How will the world end? (Serious discussion please.)

[Swabs]

time stands still

AT THE IIIRROOON HILL

 

[Knarfi]

we can't see gravity bend space. however, as presented by einstein, we can tell by the way light behaves when it encounters a massive object that it is logical that gravity warps time and space.
.

Light gets bend near a massive object (a black hole for example) because fotons actually DO have mass, but just like the mass of electrons (eventhough, for as far as i know, the mass of a foton is even less than an electron, but whatever im not sure), its neglectable in most situations. Though, since black holes and such are singularities, the mass is so big that it will even attract particles with such a low mass.

 

[Leandro]

The mass of the photons is zero. They follow the paths which are stationary(with respect to small variations) through a geodesic in the curved spacetime. In most situations this equals to the smallest distance between two points, but in non-euclidean geometry, the geodesic is, in general, not necessarily a straight line.

 

[the phenom]

WOAH WOAH! ENOUGH ROCKET SCIENTIST SHIT!!!! Speak English!

 

[Swabs]

ENOUGH ROCKET SCIENTIST SHIT!!!!

-_- It's not rocket science...

 

[the phenom]

^^It is for me! If thats public knowledge i am apparently pretty stupid.

 

[Leandro]

LOL! It's used for corrections in high-orbit satellites though

 

[shredtastical]

Dark energy/matter are theoretical. They account for the observed expansion of the universe which can't be explained according to our physics alone. They are a mathematical artifice, and no one knows their true nature, or if the intensity of the repulsion will decrease over time. You are making unreasonable assumptions.



Actually, we have.

they represent the most logical, probable hypotheses we currently have. science has shown that there is some strange form of antimatter, and that baryonic matter represents a very small portion of matter in comparison.

The distortion of space is a model for a field theory. We observed the results achieved by this field theory and observed time dilation. It's a completely different matter.



You can't be at the speed of light, so saying that time stands still at that velocity has no meaning. And, for your interest, CONGRATULATIONS! You have just divided by zero. When you're moving at speed v relative to an observer, the time he will measure will be the time in your reference frame multiplied by a factor of gamma, which's defined as [1/1-v²/c²]^1/2. If v=c, gamma=1/0 YAY. Stop talking nonsense.

youve heard of the experiment of the clock on earth, and the clock in the plane? the clock in the plane was slower after the experiment, so you're wrong on this.

Wrong again. That comes from geological and seismological studies based on known physics. Which's NOT the case with the expansion of the universe.

my point with that was that your blatant and ignorant dismissals are like saying we dont know what the earth's core is composed of because we've never physically been there.

Science can't be proven. Even less science which we still know nothing about.

so you're the ignoramus who also says theres no such thing as pure fact, and everything is an opinion? right. i reiterate; certain truths have proven themselves necessarily inherent to our natural world.

 

[Leandro]

they represent the most logical, probable hypotheses we currently have. science has shown that there is some strange form of antimatter, and that baryonic matter represents a very small portion of matter in comparison.

Hypotheses. Thank you, you just proved my point.

youve heard of the experiment of the clock on earth, and the clock in the plane? the clock in the plane was slower after the experiment, so you're wrong on this.

That experiment proves naught. It shows a correspondence between the theoretical model and the experiment. Argue with that division by zero, dipshit.

my point with that was that your blatant and ignorant dismissals are like saying we dont know what the earth's core is composed of because we've never physically been there.

No it isn't. Learn reading.

so you're the ignoramus who also says theres no such thing as pure fact, and everything is an opinion? right. i reiterate; certain truths have proven themselves necessarily inherent to our natural world.

No, they HAVEN'T. You can NEVER prove a physical law. NEVER NEVER NEVER NEVER. I can't stress on this enough. You're just being an idiot who sits at home and watchs the discovery channel and thinks he knows something about science. Go read something on epistemology, you need it.

 

[OvSeth]

awesome.

 

[shredtastical]

That experiment proves naught. It shows a correspondence between the theoretical model and the experiment. Argue with that division by zero, dipshit.

of course it proves something. stop being so close minded.

No, they HAVEN'T. You can NEVER prove a physical law. NEVER NEVER NEVER NEVER. I can't stress on this enough. You're just being an idiot who sits at home and watchs the discovery channel and thinks he knows something about science. Go read something on epistemology, you need it.

this is probably the most ignorant thing you've said yet. i say to you; find me proof they don't work. I say it again; sure you may be on your high horse that there is "some unfathomably small possibility our natural laws do not hold true," yet somehow we land rovers gently on mars after traveling half a billion miles. we send men into orbit above the earth to build space stations, which stay in continual orbit. we send probes to the far reaches of our solar system etc. etc. etc. such truths have proven correct for our natural world because they work consistently, and continually prove correct. these are called facts. the denial of fact is completely contrary to science.

 

[Shadowz]

Woah lots of discussion before my post, I'm not even goin to bother readin it

SO anyway Global warming is a possibillity, but we can just use boats and stuff the other possibilllity(which I read about) is that in a few million years the Sun will lose all its energy and will "turn-off" and when that happens it will suck everything around it(the planets and stuff) in it, thus destroying the universe(or atleast this one)

 

[Chairman Kaga]

I think the world will end after something explodes somewhere else in the galaxy or w/e and engulfs earth and everything else in the explosion. Hell I don't fucking know. haha.

 

[Leandro]

of course it proves something. stop being so close minded.

It proves the model fits the experiment within an accepted margin of error. Only. That.

this is probably the most ignorant thing you've said yet. i say to you; find me proof they don't work. I say it again; sure you may be on your high horse that there is "some unfathomably small possibility our natural laws do not hold true," yet somehow we land rovers gently on mars after traveling half a billion miles. we send men into orbit above the earth to build space stations, which stay in continual orbit. we send probes to the far reaches of our solar system etc. etc. etc. such truths have proven correct for our natural world because they work consistently, and continually prove correct. these are called facts. the denial of fact is completely contrary to science.

The burden of proof isn`t mine. And btw, the rover example is the WORST you could find, because orbital mechanics involving more than three bodies is a problem as of yet unsolved.

Thing is, there`s a difference between natural laws and mathematical expressions for natural laws. The most accurate theory we`ve got is quantum electrodynamics, which has an accuracy of about 10^-12. Which means that there is an ERROR associated with every theory.

In other words: Shut. The. Fuck. Up.

 

[shredtastical]

It proves the model fits the experiment within an accepted margin of error. Only. That.




The burden of proof isn`t mine. And btw, the rover example is the WORST you could find, because orbital mechanics involving more than three bodies is a problem as of yet unsolved.

Thing is, there`s a difference between natural laws and mathematical expressions for natural laws. The most accurate theory we`ve got is quantum electrodynamics, which has an accuracy of about 10^-12. Which means that there is an ERROR associated with every theory.

In other words: Shut. The. Fuck. Up.

please see RELIGION THREAD

you are obviously not a purveyor of knowledge. you memorize a few facts and think you are god; a man of science would never spout such blasphemy.

 

[Leandro]

I don't give a shit what you think. Any man of science would agree with me, or otherwise he could as well go home and stop bothering, since humans have it all figured out, right?

What I'm trying to make you understand is that, no matter how many experiments you make, a physical law can never be proven. The experiments always, ALWAYS deviate from the theory being considered. It's YOU who blasphemes over and disgraces the scientific method with your discovery-channel-self-righteousness. When you manage to pass the 9th grade, come talk to me.

 

[Kochon]

I think some Arab or stuff will decide to blow the world with a nuclear bomb.

Think of it, every single second of our lifes the world could explode from a nuclear bomb

 

[Altitudes]

I think some Arab or stuff will decide to blow the world with a nuclear bomb.

Think of it, every single second of our lifes the world could explode from a nuclear bomb

Very unlikely. It would take many of the smartest brains to come together and build such a thing. I doubt they would put years of hard work to blow up the world A lot harder than you think.

 

[Leandro]

Asteroids have hit the earth with far more power than the strongest nuclear device ever built.



And evidence of those impacts today is hard to find. So, nukes won't work.

 

[CRrEiTsIRED]

global warming and cooling have been perfectly natural processes for millions of years. Us humans might not even be contributing at all to global warming.

Dear God...