Obligatory Monthly Plug Drug's Philosophical Ramblings Thread

[Plug Drugs]

Isn't it strange to think that we are all alive and thinking, right here, right now?
Time will stretch on forever, and our existence is just just a minuscule momentary blip sandwiched between two never-ending eternities. Yet here we are - experiencing right here, and right now.

It can't help but make you wonder "What are the odds?" After all, it would seem improbable for us to just so happen to exist like this.
However, what I'm about to argue that the odds of our existence may not be so small after all - in fact our existence might be guaranteed.

First, I would like you to imagine this concept:
Welcome to primordial chaos; it is a multi-dimensional mass of everything, and it contains all possibilities. All possible universes, all possible scenarios within those universes, and every conceivable possible universe is contained within it. The primordial chaos sits undisturbed in a state of timelessness. Contained within it, is your existence and my existence. So as you can see, your existence is not the result of mere chance, but was a guarantee.

If we look at the shear probability of it, the existence of this "primordial chaos" is far more likely to be the case than "existing out of mere coincidence". Otherwise our universe and all existence was "one shot" and that's it, after our universe ends, there is nothing after that.

For reasons in the physics of the matter which I'm about to go over, a "primordial chaos" isn't just "more likely sounding", but must be the case.


First, we have to consider the old newtonian truth "Energy can never be created nor destroyed, it can merely change from one form to another", and if by extension we incorporate Einstein's theory that matter and energy are equivalent and can be exchanged with one another, we could go on to say it as "Matter/energy can never be created nor destroyed, but merely change form". Now, let us also consider the old newtonian truth "for every action there is an equal and opposite reaction" to arrive at a conclusion: The only thing that could have caused the event of our universe's creation (the "Big Bang") is the destruction of a previous universe. Since energy can never be simply "created" as this would just contradict physical causality, the energy of our universe's creation (the big bang) had to have come from somewhere. The most obvious assumption then would that the energy required for the creation of a universe would be equivocal to the energy sustained by the destruction of another universe.

But by what physical mechanism could a universe's destruction lead to the creation of another? Our current physics models show us that our universe is expanding outwards from the point of the big bang, and not only is it expanding, but it is accelerating, which will eventually result in the dispersion of all matter into pure energy once that matter has accelerated to the speed of light and its very fabric breaks down into energy, and that would be it - nothing special or significant would happen after that given our current physics models, there'd just be loose energy propagating outwards in every direction from a point of origin, with no matter in existence left.

I don't think that this could be possibly be right. I think our physics models just aren't developed enough yet to lead to any assumptions about what happens after the contents of our universe has reached the speed of light and annihilated itself.
I propose a new theory to provide an explanation:
Everything is equivalent to each other, and the mechanisms behind all physical phenomenon are in system where they are all dependent on each other and flow with each other. This would imply that All Physical Constants are actually derived from One Physical Constant, and the various physical constants merely result from our different ways of measuring the One Physical Constant for different phenomenon. This one physical constant is, as should be obvious: c , the speed of light. All other physical constants are actually just derived from the speed of light.

For instance, let us look at how this applies to just one of the physical constants: The Planck Unit, the unit for measuring distances at the subatomic level. The Planck Unit must actually be derived from the speed of light, which gives us a new perspective on what 'distance' is: euclidean space is generated by the light which propagates through it, and therefore the unit of distance used to form a visualized 'grid' of space must be dependent on the speed of light, and in some way can be derived from it.


This has some interesting implications: Space and time are equivalent with matter and energy, and both are can be created out of the other. As in the famous Einsteinian theory, time is relative and is only a measurement of change between two objects relative to each other, and is in a continuum with space. Space is created by the very light which propagates through it, and residual "dark energy" holds up the backbone of seemingly empty space. And now we must take a new outlook on space and matter and how they relate to each other: Matter is actually a tangle of space itself, and the various subatomic particles are actually just different variations in how space is able to become tangled.

Now here's how relativity fits into this: without matter occupying space, the very grid of space itself ceases to have dimensions, as time and space are only relative, they are measurements made between one object relative to another. With no matter occupying space, the concept of "distance" erodes, and after all the matter in the universe accelerates to the point of annihilating itself, the remaining light/energy in the universe will be a point of singularity. Remember, all there really is in the universe is just light. Space is just light, and matter being a tangle of space is also light. Distance is a relative measurement being made between two objects and doesn't actually exist, nor does time. There is merely light tangled with itself. Upon reaching a point of singularity after the annihilation of matter, all of that remaining energy starts another big bang.
That is the most counter-intuitive thing to grasp: how could the size of the entire universe, which had been inflating at accelerating speeds since the big bang and was unimaginably massive one moment, be just a minuscule singularity, a mere point of "something", the next moment. It ceases to be counter-intuitive after remembering that all size is relative, and a massive inflated universe with nothing in it is the same size as a universe just beginning.

During this transition, the speed of light (the lone physical constant) effectively inverts itself.
But why does this happen? Why is matter accelerating outwards from the point where the big bang happened? Think of this: Everytime a particle is annihilated, there is one less particle in the universe for other particles to be relative to, and since time and space are relative, this actually destabilizes the grid of space itself and increases the progression of time. So imagine and visualize if you will, the utter chaos occuring during the period toward's the universe's life once all the particles within it have accelerated to the point of annihilating themselves; each particle that annihilates itself is causing the process to occur faster, more sporadically, and more chaotically. As less and less particles remain, the laws of physics themselves begin to break down. The first and most evident is time, which would be highly distorted. The next would be the grid of space itself. Macroscopically, distance between particles and the mass of those particles of themselves would distort and fluctuate chaotically.

Finally, at the very final stage, the resulting mass (and space) defying Higg's bosons invert the universe and trigger another bigbang.

[Dustin]

:0replies:

[Plug Drugs]

continuing off of the above; our universe could be thought of not as expanding, but staying the same size while it's contents are shrinking; the "knots of space itself", which is what all particles of matter actually are, are constantly trying to untangle themselves; the energy released from the untangling is added to the universe's background radiation, and the particle would seemingly be "shrinking" (as are all other particles at the same time, since they are undergoing the same process). Think of it like a balloon you've blown but not tied, and you let go of it and let it slowly release its air and sputter across the room. It travels through the air, releasing more air as it goes causing it to get smaller and faster as it goes.

[Dustin]

:0replies:

[juji]

You used a lot of drugs

[Plug Drugs]

"Gravity", then could be thought of as an effect from "space being tangled".. As a particle travels, there would be "more space" in the direction of other matter, since they are a tangle of space. The tangling up of space warps the surrounding grid, causing other tangles of space to be more inclined to slide in the direction of the other tangles.

The exact entropy of the tangle determines which subatomic particle it is; with some tangles having various tiers of entropy, and others just being a different kind of tangle altogether. The interactions which occur between different kinds of tangles coming within proximity of each other, or when a tangle 'decays' or becomes untangled, make up all of the fundamental forces besides gravity. This is why gravity has no force carrying boson, but is merely a result of the innate geometry of space.

The varying complexities of certain tangles and how they differ from others is such that certain attributes of theirs can only be described using terms like "spin", "charge", and "flavor".

[Plug Drugs]

Now, the arduous task that needs undertaking is for someone to actually draw/visualize these tangles; what the grid of space looks like tangled up into a particle; and the exact process of it getting tangled. Can't be drawn on paper, it would need to be done on a computer

[macpro]

http://apod.nasa.gov/apod/image/1203/scaleofuniverse_huang.swf?bordercolor=white

[lnopia the great]

is that the link he is pasting this from

[rootbeer]

:0replies:

wow, your signature is too good for you. i think you should give it to me.

[Dustin]

http://24.media.tumblr.com/4ef63ee8f535336a02998b7c53073919/tumblr_mmrolgPvs21r0v4u4o1_1280.jpg

[sex with dead people]

Fuck you plug drugs you insane bastard

[maks]

http://24.media.tumblr.com/4ef63ee8f535336a02998b7c53073919/tumblr_mmrolgPvs21r0v4u4o1_1280.jpg

[Plug Drugs]

^^

[Camoron]

v v

[Plug Drugs]

is that the link he is pasting this from
i didnt paste anything from anything; this is one of my hobbies - to take speed and try solve the mysteries of the universe without the equipment or the education to even begin to do so. Because its fun

*my prescribed dose of speed, i might add, ahem

[Plug Drugs]

Anyways, continuing where I left off earlier, the very initial stages of the "big bang" probably did not resemble an explosion, but rather it resembled this:
http://s23.postimg.org/u4i4dnyyz/sacredgeombigbang.png

[Plug Drugs]

And that same process in that picture I made above is also the beginning of the formation for "Solomon's Key", which is not a coincidence.

[Plug Drugs]

wait i cant remember if its solomon's key or solomon's lily or something else; its some geometric pattern in Sacred Geometry which explains the creation of everything out of nothing, step by step.

[Plug Drugs]

Have you read about this and tried to follow it along all the way up to the other 11 ( or however many it is, I forget) dimensions?

yeah, but there's something else that starts out just like that which builds up to explaining space and time forming out of a simple geometrical progression. It ends up forming a symbol though, it doesn't go through the 10/11 dimensions, but I know what you're talking about. It's basically an attempt to explain how the universe could form out of absolutely nothing at all:
the nothingness/void would have an absolute value of 1, thereby turning the nothingness into somethingness. Then, this somethingness having a value of 1 causes the alternative (a value of 0) to appear alongside it; this forms two points, which then form a line: the first dimension.
I always struggle imagining any more after that. It's not like the similar progression which shows the 10/11 dimensions, which is what I think you're referring to; the progression I'm talking about ends up forming a certain symbol in Sacred Geometry, and those believing in SG think of the symbol as "what God used to create the universe".

[juji]

First Off:

1- You aren't a math thinker.

2- You don't believe the math is an universe as the requirement to the origin of life.

3- You forgot about the instances of dots are cloned from others and recreate them like a microbe.

[clay]

http://i.imgur.com/gJEjjjN.jpg

[rubycalaber]

deep and independant [sic] thinking :smug:

[rubycalaber]

First Off:

1- You aren't a math thinker.

2- You don't believe the math is an universe as the requirement to the origin of life.

3- You forgot about the instances of dots are cloned from others and recreate them like a microbe.

now THATS independant thinking, good work

[Plug Drugs]

here just dug up this video i saw a few years back; this guy is talking about something similar, when you get more data give it a look
rx31y1KKK3E

[juji]

There goes again.
You are discovering the math.

[Plug Drugs]

First Off:

1- You aren't a math thinker.

2- You don't believe the math is an universe as the requirement to the origin of life.

3- You forgot about the instances of dots are cloned from others and recreate them like a microbe.
who are you talking to

[Plug Drugs]

People used to accuse me of copying and pasting stuff

It's actually a compliment, it comes from dimwits incapable of deep and independant thinking. Besides there is way too many inacuracies for that to be a previously published essay. You need to back up many of the statements with references.

I didn't read it all but read a little bit of it, there was a lot I would contest with some of your claims. Are you familiar with the theory of "The big freeze"?
yeah lol i noticed those inaccuracies and grammar errors but can only edit a thread for like 5 minutes after you make it

and no, tell me about the big freeze

[Plug Drugs]

i'm guessing its something to do with the heat death of the universe?
i think ive heard about it now that i think about it

[Plug Drugs]

woah i just got a great idea

[Plug Drugs]

i should take more drugs, because my mind is boring right now

[Plug Drugs]

i gotta blast out the cobwebs

[Plug Drugs]

well that can't be good, i've slammed like 6 bottles of water in the past 2 hours and my piss is still golden brown..

[Plug Drugs]

There goes again.
You are discovering the math.
uhhh what
so you were talking to me earlier? what makes you say i'm not a mathematical person, other than a need to view others as being somehow inferior
i'll have you know blah blah blah credentials

[Autistic Spectrum]

do you believe in killing babies, i myself do not,

[Plug Drugs]

I would need to see how this theory progresses further to accept it. As it stands I think it has a fundamental flaw that many philosophers have also made. It fails to grasp the concept of "nothing", a non-existence, it attempts to deal with this failure on concept by simply replacing the concept of "nothing" with "something" and even goes so far as to give the "nothing" a value in an attempt to make it tangible. Similar fundamental flaws in logic have also been used in the philisophical arguments used in trying to prove the existence of god. You cannot replace "nothing" (or in other arguments a "god" that not exist) with "something", let alone attribute a value or point of existence to it because basicall the "nothing" is simply not there, it is not exisiting and so it can not be affected by a "something" and cannot be attributed a value. Descartes makes a similar failure in concept when attempting to compare a god that exists with a god that does not exist. He fails to concieve of a god that does not exist and so to deal with this simply replaces a non existence god with a decieving demon, basically positing a god of a different nature where one simply should not exist in order to have a tangible point in his theory to compare the god that does exist to and that is a fundamental flaw in which all subsequent logic that rests on this flawed. A god that does not exist cannot be compared to a god that does exist simply because the god that doesn't exist is just not there to compare against, nor can you attribute any kind of nature to it, decieving or not. In a similar way you cannot posit a true "nothingness" into a theory of "something" and attribute it a value, it is simply not there. If it is there then it is in fact not "nothing" that you are dealing with but instead "something". This does not turn a "nothing" into "something" it instead is two points of "something" and the concept of "nothing" completely fails. As such I do not accept that this theory explains how "something" came out of "nothing", it completely fails to even grasp the concept of "nothing" (which like infinity is a hard concept to grasp) and instead it seems like an infantile idea of how "something" was created and came to be out of "something", both somethings having a value attributed to them. It literally has nothing to do with "nothing".

Do you believe in a prime mover? I myself do not.

You're right; its really just a desperate attempt made by philosophers for thousands of years to cope with the concept of nothingness; to try and make sense of the thought experiment "If at one point in time, there was absolutely nothing in existence, then how did something come out of nothing???"

Although with eternal recurrence, there doesn't need to be an answer to that question, as the reason there is "something" in existence is because there has always been "something" in existence, and there will continue to be "something" in existence until the end of time, because "something" can never be created nor destroyed, it can only change form.

[Plug Drugs]

All we've got to do is prove that our universe will eventually, for some reason, start over as another big bang; and explain the exact physical mechanism responsible.
I think it depends on the nature of light and space; because our universe is inflating when ideally we'd need to have it retract eventually in order for another big bang to occur, one of the only things I can think of then for physically verifying eternal recurrence would be to somehow view space itself as illusory - a byproduct of something else - such that an inflating universe could still lead to the creation of another big bang after its own destruction. Otherwise its heat death, and after all the particles in the universe annihilate themselves due to acceleration, all that will be left is radiation flying out into nowhere that will never interact with anything ever again.. and that's a pretty nihilistic and unsatisfactory thing to settle on, don't you think?

[Plug Drugs]

Who else can write essay sized posts about nothing?

lol

This is why I became friends with this prick :)
aww thank you

[Plug Drugs]

It depends on what exactly is holding up the backbone of space itself, dark energy or dark matter, and how it operates. As Einstein put it, all motion is relative, and with that considered there shouldn't even BE a grid of space, because an object only has velocity relative to other matter. If there were only one object in existence with nothing for it to be relative to, that object accelerating would be virtually identical to the same object standing still. Yet, if dark energy or dark matter is maintaining a backbone for space, then an object will always have a position relative to the dark matter/energy in the space around it that it's traveling through.

Also I don't know if I expanded on it enough earlier, but the reason that all matter in the universe will eventually annihilate itself due to accelerating to the speed of light is also due to relativity: since the speed of light must remain constant (light can't travel faster than other light, all light travels at the same speed), objects in motion literally "shrink" in the direction they're traveling, since the light/radiation emitted from that object must remain at the same speed despite the object itself accelerating.
The light coming off the front of a train going 20 miles per hour travels at the same speed as the light coming off a train going 30 miles per hour - the only way for this to happen is for the train to literally shrink in the direction that it is traveling, though at such low speeds it can't be noticed.
However, when a particle with mass reaches full light speed, it will completely shrink and no longer have mass. The structure of the particle at that point is ripped apart into pure energy.

If matter is a tangle of space, then this "being ripped apart" would have a paradoxical consequence: the "tangle of space" would have to be untangled, literally generating new space around the annihilated particle. But this "new space" wouldn't be able to disperse outwards faster than the speed of light -- the paradox here being that said particle was already traveling at the speed of light, so what happens to the "newly generated space"?? Perhaps that is what creates a Higg's boson, the "new space" that was generated couldn't disperse due to it's speed being capped, so it remains "packaged space" traveling as a boson at the speed of light, the Higg's boson. Then once the Higg's boson decays, the "packaged space" could finally disperse, which could end up causing new tangles in space to form (hence, the Higg's boson creating matter)

[Camoron]

what then indeed

[Plug Drugs]

One thing that concerns me is, will existence ever be endangered by too many particles being created, or perhaps too few?? What if every Higg's boson at the start of a particular universe fails to generate matter, ending the cycle of eternal recurrence?

[Camoron]

why dont you guys jsut get back on skype lmao nobody cares

[Plug Drugs]

what if there are other universes being created all the time, maybe even an infinate amount of them comming into being or inflating, they include all possibilities, have different physical properties all due to chance, but as there is an infinate amount of them the universe as we know it, with the exact properties as we know it had to occur, and is actually occuring an infinate number of times, but there are other possibilities and universes that exist, some may contain properties that make them implode on themselves and reignite and others do not, ours does not, but throughout the infinate universes all possibilities that could occur under all possible properties a universe could have DO occur. But in our universe the exact properties of our universe do not allow for it to collapse again? What then?
That's the thing though, I don't think there could be a universe with properties that far different from our own, because the physical constants are not values which could have been anything different than what they are, they are innate - and I think they are all derived from the speed of light anyways..

How much can universes vary when it comes to their initial conditions? Maybe depending on how much matter is in a universe, it can either inflate exponentially, linearly, or inflate then retract... I'm going to have to look up the math again on how they came to the conclusion that the matter in the universe is accelerating exponentially, maybe I can figure out whether or not it could have been different for another universe.

[Camoron]

guys just get on skype and kiss and make up

[Plug Drugs]

Well, wikipedia is saying that the main explanation proposed for an accelerating universe is the nature of dark energy in that it tends to spread out fairly homogenously in space. Which would mean that as the universe expands, the dark energy in the universe thins out, leaving a thinner medium that becomes increasingly easier for matter to travel through. So that makes me wonder, will it necessarily ever thin out to the point that matter reaches the speed of light and annihilates itself?
That is very interesting, because it would mean that with dark energy stretched that thin, all matter would travel through space with such ease that any amount of kinetic energy and a particle would immediately be traveling at light speed.

It's starting to sound in my head a lot like what I was saying earlier, about the laws of physics themselves starting to break down once the universe reaches the age where particle annihilation due to acceleration occurs

[Plug Drugs]

That's it; once dark energy is stretched that thin, particles begin annihilating themselves, producing Higg's bosons which decay into particles that immediately annihilate themselves, over and over, and it's complete chaos. It might be such an energetic phenomenon that it literally rips apart spacetime, wiping the board clean for the next big bang

[Plug Drugs]

I'm reading more about it now, and no one knows. It depends on the density of dark matter - whether its density is a constant, it gets less dense, or gets more dense with time. Doesn't look like anyone's been able to figure out any concrete math on dark energy's density at this point in time.

[Plug Drugs]

i disagree

The properties of this universe are by chance and not at all necessary, in fact if there were other universes you would most definately find ones where say matter never condensed, universes without matter, without gravity as we know it, the possibilities are endless but in a scenario where there are many even infinate number of universes created it is even necessary that there are some so alien to this one, ones where even matter wasn't produced. In fact it is very easy to concieve of how a universe could be created and never condsense to form matter and even that would not be as different to our own universe as other possibilities.
Where are these other universes though? Are they physically outside the boundaries of our universe, but we just haven't collided with another universe yet? Are they in alternate dimensions? Are they perhaps permanently separate from us such that we could never interact with them in any way, but they exist nonetheless?
That's almost straying into the more philsophical: the void, the chaos, there is everything and nothing, all possibility. What if our very existence is 'just' a virtual possibility, and isn't even actually happening? It's just chaos telling a story that changes and shifts at its own whim.

It's thoughts like these that make me start to think that all there is in the universe is "mind", and everything else is a projection. That's when shit starts getting creepy and I can no longer differentiate between a chaotic system and my own will affecting its outcome; I see a flag blowing in the wind and it'll start blowing in whichever direction I believe it to blow. Creepy, drug induced, terrifying.. just have to shut it out when I get to that point.

[Plug Drugs]

*sigh* thinking about physics while on drugs always concludes with solipsism for me, and malaise from how utterly terrifying solipsism is

[Plug Drugs]

and I can't ever tell if its what I've been thinking about causing the malaise, or just the drugs affecting my brain chemistry and mood causing the feeling of malaise, or if there's even a difference. Maybe I am slowly sinking into malaise as it is, and my brain tries to make a coherent story to go along with that transition in mood.
What came first? The chicken or the egg?

[Plug Drugs]

It's not just that but how a particle reacts to travelling through that dark energy actually determines what that particle actually is. I do not think mass can travel at the speed of light... "The same theory says that objects gain mass as they speed up, and that speeding up requires energy. The more mass, the more energy is required. By the time an object reached the speed of light, Einstein calculated, its mass would be infinite, and so would the amount of energy required to increase its speed. To go beyond the infinite is impossible.
So for mass to actually travel at the speed of light it would have to have zero rest mass (light has zero rest mass which is why it is the universal speed limit) so no I do not think mass as we know it could travel AT the speed of light. Close to at best but never AT it. It would have to be something other than matter (as we know it in this universe) for it to travel as fast as or faster than the speed of light.
But with the model of an accelerating universe, it's going to happen -- at some point on that exponential curve, the speed of the matter expanding will surpass the speed of light; of course the matter will annihilate itself right before it reaches the speed of light though. And if dark energy's density decreasing is what's causing the universe to accelerate, then it means that the particles aren't picking up more energy causing them to accelerate (which would make them more massive), but rather they travel greater distances from the same kinetic energy they already had.

[Autistic Spectrum]

fagggots

[Plug Drugs]

Oh FFS
Stop taking drugs.

it was just my prescribed dosage, it has to start wearing off some time

[maks]

For the matter to move THROUGH space as fast as or faster than the speed of light would require to use up more than all the energy in the whole universe, so it can't really happen.

This is the biggest pile of bullshit I've ever seen. I hope you weren't a science teacher.

[Plug Drugs]

yeah just havent done it in a while so it grabbed me by the balls

[Plug Drugs]

well no bubble, because it is not the matter itself that is accelerating but rather the "space" between, the dark energy, so it might be possible for it to APPEAR that a galaxy is moving away faster than the speed of light but in fact it isn't the galaxy that is moving that fast, it is the "space" between them that is inflating at an accelerating rate, if it were to APPEAR that it was moving away from us faster than the speed of light we would cease to be able to observe it anyway. For the matter to move THROUGH space as fast as or faster than the speed of light would require to use up more than all the energy in the whole universe, so it can't really happen. Matter itself could not travel that fast, the "space" between it could POSSIBLY.
i've gone cross-eyed

[Plug Drugs]

At least I know Plug Drugs will be able to grasp that.

I grasped it but I don't know how accurate it is :shrug:

[maks]

No it's not a pile of shit you simpleton. It's a concept that is accepted in physics.

I'm in the top 1% for science so don't even bother going there with me half-wit, look it up.

It takes near infinite energy to accelerate to the speed of light. If you're already travelling 99% of light speed then accelerating to 100% wouldn't take any more energy than accelerating to 1% would.

Dumbass.

[maks]

Wrong.

In so many ways you fucking retard, you don't even know what we are talking about. You look like an idiot.

You spent 4 pages discussing this and I came in and gave you the answer in a single post. I can understand why you're mad.

[Plug Drugs]

I'll be right back, going to jump in the shower. You still going to be up for a while?

[Dustin]

this whole thread made me want to shoot myself

[Dustin]

didn't read anything

[Dustin]

Plug drucks how many dicks would you suck for my personal stash

http://gyazo.com/25d8655b1d814463d9d33c62912ffcd1.png

[maks]

http://www.universetoday.com/13808/how-can-galaxies-recede-faster-than-the-speed-of-light/

Idiots.

fyi when they say "You could use up all the energy in the Universe and still not be traveling at light speed." they're talking about accelerating to the speed of light from 0m/s. Dumbass.

[Dustin]

a baby killing drug abusing alien from AU

[maks]

Plug drucks how many dicks would you suck for my personal stash

http://gyazo.com/25d8655b1d814463d9d33c62912ffcd1.png

http://fc05.deviantart.net/fs8/i/2006/165/2/7/Abortion_Poster_3_by_Shreeb.jpg

[Plug Drugs]

http://www.universetoday.com/13808/how-can-galaxies-recede-faster-than-the-speed-of-light/

Idiots.
Yeah okay I see what you're saying now. If a galaxy is moving in one direction at 51% the speed of light, and another galaxy is moving in the exact opposite direction at 51% the speed of light, then light between those two galaxies will never reach each other, and it could seem as though the other galaxy were moving faster than the speed of light..

What I was saying though is that the speed at which matter is moving outwards from the point of the big bang is increasing exponentially. At a certain point on the X axis of that exponential curve, it will have surpassed 300,000km/s -- unless for some unknown reason it were to suddenly plateau before then and all of our calculations are wrong

[Plug Drugs]

I fucking hope not.

What? =(
be right back

[maks]

You aren't even talking about the same thing we are you dipshit nor have you even pointed out anything I said that was wrong.

You look pretty damn stupid to me.

you said it takes infinite energy to travel the speed of light. That's wrong, it takes near infinite energy to accelerate to the speed of light. Looks like someone doesn't understand the difference between acceleration and velocity.

[maks]

No I never said that you try-hard dipshit.



For the matter to move THROUGH space as fast as or faster than the speed of light would require to use up more than all the energy in the whole universe, so it can't really happen.

[Plug Drugs]

thanks for putting Lisa in a bad mood marks.

[Plug Drugs]

my brains burnt out on physics now

[Plug Drugs]

Nah he's just making himself look like an idiot.

Stupid people are always somewhat frustrating.

Maks isbeside the point. Did you understand what I was trying to explain yet why the matter itself will not travel faster than the speed of light even if it appears it is?
yeah

[Plug Drugs]

wish i had a guitar to play right now

[maks]

thanks for putting Lisa in a bad mood marks.

she shouldn't say idiotic things if she doesn't want to be corrected

[Plug Drugs]

But I explained it with an elastic band.

no i understand what you were saying, I'm just burnt out on talking about physics for now

[Cody]

i didnt paste anything from anything; this is one of my hobbies - to take speed and try solve the mysteries of the universe without the equipment or the education to even begin to do so. Because its fun

*my prescribed dose of speed, i might add, ahem

adlibbingshityoujustread5minutesagoisprobablyactuallyworsethanjustpastingtheshityoureaddoofus

[Plug Drugs]

adlibbingshityoujustread5minutesagoisprobablyactuallyworsethanjustpastingtheshityoureaddoofus

is that what you think i'm doing?
here's some news for you: every time someone starts talking about something you don't understand, it doesn't mean they're trying to boast or show off. All this physics stuff is stuff i've read about for years and years, and it's fun to think about and try and make my own conclusions about it, that's it
i'm not reciting something i just read about trying to claim it as my own, i'm not copy pasting; it's just drug-induced rambling about physics or philosophy or psychology or pharmacology or whatever it might be

[Gentleman Doli]

Dr Dumbfuck and an australan teacher who locks herself in her basement discusss, debate, and argue the finer oopoints of string theory

[Gentleman Doli]

codey gets involved here somewhere too, which isnt surprising because codey, like this thread and the majortiy of the people who have posted in it, really raelly sucks

[maks]

Dr Dumbfuck and an australan teacher who locks herself in her basement discusss, debate, and argue the finer oopoints of string theory

Drugs make me smart that's why I'm having the mysteries of the universe explained to me by an unemployed mental case who believes that hentai is a company in japan :stare:

[Camoron]

Hello. Al Einstein here. Everything ITT is wrong.

[Autistic Spectrum]

i'm fucking retarded

[Cody]

:cum:
:cum:


Drugs make me smart that's why I'm having the mysteries of the universe explained to me by an unemployed mental case who blows meth junkies for room and board :stare: