Welcome Guest [Log In] [Register]
Welcome to The New Coffee Room. We hope you enjoy your visit.


You're currently viewing our forum as a guest. This means you are limited to certain areas of the board and there are some features you can't use. If you join our community, you'll be able to access member-only sections, and use many member-only features such as customizing your profile, sending personal messages, and voting in polls. Registration is simple, fast, and completely free.


Join our community!


If you're already a member please log in to your account to access all of our features:

Username:   Password:
Add Reply
  • Pages:
  • 1
  • 6
When galaxies collide; and we're not talking Fords
Topic Started: Apr 21 2008, 05:00 AM (2,345 Views)
big al
Member Avatar
Bull-Carp
Posted Image

Source: Spiral Galaxies in Collision

Big Al
Location: Western PA

"jesu, der simcha fun der man's farlangen."
-bachophile
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Aqua Letifer
Member Avatar
ZOOOOOM!
Quote:
 
The space between stars is so vast that when galaxies collide, the stars in them usually do not collide.


Really amazing if you think about it.

Great picture, big al.
I cite irreconcilable differences.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Mikhailoh
Member Avatar
If you want trouble, find yourself a redhead
What an incredible place we live in.. and how little we know about it.
Once in his life, every man is entitled to fall madly in love with a gorgeous redhead - Lucille Ball
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Moonbat
Member Avatar
Pisa-Carp
Actually we know quite a lot about it. Though of course there is also alot we don't know.

Cool picture al. :thumb:
Entia non sunt multiplicanda praeter necessitatem
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Mikhailoh
Member Avatar
If you want trouble, find yourself a redhead
Hubris. :lol2:
Once in his life, every man is entitled to fall madly in love with a gorgeous redhead - Lucille Ball
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Aqua Letifer
Member Avatar
ZOOOOOM!
Moonbat
Apr 21 2008, 05:33 AM
Actually we know quite a lot about it. Though of course there is a lot we don't know.

Well it's a relative measure. How do you define "a lot"?

I'd say that if you're looking at All That Is, there's so much more we don't know about the universe than what we do.

But that doesn't diminish our progress any. I mean, the mere fact that we know about galaxies, know about stars and what they're made of, and that we can take photos like this, it speaks volumes about our achievements.
I cite irreconcilable differences.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Klaus
Member Avatar
HOLY CARP!!!
Posted Image
Trifonov Fleisher Klaus Sokolov Zimmerman
Online Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
The 89th Key
Member Avatar

Fake. Bad CG. Obvious strings. Bad acting.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Moonbat
Member Avatar
Pisa-Carp
I'd accept that if you listed all the true statements about the universe and then you ask how many of those statements are known by atleast one human then the fraction of known statements would be infintessably small.

I'd also accept that if you ask how many phenomena can be accounted all the way down to the fundamental laws again the fraction is tiny.

However I define a lot by reference to explanatory power of the known laws of physics.

There are well known mysteries - dark matter and dark energy come to mind, and it is plausible that there will be revolutions that will completely alter our view of what the universe is but the fact remains that almost every phenomena that has ever been seen can be accounted for within the confines of the standard model. Every pattern we see when we look out the window, every sound, every ripple in the ocean, every motion of every animal, everything appears to be accounted for with those known laws. I don't mean we understand every phenomena but we understand that ultimately all the every day phenomena can be understood within the confines of the standard model.

The conceptual unification of chemistry with physics and of biology with chemistry/physics means that in terms of our grasp of the fabric of reality - of the nature of the world we live in, i don't think it's really fair to say we know very little.
Entia non sunt multiplicanda praeter necessitatem
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Moonbat
Member Avatar
Pisa-Carp
Mikhailoh
Apr 21 2008, 01:34 PM
Hubris. :lol2:

Since you don't have the feintest idea what we know you are in no position to comment on it.
Entia non sunt multiplicanda praeter necessitatem
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Klaus
Member Avatar
HOLY CARP!!!
I'd say the relation between what we know and what is true is like the relation between rational numbers and real numbers:

Although we can approximate real numbers with arbitrary precision by rational numbers, we can never achieve the goal of a total match. The real numbers are incomprehensible and beyond what we can ever really understand using the quite elegant but very limited power of rational numbers. Also, there are inconceivably more real numbers than rational numbers.
Trifonov Fleisher Klaus Sokolov Zimmerman
Online Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Mikhailoh
Member Avatar
If you want trouble, find yourself a redhead
Moonbat
Apr 21 2008, 10:10 AM
Mikhailoh
Apr 21 2008, 01:34 PM
Hubris.   :lol2:

Since you don't have the feintest idea what we know you are in no position to comment on it.

I know the difference between faint and feint you pompous, verbose windbag.

But, given the sheer volume of utter bullsh!t in your posts, feint is more appropriate I suppose.
Once in his life, every man is entitled to fall madly in love with a gorgeous redhead - Lucille Ball
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
big al
Member Avatar
Bull-Carp
Both sides fascinate me - how much we know (particularly of fundamental principles & physical laws) and how little we know (the catalog of facts in the universe is beyond comprehension, as far as I can tell).

Big Al
Location: Western PA

"jesu, der simcha fun der man's farlangen."
-bachophile
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
The 89th Key
Member Avatar

Birds.

What are birds?

We just don't know.

Thank you, ants.

Thants.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Moonbat
Member Avatar
Pisa-Carp
Quote:
 

I know the difference between faint and feint you pompous, verbose windbag.

But, given the sheer volume of utter bullsh!t in your posts, feint is more appropriate I suppose.


I'm very happy for you but what's that got to do with your fantastic ignorance of what is known?
Entia non sunt multiplicanda praeter necessitatem
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Mikhailoh
Member Avatar
If you want trouble, find yourself a redhead
Moonbat
Apr 21 2008, 10:31 AM
Quote:
 

I know the difference between faint and feint you pompous, verbose windbag.

But, given the sheer volume of utter bullsh!t in your posts, feint is more appropriate I suppose.


I'm very happy for you but what's that got to do with your fantastic ignorance of what is known?

The rhetorical equivalent of 'I know you are, but what am I?' . An Oxford education isn't what it used to be I suppose.
Once in his life, every man is entitled to fall madly in love with a gorgeous redhead - Lucille Ball
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Moonbat
Member Avatar
Pisa-Carp
The 89th Key
Apr 21 2008, 02:23 PM
Birds.

What are birds?

We just don't know.

Thank you, ants.

Thants.

:lol:

*looks around*
Entia non sunt multiplicanda praeter necessitatem
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Axtremus
Member Avatar
HOLY CARP!!!
Great picture, big al! :thumb:

Moonbat
Apr 21 2008, 10:07 AM
I'd accept that if you listed all the true statements about the universe and then you ask how many of those statements are known by atleast one human then the fraction of known statements would be infintessably small.

If we accept quantum informatics, then that fraction will forever remain infinitesimally small.

I mean, there's only so much info you can store in all the mass that makes up humans.

But hey, I'll look at it as a glass 10^-10000000000000000000 full rather than a glass (1 - 10^-10000000000000000000) empty, right?
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Moonbat
Member Avatar
Pisa-Carp
Quote:
 

The rhetorical equivalent of 'I know you are, but what am I?' . An Oxford education isn't what it used to be I suppose.


That response doesn't even make sense.

My point was simply that you are in no position to make claims regarding humanity's knowledge or lack thereof because you don't have a good grasp of our understanding of the world.

Now you can insult my spelling or make inane comments about my education but that hardly detracts from the above point now does it?
Entia non sunt multiplicanda praeter necessitatem
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Klaus
Member Avatar
HOLY CARP!!!
Axtremus
Apr 21 2008, 04:45 PM
If we accept quantum informatics, then that fraction will forever remain infinitesimally small.

Err... could you elaborate on that? 'cause I don't have the slightest idea what this has to do with quantum XYZ.

Trifonov Fleisher Klaus Sokolov Zimmerman
Online Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
The 89th Key
Member Avatar

Moonbat, given the size of the universe and the size of a stack of encyclopedias, I think humanity's knowledge is demonstrably infinitesimal.

QED. :biggrin:
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Aqua Letifer
Member Avatar
ZOOOOOM!
The 89th Key
Apr 21 2008, 06:52 AM
Moonbat, given the size of the universe and the size of a stack of encyclopedias, I think humanity's knowledge is demonstrably infinitesimal.

QED. :biggrin:

Eh, not really.

The beauty of science is its ability to simplify a complex world into rules that describe its behavior.

E=mc^2 is a simple enough rule (and, doesn't take up that much space on a piece of paper), but you could fill up books on what it means.

A picture is worth a thousand words, but an equation is worth a thousand pictures.
I cite irreconcilable differences.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Moonbat
Member Avatar
Pisa-Carp
Quote:
 

If we accept quantum informatics, then that fraction will forever remain infinitesimally small.

I mean, there's only so much info you can store in all the mass that makes up humans.

But hey, I'll look at it as a glass 10^-10000000000000000000 full rather than a glass (1 - 10^-10000000000000000000) empty, right?


That is a good point - we are fundamentally limited by mass though the vision that the technological optimists have is that over time more and more of the universe's mass will be converted to information processing.

Not that that will alter the point about only a infintessable fraction being known. Fortuneately alot of those facts are relatively dull ones e.g. the truly mind boggling number of facts regarding the location of oxygen atoms inside a particular room.
Entia non sunt multiplicanda praeter necessitatem
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
The 89th Key
Member Avatar

Aqua Letifer
Apr 21 2008, 10:57 AM
The 89th Key
Apr 21 2008, 06:52 AM
Moonbat, given the size of the universe and the size of a stack of encyclopedias, I think humanity's knowledge is demonstrably infinitesimal.

QED. :biggrin:

Eh, not really.

The beauty of science is its ability to simplify a complex world into rules that describe its behavior.

E=mc^2 is a simple enough rule (and, doesn't take up that much space on a piece of paper), but you could fill up books on what it means.

A picture is worth a thousand words, but an equation is worth a thousand pictures.

Serious kills funny.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Klaus
Member Avatar
HOLY CARP!!!
Moonbat
Apr 21 2008, 04:59 PM
over time more and more of the universe's mass will be converted to information processing.

What does it mean to "convert mass to information processing"?
Trifonov Fleisher Klaus Sokolov Zimmerman
Online Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Go to Next Page
« Previous Topic · The New Coffee Room · Next Topic »
Add Reply
  • Pages:
  • 1
  • 6