EPTIf the Universe is expanding - Page 2
| Blogs > {CC}StealthBlue |
|
CharlieMurphy
United States22895 Posts
| ||
|
SchOOl_VicTIm
Greece2394 Posts
| ||
|
BookTwo
1985 Posts
Where? | ||
|
georgir
Bulgaria253 Posts
On August 28 2009 19:34 CharlieMurphy wrote: put a bunch of dots on a deflated balloon, blow it up. that is your explanation. that's really the simplest and best explanation i think, it is surprising that it came so late in the thread. it needs some more details though. in that balloon analogy, the universe - or space - is just the surface of the balloon. so that's how we would explain it if the universe was two-dimensional. for our three-dimensional universe we could say that it expands like the surface of a 4-dimensional "balloon" | ||
CaucasianAsian
Korea (South)11587 Posts
On August 28 2009 19:34 CharlieMurphy wrote: put a bunch of dots on a deflated balloon, blow it up. that is your explanation. what happens when it pops? | ||
|
spinesheath
Germany8679 Posts
| ||
|
thoraxe
United States1449 Posts
On August 28 2009 17:54 sanji_ wrote: And your lack of understanding of what a scientific theory means is aggravating. http://img299.imageshack.us/img299/4414/scimethrn6.png and your lack of understanding of his allusion is aggravating. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Big_Bang_Theory On August 28 2009 17:40 Valentine wrote: the big bang was an inside job ROFL, I hope you aren't referring to some kind of porn movie. | ||
|
Track
United States217 Posts
On August 28 2009 18:00 BookTwo wrote: it is still a theory. Theory: A theory, in the general sense of the word, is an analytic structure designed to explain a set of observations. Fact: Is a reality, truth Information that has been objectively verified. a concept whose truth can be proved; "scientific hypotheses are not facts" I love it when people take a literal meaning of a word and think it is applied that way in every single instance, especially where science is concerned. Are you familiar with Newton's Theory of Gravitation? Or Darwin's Theory of Evolution? Or the Continental Drift Theory? Or Copernicus' Theory of Heliocentricity? Do you think all of these are not realities and truths? Theory in science only indicates uncertainty in the sense that any experiment could conceivably reverse it, meaning science is NEVER set in stone, but always malleable and open to change given a dramatic discovery. But it's not very likely, is it? Which is the point. | ||
|
jello_biafra
United Kingdom6639 Posts
| ||
|
Adeny
Norway1233 Posts
| ||
|
starfries
Canada3508 Posts
On August 28 2009 17:25 closed wrote: What if time = the same variable as the expansion of the universe? I always wondered that In cosmology, usually people use the scale factor (a) instead of time to describe when stuff is happening. So a=1 for the present universe, and goes down as you go back in time towards 0. It makes things a lot easier since you can easily change from a to redshift, or into expansion rate which is more useful than actual time. Also in the inflation period the universe was expanding WAY faster than the speed of light, so parts of it that were in contact before inflation suddenly couldn't see each other. As the expansion slowed down they started drifting back into contact but it explains the large scale patterns in the universe. As for where it's expanding into.. yeah.. it's like the balloon. | ||
|
starfries
Canada3508 Posts
On August 29 2009 01:02 Adeny wrote: You're just gonna have to scout that, lay mines on all available expo if you are terran, plant some zerglings there if you are zerg etc. Make sure you also keep track of any island expansions. If Big Bang's over-expanding, cut workers and go for an all-in attack, or distract him with a drop while you send a small task-force to take out the expansion. lol | ||
|
Foucault
Sweden2826 Posts
On August 28 2009 17:36 travis wrote: it's not expanding into anything it's just stretching out, changing shape at least there is no reason to believe anything more than that (i think) It's perfectly reasonable to ask the question in what the universe is expanding in. Surely there can't be just nothing outside our universe. I think there might be several universes, why wouldn't there? Don't say that's impossible lol...yeah like so much stuff we see in space is likely and possible. We are living in the midst of a wonder of epic proportions people. We don't even know what the fuck the universe is, why it is, where it is and what it is in. | ||
|
Chef
10810 Posts
On August 29 2009 01:50 Foucault wrote: It's perfectly reasonable to ask the question in what the universe is expanding in. Surely there can't be just nothing outside our universe. I think there might be several universes, why wouldn't there? Don't say that's impossible lol...yeah like so much stuff we see in space is likely and possible. We are living in the midst of a wonder of epic proportions people. We don't even know what the fuck the universe is, why it is, where it is and what it is in. Probably cause that's not really the definition of a universe. Uni... Meaning ONE. + Show Spoiler + I know there's theories about 'parallel universes' or whatever, but if I understand correctly, those have nothing to do with physical distances. | ||
|
closed
Vatican City State491 Posts
On August 29 2009 01:05 starfries wrote: In cosmology, usually people use the scale factor (a) instead of time to describe when stuff is happening. So a=1 for the present universe, and goes down as you go back in time towards 0. It makes things a lot easier since you can easily change from a to redshift, or into expansion rate which is more useful than actual time. Also in the inflation period the universe was expanding WAY faster than the speed of light, so parts of it that were in contact before inflation suddenly couldn't see each other. As the expansion slowed down they started drifting back into contact but it explains the large scale patterns in the universe. As for where it's expanding into.. yeah.. it's like the balloon. But what if "time" = the scale factor? E.g. 1 second = "1^150 more stretching"? Although it wouldnt make much sense if the strech wasnt linear as you described. Is it decreasing though? Or increasing - like U pattern. Personally I have this theory that you cannot go back in time because: a) time = stretching of the universe b) the same atom cannot be at the same spot at the same time (ok, they talk about the quantum bubbles, but these are not the same atoms) - think of it as a giant database On August 28 2009 19:10 spinesheath wrote: Unless you studied physics you shouldn't even bother about where the universe is going. Unless you are a progamer dont read a broodwar related forum. | ||
|
CharlieMurphy
United States22895 Posts
rinse and repeat. | ||
|
Sky
Jordan812 Posts
On August 28 2009 19:10 spinesheath wrote: Unless you studied physics you shouldn't even bother about where the universe is going. You are not going to live long enough to notice any effects the expansion of the universe might have. Also, unless you really put a lot of time into it all you will acquire is false, lacking or misinterpreted information. I don't understand this. Are you discouraging people to define this stuff because they don't have the background knowledge of physics, or are implying that it's a waste of time to even think about it? Considering the edge won't be seen without a viable way to get there, I think it's pretty arrogant to tell others to drop discussion if they haven't had the background. This especially considering how dynamic particle physics has been in the past 200 years. + Show Spoiler + Maybe I just got the wrong impression from your paragraph. If so, I apologize! Your still a neat person though. | ||
|
Foucault
Sweden2826 Posts
On August 29 2009 02:49 Chef wrote: Personally, I believe that from some angle, at some time, the universe is going to be an uncanny likeness of my face. Probably cause that's not really the definition of a universe. Uni... Meaning ONE. + Show Spoiler + I know there's theories about 'parallel universes' or whatever, but if I understand correctly, those have nothing to do with physical distances. Good point. I actually never thought about the "uni" part being one in the word universe lol | ||
|
Xe(-_-)Ro
Canada69 Posts
On August 28 2009 18:18 betaben wrote: can you tell us about the verification process that turns a theory into a fact? We're listening, or reading rather, BookTwo  | ||
|
minus_human
4784 Posts
God godgodgod haha, I ruined the thread! | ||
| ||
