Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

[G-Flex]

He just said it split off from another universe. There's not necessarily any energy gain still going on.

[Ampersand]

Precisely. Cells require energy to divide, but they already have that energy, and can expend it. The resultant cells can continue to divide until they run out of steam and die.

The real point is that I was making a metaphor to describe something far more complicated than it sounds.

[RAM]

Make a 'bad' universe and chuck all the excessive entropy and gravity in there and let them duke it out in private without bothering all your happy little planetoids...

[Ampersand]

Hey. A way to reverse entropy. Asimov will not be pleased.

[MrWiggles]

Hey. A way to reverse entropy. Asimov will not be pleased.

*laughs*

[SolarShado]

Too lazy to look it up myself, isn't that quote about sufficiently advanced technology being indistinguishable from magic from Asimov? It's propapbly my favorite quote ever.

And re: expanding universe: last i heard, the current theors says it's expanding faster than she speed of light. i would assume that means it's infinite for any practical pupose, until we figure out FTL travel. assuming that's possible. If humanity doesn't destroy itself first, i immagine we'll figure it out eventually.

and i agree with father_alexander: you believe what makes you feel good, and i'll believe what i want.

[Mel_Vixen]

It was Arthur C Clarke. The Guy who brought us Geostationary satellites. (died 19.March.2008).

[Idiom]

Last I heard the universe was created by a collision of vibrating (much like sound, so I've always got a laugh at "the Lord spoke and it was") super-dimensional blah blah blah theoretical strings which resulted in an explosion of various kinds of matter that we are of. When you consider we do the same thing further down the hierarchy with common matter in particle accelerators, it really doesn't sound that impossible to create a big bang.

[LegoLord]

I actually thought of that before, during private musings one day when I couldn't focus on class.  If one could discover how the big bang happened, it could potentially be replicated; if it worked in the faster-than-light-expansion-from-nothing, then by somehow containing the process, could we produce infinite energy?

[MrWiggles]

I actually thought of that before, during private musings one day when I couldn't focus on class.  If one could discover how the big bang happened, it could potentially be replicated; if it worked in the faster-than-light-expansion-from-nothing, then by somehow containing the process, could we produce infinite energy?

Though the rules for the first 4 minuets of the big bang were different they they are now, any induced big bang would be beheld to the rules now. Perpetual energy is impossible. Don't blame me, blame nineteenth century mathematicians.

[Mel_Vixen]

Yep thats right iirc. Thought there are theories that state that the multiverse is some kind of foam. So for energy you would have just to open a wormhole to a bigbang-universe. That this wormholes are mathematical possible was proven also iirc.

[Sowelu]

Proven possible?  No.

In any case there's that whole matter/antimatter fun stuff.  It's expected to be in a balance.  Where's the rest of it?  Who knows!  But it's probably somewhere.

In general my understanding of modern "creating a big bang" theory is that, if it happens anywhere, it would be at a smaller scale than we can use, and it would be hard-or-impossible to interact with.  If a region of space is expanding so fast that, outside of a certain horizon, it is impossible to ever go or receive information from...well, you might as well be in your own totally contained universe, right?  How could you ever know it was inside another one?

[Sordid]

Proven possible?  No.

Yes. -> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wormhole

[LegoLord]

Proven possible, yes, but not actually proven to exist.  Just that there is plenty enough suggesting they can and no evidence saying they can't, without sufficient evidence saying they do.  It's a possibility, of course.

[MrWiggles]

Proven possible, yes, but not actually proven to exist.  Just that there is plenty enough suggesting they can and no evidence saying they can't, without sufficient evidence saying they do.  It's a possibility, of course.

IC what your doing there.

Proof of Burden is smaller. There proof for it. There not alot disagreement about it.

Wormholes as a proposal without anything backing it, the default claim would be still to say its not there.

Wormholes have been proven to exist indirectly. Finding one, would be conformation of something known to exist. It in a similar state that black holes where.

Known to exist, but yet to be observed.