Another deep thought thread.........on the subject of time.

[DeathEatsaCracker]

1. The Earth's resources will run out well before then. Thus the reason Space exploration is that much more important. We will have to find another planet eventually if mankind is to survive.
When those resources are gone, so go any advancements in Science.

2. I don't personally believe we will ever be able to travel space at the speed of light. EVEN IF we do eventually learn to move/travel at such a great speed, we wouldn't be able to use it in space.

If you start at Point A and set to light speed to reach Point B, you will never get there because you're going to hit something inbetween.

So to make it even that much more impossible, if we come up with light speed, we then have to better that by figuring a way to maneuver at such a speed.

Unless we find a planet reasonably close which has the resources to replace those that will eventually be sucked dry from the middle of the Earth and leave us basically an empty core, then we are doomed...

Look, I'm not trying to prop myself up as a big thinker or anything but this is surprisingly narrow and superficial thinking. I am seriously not trying to flame here. Like in my comment above, you are applying our current limitations to a society that we won't even be able to recognize. Do you seriously believe that when we reach a point where we can travel to and colonize other worlds that we will be starved for resources? Michio Kaku believes that we are a few thousand years away from being a Type II civilization. Read what a Type II civilization will be able to do under the heading "Type II civilization methods" at this link.

If you start at Point A and set to light speed to reach Point B, you will never get there because you're going to hit something inbetween.

C'mon. Are you serious with this?

Fortunately, the people that will lead us to this future are big thinkers who would never be satisfied saying "We will never be able to __________."

 

[CHOPTALK]

"That’s an amazing invention, but who would ever want to use one of them?" ... President Rutherford B. Hayes in 1876, after Alexander Graham Bell demonstrated the telephone to him at the White House.

"There is no likelihood man can ever tap the power of the atom," ... Robert Milken, Nobel Prize winner in physics, 1923

"Heavier-than-air flying machines are impossible," ... Lord Kelvin, President Royal Society, 1895

"Who the hell wants to watch movies with sound?" Who said this? Believe it or not, it was the president of Warner Brothers Studios, Harry Warner, sometime around 1918.

" I no longer see the need for the United States Patent Office. Everything that can be invented has already been invented."- United States Patent Office, a Mr. Charles Duell, back in 1899

 

[DeathEatsaCracker]

Another reason why Star Wars is hands down better than Star Trek. Hyperspace vs Warp Speed.

They both pale in comparison to Ludicrous Speed.

Sincerely,

 

[vinscully]

Time goes so much quicker the older you get. Birthday's, Christmas and Thanksgiving spin round when you're in your forties and fifties.

 

[DeathEatsaCracker]

Oh, look what I found. It's even features one of my heroes I mentioned above, Dr. Michio Kaku.

 

[DeathEatsaCracker]

Kaku is fucking awesome. He is an incredibly smart person but like Neil deGrasse-Tyson, he speaks in a way that even us common-folk can understand.

 

[DeathEatsaCracker]

Time goes so much quicker the older you get. Birthday's, Christmas and Thanksgiving spin round when you're in your forties and fifties.

Don't confuse time itself with people's perception of time.

 

[DeathEatsaCracker]

This is actually the gist of the Cosmological Argument for a creator (GOD).

For centuries scientists thought that the universe always existed, but now the
consensus view is that the universe had a beginning.

Cosmological Argument:

1. Everything that begins to exist has a cause
2. The Universe began to exist
3. Therefore, the universe had a cause

Why is the first cause exempt?

 

[CHOPTALK]

Neil deGrasse might have a bigger ego then the universe he studies.

 

[DeathEatsaCracker]

Neil deGrasse might have a bigger ego then the universe he studies.

On what do you base this assertion?

 

[DrunkenHorseplayer]

“Heavier-than-air flying machines are impossible.” — Lord Kelvin, British mathematician and physicist, president of the British Royal Society, 1895.

“Rail travel at high speed is not possible because passengers, unable to breathe, would die of asphyxia.” — Dr Dionysys Larder (1793-1859), professor of Natural Philosophy and Astronomy, University College London.
​

You guys are basing your opinion on what we know now. What do you think we'll know in a few thousand years? We went from flying the first airplane to flying to the moon in 60 years. What we will be capable of doing in a few thousand will be beyond our comprehension.

Big difference between these things and going light speed. Anything can fly or travel on rails; it's simply a matter of finding enough propulsion. But in order to exceed light speed, it requires violating the laws of physics themslves; so unless and until the theory of relativity is disproved, it's not going to happen.

 

[DeathEatsaCracker]

Big difference between these things and going light speed. Anything can fly or travel on rails; it's simply a matter of finding enough propulsion. But in order to exceed light speed, it requires violating the laws of physics themslves; so unless and until the theory of relativity is disproved, it's not going to happen.

The examples are meant to illustrate that people base their assumptions of what we will or won't be able to do years from now off current conventional knowledge.

 

[X-Files]

That question has already been answered. The universe is not infinite, it is expanding.

It is growing? How can that be? Also you didn't answer the other Q's re finiteness,

"If finite, what happens when you get to the end of it? Can you keep going?"

 

[X-Files]

Big difference between these things and going light speed. Anything can fly or travel on rails; it's simply a matter of finding enough propulsion. But in order to exceed light speed, it requires violating the laws of physics themslves; so unless and until the theory of relativity is disproved, it's not going to happen.

Does an expanding universe defy the laws of physics?

How about time before a universe, or a universe being created from nothingness before the universe existed?
Does that defy the laws of physics, and logic and reason?

 

[festeringZit]

It is growing? How can that be? Also you didn't answer the other Q's re finiteness,

"If finite, what happens when you get to the end of it? Can you keep going?"

The universe is still expanding from it's initial "big bang"

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/08/19/science/space/19hubble.html?pagewanted=all

You never get to the "end of it" because the universe has no edge. Picture the
expansion like a balloon inflating. As it expands, all the points on the balloon
are getting further and further apart.

http://imagine.gsfc.nasa.gov/docs/ask_astro/answers/961202c.html

 

[festeringZit]

Does an expanding universe defy the laws of physics?

How about time before a universe, or a universe being created from nothingness before the universe existed?
Does that defy the laws of physics, and logic and reason?

Time is a measurement of motion. If there is no motion, there is no time.

 

[DeathEatsaCracker]

The universe is still expanding from it's initial "big bang"

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/08/19/science/space/19hubble.html?pagewanted=all

You never get to the "end of it" because the universe has no edge. Picture the
expansion like a balloon inflating. As it expands, all the points on the balloon
are getting further and further apart.

http://imagine.gsfc.nasa.gov/docs/ask_astro/answers/961202c.html

I am very proud of you. It was just a few years ago that you would have been arguing that the Earth was only several thousand years old. Can I ask what you read that made you change your mind? Also, it seems you believe in the Big Bang. How do you reconcile that with your disbelief in evolution?

These are serious questions meant for discussion, not to start a flame war.

 

[X-Files]

The universe is still expanding from it's initial "big bang"

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/08/19/science/space/19hubble.html?pagewanted=all

1) Into what space is it expanding? Another universe?

2) Big bang? What is that supposed to be, like a loud noise such as thunder? This makes me think of boom boom.

3) Did God create it that way, i.e. as a "big bang" & an ever expanding universe? Or is this just the way it always was or evolved to be, from slime somewhere?

You never get to the "end of it" because the universe has no edge. Picture the
expansion like a balloon inflating. As it expands, all the points on the balloon
are getting further and further apart.

http://imagine.gsfc.nasa.gov/docs/ask_astro/answers/961202c.html

I understand the concept of expansion as in a balloon inflating, but don't see how the balloon example supports your claim there is a) no end or b) edge to the universe. Clearly a balloon has both since it is finite. Any thing that is finite has an end or ends to it & an outer edge or edges. Wherever you can touch the outside of a balloon is one of its many ends and edges.

Can God touch the outside ends or edges of the universe? Could His creatures?

 

[X-Files]

Time is a measurement of motion. If there is no motion, there is no time.

Was there time or motion before the universe existed? Or has it always existed since eternity past?

How many universes are there?

 

[DrunkenHorseplayer]

1) Into what space is it expanding? Another universe?

2) Big bang? What is that supposed to be, like a loud noise such as thunder? This makes me think of boom boom.

3) Did God create it that way, i.e. as a "big bang" & an ever expanding universe? Or is this just the way it always was or evolved to be, from slime somewhere?

1) None; outside the universe space (and time) presumably don't exist.
2) A single atom of infinite density exploding; the source of all matter in the universe.
3) Unknown