Raven on 21/7/2006 at 20:17
Quote Posted by MortalMonkey
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 am saying that you continue to be wrong in many different aspects of concept. For one photons are particles of light with (apparent) zero mass but they do have an associated momentum and so will be affected by gravity (side point: light can also be described as a wave). Energy is something different completely, and is actually a very difficult comcept to tie down to a discription without a specific example being talked about! A simple example of this is the much stated ITT idea that E=mc^2 which simply :P states the amount of energy produced if some of the mass of an atom/particle were to be converted into "energy". But what the hell IS energy!?! The answer may seem vexing - but that is because we are talking about all this out of any context and we need a context to describe this energy!
Agent Monkeysee on 21/7/2006 at 21:57
also no one gets to pee
Microwave Oven on 21/7/2006 at 23:19
I've had a small thought here: If the universe is expanding, why doesn't matter expand along with it? Everything should stay relative. Like with the balloon example, you blow up a balloon with dots on it, the balloon gets bigger, the dots move further apart, but the dots also stretch and become bigger themselves. So why isn't this happening in out universe? Or is it? Or is all of the weird unexplainable crap just because were reaching the resolution limits of our neurokenetic simulation?
Who knows? Anybody?
SD on 21/7/2006 at 23:47
Quote Posted by Microwave Oven
Who knows? Anybody?
No. Nobody knows. It's
all conjecture. Which is why people trying to score points over their understanding of the theories on this subject constitute some of the most pointless and retarded exchanges we've ever had on these forums. IM RITE NO I AM U TARD - guess what? We don't know who's right, and we never, ever will.
Mortal Monkey on 21/7/2006 at 23:50
Mnay points where I am wrong, yet you can only point out that "a form of energy" must mean something other than photos because omg energy and photons are different things and therefore I am wrong in so may ways.
Quote Posted by Raven
But what the hell IS energy!?! The answer may seem vexing - but that is because we are talking about all this out of any context and we need a context to describe this energy!
The answer might seem vexing - to you. Get the hell out.
Edit: Microwave Oven, that's pretty much what I meant by this:
Quote:
If it was indeed only our universe that was expanding, our metrics would expand with it.
Stitch's ruler would grow, but so would 'noid's ribs, thus the poke would still be of equal proportions.
Stitch on 21/7/2006 at 23:58
Quote Posted by Agent Monkeysee
also no one gets to pee
too late :(
Ultraviolet on 22/7/2006 at 00:14
Quote Posted by Stitch
too late :(
I actually pissed my pants in third grade once because my teacher was reading something to the class and had her bifocals on or whatever and was so focussed on the page that she couldn't see me quietly squirming with my hand up. Life changing, that was.
Stitch on 22/7/2006 at 00:23
Quote Posted by Ultraviolet
Life changing, that was.
learning new things about Ultraviolet's addictions itt
descenterace on 22/7/2006 at 09:00
Quote Posted by Raven
But what the hell IS energy!?! The answer may seem vexing - but that is because we are talking about all this out of any context and we need a context to describe this energy!
:weird:
Energy is momentum. Since momentum is a property of physical particles only and cannot exist in isolation, then yes, energy
is affected by gravity. To all intents and purposes, bosons ARE energy particles.
This includes photons.
Raven on 22/7/2006 at 09:05
Quote Posted by Strontium Dog
No. Nobody knows. It's all conjecture. Which is why people trying to score points over their understanding of the theories on this subject constitute some of the most pointless and retarded exchanges we've ever had on these forums. IM RITE NO I AM U TARD - guess what? We don't know who's right, and we never, ever will.
Some of us aren't making random shit up (from what I have read - that would be Agent Monkeysee and Me) and have studied these various subjects at an academic level. To do this you NEED the mathematics to discuss and describe what is going on, you also need everyone to be using the same words and mean the same thing - which is why I keep urging people to not listen to channel four documentaries and suddenly think that they are the next Stephen Hawking.
The expanding universe is hardly conjecture - the doppler effect is extremely well proven. The harder point to actually nail down is "what is matter?" - matter is a messy word because it is ambiguous at a quantum scale yet suitable at an astronomical scale and just confusing when discussing cosmology at the quantum AND universe scale (which tends to happen with string theory) - I guess you probably mean "particles with mass", atoms and molecules.
Quote:
If the universe is expanding, why doesn't matter expand along with it? Everything should stay relative. Like with the balloon example, you blow up a balloon with dots on it, the balloon gets bigger, the dots move further apart, but the dots also stretch and become bigger themselves. So why isn't this happening in out universe? Or is it? Or is all of the weird unexplainable crap just because were reaching the resolution limits of our neurokenetic simulation?
Who knows? Anybody?
We are talking physics on an astronomical scale ((so bloody big that that you (and everyone else, including me and AM) have trouble fathoming just how incredibly and hugely BIG)), the expansion is observed between galaxies (our and the other galaxies around us) by the red shift of their incident light as the galaxy recedes from us. We know what their light should look like, but it is stretched so the wavelengths are longer than we would expect, like an ambulance siren shifting in pitch as it zooms away. When we work with the universe at an intergalactic scale we can represent other galaxies and our own as a point. The square root nature of the force of gravity ( F=MmG/r^2 ) means that other galaxies only see our galaxy as a point source of gravity. The gravity within our glaxay/solar system is holding our galaxy/solar system together, the effect is so dampened as to be ineffective or it is completely countered by the proximity of the various mass bodies surrounding us. In other words StD - NO I AM (rite) U TARD!.
RE: energy
(
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Energy#Energy_in_Natural_Sciences). I hadn't thought of bosons as "energy" particles before, that works quite well, as I said energy needs a context in which to be talked about effectively - i think it would still be safer calling momentum momentum and having bosons described as integer spin particles because you do also have isotopes that are bosons too, could they be called "energy" particles? They have mass and I guess will not conserve momentum?
RE:photons and energy and Mortal Monkey.
I guess from above I conceed that photons can be thought of as "energy" but in the big bang/big cruch contex they are certainly not the ONLY form of energy - and in most situations never are. This is why I was becoming distressed as I tried to follow where photons suddenly appeared in the discussion.
Quote Posted by mortal monkey
Many points where I am wrong, yet you can only point out that "a form of energy" must mean something other than photos because omg energy and photons are different things and therefore I am wrong in so may ways.
- I was talking about in this thread as a whole, many issues that have been addressed by Agent Monkeysee
Quote:
The answer might seem vexing - to you. Get the hell out.
In a discussion I would try and not get myself into a situation where I was talking about energy completely out of any context and so lead myself into being vexed. I would try to be definate about the words I was using and would ask for clarification on concepts I was not clear on... so no
