You could have owned him with that one sentence imo...Quote:
Originally Posted by Oss Spy
Printable View
You could have owned him with that one sentence imo...Quote:
Originally Posted by Oss Spy
To Oss Spy:
Never relent in the pursuit of knowledge but continue to acquire more pieces of information and do not slavishly accept the words or stated viewpoints of others without questioning their premises. Forever stimulate your intellect so as to dispel the ignorance of others and to remove your own layers of ignorance. While the majority of people may be tepid in acquiring more knowledge for intellectual pleasure, always pursue your intellectual ambitions. Always aim for great and noble things and refuse to consign yourself to lower standards or to inferior pursuits which is the path of the ignorant.
In my personal opinion, there is no greater joy or pleasure than devouring a book or gorging upon the vast wealth of knowledge contained within books. As a voracious reader, I view the acquisition of knowledge as the noblest endeavor of the human species. Never lose your burning desire for knowledge or your passion for books as the greatest sagacity arises from the relentless pursuit of knowledge and from an overwhelming passion to determine the guiding principles of the cosmos. The person who has been endowed with a lofty and superior intellect possesses an insatiable appetite for knowledge and harbors a desire to bring order from chaos, to offer balance and stability to a world of disequilibrium and to discover unity amidst the disunity and fragmentation of the world.
Completely ignoring Conrad...
Yeah, most of us are either too young or too uncaring to want to read that math. And the ones of us who actually did read it (me included, for the record), are too stupid to know WTF it means.
So yeah. You're awesome, hooray, you know math, but this thread fails because of our idiocy. Sorry 'bout it.
I think this a very thought provoking thread. Nicely done.
Now a few ideas I had..
Would it not be better to attemp to use distance as a measure for time? If you can find an equation that relates to the relative expasion rate of the universe without using the factor of time then you could substitute time with distance. I realise that to calculate the rate of anything you would need time, so i propose instead of trying to work out the expansion over the entire life of the universe only calculate the rate over a known time period.
This may sound a bit pointless, but if you then use that to calculate distance of expansion, you should in essence be able to work out the total expansion and then the time from that??
I am most likely very wrong as I FAIL epicaly at maths. I dont know, you should try it and see if it works.
Duely noted, BUT, the reason I suggest distance as a substitute is not because it fits best but because it will be the easiest to work with. We cant get even close to accurite enough with time. So, using a distance average I believe we can get the closest to correct result.Quote:
Originally Posted by Courson
On the subject of the dark matter debate, we are not to sure of the nature of dark matter yet so it would be near impossible to factor it in correctly.
This is however just my opinion. :)
Relativistically speaking, I think you forgot to factor in the speed of light. Now, I'm a Renaissance man, I focus on learning a little bit of everything rather then a lot in any specific subject, so I am in no way an expert.
This post right here, now it was my understanding that it only takes more energy to expand at a constant rate the more expanded you get relative to the speed of light, but in this case we are speaking purely relative of one part of the universe to another. In which case, remembering gravity, the energy needed to expand at a constant rate actually decreases the further apart it gets. Which is why the rate of slowing is itself slowing down.Quote:
The reason that part is VITAL is because the larger something grows the more energy it takes to grow at a fixed rate, and since ε is a constant (which means once we find the unit of energy ε will become a number and not a variable) ε will not grow with the universe (which will now be referred to as Σ), ε is dispersed throughout Σ. This is because there is more or less the same amount of energy at the edges of our universe, and the larger the edges get, the thinner the energy gets and thus δ (the rate of expansion) decreases (which is exactly where ε-(Σ/ε) comes into importance.) Now we have the equation Σ=β^(ε-(Σ/ε)).
If im not mistaken, the speed of light is more a measure of distance then time. Also to factor in the time it takes light to run from end to end in the universe will be even more impossible then equating the expansion of the universe.Quote:
Originally Posted by Humility
Lastly the highlighted segment shows that what you are saying is this: As the expansion of the universe slows down, it also speeds up. That makes no sense.
But like I always say, this is just my opinion. :)
I know the speed of light is measured in km/h but in my experience it is more commonly used to measure distance.
I understand that at the begining the universe was 50-50 matter/anti-matter but, if we look at simple physics eg. Newtons laws, then I believe we can see the relationship they hold to one another. Namely energy cannot be destroyed or created, only changed. We thus need to assume that it requires less energy to generate matter then anti matter hense the larger quantinty of matter.
Now, if assume that the universe is 15billion years old, then we already have a time factor to use.
And I agree, using light as a measure is not at all viable in the universe as in is not a constant.
I think that between the two of us we are currently going very far from the origanal theory of the tread lol...Quote:
Originally Posted by Courson
But, I thiink the most pertanent question in terms of matter/anti-matter interaction and creation would not be there relationship with one another but rather there origin. Also, we need to know if all 9 dimentions operate within the same laws of time and physics. If not, then we are on a wild goose chase. Im not a big believer in quark theory as the "proof" is not readily available. I think string theory is the way to go here. But since strings are theoreticaly infinite we cannot calculate infinity. (we are not Chuck Norris)
What say you my learned friend?
I think the only thing we can really say for certain at this moment in time is that green house gasses affect global warming. :DQuote:
Originally Posted by Courson
String theorys math is sound. The proof however, past the initial math will be impossible to find. Thus we conclude that we have to follow the rule of thumb stating that math cannot lie. To this end we can determine that string theory is not only a theory but is the reality of our current universe.
Now, let me pose this question to you, where did the seed of the universe eminate from? :confused:
So Demon, You failed to read to read the thread then? lol I realise these things can be very daunting to certain people but if you read it slowly and make notes, you too can begin to understand it.
Just as a foot note here, this thread is about a theory to measure the relative expansion of the universe over time. :) Not that comlicated.
There's also a reason why this is the first out of three.Quote:
Originally Posted by Derick
And that its been dead for over a week.
Revolution, this thread is not about flaming, trolling or religion. I find it mentally stimulating to chat with people who are intelectually on my level. If you have nothing useful or constructive to add to the thread, or you are offended by the thread, dont read it or post in it. It really is that simple.
So now, instead of showing off your lack of knowlege rather go play an OT game or spam some GFX or story thread please. :)
Thank you Courson that. I think I was a bit brash in what I said.
Let's do indeed.Quote:
Originally Posted by Courson
If its just you two posting, just take it to VMs.
And I was here after FaMiNe, so explain please :)
This thread was made three different times, this being numero uno. The other two were locked. This one will follow the same path. I read the thread, just to make sure it wasn't another duplicate. And then I posted my ib4tl.Quote:
Originally Posted by Derick
My belief stands that this will be locked.
http://lh4.ggpht.com/_LBm8P_h87II/S2...Ccm4/ib4tl.jpg
http://t1.gstatic.com/images?q=tbn:T...b4lock.jpg&t=1
http://4.bp.blogspot.com/_ZLZeNFWaPi...U+Mad+Brah.jpgQuote:
Originally Posted by Derick
The only reason this thread might get locked is pretty simple. The constant derailing. I admit that by posting this I am derailing, but it for good reason. Now, If you read the rules of the OT forum, what you are doing by attempting to derail the thread is an offence. :)
I may not be the brightest bulb, but I know when people are trying to put down things they dont understand.
Please, find a new thread to pester.
Derailing happens to all threads. Get used to it.Quote:
Originally Posted by Derick
Not necessarily deliberate de-railing, but it happens to every thread.
I posted in this thread to express my belief that this thread will be like, LIKE THE OTHER TWO DUPLICATES. It has nothing to do with any lack of understanding. I didn't start posting in any of these three threads until it became apparent that the OP obviously didn't know any better then not to remake failed/locked within the same week.
So, in conclusion, **** off, learn to understand why people do the things they do, and shut the hell up.
∞=M/0.
Using this for the singularity seems fundamentally flawed, other than dividing by zero it also implies that
M = ∞ x 0
0 = ∞ x M
are true statements.
So singularities have no mass, therefore no energy?
WHy did you make this thread again...
This fits the exact definition of insanity.
Doing the same thing over and over again expecting a diffrent result.
Actually, I believe that this is the first one he made.Quote:
Originally Posted by Moghedien
There are like 3 threads like this is this the first one of them?
Did they delete the others?
I believe the others were locked and subsequently archived.
You are thinking light years, the speed of light is literally the speed that a particle of light travels. From what I understand, relative to the speed of light, you can never go faster, which is why if you objects are accelerating away from each other at different rates, two particles of light that start in the middle will still reach them at the same time.Quote:
If im not mistaken, the speed of light is more a measure of distance then time. Also to factor in the time it takes light to run from end to end in the universe will be even more impossible then equating the expansion of the universe.
Lastly the highlighted segment shows that what you are saying is this: As the expansion of the universe slows down, it also speeds up. That makes no sense.
But like I always say, this is just my opinion.
And no that is not what I'm saying, since the big bang the velocity of the universe has been slowing, however the rate of deceleration has been decreasing. It is not a constant, but it is a factor of relative gravity and the relative speed of light.
Your model seems to ignore special relativity.
Humility unless you discover a ancient artifact called mass effect
Huh? I didn't catch that. I never heard of Mass Effect, though I admit I usually just skim what I read, so I may be missing some aspects of knowledge.