| 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: |
| When galaxies collide; and we're not talking Fords | |
|---|---|
| Tweet Topic Started: Apr 21 2008, 05:00 AM (2,349 Views) | |
| Mark | Apr 21 2008, 01:34 PM Post #76 |
|
HOLY CARP!!!
|
If there are multiple universes then did they all come into existence at the same "time"? If not then time did not start when one was created if a different one was already in existence. I reject the notion that time is a dimension. |
|
___.___ (_]===* o 0 When I see an adult on a bicycle, I do not despair for the future of the human race. H.G. Wells | |
![]() |
|
| jgoo | Apr 21 2008, 02:00 PM Post #77 |
|
Administrator
|
Very cool picture. Does anybody here watch the series on The History Channel "The Universe"? There is one episode where it talks about how our Milky Way Galaxy will one day collide with with the Andromeda Galaxy. It has computer generated graphics of how the night sky will look as Andromeda gets nearer, and then what the actual collision process will look like. Very awesome. It'd sure be something to look up in the night sky to see a sight like that. |
![]() |
|
| Copper | Apr 21 2008, 02:00 PM Post #78 |
|
Shortstop
|
The number of universes is infinite Just because there is a second clock doesn't mean the first doesn't exist. And they all started on Sunday the rest of creation took about 5 more days. |
|
The Confederate soldier was peculiar in that he was ever ready to fight, but never ready to submit to the routine duty and discipline of the camp or the march. The soldiers were determined to be soldiers after their own notions, and do their duty, for the love of it, as they thought best. Carlton McCarthy | |
![]() |
|
| Moonbat | Apr 21 2008, 02:01 PM Post #79 |
![]()
Pisa-Carp
|
If you are talking about completely separate universes then it does not mean anything to ask whether they began at the same time or not. Just as it does not mean anything to ask where one universe is relative to another in space (they are seperate universes with seperate spaces) so too it does not mean anything to ask where one universe is relative another in time (they are seperate universes with seperate times) If you are rejecting the notion that time is a dimension then you are rejecting (amongst other things) special and general relativity - how do you account for their empirical success? |
| Entia non sunt multiplicanda praeter necessitatem | |
![]() |
|
| Klaus | Apr 21 2008, 02:17 PM Post #80 |
![]()
HOLY CARP!!!
|
|
| Trifonov Fleisher Klaus Sokolov Zimmerman | |
![]() |
|
| Klaus | Apr 21 2008, 02:25 PM Post #81 |
![]()
HOLY CARP!!!
|
|
| Trifonov Fleisher Klaus Sokolov Zimmerman | |
![]() |
|
| John D'Oh | Apr 21 2008, 02:29 PM Post #82 |
|
MAMIL
|
Mark, Mark, come back to the darkness, my lost brother.
|
| What do you mean "we", have you got a mouse in your pocket? | |
![]() |
|
| Moonbat | Apr 21 2008, 03:08 PM Post #83 |
![]()
Pisa-Carp
|
Because space itself is also the size of the atom at that point. You are imagining normal flat space and an explosion of stuff occuring within that space and spreading outwards but in big bang theory it is not simply stuff but space itself that begins with the big bang and it is not simply stuff but space itself that is expanding. Edit: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Metric_expansion_of_space |
| Entia non sunt multiplicanda praeter necessitatem | |
![]() |
|
| Mark | Apr 21 2008, 03:53 PM Post #84 |
|
HOLY CARP!!!
|
It's quite the leap of faith if you ask me.
|
|
___.___ (_]===* o 0 When I see an adult on a bicycle, I do not despair for the future of the human race. H.G. Wells | |
![]() |
|
| Moonbat | Apr 21 2008, 04:12 PM Post #85 |
![]()
Pisa-Carp
|
There is evidence for the expansion. Time beginning with the big bang is more tentative because it's a relativistic prediction and relativity may well break down at those ultra small scales. The two main contenders (that as of yet are not backed by evidence) to go beyond the standard model are quantum loop theory and string theory both of which predict time does not start with the big bang. |
| Entia non sunt multiplicanda praeter necessitatem | |
![]() |
|
| smithodude | Apr 21 2008, 05:32 PM Post #86 |
|
Junior Carp
|
It has been proven that time slows down the faster you travel through X,Y and/or Z so I don't think it's a huge leap of faith to expect time to slow down to zero at some velocity (ie, once velocity through X,Y and Z sums to the speed of light). If time has slowed down to zero then to all intents and purposes it doesn't exist. This is the layman's version I understand. |
![]() |
|
| David Burton | Apr 21 2008, 07:24 PM Post #87 |
|
Senior Carp
|
Caution to the subject: the experiment is still running. Knowledge is one thing, Truth is often another. Can the one be known without the other? How would one know? |
![]() |
|
| David Burton | Apr 21 2008, 07:26 PM Post #88 |
|
Senior Carp
|
OH YOU BET WE ARE BUSTER!!! |
![]() |
|
| Daniel | Apr 21 2008, 07:40 PM Post #89 |
![]()
HOLY CARP!!!
|
Moonbat, go easy on us non-science types. Big Al, thank you. |
![]() |
|
| Horace | Apr 21 2008, 08:33 PM Post #90 |
|
HOLY CARP!!!
|
as an object approaches the speed of light its mass approaches infinity, so the force required to accelerate it approaches infinity, so it can't reach the speed of light. It doesn't make sense to me why that's the case, but that's the case (according to the theory of relativity at least). Einstein intuited all this from some pretty basic principles, so it must make sense on some level. I have been looking for a good explanation for a while but nothing has really clicked yet. |
| As a good person, I implore you to do as I, a good person, do. Be good. Do NOT be bad. If you see bad, end bad. End it in yourself, and end it in others. By any means necessary, the good must conquer the bad. Good people know this. Do you know this? Are you good? | |
![]() |
|
| Moonbat | Apr 22 2008, 12:16 AM Post #91 |
![]()
Pisa-Carp
|
Our body of knowledge is the best bet we have for truth, we never have absolute certainty but that doesn't mean some ideas are not very strong. |
| Entia non sunt multiplicanda praeter necessitatem | |
![]() |
|
| Moonbat | Apr 22 2008, 12:57 AM Post #92 |
![]()
Pisa-Carp
|
Science is just about looking at the world and figuring out what's going on, we go out and observe the world in every way we can, we come up with ideas about our observations and we test those ideas. If we make observations that contradict earlier ideas we go back and try again. Doing that we've gradually built up a picture of the universe we live in. Given the generality of the laws of physics i think we do actually know quite a lot though as i say in terms of the percentage of true statements known by atleast one human that is vanishingly small. There is no club - anyone can go out and read books or attend courses, but if you are going to make grand pronouncements regarding what we know or what we don't then you need to have a good feel for what we know and we don't. There is kind a personal "knowledge" which is really our response to things that is in a sense a "different way of knowing", i don't learn how i feel when someone plays Beethoven's 5th from a journal article i experience it. People can share the way they respond to different things with one another and so we can get some feel for how others experience things. And that body knowledge is not scientific it's the humanities. It's totally orthogonal to scientific ideas, the two are not incompatible in any sense, there's nothing about the exploration of human experience that is somehow contradictory to our explanations of the world nor is it somehow less or more than scientific knowledge but what's it's not is an objective account of the how things are, it's not a set of explanations of the world around us. |
| Entia non sunt multiplicanda praeter necessitatem | |
![]() |
|
| Daniel | Apr 22 2008, 01:07 AM Post #93 |
![]()
HOLY CARP!!!
|
[size=7]Damn, damn, damn! Foiled again! I erased the damn post but too late! I wrote that post because your posts to Mik were rather condescending and I didn't like it. Not all of epistemology is natural science. In fact, a lot of it is not. You almost come across as if you are in a cult sometimes. Please try to see your posts how people who are not science students at Oxford might see them. You do come off as you are a member of a club Mik isn't in- it is obvious that you come across that way. So much for being diplomatic, Daniel. :rolleyes: [/size] |
![]() |
|
| Daniel | Apr 22 2008, 01:19 AM Post #94 |
![]()
HOLY CARP!!!
|
That is crazy talk. "The" standard model. Every ripple in the ocean. Every motion of every animal? Are you serious? Tell that to my cat. She's been pissing me off lately. |
![]() |
|
| Moonbat | Apr 22 2008, 01:29 AM Post #95 |
![]()
Pisa-Carp
|
When you say not all epistemology is natural science i don't understand what you are saying - what do you mean? Can you give some examples? In terms of the club thing - i mean if pointing out that you should have a feel for what we know before making grand pronouncements on the topic means i sound like in a club then i don't know what i can do about it.
|
| Entia non sunt multiplicanda praeter necessitatem | |
![]() |
|
| Daniel | Apr 22 2008, 01:30 AM Post #96 |
![]()
HOLY CARP!!!
|
No, that's disingenuous. Your point was that he is not in a position to make claims about humanity's knowledge because he is not a scientist. And by "our understanding" of the world you meant physics et al, did you not. |
![]() |
|
| Moonbat | Apr 22 2008, 01:33 AM Post #97 |
![]()
Pisa-Carp
|
You don't even need the whole of the standard model, electrodynamics alone is sufficient for the motion of the oceans and animals since the nuclei aren't doing anything interesting. Are you of the view that the motion of animals or the ocean violates the standard model? |
| Entia non sunt multiplicanda praeter necessitatem | |
![]() |
|
| Daniel | Apr 22 2008, 01:35 AM Post #98 |
![]()
HOLY CARP!!!
|
To answer your question- most people conceive of truth as a philosophical pursuit, not as a scientific one. To you knowledge is scientific, but Mik's statement, the one you took objection to- colloquially was something like an expression of wonder, not a point to argue about. At least that's how I saw it. |
![]() |
|
| Moonbat | Apr 22 2008, 01:37 AM Post #99 |
![]()
Pisa-Carp
|
Well it's not because he's not a scientists, nothing stops non-scientists learning science. I did indeed mean physics et al. by our understanding of the world - and yea if you're going to talk about what we understand then first you have to know what we understand. Does that not sound reasonable? |
| Entia non sunt multiplicanda praeter necessitatem | |
![]() |
|
| Daniel | Apr 22 2008, 01:38 AM Post #100 |
![]()
HOLY CARP!!!
|
What is "the standard model"? Is it a theoretical model derived from interdisciplinary study? Would you say that it is or it is not anything other than a description? And if it is a description, do you think that it is an adequate one to describe the complicated reality that is an animal? |
![]() |
|
| Go to Next Page | |
| « Previous Topic · The New Coffee Room · Next Topic » |









i don't know what i can do about it.
12:29 AM Jul 11