/sci/ - Science & Math

You all may as well face it: You're stuck here on plain old Earth with the rest of us forever. The only stars you'll see is by looking up like humans have been doing since they were living in trees. Whatever air and water the worst polluters leave is what you get. Whatever animals are left is all you got while they last. If you have to move to higher ground, you'll do it and be happy to get it before the rest of the mobs find it. And they will, either way, so prepare for close company with people from anywhere and everywhere.

The water might taste funny. Maybe the place will smell like Florida. The birds may be fewer and the food a little funky but your ancestors had it rough too. There are still whole regions that live off rat and potato and crap on the beach or in the barren fields. We're 8 billion and growing with plenty of ocean water for all the sewers we'll ever need and plenty of fish in them too. Most of the world lives where its a lot hotter and sweatier than where you are.

No spaceships are going to rescue you with imaginary engines crossing light years. No governments are going to spend their money to build you playworlds in orbit and no wealthy dreamers are going to share their condos on Mars because when you get down to it, you can't afford the rent. You and all who come after are stuck on this ball of mud living off dirt like the rest of us, and you better get used to it. There's nowhere to go, and no way to leave anyways.

This is what you got, so just take it. Wise up and take what you can get. If you take it long enough, you might just learn to like it instead of babbling about spaceships and imaginary worlds all the time. This is as good as it gets, imperfections and all, so you better just get back to reality. This is where its at forever.

I've stared at this for hours

>>9451534
This. Very likely also works. But I think extremely likely is the most accurate.

Force zoom in into this picture, each and every one of the gray pixels in between the "near" galaxies, is also a galaxy

Alright ya noobs, I'm settling this time travel hoax once and for all.

First and foremost: Time is an arbitrary notation created by man. If the whole concept were to die out, none of our (correct) maths would be any different. All you're giving meaning to is MOTION. Same with energy, there is no such thing, just different forms of motion. Kinetic energy is a pleonasm.

Now back to time. How the FUCK would you translate said arbitrary time notation to a machine somehow connected to space-"time"?
Pro tip: You can't.

>Time is not a physical "thing" in the universe. It's an abstract concept to give subjective meaning to motion. Time is meaningless in the universe. There is no time quantum.

Unless you manage to install a framework in the universe with a functional API it's not happening. Yes, mass and speed (same thing) slow down motion but that's it. You can slow down your RELATIVE MOTION as opposed to others but that's not time travel. There's no destination as defined by con-artists getting grant money for fake/stupid study and spend it on booze and cocaine (like my money).

Get over it. There's no such thing as fucking time travel.

Also, time TRAVEL implies a destination. Beyond our high level, abstract communication method (which I'm not fond of either). Tell me, where exactly is next week? or last week? Break out the maths faggot, oh, you can't. Because even Einstein didn't predict destination-based time travel. And none of his maths allow for a stable "wormhole".

Checkmate muggles.

I am stupid and this is my first post on this board.

My impression of the Big Bang theory is that it is not intended to be taken as complete.

For example, I have never heard anyone say that it only can occur once, or that it describes anything beyond the universe.

If it implies that, I have a rationality problem with it.

It comes down, I think, to not having language equal to concepts we try to define. When we use terms like space and time, we automatically assume things like the entirety of the universe and time as having a relative starting point.

I am not sure such things exist. There may simply be no measurable beginning, and a finite end to the universe implies a 'where', a place where there is no universe, or at least not this one.

So immediately we are back to a time 'before' and a place 'beyond'. The language simply fails, at least to me.

I dont look at the broad strokes of this theory as neatly. My impression is that the time we perceive is simply our sensory mechanism of measuring change. We already have reason to suspect that that sense changes with scale and relative speed.

So when I think of the 'Big Bang', I dont think of matter at one place exploding into another at some speed. I just think of all the matter that is everywhere we will ever perceive it reorganzing itself. There is no place beyond or time before. It just reorganizes itself, we perceive it as space created and the enormous change as violent speed. Where gravity and matter depart from energy, we perceive space. Where there is atomic motion within that space, we perceive as time, and thus a sense of ubiquitous and universal homogeneity and synchronicity. From this, we observe 'laws' of physics and are not surprised to find things appearing to work the same in one place as another.

When we try to apply metrics to their extremes, however, they fail our language, and we begin wondering about things that may not exist, like a region 'beyond' our universe and a point 'before' time.

>>8739912