12-18-2015 08:49 AM
#751
| |
| |
12-18-2015 11:22 AM
#752
| |
| |
12-18-2015 11:36 AM
#753
| |
| |
12-18-2015 11:42 AM
#754
| |
|
im assuming boundless as well as whatever it is when you call not reaching a previous point by moving in one direction. an ant on the balloon can discover the surface is not infinite just by walking in singular directions. afaik, physicists do not believe that a super spaceship that can cover the universe could do the same. so that's where im scratching my head. doesn't this necessitate infinity? |
12-18-2015 11:49 AM
#755
| |
The collective IDK is the important thing to take from this. | |
12-18-2015 11:59 AM
#756
| |
|
where most of my confusion arises is how the ant on the balloon can travel in a constant direction and reach a spot he was before while a man in a magic-fast spaceship (presumably) cannot. |
12-18-2015 12:03 PM
#757
| |
|
unless the balloon is constantly inflating. then the ant never reaches the same point twice. |
12-18-2015 12:04 PM
#758
| |
|
i mean, if there is always a new point in spacetime, that means there are infinite points in spacetime, which means spacetime is infinite right? |
12-18-2015 12:09 PM
#759
| |
I would have answers which correspond with my idea of the universe. I would say that a spaceship that has infinite time and infinite fuel travelling in a straight line will eventually reach the same point in space again, provided in can stand the pressure of the big crunch - big bang in the centre of the universe, which I doubt. | |
| |
12-18-2015 12:14 PM
#760
| |
| |
12-18-2015 12:18 PM
#761
| |
|
that makes me think of something else. a while back i read (from hawking i think) that if the universe started deflating instead of inflating, maybe things would be really funky like time moving backwards. what does this mean? |
12-18-2015 12:20 PM
#762
| |
I think it helps to understand that spacetime itself is curved. | |
| |
12-18-2015 12:22 PM
#763
| |
Don't be so positive about that spaceship. Space contraction and time dilation could give him a serious advantage. | |
12-18-2015 12:28 PM
#764
| |
Yeah the inflating balloon has infinite potential surface area, but it's finite at any given moment in time. | |
| |
12-18-2015 12:33 PM
#765
| |
I don't see any good evidence for or against this. It's not like we can point a telescope in some direction and see the Earth really faint in the distance. | |
12-18-2015 12:38 PM
#766
| |
|
it's not reasonable to think that something with infinite speed and 3d travel facilities can't reach every point in space at any given time? |
12-18-2015 12:41 PM
#767
| |
Sounds like nonsense to me. | |
12-18-2015 12:58 PM
#768
| |
| |
12-18-2015 01:16 PM
#769
| |
I would get a great deal more pleasure turning down a nobel prize than accepting one. Look, I don't even use a capital letter for nobel. Fuck you alfred. | |
| |
12-18-2015 01:27 PM
#770
| |
The idea of time flowing backwards in fundamentally flawed. The word "backwards" is immediately reliant on a relative state. You're only going backwards if something comparable is going in another direction. So you mean "backwards" relative to now time? What, your time? Or mine? Because I'm pretty sure we're moving at very slightly different velocities through spacetime, thanks to our different altitudes and slightly different distances from the sun, moon and planets, as well as the near zero (but not actually zero) effect that standing by a hill makes. All these means we're actually travelling through spacetime at very slightly different rates. | |
| |
02-11-2016 12:05 PM
#771
| |
Gravitational Waves confirmed! | |
02-11-2016 03:52 PM
#772
| |
How do they go from seeing some particles move to pinpointing the exact place and distance of the double blackhole system? | |
| |
02-11-2016 05:11 PM
#773
| |
Yeah, this is all over the news. Very exciting! | |
02-11-2016 05:12 PM
#774
| |
We don't know the exact place of the event. We know the distance (more or less) and an area of the sky in which it most likely occurred - kind of a long arching crescent shape in the southern sky near the large magellanic cloud. | |
Last edited by MadMojoMonkey; 02-11-2016 at 05:17 PM. | |
02-12-2016 12:06 AM
#775
| |
| |
| |
02-12-2016 05:07 AM
#776
| |
NDT to the rescue: | |
| |
02-12-2016 11:17 AM
#777
| |
Are there any cliff notes on gravity waves? What would happen if our sun were to evaporate? | |
02-12-2016 11:50 AM
#778
| |
Evaporate? You mean cease to exist? That's a mere thought experiment that cannot happen in the real world. Matter doesn't just disappear, its gravitational influence will always exist. The sun will "evaporate" over a period of hundreds of billions of years. As the sun expands, its density will reduce, and as such it will warp spacetime to less of an extent... it will decrease in gravity. But this will be the least of our problems on Earth, we'll be long gone before the decreased gravity results in our planet drifting away from the sun. | |
| |
02-12-2016 12:41 PM
#779
| |
I think you missed the line where this data wasn't even acquired on a "science" run of the equipment. They were performing a test of the equipment at the time the event was recorded. This sheds even more doubt as to the accuracy of their finding. | |
02-12-2016 01:01 PM
#780
| |
| |
| |
02-12-2016 01:17 PM
#781
| |
So if there are gravitational waves, does that mean that there are associated gravity particles? If it was this hard to find the waves, how hard would it be to find evidence of gravity particles? | |
02-12-2016 01:42 PM
#782
| |
Cliff notes on gravity waves. | |
02-12-2016 01:53 PM
#783
| |
Huh... | |
02-12-2016 05:44 PM
#784
| |
If only we could pass G-waves through a slit... | |
02-12-2016 08:07 PM
#785
| |
No. The sun is "evaporating" in multiple ways. | |
Last edited by MadMojoMonkey; 02-12-2016 at 08:10 PM. | |
02-13-2016 09:05 AM
#786
| |
Well that's me told! | |
Last edited by OngBonga; 02-13-2016 at 09:11 AM. | |
02-13-2016 09:05 AM
#787
| |
I didn't actually mean to hit submit there, I haven't read the whole psot! | |
| |
02-13-2016 09:09 AM
#788
| |
| |
| |
02-13-2016 11:47 AM
#789
| |
I hope you know that I was explaining all that with a big smile on my face and plenty of hand gestures. | |
02-13-2016 11:54 AM
#790
| |
Last edited by MadMojoMonkey; 02-13-2016 at 11:58 AM. | |
02-13-2016 12:13 PM
#791
| |
Hmm. | |
02-13-2016 05:42 PM
#792
| |
| |
| |
02-13-2016 06:34 PM
#793
| |
You're asking a great question. | |
02-13-2016 09:10 PM
#794
| |
Thought Experiment: The black hole at the center of the Milky Way instantly disappears. | |
02-14-2016 07:39 AM
#795
| |
| |
| |
02-14-2016 07:44 AM
#796
| |
Electromagnetism is just gravity at light speed. | |
| |
02-14-2016 11:39 AM
#797
| |
The solar system, i.e. everything inside the sun's sphere of influence, wouldn't really notice the difference aside from the dramatic changes in the appearance of the Milky Way as it expands and diffuses across the sky. The Earth is orbiting the sun, and so it doesn't really feel the gravity of the galactic center. There will be tidal forces, but at the distance the sun is from the galactic core, those are negligible. I mean, the moon's tidal forces are quite noticeable on Earth, but the tidal forces on Earth due to the sun are difficult to measure. | |
02-14-2016 12:02 PM
#798
| |
@ong: how about this little tidbit: | |
02-14-2016 01:14 PM
#799
| |
Of course, this is always possible - expected, even. However, we're at the point of refinement. What we've figured out is demonstrably repeatable, and makes precise predictions. | |
02-14-2016 03:02 PM
#800
| |
Could you please explain, | |
| |
02-14-2016 04:03 PM
#801
| |
02-14-2016 06:36 PM
#802
| |
02-14-2016 07:45 PM
#803
| |
You wouldn't see anything for 27,000 years. Same as the time it takes to notice anything at all that is 27,000 light years away. | |
02-14-2016 08:47 PM
#804
| |
Right, I understand that we won't see a change in something that is 27,000 light years away for another 27,000 years. I guess the question should be, how quickly would the changes in the geography of the Milky Way happen? In other words, suppose a given star is 15,000 light years from the center of the Milky Way. Will it start drifting out more then 15,000 light years from the center the very second the black hole disappears or will it take longer for it to lose its gravitational attraction and drift out? | |
02-14-2016 08:56 PM
#805
| |
| |
| |
02-14-2016 09:01 PM
#806
| |
If you took away the SMBH in our galaxy, what is the galaxy rotating around? Nothing? That isn't going to work out well in the long run. | |
| |
02-14-2016 09:07 PM
#807
| |
02-14-2016 09:10 PM
#808
| |
02-14-2016 10:12 PM
#809
| |
But they're still orbitting each other. It's not like they were orbitting something that was where the x is, and now it's gone. | |
| |
02-14-2016 10:16 PM
#810
| |
02-14-2016 10:29 PM
#811
| |
Keep in mind that the stars and gas clouds that are in the galactic core will move about a bit. | |
02-15-2016 12:49 PM
#812
| |
| |
03-04-2016 09:21 AM
#813
| |
Pretty sure this is physics. | |
| |
03-04-2016 10:44 AM
#814
| |
It's mostly psychology, but there's some physics in there, I'd wager. | |
03-04-2016 11:32 AM
#815
| |
I'd much rather be eating fresh eggs from a farm, sadly I live in town centre and it's much more practical to go over the road to the shop and buy them from there. I tend to buy the highest quality free range eggs available... but the options are limited and obviously they're not fresh off the farm. | |
| |
03-04-2016 11:34 AM
#816
| |
Thing is, with most food items, I can usually tell if I'll like the taste of something based on the smell. Eggs are pretty much the only exception I can think of right now. Oh and cheese. | |
| |
03-04-2016 12:02 PM
#817
| |
|
6 minutes to soft boil and egg? Seems a long time. Is there any chance that the shell continues to cook after it's been taken off the egg? Maybe try putting the egg shell outside to see if that's what the smell is. |
03-04-2016 12:02 PM
#818
| |
I hate to bring this up, but there's a few different labels that get put on eggs and they are not synonymous. | |
03-04-2016 12:19 PM
#819
| |
This reminds me of my 2 general rules of thumb for choosing the best produce. | |
03-04-2016 12:22 PM
#820
| |
| |
03-04-2016 12:26 PM
#821
| |
That paragraph about free range and organic stuff really doesn't surprise me. The eggs I buy from across the road are the "happy eggs", they're the most expsensive ones available there and are marketed as free range. The alternative eggs there are cheaper and smaller, less yolk, not as tasty. It's not down to morals that has me eating free range, it's pure taste. I don't have a problem with hens being kept in what we consider to be inhumane conditions... hens thrive as a species because of our taste for eggs and chicken... without humans, hens are fox food. | |
| |
03-04-2016 03:06 PM
#822
| |
|
having difficulty believing that , sounds more like propaganda put out by the animal welfare lobby, given the choice most chickens ill happily easily accessible food . |
03-04-2016 03:53 PM
#823
| |
My mate's Dad has a place in the woods, and has chickens, amongst other animals. He feeds them a mix of waste human food, egg shells and spent tea bags. Apparently, the egg shells give them back the essential nutrients they need to make more shell, and the caffiene in the tea bags is good for their metabolism. So he said, anyway. There would have been plenty of bugs around for them too. | |
| |
03-04-2016 04:44 PM
#824
| |
03-04-2016 10:17 PM
#825
| |
You mean you didn't have to study the physiology of eggs (is that the right term?) to get your physics degree? | |
| |