Stitch on 21/7/2006 at 15:01
Quote Posted by Mortal Monkey
Thank you very much for your brief commentary in this thread, Stitch. You are dismissed.
There is only one person running this class and it ain't you bud.
Here's hoping Monkeysee dismisses me because I really have to pee :(
Para?noid on 21/7/2006 at 15:03
sir stitch poked me with his ruler
Mortal Monkey on 21/7/2006 at 15:11
And you were a student since when, dear Stich? Go fetch me a brandy, please.
Stitch on 21/7/2006 at 15:17
that's not brandy its apple juice and you know we can't have any since what happened at the pizza party
Raven on 21/7/2006 at 15:41
Mortal Monkey, gravity is the attractive force between "mass", it has no real (original text “F all”) effect on "energy" which is something completely different... though ofcourse you can consider that mass and energy are equivalent as stated through E=mc^2 :) -- seriously bud... go and read some text books or wikipedia... POPULAR SCIENCE SUCKS ASS AND YOU HAVE MANY MANY CONFUSIONS!
Also no one said that our universe is infinite, we don't know... if it was truly infinite then (as an interesting side point) there would definitely be "parallel universes" over a stretch of infinite space things would begin to repeat themselves, with variation as well :). edit - and as later stated in the thread, current think is that the universe probably isn't infinite - but as I said, we don't know
As for the big crunch/big bang “cycle”, the universe would likely be very different each time and besides this is more metaphysics. String theory and extra dimensional analysis are far more grounded in observation.
As for an “expanding universe”, the big bang is a description of what is happening to space time, mass, charge, energy and the interactive forces that build up our observed environment - it is (again) not technically expanding INTO anything at all, it is just expanding. (unless of course it is expanding in other dimensions, but as stated - we have lots of difficulty even comprehending such ideas, even more difficulty trying to measure any secondary evidence, and we have no hope of direct observation/predictions/modelling)
Agent Monkeysee on 21/7/2006 at 18:03
Quote Posted by Mortal Monkey
Agreed. But how can we say that our universe is infinite if it's still expanding?
I never said the Universe is infinite. If I remember correctly the current scientific conventional wisdom is that it isn't.
Quote Posted by Mortal Monkey
I can see how matter would do that, but many forms of energy are much less affected by gravity. If the universe did go through a Big Bang/Big Crunch cyclus, wouldn't it get smaller each time?
I don't know what you mean by "much less affected". Energy interacts with gravity a little differently but I don't see how you can put that on some kind of sliding scale with matter interaction.
Regardless the Universe would not be smaller every cycle unless the Universe is leaking energy but I don't know how anyone would even go about thinking of how to determine that. The mass and energy can't leave the universe so if the universe collapses the singularity starts with the exact same potential energy (I don't know if that's really the correct term, think of it more as a metaphor) every time and thus the expansion would be of the same magnitude.
That's somewhat of a moot point though as the evidence suggests the Universe isn't going to collapse anyway.
Mortal Monkey on 21/7/2006 at 18:06
Quote Posted by Raven
mortal monkey, gravity is the attractive force between "mass", it has F all effect on "energy" which is something completely different... but then ofcourse you can als consider that mass and energy are equivalent as stated through E=mc^2 :) -- seriously bud... go and read some text books or wikipedia... POPULAR SCIENCE SUCKS ASS AND YOU HAVE MANY MANY CONFUSIONS!
So wait... are you telling me I'm correct then say I should go read a book? Or are you refuting that E = mc^2?
Well, just about everything I know is from books written by a retard anyway.
Also, if photons were exempt from the rules of gravity, why does light bend around massive objects?
Agent Monkeysee on 21/7/2006 at 18:09
Quote Posted by Mortal Monkey
Also, if photons were exempt from the rules of gravity, why does light bend around massive objects?
They're not exempt. Don't listen to his lies.
Raven on 21/7/2006 at 18:30
I didn't say photons were exempt from gravity!!! - I said that matter and energy are different things (even if they can be thought equivalent through e=mc^2) also that gravity affects mass not and not this ethereal word “energy” that we have been bounding around. I also never said you were correct!!!! Besides, the cycle of big bang big, crunch is rather stupid to talk about as we know nothing about the “beginning” of the big bang and from the speculation there has been some of the thinking is that it started from absolute vacuum, no space, no time. If our universe was to crunch back to that state of nothingness and then "maybe" randomly start again the thing that started would statistically be very unlikely (as in NEVER) be anything like we know of our universe (I am thinking even a minuscule change in one of the fundamental numbers, even if such things as the fundamental properties could even be defined in this new “universe”.
Edit - my god, I apologise for my poor communication!
Mortal Monkey on 21/7/2006 at 19:54
Oh so you're saying that I'm incorrect because the word "energy" is exempt from gravity?
Oh so you're saying that I'm incorrect because the word "energy" is exempt from gravity?
