The fabric of the universe (matter) is related to gravity by mass not nothingness.
Yeah that's what we currently think and this is what I think.
I think the way nothing keeps everything together based on the fact that nothing possess that property because of the "pressure" applyed by the inner walls of the universe is by applying gravity all matter.
The reason it does this is that "pressure" that's applied by the exterior walls of the universe is greater in areas that more matter exists simply because there's more space between nothing (which is of course something).
It's similar to the concept I explained earlier about a compressed balloon. If a baloon is compressed to the size of a baseball the pressure in the baloon is different than if it's half the size of earth and different if it's the same size as earth. This difference is how gravity is different if theres more mass or less mass because it's kinda like pressure in that sense and as I've mentioned that reason is because of the inside walls of the universe.
Also the universe is expanding, we know this, the reason is again caused BY this pressure, but again it's not pressure it's gravity... :icon26:
Kracus wrote:
The fabric of the universe (matter) is related to gravity by mass not nothingness.
Yeah that's what we currently think and this is what I think.
I think the way nothing keeps everything together based on the fact that nothing possess that property because of the "pressure" applyed by the inner walls of the universe is by applying gravity all matter.
The reason it does this is that "pressure" that's applied by the exterior walls of the universe is greater in areas that more matter exists simply because there's more space between nothing (which is of course something).
It's similar to the concept I explained earlier about a compressed balloon. If a baloon is compressed to the size of a baseball the pressure in the baloon is different than if it's half the size of earth and different if it's the same size as earth. This difference is how gravity is different if theres more mass or less mass because it's kinda like pressure in that sense and as I've mentioned that reason is because of the inside walls of the universe.
Also the universe is expanding, we know this, the reason is again caused BY this pressure, but again it's not pressure it's gravity... :icon26:
i needed the nested quoting then
still think it sucks tho
[color=red] . : [/color][size=85] You knows you knows [/size]
I know jack shit about the universe and all that goes on, I know the basics that got me through high school and that's about it. It's a very interesting subject to learn about but what bothered me in school, (where I'm from anyway) is one teacher would be all for evolution while the other was all for the Big-bang. Going from one teacher to the next was quite frustrating, but cool to see both sides for the table.
I don't know, nor do I care what the truth really is. I would honestly rather read Kracus's and others ideas and theories of what is there than going to Stephen Hawking's site and reading the mathematical equations of why space is what it is. Not saying he doesn’t provide some extremely insightful material, but I’m not one to read through to much of he’s ideas.
Hell, who knows...Kracus may be spot-on while Einstein and Hawking are way in left field. :icon19:
edit: maybe until raw get the quote thing straight we could resort to not using the god damn nested quote shit? :icon28:
Kracus wrote:
The fabric of the universe (matter) is related to gravity by mass not nothingness.
Yeah that's what we currently think and this is what I think.
I think the way nothing keeps everything together based on the fact that nothing possess that property because of the "pressure" applyed by the inner walls of the universe is by applying gravity all matter.
The reason it does this is that "pressure" that's applied by the exterior walls of the universe is greater in areas that more matter exists simply because there's more space between nothing (which is of course something).
It's similar to the concept I explained earlier about a compressed balloon. If a baloon is compressed to the size of a baseball the pressure in the baloon is different than if it's half the size of earth and different if it's the same size as earth. This difference is how gravity is different if theres more mass or less mass because it's kinda like pressure in that sense and as I've mentioned that reason is because of the inside walls of the universe.
Also the universe is expanding, we know this, the reason is again caused BY this pressure, but again it's not pressure it's gravity... :icon26:
Yeah but you also think the universe is 3 dimensional. :lol:
rep wrote:Comparing the ethereal to the real is a daunting task, and a failure of an exercise. No science can possibly explain the world in which science is based on, so how could it suggest anything corporeal? Science is a flawed practice because it's purpose is to determine the why, yet there will always be yet another why as the remainder thereof.
"The universe was created by the big bang." vis-à-vis, "Why?" It's one of the basic principles that children understand completely; The quest for knowledge cannot be completed, and therefor is a futile endeavour - but children understand this not. Thus, they never stop asking, "Why?" Once they reach a certain age, even when given an answer. Science is an interpretation of reality... Reality is something we can never truly understand.
This is like a shit sandwich with all the dressings.
I'll break it down as best I can:
Science is hopeless because it will never explain everything.
We can never know everything.
Nothing is real.
That about right? Man, you just blew my mind. :icon29:
No...they can't prove it with tests....just with the math.
Check out NOVA's website about a show called "The Elegant Universe" by Brian Greene. There should be some streaming links there. It's a 3 part series with 1 hour episodes.
Kracus wrote:yeah I'm not too keen on the idea of alternate universes. I won't argue that the theory isn't good but have they ever been able to do any tests on it?
One question...if you know nothing about the theory how come you won't argue it isn't good?
Kracus wrote:yeah I'm not too keen on the idea of alternate universes. I won't argue that the theory isn't good but have they ever been able to do any tests on it?
One question...if you know nothing about the theory how come you won't argue it isn't good?
Because it's unprovable. It's like god, you can't prove he exists and you can't prove he doesn't exist. Theory's like that I'm not too keen on because really they have no actual value to us.
Now keep in mind that even IF string theory was true it would still fit in with my musings anyway since they only apply to one current universe.
I wouldn't say I know nothing about the theory either but I would say I know very little.
