|
||||||
| FAQ | Members List | Calendar | Today's Posts | Search |
Topic Review (Newest First)
|
| Jul 23rd, 2003 11:57 AM | ||
| kellychaos |
Quote:
|
|
| Jul 22nd, 2003 05:31 PM | ||
| Vibecrewangel |
Yuck ROFLMAO Not the prettiest way to put it, but good none the less. |
|
| Jul 22nd, 2003 12:53 PM | ||
| Pantaliamon |
Time: Time is an abstract concept invented by carbon-based life forms to monitor their own decay. |
|
| Jul 22nd, 2003 12:10 PM | ||
| Vibecrewangel |
Time Grande - Just realize that all that exists is now and you're all good. 
|
|
| Jul 21st, 2003 01:54 PM | ||
| Grande |
Thanks to time I'm always late to everything, argh! 
|
|
| Jul 21st, 2003 11:48 AM | ||
| kellychaos | I think that it's a result of the repetition of the idea of cause and effect we see around us. Maybe Zeno was right, eh? | |
| Jul 21st, 2003 11:42 AM | ||
| Vibecrewangel |
Time I still think time is a human concept nothing more. |
|
| Jul 21st, 2003 11:38 AM | ||
| Zhukov |
I'm not being spiteful towards "Stephen Hawking", I haven't read enough of him to be that way, and it is obvious that I haven't read enough to see his 'two sides'. I quoted that quote because I don't like the idea of time begining - divine or otherwise. :/ |
|
| Jul 21st, 2003 10:52 AM | ||
| kellychaos | I'm confused by your Hawking quote. I think that, with the exeception of some side bars here and there, that Hawking provided the views of both sides equally well on most of the topics he discussed. He's not a bad writer for a scientist the writing of whom often tend to be dry. | |
| Jul 19th, 2003 11:15 AM | ||
| Zhukov |
Oh, I am sure I can "hear" the "ripples", but are they in any sort of symetrical pattern (?) or what have you, as what I think a Big Bang 'bang' would create? And don't get me started on "Stephen Hawking". Quote:
|
|
| Jul 19th, 2003 10:51 AM | ||
| kellychaos | Actually, the "ripples" can still be heard as low frequency electromagnetic sound waves as discovered by Bell Technologies. I forget the scientists that discovered them. It's in the book A Brief History Of Time by Stephen Hawking. | |
| Jul 19th, 2003 10:43 AM | ||
| Zhukov |
I think that in at least one, if not all, Big Bang Theories cite the creation of the Universe at 15 Billion years ago. If the universe was created 15 billion years ago, as the model predicts, there has simply not been enough time for the matter we observe to have congealed into galaxies like the Milky Way, without the help of invisible "dark matter." "Dark Matter" is exactly what you thought it was. "According to the big bang cosmologists, in order for galaxies to have been formed from the big bang, there must have been sufficient matter in the universe to bring about an eventual halt to its expansion through the law of gravitation. This would mean a density of approximately ten atoms per cubic metre of space. In reality, the amount of matter present in the observable universe is about one atom per ten cubic metres—a hundred times less than the amount predicted by the theory." I also have a query: Did the Big Bang send everything flying out in all directions equaly? Was it like a rock dropped into a body of water that sent ripples out in equal directions? |
|
| Jul 17th, 2003 01:54 PM | ||
| O71394658 |
Could someone just explain to me the actual premise of "dark matter"? I merely thought it was "hidden" matter, used to account for inadequacies in gravitiational calculations. I've always thought of the Universe as like the Koch Line. An infinite line surrounding a finite area. The universe itself may be expanding, and anything that the universe emcompasses may be classifyed as "existance", but I'm puzzled by the fact of what the universe is expanding into in relation to there being no relative "existance" outside of the universe. Thus, I would tend to believe that it has acutal boundaries, but the potential for expansion or contraction is still there. But exactly how it expands and what it expands into really confuses me. Please correct me if I'm wrong, because I'm pretty stupid when it comes to this stuff... |
|
| Jul 17th, 2003 12:33 PM | ||
| Preechr |
The idea of a centered "Big Bang" is inadequate, because it would either place all of the matter in the universe in one place prior to some big action or it would assume that everything was created from nothing, which would violate the rules I learned in 6th grade Physical Science class. I prefer to think of the previous state of the universe as a homogenous field of particles (all of them) at uniform density... perfectly balanced and wonderfully boring... upset by that ol' prime motion (s.) I don't particularly believe in what the pre-bang "chaos" term connotates. Maybe "order" would be more suitable, though our current state is just as orderly, just harder to predict. If the original homogenous field were infinite, and our universe consisting of a subset of those particles, it would be safe to assume that each upset particle that our universe contains would be drawn back to it's original position by the gravity of the infinitely larger, ordered set. If matter is not infinite, eventually all the whole set would be involved in our universe. |
|
| Jul 17th, 2003 10:53 AM | ||
| kellychaos |
Au contraire! It would be a complement. I DO work so hard at it, you know. 
|
|
| Jul 16th, 2003 01:05 PM | ||
| Vibecrewangel |
LOL If I said you are a butt-head would you be offended? :P |
|
| Jul 16th, 2003 12:51 PM | ||
| kellychaos |
If you think that you're depressed now, try reading some Wittgenstein or Chomski to really feel the inadequacies of our languange. LINK |
|
| Jul 16th, 2003 12:39 PM | ||
| Vibecrewangel |
Yup And that is the whole problem Kelly  Damn words screwing up my theories......
|
|
| Jul 16th, 2003 12:34 PM | ||
| kellychaos |
I was just trying to clarify a grammatical point. :/
|
|
| Jul 16th, 2003 12:30 PM | ||
| Vibecrewangel |
Universe Unfortunately Kelly, there are hypothetical parallel universes. alternate universes....blah blah blah.... It's why after a few posts in this thread I decided to stop reffering to the infinite whole as universe. It's just to open to interpretation and theory. ::sigh:: Language is sooooooooooo inadequate |
|
| Jul 16th, 2003 12:05 PM | ||
| kellychaos |
Quote:
|
|
| Jul 16th, 2003 02:13 AM | ||
| ItalianStereotype | you shouldn't have been. 6 year olds know that. | |
| Jul 16th, 2003 01:38 AM | ||
| The_voice_of_reason |
Thank you Chojin I have wondered for a long time about this.
|
|
| Jul 15th, 2003 04:02 PM | ||
| Anonymous |
Quote:
|
|
| Jul 15th, 2003 02:23 PM | ||
| The_voice_of_reason | Not if you are referring to one of many as i was. | |
| This thread has more than 25 replies. Click here to review the whole thread. | ||
