• Hey Guest!
    British Car Forum has been supporting enthusiasts for over 25 years by providing a great place to share our love for British cars. You can support our efforts by upgrading your membership for less than the dues of most car clubs. There are some perks with a member upgrade!

    **Upgrade Now**
    (PS: Upgraded members don't see this banner, nor will you see the Google ads that appear on the site.)
Tips
Tips

Far out, man!

DrEntropy

Great Pumpkin
Platinum
Country flag
Offline
As far as the eye can see!
 
"500 times more massive than our Sun". Heavy, man, heavy.

We're seeing light from the beginnings of the Universe.
 
Incredible stuff. And anxious to see what the info from the James Webb will tell us once they get it all tweaked.
 
Remember the Twilight Zone or Outer Limits (?) episode where scientists are looking at a microbe, and in the microbe they find another Universe?
 
I wish I better understood maths. Those who do apparently opine that the universe is 93 billion light years in diameter, that nothing can travel faster than the speed of light, and that the universe is almost 14 billion years old. This indicates an expansion from the center of the of over 3 times the speed of light. I know that they know what they are doing infinitely more than I do, but WTF!!!?

Bob
 
I think you're talking Physics, more than Maths.

Interesting conundrum: if a "year" is one orbital revolution of Earth around the Sun, but Earth's revolution around the Sun is slower now than it was millions of years ago ... then how long was a "year" millions of years ago?

The mind boggles!
 
Interesting conundrum: if a "year" is one orbital revolution of Earth around the Sun, but Earth's revolution around the Sun is slower now than it was millions of years ago ... then how long was a "year" millions of years ago?
Maybe that's why the Federation came up with Star Dates?
 
I think you're talking Physics, more than Maths.

Interesting conundrum: if a "year" is one orbital revolution of Earth around the Sun, but Earth's revolution around the Sun is slower now than it was millions of years ago ... then how long was a "year" millions of years ago?

The mind boggles!
It's all Theia's fault!! :LOL:
 
nah - Theia got it right. It's Gaia that caused the problem.

:jester:
 
I wish I better understood maths. Those who do apparently opine that the universe is 93 billion light years in diameter, that nothing can travel faster than the speed of light, and that the universe is almost 14 billion years old. This indicates an expansion from the center of the of over 3 times the speed of light. I know that they know what they are doing infinitely more than I do, but WTF!!!?

Bob
Bob, I've read through books on physics, calculus, quantum theory tomes, Feynman's diagrams, Dyson, Einstein. Spoke personally with guys from CERN...

...but I stil come back to THIS as a best-guess. "I clutch my ideas."
 
Again without substantial understanding, I think that at this level physics is just numbers on a page. I suspect that in answer to the length-of-a-year question a qualified physicist would (try to) explain to us what a year is not under the "space-time" concept. This leads me to another question that bothers me about this discipline. Why, when some remote thing, observation or event does not behave according to the "laws of physics" do they decide that things like dark matter [DUNNOS- Dark Unknown Nondetectable Nonreflective Objects Somewhere (thank you Bill Bryson)] are the explanation that will provide the consistency? Why is it not allowed that the locally observed "laws of physics" are just different in different places. I just DUNNO.
Bob
 
or maybe, just maybe, we haven't discovered all the Laws of Physics.
well, with "Particle Duality" as a now given phenom, you may be right.
 
Doc-
This very thing compounds my misunderstanding reflected in my last post. Why is quantum physics irreconcilable with macro physics? The second sentence in this post was written before Doc and Mac's last posts. We seem to agree, so I will notify Michio immediately.
Bob
 
Why, when some remote thing, observation or event does not behave according to the "laws of physics" do they decide that things like dark matter [DUNNOS- Dark Unknown Nondetectable Nonreflective Objects Somewhere (thank you Bill Bryson)] are the explanation that will provide the consistency? Why is it not allowed that the locally observed "laws of physics" are just different in different places. I just DUNNO.
Somehow, the equations have to make sense. Dark matter seems to explain the otherwise "unbalanced" equation.
 
Dark Matter, "god particle", etc. - always useful to invent a new factor, when previously known factors don't solve a problem.
 
Why is quantum physics irreconcilable with macro physics?
The strong and weak forces down in the piddly bits don't adhere to what an apple falling from a tree must adhere to.
 
Not saying that it isn't possible that an invented concept consistent with doctrine and designed to explain a mystery may be right. They apparently have empirically verified the Higgs boson.
Bob
 
Back
Top