Mindfug (physics questions)

[332nd]

Hmm i still dont think so. Our sun is too enormous not to touch anything. sure if a planet would to hit it that it would do nothing, just burn up completely and have no effect on us.  Plus it showed both galaxy passing by and nothing else happening. Wouldnt gravity on one or all bodies in our or the other galaxy have an effect on another? possible they merge together?

 

No, he's right. Think about it like this, Voyager 1 is the farthest man mande object from Earth. It's about 127 Astronomical units out. (AU= average distance from Earth to the Sun.)  it is in interstellar space.

 

Alpha Centauri is the closest star system to us at about 4.2 light years, so it takes 4.2 years for light from our sun to reach it... time to Voyager 1 is a little over 17 hours.

[shreddingdefense]

No, he's right. Think about it like this, Voyager 1 is the farthest man mande object from Earth. It's about 127 Astronomical units out. (AU= average distance from Earth to the Sun.)  it is in interstellar space.

 

Alpha Centauri is the closest star system to us at about 4.2 light years, so it takes 4.2 years for light from our sun to reach it... time to Voyager 1 is a little over 17 hours.

 Understood. I guess i was looking at it, there are tons of celestry bodies in our galaxy. (planets, the sun, moons, metoriates, heck even just small ice particles and rock debri). i figured at the very least one thing would collide with another if 2 galaxies would touch.  i dont think i buy the fact if they were to touch nothing would happen. Our sun puts gravitational force on our planets, hence why they are in constant orbit around it. Wouldnt it be fathomable that maybe when the galaxies collide that maybe the gravitational force would be unbalance for a moment, endinng in one of the planets going off orbit. Or maybe just a metorite from the other galaxy hiting a planet from our own? or anything in between.

 

Or perhaps i'm thinking too much lol

[sharkkiller]

I also am in the camp of why can't the idea of science and god coexist.  I hate arguing, all you do is waist your breath. I never truely believed that 7 days to god is the same time frame that us as humans experience. To him/her/it lol 1 billion years could feel like a split sec to how we perceive time.  I don't think life was made through the snap of the fingers, like a genie. But i do believe in both evolution and creationism. I think both go hand in hand. Isnt a creature evolving by its habitat or a mutant gene, just another way of saying a new creature was "created"? Could in theory god look at a creature and say. You know what, it be nice if that fish could breath, maybe grow legs to walk? *points at creature* and gives it some type of dna change.

 

No it wouldnt have a effect immediately. heck maybe the animal would have to have generations of offspring for that gene to finally kick in, thus walking breathing fish. lol

 

Correct me if I am wrong but doesn't the bible itself say that a second is like a million years to God?

 

I have always believed the same as you. That you can have it both ways. God created everything, but did it the way scientist say it was done. Creationism does not have to exclude evolution, nor vice versa. People just want to have something to argue about, I guess.

[KillerKat]

How can they claim the universe will end? They barely even know what it is, have next to no proof of its origin, can only see like 10% of it (I made that number up but it sounds right), and have little to no way of testing the universe. Guesswork is so boring. I love it when we can prove things, like with the Mars Rover, etc.

Exactly! I don't like how they make such definitive statements.

[Bronn]

The universe and our laws of physics exist because we are here to observe them.

With no observers, there is no existence.

 

Everything we "know" is a "If a tree falls in the woods" scenario on a fundamental level.

As an observer, it is up to you to determine your own conclusions.
 

 

[Big A]

Understood. I guess i was looking at it, there are tons of celestry bodies in our galaxy. (planets, the sun, moons, metoriates, heck even just small ice particles and rock debri). i figured at the very least one thing would collide with another if 2 galaxies would touch. i dont think i buy the fact if they were to touch nothing would happen. Our sun puts gravitational force on our planets, hence why they are in constant orbit around it. Wouldnt it be fathomable that maybe when the galaxies collide that maybe the gravitational force would be unbalance for a moment, endinng in one of the planets going off orbit. Or maybe just a metorite from the other galaxy hiting a planet from our own? or anything in between.

Or perhaps i'm thinking too much lol

Two of my favorite subjects, astrophysics and theoretical physics, y'all are missing out on a few very fundamental points. First off, collisions happen all the time including galaxies, even the Milky Way is forcast to collide with Adromeda in like almost 4 billion years. The Hubble telescope has helped reifine and give tons of proof for many theories. Some of the most recent accepted facts is that each galaxy is centered by super massive black holes at the center of spiral galaxies and colliding galaxies will eventually combine the black holes into one after colloding they have pictures from Hubble of two spiral galaxies actually colloding into each other ( arp 237 I think is the name). Actually the analysis of our own moon points to it being a captured planet that had a slight collision with earth prior to it having an atmosphere.

Aa for your original post, you're misunderstanding when they say cease to exist. It means cease to exist in current iteration, one of the fundamental laws of physics is matter can neither be created or destroyed. So the big bang event is seen as a cyclic event in many theories with many of new discoveries and supporting proof for many of the basic points. Elemental analysis provide proof that hydrogen was the first and only element in beginning and other elements came from it afterwards. The light shift of outer galaxies all prove they are all moving away from a central point, the heat signature out to maximum distance proves a single uniform event, only one force existed after Big Bang and gravity was the first force to break off from the 4.

Now anything past the accepted facts of BB thoughts are just theories and many have come and gone or evolved. Currently the string theory has been reworked into membrane theory and it's believed that a Big Bang happens in the multiverse of 11 dimensions and occurs where two membranes intersect.

TL:DR version

Celestial bodies collide all the the from planets to galaxies

The quotes shout an end is talking about an end to the present form, matter is not able to be created or destroyed.

[PhillyB]

Big A's life goal is to one day eat a planet

[frash.exe]

Physics can't explain why juggalos exist

[Seal (SmittyIsOurSavior)]

If the earth wasn't super melty and hot in the middle and someone dug a 10 x 10 foot hole all the way through the exact center of the earth...

 

If you jumped in, would you end up just floating in the dead center of the earth?

[Seal (SmittyIsOurSavior)]

Also, let me present one of my favorite Reddit comments ever. Worth a read for anyone who likes to think about philosophy and the potential of afterlife or whatever.

 

 

 

[–]StasisNation 240 points 23 hours ago

 

That we can't comprehend nothingness. We picture nothing as pure dark, or pure white. Devoid of everything, but the fact is our mind is filling nothingness with some sort of feature in order to visualize it, and you can't visualize nothing because it isn't there.

 

Can't visualize death, because we perceive ourselves as unmoving, unfeeling, inaudiable, etc etc etc in the blackest of black, but the simple fact that our perception of all that still exists means we have incorrectly visualized nothingness.

 

To which I wonder if nothingness can even be accomplished. You cannot have a devoid area. That area has an end barrier to contain all that nothingness, meaning nothingness is contained, and is therefore something.

 

Even if nothingness is limitless, you could have to move around within it to be sure. Meaning nothingness at the very least has an xyz axis for you to move around and look in. What's more, nothingness can't be infinite, because it would either: Collide with reality, and is contained, or you would eventually, through sheer luck, stumble upon reality, meaning nothingness is a container. Therefore, I have to conclude reality is simply what we perceive. When we die, we continue to exist with every possible perception, including self awareness, shut off. As we know energy cannot be destroyed, self-awareness is simply having enough energy to be alive, or functional. As our energy rots away in caskets, or a hole in the ground, our atoms are slowly split up between the ground, earthworms, floods, magma, everything that makes us, well us is divided up amongst the earth.

 

After that, there is an infinitely implausible chance that one day, these atoms will come together through bacterial infection in the uterus and sperm banks, and we may have a chance at being turned on once again. Assuming the earth doesn't explode and our atoms fired across the universe.

 

Anyway, I think I just convinced myself that reincarnation is statistically the most probable belief.

 

Tl;Dr I have never been to Kansas.

[Big A]

If the earth wasn't super melty and hot in the middle and someone dug a 10 x 10 foot hole all the way through the exact center of the earth...

If you jumped in, would you end up just floating in the dead center of the earth?

Assuming away a lot of forces that would affect the trip through hole, if you jumped into a hole on one side, you accelerate to close to Mach 3 and pop out on the other side coming to a stop above surface of other side about 45 minutes later, then drop back in and pop back up on original side another 45 min later. Basically you'll just bop up and down between surfaces. The gravity reduces as you get closer to center with no force at middle and then begins to pull you back after passing center. You don't stop because of speed and it takes till you get to other surface to come to a complete stop and back in like a spring

[Jangler]

http://screen.yahoo.com/hole-diggers-000000883.html

[shreddingdefense]

If the earth wasn't super melty and hot in the middle and someone dug a 10 x 10 foot hole all the way through the exact center of the earth...

 

If you jumped in, would you end up just floating in the dead center of the earth?

 

 

I cant embed video but video tells you what would happen if the earth was hollow and you fell through it like a verticle shaft.

 

edit: nevermind did it for me lol

[Big A]

Also, let me present one of my favorite Reddit comments ever. Worth a read for anyone who likes to think about philosophy and the potential of afterlife or whatever.

[–]StasisNation 240 points 23 hours ago

That we can't comprehend nothingness. We picture nothing as pure dark, or pure white. Devoid of everything, but the fact is our mind is filling nothingness with some sort of feature in order to visualize it, and you can't visualize nothing because it isn't there.

Can't visualize death, because we perceive ourselves as unmoving, unfeeling, inaudiable, etc etc etc in the blackest of black, but the simple fact that our perception of all that still exists means we have incorrectly visualized nothingness.

To which I wonder if nothingness can even be accomplished. You cannot have a devoid area. That area has an end barrier to contain all that nothingness, meaning nothingness is contained, and is therefore something.

Even if nothingness is limitless, you could have to move around within it to be sure. Meaning nothingness at the very least has an xyz axis for you to move around and look in. What's more, nothingness can't be infinite, because it would either: Collide with reality, and is contained, or you would eventually, through sheer luck, stumble upon reality, meaning nothingness is a container. Therefore, I have to conclude reality is simply what we perceive. When we die, we continue to exist with every possible perception, including self awareness, shut off. As we know energy cannot be destroyed, self-awareness is simply having enough energy to be alive, or functional. As our energy rots away in caskets, or a hole in the ground, our atoms are slowly split up between the ground, earthworms, floods, magma, everything that makes us, well us is divided up amongst the earth.

After that, there is an infinitely implausible chance that one day, these atoms will come together through bacterial infection in the uterus and sperm banks, and we may have a chance at being turned on once again. Assuming the earth doesn't explode and our atoms fired across the universe.

Anyway, I think I just convinced myself that reincarnation is statistically the most probable belief.

Tl;Dr I have never been to Kansas.

So basically because some of our 7 with 27 zeros after it number of atoms that make up our body may one day become part of another sentient being, that's statistical proof of likely chance of reincarnation? Because of the way someone can perceive nothingness, means it is actually something? Kinda terribly weak stuff, heck, we can just point out that every atom in existence was born in the center of a burning star and is thus related and proves 100% chance of reincarnation. The main issue is the general idea of reincarnation involves the person living on in an a somewhat similar form, not the possibility of an atom from someone's eyelid a thousand years later become in a atom of someone else's toenail.