joe cool 360 wrote:It really is amazing, but consider that that's just one star. Imagine a couple trillion of those things all inside a galaxy. Now think of ten thousand of those galaxies composing a galactic cluster. Now think of several thousand of those clusters all are part of superclusters. Next try to think how there are about 10 million of those galactic supercluster in our universe. If your brain isn't fried yet, try considering that there is a possibility that our universe isn't the only one and that there could be infinitely many other universes all inside of one giant "multiverse" and what we have is the definition of mind-blowing.
Cool, and if I follow you correctly that means we have an infinite number of planets and on one of them a monkey is banging out the Complete Works of Shakespeare on a typewriter.
true, and on another is a monkey (actually I think it's supposed to be a chimp, but I digress) banging out the Complete Works of Shakespeare except that he gets Hamlet's most famous soliloquy sightly wrong and begins it with "To wee, or not to wee - that is the question"
joe cool 360 wrote:It really is amazing, but consider that that's just one star. Imagine a couple trillion of those things all inside a galaxy. Now think of ten thousand of those galaxies composing a galactic cluster. Now think of several thousand of those clusters all are part of superclusters. Next try to think how there are about 10 million of those galactic supercluster in our universe. If your brain isn't fried yet, try considering that there is a possibility that our universe isn't the only one and that there could be infinitely many other universes all inside of one giant "multiverse" and what we have is the definition of mind-blowing.
Cool, and if I follow you correctly that means we have an infinite number of planets and on one of them a monkey is banging out the Complete Works of Shakespeare on a typewriter.
I wonder what life in other parts of the universe is like, and how evolution forms complex species.
Minister Masket wrote::x There is poor science at work here.
Time has nothing to do with dimensions. wrestler said that time is the same for all dimensions, I think he's right. If you we were all 2D, like stickmen on a page, why would time be any different? No - SPACE is the right answer. Much in the same way a 2D character would not understand how he could walk in one direction and end up at the same spot on our 3D Earth, so it's the same for us trying to understand the 4D Universe.
joe cool 360 wrote:It really is amazing, but consider that that's just one star. Imagine a couple trillion of those things all inside a galaxy. Now think of ten thousand of those galaxies composing a galactic cluster. Now think of several thousand of those clusters all are part of superclusters. Next try to think how there are about 10 million of those galactic supercluster in our universe. If your brain isn't fried yet, try considering that there is a possibility that our universe isn't the only one and that there could be infinitely many other universes all inside of one giant "multiverse" and what we have is the definition of mind-blowing.
Cool, and if I follow you correctly that means we have an infinite number of planets and on one of them a monkey is banging out the Complete Works of Shakespeare on a typewriter.
true, and on another is a monkey (actually I think it's supposed to be a chimp, but I digress) banging out the Complete Works of Shakespeare except that he gets Hamlet's most famous soliloquy sightly wrong and begins it with "To wee, or not to wee - that is the question"
Yes that planet's called earth.
Maxleod wrote:Not strike, he's the only one with a functioning brain.
joe cool 360 wrote:It really is amazing, but consider that that's just one star. Imagine a couple trillion of those things all inside a galaxy. Now think of ten thousand of those galaxies composing a galactic cluster. Now think of several thousand of those clusters all are part of superclusters. Next try to think how there are about 10 million of those galactic supercluster in our universe. If your brain isn't fried yet, try considering that there is a possibility that our universe isn't the only one and that there could be infinitely many other universes all inside of one giant "multiverse" and what we have is the definition of mind-blowing.
Cool, and if I follow you correctly that means we have an infinite number of planets and on one of them a monkey is banging out the Complete Works of Shakespeare on a typewriter.
true, and on another is a monkey (actually I think it's supposed to be a chimp, but I digress) banging out the Complete Works of Shakespeare except that he gets Hamlet's most famous soliloquy sightly wrong and begins it with "To wee, or not to wee - that is the question"
jay_a2j wrote:hey if any1 would like me to make them a signature or like an avator just let me no, my sig below i did, and i also did "panther 88" so i can do something like that for u if ud like...
Minister Masket wrote::x There is poor science at work here.
Time has nothing to do with dimensions. wrestler said that time is the same for all dimensions, I think he's right. If you we were all 2D, like stickmen on a page, why would time be any different? No - SPACE is the right answer. Much in the same way a 2D character would not understand how he could walk in one direction and end up at the same spot on our 3D Earth, so it's the same for us trying to understand the 4D Universe.
Minister Masket wrote::x There is poor science at work here.
Time has nothing to do with dimensions. wrestler said that time is the same for all dimensions, I think he's right. If you we were all 2D, like stickmen on a page, why would time be any different? No - SPACE is the right answer. Much in the same way a 2D character would not understand how he could walk in one direction and end up at the same spot on our 3D Earth, so it's the same for us trying to understand the 4D Universe.
InkL0sed wrote:No, you attempted to apply common sense to science, which doesn't really work when talking about other dimensions...
I thought that string theory is beggining to be dismissed by many physicists?
jonesthecurl wrote:
strike wolf wrote:
jonesthecurl wrote:
CrazyAnglican wrote:
joe cool 360 wrote:It really is amazing, but consider that that's just one star. Imagine a couple trillion of those things all inside a galaxy. Now think of ten thousand of those galaxies composing a galactic cluster. Now think of several thousand of those clusters all are part of superclusters. Next try to think how there are about 10 million of those galactic supercluster in our universe. If your brain isn't fried yet, try considering that there is a possibility that our universe isn't the only one and that there could be infinitely many other universes all inside of one giant "multiverse" and what we have is the definition of mind-blowing.
Cool, and if I follow you correctly that means we have an infinite number of planets and on one of them a monkey is banging out the Complete Works of Shakespeare on a typewriter.
true, and on another is a monkey (actually I think it's supposed to be a chimp, but I digress) banging out the Complete Works of Shakespeare except that he gets Hamlet's most famous soliloquy sightly wrong and begins it with "To wee, or not to wee - that is the question"
Yes that planet's called earth.
"Wearth", actually...
Actually with a 10 million Earth-like planets in the Milky Way Galaxy alone, there may very well be a planet where monkeys bang out shakespere on typewriters. (Was it a hundred million or ten million?)
Check this out space freaks(TM-[in case someone tries to make a clan or something]) : http://news.aol.com/article/discovery-m ... 1201009580 New galaxy discovery? SCIENCE RULES! I don't need no women, I got's me a red spiral to get me high!
InkL0sed wrote:No, you attempted to apply common sense to science, which doesn't really work when talking about other dimensions...
I thought that string theory is beggining to be dismissed by many physicists?
Nope, that's oversimplifying the matter. Many physicists have always dismissed string theory because it is incredibly hard to test for things that are so tiny they make quarks look huge. But the math is so elegant that string theorists think that it must be true, at least to some extent.
InkL0sed wrote: Time is a dimension in String Theory.
Then have I just disproved string theory?
No, you attempted to apply common sense to science, which doesn't really work when talking about other dimensions...
Science is all about common sense. Remember Newton and the falling apple which led to the "discovery" of gravity? Or knowing that you shouldn't mix the red chemical with the blue one if you like the shape of your face....
InkL0sed wrote:Nope, that's oversimplifying the matter. Many physicists have always dismissed string theory because it is incredibly hard to test for things that are so tiny they make quarks look huge. But the math is so elegant that string theorists think that it must be true, at least to some extent.
So it's kinda Physicists VS Mathmaticians?
Welp, I can't boost either since I am so very, very weak at math.
InkL0sed wrote: Time is a dimension in String Theory.
Then have I just disproved string theory?
No, you attempted to apply common sense to science, which doesn't really work when talking about other dimensions...
Science is all about common sense. Remember Newton and the falling apple which led to the "discovery" of gravity? Or knowing that you shouldn't mix the red chemical with the blue one if you like the shape of your face....
Quantum Mechanics is very contrary to common sense, and that describes things almost infinitely bigger than strings would be.
InkL0sed wrote:Quantum Mechanics is very contrary to common sense, and that describes things almost infinitely bigger than strings would be.
To sort of side-track things a bit, I don't think it is possible for something to be almost infinite. Something that goes on forever has no end. For whatever large number you can provide that might be close to infinity, infinity is actually an infinate times larger than that number.
InkL0sed wrote:Quantum Mechanics is very contrary to common sense, and that describes things almost infinitely bigger than strings would be.
To sort of side-track things a bit, I don't think it is possible for something to be almost infinite. Something that goes on forever has no end. For whatever large number you can provide that might be close to infinity, infinity is actually an infinate times larger than that number.
jay_a2j wrote:hey if any1 would like me to make them a signature or like an avator just let me no, my sig below i did, and i also did "panther 88" so i can do something like that for u if ud like...
