Shoutbox

quote:

---

Originally posted by illuzn
    quoteriginally posted by Chloe
    Well, i think human minds can't think that further......is like wondering how god was made!

    No  offencer everyone,...



But wondering outside of the square is why we have a life as wonderful as it is today... imagine if nobody thought of using a round device to ease carrying loads now known as the wheel. Imagine a world with no computers, no internet and golly gosh no MP!3

---

I said ...Cant think that further
meaning that  our minds can only think to a certain extent..got it?

I truely think space is a sphere.... don't ask me how it's possible, i'm still trying to figure that little detail out

I think some people in here are underestimating the human mind by saying that there are things we are unable to understand, just think we have evolved so much in so little time (hey +5000 years isn't that much after all). A few thousand years ago man would probarbly start worshipping a TV if it suddenly appeared in front of them.

And have you ever heard the one about those monkeys? well, just think about this, if monkeys kept on writing random words for a loooong time, one day they would eventually write the Bible, weird huh? Well, thats kind of like us; were bound to learn everything at some point (of course assuming we survive long enough)

quote:

---

Originally posted by unknown2u
I have often wondered that myself. Also why is space always horizontal? What is down? or up?  Is there more planets we don't know about sitting only miles in our vertical axis? Are the UFOs really coming from a plant that sits 400,000 miles under us?

---

Space isn't flat.... who said it was? Of course there are planets under/above us, our own solar system isn't flat (not all planets move in perfect concentric circles.... some go up and down more than others....)

wow, haven't read up on these forums for a while, alrite, have a couple things to say first, in responses to cookie's essay

quote:

---

Also, another thing. Many people say that space itself contains nothing. Well that has been proven to be wrong. "Nothing" does contain something; there is something called "black matter", which is the opposite of matter. Again something we can't comprehend, but it does exist. So even if all the matter was contracted again (big bang-loop-theory), space would still exist and would be "filled" with black matter (or sometimes called anti-matter)...

---

i read in pop-sci and in many other places that anti-matter is rare and was mostly destroyed in the big bang (many scientists think that antimatter may have been a catalyst for the bang). perhaps you are refering to the mysterious "dark matter" that plagues the minds of scientist along with "dark energy". note that anitmatter and dark matter are complety different things. perhaps this is all beyond our comprehention, which leads me to the other comment in regard to

quote:

---

Originally posted by Chloe
quote:

Originally posted by illuzn
    quoteriginally posted by Chloe
    Well, i think human minds can't think that further......is like wondering how god was made!

    No  offencer everyone,...



But wondering outside of the square is why we have a life as wonderful as it is today... imagine if nobody thought of using a round device to ease carrying loads now known as the wheel. Imagine a world with no computers, no internet and golly gosh no MP!3




I said ...Cant think that further
meaning that  our minds can only think to a certain extent..got it?

---

i figure, at some point we have to seperate religion and science within this thread. the limit to which a human mind can think is distince between science and religion. science does not allow for the existence of god and god doesn't allow for the existence of science. basically, if all scientist believed in god, science would fail to exists becasue the answer to every question or every hypothesis would be "God wanted it that way" or "God made it that way". And god (a omnipotenet one at least) would deny the explinations of science because they say that He in fact is not responsible for everything. This original of question would then have to be classified as a scientific question, though you can use religion to explain that "we cannot comprehend it", that doens't really answer the question, so hence, i suggest you try using science, and as science dictates, space is finite, HUGE, but finite in the end since science believes in the big bang. however, if you can provide an alternate theory, it may possibly allow for an infinite universe (using string theory as an example, it allows for up to 11 dimensions which could possible allow for an infinite universe within the other dimensions). so it really depends, as for now, we really don't know, everyone has seperate beliefs, but as far as the traditionalist scientist within me is concerned, space, at one point or another, is finite

quote:

---

Originally posted by Shadow D
I think some people in here are underestimating the human mind by saying that there are things we are unable to understand,

---

We (I at least) never said the human mind can't "understand" something. I said "comprehend", as in "imagine". There is a difference there...

We can perfectly understand things (formulas, calculations, explainations, etc), while at the same time we can not "see"/"comprehend"/"imagine" it.... There are thousands of examples that we understand but can't "see"....

quote:

---

Originally posted by Ningc_Maniac

quote:

---

Originally posted by unknown2u
I have often wondered that myself. Also why is space always horizontal? What is down? or up?  Is there more planets we don't know about sitting only miles in our vertical axis? Are the UFOs really coming from a plant that sits 400,000 miles under us?

---

Space isn't flat.... who said it was? Of course there are planets under/above us, our own solar system isn't flat (not all planets move in perfect concentric circles.... some go up and down more than others....)

---

He didn't say it was flat. He said horizontal. There is a difference. Of course space isn't flat, but he is right in saying that wherever you are in space, you're always "horizontal", because there is no fixed reference to call it horizontal.

(btw even on Earth, the word horizontal is a bit strange, think about it )

Anyways, maybe I'm wrong in assuming he did meant this. And maybe he meant realy "flat". Again, he's partially right. Our solorsystem is partially "flat" (except for a few planets). Furthermore, most common galaxies (swirling-galaxies, like ours) are indeed relative "flat". This is due the swirling motion around the axis that they make....

quote:

---

Originally posted by sasquatch
i read in pop-sci and in many other places that anti-matter is rare and was mostly destroyed in the big bang (many scientists think that antimatter may have been a catalyst for the bang). perhaps you are refering to the mysterious "dark matter" that plagues the minds of scientist along with "dark energy". note that anitmatter and dark matter are complety different things. perhaps this is all beyond our comprehention, which leads me to the other comment in regard to

---

true, it's "rare" in the scope of the total mass of matter in the universe, but "rare" is relative...

Many spaceobjects emmit not only radiation, but also anti-matter is believed (and black-matter also) when doing "things" (explotions, implotions, black holes, etc...). What I meant was, when space contracts again, space will be filled again with this kind of matter, so the loop can begin again (and the black-matter can function as a catalyst again)

There is indeed a difference (I thought) between dark-matter and black-matter/anti-matter... Black-matter being the opposite of matter, and dark-matter/energy being something that "holds" "pushes" things together appart, something like gravity, but different...

EDIT: in the quick writing I made a fundamental mistake and gave the definition of gravity (was thinking about gravity while writing about dark-matter/energy ), I must be the opposite of course

quote:

---

Originally posted by CookieRevised
There is indeed a difference (I thought) between dark-matter and black-matter/anti-matter... Black-matter being the opposite of matter, and dark-matter being something that "holds" things together, something like gravity, but different...

---

http://www.popsci.com/popsci/science/article/0,12543,220659-1,00.html

antimatter was almost completey destroyed in most versions of the big bang that involve antimatter, so it reli doesn't amount to nething in space, dark matter is sumthing we have yet to detect and the "gravity" u were talkin bout is "dark energy"

most theortical physicist think that dark matter accounts for about 2/3 of the mass of the universe while the remaining third is matter and itz variants (antimater, neutrinos {which are kinda a form of matter}) so ur right in the sense that space is not "empty" but i'm just saying itz probably not antimatter otherwise there would be antimatter-matter reactions everywhere which would destroy everything in our known universe (sounds fun doesn't it?) f.y.i.

I stand corrected....

(btw energy=matter    E=MC^2)

errr, u just proved energy isn't matter, e=mc^2 means that, in terms of unit, energy = (kg*m^2)/s^2 even tho c is a constant, they are NOT the same ... i learned this in physics just now, itz like saying velocity=displacement (distance) becuz v=displacement/time, but we all know that isn't true (i hope)

i also quote http://www.geocities.com/thesciencefiles/emc2/emc2.html (from google)

quote:

---

Einstein's formula tells us the amount of energy this mass would be equivalent to, if it were all suddenly turned into energy. It says that to find the energy, you multiply the mass by the square of the speed of light, this number being 300,000,000 meters per second (a very large number)

---

so to u again!

edit: i also quote http://www.spacedaily.com/news/darkmatter-02d.html

quote:

---

To calculate the fraction of the energy in the Universe which is Dark Energy Manchester's Dr. Kyu-Hyun Chae combined the gravitational lens statistics with the latest results on the numbers and types of galaxies in the Universe made with optical telescopes. The result which emerged is that around two thirds of the Universe's energy appears to be Dark Energy.

The remaining third is made up of Dark Matter, whose form is presently unknown, and "ordinary" matter which makes up the stars and planets. For both of these forms of matter gravity acts as normal and attracts.

In contrast Dark Energy has long-range anti-gravity properties and now appears to be causing the expansion of the universe to accelerate, rather than slow down as would be expected if gravity was the dominant force. While astronomers have no idea about what Dark Energy might be, these new results add to their growing confidence that it is real.

---

and i stand corrected bout the ratios i gave earlier, turns out itz reversed, 2/3 is dark energy while 1/3 is matter/dark matter/animatter and so on

Wow... a lots been said since i left... lets address a few things...

quote:

---

Originally posted by Chloe
I said ...Cant think that further
meaning that  our minds can only think to a certain extent..got it?

---

thousands of years ago the earth was our universe (people believed that stars were lights on a dome which surround the flat earth) and people could not even think that maybe there were other things called planets out there.
hundreds of years ago the solar system was our universe and people could not even fathom the thought that the earth was in fact not the centre of the universe
today most people can't imagine the universe being "flat" or "not closed".... even the best theoretical physicists don't fully understand it... what do they say is outside of the universe

quote:

---

It is useless to try and find out because the universe is everything

---

So what im saying is that while today it may seem that humankind will never understand the universe.... maybe in a thousand years maybe in a billion we will understand how the universe came to be.

quote:

---

Originally posted by sasquatch
errr, u just proved energy isn't matter, e=mc^2

---

Okay lets get rid of the myth once and for all... this formula interelates mass and energy... basically where there is energy there is mass and where there is mass there must be energy... let me give an example...assume you are standing still you have some amount of energy in you (the binding energy of all the atoms in you body and what not fr outside the scope of this post) now you start running... congratulations you just got heavier.... how can this be? when you start running you changed energy into kinetic energy.... now since E=mc^2 then m=E/c^2 so you would've got heavier (created mass). Now for all of you out there wondering why we can usually see this change in mass its simple... were dividing by c^2 (about 9*10^16 i think could be wrong) so the little change in energy you created leads to a miniscule change in mass. Now if you were creating large amounts of energy then you would create large amounts of mass.... this is why you theoretically can't travel at the speed of light. KE=.5*mv^2 if at speed of light v=c KE=.5mc^2 now
E=mc^2
.5mc^2=mc^2
.5=1 (a ridiculous result) so it seems impossible to travel at exactly the speed of light... you can approach it but never attain it... light (photons) gets around this by having zero mass thus that is why it can travel at the speed of light (and purportedly faster somehow) okay that was kinda off topic

Now in regards to dark matter/dark energy scientists still cannot agree whether it exists or not.... and if it does exist it points towards a universe that is likely not closed

finally scientists cannot why more matter exists than anti-matter.... was it some kind of fluke i hardly think so.... if the big bang theory is correct then why was more matter created than anti matter (it shouldn't happen) or... where did all the anti matter go...

okay enough blabbing on for now... interested to see your thoughts