420chan now has a web-based IRC client available, right here
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
Time as a function of total mass by Roger Penrose - Thu, 24 Jul 2014 03:16:32 EST ID:415JX8nG No.54151 Ignore Report Reply Quick Reply
File: 1406186192412.jpg -(23102B / 22.56KB, 600x399) Thumbnail displayed, click image for full size. 23102
I just had the idea that time becomes more consequential the smaller of an object you observe.
Many quantum effects have zero time dilation
Atomic effects have whatever incredibly small fraction of interaction with time
Molecular effects operate on the range of seconds
Macro objects and change over minutes
Large masses change over years
Stars change over thousands of years
Galaxies noticeably change over tens of thousand of years
Galaxy clusters interact over millions of years
and galactic clusters interact over billions of years.

Am I just high, or would their be a way to correlate the size of a defined system with the Einstein field equations?
7 posts omitted. Click Reply to view.
>>
William Lassell - Tue, 29 Jul 2014 16:14:33 EST ID:wT0xmtkP No.54180 Ignore Report Quick Reply
The smaller something is the less efficient its surface area to space occupied is (Not mass, The actual amount of space it occupies).
As such, Reactions are more likely to happen.

You can also add in the fundamental forces and the long distance behaviour. But that's just crazy complicated.
>>
William Lassell - Tue, 29 Jul 2014 16:16:48 EST ID:wT0xmtkP No.54181 Ignore Report Quick Reply
Also, As a side note, Just because noticeable change happens over a long period, does not at all effect the fact that change is constantly happening at the same rate.
>>
Kocoayello !jxaL03vL/Q - Thu, 07 Aug 2014 10:57:18 EST ID:Ar8ZIqLY No.54226 Ignore Report Quick Reply
>>54165
Doesn't M-Theory negate general relativity?
>>
William Fowler - Thu, 07 Aug 2014 18:35:04 EST ID:b1iFE80O No.54228 Ignore Report Quick Reply
>>54226
No. Unified models seek to explain GR, not to negate it. This anyway is more a case for special relativity which is not going anywhere.
>>
Karl Swarzchild - Thu, 14 Aug 2014 16:30:35 EST ID:ksAXy5yQ No.54285 Ignore Report Quick Reply
>>54226
Only in higher, more theoretical levels of multiverse.


Where did matter come from? by Joseph Lockyer - Wed, 30 Jul 2014 09:30:06 EST ID:XqlCGA56 No.54183 Ignore Report Reply Quick Reply
File: 1406727006143.jpg -(82971B / 81.03KB, 452x564) Thumbnail displayed, click image for full size. 82971
So you know, I'm a scientist by education (biologist) but haven't ventured into astronomy or astrophysics to any significant length and have been content more or less by the information I've gathered regarding the creation of the universe, planets, elements, and complex life in general. However, what I don't particularly understand is how it reinforces atheistic predilections by providing explanations to natural phenomena. I'm an atheist by nature and was having a casual conversation with a friend of mine who's also a scientist (chemist), and it was an odd conversation to say the least.

My overall take on the matter is that solid theories and data and evidence regarding the conception of life is so relatively coherent that to put an almighty and all-powerful, sentient, entity in the story is just redundant and superfluous, but taking a chemist's point of view I saw some holes in some of the information I have that make up my outlook on things. When it comes to life, it's quite easy to explain how it was formed, at least on earth. However, what he was arguing about was not life in general but rather things that are atomic in nature; he asked how protons and electrons came to be, and the quarks and muons/taus/so on and the overall complexity of what people see as the most simplest of things in the universe. I don't really have the necessary understanding of physics or the universe in general to come up with a valid answer. Obviously there are valid explanations for them, and a lot of theories too, but what are the most recent and most credible? And, I'd really hate to do this, but for some odd reason, he said that matter must be preceded by a something, from an incoherent state to a coherent state, and then explicitly stating that even if time provides the necessary tools for coherence, something must have created all the matter in the universe which came from the big-bang.

Oh I don't know, can anybody point me to decent reads (not books) regarding question of why did the big-bang happen, and where did all this matter come from, and why is there an infinite universe to allow for its expansion, the assimilation of quarks into protons and electrons and atoms, and s…
Comment too long. Click here to view the full text.
16 posts and 1 images omitted. Click Reply to view.
>>
Mike Brown - Sun, 03 Aug 2014 17:42:02 EST ID:pV3FfZT0 No.54209 Ignore Report Quick Reply
1407102122181.png -(522933B / 510.68KB, 835x473) Thumbnail displayed, click image for full size.
>>54199

>the easiest way to do that is to be free from all desire or simply love God.
>or simply love God.
>>
Quilting with Will - Sun, 03 Aug 2014 19:05:07 EST ID:WG/dK64g No.54210 Ignore Report Quick Reply
1407107107831.jpg -(8279B / 8.08KB, 400x169) Thumbnail displayed, click image for full size.
>>54207
Dude right? God is a joke. lol
>>
Will Grello - Tue, 05 Aug 2014 13:22:38 EST ID:pV3FfZT0 No.54219 Ignore Report Quick Reply
1407259358869.jpg -(7944B / 7.76KB, 184x184) Thumbnail displayed, click image for full size.
SMILE

EAT YOUR CARROTS

Cook the dog....COOK THE DOG! Cook your own dog!?

No child should be made to do that. Dog should be raw...and living
>>
Quilting with Will - Wed, 06 Aug 2014 19:59:14 EST ID:WG/dK64g No.54223 Ignore Report Quick Reply
1407369554283.jpg -(27384B / 26.74KB, 500x252) Thumbnail displayed, click image for full size.
>>54219
HEY! glad someone understood who my name was referring to haha
>>
Kocoayello !jxaL03vL/Q - Thu, 07 Aug 2014 10:53:15 EST ID:Ar8ZIqLY No.54225 Ignore Report Quick Reply
>>54197
This is most likely correct, consciousness being primary to matter and having created it. This has almost nothing to do with God and more to do with how you conceptualize our 3d reality being simulated within 4d Bulk space, embedded within it like a Russian doll. The simulators would have "thoughfully" created the conditions to form 3d matter.


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