|
A planetary system that may contain life has been found. (pg. 7)
|
View this Thread in Original format
| MrJiveBoJingles |
| quote: | Originally posted by echosystm
AFAIK, this isn't the first planet they found which could have similar qualities to earth... |
I think the big deal is that this is the closest possibly-earth-like planet, not the first. |
|
|
| Trance Nutter |
This is the thing that gets me about astrophysics, and why I don't believe much that they say.
They claim the universe is shaped. Ok, but whats around the shape. They claim that the universe is expanding, but into what? I reckon its basically a bunch of egg-heads in some nerdy pissing contest to find who can come up with the longest or most outlandish mathematical equation. The universe is infinite, theres no shape, theres no expansion, it just goes on and on. Unfortunately humans don't seem to be able to grasp the idea of infinite and like to quantify things and thats basically why religion came about, that we couldn't accept that things are infinite and random and there must be some higher power controlling it.
My opinion at least. |
|
|
| pkcRAISTLIN |
| quote: | Originally posted by MrJiveBoJingles
"Some sources indicate that the big bang caused an expansion which traveled faster than the speed of light. How can this be?
You ask a good question, one whose answer lies in the subtle difference between expansion that is faster than the speed of light and the propagation of information that is faster than the speed of light. The latter is forbidden by fundamental physical laws, but the former is allowed; that is, as long as you are not transmitting any information (like a light pulse), you can make something happen at a speed that is faster than that of light. The expansion of the Universe is a "growth" of the spacetime itself; this spacetime may move faster than the speed of light relative to some other location, as long as the two locations can't communicate with each other (or, in terms of light rays, these two parts of the Universe can't see each other). According to the theory of inflation, the Universe grew by a factor of 10 to the sixtieth power in less than 10 to the negative thirty seconds, so the "edges" of the Universe were expanding away from each other faster than the speed of light; however, as long as those edges can't see each other (which is what we always assume), there is no physical law that forbids it."
http://curious.astro.cornell.edu/qu....php?number=387 |
um, yeah...that's um...like totally what i meant :D
something in my head hurts. i think its my brain. |
|
|
| Halcyon+On+On |
| quote: | Originally posted by Trance Nutter
This is the thing that gets me about astrophysics, and why I don't believe much that they say.
They claim the universe is shaped. Ok, but whats around the shape. They claim that the universe is expanding, but into what? I reckon its basically a bunch of egg-heads in some nerdy pissing contest to find who can come up with the longest or most outlandish mathematical equation. The universe is infinite, theres no shape, theres no expansion, it just goes on and on. Unfortunately humans don't seem to be able to grasp the idea of infinite and like to quantify things and thats basically why religion came about, that we couldn't accept that things are infinite and random and there must be some higher power controlling it.
My opinion at least. |
Maybe the universe, itself, IS the one controlling, um, itself.
Ok, I'm with pkc, this hurts. |
|
|
| Prometheus Xex |
| quote: | Originally posted by MrJiveBoJingles
however, as long as those edges can't see each other |
While it might be plausible... it sounds too much like the, "If a tree fell in the woods, and there's no one to hear it, does it make a sound?" argument. To me just because it can't be observed, since no observer exists, it seems like some rules are still being broken. The laws have always been, and not invented. |
|
|
| MrJiveBoJingles |
| quote: | | Originally posted by Trance Nutter |
Well, I am not even certain what they mean when they say the "shape" of the universe. Are they talking about the distribution of matter? If so, it seems pretty intuitive that you could talk about the "shape" outlined by all the clumps of stars, planets, and interstellar debris.
But I lack the required math to talk about the shape of the universe (and many other physics topics) on anything higher than "clueless amateur" level. |
|
|
| MrJiveBoJingles |
| The tough part about pondering this stuff is that intuitions based on everyday experiences are simply no longer accurate when we are discussing relativity, which deals with situations very far from the "mundane." In relativity, there is no privileged frame of reference; that is, there is no simple "fact of the matter" about speed. All we have are our measurements of speed, which will differ depending on our own position and velocity relative to the object whose speed is being measured. The only thing that remains constant in all reference frames is the speed of light in a vacuum. |
|
|
| pkcRAISTLIN |
| quote: | Originally posted by Trance Nutter
This is the thing that gets me about astrophysics, and why I don't believe much that they say.
They claim the universe is shaped. Ok, but whats around the shape. They claim that the universe is expanding, but into what? I reckon its basically a bunch of egg-heads in some nerdy pissing contest to find who can come up with the longest or most outlandish mathematical equation. The universe is infinite, theres no shape, theres no expansion, it just goes on and on. Unfortunately humans don't seem to be able to grasp the idea of infinite and like to quantify things and thats basically why religion came about, that we couldn't accept that things are infinite and random and there must be some higher power controlling it.
My opinion at least. |
haha, you might be right. BUT, einstein's general theory of relativity predicts an in-motion, expanding universe does it not? i could very well be wrong, im pretty wasted at the minute. and hasn't the general relativity theory been supported by all observable evidence to date? including, but not limited to, the postulation of black holes (even though einstein at the time didn't buy the idea)?
i dunno. i just feel a bit arrogant calling a bunch of cosmologists or quantum physicists incorrect
:toothless |
|
|
| Halcyon+On+On |
| Like that ever stopped you before. |
|
|
| pkcRAISTLIN |
| quote: | Originally posted by Halcyon+On+On
Like that ever stopped you before. |
just outlining its reach. its really not my fault that i am surrounded by cretins on a regular basis. and you notice that different people get different levels of respect, that's just how i am :) |
|
|
| jupiterone |
What if...
The universe is controlling...
Us...
:nervous: :nervous: :nervous: |
|
|
| MrJiveBoJingles |
It is, of course.
Just try to stop moving around the sun. :p |
|
|
|
|
