pleading. It simply accepts the theory as falsified and moves on.
 

darkdestruction420

Well-Known Member
are you being sarcastic when you say "Notice how science does not try to explain away the inconsistencies or offer special pleading. It simply accepts the theory as falsified and moves on." like you think they gave up too easy or something or did you mean that seriously? I keep trying to comment but im unsure of what you mean and i keep second guessing myself on if it was sarcastic or not.
 

Ontheball

Well-Known Member
Just using this post as an example, I've seen others use this argument before and find it to be pretty common, I had a question about it..

-does this make sense? How would someone know the capacity of God's mind? Can they simply say "it's infinite" without providing evidence, then simply make the claim and that's that?

-there's no evidence to say the mind of God is infinite and that humans simply aren't capable of understanding it or how it works

im sorry but religion is just dumb , great if it helps u out of a shitty hole but actually nothing happen u just pulled ur head out ur ass. its a nice concept for the dieing elderly. but other than that fuck religion flame me all you want but to believe any of that shit uve got to be a fucking moron.
 

darkdestruction420

Well-Known Member
discussing your idea and flaming you are two very different things. he didnt even use your name just your thought that he wanted others opinions on. Relax.
 

Heisenberg

Well-Known Member
are you being sarcastic when you say "Notice how science does not try to explain away the inconsistencies or offer special pleading. It simply accepts the theory as falsified and moves on." like you think they gave up too easy or something or did you mean that seriously? I keep trying to comment but im unsure of what you mean and i keep second guessing myself on if it was sarcastic or not.
No, I don't often use sarcasm to make a point. Sometimes, but not often. ;)

I am simply pointing out that science follows evidence wherever it leads, even if it leads in a direction that is damning to the current view. This is an expression of admiration and something I think people should keep in mind the next time they see religion accusing science of either

A) claiming science dictates what is real and what is not and accepts no dispute (The article demonstrates science embraces dispute)

B) science changes it's mind too often while religion stays the same (the article demonstrates science is being responsible when it changes it's mind)
 

darkdestruction420

Well-Known Member
Excellent, I was hoping it wasnt sarcasm, pretty much because i agree completely with your points there. to be fair however, in the future we might find some reason why current supersymmetry didnt work like we expected. Not likely but you never know.
 
Top