Historic Moment For Humankind..

[johnny boy68 11,726]

 

Here's some porn for the geeks !!

Is that "rake" ??

 

No he's not wearing lycra.

 

Do you by chance no anything about dark matter, the geeks seem to be avoiding the question.

[The Baw 3]

 

 

 

 

 

 

Dunno what you read mate but infinity is bullshit, nothing is infinite. When maths gives infinity, you've made a mistake!

 

The universe had a start and will have an end. Just not a center.

 

I am speaking from the viewpoint of the man in the street. I am just asking question to try and understand a little. An expanding universe if it is as you state like a ballon being blown up till it burst. Does it have a catalist for the expansion the same as a ballon has air injected to cause it to expand?

 

Why does the universe have to have a start and an end? I have read of the birth of stars and the death of stars.

 

Surly because we are just human and are constrained by our notions of our time scale. Whats to say that time is just non existant, and just a scale that we as humans measure to make sense of our orbit around our sun?

 

BTW re infinity and maths whats 1/3rd of a 100? Is it not 33.3 recuring?

 

A very puzzled TC

Okay, firstly our universe won't burst like a balloon would, it may do a number of things. What is actually expanding is space, which is simply a coordinate system not a physical thing. The universe is all the energy in that space, so as the space expands the density of the universe becomes less dense.

 

What happens next is unclear. What caused expansion was the big bang, like a stick of dynamite going off under water, an explosive force causing rapid expansion of space and the universe. Now, logically like a bomb going off the rate of expansion should attenuate as gravity slowly drags it to a halt........... but is that actually happening? I'm not sure but it's possible that the rate of expansion is increasing, which is illogical! Dark energy? Or does gravity become a repulsive force on a cosmological scale, a scale so large we just have little understanding of it? Or, is everything nice and sensible with expansion decreasing to a limit and then receding to a 'big crunch'?

 

Start and end............ depends how you define it or indeed how you define time. By a start I mean a singularity in which the entire universe started, what came before that I'm ignoring. It doesn't have to have an end but is probable, if it collapses is that 'the end' or if expansion continues unrestrained to nothingness is that the end. It's more a philisophical question I guess.

 

Time is just a dimension like space, not a physical thing just a mathematical concept so in that respect it's not physically existant. It's quite a fundamental concept like space.

 

Infinity exists in maths but not nature. 1/0 is infinite by definition but you can't devide 1 by nothing in nature. It's widely regarded that everything in nature is quantised, so everything fundamentally breaks down to something that cannot be broken down anymore, mass, distance, energy etc etc So if you took 100 fundamental particles and tried to divide them by 3, you can't so no infinite number of decimal places.... I hear it often that a black holes gravity is infinite and such like but it's not, if the black hole had infinite gravity the universe would instantly collapse, it just approaches infinity but hits some boundary condition near the event hoprizon. Nothing in nature is infinite, everything is finite.

Your wrong regarding time. Time isn't a man made concept just the same as distance and speed exist, time is relative to them. Time moves slower the faster you travel, thus giving the concept it's possible to go back in time. If 2 clocks were set at identical times, one placed on a high speed train in London, the other left stationary. The time on the clock on the train would be running behind slightly to the stationary one by the time it got to Edinburgh.

[PIL 7]

 

 

Here's some porn for the geeks !!

 

Is that "rake" ??

No he's not wearing lycra.

 

Do you by chance no anything about dark matter, the geeks seem to be avoiding the question.

as paulus said ...

[Born Hunter 17,910]

 

 

Here's some porn for the geeks !!

 

Is that "rake" ??

 

No he's not wearing lycra.

 

Do you by chance no anything about dark matter, the geeks seem to be avoiding the question.

 

 

More gifted chaps than myself calculated the mass of galaxies based on angular momentum and then compared that to what they could actually see in that galaxy. There was a huge difference! They should have been able to see a lot more than what they could. So where is all this mass that should be there......... well it's dark so we can't see it......... And that's about all we know about dark matter and the even more mysterious dark energy. It quite dramatically divide opinion in the scientific community.

[Tiercel 6,986]

 

 

Here's some porn for the geeks !!

Is that "rake" ??

 

No he's not wearing lycra.

 

Do you by chance no anything about dark matter, the geeks seem to be avoiding the question.

 

http://www.tgdaily.com/space-features/79551-hubble-uncovers-largest-known-group-of-star-clusters-clues-to-dark-matter

 

TC

[Malt 379]

 

 

 

Here's some porn for the geeks !!

 

Is that "rake" ??

No he's not wearing lycra.

 

Do you by chance no anything about dark matter, the geeks seem to be avoiding the question.

More gifted chaps than myself calculated the mass of galaxies based on angular momentum and then compared that to what they could actually see in that galaxy. There was a huge difference! They should have been able to see a lot more than what they could. So where is all this mass that should be there......... well it's dark so we can't see it......... And that's about all we know about dark matter and the even more mysterious dark energy. It quite dramatically divide opinion in the scientific community.

Something like the Handcock lurcher/Plummer terrier of the scientic world?

[johnny boy68 11,726]

 

 

 

Here's some porn for the geeks !!

 

Is that "rake" ??

 

No he's not wearing lycra.

 

Do you by chance no anything about dark matter, the geeks seem to be avoiding the question.

 

 

More gifted chaps than myself calculated the mass of galaxies based on angular momentum and then compared that to what they could actually see in that galaxy. There was a huge difference! They should have been able to see a lot more than what they could. So where is all this mass that should be there......... well it's dark so we can't see it......... And that's about all we know about dark matter and the even more mysterious dark energy. It quite dramatically divide opinion in the scientific community.

 

Ahhhh cheers mate.

 

What's your take on global weirding? Professor Brian Cox won't answer any of my tweets.

[Born Hunter 17,910]

 

 

 

 

Here's some porn for the geeks !!

Is that "rake" ??

No he's not wearing lycra.

 

Do you by chance no anything about dark matter, the geeks seem to be avoiding the question.

More gifted chaps than myself calculated the mass of galaxies based on angular momentum and then compared that to what they could actually see in that galaxy. There was a huge difference! They should have been able to see a lot more than what they could. So where is all this mass that should be there......... well it's dark so we can't see it......... And that's about all we know about dark matter and the even more mysterious dark energy. It quite dramatically divide opinion in the scientific community.

Something like the Handcock lurcher/Plummer terrier of the scientic world?

 

 

Something like that. I would say it's like the mythical stag slaying whippet or trained mink that hunts and retrieve it's kills...................... but the other week some bugger did that!

[Born Hunter 17,910]

 

 

 

 

Here's some porn for the geeks !!

 

Is that "rake" ??

 

No he's not wearing lycra.

 

Do you by chance no anything about dark matter, the geeks seem to be avoiding the question.

 

 

More gifted chaps than myself calculated the mass of galaxies based on angular momentum and then compared that to what they could actually see in that galaxy. There was a huge difference! They should have been able to see a lot more than what they could. So where is all this mass that should be there......... well it's dark so we can't see it......... And that's about all we know about dark matter and the even more mysterious dark energy. It quite dramatically divide opinion in the scientific community.

 

Ahhhh cheers mate.

 

What's your take on global weirding? Professor Brian Cox won't answer any of my tweets.

 

 

Shit's happening, whether or not we're causing it is open for debate. Dumping carbon into the atmosphere does have a negative effect, but how much of an effect we don't know. Our climate IS changing but is that 90% due to us and 10% natural or 90% natural and 10% us? Fact is we don't know how much of an effect we have because we only have decades worth of data, we need hundreds if not thousands of years of data. The climate is a hugely complex bitch, makes modelling difficult, predicting weather is hard enough.

[walshie 2,804]

I have a theory on that.....

[paulus 26]

Time is distance as much as time is not distance. If there was no such thing as distance there would be no such thing as time as you would travel everywhere instantly. Hence time is always greater than distance.

If time was less than distance time would start going backwards as you would complete your journey before you started it. The reason you can slow down time however in comparison to someone else is as follows.

Driver a and b start a 100 km journey all variables remaining constant except speed. Driver a travels at 100 km/h and driver b travels at 50 km/h. For the time that driver a is travelling time slows down for him/her in comparison to driver b otherwise he would not be able to complete his/her journey in half the time.

The first argument is driver a was travelling faster. Problem with that argument is that speed is simply time taken to travel a distance. Hence speed is not separate from time and distance because speed is time and distance. They are both the same.

Second argument will again be driver a was travelling faster. Replace travelling faster with slowing down time and you have what speed really is. Slowing down time.

A better example of slowing down time is the lesson I got in high school teaching that if I accelerated away from the earth in a radius at a constant rate for 200 years, upon arriving back the earth would have aged by 40,000 years. The reason is very simple. Because I was travelling distance in far less time than everyone else on the face of the planet time slowed down for me in comparison to everyone else on the face of the earth.

Read more: http://www.physicsforums.com

[paulus 26]

 

 

 

 

 

Dunno what you read mate but infinity is bullshit, nothing is infinite. When maths gives infinity, you've made a mistake!

 

The universe had a start and will have an end. Just not a center.

 

I am speaking from the viewpoint of the man in the street. I am just asking question to try and understand a little. An expanding universe if it is as you state like a ballon being blown up till it burst. Does it have a catalist for the expansion the same as a ballon has air injected to cause it to expand?

 

Why does the universe have to have a start and an end? I have read of the birth of stars and the death of stars.

 

Surly because we are just human and are constrained by our notions of our time scale. Whats to say that time is just non existant, and just a scale that we as humans measure to make sense of our orbit around our sun?

 

BTW re infinity and maths whats 1/3rd of a 100? Is it not 33.3 recuring?

 

A very puzzled TC

Okay, firstly our universe won't burst like a balloon would, it may do a number of things. What is actually expanding is space, which is simply a coordinate system not a physical thing. The universe is all the energy in that space, so as the space expands the density of the universe becomes less dense.

 

What happens next is unclear. What caused expansion was the big bang, like a stick of dynamite going off under water, an explosive force causing rapid expansion of space and the universe. Now, logically like a bomb going off the rate of expansion should attenuate as gravity slowly drags it to a halt........... but is that actually happening? I'm not sure but it's possible that the rate of expansion is increasing, which is illogical! Dark energy? Or does gravity become a repulsive force on a cosmological scale, a scale so large we just have little understanding of it? Or, is everything nice and sensible with expansion decreasing to a limit and then receding to a 'big crunch'?

 

Start and end............ depends how you define it or indeed how you define time. By a start I mean a singularity in which the entire universe started, what came before that I'm ignoring. It doesn't have to have an end but is probable, if it collapses is that 'the end' or if expansion continues unrestrained to nothingness is that the end. It's more a philisophical question I guess.

 

Time is just a dimension like space, not a physical thing just a mathematical concept so in that respect it's not physically existant. It's quite a fundamental concept like space.

 

Infinity exists in maths but not nature. 1/0 is infinite by definition but you can't devide 1 by nothing in nature. It's widely regarded that everything in nature is quantised, so everything fundamentally breaks down to something that cannot be broken down anymore, mass, distance, energy etc etc So if you took 100 fundamental particles and tried to divide them by 3, you can't so no infinite number of decimal places.... I hear it often that a black holes gravity is infinite and such like but it's not, if the black hole had infinite gravity the universe would instantly collapse, it just approaches infinity but hits some boundary condition near the event hoprizon. Nothing in nature is infinite, everything is finite.

Your wrong regarding time. Time isn't a man made concept just the same as distance and speed exist, time is relative to them. Time moves slower the faster you travel, thus giving the concept it's possible to go back in time. If 2 clocks were set at identical times, one placed on a high speed train in London, the other left stationary. The time on the clock on the train would be running behind slightly to the stationary one by the time it got to Edinburgh.

 

http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/einstein/hotsciencetwin/

[Born Hunter 17,910]

 

 

 

 

 

Dunno what you read mate but infinity is bullshit, nothing is infinite. When maths gives infinity, you've made a mistake!

 

The universe had a start and will have an end. Just not a center.

 

I am speaking from the viewpoint of the man in the street. I am just asking question to try and understand a little. An expanding universe if it is as you state like a ballon being blown up till it burst. Does it have a catalist for the expansion the same as a ballon has air injected to cause it to expand?

 

Why does the universe have to have a start and an end? I have read of the birth of stars and the death of stars.

 

Surly because we are just human and are constrained by our notions of our time scale. Whats to say that time is just non existant, and just a scale that we as humans measure to make sense of our orbit around our sun?

 

BTW re infinity and maths whats 1/3rd of a 100? Is it not 33.3 recuring?

 

A very puzzled TC

Okay, firstly our universe won't burst like a balloon would, it may do a number of things. What is actually expanding is space, which is simply a coordinate system not a physical thing. The universe is all the energy in that space, so as the space expands the density of the universe becomes less dense.

 

What happens next is unclear. What caused expansion was the big bang, like a stick of dynamite going off under water, an explosive force causing rapid expansion of space and the universe. Now, logically like a bomb going off the rate of expansion should attenuate as gravity slowly drags it to a halt........... but is that actually happening? I'm not sure but it's possible that the rate of expansion is increasing, which is illogical! Dark energy? Or does gravity become a repulsive force on a cosmological scale, a scale so large we just have little understanding of it? Or, is everything nice and sensible with expansion decreasing to a limit and then receding to a 'big crunch'?

 

Start and end............ depends how you define it or indeed how you define time. By a start I mean a singularity in which the entire universe started, what came before that I'm ignoring. It doesn't have to have an end but is probable, if it collapses is that 'the end' or if expansion continues unrestrained to nothingness is that the end. It's more a philisophical question I guess.

 

Time is just a dimension like space, not a physical thing just a mathematical concept so in that respect it's not physically existant. It's quite a fundamental concept like space.

 

Infinity exists in maths but not nature. 1/0 is infinite by definition but you can't devide 1 by nothing in nature. It's widely regarded that everything in nature is quantised, so everything fundamentally breaks down to something that cannot be broken down anymore, mass, distance, energy etc etc So if you took 100 fundamental particles and tried to divide them by 3, you can't so no infinite number of decimal places.... I hear it often that a black holes gravity is infinite and such like but it's not, if the black hole had infinite gravity the universe would instantly collapse, it just approaches infinity but hits some boundary condition near the event hoprizon. Nothing in nature is infinite, everything is finite.

Your wrong regarding time. Time isn't a man made concept just the same as distance and speed exist, time is relative to them. Time moves slower the faster you travel, thus giving the concept it's possible to go back in time. If 2 clocks were set at identical times, one placed on a high speed train in London, the other left stationary. The time on the clock on the train would be running behind slightly to the stationary one by the time it got to Edinburgh.

 

 

Baw, I didn't say it was man made, I said it was mathematical. It's not a physically existing thing that I can show Tiercel, it's a mathematical dimension, like the 3 space dimensions. You've just explained special relativity, that has nothing to do with time travel.

[Astanley 11,635]

I wish I had seen this thread sooner ( sooner as in the time/space continuing concept , that is generally accepted ) as my Masters Degree was in physics , I would be glad to answer any questions members may have on this subject .

[The Baw 3]

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Dunno what you read mate but infinity is bullshit, nothing is infinite. When maths gives infinity, you've made a mistake!

 

The universe had a start and will have an end. Just not a center.

 

I am speaking from the viewpoint of the man in the street. I am just asking question to try and understand a little. An expanding universe if it is as you state like a ballon being blown up till it burst. Does it have a catalist for the expansion the same as a ballon has air injected to cause it to expand?

 

Why does the universe have to have a start and an end? I have read of the birth of stars and the death of stars.

 

Surly because we are just human and are constrained by our notions of our time scale. Whats to say that time is just non existant, and just a scale that we as humans measure to make sense of our orbit around our sun?

 

BTW re infinity and maths whats 1/3rd of a 100? Is it not 33.3 recuring?

 

A very puzzled TC

Okay, firstly our universe won't burst like a balloon would, it may do a number of things. What is actually expanding is space, which is simply a coordinate system not a physical thing. The universe is all the energy in that space, so as the space expands the density of the universe becomes less dense.

 

What happens next is unclear. What caused expansion was the big bang, like a stick of dynamite going off under water, an explosive force causing rapid expansion of space and the universe. Now, logically like a bomb going off the rate of expansion should attenuate as gravity slowly drags it to a halt........... but is that actually happening? I'm not sure but it's possible that the rate of expansion is increasing, which is illogical! Dark energy? Or does gravity become a repulsive force on a cosmological scale, a scale so large we just have little understanding of it? Or, is everything nice and sensible with expansion decreasing to a limit and then receding to a 'big crunch'?

 

Start and end............ depends how you define it or indeed how you define time. By a start I mean a singularity in which the entire universe started, what came before that I'm ignoring. It doesn't have to have an end but is probable, if it collapses is that 'the end' or if expansion continues unrestrained to nothingness is that the end. It's more a philisophical question I guess.

 

Time is just a dimension like space, not a physical thing just a mathematical concept so in that respect it's not physically existant. It's quite a fundamental concept like space.

 

Infinity exists in maths but not nature. 1/0 is infinite by definition but you can't devide 1 by nothing in nature. It's widely regarded that everything in nature is quantised, so everything fundamentally breaks down to something that cannot be broken down anymore, mass, distance, energy etc etc So if you took 100 fundamental particles and tried to divide them by 3, you can't so no infinite number of decimal places.... I hear it often that a black holes gravity is infinite and such like but it's not, if the black hole had infinite gravity the universe would instantly collapse, it just approaches infinity but hits some boundary condition near the event hoprizon. Nothing in nature is infinite, everything is finite.

Your wrong regarding time. Time isn't a man made concept just the same as distance and speed exist, time is relative to them. Time moves slower the faster you travel, thus giving the concept it's possible to go back in time. If 2 clocks were set at identical times, one placed on a high speed train in London, the other left stationary. The time on the clock on the train would be running behind slightly to the stationary one by the time it got to Edinburgh.

Baw, I didn't say it was man made, I said it was mathematical. It's not a physically existing thing that I can show Tiercel, it's a mathematical dimension, like the 3 space dimensions. You've just explained special relativity, that has nothing to do with time travel.

Sorry born hunter, I thought everyone knew time wasn't tangeable, my mistake.