Flash Flash Revolution: Community Forums

Flash Flash Revolution: Community Forums (http://www.flashflashrevolution.com/vbz/index.php)
-   Critical Thinking (http://www.flashflashrevolution.com/vbz/forumdisplay.php?f=33)
-   -   Interesting indeed (http://www.flashflashrevolution.com/vbz/showthread.php?t=5206)

Anticrombie0909 12-8-2003 10:31 PM

Interesting indeed
 
I was reading 'The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy' (great book, READ IT) when I came across something that actually made me stop and think. Here's what it said:

Quote:

It is known that there are an infinite number of worlds, simply because there is an infinite amount of space for them to be in. However, not every one of them is inhabited. Therefore, there must be a finite number of inhabited worlds. Any finite number divided by infinity is as near to nothing as makes no odds, so the average population of all the planets in theUniverse can be said to be Zero. From this it follows that the population of the whole Universe is also zero, and that any people you may meet from time to time are merely the products of a deranged imagination.
Now, obviously the last part is just humor, but if you pay attention to the bolded bit and think for a minute...kind of wierd, don't you think?

eldiabo3005 12-8-2003 10:36 PM

Yes, that is very interesting. That made me think for a while...

Cenright 12-8-2003 10:39 PM

Sorry, but after my AP calculus class, that just seems so simple. It isn't completely logical in some expanded logic theories, but it still makes sense.

87x 12-8-2003 10:39 PM

umm.. thought about it for like 3 seconds.. then realised that it could be true..

Anticrombie0909 12-8-2003 10:45 PM

Lol I know! And this is from the book where the main theme is 'Forty-two'.

scorpio1690 12-8-2003 11:02 PM

Well no shit. How could someone not know that? I mean, out of all the galxies do you actually think that ours is the only one that has a planet that con support life? Like, fuck, there's billions and trillions of galaxies. And those are only the ones we know of. Now imagine if you were in those galaxies, everything could be horribly different, fuck, for all we know life could just be a play, like Shakespeare (sp?) said, and we are just actors on a set. Could the audience possibly be celestial beings?

Cenright 12-8-2003 11:10 PM

If you belive in the evolutional theory that life was a mistake that came all together (I don't), the you don't know the odds. The odds are so slim, that you can't even see how slim it is with a microscope. It is getting into numbers that don't have names. We are talking googlepex size numbers. So yes, if you believe that the evolutional theory could have worked, then yes. There is a very slime chance that there is other life out there. Then again, you also have to add in all the factors that make this life more intelligent than a microbial being. That means the numbers are so great that it is near impossible.



Let me name some factors that lessen the odds for even life to start.
Habitable planet
-distance from sun
-atmospheric composition
-planet rotation speed
-gasses forming other compounds
I HAVE NOW LESSENED THE SUITABLE SITES TO ONE EVERY 10,000 SOLARSYSTEMS AT BEST.

Now we get into chemistry and all the compounds needed in that atmosphere and everything else. The chance that even a few of these needed compounds are created are slim. A few hundred thousand make it hard. Then EVERY SINGLE one has to be in the right place at the right time in the right condidtion.

WE KNOW WHAT CHEMICALS LIFE CONSISTS OF. WE HAVE NEVER EVEN COME CLOSE TO MAKING IT. AND THIS HAS TO HAPPEN OUT OF CHANCE? THEN IT ALSO HAS TO SURVIVE? THEN IT HAS TO REPLICATE?



See the odds?

BluE_MeaniE 12-8-2003 11:21 PM

Oh, man, I love this kind of discussion....

Cenright 12-8-2003 11:24 PM

Well there sure are a finite number of living planets in this universe.

scorpio1690 12-8-2003 11:44 PM

The way I figure it, the earth will end up as mars, I believe there was life on Mars at least a millenia of years ago. I believe they've done exactly as we're doing and that it drove itself to extinction as we will in years to come. People are to ignorant and one sided to see what we're doing to the wildlife and atmosphere to do anything about it. Or maybe, still on the Mars supporting life topic, maybe they did what is just a couple buttons away, launched all their A-Bombs and destroyed their surface, thos, we have enough to destroy the planet what, 42 times?

87x 12-8-2003 11:47 PM

WELL.. Cenright.. you seem to be very intelligent on this subject.. and i am liking this topic.. with that said.. I would have to say.. there HAS to be other planets out there that support life.. as cenright said that there has to be certain conditions for life to form.. very true.. rotation of a planet.. some sort of gravitational pull is needed.. but.. water.. oxygen.. and other things you would think something would need to survive may not be true.. you base these assumptions on Earth life.. and what we know life to be.. but our life, the life on our planet, are based on the conditions we had on our planet at the time of the forming cells.. there could be different types of cells (if thats what they are) forming for the different conditions of the different plants.. so saying that the odds are against other life forms isnt necessarily true..

Cenright 12-9-2003 12:08 AM

The laws of physics never change. There is no force in the other galaxies ( I know you didn't think that, but I'm clarifying.) There could be anerobic bacteria, but since the same chemistry is UNIVERSAL, things have the same basis of life. Water is still the basis of complex life.

WATER IS SUCH AN ULTIMATE SUBSTANCE. PEOPLE, WHEN YOU TAKE CHEMISTRY, YOU UNDERSTAND HOW INCREDIBLE AND UNIQUE IT IS.

There is no substitute for water, where ever you are. If there was another substitiute that was created so easily that it could double as water, it would already have been found. Something so universal creates itself. (One of those main building blockes that DOESN'T have almost any odds at all.)

______________________________________
Universal properties that are so much better than any other substance that makes water so special:
Polarity
-Adhesion
-Cohesion
PH
-Can act as a base
-Can act as an acid
-Its own buffer solution
-Is the start of all base and acidity because of OH- and H30+
The universal solvent
Aquias by its self (water dissolved in water)
Start of a carrier for electrical current
IT'S SOLID FORM IS NOT ITS DENSEST FORM
_____________________________________
These are just off the top of my head. There are MANY more.

Water is the basis of ANY complex life, no matter where it is. That makes all the other chemicals fairly the same also. Yes, oxgen, nitrogen, carbon, and hydrogen might be altered, but all of those WILL be present and in fairly close structures, because there are only a certain amount of working with water and altering that can be done.

N2, O2, CO2, CH4, H2, C6H12O6, and NH3 can all be altered within reason, but you will find all of those in any life bigger than a few prokaryotic cells.




You have the failure of the cytokinesis (splitting of 2 cells) after binary fission (replcation) to get simple eukaryotic cells.
-Or-
You have the consumption of one prokaryotic by another to get simple eukaryotic cells.
(This starts the big stepping stones!)



We are now at least 3 billion years into the evolution process.

qualy 12-9-2003 12:17 AM

i dont really know enough to contribute to this discussion... but i sure am learning a lot! thanks guys!

Cenright 12-9-2003 12:19 AM

I'm just barely getting into my AP Class Cirriculum.


This is the caliber of discussion that my family has at the dinner table. Sad isn't it? Our entire family got the intelligence gene (IF it exists, but that is a WHOLE 'nother discussion).



It is my bed time decreed by my parents for the night. I will hope to keep this going tomorrow.

87x 12-9-2003 12:32 AM

Alright.. we came up with these "assumptions" that water is the basis of all life because we study it on earth.. scientist can say that it has to be there.. BUT.. in reality they don't really know for fact.. it is all in theory.. so although all life on earth is made up of water.. that doesn't mean that all life must have water.. I can not give any examples.. or even begin to try to describe how it would come to be.. because there is no truth to my logic.. and there is also no falsifications to it either.. It is just as easy to think that there can be life with water.. to think that there can be life without it.. Reason for it beign so hard to conceptualize is because you have always been tought the water ways and there has never been prove to support anyother type of life..

If i repeated anything in here.. or left out reasoning behind something.. then just tell me.. i dont hae time to re-read and fix all the errors
..peace..

jewpinthethird 12-9-2003 01:23 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Cenright
Let me name some factors that lessen the odds for even life to start.
Habitable planet
-distance from sun
-atmospheric composition
-planet rotation speed
-gasses forming other compounds
I HAVE NOW LESSENED THE SUITABLE SITES TO ONE EVERY 10,000 SOLARSYSTEMS AT BEST.

See, those are the right conditions for life, as we know it, on Earth to be. But, as Anti said "there are an infinite number of worlds". And those worlds might contain a life form unimaginable by human minds. Remember, there are only 5 kingdoms of living organisms on Earth. Who knows what lie out in the unseen cosmos.

"Reason for it beign so hard to conceptualize is because you have always been tought the water ways and there has never been prove to support anyother type of life"
-87x

Whingo.

Tasuke 12-9-2003 01:27 AM

Gahhhh. so confusing
Losing brain stuff
Brain hurt. Can't not think forword
*falls down and starts to drool*

I think that somewhere in the universe there are planets where other beings have evolved to the type of enviroment that they live in, but here we are just begging the chain of events that could posssibly determine what way we destroy ourselves (if we do) in the future.
But the other planets in our solar system have (probably) microorganisms living and evolving in a way that lets them to adapt to their enviroment. But, we were first to acttually sprout life because of the chopice factors that helped creat our planet. So say for instance in a few hunderd, thousand years life we be advanced enough on possibly habital( planets like our own) will be just expirincing what we did thousands of years ago. Causing like a dinosaur age or something.
Then think of the awsome irony. By the time anouther might have evolved enough to expirince space-travel they see our "doomed lifes and such and think that there "might of been" life on our Panet

Cenright 12-9-2003 03:41 PM

The commoness yet uniqueness of water makes it #1. It is embedded into physics itself. Let's pretend that there is another substace that works like water.

If there was, we would see it ON EARTH because of its commoness. The other galaxies still have to follow the "Universal Laws of Physics" There can be variation in the variables, but they can NOT break the rules, just as our system can NOT break the rules.

This means that although their "habitable life conditions" might be completely different, they still have to follow physics, and there must be a basic chemical of life.

That chemical for US is water. The formation of water is a basic process that is easily done by the universe itself (in habitable conditions of course).

There are only a certain amount of different atoms on the periodic table. These only make compounds a certain way. The life chemical has to be one of simplicity or it defeats its own purpose. THERE ARE NO "DIFFERENT PERIODIC TABLES FOR DIFFERENT GALAXIES".

There might be a few compounds that are used less or more, but Water is the same whether it is here or anywhere else. It is made from the same UNIVERSAL atoms. And therefore, there is no substitute

VxDx 12-9-2003 03:57 PM

The math in the beginning is all wrong. If there is an infinite number of planets and we assume that, say every trillionth or so is inhabited, then there are an infinite number of inhabited planets. If you were to say that there are, say, 500 inhabited planets, out of an infinite number, you are still making that assumption that you get a finite result from an infinite set.

It's like prime number theory, there are an infinate number of numbers, and there are a certain amount of numbers that are prime as well. Well as you go towards infinity, the prime numbers get further and further apart, but there is still an infinite number of primes.



As for the evolution business, supposing the universe is relatively infinite, no matter the odds of creation, it is a certainty.

heyhey11 12-9-2003 04:29 PM

i am so thankful to anticrombie for making a thread with a meaningful thought provoking substance unlike pyramids which are fun indeed but extremely pointless

Anticrombie0909 12-9-2003 04:30 PM

Well, here's how I interpeted the text. Yes, Cenright, you may be right, probably are, in fact, and less than 1 planet in every 10,000 supports life. However, under the assumption that the Universe is infinite, that would mean that there are an infinite amount of planets, and therefore an infinite amount of planets that support life.

QreepyBORIS 12-9-2003 06:31 PM

Except infinity isnt a number, and you should not treat it as one.

You cant divide by it. I mean, try it: Infinty divided by infinity IS FUCKING INFINITY STILL.

Therefore, an infinite number of wordls are inhabited, and an infinite amount of organisms exist.

Or maybe fewer.

VxDx 12-9-2003 06:41 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by QreepyBORIS
You cant divide by it. I mean, try it: Infinty divided by infinity IS #$#ing INFINITY STILL.

infinity divided by infinity is not necessarily infinity, but is rather dependant on the context from which it is derived.

scorpio1690 12-9-2003 06:57 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Cenright
The commoness yet uniqueness of water makes it #1. It is embedded into physics itself. Let's pretend that there is another substace that works like water.

If there was, we would see it ON EARTH because of its commoness. The other galaxies still have to follow the "Universal Laws of Physics" There can be variation in the variables, but they can NOT break the rules, just as our system can NOT break the rules.

This means that although their "habitable life conditions" might be completely different, they still have to follow physics, and there must be a basic chemical of life.

That chemical for US is water. The formation of water is a basic process that is easily done by the universe itself (in habitable conditions of course).

There are only a certain amount of different atoms on the periodic table. These only make compounds a certain way. The life chemical has to be one of simplicity or it defeats its own purpose. THERE ARE NO "DIFFERENT PERIODIC TABLES FOR DIFFERENT GALAXIES".

There might be a few compounds that are used less or more, but Water is the same whether it is here or anywhere else. It is made from the same UNIVERSAL atoms. And therefore, there is no substitute

I need some powdered water where all I have to do is wadd water.... That'd be sweet...

MWGwyn 12-9-2003 07:09 PM

I just finished my collection an hour ago, sadly I got the trilogy of four, before relizing that there is a five set one.

makaveli121212 12-9-2003 07:17 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by VxDx
Quote:

Originally Posted by QreepyBORIS
You cant divide by it. I mean, try it: Infinty divided by infinity IS #$#ing INFINITY STILL.

infinity divided by infinity is not necessarily infinity, but is rather dependant on the context from which it is derived.

very true thanks to our pal L'Hospital (Lopeytall...its french)...good old AP calc and the stupid things we do...dividing infinity by 0 and by infinity and 0 by 0...point is infinity divided by infinty can be any number...check L'Hospital if you donr believe me

dontcareaboutmyid 12-9-2003 07:54 PM

hehe you're all figments of my imagination.

Cenright 12-9-2003 08:07 PM

Correct Anticrombie. Yet if the creation of life is still on a time frame. Let me explain.

It all starts with the big bang. All the mass which later forms into galaxies and stars and planets comes from one explosion, all galaxies are flying away from each other (which has been proven by Red and Blue shift). The explosion would create a massive gravity well, so... all galaxies would eventually slow down from going away from each other, stop, and then start getting pulled back.
This is only if the BIG BANG actually started it.

If there was a big bang, It seems you would have to have a finite amount of mass in the beginning, and therefore a finite amount of planets.(see lined section for the argument flaw.)


This means that if it does in fact come back together, it starts the process all over. This means that our infinite amount of time for our "life odds" to set in and produce life is broken up by finite amount of time. This means that with our long odds, it might have taken a few cycles of the big bang just to produce us. It might only happen every few thousand big bangs. Maybe that life is produced only every few big bangs. (Big Bang might be more than a few tri/quad/pentillion years or more.)


IF there was an infinite amount of space and planets, There would be a near infinite amount of distance between life-seed planets. Since we don't have an infinite amount of time to find them, there is almost an infinitely small chance that we will find any others.


_______________________________________________________
WHAT MESSES THE AGRUMENT UP AND PATCHES A FEW THINGS UP
For the big bang explosion:
(The Problem)
The main problem with my argument is that you can fit an infinite amount of mass in an infinite amount of space. And therefore have an infinite amount of energy to fuel the infinite explosion.

The infinite explosion would have caused an infinately large gravity well which would have cause an infinitely strong pull which would have equalized the infinitely strong shove outward, meaning the mass would have stop to stop at one time soon and get pulled back in. This would take time for the "explosion push" to be counteracted. It happened before the gravity well happened, giving it a head start, but the REaction would finally pull it back, even if it was moving away.

(The Fix)
The Infinite explosion happened for a finite amount of time. The infinite gravity well is happening for a longer amount of finite time. This means that the gravity well WILL over come the explosion force. Going by equal energy amounts, the gravity well should run out just as the mass all comes back together.
____________________________________________



Then comes the bible.
(Don't worry. I'm leaving it out of this debate. This is a science debate.)

Anticrombie0909 12-9-2003 08:24 PM

Quote:

Then comes the bible.
(Don't worry. I'm leaving it out of this debate. This is a science debate.)
Thank you, for the love of...uh, someone. By the time that was finished I'd be banned from FFR and have about 10,000 angry priests and rabbis beating a path to my door.

And you really explained that very well, btw. This is very interesting so far. And so far, not one flame (amazing, innit?)

makaveli121212 12-9-2003 08:56 PM

Cen, life wasnt produced from the big bang...i dont see why the big bang needs a finite amount of mass...i dont believe there are a finite number of planets...it cannot be, even if space goes on forever, which cant be proven, there is no way there are an infinite number of planets...think about it...i mean cen's arguement proves mine, infinte energy, infinte mass, infinte time...infinty does not even exist, so nothing pertaining to it can

Cenright 12-9-2003 09:05 PM

Addressing the Crowd:
Sounds confusing doesn't it people? Let me put out on the table that the human mind (in its current state) can not fully even comprehend the full concept of infinity.


EXAMPLE
If time was infinite, then it would have to go back an infinite amount of time. This means that not only is time going on forever in the future, it is going on backwards through the past further and further because there is no beginning and no beginning to ever stop time from going progressing backwards further and further.


THINK ABOUT THAT FOR A WHILE.

makaveli121212 12-9-2003 09:09 PM

i already did think about that, it isnt that humans cannot comprend infinty though, it is just non-existent and not possible

Lupin_the_3rd 12-9-2003 09:10 PM

or how about the fact that we think we know everything there is to know about the world around us... that's what was thought by scientists at the turn of the 19th century...

what we know today as fact could actually be a pile of bullshit

just look back a couple hundred years, see what they thought about our world

now imagine a couple hundred years from now...everything thought implausible could be a reality and so on...

what I'm trying to say is, as far as we know, we could all be wrong

makaveli121212 12-9-2003 09:17 PM

now that is the most intelligent thing i have heard you say in a long time...kudos...it's is obvious we dont know everything, however, many things we can now prove by facts; whereas in the past only 'theories' have been proven to be wrong...are facts are not wrong, but are theories may be...good point there lupin...one theory that could change the way we think is String Theory, check that out if you guys hadnt already

Lupin_the_3rd 12-9-2003 09:21 PM

but could these facts be caused by a lucky string of favorable variables not known to us that affect our physics and chemistry laws and so on..(i'm not saying you're wrong)

Cenright 12-9-2003 09:26 PM

The concept of infinity does exist. If it didn't, none of Calculus would exist because of the limits you do at the very beginning (or the end of Pre-Calc). The concept of infinity is still there; it still exists. We just can't fully comprehend it.

Time keeps going. No matter what, time keeps going.



-Edit-
Then again, time is relative to each and every person. Does that mean that if no-one existed that time would not exixt?

I feel this is a relevant question:
If a tree falls in the woods and no-one is around to hear it, did it really make a sound?

Lupin_the_3rd 12-9-2003 09:27 PM

THERE IS NO SUCH THING AS TIME, IT IS A BENCHMARK MADE BY HUMANS TO DESCRIBE THINGS

Anticrombie0909 12-9-2003 09:28 PM

Yeah. Its hard to conceptualize something so broad and abstract, but think about it logically. Start with something easy, like counting. You can count to 10, to 100, to a googleplex. Theoretically, you could count to infinity, because there's no logical reason for there not to be an infinite number of 'things'.

makaveli121212 12-9-2003 09:29 PM

infinty exists theoretically, like in math, but in reality, with mass, and time, and what-have-you, and infinte quanity of something cannot exist

Lupin_the_3rd 12-9-2003 09:34 PM

except for the CONCEPT (seeing how time doesn't exist) of time, that will continue to go on forever, you don't need somebody saying, yeah time is still going...time is infinite, yet time is not real, so yeah you're right...infinity is theoretical, not tangible

makaveli121212 12-9-2003 09:38 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Lupin_the_3rd
THERE IS NO SUCH THING AS TIME, IT IS A BENCHMARK MADE BY HUMANS TO DESCRIBE THINGS

thats the most intellignt thing i heard you say since...well a few posts ago...couldnt agree more with that, very very good point...and no you cannot count to infinty, i mean that only proves that it doesnt exist...you count numbers, guess what infinty isnt a number it is an idea, a theory, that has been established...i mean if infinty does exist then the number right before infinty exists, well you tell me that number

Lupin_the_3rd 12-9-2003 09:39 PM

googleplex and one

makaveli121212 12-9-2003 09:43 PM

no, because the number after that is googleplex and 2...that doesnt equal infinty, or can you prove me wrong

Lupin_the_3rd 12-9-2003 09:45 PM

googleplex and 3, then (lol i'm just messin...





















it's googleplex and 4)

makaveli121212 12-9-2003 09:48 PM

i know, i know...but my post does prove a good point...

Quote:

Originally Posted by makaveli121212
Quote:

Originally Posted by Lupin_the_3rd
THERE IS NO SUCH THING AS TIME, IT IS A BENCHMARK MADE BY HUMANS TO DESCRIBE THINGS

thats the most intellignt thing i heard you say since...well a few posts ago...couldnt agree more with that, very very good point...and no you cannot count to infinty, i mean that only proves that it doesnt exist...you count numbers, guess what infinty isnt a number it is an idea, a theory, that has been established...i mean if infinty does exist then the number right before infinty exists, well you tell me that number


Lupin_the_3rd 12-9-2003 09:51 PM

yeah...infinity is not a number, it's like saying forward or up...there is no end...it's a concept, not a placeholder for a number

Cenright 12-9-2003 09:53 PM

Yes. Time is just the relative rhythm of counting the passage of actions. A BENCHMARK (thanks for the term lupin).

There is nothing physical that can't be quantified; That is true.

This is where the whole god thing comes in, and since that is not part of this conversation, infinity stays as a concept and nothing more.

The same with counting. There is only mathematics that shows you the concept of infinity:
1
0

Infinity started with math and has never surpassed math. Then again, that concept has a lot of real world applications:
The biggest I can think of is derivatives.

makaveli121212 12-9-2003 09:56 PM

so now that is established, lets get back to the....wait what the hell are we talkin about *looks back at previous pages* oh yeah space...and stuff

Cenright 12-9-2003 09:58 PM

This was a debate about scientific theory, and it seems we finally hit a dead end in where this topic can go.

Feuergeist 12-9-2003 09:58 PM

I think therefor i am.

According to that, I exist in some form, whereas you all are just "nothing"

Lupin_the_3rd 12-9-2003 09:58 PM

Timeline is really good at exemplifying what we've said and demonstrates a REALLY convincing theory about time travel (previous to that i had thought timetravel was bs)

EDIT: Read the book, not the movie (movie blows)

willson13 12-9-2003 09:59 PM

Can one of ya'll jump over to the Sig/Av thread and help me out? Please?

Cenright 12-9-2003 10:00 PM

It was good when it lasted though, I want to take this lull to thank everone for all the great thoughts you put into this topic. You guys did a great job.

Lupin_the_3rd 12-9-2003 10:00 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by willson13
Can one of ya'll jump over to the Sig/Av thread and help me out? Please?

it's called a pm

willson13 12-9-2003 10:02 PM

It'd take too much troubl to PM all of those people.

makaveli121212 12-9-2003 10:03 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Cenright
It was good when it lasted though, I want to take this lull to thank everone for all the great thoughts you put into this topic. You guys did a great job.

i can see why the topics can be interesting and how it sucks to have some screw them up (ie me, vxd)...hopefully we can get some more of these

Lupin_the_3rd 12-9-2003 10:04 PM

I'd have to say this is one of the most intellectual and thoughtful threads (without arguing) i've seen in a long time

willson13 12-9-2003 10:08 PM

Have ya'll, well specifically Cenright, ever heard of www.sciforums.com ? I used to go there quite frequently. It's awesome if you love talking about this stuff.

makaveli121212 12-9-2003 10:08 PM

AMEN

Lupin_the_3rd 12-9-2003 10:12 PM

lol this should be stickied as "the exemplary thread"

Moogy 12-9-2003 10:17 PM

There is an infinite amount of nothing in the cosmos. By this logic, we can come to the fact that anything that does exist is so overwhelmed by the nothingness that there is no point in its existence, because any form of it (existence) is obviously is too small to make a difference in anything. From this we can conclude that life is meaningless, along with everything else, including time and space. Moral of the story? Everything is meaningless, don't sweat it. Just live your meaningless lives on your meaningless world in your meaningless solar system inside of your meaningless galaxy that is part of your meaningless universe that is part of the cosmos, which are meaningless.

You can tell I'm going to take philosophy, can't you?

Lupin_the_3rd 12-9-2003 10:23 PM

precisely, and (without breaching religious beliefs) you might as well do whatever the hell you want because (if you are not religious) when you die, you will remember nothing, you will be in a state of nothingness, though you won't be conscious (in the mind) so everything will suddenly end. For this reason I am religious...what would you rather have to be your end? seriously...

i could get more into religious stuff, but I don't want to offend anyone, but I will say this, if there is a God, how do we know for sure that our lives are meaningless, he could have set everything up so as to seem he doesn't exist. What proof have you that he does, or doesn't exist? Ok i'll stop there

jewpinthethird 12-9-2003 10:24 PM

Taking Philosophy is meaningless.

Cenright 12-9-2003 10:26 PM

Sounds like AP Microeconomics in perfect competition Moogy. Each firm is insignificant to the big picture. No one could ever make a change to the rest.

It is off topic, but it is neat to see that the same theory can be altered to be used for something completely different. Humans have a habit and they almost never change it do they. Then change becomes a habit somehow and then it keeps changing. People always seem to follow the norm without even knowing it.

Lupin_the_3rd 12-9-2003 10:31 PM

oh yeah, another thing to think about that has been on my mind:

you know what would be really funny? If Earth was an "atom" or "molecule" that made up something that belonged to a bigger world, and other galaxies were just like other "molecules" for example...It seems to make sense to me though, objects around us are built up of like 99% nothing ( i can't remember the exact percent) which would describe space and planets (99% space 1% matter) confusing I know...but maybe we just haven't had a broad enough perspective

Brainmaster07 12-9-2003 10:44 PM

o_O, unless our school has been teaching us wrong, the universe is NOT infinate, so therefor practically nothing in this topic can be true...

what ever happened to that whole expanding and colapsing of the universe? the space is finite, but the amount of times it does it isn't. But then again, if the universe is finite, what's beyond it o_O?

87x 12-9-2003 10:52 PM

hm.. i mad i missed all the action on this thread.. but i would still ilke to say something... space can NOT be infinate.. think about it.. a mass explosion caused the universe to happen (the big bang), if the explosion made the universe then the whent he explosion stopped then the amount of spcae it created stopped.. unless the Big bang was still happening right now.. still exploding and making more space, then space must have an end.. Even if you traveld at 5X the speed of light for an entire life time and never found the end.. it has to have one.. and since it IS a cycle for the big bang.. that means everything gets pulled back to the center again, then that is evidence that space isn't infinate.. you cant pull an infinate amount of anything to a center point.. So space cant be infinate..

Cenright 12-9-2003 10:52 PM

There are 2 kinds of theories. Open universes and Closed universes. You are thinking of the closed one.

Anticrombie0909 12-9-2003 10:57 PM

Well I learned that the Universe (this is speaking strictly theoretically, mind you) is like one giant, inverted planet where everyone lives on the inside. While the Universe itself doesn't move, everything inside it does.

jewpinthethird 12-9-2003 10:58 PM

Did anyone read A Wind in the Door, the second book in the A Wrinkle in Time series? It states that even the most insignificant organism can affect the whole cosmos in a crazy chain reaction. It the story, the child (who is supposedly the savior) has a disease in which his mitochandria is destroyed this making the child extremely weak. If he died, the world would die, if the world died, the solar system, if the solar system, the galaxy etc. Now, think, if we nuke the hell out of the world, and destroy, we might throw the solar system out of whack. All the planets are an exact amount from each other (except for Pluto). It is pretty crazy how it all works.

The fact that space might be finite is to great an idea to full comprehend. What is beyond that? UGGHGHGG....MY BRAIN. And the idea that the universe is infinite just seems more logical. UGH. I have so many ideas that I just cannot put into words.

There are three theories.

The universe expands, reaches a point, retracts. The process starts over.

The universe expands, runs out of matter, dissipates.

The universe expands, reaches a point, and stays as is.

Cenright 12-9-2003 11:01 PM

That is the closed form Anti.

There are a few theories to that also. Twists on the edge of the universe that would put you on the other side. It is too hard to explain in words. You need visuals and everything.

If you just believed that the universe has an end, it would be just like old sailors that felt if they went to far they would fall off the edge of the earth.



Jewpin:
I explained that sort of as a side topic, but I didn't put any tags on it. Thanks for making it WAY more clear.

jewpinthethird 12-10-2003 12:22 AM

I wish the human mind wasnt so primitive.

Tasuke 12-10-2003 12:27 AM

Even if the universe is constantly expanding, would there, could there be a exact center of the universe?

Because if the universe is ever expanding does it all go and progress at the same time in all directions?
or does it grow out at uneven spurts constantly changing the universe as we know it making new planets, and stars every second.

Cen: If a tree falls in the middle of thye forest and now bodys around, it does because all vibration causes sound. such as: vocal chords, tapping on a desk, ringing a bell. It does. I learned that kind of stuff in the first grade but never really thoiught about it that way. What if there's a video-camera in the middle of a forest and you leave it watching a tree that you know is gonna fal down. Nobody is around, but the video-camera tapin' the tree falling and causing sound.

Semi-relative question: If a tree falls on a mime in the middle of a forest and noones around to hear, does anyone really care???

Cenright 12-10-2003 12:47 AM

Yes. the center would be the Big bang (which started the expansion).

Tasuke 12-10-2003 01:01 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Cenright
Yes. the center would be the Big bang (which started the expansion).

But, that would be only if the universe expanded together and in the same direction all in the same time.

but how do we know that the universe grows out in even areas instead of giant spurts.

Cenright 12-10-2003 01:09 AM

We don't, but all the vectors of all the big bang debris vector away from THAT spot. It makes it the RELATIVE center; not the ABSOLUTE center.

jewpinthethird 12-10-2003 01:46 AM

To look into space is to look back in time since it takes millions of years for light to travel across the cosmos before it reaches Earth. Therefore, if you have a strong enough telescope, and you aimed it in the right position, you can see the early universe (I learned about that last year). Although it is still a theory, it makes since. But it is still way over my head.

As Earth keeps being pushed further and further in the ever expanding universe, it's speed is ever increasing while the center of the universe stays the same, does that make all that which is near the center of the universe older? As stated in another thread "as speed increases, time too increases".

And what if the universe keeped expanding to the point in which our solar system begins to travel at the speed of light. What then?

Brainmaster07 12-10-2003 01:51 AM

So if we had a powerful enough microscope we could see the big bang in it's begginings...

Bah! that's so annoying, you look out at the sky, but you're not looking at 'todays' sky, you could be focusing on a spot 1,000 years ago, or a 1,000,000. So you could be looking at something, that in reality isn't there, BUT YOU STILL SEE IT! AAAAHHHHHHHH.

Cenright 12-10-2003 01:51 AM

Yes. You would see a point in time that happened a few million years ago for some galaxies. Some don't even exist any more, but the absence of light wont hit us for another few million years. We are watching the past.

Our own sun could go out and we would not know it for 8 MINUTES.

jewpinthethird 12-10-2003 01:55 AM

I was just about to mention the whole sun dying. Although, if the sun were to "die" you would know before those 8 mintues because of the sudden lack of gravitational pull, Earth would be send spiraling off into space like a sling shot. Not to mention the extremely large heat discharge that would scorn half the Earth.


All times are GMT -5. The time now is 10:35 PM.

Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.1
Copyright ©2000 - 2021, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright FlashFlashRevolution