Master_Valek wrote:
Iron.. stick to chess, because you physics knowledge is somewhat lacking.
Haha, this is rich.
psychic chess masters
Sort:
Master_Valek wrote:
Irontiger wrote:
Master_Valek wrote:
There is STRONG theoretical reasons we believe the universe is pretty much infinite.
There are also strong theoretical reasons to believe it is not.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shape_of_the_Universe#Spherical_universe
Topology for dummies ahead.
If you live in 2D on a plane, and decide to explore and see if it is finite or infinite, either you will reach the border of the world and then you are sure it is finite, or you will walk forever and gets as far as you want of your intial point.
But if you live, again in 2D, but on a sphere, you can walk forever without meeting a "border". Yet, the area of the world is finite.
You can discriminate between the two universes because they have different geometrical properties - for example, on the plane, the sum of the angles of a triangle is always 180° which is not true on a sphere - but this gets harder and harder as the sphere becomes bigger because then it becomes locally flatter.Now, imagine this is the same but in 3D.
The wikipedia I quote does not make reference to the very recent measurements of the universe's curvature that tend to indicate that the universe is not a sphere as in the previous analogy.
What the hell are you talking about? There is actually very little evidence it is finite. The only time we speak about finite universe, is when there is an omega-point. This means, there is a calculated end of the universe history, which there appears to be no evidence of. In fact, the universe is now expanding faster than light, which means it is expanding more which gravity can take control of. Gravity if it has an influence in the universe, would have slowed down the expansion of space. But this is not what we are seeing which means you have no clue what you are talking about.
1- You mix up gravity as a local space deformation (ie, the effects of gravitation decrease to 0 as you go far from its source) and the global shape of the universe.
There are waves in the sea, it doesn't prevent the Earth to be approximatively a sphere.
2-You mix up models. That's not spherical versus extension.
Again, with my 2D analogy, it would be possible that the world was finite (a sphere) and in expansion (the sphere swells like a balloon in which you blow). It is also possible that the world is infinite (a plane) yet in expansion (imagine a plate on metal expanding with high temperature : each point runs away from each other at a instantaneous speed proportional to their distance).
What we are seeing "easily" is expansion via the Doppler effect. Just look at a far-distant star, the emission wavelengths (hydrogen, helium, etc.) are shifted to the red (ie longer wavelengths) compared to nearest stars. So there is little doubt that there is expansion.
What we do NOT see easily is the curvature of the universe. Basically, draw a triangle and sum the angles. If the sum is greatly superior to 180°, then you are on a sphere and the radius of the sphere is not far from the length of the sides. If the sum is 180° or near, you cannot be sure if you are on a plane or on a huge sphere - you can have an idea of how huge the sphere needs to be at least, and a sphere of infinite radius = a plane.
There were some evidence that pointed to a finite universe five years ago, but now the Planck (satellite) photos point in the other direction. But the finite universe is a serious possibility. Take a look at this. I chose a non-too-hard-to-understand paper : http://scienceblogs.com/startswithabang/2013/03/01/how-big-is-our-observable-universe/
Yes, I know what I am talking about, actually I have a master's degree in physics. I wouldn't say the same of you, when you consider the Alcubierre drive as a possible means of transportation.
One only has to go back a page or so to your claim of faster-than-light travel to understand just how little credibility you have questioning anyone else's understanding of physics.
Master_Valek wrote:
When it comes to stupidity, there is no contest with me.
Ding ding ding! Now there was the answer I was looking for.
May 28, 2013
0
#888
Master_Valek wrote:
It really doesn't take a lot to actually get your facts straight!
Now all we need are some facts.
Master_Valek wrote:
TheGrobe wrote:
One only has to go back a page or so to your claim of faster-than-light travel to understand just how little credibility you have questioning anyone else's understanding of physics.
My god... the stupidity... nothing can go faster than light. Not even an alcubierre drive goes faster than light, it folds space and time. Also, antimatter devices wouldn't allow a physical machine to travel faster than light. But it comes damn closer than any vehicle known.
Ahem:
Master_Valek wrote:
An example is antimatter propulsion systems... we could actually reach the nearest star system (which is millions of lightyears away) in only a few years - the reason why we haven't is because making antimatter is very expensive.
My god... the stupidity... is right.
Master_Valek wrote:
TheGrobe wrote:
And all of this is the most plausible explanation for some lights in the sky?
Not just lights... we are not talking about just lights in the sky. We are talking about a long sworded history of our own airforce tracking these objects and attempting to shoot them from our own airspace!!!....
Tell me more about long sworded history?
That sounds good! (sordid)
May 28, 2013
0
#891
Master_Valek wrote:
Our limited means of reaching such propulsion systems in fact results in us being class 1 civilization I believe. There are three classes of civilizations which could exist, increasing levels attributed to most advanced civilizations.
This stuff is straight out of Michio Kaku.
For the Master_Valek thing dealing with me as if I did not know anything about physics, you have my links and his posts to decide who is the ignorant who repeats and deforms what he hears in emissions like 'the mysteries of universe in thirty seconds' and who is really competent.
Moving on.
The more I know about physics, the less I know about it.
Ahh, the uncertainty principle.
Yes, at least that way I am principled!
Oh look, the OP's precious thread is back! Now we can stop posting in the other off-topic one. 
You mean pseudo-physics.
Anyone who has even a basic understanding of physics can see that you have no credibility on this subject.
You're in the wrong thread @Master Valence.
The "light decay thread" calls out for your pea brain.
http://www.chess.com/forum/view/off-topic/has-light-got-a-decay-factor
You'll fit right in. Fame and fortune await you.