AGS Steam Games

Forums → The Tavern → General Science Discussion

1019 167404
SupaLegit
offline
SupaLegit
644 posts
Nomad

Well, I was searching to see if this was already made, but the searches didn't show a thread with my idea so here it is. I am making this thread so we can have a typical tavern discussion thread for all things science! Basically, a thread for everything science! Ranging from discussions about laws and theories, scientific debate, breakthroughs, discussion about new scientific breakthroughs, certain scientists/philosophers, and all that good stuff!
So go out there and let out your inner science! ;P
To get us going somewhere I'll start: what do you think the future holds for technology? I think our knowledge will allow us to overcome the obstacles thrown at us in the future, I mean, we have discovered so much and have come so far!

  • 1,019 Replies
Dragonblaze052
offline
Dragonblaze052
26,677 posts
Peasant

But the membranes are part of different demensions right? Could we find a way to those different demensions?

It is possible, but it might cause a massive influx or outflux of energy and matter, possibly destroying the universe.

I'm confused.

Nevermind.........
dair5
offline
dair5
3,371 posts
Shepherd

It is possible, but it might cause a massive influx or outflux of energy and matter, possibly destroying the universe.


nevermind then.

But with the M theory the two membranes collided and created that energy right? So won't they collide again and provide the universe with more energy?
dair5
offline
dair5
3,371 posts
Shepherd

One of the greatest scientists of all time, Albert Einstein, stated and proved that energy can neither be created nor destroyed. It's a scientific law. No amount of scientific action and reaction can create MORE energy.


So then when the membranes collided they let out all their energy? ok then, and that also means that now they've stopped moving. Right?
dair5
offline
dair5
3,371 posts
Shepherd

What is negative energy?

dair5
offline
dair5
3,371 posts
Shepherd

Why is the big bang called the Big Bang? It just implys the idea that something exploded and it pits the wrong idea into people's mind. Why don't scientists change it or something?

snowguy13
offline
snowguy13
2,157 posts
Nomad

I can see how it could be misleading, but what else to name it? It describes a rapid expansion of a high density matter that led to what the universe is today... Is a rapid expansion not called an explosion?

Dragonblaze052
offline
Dragonblaze052
26,677 posts
Peasant

[quote]One of the greatest scientists of all time, Albert Einstein, stated and proved that energy can neither be created nor destroyed. It's a scientific law. No amount of scientific action and reaction can create MORE energy.

So then when the membranes collided they let out all their energy? ok then, and that also means that now they've stopped moving. Right?
[/quote]
There are multiple universes. If we open up a portal through one or a membrane collides with us, energy will try to balance itself. If the other universe is more energetic, its energy will rush to us, raising the density and heat/temperature of the universe, likely killing us. If it has less energy than us, it will leech away our energy, making the universe less dense and lowering our heat/temperature, killing us. If the other universe is close enough to our matter and heat density, nothing bad should happen.
Also, membranes don't really run out of energy or stop moving. If they were to be out of energy, every universe would have to be out of energy, meaning we would be dead and nonexistent.

warp drives are possible. all you need is Negative energy.

We actually discussed this before and came to the conclusion that an antimatter generator feeding an engine operating by matter-antimatter reaction would be both the safest and most effective option.

What is negative energy?

It is like antimatter, but to energy.

Why is the big bang called the Big Bang? It just implys the idea that something exploded and it pits the wrong idea into people's mind. Why don't scientists change it or something?

I think I may have heard discussion of them changing it, but it never really took off.
I pretty much agree with Snow here.
MageGrayWolf
offline
MageGrayWolf
9,462 posts
Farmer

Why is the big bang called the Big Bang? It just implys the idea that something exploded and it pits the wrong idea into people's mind. Why don't scientists change it or something?


Georges Lemaitre, the person who first proposed the expanding universe model (a Roamn Catholic priest BTW) referred to it as "the Cosmic Egg exploding at the moment of the creation". Fred Hoyle (a detractor of the theory) then coined the term "Big Bang" to make it sound bad. The name was popularized and stuck. Basically the name was originally used to be misleading.

I guess you could think of it like how the homosexual community adopted the Pink Triangle.
dair5
offline
dair5
3,371 posts
Shepherd

If our universe came from the membranes of another dimension then where did that dimension come from? and how many are there? And how do we observe the multiple dimensions?

MageGrayWolf
offline
MageGrayWolf
9,462 posts
Farmer

If our universe came from the membranes of another dimension then where did that dimension come from? and how many are there?


I have no idea and I'm not familiar enough with the theory to guess.

And how do we observe the multiple dimensions?


We see these membranes coming out of the mathematics in string theory.
Dragonblaze052
offline
Dragonblaze052
26,677 posts
Peasant

Think of the membranes kind of like a fractal. This is a Koch snowflake.

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/f/fd/Von_Koch_curve.gif

It starts out a a single figure, then folds out on itself, creating another, then another and so forth. This would suggest that there is a never ending creation of universes. By the time this sentence is over, there will be many times more universes than there was at the beginning of this sentence.

Foraker
offline
Foraker
100 posts
Nomad

Doesn't that mean, that every new universe is getting energy from the others, that still existed? Then, the energy is one day distributed between so much universes, that everyone has nearly nothing.

warp drives are possible. all you need is Negative energy.
Negative energy? As I know, you need enough energy to split a part of spacetime.
dair5
offline
dair5
3,371 posts
Shepherd

It starts out a a single figure, then folds out on itself, creating another, then another and so forth. This would suggest that there is a never ending creation of universes. By the time this sentence is over, there will be many times more universes than there was at the beginning of this sentence.


Ohhh. That makes sense. But isn't foraker right? I think that if the energy is constonly distributed be have enough for ourselves. Arn't we technicaly losses energy right now? And doesn't it happen faster and faster?
MageGrayWolf
offline
MageGrayWolf
9,462 posts
Farmer

This is interesting. One scientists concept of what a warp ship would really look like.
http://news.discovery.com/space/warpship-dark-energy-wormholes.html

Dragonblaze052
offline
Dragonblaze052
26,677 posts
Peasant

It is less like the energy is lost in this situation, it is that it is split away. Think of pinching away a bit of Play-Doh. There is no less energy density in what is left, there is just less there, if that means anything.

Showing 991-1005 of 1019