Leave these fields empty (spam trap):
Name
You can leave this blank to post anonymously, or you can create a Tripcode by using the float Name#Password
A subject is required when posting a new thread
Subject
Comment
[*]Italic Text[/*]
[**]Bold Text[/**]
[~]Taimapedia Article[/~]
[%]Spoiler Text[/%]
>Highlight/Quote Text
[pre]Preformatted & Monospace text[/pre]
1. Numbered lists become ordered lists
* Bulleted lists become unordered lists
File

Sandwich


Community Updates

420chan now supports HTTPS! If you find any issues, you may report them in this thread
It would really suck for an elephant to go into space by Fred Hoyle - Mon, 16 Jul 2018 15:56:10 EST ID:GswGlXbf No.57347 Ignore Report Reply Quick Reply
File: 1531770970343.jpg -(83816B / 81.85KB, 976x549) Thumbnail displayed, click image for full size. 83816
It would really suck for an elephant to go into space
Or rather I mean it would really suck for an elephant to return from space. All of their bones would have degenerated and become weak from the lack of gravity. Then when they got back to earth and tried to step out of the space ship they just crumple into a splashing pile of gore and viscera. Also, did you know, that elephants die from cancer very rarely? Do you think the space radiation would have an effect on that? Or would they remain genetically stable?

>Elephants
>in
>SPACE
>>
Johann Encke - Tue, 17 Jul 2018 11:01:42 EST ID:xVZYF9QS No.57351 Ignore Report Quick Reply
I wonder how many war elephants would it take to beat one black hole
>>
Antony Hewish - Thu, 19 Jul 2018 04:01:30 EST ID:ZrMeE5ko No.57354 Ignore Report Quick Reply
>>57351
If this is another "How I Met Your Mother" story I'm outta here.


That FTL means time travel meme by Pierre-Simon Laplace - Sat, 16 Dec 2017 22:22:45 EST ID:hGyQlc1t No.57130 Ignore Report Reply Quick Reply
File: 1513480965587.gif -(117244B / 114.50KB, 323x402) Thumbnail displayed, click image for full size. 117244
I have a question regarding this:
If you look at this gif it shows you "backwards" travel:
The first "jump" after the first acceleration points into the direction that corresponds to the lower left quadrant of the previous reference frame leading to backwards time travel.
However: Drawing it into the upper right quadrant should be equally legal which would imply forward time travel. This would imply that direction you are moving in space would dictate the direction of the "time travel" which seems entirely non-sensical to me.
I guess this is also the point but I still get the feeling I'm missing something here.
9 posts and 1 images omitted. Click Reply to view.
>>
Arno Penzias - Mon, 21 May 2018 13:08:09 EST ID:457vC2+I No.57282 Ignore Report Quick Reply
>>57280
WADR, the mathematical consequences of attempting to reach the speed of light is because we define the speed of light as the maximum speed. The function of the relation between the speed of a photon and a tachyonic neutrino wouldn't be asymptotic but would simply be a ratio.

So I think it's misleading to say that the speed of light is the "speed" of causality. Tachyons would still obey causality in respect to other tachyons, just in a flow that is apparently opposite to events as ordered from our perspective. A hyper tachyon that traveled twice the rate of a normal tachyon would travel further into the past than it from our perspective, but from the perspective of the tachyon it is merely going further faster in the same direction as the slow tachyon, so they would experience retrocausality rather than acausality. So it makes more sense to me to think of the speed of light as a 180-degree 'fold' in causality, rather than a limit beyond which causality doesn't extend.
>>
Vera Rubiin - Tue, 26 Jun 2018 17:34:33 EST ID:zR0DYAV9 No.57316 Ignore Report Quick Reply
>>57282
i pretty much stated what you did in your post already, only i wasnt careful when regarding how i explained causality. the asymptote would represent the speed of light and the speed of causality as it relates to all sub-light speed forms of energy and matter, whereas on the other side of the asymptote it relate oppositely in equal proportion to all forms of matter and energy that exist moving faster than the speed of light.

in either cause, the lightspeed and causality barrier there would still exist and no form of matter or energy on either side of the asymptote would be capable of passing through the barrier. they could approach the barrier infinitely, but they would never reach it or pass through it. that's why the asymptote there is appropriate. sure, my usage of terminology was a bit lazy and sloppy, but really i feel like your nitpicking here is a bit strange. the speed of light, like the speed of sound, both represent barriers--the light barrier and the sound barrier. The speed of causality would be the same: the causality barrier.

The sound barrier is capable of being reached and crossed, but the speed of light is different... special. if we recognize as well that it is the speed of causality, it's just as different and special because it's literally just the exact same speed and barrier. it can neither be reached or crossed, but i mentioned that anything on the opposite site of the barrier, that is, any form of energy or matter that simply exists already moving faster than the speed of light or causality, would experience the same but opposite effects symmetrically and proportionally to any forms of matter or energy that exist moving below the speed of light/causality. the causality/light barrier merely represents a point at which all things on one particular side of the barrier will react relatively the same way to all other things on that site of the barrier when it comes to how they behave when approaching said barrier. this does not preclude tachyons from experiencing a form of causality, but rather experiencing causality moving forward on their side of the barrier (which everything on the sub-light speed side moving backwards through time relative to them and eve…
Comment too long. Click here to view the full text.
>>
Bernard-Ferdinand Lyot - Tue, 26 Jun 2018 17:45:40 EST ID:457vC2+I No.57317 Ignore Report Quick Reply
>>57316
I didn't intend my post as a counter or refutation to yours, but as an expansion that elaborated a little on the relationship between the mathematics and our common-sensical experience of events. I was merely highlighting that the distinction between our technical and colloquial understandings of these terms could potentially lead someone not as familiar with the subject off track. That's why we seemed to be saying the same thing.
>>
Thomas Gold - Wed, 27 Jun 2018 14:14:01 EST ID:0uLZJwlQ No.57318 Ignore Report Quick Reply
1530123241612.jpg -(84329B / 82.35KB, 500x701) Thumbnail displayed, click image for full size.
It is called tessellations moving in 5D nothing special so far

>inb4 i know hyperphysics debate me
>>
Solipsil - Tue, 17 Jul 2018 19:48:03 EST ID:5ItxfpYI No.57352 Ignore Report Quick Reply
>>57130
Maybe it doesn't make sense


The spice must flow


How does a closed by jolinar - Mon, 16 Jul 2018 20:31:55 EST ID:4+cG6NBX No.57348 Ignore Report Reply Quick Reply
File: 1531787515505.jpg -(85295B / 83.30KB, 1125x1111) Thumbnail displayed, click image for full size. 85295
Timeline curve work? Could you be trapped in it forever ?
I have a writing prompt
>>
Stephen Hawking - Tue, 17 Jul 2018 00:04:28 EST ID:457vC2+I No.57349 Ignore Report Quick Reply
1531800268505.png -(130973B / 127.90KB, 431x393) Thumbnail displayed, click image for full size.
Closed timelike curves are totally theoretical objects -- we have no real information about how they would work, or if they are even possible. Essentially, what is 'curved' in a CTC is the 'geodesic' of spacetime. What this means that, for example, if you had a geodesic curvature in space at a 45 degree angle and you fired a laser beam into that space, as it entered it the beam within it would appear to you (if you could see it reflected) as if it had bent at that same angle even though it encountered no object. In a 'closed' timelike curve, remembering that space and time are a continuum, if the curvature is so extreme that it forms a torus, i.e. loops back on itself, and one traversed the distortion in the (normally flat i.e. euclidean) curved spacetime, one could end up at the end of passing through the distortion at the same point in space, but an earlier point in time.

If you were stuck on it would depend on how you got into such an unusual object in the first place. If the geodesic torus could only be made so small, so that in order to traverse it one had to travel at relativistic speeds, the degree of time distortion could be amplified. Also, it's possible that actual matter (rather than energy) trapped within a CTC could become inertially unbound, so there might be no way to stop a spacecraft (for example) that was travelling through one, trapping its crew on an eternal voyage into the past (or future, depending on the 'direction' the geodesic is distorted in the fourth dimension.)

Anyway, a lot of people will not see any time travel story as 'hard sci-fi' so you probably have a lot of leeway. Hawking famously believed that a CTC would destroy itself in a cosmological version of the grandfather paradox, as heat from the torus' relative future would propagate backwards in time, eventually creating a thermal singularity that would destroy it.


moon by Jocelyn Bell - Thu, 31 May 2018 10:35:24 EST ID:HhkM3rED No.57285 Ignore Report Reply Quick Reply
File: 1527777324976.jpg -(2143958B / 2.04MB, 2580x2452) Thumbnail displayed, click image for full size. 2143958
Does the moon really have influence on behavior? Or is it a well loved myth?
9 posts and 3 images omitted. Click Reply to view.
>>
Bernhard Schmidt - Sun, 08 Jul 2018 22:12:19 EST ID:a/BMXTZM No.57343 Ignore Report Quick Reply
>>57339
I am interested to hear more about your insight on astrology. Please post more, correct board or not.
>>
Charles Messier - Mon, 09 Jul 2018 00:55:11 EST ID:457vC2+I No.57344 Ignore Report Quick Reply
1531112111332.jpg -(129829B / 126.79KB, 604x505) Thumbnail displayed, click image for full size.
>>57343
Thanks for your interest. I'll be brief so the extreme empiricists and skeptics don't get too mad.
While, like I alluded to, there are many different kinds of astrology, all with pros and cons, I'm going to talk about my general philosophical theory of interpreting any kind of astrology and why it can make sense, or is at least useful, without having to believe a whole bunch of 'woo-woo' stuff.

Astrology is a theory of psychology and sociology, boiled down to an essential core. The ancients observed that there were patterns in the way people behaved, with the same unique and coherent personality types seeming to recur over and over, and each with unique properties of interaction. In reality, they were bumping up against the personality types, something we might today characterize through models like the Myers-Briggs typology.

In whatever region where advanced astrology developed (it appeared independently multiple times throughout the ancient and medieval periods) they matched these types to legendary figures in their myths, which were themselves, unknowingly, based on the archetypes of the collective unconscious, which is itself not necessarily a mystical thing but merely the suggestion that all humans share a fundamental underlying symbolic landscape. In this way, whether knowingly or not, they identified that the mythologues embodied in the archetypes manifest as psychological tendencies in individuals, and dynamical interactions within society.

Taking this as their hypothesis, all the rest of the history of astrology as a natural philosophy were about determining what the exact 'influence' of each planet or sign was. Unwittingly, they were hunting down individual psychological phenomena, in some cases in ways that survived into the actual discipline of psychology (for example, we call people 'lunatics' because such people were formerly believed to be crazy in relation to an imbalance in the position of the moon in their chart.)

Now, as modern people, we do not seriously need to believe that there is actually some kind of energy field or force emanating from the moon that, if it hit one at the right angle, might make one more susceptible to in…
Comment too long. Click here to view the full text.
>>
Chushiro Hayashi - Wed, 11 Jul 2018 13:12:22 EST ID:lfz4p1Et No.57345 Ignore Report Quick Reply
>>57344
Good post! I'd give you some internet points, if that were an option.
>>
Gerard Kuiper - Sun, 15 Jul 2018 22:43:45 EST ID:a/BMXTZM No.57346 Ignore Report Quick Reply
>>57344
Tell me more tell me more. Or feel free to post on /spooky/ and link
>>
Stephen Hawking - Tue, 17 Jul 2018 00:22:10 EST ID:457vC2+I No.57350 Ignore Report Quick Reply
1531801330505.jpg -(174176B / 170.09KB, 754x1070) Thumbnail displayed, click image for full size.
>>57346
I think I'll play it safe and leave it at that for here. Took the meta topic (of skeptical illuminism) to /spooky/ like you suggested, to expand it a bit beyond simply astrology. See ya there anyone who is still interested!


Building Blocks of Life Found on Mars by Otto Struve - Thu, 07 Jun 2018 19:12:35 EST ID:eygzYfFg No.57290 Ignore Report Reply Quick Reply
File: 1528413155979.jpg -(198462B / 193.81KB, 945x945) Thumbnail displayed, click image for full size. 198462
https://news.nationalgeographic.com/2018/06/mars-organic-compounds-methane-curiosity-space-science/

>Two landmark discoveries reveal organic carbon on the red planet, shaping the future hunt for life on Mars.

I'm scared guys. This could mean life is common in the universe, which means the Great Filter is ahead of us instead of behind us.

😰😰😰😰😰

Then again, maybe this can show us the Great Filter is already behind us but when it comes to cosmic horror, I'm a half-empty kinda guy.
19 posts and 2 images omitted. Click Reply to view.
>>
John Wheeler - Thu, 28 Jun 2018 12:45:38 EST ID:fjAVn7KX No.57321 Ignore Report Quick Reply
whats that experiment where niggas made amino acids in a bottle or some shit
>>
William Lassell - Thu, 28 Jun 2018 19:19:05 EST ID:4LbbDsR/ No.57322 Ignore Report Quick Reply
1530227945717.jpg -(260780B / 254.67KB, 512x512) Thumbnail displayed, click image for full size.
>>57321

The universe.
>>
James Christy - Fri, 29 Jun 2018 20:15:43 EST ID:unNII3om No.57328 Ignore Report Quick Reply
>>57307

>The number of extant species is a pretty much irrelevant fact to the rate of the evolution of intelligence
>Intelligence develops logarithmically, but that doesn't mean anything about it's process is 'accidental'; its driven by the necessity of the evolutionary arms race.

It is very relevant. Looking at the history of evolution, intelligence seems to not be driven by competition between species but rather competition within species.

Today we have a bunch of intelligent species, within birds, cetaceans and primates. And only primates have the manipulatory limbs to actually make something of that intelligence. That is still one in how many groups of animals?

Truth is that maintaining intelligence is expensive, using energy and resources that may well be better used elsewhere. All truly smart animals today are few in numbers. Even humans were very few at some point. There's a threshold along the line where intelligence actually becomes more usefull than its worth in the natural world, and it appears most species selected toward intelligence struggle to actually reach it.

>That's precisely the point of the Fermi paradox. I feel like you guys aren't even grasping the fundamental issue and are getting derailed by trivial aspects.

The point with the 'accident' thing is to show how much stochasticity rules our world. A species might be selected for intelligence for some time, but then be selected for something else due to changing biological competition or physical factors. Or the line may be erased completely during a mass extinction or climate change. Evolution favors the ones that are adapted to the 'present', not what might be useful down the line.
Comment too long. Click here to view the full text.
>>
Fred Hoyle - Sat, 30 Jun 2018 17:08:28 EST ID:457vC2+I No.57329 Ignore Report Quick Reply
>>57328
>> There's a threshold along the line where intelligence actually becomes more usefull than its worth in the natural world, and it appears most species selected toward intelligence struggle to actually reach it.
>>Evolution favors the ones that are adapted to the 'present', not what might be useful down the line.
These ideas are mutually exclusive. If evolution can only select for what is beneficial now, not in the future, then the lower stages of intelligence must also have some utility or they indeed would not be selected for to even be able to reach the higher stages. You contradict yourself.

Moreover, all this, as well as your comments about stochastic processes, are all already conceived within the figures of the Drake equation. So pointing things we all already know out about how life came into being does nothing to address the actual question/problem.

>>Earth is predicted to be within the first 7% of all possible lifebearing worlds that will ever be.
I've seen that result, and I think it's totally spurious from the data of the study it came out of. It assumes a lot of things about the requirements for life (do we really need trace amounts of chromium for life to exist at all? Or was it just the case that there happened to be chromium on earth and life integrated it? Think critically about that...) I think a more reasonable estimate for the earliest entrance of life is about ~7 billion years post big-bang, when there was enough carbon (which may indeed be an essential element) but negligible amounts of all heavier elements. That's quibbling though; even if we are in the first 7%, where are the other 6%?

>>Their results showed that at best only one in three galaxies have a civilization like us. Furthermore their work posited that there's a very likely chance we're the first.
Again, you should actually analyze the study rather than taking the pop-sci lead line as the truth. I've seen this cycle of articles and it's mostly hogwash (in terms of what the journos claim the scientists found -- the scientists themselves have a very even handed understanding of their study.)
So what that study did was assign uncertainty di…
Comment too long. Click here to view the full text.
>>
Roger Penrose - Sun, 08 Jul 2018 21:07:26 EST ID:eygzYfFg No.57342 Ignore Report Quick Reply
>>57328
>Their results showed that at best only one in three galaxies have a civilization like us. Furthermore their work posited that there's a very likely chance we're the first.

We'll all be Cthulhu all along.
We'll do the buttprobing and dreamraping.


images by Bruon Rossi - Fri, 29 Jun 2018 11:49:29 EST ID:vxFcQ9yD No.57323 Ignore Report Reply Quick Reply
File: 1530287369168.jpg -(3086272B / 2.94MB, 7680x4320) Thumbnail displayed, click image for full size. 3086272
Since this is an imageboard, let's post space related images.
>>
Bruon Rossi - Fri, 29 Jun 2018 11:51:10 EST ID:vxFcQ9yD No.57324 Ignore Report Quick Reply
1530287470168.jpg -(1757861B / 1.68MB, 2000x1125) Thumbnail displayed, click image for full size.
DICKS EVERYWHERE
>>
Bruon Rossi - Fri, 29 Jun 2018 11:52:42 EST ID:vxFcQ9yD No.57325 Ignore Report Quick Reply
1530287562168.jpg -(247670B / 241.87KB, 1000x766) Thumbnail displayed, click image for full size.
>>57324
>>
Bruon Rossi - Fri, 29 Jun 2018 11:56:12 EST ID:vxFcQ9yD No.57326 Ignore Report Quick Reply
1530287772168.jpg -(136960B / 133.75KB, 1680x1400) Thumbnail displayed, click image for full size.
>>57325
>>
Vera Rubiin - Sat, 07 Jul 2018 18:30:41 EST ID:fjAVn7KX No.57341 Ignore Report Quick Reply
1531002641478.gif -(2398469B / 2.29MB, 640x480) Thumbnail displayed, click image for full size.
DICKS EVERYWHERE


Astronomical data by James Randi - Fri, 29 Jun 2018 13:36:57 EST ID:BPHCgbLm No.57327 Ignore Report Reply Quick Reply
File: 1530293817601.jpg -(138469B / 135.22KB, 1200x1200) Thumbnail displayed, click image for full size. 138469
I had an idea to build a digital astronomical clock for fun in unity as a learning exercise. It would include solar system clock showing the "time" and such on various planets and a 3rd model of the solar system.
I'd like to try aim for a bit of realism and have the models of planets be in accurate locations to real life.
What would be the best source for finding out planet locations so that they don't all start in the 12 oclock position when I start my program?
Like if I added Mars, how do I find how far into its solar year (month?) It currently is on Mars?

I'm new to coding in general, I already have the data for earth but that's done simply by telling the program to check the system clock and moves the model of earth to right orientation.
2 posts omitted. Click Reply to view.
>>
James Randi - Sun, 01 Jul 2018 06:49:38 EST ID:lAN8qbQT No.57332 Ignore Report Quick Reply
I did some digging. I couldn't find any tables for oerrys but I did find several 3d models for real ones for 3d printing and CNC machines. I guess I could just render one in unity and run a physics simulation on it and call it a day.
I know this isnt the programing board but what do you guys think?
>>
Georges-Henri Lemaitre - Wed, 04 Jul 2018 11:00:52 EST ID:IRQpyxVi No.57335 Ignore Report Quick Reply
>>57327
This is going to be a massive undertaking if you really plan on including what time it is on every planet. For one thing, what determines the "12" position on Earth is the position of the sun and moon in the sky during particular times of day, likely with the baseline established by its position being viewed from the Equator..

12 pm could be chosen to represent when the sun is 3/7ths across the sky if we wanted to, not to mention the fact what time it is here on Earth depends on which time zone you're in, and the boundaries between one time zone and the next are mostly arbitrary. are you going to create time zones for all the other planets? how are you going to decide how many and where to divide one from the next?
>>
Georges-Henri Lemaitre - Wed, 04 Jul 2018 11:18:07 EST ID:IRQpyxVi No.57336 Ignore Report Quick Reply
>>57335
fuck, i cut out parts of the post i didnt mean to and left a part i didn't want left in because i was gonna make a suggestion for doing something and realized id rather leave it out since it didnt seem to go with what you had in mind.

what i was trying to let you know is, though, that finding out what time it is on other planets is that you're going to have to look up how the time of day was initially decided on being determined for each respective time-zone on Earth. Along with that, since the boundaries for time-zones are mostly arbitrary, but aren't entirely, you're going to have to look up the criteria that was used for ultimately deciding where a boundary would be placed by those that established GMT. Then you're going to have to do a little of analysis and decide how to best place those boundaries on each individual planet with respect to its size, its distance from the sun, the shape of its orbit and how variable its distance from the sun potentially is during a given time of year in its orbit, the rate it makes a full revolution in its planetary spin, etc.

It's gong to require some serious effort even without including the programming. Hope things turn out well for you, just don't mistake that it'll be a lot of time and work.
>>
James Randi - Thu, 05 Jul 2018 17:55:01 EST ID:CxvjOUYt No.57338 Ignore Report Quick Reply
>>57336
Well I geuss I'd have to give each planet its own calender's then.
fun project.
>>
James Randi - Fri, 06 Jul 2018 20:46:11 EST ID:CxvjOUYt No.57340 Ignore Report Quick Reply
any links to some sort of table would be helpful too


Astronomical Illusion - Earth is the center of the universe by William Huggins - Tue, 19 Jun 2018 17:15:11 EST ID:6aIwEr35 No.57311 Ignore Report Reply Quick Reply
File: 1529442911009.jpg -(342372B / 334.35KB, 1920x1080) Thumbnail displayed, click image for full size. 342372
Hello!

This is from a video series I saw long ago and it described a general illusion that is responsible for the Earth being seen as the center of the universe.

Like they say that in a few million/billion years the sky is going to be completely dark because the stars are moving away from us. But this is just an illusion from our vantage point. We're also moving away from them but we can't see it, only visualize it.


The way I remembered in the video was very clever and simple.

It was like rows and columns of 4 dots:

. . . .
. . . .
. . . .
. . . .
Comment too long. Click here to view the full text.
>>
Pierre-Simon Laplace - Tue, 19 Jun 2018 17:47:16 EST ID:457vC2+I No.57312 Ignore Report Quick Reply
Well, to say it's an illusion is kinda misleading. The size of our hubble volume is receding even now because of the expansion of space, diminishing the number of stars from which light will ever reach our planet. But it's not an 'illusion' the light beyond the cosmic horizon really is trapped in such a way that it can never get to us. By the time all stars have receded from our hubble volume, when our hubble volume is the size of our solar system, of course those other stars will still exist, but we will in a very real, non-illusory sense, be trapped with the light of our star in a void where the nearest other star is literally impossible to reach.

So in a very real sense the earth is the center of the universe, because it is the center of our hubble volume, and so the limit for all potential voyages from earth is, in a cosmic sense more real than voyages from a particular place on earth to another point on earth, constrained to a sphere with earth at the center.

Unless FTL is possible, which is the only way to go beyond the 'illusions' that the speed of light and expansion of space force us into
>>
Thomas Henderson - Wed, 20 Jun 2018 10:08:09 EST ID:6aIwEr35 No.57313 Ignore Report Quick Reply
>>57312

Thanks for the explanation but the illusion I was referring to was the fact that astronomers before would always postulate that Earth was the center of everything (that is, stationary) and everything else is moving away or moving around us.

But in reality, Earth is moving as well and isn't actually stationary.

The illusion is that Earth is just used as a stationary anchor point for our perspective because we need a relatively stable point to base our calculations on. Like the same way we arbitrarily chose the weigh of a kilogram and now use that to conceptualize weight relative to one another.

But because of modern technology, we can visualize the universe more conceptually without putting Earth at the center.
>>
Henry Draper - Wed, 20 Jun 2018 22:42:36 EST ID:457vC2+I No.57314 Ignore Report Quick Reply
1529548956888.jpg -(111795B / 109.17KB, 1280x720) Thumbnail displayed, click image for full size.
>>57313
Astronomers certainly are aware of the motion of our solar system and account for it in their calculations when it is relevant, including calculations of expansion and redshift. I agree I wish popularly available star charts included depictions of the direction of motion and speed of stars so people can visualize what is going on better, but if, as a matter of principle, we stop using earth as the reference point, over time they will become off center with the physical hubble volume, the universe-lifetime light sphere of earth, which is obviously centered here. Once we are an interplanetary species, we will obviously need new definitions, and for most practical purposes the difference won't matter much.

How would you feel about using the center of the galaxy (either its gravitational center or the supermassive blackhole Sag A*) as our reference center point? That wouldn't differ too much from our visible observations, and seems the most convenient.
>>
Annie Cannon - Wed, 27 Jun 2018 15:30:26 EST ID:6aIwEr35 No.57319 Ignore Report Quick Reply
>>57314

I'm not against using Earth or whatever as a reference.

I was just intrigued by the natural phenomena that we see ourselves as the center of things when it's a fallacy of perception. And I remember the same phenomena existed in astronomy until the copernican revolution


fate of universe by Jocelyn Bell - Sun, 14 Sep 2014 23:31:05 EST ID:SknUZfy5 No.54393 Ignore Report Reply Quick Reply
File: 1410751865116.jpg -(810494B / 791.50KB, 1400x907) Thumbnail displayed, click image for full size. 810494
Is there a theory that says that eventually the universe will expand so large that it will collapse in on itself and create another big bang?

What are your thoughts on the fate of the universe?

"The Last Question" by Isaac Asimov is a short story about the fate of mankind and the universe. Idk if everyone on this has read it or not, but I love it. Here's the link: http://www.multivax.com/last_question.html
12 posts and 1 images omitted. Click Reply to view.
>>
William de Sitter - Sun, 10 Dec 2017 13:00:03 EST ID:JaX78I2e No.57125 Ignore Report Quick Reply
https://www.npr.org/2011/01/24/132932268/a-physicist-explains-why-parallel-universes-may-exist
>>
Henry Russell - Sat, 10 Mar 2018 00:08:37 EST ID:eygzYfFg No.57235 Ignore Report Quick Reply
>>57123
Not cyclical. Like a tree. Or a fractal. Self-similar.

Our universe dies into nothingness. Nothingness gives rise to new big bangs. These big bangs spawn new universes that die into nothingness.... etc. ad infinitum.
>>
William Lassell - Sun, 11 Mar 2018 17:37:47 EST ID:xu+ta0+j No.57236 Ignore Report Quick Reply
>>57235
If there are only a finite number of configurations which a given hubble volume can manifest (which is necessary, because there are a finite number of planck lengths within the hubble volume and a finite number of elementary particles & energies) then with an infinite number of alternate universes, eventually the same configuration will appear again (not only once, but an infinite number of times) since the number of possible hubble volume configurations is less than infinite. Each one of these manifestations is one complete 'cycle' although the length of cycles (i.e. the number of permutations between each recurrence of an identical configuration) would always vary.
>>
William de Sitter - Fri, 08 Jun 2018 21:12:09 EST ID:hGyQlc1t No.57291 Ignore Report Quick Reply
I was recently thinking about this following hypothesis (I'm sure I'm not the first who came up with it but wasn't able to find any established writing on the subject)
But you can find plenty of other people posting about this when you google
big rip quarks

Essentially it goes like this:
The expansion of the universe will eventually rip apart superclusters, galaxies, star systems, stars, molecules and eventually atoms.
So long so good.
But once it gets to a scale of a proton something interesting is bound to happen:
If you rip apart quarks the amount of energy which with they are bound together grows proportional to the distance.
If you put in enough "force" new quarks will be created eventually.
This is all fine and dandy if you are dealing with regular forces where the amount of energy required is the same as the amount of quarks "created"
But since dark energy is not bound by these constraints, as I understand it there would be a runaway effect where more and more quarks are generated by each proton.
And what would that then be, right a quark-gluon-plasma!

Essentially what this would boil down to is eventually every proton in the universe will become it's own big-bang and hence it's own universe.
>>
Roger Penrose - Sun, 10 Jun 2018 20:06:05 EST ID:457vC2+I No.57302 Ignore Report Quick Reply
>>57291
I think this idea is really interesting and would love for someone to actually develop it in a paper.

Here's my concern, as is always my concern whenever someone says a particle or whatever creates its own universe; where does the energy/matter come from? If this quark being ripped apart creates its own universe, with its own particles of all types including quarks, where did these quarks etc. come from? Are they actually physically smaller? (in which case we're stuck in the Incredible Eternally Shrinking Multiverse?) Or what? Is it actually creating the new universe or is it punching a hole to a different section of the M-brane (which might have the energy/particle supply), or something else?


Hey by Charles Bolton - Fri, 25 May 2018 04:39:48 EST ID:eiFhhu/4 No.57283 Ignore Report Reply Quick Reply
File: 1527237588460.jpg -(368926B / 360.28KB, 720x1280) Thumbnail displayed, click image for full size. 368926
Check this mother ****** out.
>>
Kiyotsugu Hirayama - Sat, 26 May 2018 13:15:33 EST ID:10X7g+Qi No.57284 Ignore Report Quick Reply
1527354933221.jpg -(2595730B / 2.48MB, 2448x3264) Thumbnail displayed, click image for full size.
Whoay thread. I'm going to be working all day and maybe into the night. Hope i produce something increadible!


Fermi Paradox... why? by Henrietta Levitt - Thu, 22 May 2014 00:54:34 EST ID:ILYTISHs No.53812 Ignore Report Reply Quick Reply
File: 1400734474447.png -(111524B / 108.91KB, 400x325) Thumbnail displayed, click image for full size. 111524
Another thread made me start thinking about this. The Fermi Paradox states (thanks, Wikipedia):

>The Sun is a young star. There are billions of stars in the galaxy that are billions of years older;
>Some of these stars probably have Earth-like planets which, if the Earth is typical, may develop intelligent life;
>Presumably, some of these civilizations will develop interstellar travel, a technology Earth is investigating even now, such as that used in the proposed 100 Year Starship;
>At any practical pace of interstellar travel, the galaxy can be completely colonized in a few tens of millions of years.

If that's the case, why haven't we been colonized already, or at least seen evidence of intelligent life somewhere in our galaxy?

My take: either A) Life takes a long time to develop, and somehow, improbably, we're the first planet to develop an intelligent civilization in our galaxy, or at least one of the first. We don't see anyone else because there isn't anyone else to see... yet, or we're all still too far apart.

Or b) Given the size and composition constraints of a planet able to foster and sustain life (as far as we know, "habitable zone," big enough to have an atmosphere, small enough to still be rocky, etc.) and continue long enough for said life to begin to explore the galaxy, the home planet simply runs out of resources before meaningful headway can be made. I think this is more of a slow-death kind of thing where maybe we get to do some exploration within the solar system and maybe a bit beyond for a while, but overpopulation, war, disease, famine, and whatever else causes us to realign our priorities from space exploration to merely sustaining life on our own planet. A civilization that had the foresight to know something like that was happening could theoretically, if they had the goal of galactic expansion from the start, avoid this situation, but the problem is that NO civilization has that kind of 10,000 year plan from the get-go, and they all sputter out right before they could have pulled it off. There's not a textbook on "how to succeed as a species" that gets handed out to a life form when it develops self-awareness,…
Comment too long. Click here to view the full text.
307 posts and 73 images omitted. Click Reply to view.
>>
Edward Pickering - Thu, 23 Nov 2017 19:44:22 EST ID:+kYrHA6N No.57101 Ignore Report Quick Reply
>>57086

what if biodiverse planets with unique life structures are the purpose of the universe and humanity's effort to mechanize and automate and digitize the universe is cancerous and bad from a higher/wiser perspective? maybe humanity spreading throughout the universe is a negative?
>>
Caroline Herschel - Fri, 24 Nov 2017 17:19:07 EST ID:unNII3om No.57102 Ignore Report Quick Reply
>>57101

Well how should we know that?

If it's true, at least we get to be the enemy of the gods, instead of becoming a thin plastic film spread across the geological strata of Earth.
>>
John Riccioli - Sat, 02 Dec 2017 19:29:48 EST ID:NWuHYIye No.57108 Ignore Report Quick Reply
1512260988883.jpg -(165191B / 161.32KB, 1080x1080) Thumbnail displayed, click image for full size.
>>57101

Yeah, I don't really place any value on the opinions of outside influences like that. The universe could be a big ol' data storage device for some extra-dimensional lifeforms, but that doesn't affect my decision processes in the here and now. We're here, we get to decide what we do with this place, insofar as that is possible.
>>
Henrietta Levitt - Tue, 12 Dec 2017 12:08:47 EST ID:AZMi8krg No.57126 Ignore Report Quick Reply
1513098527755.png -(5149B / 5.03KB, 584x33) Thumbnail displayed, click image for full size.
dude
>>
Karl Jansky - Sun, 22 Apr 2018 06:10:38 EST ID:AZMi8krg No.57278 Ignore Report Quick Reply
Too much thread to read all of. There are a number of posts saying that neither we nor aliens would have any reason to colonise other places, as the resources aren't really very useful, colonies would be potential rivals and technology means we can just dick about in cyberspace instead.

They're good points but they're not enough. Life likes to go forth and multiply; if it didn't, it wouldn't be life. It's hard wired into us that we'll want to fuck off somewhere else if we can, just because. Even from a more logical point of view, the more habitats we have, the harder it'll be for us to go extinct; either by accident or at the hands of malicious aliens. Someone already said it's hard to imagine humanity just jerking off on the internet until the sun explodes. Our species, or whatever it turns into, can survive the sun's extinction, if we just make sure we're on other planets too. Not just planets; planets are sitting ducks to relativistic weapons. Generation ships in deep space on unpredictable courses would be impossible to eradicate as they'd be impossible to pinpoint. Which is another possible problem with finding aliens, if they've taken that route.


Stephen Hawking died at age 76 by Johan Galle - Wed, 14 Mar 2018 03:52:46 EST ID:UgaLEhyB No.57237 Ignore Report Reply Quick Reply
File: 1521013966541.jpg -(203302B / 198.54KB, 1160x629) Thumbnail displayed, click image for full size. 203302
Goodnight you genius retard
>>
William Hartmann - Wed, 14 Mar 2018 09:04:12 EST ID:eygzYfFg No.57238 Ignore Report Quick Reply
His absurd in-mental astrophysics simulations will be missed. Rest in peace dude, you deserve it.
>>
Thomas Henderson - Wed, 14 Mar 2018 11:22:05 EST ID:sL8p9E02 No.57239 Ignore Report Quick Reply
RIP to the coolest dude.
>>
William Fowler - Fri, 13 Apr 2018 19:43:23 EST ID:Iarb3bdT No.57277 Ignore Report Quick Reply
You were a remote-controlled animatronic silicone muppet for decades, but a pretty good mascot and an excellent rapper.


Pages Next>>
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16
Report Post
Reason
Note
Please be descriptive with report notes,
this helps staff resolve issues quicker.